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?

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

Post #71

Post by The Me's »

[Replying to post 70 by Goat]

I think you're mistaken.

Why don't you show me those Talmudic references to the "gospels" so that I can better understand your response. I don't remember the gospels ever being mentioned.

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

Post #72

Post by Goat »

The Me's wrote: [Replying to post 70 by Goat]

I think you're mistaken.

Why don't you show me those Talmudic references to the "gospels" so that I can better understand your response. I don't remember the gospels ever being mentioned.
I don't have any to reference the Gospels, but I do have the one that references Jesus, which can be compared to the Gospel stories. My claim is not that it mentioned the gospels, but that it was written late enough (late second century) that the gospels informed the Rabbi's who wrote it about the trial, and this was a response against the accusation of the illegal trial that the Gospels claimed.

Sanhedred 43A
AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution],
but not previous thereto.
33
[In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover
Yeshu34
was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried,
‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any
one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since
nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!
Notice, in this story (and it is far enough away from the alleged event to call it a story), there is no Pilate, there is no crucifixion, but the hanging is the Jewish form of execution, not the roman form. The form of the trial is modified to fit the Jewish laws about capital trials.

This passage was put right smack in the middle of a discussion about the death penalty and the forms of execution.

It so very carefully discussed how the forms were met , which tells me it was very likely reacting to the claims about the trial in the Gospels, which the form of the law as described in the Gospels broke Jewish law and tradition.
“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

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

Post #73

Post by Thruit »

Goat posted,
Please show that this is true. Prove it. Demonstrate that the Gospels were written by people who actually knew Jesus, rather than just claim it, or point to people who claim it.
Lol...you've already helped to prove it by your insistence that the stories were written mere decades after the events, but if you would like to get into an in depth conversation of how historians determine the validity of ancient manuscripts, you are free to start your own thread on it.

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

Post #74

Post by Goat »

Thruit wrote:
Goat posted,
Please show that this is true. Prove it. Demonstrate that the Gospels were written by people who actually knew Jesus, rather than just claim it, or point to people who claim it.
Lol...you've already helped to prove it by your insistence that the stories were written mere decades after the events, but if you would like to get into an in depth conversation of how historians determine the validity of ancient manuscripts, you are free to start your own thread on it.

Really?? Where did I do that??? SHow me, or withdraw the claim.

Plus, show that hte people who wrote the Gospels knew Jesus, rather than rely on hearsay. You seem to make LOTS of claims you aren't backing up.
“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

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #75

Post by dianaiad »

Thruit wrote:
Goat posted,
What is written about Jesus in the NT doesn't matter one way or another to the Jews. If Jesus existed, he was just a man. He was not the Messiah according to the Jews, End of story. The tasks required of the Messiah have not been accomplished. So, therefore the messiah has not yet come. THere is no tradition that the Messiah will come twice.
According to the Jews who knew Jesus, nothing you have said is true.
Moderator Comment

One line comments such as this do not add to the debate; you have made a claim here; try expanding your thoughts to more than one line.

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.

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

Post #76

Post by Thruit »

Goat posted,
Really?? Where did I do that??? SHow me, or withdraw the claim.
One of the evidences historians use to validate an ancient text is the date of writing in proximity to the events described, so my statement, ("Lol...you've already helped to prove it by your insistence that the stories were written mere decades after the events...") is true. As far as ancient manuscript evidence goes, there is no other body of literature on earth that can match the NT...in date of writing, or volume.
Plus, show that hte people who wrote the Gospels knew Jesus, rather than rely on hearsay. You seem to make LOTS of claims you aren't backing up.
As I've said, you are free to begin your own thread on the validity of the NT. This thread is about the Messiah in the Talmud.

"Among the earliest Targums are those of Jonathan ben Uzziel dating from the first century AD. His Targums on this passage of Isaiah begin with these words: "Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper..." The Targums of Jonathan ben Uzziel were heavily quoted by the early rabbis and he was certainly considered an authority on the Jewish view of Scripture. He definitely considered the Isaiah passage to speak of Messiah. Jonathan ben Uzziel could hardly be accused of adopting the "Christian interpretation." Arnold Fruchtenbaum-Messianic Christology

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

Post #77

Post by Thruit »

dianaiad posted,
Moderator Comment

One line comments such as this do not add to the debate; you have made a claim here; try expanding your thoughts to more than one line.

Please review the Rules.
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.

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

Post #78

Post by Goat »

Thruit wrote:
Goat posted,
Really?? Where did I do that??? SHow me, or withdraw the claim.
One of the evidences historians use to validate an ancient text is the date of writing in proximity to the events described, so my statement, ("Lol...you've already helped to prove it by your insistence that the stories were written mere decades after the events...") is true. As far as ancient manuscript evidence goes, there is no other body of literature on earth that can match the NT...in date of writing, or volume.
Plus, show that hte people who wrote the Gospels knew Jesus, rather than rely on hearsay. You seem to make LOTS of claims you aren't backing up.
As I've said, you are free to begin your own thread on the validity of the NT. This thread is about the Messiah in the Talmud.

"Among the earliest Targums are those of Jonathan ben Uzziel dating from the first century AD. His Targums on this passage of Isaiah begin with these words: "Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper..." The Targums of Jonathan ben Uzziel were heavily quoted by the early rabbis and he was certainly considered an authority on the Jewish view of Scripture. He definitely considered the Isaiah passage to speak of Messiah. Jonathan ben Uzziel could hardly be accused of adopting the "Christian interpretation." Arnold Fruchtenbaum-Messianic Christology
Ah, the typical misquotes from the missionary web sites that target the Jews . http://judaismsanswer.com/targum.htm
“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 #79

Post by The Me's »

Goat wrote:
The Me's wrote: [Replying to post 70 by Goat]

I think you're mistaken.

Why don't you show me those Talmudic references to the "gospels" so that I can better understand your response. I don't remember the gospels ever being mentioned.
Because you're unwilling to use references to back up your assertion that the gospels are referred to in the Talmud, I have to reject your claim. There's no need for me to read the rest of your post.

If you'd like to participate in a discussion and be taken seriously, you may want to be ready to offer something tangible along with your denials.

I have references that Jesus of Nazareth is referred to in the Talmud by name.
Not a single one that I've ever read mentions the word "gospel" or refers to a written source.

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

Post #80

Post by Goat »

The Me's wrote:
Goat wrote:
The Me's wrote: [Replying to post 70 by Goat]

I think you're mistaken.

Why don't you show me those Talmudic references to the "gospels" so that I can better understand your response. I don't remember the gospels ever being mentioned.
Because you're unwilling to use references to back up your assertion that the gospels are referred to in the Talmud, I have to reject your claim. There's no need for me to read the rest of your post.

If you'd like to participate in a discussion and be taken seriously, you may want to be ready to offer something tangible along with your denials.

I have references that Jesus of Nazareth is referred to in the Talmud by name.
Not a single one that I've ever read mentions the word "gospel" or refers to a written source.

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. I am sorry if you have a reading comprehension problem, but it is really disturbing for my position to be misrepresented. I said it was a reaction against the Gospels, but a reaction does not mean reference.

I might have said if YOU reference the bible (i.e. look it up), and compare the stories, you will see certain differences, that show a reaction against the Gospel stories.
“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

Post Reply