PDA

View Full Version : Was Gen 3:15 considered Messianic before Christ came?



Naphal
Oct 15th 2007, 03:46 AM
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I know the Jews today claim this isn't Messianic but was it taught as Messianic before Christ? Does anyone have any info on this?

BuffaloSoldier
Oct 15th 2007, 04:05 AM
was it taught as Messianic before Christ?

nope

----------------------------

mike1983
Oct 15th 2007, 10:48 AM
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

I don't think they taught it as being messianic before Christ. And Jesus isn't from a human seed. God placed His seed in Mary.

However it is the Holy Spirit through us which bruises the head of satan. Through Jesus we (the seed) are given power to bruise the head of the serpent.

God bless!

Steven3
Oct 15th 2007, 11:16 AM
I know the Jews today claim this isn't Messianic but was it taught as Messianic before Christ? Does anyone have any info on this?

Good question - and one which I hope someone will come up with something. The problem is however that - as with Messianic readings of Immanuel, Bethlehem, Branch and so on - these were phased out of later Jewish expectations precisely because of Jesus of Nazareth fulfilling them.

There is one hint that the answer is yes within the OT. The verse the devil quotes from Psalm 91 in Matt 4 is exactly before almost the only verse in the OT, maybe the only verse, that speaks of treading on serpents. The temptation clearly reads Ps91:11-12 as Messianic, so why would 91:13 not be read as Messianic?

11 For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways.
12 On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.
13 You will tread on the lion and the adder;
the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot.

If the temptation reads 91:13 as Messianic then it could only be Messianic because Gen3:15 was also read as Messianic.

What I'm saying is that evidence may have been suppressed, and if there was an easy reference in the Talmud I think we'd all know about it, but but the proximity of Ps91:13 to the Ps91:11-12 temptation in itself is something of a smoking gun...
God bless
Steven

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 12:51 PM
What I'm saying is that evidence may have been suppressed,
Yep, those eeeeeeeeevil rabbis, hiding evidence of Jesus. :rolleyes:

Teke
Oct 15th 2007, 01:54 PM
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I know the Jews today claim this isn't Messianic but was it taught as Messianic before Christ? Does anyone have any info on this?

What do you mean it isn't Messianic. The Jews always believed the Messiah would be a man descended from Adam and Eve. The Genesis 3:15 verse isn't specific to which 'seed', but the Genesis verse of Isaac is specific to who's lineage the seed (singular, as in one man, not many men) comes through.

Are you saying the Jews never believed the Messiah would come through a certain genealogy?

Jesusinmyheart
Oct 15th 2007, 01:57 PM
Fenris,

No one is calling your rabbis evil, but i would call those that miss Yeshua blinded. You know God allowed it from time to time that people would not see until He finally allowed their ears to hear and their eyes to open.

There were not an extremely huge number back when Yeshua walked the earth that had those ears and eyes to hear and see.

Shalom my friend,
Tanja

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 02:07 PM
What do you mean it isn't Messianic. The Jews always believed the Messiah would be a man descended from Adam and Eve. The Genesis 3:15 verse isn't specific to which 'seed', but the Genesis verse of Isaac is specific to who's lineage the seed (singular, as in one man, not many men) comes through.

Are you saying the Jews never believed the Messiah would come through a certain genealogy?No, the point is that 3:15 is not referring to the messiah, according to Jews.

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 02:08 PM
Fenris,

No one is calling your rabbis evil, but i would call those that miss Yeshua blinded. You know God allowed it from time to time that people would not see until He finally allowed their ears to hear and their eyes to open.

So it's not my fault I'm not Christian.

Teke
Oct 15th 2007, 02:11 PM
No, the point is that 3:15 is not referring to the messiah.

Then what is it referring to?

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 02:12 PM
Then what is it referring to?One of the curses on the serpent is that people will hate them and be capable of stepping on their heads. And it's true.:idea:

Teke
Oct 15th 2007, 02:19 PM
One of the curses on the serpent is that people will hate them and be capable of stepping on their heads. And it's true.:idea:

Well duh....:P
It's pretty obvious this is a figure of speech being used. Snakes don't suffer humiliation and utter defeat as depicted by these words. ("upon thy belly" figure of speech, see Ps. 44:25, and "dust" another figure of speech, see Ps. 72:9). Don't Jews still use the Psalms.

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 02:23 PM
Well duh....:P
It's pretty obvious this is a figure of speech being used.
It also happens to be literally true. In any case, it's not obviously messianic, and actually only refers to the messiah if one believes that it does.


Don't Jews still use the Psalms.

Of course; and most of them ain't messianic either.

Teke
Oct 15th 2007, 02:37 PM
It also happens to be literally true. In any case, it's not obviously messianic, and actually only refers to the messiah if one believes that it does.

I'd agree with you it's not "obviously" messianic, but then what is obvious to us is not all there is to the matter, hence the use of scripture.




Of course; and most of them ain't messianic either.

In my faith they are holy prayers to God. But they also portray the rest of scripture.
Don't Jews believe revelation is possible through prayer.

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 02:43 PM
Don't Jews believe revelation is possible through prayer.
Umm, I suppose. But revelation in the understanding of the bible cannot contradict already known interpretations of scripture.

Teke
Oct 15th 2007, 03:04 PM
Umm, I suppose. But revelation in the understanding of the bible cannot contradict already known interpretations of scripture.

I agree. So what is contradictory?

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 03:12 PM
I agree. So what is contradictory?
I don't know, the messiah being needed to vanquish evil? The messiah killing satan? The word Zerah (seed) referring to a single person?

Teke
Oct 15th 2007, 03:34 PM
I don't know, the messiah being needed to vanquish evil? The messiah killing satan? The word Zerah (seed) referring to a single person?

That's what happens when they don't read the fathers.:D

Really, none of that is taught by the fathers of the church.

As to language, "zerah" can refer to a single person, as in the case of Isaac. Christians look at genealogy in scripture also.

Steve M
Oct 15th 2007, 03:37 PM
I don't know, the messiah being needed to vanquish evil? The messiah killing satan? The word Zerah (seed) referring to a single person?
Well, that all depends on how you read other parts of the Bible. Like Deuteronomy, where it speaks of the Prophet coming who will ... vanquish evil? Or just write the Law on the hearts of all men. (which is parsing 'vanquish evil' down a bit, but I think that fits with what Christians believe it means) The Messiah killing Satan? Em, I don't think anybody believes that. But as for defeating him, there's some supporting stuff in Ezekiel...

The seed being one person? That part is stretching it. You'd pretty much have to lean heavily on the prophecies in Isaiah and Ezekiel to try to bring that out.

In other words... I don't think it's a huge stretch to see Messianic overtones in Genesis--even if we're only looking at it from the perspective of the other Messianic prophecies. However, it isn't as much a sure thing as any of the others, even if it's not a stretch.

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 03:41 PM
That's what happens when they don't read the fathers.:D

Really, none of that is taught by the fathers of the church.

I don't see how the verse can be messianic without those beliefs.

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 03:43 PM
Well, that all depends on how you read other parts of the Bible. Like Deuteronomy, where it speaks of the Prophet coming who will ... vanquish evil? Where does it say that?


Or just write the Law on the hearts of all men. Where does it say a prophet or the messiah will do that?


The Messiah killing Satan? Em, I don't think anybody believes that. But as for defeating him, there's some supporting stuff in Ezekiel...Again, source please.


The seed being one person? That part is stretching it. You'd pretty much have to lean heavily on the prophecies in Isaiah and Ezekiel to try to bring that out.Source please.


In other words... I don't think it's a huge stretch to see Messianic overtones in Genesis-
If you're looking for it, you can find anything you want. Reconciling it with the rest of the bible is the trick.

Teke
Oct 15th 2007, 03:58 PM
I don't see how the verse can be messianic without those beliefs.

Those beliefs are not what is upheld as dogma of the church. That Jesus Christ was fully human and also God is the dogma of Christianity. What the Genesis verse confirms about the Messiah is that He will be fully human/man.
I don't believe that contradicts Jewish belief of Messiah. But that He is also fully God is what befuddles Judaism. And that only does because they don't believe it's possible.

Naphal
Oct 15th 2007, 04:00 PM
Good question - and one which I hope someone will come up with something. The problem is however that - as with Messianic readings of Immanuel, Bethlehem, Branch and so on - these were phased out of later Jewish expectations precisely because of Jesus of Nazareth fulfilling them.

There is one hint that the answer is yes within the OT. The verse the devil quotes from Psalm 91 in Matt 4 is exactly before almost the only verse in the OT, maybe the only verse, that speaks of treading on serpents. The temptation clearly reads Ps91:11-12 as Messianic, so why would 91:13 not be read as Messianic?

11 For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways.
12 On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.
13 You will tread on the lion and the adder;
the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot.

If the temptation reads 91:13 as Messianic then it could only be Messianic because Gen3:15 was also read as Messianic.

What I'm saying is that evidence may have been suppressed, and if there was an easy reference in the Talmud I think we'd all know about it, but but the proximity of Ps91:13 to the Ps91:11-12 temptation in itself is something of a smoking gun...
God bless
Steven

Very fascinating, thank you!

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 04:08 PM
And that only does because they don't believe it's possible.
Because no where do we see that God is divisible; no where do we see God having children; no where do we see the messiah as being anything other than a prophet.

Naphal
Oct 15th 2007, 04:11 PM
What do you mean it isn't Messianic. The Jews always believed the Messiah would be a man descended from Adam and Eve. The Genesis 3:15 verse isn't specific to which 'seed', but the Genesis verse of Isaac is specific to who's lineage the seed (singular, as in one man, not many men) comes through.

Are you saying the Jews never believed the Messiah would come through a certain genealogy?

Jews today do not believe it was Messianic, that's what this thread is about.

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 04:17 PM
Jews today do not believe it was Messianic, that's what this thread is about.Thank you for the clarification. :)

Teke
Oct 15th 2007, 04:18 PM
Because no where do we see that God is divisible; no where do we see God having children; no where do we see the messiah as being anything other than a prophet.

We don't see God as divisible either, nor procreating. And we do see Messiah as being both beginning and end of prophecy, IOW a prophet also.
But what we see with our natural human eyes is not all there is. We must also see and hear with our hearts (noetic). ;)

Steve M
Oct 15th 2007, 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1410960#post1410960)
Well, that all depends on how you read other parts of the Bible. Like Deuteronomy, where it speaks of the Prophet coming who will ... vanquish evil?

Where does it say that?

I didn't say it said that, actually. I was pointing out what Teke pointed out; to say that we believe the Messiah 'vanquished evil' is stretching what we believe He did.


Quote:
Or just write the Law on the hearts of all men.
Where does it say a prophet or the messiah will do that?


What I was contrasting here is the actual promise--and you are right that it is a promise of God doing this, not man.

Jeremiah 31:31 "The time is coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. 33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

De 30:6 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=de+30:6&version=niv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) - The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live....you're going to point out now that this is an action God promised He would accomplish, to which I'll reply that Solomon built the temple; the agency here being that the how of God's promises is often through a man (see the deliverers of the OT, Moses, who performed the action that God promised, etc.)



Quote:
The Messiah killing Satan? Em, I don't think anybody believes that. But as for defeating him, there's some supporting stuff in Ezekiel...
Again, source please.

Okay... actually, I totally misspoke here on this one, because you know what? I was reading out of Joel, not Ezekiel. I'm a fruitloop today. And, again, your reading here is going to dramatically differ than mine...





Quote:
The seed being one person? That part is stretching it. You'd pretty much have to lean heavily on the prophecies in Isaiah and Ezekiel to try to bring that out.
Source please.

Um... I think you misread what I was implying here. Because I didn't say I would support it by claiming the Seed was Jesus, here, I spoke to the unity of the Descent... to Abraham, the singular, to Jesse, to David, and to the Messiah. Which, unless I much miss my guess, Judaism as a whole is waiting for, right? Isaiah 11:1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. 2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord--

Here I am inferring, not that Jesus was Messiah, but simply that if you believe by Jesse's Seed will come one who will save Israel, it's not too far to look back at the Seed of Adam and see the same promise. Which is to say...


Quote:
In other words... I don't think it's a huge stretch to see Messianic overtones in Genesis-
If you're looking for it, you can find anything you want. Reconciling it with the rest of the bible is the trick.

Well, not really. As I said, it's not a sure thing; because it simply says 'and your Seed shall bruise his head.' And you have to believe that Ezekiel's language 'fallen from heaven,' refers to more than a king of Babylon. And you have to look to Daniel and the Prince of Persia withstanding an angelic being and Michael coming to his aid; these are all just parts of a picture that isn't complete on its own

And if the verse is messianic... so what? That doesn't explicitly say anything that you couldn't infer from elsewhere. An inference that when God's plans go His way and His people are saved that Satan is displeased? We could learn that from Job very easily, just from the pride God showed over Job in the first chapter. We could infer that from the number of times God saved Israel, sending prophets and judges and kings. What is Satan if not Adversary, Accuser?

And if the verse is not Messianic... so what? Saying the don't doesn't do an iota to disprove that the explicitly Messianic verses in the OT refer to Jesus, and it doesn't do an iota to prove that they do.

Is your overall point that Christians overreach in the OT? If so, then you have to think about the flipside of that; if Jesus was the Messiah, then the Christian is working with extra material to interpret the OT, not just what is there. So that in addition to the imagery of 'fallen from heaven' in Ezekiel the Christian adds more, and what does that do?

Further, if the Christian is overreaching in the OT to find Messianic scriptures... aren't they already there to begin with? What is the major theme of the OT if it isn't how faithful God provides a way back for his children? Whether a deliverer like Moses, a seer like Joseph, judges, prophets, kings? (well, some kings... the faithful ones)

But I digress.

Naphal
Oct 15th 2007, 04:22 PM
We don't see God as divisible either, nor procreating. And we do see Messiah as being both beginning and end of prophecy, IOW a prophet also.
But what we see with our natural human eyes is not all there is. We must also see and hear with our hearts (noetic). ;)

God is divisible in three ways, this is the Trinity. God did procreate using the Holy Spirit and a human woman. The child was the human form of God the son. The Messiah was certainly more than just a prophet, he was the Messiah!

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 04:23 PM
We don't see God as divisible either, nor procreating.
You're arguing semantics. You still believe that God IS three and He DID have a child. Calling it something else doesn't change those facts.

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 04:35 PM
I didn't say it said that, actually. I was pointing out what Teke pointed out; to say that we believe the Messiah 'vanquished evil' is stretching what we believe He did. So the messiah 'stepping on the serpents head means...what?




What I was contrasting here is the actual promise--and you are right that it is a promise of God doing this, not man.
Excellent. On this point we agree.


you're going to point out now that this is an action God promised He would accomplish, to which I'll reply that Solomon built the temple; the agency here being that the how of God's promises is often through a man (see the deliverers of the OT, Moses, who performed the action that God promised, etc.)So if a man can do it, why does that man have to be God's son? Can't he be a regular man?





Um... I think you misread what I was implying here. Because I didn't say I would support it by claiming the Seed was Jesus, here, I spoke to the unity of the Descent... to Abraham, the singular, to Jesse, to David, and to the Messiah. Which, unless I much miss my guess, Judaism as a whole is waiting for, right? You're assuming that anytime it says 'seed' it means 'messiah', for some reason.


Here I am inferring, not that Jesus was Messiah, but simply that if you believe by Jesse's Seed will come one who will save Israel, it's not too far to look back at the Seed of Adam and see the same promise. Which is to say... But God never said anything about this, and I don't know by what right you can infer things that God never said.





And if the verse is not Messianic... so what? Saying the don't doesn't do an iota to disprove that the explicitly Messianic verses in the OT refer to Jesus, and it doesn't do an iota to prove that they do.Except that Jesus didn't fulfill the messianic verses, as we see them.


Is your overall point that Christians overreach in the OT? The way Jews see it, yes.


Further, if the Christian is overreaching in the OT to find Messianic scriptures... aren't they already there to begin with? The ones that are blatant haven't been fulfilled, so the point from our perspective is moot.

Steve M
Oct 15th 2007, 05:11 PM
So the messiah 'stepping on the serpents head means...what?


Literal interpretation: a literal snake is what tempted Eve, and literal snakes have been vilified since. Query: do you believe it was simply a sinful snake that led Eve astray?


So if a man can do it, why does that man have to be God's son? Can't he be a regular man?

Of course he could. Indeed, God did so through regular men on many occasions.

The whole Son of God thing would have to come from... other passages. (cough cough) But I'm already ranging far afield...



You're assuming that anytime it says 'seed' it means 'messiah', for some reason.

No, I mean descendant. But Isaiah was speaking of a single person, descended of Jesse--and that's the Messiah, unless I'm completely misreading this passage. All I propose is that we *could* similarly interpret Genesis, if we were so inclined.


But God never said anything about this, and I don't know by what right you can infer things that God never said.


Well, Jesse is descended of Adam, so Jesse's seed is Adam's seed... so God did say it... if we wish to get all technical.

I'm not trying to infer things God never said; I'm just trying to work out what exactly God did say.


Except that Jesus didn't fulfill the messianic verses, as we see them.


Yes, well; exactly. (cough, cough) Which is why I specifically said; doesn't do an iota to prove it my way, or your way. Rather than just; your way.

Teke
Oct 15th 2007, 05:13 PM
You're arguing semantics. You still believe that God IS three and He DID have a child. Calling it something else doesn't change those facts.

No, not semantics, hermeneutics.

Your hermeneutic is what is known as Hermeneutic of the Present. "interpret literally unless there is an overriding reason not to do so" or "interpret according to the plain meaning of the text", which is fine in as far as that can get one in bolstering the theology of the interpreter.

I would propose, a Hermeneutic of Context, which tries to place the meaning of a text within its textual, historical, theological, grammatical, semantic, pragmatic, cultural, religious, sociological, anthropological, narrative, symbolic, scriptural and literary context and use that as the determiner for deciphering the original meaning of a given text. In the Hermeneutic of Context, one can go just as wrong in interpreting a passage literally that was meant symbolically as in interpreting a passage symbolically that was meant literally. The key is to look at the evidence of the context (being conciliar in approach)

I also agree with an apophatic approach and typology, staying within the bounds of the dogma of course.

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 05:35 PM
Literal interpretation: a literal snake is what tempted Eve, and literal snakes have been vilified since. Ah, just so.

Query: do you believe it was simply a sinful snake that led Eve astray?Obviously snakes then were far...superior to the post-sin snakes.




Of course he could. Indeed, God did so through regular men on many occasions.

The whole Son of God thing would have to come from... other passages. (cough cough) But I'm already ranging far afield...OK, so we're not so far apart then.





No, I mean descendant. But Isaiah was speaking of a single person, descended of Jesse--and that's the Messiah, unless I'm completely misreading this passage. All I propose is that we *could* similarly interpret Genesis, if we were so inclined. Well yes, one could interpret the bible in all sorts of creative ways. That doesn't make it true however.




Well, Jesse is descended of Adam, so Jesse's seed is Adam's seed... so God did say it... if we wish to get all technical. Perhaps, but God made specific promises to certain people.





Yes, well; exactly. (cough, cough) Which is why I specifically said; doesn't do an iota to prove it my way, or your way. Rather than just; your way.
That's fine. I'm not here to prove myself right, which would be impossible anyway. I just want people to see that there is another way to read these things and perhaps salvage the Jews reputation.

Teke
Oct 15th 2007, 05:38 PM
God is divisible in three ways, this is the Trinity. God did procreate using the Holy Spirit and a human woman. The child was the human form of God the son. The Messiah was certainly more than just a prophet, he was the Messiah!

God is not divisible. To say such is to lean toward pantheism. God is uncreated and created the things of creation from nothing.

God's essense is unknowable (and unseen) and only shared by the Son and Holy Spirit which are also God. Mankind participates with God in His energies, such as love, mercy etc.

Steve M
Oct 15th 2007, 05:39 PM
That's fine. I'm not here to prove myself right, which would be impossible anyway. I just want people to see that there is another way to read these things and perhaps salvage the Jews reputation.

Well. You mean that reputation of blindness? (slightly facetious tone to the words, as well as a sly wink as I'm quoting New Testament scriptures at you now, something on which we have zero common ground, and I darn well know it)

I'm afraid we've taken this conversation about as far as I go with it. Because the next logical step is to jump into a discussion of whether or not you can interpret the scriptures about Messiah to mean Jesus; the rest is just window dressing. And I've seen about enough of your posts roundabout here to know that anything I say, you'll probably have heard before... and the scripture says that nagging is ineffective in arguements. (well, that's New Testament again, but I'm pretty sure you'd agree that nagging is just annoying)

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 05:43 PM
I'm afraid we've taken this conversation about as far as I go with it.
Well I appreciate your honesty, and your open-mindedness.

Naphal
Oct 15th 2007, 11:53 PM
God is not divisible. To say such is to lean toward pantheism.

Yet to deny it is to deny the members of the Trinity/Godhead. God is not only one person or being. God is three in one. One, divided into three.





God is uncreated and created the things of creation from nothing.


This isnt in contention by anyone in this thread.

punk
Oct 15th 2007, 11:57 PM
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I know the Jews today claim this isn't Messianic but was it taught as Messianic before Christ? Does anyone have any info on this?

It seems to merely be saying that humans and snakes will be at odds with each other. People will hit snakes in the head (with sticks I imagine), and snakes will bite people in the foot.

It is probably a statement about something that happened with relative frequency as people went about their daily lives in the region.

This goes along well with other descriptions of pains of everyday life in the text (i.e. about how hard man has to work in the fields, and pains of childbirth). As such it is rather nicely poetic.

This is first and foremost what it means. Even with later references back to this passage we don't need to elevate it to something of cosmic metaphysical proportions. The passage itself isn't messianic, but the later passage is taking this everyday passage and making a messianic analogy to it.

Steven3
Oct 16th 2007, 02:30 AM
Hi Punk (is that a musical reference? ;))
It is probably a statement about something that happened with relative frequency as people went about their daily lives in the region.Yes and no. This is obviously at one level a very 'primitive' animal fable such as can be found not just in Aesop's fables but long before in ANE texts. And yet at another level, just like Aesop's fables, it does have meaning.

In this case the references we have to go on are a series of further OT and NT verses on serpents, the OT ones which point forward to whatever existed concerning Gen 3:15 in the teaching of the Jews of the NT period (Maccabees, Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Therapeutae, Libertines) which we can be certain wasn't a vacuum. Plus the NT ones which aren't really admissable to the OP.


This goes along well with other descriptions of pains of everyday life in the text (i.e. about how hard man has to work in the fields, and pains of childbirth). As such it is rather nicely poetic.It's slightly more than that - in the paradise/garden of Eden there's a lack of 'props' for an allegory, just trees and animals. To represent sin/death one needs something dangerous - carnivore, or poisonous plant or animal. If Gen 3:15 had a tiger or bear biting the Seed of the Woman we'd see the wound as a very visible thing (a chunk of red flesh gone), but we don't, we have an animal which leaves an almost invisible wound (some of the most venemous tree snakes leave bites looking almost like mosquito bites) and then the person gets sick and dies later. So a serpent is a better allegory of sin-death than a tiger or bear.


This is first and foremost what it means. Even with later references back to this passage we don't need to elevate it to something of cosmic metaphysical proportions. The passage itself isn't messianic, but the later passage is taking this everyday passage and making a messianic analogy to it.Except that even in the OT the whole serpent passage is already being developed into an allegory of cosmic metaphysical proportions, witness Moses and the bronze serpent, and check other OT refs such as the one the Matt4 tempter stopped short of quoting in Ps91:13. ... that as I said is already a smoking gun relative to the possibility that the Jews did have some expection of the Messiah relative to Gen3:15.

The question is do the NT allegorizations of the serpent and woman stem from or go beyond what was in contemporary Judaism?

So let's be systematic and look:


OT
Apocrypha
Pseudepigrapha
Dead Sea Scrolls
NT
Mishnah
Talmuds
Ginzberg 'Legends of the Jews'
later Rabbinica
Anyone want to start this off? :)
God bless

Steven3
Oct 16th 2007, 02:42 AM
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom13.htm


It is written [Is. lxv. 25]: "The serpent dust shall be his food." R. Ami and R. Assi said--the one, that whatever he eats, he tastes the flavor of earth; and the other, that whatsoever he should eat, he is not filled, unless he eats earth after it.

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose said: Come and see. The visage of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like that of a human being. When a human being incenses another, the latter tries to embitter his life; the Lord, when He cursed the serpent to eat earth, the serpent finds his food wheresoever he goes. He cursed Canaan, that it should be subjected: so it eats what its master eats, and drinks what its master drinks. He has cursed woman, and all run after her. He has cursed the earth, and the world is nourished by it.

Steven3
Oct 16th 2007, 02:47 AM
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/hl/hl92.htm


At the time God said to the serpent, "Upon thy belly thou shalt go" (Gen. iii. 14), the ministering angels descended and lopped off his hands and his feet. Then his voice was heard from one end of the world to the other. Bere****h Midrash Rabbah, chap. 20.

When God said to the serpent, "And upon thy belly thou shalt go" (Gen. iii. 4), the serpent replied, "Lord of the universe! if this be Thy will, then I shall be as a fish of the sea without feet." But when God said to him, "And dust shalt thou eat," he replied, "If fish eat dust, then I also will eat it." Then God seized hold of the serpent and tore his tongue in two, and said, "O thou wicked one! thou hast commenced (to sin) with thy evil tongue;
{p. 247}

Steven3
Oct 16th 2007, 02:57 AM
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-1.htm


4. God therefore commanded that Adam and his wife should eat of all the rest of the plants, but to abstain from the tree of knowledge; and foretold to them, that if they touched it, it would prove their destruction. But while all the living creatures had one language, (5) (http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-1.htm#EndNote_ANT_1.5b) at that time the serpent, which then lived together with Adam and his wife, shewed an envious disposition, at his supposal of their living happily, and in obedience to the commands of God; and imagining, that when they disobeyed them, they would fall into calamities, he persuaded the woman, out of a malicious intention, to taste of the tree of knowledge, telling them, that in that tree was the knowledge of good and evil; which knowledge, when they should obtain, they would lead a happy life; nay, a life not inferior to that of a god: by which means he overcame the woman, and persuaded her to despise the command of God. Now when she had tasted of that tree, and was pleased with its fruit, she persuaded Adam to make use of it also. Upon this they perceived that they were become naked to one another; and being ashamed thus to appear abroad, they invented somewhat to cover them; for the tree sharpened their understanding; and they covered themselves with fig-leaves; and tying these before them, out of modesty, they thought they were happier than they were before, as they had discovered what they were in want of. But when God came into the garden, Adam, who was wont before to come and converse with him, being conscious of his wicked behavior, went out of the way. This behavior surprised God; and he asked what was the cause of this his procedure; and why he, that before delighted in that conversation, did now fly from it, and avoid it. When he made no reply, as conscious to himself that he had transgressed the command of God, God said, "I had before determined about you both, how you might lead a happy life, without any affliction, and care, and vexation of soul; and that all things which might contribute to your enjoyment and pleasure should grow up by my providence, of their own accord, without your own labor and pains-taking; which state of labor and pains-taking would soon bring on old age, and death would not be at any remote distance: but now thou hast abused this my good-will, and hast disobeyed my commands; for thy silence is not the sign of thy virtue, but of thy evil conscience." However, Adam excused his sin, and entreated God not to be angry at him, and laid the blame of what was done upon his wife; and said that he was deceived by her, and thence became an offender; while she again accused the serpent. But God allotted him punishment, because he weakly submitted to the counsel of his wife; and said the ground should not henceforth yield its fruits of its own accord, but that when it should be harassed by their labor, it should bring forth some of its fruits, and refuse to bring forth others. He also made Eve liable to the inconveniency of breeding, and the sharp pains of bringing forth children; and this because she persuaded Adam with the same arguments wherewith the serpent had persuaded her, and had thereby brought him into a calamitous condition. He also deprived the serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam. Besides this, he inserted poison under his tongue, and made him an enemy to men; and suggested to them, that they should direct their strokes against his head, that being the place wherein lay his mischievous designs towards men, and it being easiest to take vengeance on him, that way. And when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, he made him to go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground. And when God had appointed these penalties for them, he removed Adam and Eve out of the garden into another place.

Steven3
Oct 16th 2007, 03:02 AM
ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book3.html

XV. (53) "And they were both naked, both Adam and his wife, and they were not ashamed; but the serpent was the most subtle of all the beasts that were upon the earth, which the Lord God had Made:"{11}{#ge 2:25; 3:1.}--the mind is naked, which is clothed neither with vice nor with virtue, but which is really stripped of both: just as the soul of an infant child, which has no share in either virtue or vice, is stripped of all coverings, and is completely naked: for these things are the coverings of the soul, by which it is enveloped and concealed, good being the garment of the virtuous soul, and evil the robe of the wicked soul.


ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION II
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book4.html

XXI. (65) "And the Lord God said to the serpent, Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed above all cattle and every beats of the field; upon thy breast and upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity in the midst between thee and between the woman, and in the midst between thy seed and between her seed, He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his Heel."{31}{#ge 3:14.} What is the reason why he curses the serpent without allowing him to make any defence, when in another place he commands that "both the parties between whom there is any dispute shall be Heard,"{32}{#de 19:17.} and that one shall not be believed till the other has been heard? (66) And indeed in this case you see that he did not give a prejudged belief to Adam's statement against his wife; but he gave her also an opportunity of defending herself, when he asked her, "Why hast thou done this?" But she confessed that she had erred through the deceitfulness of serpent-like and diversified pleasure. Why, therefore, when the woman had said, "The serpent deceived Me,"{33}{#ge 3:13.} did he forbid the putting of the question to the serpent whether it was he who had thus deceived her; and why did he thus appoint him to be condemned without trial and without defence? (67) We must say, therefore, that the external senses are not a peculiar property of either bad or good men, but that they are of an intermediate nature, and common to both the wise man and the fool, and when they are found in the fool, they are bad; but when they are found in the wise man, they are good. Very naturally therefore, since it has a nature which is not necessarily and intrinsically evil, but one which being capable of either character, inclines at different times and under different circumstances towards either extremity, it is not condemned till it has itself confessed that it followed the worse inclination. (68) But the serpent, that is pleasure, is of itself evil. On this account it is absolutely not found at all in the virtuous man; but the wicked man alone enjoys it. Very properly therefore does God curse it before it has time to make any defence, inasmuch as it has no seed of virtue within it, but is at all times and in all places blameable and polluting.

Steven3
Oct 16th 2007, 03:08 AM
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book41.html
Strangley (or not) Philo comments verse by verse, but verse 15 is missing

QUESTIONS ON GENESIS I
(31) Why does Moses say that the serpent was more cunning than all the beasts of the field? (#Ge 3:1). ........

(32) Did the serpent speak with a human voice? (#Ge 3:2). ........

(33) Why did the serpent accost the woman, and not the man? .........

(34) Why the serpent tells the woman lies, saying, "God has said, Ye shall not eat of every tree in the Paradise," when, on the contrary, what God really had said was, "Ye shall eat of every tree in the Paradise, except one?" .......

(35) Why, when it was commanded them to avoid eating of one plant alone, the woman made also a further addition to this injunction, saying, "He said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it?"

(36) What is the meaning of the expression, "Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil?" (#Ge 3:5).

(37) Why the woman first touched the tree and ate of its fruit, and the man afterwards, receiving it from her? (#Ge 3:6).

(38) What is the meaning of the expression, "And she gave it to her husband to eat with her?" (#Ge 3:6).

(39) What is the meaning of the expression, "And the eyes of both of them were opened?" (#Ge 3:7).


(47) Why God curses the serpent first, then the woman, and the man last of all? (#Ge 3:14). The reason is that the order of the verses followed the order in which the offences were committed. The first offence was the deceit practised by the serpent; the second was the sin of the woman which was owing to him when she abandoned herself to his seduction; the third thing was the guilt of the man in yielding rather to the inclination of the woman than to the commandment of God. But this order is very admirable, containing within itself a perfect allegory; inasmuch as the serpent is the emblem of desire, as is proved, and the woman of the outward sense; but the man is the symbol of intellect. Therefore the infamous author of the sin is desire; and that first deceives the outward sense, and then the outward sense captivates the mind.

(48) Why the curse is pronounced on the serpent in this manner, that he shall go on his breast and on his belly, and eat dust, and be at enmity with the woman? (#Ge 3:16). The words in themselves are plain enough, and we have evidence of them in what we have seen. But the real meaning contains an allegory concealed beneath it; since the serpent is the emblem of desire, representing under a figure a man devoted to pleasure. For he creeps upon his breast and upon his belly, being filled with meat and drink like cormorants, being inflamed by an insatiable cupidity, and being incontinent in their voracity and devouring of flesh, so that whatever relates to food is in every article something earthly, on which account he is said to eat the dust. But desire has naturally a quarrel with the outward sense, which Moses here symbolically calls the woman; but where the passions appear to be as it were guardians and champions in behalf of the senses, nevertheless they are beyond all question still more clearly flatterers forming devices against them like so many enemies; and it is the custom of those who are contending with one another to perpetrate greater evils by means of those things which they concede. Forsooth they turn the eyes to the ruin of the sight, the ears to hearing what is unwelcome; and the rest of the outward senses to insensibility. Moreover they cause dissolution and paralysis to the entire body, taking away from it all soundness, and foolishly building up instead a great number of most mischievous diseases.

(49) Why the curse pronounced against the woman is the multiplication of her sadness and groans, that she shall bring forth children in sorrow, and that her desire shall be to her husband, and that she shall be ruled over by him? (#Ge 3:16). Every woman who is the companion for life of a husband suffers all those things, not indeed as a curse but as necessary evils. But speaking figuratively, the human sense is wholly subjected to severe labour and pain, being stricken and wounded by domestic agitations. Now the following are the children in the service of the outward senses: the sight is the servant of the eyes, hearing of the ears, smelling of the nostrils, taste of the mouth, feeling of the touch. Since the life of the worthless and wicked man is full of pain and want, it arises of necessity from these facts that every thing which is done in accordance with the outward sense must be mingled with pain and fear. In respect of the mind a conversion of the outward sense takes place towards the man not as to a companion, for it, like the woman, is subject to authority as being depraved, but as to a master, because it has chosen violence rather than justice.
(50) Why God, as he had pronounced a curse on the serpent and on the woman which bore a relation to themselves and to one another, he did not pronounce a similar one upon the man, but connected the earth with him, saying, "Cursed is the earth for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it, thorns and thistles shall it bring forth unto thee, and thou shalt eat the grass of the field: in the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat they bread?" (#Ge 3:17). Since all intellect is a divine inspiration, God did not judge it right to curse him in the manner deserved by his offence; but converted his curse so as to fall upon the earth and his cultivation of it. But man, as a body of co-equal nature and similar character to that of the earth and understanding, is its cultivator. When the cultivator is endowed with virtue and diligence, then the body produces its proper fruit, namely sanity, an excellent state of the outward senses, strength, and beauty. But if the cultivator be a savage, then every thing is different. For the body becomes liable to a curse, since it has for its husbandman an intellect unchastised and unsound. And its fruit is nothing useful, but only thorns and thistles, sorrow and fear, and other vices which every thought strikes down, and as it were pierces the intellect with its darts. But grass here is symbolically used for food; since man has changed himself from a rational animal into a brute beast, having neglected all divine food, which is given by philosophy, by means of distinct words and laws to regulate the will.

Teke
Oct 18th 2007, 04:38 PM
The question is do the NT allegorizations of the serpent and woman stem from or go beyond what was in contemporary Judaism?


Wouldn't this have to be asked in the context of the history of a certain time.
IOW what did snakes mean throughout history in all cultures. Israel was certainly effected by those cultures. At some points of time in their history they appear to be pagan, worshiping more than one god. As we see they had a preference from time to time for Baal and Asherah. Then wouldn't it be reasonable to consider they were influenced in their writings by these cultural beliefs or myths.

Most all ancients cultures had some beliefs in reference to snakes, whether they were for good or evil or both. And many referred to their snakes in the sense of dragons, such as the ancient orientals.

So one might even conclude that this snake of Genesis is a dragon who has come into the garden (special place) from the field afar and his curse which includes the crawling on his belly is because God has taken his legs which he had formerly. Leaving him without a leg to stand on, so to speak.

This is some of the speculation I've read on the snake in reference to ancient beliefs and practices. Israel shows many signs of Babylonian influence, as from Abraham onward they were associated with Babylon. ie. Abraham being a prince of Babylon as well as his descendent's according to ancient text and legal documents pertaining to land.

IMO the story is from Israels perspective of those ancients myths.

Steven3
Oct 19th 2007, 07:33 AM
Hi Teke :)
Wouldn't this have to be asked in the context of the history of a certain time.
IOW what did snakes mean throughout history in all cultures. Israel was certainly effected by those cultures. .....


....This is some of the speculation I've read on the snake in reference to ancient beliefs and practices. Israel shows many signs of Babylonian influence, as from Abraham onward they were associated with Babylon. ie. Abraham being a prince of Babylon as well as his descendent's according to ancient text and legal documents pertaining to land.

IMO the story is from Israels perspective of those ancients myths.

For sure. What you're saying is very much along the Mobley and Wray lines dealing with the OT period. Except I guess I'd be more critical than Mobley and Wray in recognising Egyptian and Canaanite influence on the pre-exilic OT, because the absence, on the whole, of supernatural evil figures until post-exilic times, says to me that prior to 586BC the Jews kept strictly monotheistic lines on such subjects. Compare Is45:7 with Zech3:2 for example.
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/012006/photos/p18pha.jpg (http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/012006/012006s.htm)

* btw - For anyone interested in the subject that is a superb book - more objective than almost anything I've seen on the subject, but, in relation to the OP, it doesn't particularly reference Gen 3:15. And I don't think it could as the the Messianic element here is inferred even in the NT. Nor does it spend any time in Judaism after the NT.

There are a number of side issues here:

- the main one is that Satan didn't really exist in Judaism even in Jesus' time, let alone afterwards. Yes Belial can be found in the DSS, Beelzebub can be found in demonological texts like Testament of Solomon, there is the Watcher/Azazel mythology of Jubilees, Giants etc. But no direct counterpart to the NT devil/Satan - it's very difficult indeed to find any trace of anything resembling Jesus' and Paul's Satan in any of the Jewish sources. Fundamentally the NT Satan is a NT invention, exists only within the NT universe, and is something Christ himself created from OT precedents rather than borrowing from Pharisee Judaism.

- the secondary one is that the NT references to Gen 3:15 are themselves circumstantial (though I believe Gen 3:15 is the Messianic context to the Galatians "born of a woman", Romans "shortly crush Satan under your feet" and Revelation "old serpent" verses)

- then, the third problem, we have the big Jewish clean-up of the 2nd Century, not just of anything Messianic after Christ (and equally important, after Bar Kochba), but also a general clean-up of apocalyptic material in general. For example the Jewish expectation that the Messiah would throw himself down from the wing of the temple is (almost) totally lacking in rabbinical texts.

God bless
Steven

doug3
Dec 22nd 2007, 07:12 PM
Because no where do we see that God is divisible; no where do we see God having children; no where do we see the messiah as being anything other than a prophet.

Proverbs (Mishlei) 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell? KJV

Apologies that this comment is a bit late in the day. I marked this thread for reading at the time but just got round to it now.

Proverbs is part of the Tanach (Old testment) and the verse quoted clearly says He has a son.

Naphal
Dec 22nd 2007, 09:34 PM
Proverbs (Mishlei) 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell? KJV

Apologies that this comment is a bit late in the day. I marked this thread for reading at the time but just got round to it now.

Proverbs is part of the Tanach (Old testment) and the verse quoted clearly says He has a son.

So does this even more directly:


Psalms 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psalms 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Psalms 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psalms 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Psalms 2:5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Psalms 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psalms 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Psalms 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Psalms 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Psalms 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psalms 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

doug3
Dec 23rd 2007, 02:40 AM
:agree:........................................... ...

Fenris
Dec 23rd 2007, 03:34 AM
Proverbs (Mishlei) 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell? KJV

C'mon, you think we don't know what's in our own bible?

After informing us that he does not have all the wisdom and understanding that he should possess, Agur, the son of Jakeh, poses a series of rhetorical questions, the answers to which he realizes all men who seek knowledge should possess:
Who has ascended up into heaven, and descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in his garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name, if you know?
Knowing the answers to these questions is to know the fundamentals of all knowledge.
The answer to the question "What is his name?" is given in the Scriptures, where we are informed that only God, the creator of heaven and earth, is in complete control of the forces of nature. Following this question a second question is asked: "What is his son's name?" As the first question is readily answered through a reading of the Scriptures, the source of all true knowledge, so, too, the second question is to be answered by studying the same source. We thus obtain the answer by studying such verses as Exodus 4:22: "Israel is My son, my firstborn"; Deuteronomy 14:1: "You are the children of the Lord your God"; and Hosea 2:1: "It will be said to them: 'You are the children of the living God.'" Consequently, it is Israel that is the name of His son, His firstborn.

Fenris
Dec 23rd 2007, 03:37 AM
Psalms 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Mistranslation. In Hebrew, the verse means 'embrace purity', not 'kiss the son' . The word 'bar' means 'purity' in hebrew, and 'son' in Aramaic. King David, the author of Psalms, could not have known Aramaic since the language did not exist during his lifetime.

Naphal
Dec 23rd 2007, 05:42 AM
Mistranslation. In Hebrew, the verse means 'embrace purity', not 'kiss the son' . The word 'bar' means 'purity' in hebrew, and 'son' in Aramaic. King David, the author of Psalms, could not have known Aramaic since the language did not exist during his lifetime.

lol

Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.


Lets deal with this verse first since the verse you commented upon is irrelevant to the topic.

Naphal
Dec 23rd 2007, 05:43 AM
C'mon, you think we don't know what's in our own bible?

No, not really. The bible speaks of our people being blinded and misunderstanding.

Fenris
Dec 23rd 2007, 12:38 PM
Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.


This is referring to king David. See also Ps 89:27. In any case, I thought Jesus was 'the first and the last'. How could God say 'on this day have I begotten thee' when God, the father and the son, predate time?

Regardless of whether Jews are right or wrong on the subject, in the first century they were not expecting the messiah to be divine.

Naphal
Dec 24th 2007, 01:05 AM
This is referring to king David. See also Ps 89:27.

That isn't possible since God only had one begotten son and it wasn't David. Ps 89:27 is a figurative usage of the word rather than saying David was God's literal begotten son. Plus, if that were true it would disprove your belief that God has never had literal children so either way it ends up disproving you :)





In any case, I thought Jesus was 'the first and the last'. How could God say 'on this day have I begotten thee' when God, the father and the son, predate time?


Because it's speaking of the human birth of God's son which occurred in a place in time.


Regardless of whether Jews are right or wrong on the subject, in the first century they were not expecting the messiah to be divine.

What a nice surprise for them then :)

doug3
Dec 24th 2007, 01:09 AM
C'mon, you think we don't know what's in our own bible?

After informing us that he does not have all the wisdom and understanding that he should possess, Agur, the son of Jakeh, poses a series of rhetorical questions, the answers to which he realizes all men who seek knowledge should possess:
Who has ascended up into heaven, and descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in his garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name, if you know?
Knowing the answers to these questions is to know the fundamentals of all knowledge.
The answer to the question "What is his name?" is given in the Scriptures, where we are informed that only God, the creator of heaven and earth, is in complete control of the forces of nature. Following this question a second question is asked: "What is his son's name?" As the first question is readily answered through a reading of the Scriptures, the source of all true knowledge, so, too, the second question is to be answered by studying the same source. We thus obtain the answer by studying such verses as Exodus 4:22: "Israel is My son, my firstborn"; Deuteronomy 14:1: "You are the children of the Lord your God"; and Hosea 2:1: "It will be said to them: 'You are the children of the living God.'" Consequently, it is Israel that is the name of His son, His firstborn.'

Interesting answer. I never conneceted those scriptures before. :hmm: Could have done without the sarcasm though.....................

Fenris
Dec 24th 2007, 01:14 AM
That isn't possible since God only had one begotten son and it wasn't David. Ps 89:27 is a figurative usage of the word rather than saying David was God's literal begotten son.Why do you get to decide what's figurative and what's literal?:lol:

Naphal
Dec 24th 2007, 01:18 AM
Why do you get to decide what's figurative and what's literal?:lol:

Why do you?

Like I said, if it's figurative then it proves my argument and if it's literal then you have to admit God has a literal son which you currently deny.

Fenris
Dec 24th 2007, 01:35 AM
Why do you?

Like I said, if it's figurative then it proves my argument and if it's literal then you have to admit God has a literal son which you currently deny.OMG, you're right. I better find a church and convert right away.

Fenris
Dec 24th 2007, 01:42 AM
C'mon guys, how many times do I have to say the same thing? The interpretation of the text is being affected by theology. This goes for both of us.

You really think you're going to say something here that hasn't been said by a Christian, to a Jew, at some point over the last 2000 years?

Naphal
Dec 24th 2007, 02:08 AM
OMG, you're right. I better find a church and convert right away.

Awesome! Another brother has finally come home! The whole forum should have a party to celebrate! And such a blessing so close to Christmas!

Teke
Dec 27th 2007, 03:05 PM
Regardless of whether Jews are right or wrong on the subject, in the first century they were not expecting the messiah to be divine.

Is there Jewish criteria for what is "divine"?

Fenris
Dec 27th 2007, 04:48 PM
Is there Jewish criteria for what is "divine"?God is divine. Man is not.

Teke
Dec 27th 2007, 07:57 PM
The origin of the soul lies in the combination of divine and human activity. Scriptures descriptive "sons of God" relate this concept.

Fenris
Dec 27th 2007, 08:02 PM
Listen, let's not belabor the point, ok? It is plainly a split between the two faiths, and it's not going to be reconciled here or anywhere else.

If you're interested in a source for the Jewish belief, I'll provide you with an easy one: Deuteronomy 4:12. The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice... 15. And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire...

Rightly or wrongly, Jews interpreted this to mean that "you didn't see anything at Sinai, so don't worship anything that can be seen". That would include a human being.

Teke
Dec 27th 2007, 08:36 PM
Listen, let's not belabor the point, ok? It is plainly a split between the two faiths, and it's not going to be reconciled here or anywhere else.

If you're interested in a source for the Jewish belief, I'll provide you with an easy one: Deuteronomy 4:12. The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice... 15. And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire...

Rightly or wrongly, Jews interpreted this to mean that "you didn't see anything at Sinai, so don't worship anything that can be seen". That would include a human being.

Well we don't worship a human being. Neither did the Israelites worship fire, which is what was "seen" by them when they heard the voice.
But both are examples of God using creation (created elements) to speak to us.

Fenris
Dec 27th 2007, 08:42 PM
Well we don't worship a human being.That's not how Jews see it.


Neither did the Israelites worship fire, which is what was "seen" by them when they heard the voice. Well this part at least is true.


But both are examples of God using creation (created elements) to speak to us.When God speaks to us through a prophet, that is true. To say that Jesus was God is something else entirely.

Teke
Dec 27th 2007, 09:12 PM
That's not how Jews see it.
Well this part at least is true.
When God speaks to us through a prophet, that is true. To say that Jesus was God is something else entirely.

But Jesus wasn't just another prophet. God prepared Himself a body (of created elements) thru which He showed us His miraculous power.
IOW if you look forward to a resurrection, you likely wonder how God accomplishes that and what it could mean. This mystery of God was shown to us thru Jesus Christ.

SIG
Dec 27th 2007, 09:37 PM
This seems quite lucid, and makes reference to BCE interpretation:

http://www.xenos.org/teachings/ot/genesis/gary/gen3-2.htm

As an aside--We know that there was a belief in a coming Messiah long before Jesus was born. I would love to see a thread on exactly which Tenach verses pre-Christ rabbis considered Messianic....

SIG
Dec 27th 2007, 09:55 PM
Fenris: What do you make of Isaiah 9:6?

Consider this:

http://www.truthnet.org/TheMessiah/7_Messiah_Objections_Isaiah/

Also on this site is a description of Jewish expectations of the Messiah, perhaps relevant to my above post.

Fenris
Dec 28th 2007, 01:09 AM
But Jesus wasn't just another prophet. God prepared Himself a body (of created elements) thru which He showed us His miraculous power.
IOW if you look forward to a resurrection, you likely wonder how God accomplishes that and what it could mean. This mystery of God was shown to us thru Jesus Christ.Right, I understand that these are fundamental Christian beliefs. Jews do not believe the same thing though. My contention is that they never did.

Fenris
Dec 28th 2007, 01:10 AM
This seems quite lucid, and makes reference to BCE interpretation:

http://www.xenos.org/teachings/ot/genesis/gary/gen3-2.htm

As an aside--We know that there was a belief in a coming Messiah long before Jesus was born. I would love to see a thread on exactly which Tenach verses pre-Christ rabbis considered Messianic....
The same ones that they consider messianic now.

Fenris
Dec 28th 2007, 01:14 AM
Fenris: What do you make of Isaiah 9:6?Well, we translate it somewhat differently as well. They are commonly understood as referring to king Hezekiah.


Consider this:

http://www.truthnet.org/TheMessiah/7_Messiah_Objections_Isaiah/

Also on this site is a description of Jewish expectations of the Messiah, perhaps relevant to my above post.
Sigh. This is a long page. Do you want me to go through it point by point, and explain the differing Jewish view?

Steven3
Dec 28th 2007, 02:05 AM
Hi Fenris
Well, we translate it somewhat differently as well. They are commonly understood as referring to king Hezekiah.

Sigh. This is a long page. Do you want me to go through it point by point, and explain the differing Jewish view?

But isn't this the fundamental difference between the NT and the Mishnah/Talmuds, that after Christ there is a fork in the road, a decision to see the "shadows" in the OT (the offspring of the woman, Aaron's ministry, David-in-Psalms, Solomons-Kingdom, the Hezekiah-Immanuel, the Hezekiah-Wonderful Counsellor, the Zerubbabel-Branch) as "shadows" pointing forward to the "substance" in Christ or not.

As far as I can see there's a issue about Gen 3:15 which distinguishes it from the Immanuel shadow is that we have Jewish messianic interpretations of Immanuel both (a) prior and (b) post Christ. But Gen 3:15 we, it is argued, don't, except for the one I already cited above:

Ps 91:11 For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways.
12 On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.
13 You will tread on the lion and the adder;
the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot.

Now personally I take (a) the tempter's quote of these verses in Matt4, and (b) the survival of a Messianic temple-roof expectation is Pesiqta Rabbati as indicating that there was a Messianic interpretation of Ps91:11-12 current in 1st C Palestine.

If, and as I said, I consider that "if" proven by (a) and (b) above, then it is very stretched to argue from silence (since today we only have a sectarian selection of Jewish material come down to us) that Ps91:11-12 "you" was taken as Messianic and then the very next verse, 91:13 "you", wasn't. If 91:13 was taken as Messianic "you" then so was Gen 3:15 "your offspring".

Fenris, the onus is on you to present evidence against Ps91:13 (either in original Ps91 context or in the tempter's Matt4 quote, or in both) being a messianic interpretation of Gen 3:15. So far I don't think you've registered the significance of the above, unless I've missed your reply.

God bless
Steven

Fenris
Dec 28th 2007, 12:36 PM
Hi FenrisHi Steven3


Fenris, the onus is on you to present evidence against Ps91:13 (either in original Ps91 context or in the tempter's Matt4 quote, or in both) being a messianic interpretation of Gen 3:15. So far I don't think you've registered the significance of the above, unless I've missed your reply.

God bless
Steven
The onus is on me to do nothing of the sort. The fact that Jews did not follow Jesus en masse means that he did not fulfill messianic prophecies as commonly interpreted at the time. That doesn't make me, or them, right. But is is a fact.

But in the interest of discussion I'll look at Psalm 91. You're contending that it's messianic because of parallel phrasing with Genesis 3:15. Fine. Let's look at the content of other parts of the Psalm.

2 I will say of the LORD, who is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust,
Jesus is referring to God, i.e. himself, as the God in whom he trusts?

4 He will cover thee with His pinions, and under His wings shalt thou take refuge; His truth is a shield and a buckler.

Jesus takes refuge under God's i.e. his own wings?

5 Thou shalt not be afraid of the terror by night, nor of the arrow that flieth by day;

Jesus doesn't have to worry about terror or arrows?

skipping ahead...

13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and asp; the young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under feet.
Same subject as the above verses. Whoever the above verses were referring to is who is being referred to here. Is it Jesus?

15 He shall call upon Me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble; I will rescue him, and bring him to honour
Jesus i.e. God will rescue himself?

16 With long life will I satisfy him, and make him to behold My salvation

Did Jesus have a long life?

Teke
Dec 28th 2007, 03:16 PM
Right, I understand that these are fundamental Christian beliefs. Jews do not believe the same thing though. My contention is that they never did.

Of the three sects in Judaism, you believe that not even one of them could have understood in this manner. :confused

I would agree with you if all were strict Orthodox Jews (only Torah observant), but they weren't. In the first century there were the Sadducee's, Pharisee's and Gnostics. Present time there are the Orthodox, Reform and Conservative Jews. Of these latter, the Reform Jew believes in progressive revelation, and the Conservative is even more open, tho all are ethnic oriented or grounded. IMO these two groups are more able to grasp and embrace the revelation of the kingdom revealed in Jesus Christ. Although they might not openly admit to such. As it is discouraged in Judaism as it is in Israel.

In Israel, if a Jew returns who has accepted Christianity, Israel doesn't consider them a Jew but a Christian. If they hold onto their ethnic identity, then they must hide their faith in Christ.

Fenris
Dec 28th 2007, 08:50 PM
Of the three sects in Judaism, you believe that not even one of them could have understood in this manner. :confusedNo writings left behind by these groups suggest that they believed such a thing.


I would agree with you if all were strict Orthodox Jews (only Torah observant), but they weren't. In the first century there were the Sadducee's, Pharisee's and Gnostics.The only group that survived to the present day is the Pharisees- the precursors of modern day Orthodox Judaism.


Present time there are the Orthodox, Reform and Conservative Jews. Of these latter, the Reform Jew believes in progressive revelation, and the Conservative is even more open, tho all are ethnic oriented or grounded.Reform is more open than Conservative.


IMO these two groups are more able to grasp and embrace the revelation of the kingdom revealed in Jesus Christ. Although they might not openly admit to such.No, they won't. Because they too believe in the absolute unity of God.



In Israel, if a Jew returns who has accepted Christianity, Israel doesn't consider them a Jew but a Christian.Imagine that. Someone who accepts Jesus is considered a Christian. What a novel concept.


If they hold onto their ethnic identity, then they must hide their faith in Christ.Yes, I'm sure there are millions and millions of Jews who accept Jesus but keep quiet for fear of being ostracized. :rolleyes:

Steven3
Dec 29th 2007, 12:25 AM
Hi Fenris :)
Hi Steven3

The onus is on me to do nothing of the sort. Why? We have both a NT temptation, and an 8th Century rabbinical tradition showing no signs of Christian influence both showing a Messianic interpretation of Ps91:11-13, the only, repeat only, direct reference to Gen3:15 in the OT, and you appear to be saying that it is mere coincidence. I think the onus always falls on the person arguing for coincidence when it is on odds as long as this:

There are 23145 verses in the Old Testament. There is only 1 clear reference in 23145 verses to Gen 3:15, namely Ps91:13, and that is the verse the Messianic demonstration temptation stops short of in Matt4.

So the odds against the tempter stopping short of just that 1 verse are 23145 to 1.




The fact that Jews did not follow Jesus en masse means that he did not fulfill messianic prophecies as commonly interpreted at the time. That doesn't make me, or them, right. But is is a fact. Agreed. That is indeed a fact. We can both agree on that fact based on the U-turn from "Hosanna Hosanna" one day to "Barabbas Barabbas" two days later. But how does that disprove the reference to the Gen 3:15 -> Psalm91:11-13 -> Matt4/Pesiqta Rabbati paper trail? Wouldn't that underline the fact that the temptation (and Pesiqta Rabbati) were both based on a misinterpretation of the relation of Ps91:11-13 to Gen3:15?


But in the interest of discussion I'll look at Psalm 91. You're contending that it's messianic because of parallel phrasing with Genesis 3:15. Fine. Let's look at the content of other parts of the Psalm. No need. The subject of the thread isn't "is Psalm 91 genuinely Messianic" (though as it happens I think it is) the subject of the thread is Was Gen 3:15 considered Messianic before Christ came? (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1482049#post1482049) - if Ps91:13 was considered Messianic (rightly or wrongly), and is an allusion to Gen 3:15, then the answer to the thread question has also to be "yes" (still whether rightly or wrongly). Do you see the point?

God bless
Steven

Teke
Dec 29th 2007, 02:00 AM
No writings left behind by these groups suggest that they believed such a thing.
The only group that survived to the present day is the Pharisees- the precursors of modern day Orthodox Judaism. Reform is more open than Conservative.

No, they won't. Because they too believe in the absolute unity of God.

Imagine that. Someone who accepts Jesus is considered a Christian. What a novel concept.
Yes, I'm sure there are millions and millions of Jews who accept Jesus but keep quiet for fear of being ostracized. :rolleyes:

I don't really see it from that perspective, but I understand your mixing of the three. As none of the three sects have a fixed set of doctrine other than the Shema.

But you cannot deny that there was a difference in the faith of the OT and the faith of Judaism (present day being that of rabbinic or Talmudic Judaism). Which is also why instead of being called Israelites, now they are called Jews.

Forgive me if my mention of Jews accepting Jesus offended you. It was meant more to point out the fact that being a Christian or Jew seems more important than being an Israelite. Personally I would have thought that to be more significant to those so ethnically centered.

Sorry for getting off subject a bit. With this thread on the subject of Messianic prophecy in scripture, it does bring up a question. Wasn't the Messiah prophesied to come before the destruction of the second temple (Daniel 9). How does rabbinic Judaism explain that.

Fenris
Dec 30th 2007, 04:07 AM
Hi Fenris :)Why? We have both a NT temptation, and an 8th Century rabbinical tradition showing no signs of Christian influence both showing a Messianic interpretation of Ps91:11-13, the only, repeat only, direct reference to Gen3:15 in the OT, and you appear to be saying that it is mere coincidence. I think the onus always falls on the person arguing for coincidence when it is on odds as long as this:I missed something. Who said Psalm 91 was messianic?

Fenris
Dec 30th 2007, 04:12 AM
But you cannot deny that there was a difference in the faith of the OT and the faith of Judaism (present day being that of rabbinic or Talmudic Judaism). No, I don't think there is any fundamental difference between religious Jews today and religious Jews 2500 years ago.


Which is also why instead of being called Israelites, now they are called Jews.No, that split occurred much earlier. Zechariah 8:23 uses the term 'Jew'.


Forgive me if my mention of Jews accepting Jesus offended you.
It doesn't offend me. I just think you're being very presumptuous in assuming things about Jews.


It was meant more to point out the fact that being a Christian or Jew seems more important than being an Israelite. Personally I would have thought that to be more significant to those so ethnically centered.Judaism is not only ethnically centered. Converts are full Jews, regardless of ethnicity.


Sorry for getting off subject a bit. With this thread on the subject of Messianic prophecy in scripture, it does bring up a question. Wasn't the Messiah prophesied to come before the destruction of the second temple (Daniel 9). How does rabbinic Judaism explain that.Obviously Daniel 9 doesn't say that.

Steven3
Dec 30th 2007, 04:53 AM
Hi Fenris

Hi Fenris :)Why? We have both a NT temptation, and an 8th Century rabbinical tradition showing no signs of Christian influence both showing a Messianic interpretation of Ps91:11-13, the only, repeat only, direct reference to Gen3:15 in the OT, and you appear to be saying that it is mere coincidence. I think the onus always falls on the person arguing for coincidence when it is on odds as long as this:I missed something. Who said Psalm 91 was messianic?No, you didn't miss it, actually it's there in what you just quoted above "both a NT temptation, and an 8th Century rabbinical tradition showing no signs of Christian influence". That means that both Matt4, a NT temptation, and Pesiqta Rabbati, an 8th Century rabbinical tradition showing no signs of Christian influence, say that Psalm 91 is messianic. In addition Ps91 is mentioned in the Talmud as a talisman psalm, effective against evil (Babylonian T. Shevuous 15b; Jerusalem T. Shabbos 6:2, cf. also Eiruvin 10:11). So one can see both the Messianic temple appearance (Pesiqta Rabbati) and the talisman against evil (Talmud) in the Tempter's quote of the psalm to Jesus. So, again, the onus is on yourself to provide a 1st Century Jewish text that Ps91 was not considered Messianic. I'm not aware of anywhere in the Talmud or Mishah which will provide this, but you might well find something in later texts, good luck. But even if you can do this, then that would only show more than one view. The above already demonstrates that Gen 3:15 was also considered Messianic by at least some Jews in the 1st Century.
Steven



PS - you might also like to consider the following from the Sanhedrin Haggadah. First the Matthew "kingdoms of the world" John 6:15 "kingdom by force" temptation, which was a Messianic expectation
R. Hisda also advanced a contradiction: It reads [ibid. xxiv. 23]: "And the moon shall be put to the blush and the sun be made ashamed; for the Lord of hosts will reign on mount Zion"; and [ibid. XXX. 26]: "And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of the seven days"? This presents no difficulty. The latter speaks of the time when the Messiah shall appear, and the former, of the world to come. And to Samuel, who maintains that there will be no difference between this time and the time of Messiah, except that Israel will no longer be under the dominion of foreigners, the explanation of these contradictory verses may be thus--that the latter speaks of the camp of the upright and the former of the camp of the Glory of the Shekinah.and second perhaps the remnant of a reference to Gen 3:15?
The rabbis taught: It reads [Deut. xxxii. 36 and 37]: "For the Lord will espouse the cause of his people, and bethink himself concerning his servants: When he seeth that their power is gone, and the guarded and fortified are no more." Ben David will not come until the denouncers will increase. According to others, unless the disciples will decrease; and still according to others, until the pockets will be empty of aperuthar. And some others also say unless they will renounce their hope to be redeemed. And this is as R. Zera found the rabbis occupying themselves with the question of the Messiah. And he told them, I beg you do not make the thing further than it is, as there is a Boraitha that the following three come suddenly after renouncing all hope for them, viz., the Messiah, found and a bite of a serpent. R. Ktina said: For six thousand years the world will continue, and in the seventh it will be destroyed. As it reads [Isa. xii. 11]: "And exalted shall be the Lord alone, on that day."

Steven3
Dec 30th 2007, 07:37 AM
PPS - To add to the Matt4 Tempter's use of Ps91:11-13 (and the Jewish expectation that the Messiah would appear on the roof of the temple in Pesiqta Rabbati which supports Matt4), plus the "Ben David... Messiah... bite of the serpent" ref in Talmud Sanhedrin Haggadah above, here is a fourth:

In Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (T. Levi 18:10-12 R.Charles),
T. Levi 18:10 And he shall open the gates of paradise, And shall remove the threatening sword against Adam. 11 And he shall give to the saints to eat from the tree of life, And the spirit of holiness shall be on them. 12 And Beliar shall be bound by him, And he shall give power to His children to tread upon the evil spirits.So here the Messiah will open the doors of paradise, cast aside the sword threatening Adam, and give the saints to eat of the tree of life. He will chain up Belial (a reference to extra-scriptural Jewish myth, no direct relevance to Gen3:15 or Ps91:13) and will give his children power to trample on the evil spirits (another clear reference to Ps91:13). If T.Levi is taking Ps91:13 as Messianic, again it follows that as Ps91:13 is based on Gen3:15, therefore it follows that T.Levi is another contemporary Jewish text also taking Gen3:15 as Messianic.

S

Fenris
Dec 30th 2007, 02:06 PM
Hi FenrisNo, you didn't miss it, actually it's there in what you just quoted above "both a NT temptation, and an 8th Century rabbinical tradition showing no signs of Christian influence". That means that both Matt4, a NT temptation, and Pesiqta Rabbati, an 8th Century rabbinical tradition showing no signs of Christian influence, say that Psalm 91 is messianic.I'm not familiar with any Jewish source stating that Psalm 91 is messianic. I've never heard of 'Pesiqta Rabbati'.



In addition Ps91 is mentioned in the Talmud as a talisman psalm, effective against evilWell, this part seems obvious from reading the text.


So, again, the onus is on yourself to provide a 1st Century Jewish text that Ps91 was not considered Messianic.No, it isn't. First of all, an 8th century text says nothing about First century beliefs; Second of all, the Talmud states the obvious: Psalm 91 is about warding off evil. And third, (and most important) I've never heard of your rabbinical source.




PS - you might also like to consider the following from the Sanhedrin Haggadah. First the Matthew "kingdoms of the world" John 6:15 "kingdom by force" temptation, which was a Messianic expectationand second perhaps the remnant of a reference to Gen 3:15?
I have never heard of the 'Sanhedrin Haggadah'.

Steven3
Dec 30th 2007, 02:34 PM
Hello Fenris :)
And third, (and most important) I've never heard of your rabbinical source. Is what you've heard of really what is "most important"? ;) I've quoted 3 Jewish sources outside the NT, namely; Talmud Sanhedrin, Testament of Levi from the Pseudepigrapha, and an Aggadic Midrash from the school of r. Tanhuma. You have not heard of them, nor does Hertz pick up this material 'Pentateuch and Haftorahs', but nevertheless these sources exist, they are Jewish, and you could always look them up. More to the point you are not the only person on the thread, so other people on the thread, including Naphal, who wrote the OP, might be interested in them.

Anyway, leaving those Jewish sources aside, whether you are familiar with the latter three or not, we are all familiar with Gospel of Matthew, so maybe we can concentrate on that.

The questions for anyone (not just Fenris) would be:

1. Is G. Matthew written by a Jew and therefore a Jewish text, yes/no?
2. The tempter puts to Jesus Ps91:11-12 as a Messianic test, yes/no?
3. The tempter stops short of Ps91:13, yes/no?
4. Ps91:11-12 and 13 share a "you", they concern the same subject, yes/no?
5. If Ps91:11-12 was viewed (by the tempter, or by Matthew, or both) as Messianic, then v.13 would also have to be viewed as Messianic, yes/no?
6. Ps91:13 is based on Gen3:15, yes/no?
7. If Ps91:13 was considered Messianic (by the tempter or by Matthew or by both), then they would also consider Gen3:15 Messianic, yes/no?

God bless
Steven

Fenris
Dec 30th 2007, 07:28 PM
Hello Fenris :)Is what you've heard of really what is "most important"? ;) I've quoted 3 Jewish sources outside the NT, namely; Talmud Sanhedrin, Testament of Levi from the Pseudepigrapha, and an Aggadic Midrash from the school of r. Tanhuma. You have not heard of them, nor does Hertz pick up this material 'Pentateuch and Haftorahs', but nevertheless these sources exist, they are Jewish, and you could always look them up. OK, several problems with this.

First, you haven't read the source material in it's original language, form the source. You have no idea of the context and neither do I. Most likely you're reading it from a source that's trying to prove you point and parses the text accordingly.

Second, Aggada are sermons. They are not necessarily factual or meant to be taken literally. One is not even required to believe them

Third, and most important: if the material is as you say, why did the rabbis of the Talmud not become Christians?

Attempting to use the Talmud to prove Christianity has been tried any times, first at the disputation in Barcelona in 1263. The same objections are raised every time.




More to the point you are not the only person on the thread, so other people on the thread, including Naphal, who wrote the OP, might be interested in them.I believe that's known as 'preaching to the choir'. ;)





1. Is G. Matthew written by a Jew and therefore a Jewish text, yes/no?
Is every book written by a Jew a Jewish text?

Steven3
Dec 31st 2007, 02:34 AM
Hi Fenris
You shouldn't assume.
1. Is G. Matthew written by a Jew and therefore a Jewish text, yes/no?
Is every book written by a Jew a Jewish text?
Every religious book by an OT-believing Jew, yes.

Now how about Q2-7?
Steven

Teke
Dec 31st 2007, 02:05 PM
Obviously Daniel 9 doesn't say that.


Really......

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Fenris
Dec 31st 2007, 02:39 PM
Hi Fenris
You shouldn't assume.Every religious book by an OT-believing Jew, yes.
Well, it hasn't been established that 1) The author was Jewish and 2) that he was an OT believing Jew.

What about if it contradicts other books written by other religious Jews during the period?


Now how about Q2-7?
Steven
The tempter puts to Jesus Ps91:11-12 as a Messianic test, yes/no?
The tempter stops short of Ps91:13, yes/no?
I don't know who 'the tempter' is. Please provide the background text.

Ps91:11-12 and 13 share a "you", they concern the same subject, yes/no?
The pertinent text:11 For He will give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
12 They shall bear thee upon their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.
13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and asp; the young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under feet.
Yes, the subject appears to be the same person. King David, perhaps?

If Ps91:11-12 was viewed (by the tempter, or by Matthew, or both) as Messianic, then v.13 would also have to be viewed as Messianic, yes/no?

Matthew probably viewed the entire Psalm as messianic. But then, he was a believing Christian and doubtless found many messianic references throughout the bible.

Ps91:13 is based on Gen3:15, yes/no?

3:15 doesn't have a lion in it. Also, I don't see either 3:15 or 91:13 as messianic. I'm going to say "no".

If Ps91:13 was considered Messianic (by the tempter or by Matthew or by both), then they would also consider Gen3:15 Messianic, yes/no?

Not necessarily.

Ta-An
Dec 31st 2007, 02:46 PM
Yes, I'm sure there are millions and millions of Jews who accept Jesus but keep quiet for fear of being ostracized. :rolleyes: Of this I can witness... when they ask you quietly...:"Do you know Yeshua?" :hug:

Ta-An
Dec 31st 2007, 02:48 PM
Did Jesus have a long life? Hallo my friend :hug:

He is still alive Fenris :)

Remember, the Jews are awaiting a fully grown Man as King to save them, not to be born an infant as the scriptures say.... ever wondered why?? :hmm:

Fenris
Dec 31st 2007, 03:08 PM
Really......

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

This translation leaves something to be desired. The Hebrew states merely states 'one annointed, a prince', not 'the Messiah, a prince'. The hebrew term 'Moshicah' simply means 'annointed', as indeed a king or high priest was.

The annointed one here refers to Cyrus, the king of Persia. He allowed the temple to be rebuilt 7 weeks (i.e. 7 sets of 7 years, or 49 years) after this prophecy. (It was actually 53 years, but the extra 4 years did not constitute a complete 7 year cycle.) The entire second temple period was 'troubled times' since there was constant interference from foreign rulers.

Fenris
Dec 31st 2007, 03:09 PM
Hallo my friend :hug:

He is still alive Fenris :)Then the statement is trivial. Of course God is eternal.


Remember, the Jews are awaiting a fully grown Man as King to save them, not to be born an infant as the scriptures say.... ever wondered why?? :hmm:
Explain, please.

Ta-An
Dec 31st 2007, 05:17 PM
Then the statement is trivial. Of course God is eternal. Yeshua is L_rd, Fenris


Explain, please. Let me say it like this: In which form/shape are you expecting the Messiah??

Teke
Dec 31st 2007, 06:39 PM
This translation leaves something to be desired. The Hebrew states merely states 'one annointed, a prince', not 'the Messiah, a prince'. The hebrew term 'Moshicah' simply means 'annointed', as indeed a king or high priest was.

The annointed one here refers to Cyrus, the king of Persia. He allowed the temple to be rebuilt 7 weeks (i.e. 7 sets of 7 years, or 49 years) after this prophecy. (It was actually 53 years, but the extra 4 years did not constitute a complete 7 year cycle.) The entire second temple period was 'troubled times' since there was constant interference from foreign rulers.

That is a bit of a stretch there on those scriptures of Daniel (9:24-27). Do you believe Cyrus is the "most Holy" anointed.

Fenris
Dec 31st 2007, 07:37 PM
Let me say it like this: In which form/shape are you expecting the Messiah??

I don't know and it isn't that important. What is important is what he does.

Fenris
Dec 31st 2007, 07:40 PM
That is a bit of a stretch there on those scriptures of Daniel (9:24-27). Do you believe Cyrus is the "most Holy" anointed.
The verse doesn't say 'most holy', only 'anointed'. And Cyrus is also called 'anointed' in Isaiah 45:1.

Teke
Dec 31st 2007, 08:07 PM
The verse doesn't say 'most holy', only 'anointed'. And Cyrus is also called 'anointed' in Isaiah 45:1.

Yes but this anointed is a priest king, such as Zechariah 6:13 speaks of. Or as Psalm 110:4 speaks of Melchizadek (a priest king).

Cyrus was a prince but not a priest. And he wasn't literally anointed such as the kings and priests were. (lepers were also anointed, as was Elisha [1 Kings 19:16] being the only exceptions)

Fenris
Dec 31st 2007, 08:15 PM
Yes but this anointed is a priest kingAnd we know this how?


Cyrus was a prince but not a priest. And he wasn't literally anointed such as the kings and priests were.
He was anointed enough that Isaiah called him 'anointed'. What more do you want?

Teke
Dec 31st 2007, 09:01 PM
And we know this how?

The Hebrew.:D


The words נגיד משׁיח are not to be translated an anointed prince (Bertholdt); for משׁיח cannot be an adjective to נגיד, because in Hebr. The adjective is always placed after the substantive, with few exceptions, which are inapplicable to this case; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. §293b. Nor can משׁיח be a participle: till a prince is anointed (Steudel), but it is a noun, and נגיד is connected with it by apposition: an anointed one, who at the same time is a prince. According to the O.T., kings and priests, and only these, were anointed. Since, then, משׁיח is brought forward as the principal designation, we may not by נגיד think of a priest-prince, but only of a prince of the people, nor by משׁיח of a king, but only of a priest; and by נגיד משׁיח we must understand a person who first and specially is a priest, and in addition is a prince of the people, a king. The separation of the two words in Dan_9:26, where נגיד is acknowledged as meaning a prince of the people, leads to the same conclusion. This priest-king can neither be Zerubbabel (according to many old interpreters), nor Ezra (Steudel), nor Onias III (Wieseler); for Zerubbabel the prince was not anointed, and the priest Ezra and the high priest Onias were not princes of the people. Nor can Cyrus be meant here, as Saad., Gaon., Bertholdt, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Ewald, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others think, by a reference to Isa_45:1; for, supposing it to be the case that Daniel had reason from Isa_45:1 to call Cyrus משׁיח - which is to be doubted, since from this epithet משׁיחו, His (Jehovah's) anointed, which Isaiah uses of Cyrus, it does not follow as of course that he should be named משׁיח - the title ought at least to have been משׁיח נגיד, the משׁיח being an adjective following נגיד, because there is no evident reason for the express precedence of the adjectival definition.

Keil & Delitzsch comment on the Hebrew




He was anointed enough that Isaiah called him 'anointed'. What more do you want?

Answer in latter part of above quote.

Fenris
Dec 31st 2007, 09:17 PM
The Hebrew.:D

Umm, I don't know where you got this from, but it makes absolutely no sense. According to this article, grammatical rules are creating a new class of person that exists no where else in Judaism: a priest-king.

The simplest explanation is usually the best one: Cyrus. Rashi, who was fluent in Hebrew, has no problem identifying the subject. The dates match up. It corresponds to Isaiah 45.

Teke
Dec 31st 2007, 09:32 PM
No priest king in Judaism. What is Zechariah speaking of then? (6:13)

Ta-An
Dec 31st 2007, 11:06 PM
I don't know and it isn't that important. What is important is what he does. The Jews are expecting a fully grown Man/King to be the Messiah..... He can only be that if he has been born a time ago already.. makes you think does it not?? :hmm:

Fenris
Dec 31st 2007, 11:29 PM
No priest king in Judaism. What is Zechariah speaking of then? (6:13)
And he shall build the Temple of the Lord, and he shall bear glory. And he shall sit and rule on his throne, and the priest shall be on his throne. And a counsel of peace shall be between them

A king and a priest getting along?

Fenris
Dec 31st 2007, 11:31 PM
The Jews are expecting a fully grown Man/King to be the Messiah..... He can only be that if he has been born a time ago already.. makes you think does it not?? :hmm:Moses was 80 when he brought the Jews forth from Egypt.

Teke
Dec 31st 2007, 11:44 PM
And he shall build the Temple of the Lord, and he shall bear glory. And he shall sit and rule on his throne, and the priest shall be on his throne. And a counsel of peace shall be between them

A king and a priest getting along?

From previous verse, The Branch, IS the builder, IS the priest and IS the king.
Or do you see three people mentioned.........

Fenris
Dec 31st 2007, 11:50 PM
And you shall speak to him, saying, "So said the Lord of Hosts, saying: Behold a man whose name is the Shoot, who will spring up out of his place and build the Temple of the Lord.

Steven3
Jan 1st 2008, 02:08 AM
Hi Fenris


Ps91:13 is based on Gen3:15, yes/no?3:15 doesn't have a lion in it. Any idea whether Rashi would agree with you that 91:13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and asp; the young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under feet. has no relation to Genesis 3:15?
creating a new class of person that exists no where else in Judaism: a priest-kingThis wasn't addressed to me but I have to note that isn't the case, see 11Q13 for starters.
God bless
Steven

Fenris
Jan 1st 2008, 02:14 AM
Hi Fenris
Any idea whether Rashi would agree with you that 91:13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and asp; the young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under feet. has no relation to Genesis 3:15?
He doesn't mention a connection either verse.

This wasn't addressed to me but I have to note that isn't the case, see 11Q13 for starters.
God bless
StevenHuh?

Naphal
Jan 1st 2008, 02:23 AM
More to the point you are not the only person on the thread, so other people on the thread, including Naphal, who wrote the OP, might be interested in them.

I have been following along quietly. I appreciate all the work being done in the thread and have been learning much.

Fenris
Jan 1st 2008, 02:28 AM
I have to ask a question, sorta on topic.

Why do you guys think that the Jews are misinterpreting the bible? Conspiracy by the rabbis? Ignorance of the language? God willing it? Something else?

Steven3
Jan 1st 2008, 02:56 AM
Hi Fenris
For reasons unrelated to your comments, for which thanks, I regret that I won't be posting further in this thread or any other relating to Gen 3:15, but as I go I'll supply a Jewish ref to a king-priest


Huh?11Q13 reads as follows:


Col.2
(...) And concerning what Scripture says, "In this year of Jubilee you shall return, everyone f you, to your property" (Lev. 25;13) And what is also written; "And this is the manner of the remission; every creditor shall remit the claim that is held against a neighbor, not exacting it of a neighbor who is a member of the community, because God's remission has been proclaimed" (Deut.15;2) the interpretation is that it applies to the Last Days and concerns the captives, just as Isaiah said: "To proclaim the Jubilee to the captives" (Isa. 61;1) (...) just as (...) and from the inheritance of Melchizedek, for (... Melchizedek) , who will return them to what is rightfully theirs. He will proclaim to them the Jubilee, thereby releasing them from the debt of all their sins. He shall proclaim this decree in the first week of the jubilee period that follows nine jubilee periods.
Then the "Day of Atonement" shall follow after the tenth jubilee period, when he shall atone for all the Sons of Light, and the people who are predestined to Melchizedek. (...) upon them (...) For this is the time decreed for the "Year of Melchizedek`s favor", and by his might he will judge God's holy ones and so establish a righteous kingdom, as it is written about him in the Songs of David ; "A godlike being has taken his place in the council of God; in the midst of divine beings he holds judgement"
(Ps. 82;1). Scripture also says about him ; "Over it take your seat in the highest heaven; A divine being will judge the peoples" (Ps. 7;7-8) Concerning what scripture says; "How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality with the wicked? Selah" (Ps. 82;2) ,the interpretation applies to Belial and the spirits predestined to him, because all of them have rebelled, turning from God's precepts and so becoming utterly wicked. Therefore Melchizedek will thoroughly prosecute the vengeance required by God's statutes. Also, he will deliver all the captives from the power of Belial, and from the power of all the spirits destined to him. Allied with him will be all the "righteous divine beings"(Isa. 61;3).
(The ...) is that whi(ch ...all) the divine beings. The visitation is the Day of Salvation that He has decreed through Isaiah the prophet concerning all the captives, inasmuch as Scripture says, "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion "Your divine being reigns"." (Isa. 52;7) This scriptures interpretation : "the mountains" are the prophets, they who were sent to proclaim God's truth and to prophesy to all Israel. "The messengers" is the Anointed of the spirit, of whom Daniel spoke; "After the sixty-two weeks, an Anointed shall be cut off" (Dan. 9;26) The "messenger who brings good news, who announces Salvation" is the one of whom it is written; "to proclaim the year of the LORD`s favor, the day of the vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn" (Isa. 61;2)
This scripture's interpretation: he is to instruct them about all the periods of history for eternity (... and in the statutes) of the truth. (...) (.... dominion) that passes from Belial and returns to the Sons of Light (....) (...) by the judgment of God, just as t is written concerning him; "who says to Zion "Your divine being reigns" (Isa. 52;7) "Zion" is the congregation of all the sons of righteousness, who uphold the covenant and turn from walking in the way of the people. "Your divine being" is Melchizedek, who will deliver them from the power of Belial. Concerning what scripture says, "Then you shall have the trumpet sounded loud; in the seventh month . . . " (Lev. 25;9)

Steven3
Jan 1st 2008, 02:59 AM
PS
I have to ask a question, sorta on topic.

Why do you guys think that the Jews are misinterpreting the bible? Conspiracy by the rabbis? Ignorance of the language? God willing it? Something else?Paul gives several reasons. The fact that most Jews of Jesus' day didn't know Hebrew was not at issue, God's word is above language.

Teke
Jan 1st 2008, 05:11 AM
I have to ask a question, sorta on topic.

Why do you guys think that the Jews are misinterpreting the bible? Conspiracy by the rabbis? Ignorance of the language? God willing it? Something else?

Interpretation has it's influence.
Tell you what tho. There has been no Jewish explanation of why people from all over the world are given revelation of Jesus Christ. People who have no church knowledge or bible knowledge whatsoever. IOW without any worldly influence God simply reveals Him. Even to Jews. How do you explain a worldwide phenomenon like that which keeps occurring over centuries.

Ta-An
Jan 1st 2008, 05:32 AM
I don't know and it isn't that important. What is important is what he does. What is He expected to do Fenris?
Is it not also important to fulfill the scriptures :hmm: in order to be accepted... ;)

Fenris
Jan 1st 2008, 12:55 PM
Hi Fenris
For reasons unrelated to your comments, for which thanks, I regret that I won't be posting further in this thread or any other relating to Gen 3:15, but as I go I'll supply a Jewish ref to a king-priest

That's a shame, this has been very interesting.

Fenris
Jan 1st 2008, 12:59 PM
Interpretation has it's influence.
Tell you what tho. There has been no Jewish explanation of why people from all over the world are given revelation of Jesus Christ. People who have no church knowledge or bible knowledge whatsoever. IOW without any worldly influence God simply reveals Him. Even to Jews. How do you explain a worldwide phenomenon like that which keeps occurring over centuries.People also find mother Theresa or the word 'Allah' on potato chips and cinnamon buns. I don't find such phenomena to be proof of anything.

Fenris
Jan 1st 2008, 01:04 PM
What is He expected to do Fenris?
Well, there are certain prophecies that were commonly believed to be messianic that went unfulfilled:

-Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
-Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

-Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

-Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

Jesus did not do these things.




Is it not also important to fulfill the scriptures :hmm: in order to be accepted... ;)Yes, but the prophecies Jesus fulfilled were generally not interpreted by Jews as messianic, for the most part.

Ta-An
Jan 1st 2008, 02:28 PM
That's a shame, this has been very interesting.And thought provoking and educational :)

Ta-An
Jan 1st 2008, 02:38 PM
Well, there are certain prophecies that were commonly believed to be messianic that went unfulfilled:

-Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).This is to be a temple of worship.... like where the ark of the covenant was kept... not the large big building ... but the hearts of people turned to Him, who worship Him in spirit and in truth... with their lives, in their hearts

-Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

for now they are dispersed.. for they have been a disobedient nation... not so.. :hmm:

-Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
Do you not pronounce Peace every time you say the Shma??




-Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

But this is being done.... in the process of being done




Yes, but the prophecies Jesus fulfilled were generally not interpreted by Jews as messianic, for the most part. Their choice not to.... and now the Gentiles are being given that opportunity also.....

Fenris, what do you answer your children when they say :"Yes but" :hmm:

Fenris
Jan 1st 2008, 05:58 PM
This is to be a temple of worship.... like where the ark of the covenant was kept... not the large big building ... but the hearts of people turned to Him, who worship Him in spirit and in truth... with their lives, in their hearts
This may be true. Still, when Jews read the prophets who said that the messiah would rebuild the temple, they assumed that God meant the physical temple, not a 'temple'. Ezekiel also gives the physical dimensions of the temple, that match neither the first nor the second.


for now they are dispersed.. for they have been a disobedient nation... not so.. :hmm:
Yes, and we have not been deserving of having the prophecies fulfilled. But then if we weren't deserving, why did the messiah come?



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Do you not pronounce Peace every time you say the Shma??God promised no more war in the messianic era. This has not happened.



[SIZE=2] But this is being done.... in the process of being done
Perhaps. But it hasn't happened yet.



Their choice not to.... and now the Gentiles are being given that opportunity also..... The Jewish line of thought is that we are to believe in God, not the messiah. The messiah's identity will be self-evident when he fulfills the prophecies as expected.


Fenris, what do you answer your children when they say :"Yes but" :hmm:
That depends. Are they wrong or are they right?

Ta-An
Jan 1st 2008, 06:05 PM
The Jewish line of thought is that we are to believe in God, not the messiah. [quote] So the person who provides is not G_D?? IS it not that only G_D can provide salvation :hmm:[quote]
That depends. Are they wrong or are they right? A better answer I could not have expected :lol: Except where I come from... it would be :Woman (child) shut up and listen.... :rolleyes:

Fenris
Jan 1st 2008, 06:09 PM
So the person who provides is not G_D?? IS it not that only G_D can provide salvation :hmm: Of course all salvation ultimately comes from God. But He may use human messengers to fulfill His purposes, for good or bad. God didn't stop the Holocaust; the American GIs did as God's agents for good. The messiah too will be a human being who musters human capacity to good purposes.


A better answer I could not have expected :lol: Except where I come from... it would be :Woman (child) shut up and listen.... :rolleyes::lol:

Ta-An
Jan 1st 2008, 06:14 PM
Of course all salvation ultimately comes from God. But He may use human messengers to fulfill His purposes, for good or bad. God didn't stop the Holocaust; the American GIs did as God's agents for good. The messiah too will be a human being who musters human capacity to good purposes.
And Yeshua did not...:hmm:
You know what Fenris.... We are trying to put G_d in a box to fit into our understanding.... and we fail Him dismally :note:

Fenris
Jan 1st 2008, 06:22 PM
And Yeshua did not...:hmm:
No, I would say that he did. Christianity has been a huge plus for the world, and has done a remarkable job of civilizing humanity. But every person who does something good is not the messiah; The person who fulfills the messianic prophecies is. And that person, from the Jewish perspective, was not Jesus.


You know what Fenris.... We are trying to put G_d in a box to fit into our understanding.... and we fail Him dismally :note:God is by definition beyond human comprehension. But He told us what would be done by a righteous descendant of king David, and Jews are still waiting for those things to happen.

Teke
Jan 1st 2008, 09:03 PM
People also find mother Theresa or the word 'Allah' on potato chips and cinnamon buns. I don't find such phenomena to be proof of anything.

How or why do you believe in God then, without the proof you need.
Just because someone mentioned Him in a Jewish history lesson.

Fenris
Jan 1st 2008, 09:11 PM
How or why do you believe in God then, without the proof you need.
Just because someone mentioned Him in a Jewish history lesson.
I believe in God because my parents told me that their parents told them that their parents told them...that my ancestors stood at the foot of Mt Sinai and actually heard God say "I am the Lord your God..."

Plus some personal observations.

Teke
Jan 1st 2008, 10:28 PM
I believe in God because my parents told me that their parents told them that their parents told them...that my ancestors stood at the foot of Mt Sinai and actually heard God say "I am the Lord your God..."

Plus some personal observations.

But as you've said, that (God) is not really what is important because it is unknowable.
I guess that is the difference with Christianity, we know what we worship. ;)

Fenris
Jan 1st 2008, 10:50 PM
I don't understand what you just said.

Teke
Jan 1st 2008, 11:14 PM
Fenris, I assume you worship in some form. You have stated that what you worship is unknowable. It follows that you do not know what you worship.
I pointed out the difference in that and Christianity. We know what we worship.

We worship God, who is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Fenris
Jan 1st 2008, 11:20 PM
Fenris, I assume you worship in some form. You have stated that what you worship is unknowable. It follows that you do not know what you worship.I worship the God who created heaven and earth. Why would I need to know more?

Teke
Jan 1st 2008, 11:32 PM
I worship the God who created heaven and earth. Why would I need to know more?

If you feel no need, then there is none.:dunno:

Steven3
Jan 2nd 2008, 01:56 AM
Hi Fenris
That's a shame, this has been very interesting.It's not because of your posts. If you wish to post all of what Rashi says on Ps91:13 I will watch quietly from the sidelines.
God bless
S

Fenris
Jan 2nd 2008, 12:39 PM
.
I pointed out the difference in that and Christianity. We know what we worship.

If you're positing that Christianity has a nice package, I agree with you. That is not an argument as to it's validity however.

Fenris
Jan 2nd 2008, 12:42 PM
Hi FenrisIt's not because of your posts.Well, your reasons are your own. I wish you all the best, regardless.

If you wish to post all of what Rashi says on Ps91:13 I will watch quietly from the sidelines.
God bless
SRashi has nothing to say on the verse.

Teke
Jan 2nd 2008, 03:25 PM
If you're positing that Christianity has a nice package, I agree with you. That is not an argument as to it's validity however.

Don't know about the "nice package" remark.....
What is a valid argument to you Fenris?

Because Christianity is not Judaism doesn't invalidate it.
Many of your misconceptions about Christianity have been addressed here by myself and others. And while misconceptions may invalidate something to an individual such is easily remedied with truth.

Fenris
Jan 2nd 2008, 03:40 PM
Don't know about the "nice package" remark.....Christianity is in many respects easier than Judaism. How many times would I have eaten a tasty-looking cheesburger or gone out on a friday night?


What is a valid argument to you Fenris?The validity of your arguments becomes a complex situation. Christianity is not a stand-alone religion. It preports to stem from Judaism; in effect, it claims itself as the successor religion to Judaism. To this end, it attempts to prove itself from Jewish scripture. The only problem is that religious Jews, ostensibly the keepers of the Jewish text, don't see the scripture that way. Unfortunately, this has been the cause of much friction between the two religions.


Because Christianity is not Judaism doesn't invalidate it.
No it doesn't. But it does cause problems when Christianity tries to prove itself through Jewish texts.


Many of your misconceptions about Christianity have been addressed here by myself and others. I have found your insights into Christianity to be most interesting, and I thank all of you for taking the time to illuminate me.


And while misconceptions may invalidate something to an individual such is easily remedied with truth.Obviously not so easily, or the whole world would be Christian. Although even amongst Christians there seems to be different strains of 'truth'. Who is right? Catholics? Protestants? Orthodox? SDAs? JWs?

Teke
Jan 2nd 2008, 04:42 PM
Christianity is in many respects easier than Judaism. How many times would I have eaten a tasty-looking cheesburger or gone out on a friday night?

Some sects of Christianity may make it seem easy. I've been on a 40 day fast for the Nativity feast which is this Monday (aka 'Christmas" to westerners). I'd love to have had a cheeseburger some of those days. YUM! But that would defeat the purpose of the fast, which is to prepare me spiritually for the upcoming feast.


The validity of your arguments becomes a complex situation. Christianity is not a stand-alone religion. It preports to stem from Judaism; in effect, it claims itself as the successor religion to Judaism. To this end, it attempts to prove itself from Jewish scripture. The only problem is that religious Jews, ostensibly the keepers of the Jewish text, don't see the scripture that way. Unfortunately, this has been the cause of much friction between the two religions.

I would not call it a "successor" of Judaism. And tho the OT scriptures are used, they are not to prove itself from. They were traditionally used by Jesus and the Apostles and the church continues in that tradition.
As a matter of fact, the early church went to great pains to distinguish itself from Judaism. Setting weekly fast days as Wednesday and Friday so as not to be confused with Judaisms two weekly fast days.

Even the dispute of "Easter" (feast of Resurrection) was settled so as not to be confused with the Jewish Passover feast. As they are not the same feast.


No it doesn't. But it does cause problems when Christianity tries to prove itself through Jewish texts.

I do understand what you mean, more than you know.;)


I have found your insights into Christianity to be most interesting, and I thank all of you for taking the time to illuminate me.

We appreciate you taking the time to better understand us.:hug:


Obviously not so easily, or the whole world would be Christian. Although even amongst Christians there seems to be different strains of 'truth'. Who is right? Catholics? Protestants? Orthodox? SDAs? JWs?

Obviously everyone doesn't arrive at the same place in time. Nor are all looking for the truth. Some only go so far as what meets their need.
But we must have faith that God is leading all of us to that truth (which is God) in the spiral of time.

Hopefully, I have not offended you, as that is not my intent, but have challenged you in your thinking of Christianity and what it is and isn't compared to secular means ie. popularly propagated aka myths
There is always a difference in what the world sees and thinks and what it doesn't behind closed doors. For instance the secular 'Christmas' as is shown by all the threads lately on the subject, is not a religious feast of Christians, but a secular tradition. Which is why there are so many differing understandings of it.

Fenris
Jan 2nd 2008, 04:53 PM
Some sects of Christianity may make it seem easy. I've been on a 40 day fast for the Nativity feast which is this Monday (aka 'Christmas" to westerners). I'd love to have had a cheeseburger some of those days. YUM! But that would defeat the purpose of the fast, which is to prepare me spiritually for the upcoming feast.Judaism has it's fasts also. Anyway, I don't think anyone would seriously say that Christianity is a difficult to follow as Judaism. I mean, wasn't the whole point that the OT law was 'impossible to follow'?



I would not call it a "successor" of Judaism. But it is. Unless you're going to say that pre-Jesus Jews were closer to Christians than they are to modern-day Jews. I've heard that said.



Obviously everyone doesn't arrive at the same place in time. Nor are all looking for the truth. Some only go so far as what meets their need.
But we must have faith that God is leading all of us to that truth (which is God) in the spiral of time. No argument. I would even argue that false religions may have that effect.


Hopefully, I have not offended you, as that is not my intentYou have not.


but have challenged you in your thinking of Christianity and what it is and isn't compared to secular means ie. popularly propagated aka mythsWell I try not to stoop so low as to learn about Christianity from secular people. They tend to be hostile to all faiths, after all.

I wonder if I have changed anyone's thinking on Judaism by being here.

Teke
Jan 2nd 2008, 05:23 PM
Judaism has it's fasts also. Anyway, I don't think anyone would seriously say that Christianity is a difficult to follow as Judaism. I mean, wasn't the whole point that the OT law was 'impossible to follow'?


Not impossible to follow, but that it was not what would lead one to God. It might make one a better person than they once were in the world, but it alone would not do the job which God does Himself.


But it is. Unless you're going to say that pre-Jesus Jews were closer to Christians than they are to modern-day Jews. I've heard that said.

Let me put it this way, I'm sure Judaism, like other religions, can be used by God to fulfill His purpose. His purpose tho, is to lead us closer to Him. So while religion may be a means, it is not an end of itself.



I wonder if I have changed anyone's thinking on Judaism by being here.

Believe me, I know, eastern thought is always a challenge here.:lol:
As is conversing on a message board such as this.

Fenris
Jan 2nd 2008, 06:00 PM
Not impossible to follow, but that it was not what would lead one to God. It might make one a better person than they once were in the world, but it alone would not do the job which God does Himself.Well that's a matter of opinion. In any case, that's not my understanding of it as per the NT.



Let me put it this way, I'm sure Judaism, like other religions, can be used by God to fulfill His purpose. His purpose tho, is to lead us closer to Him. So while religion may be a means, it is not an end of itself. I'm not sure I understand this paragraph.

Teke
Jan 2nd 2008, 11:00 PM
Well that's a matter of opinion. In any case, that's not my understanding of it as per the NT.

The NT goes beyond just the law. An example would be the young man who came to Jesus and asked Him what more could he do than keeping all the law, Jesus told him to give away everything and follow Him. But the man couldn't do it, he was rich. So how did he keep the law if he coveted what he had.


I'm not sure I understand this paragraph.

That a means is not an end?

Fenris
Jan 3rd 2008, 12:48 AM
The NT goes beyond just the law. An example would be the young man who came to Jesus and asked Him what more could he do than keeping all the law, Jesus told him to give away everything and follow Him. But the man couldn't do it, he was rich. So how did he keep the law if he coveted what he had. It isn't a sin to be human. It isn't a sin to fall short of perfection. It's your direction that's important, not your location.



That a means is not an end?
What is the end?

Teke
Jan 3rd 2008, 12:35 PM
It isn't a sin to be human. It isn't a sin to fall short of perfection. It's your direction that's important, not your location.

I agree.



What is the end?

Worship.

Fenris
Jan 3rd 2008, 12:55 PM
Worship.
The most important thing man can do is worship God?

Teke
Jan 3rd 2008, 01:47 PM
The most important thing man can do is worship God?

Yes. It is what we were created to do.

When a perfect part of creation was offered to God, a perfect act of worship was finally achieved by humanity. We share in this by becoming one with Christ. i.e. by partaking of His uncreated, life-giving energies

This is all to bring us into communion with God as well as us offering perfect worship as Jesus did.

In an eastern perspective....
In line with the teachings of Christ as our great High Priest in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ's Immolation on the Cross was sacrificial (the office of a priest), latreutic (worshipful), and soterial (verse 2:3): Our Savior's human life itself constituted a victory over the world (2:8), and death, (2:9, 14).

Jesus's Suffering on the Cross, was especially soterial (2:10), but would have no value as Immolation (ceremonial mactation) unless Anaphora or Oblation (offering) followed as the point of sacrificing. (The Book of Hebrews uses anaphérein "offer"--just as the Orthodox still do.) Christians view our Savior's Suffering (Passion) and Death as a propitiating or atoning Immolation. But the Crucifixion, perfect in itself, was not all there was to Christ's humiliation. Of His Incarnation, Hebrew 2:17 says: ". . . it was needful for Him to become like [his] brothers in all [respects], in order that He might also become a compassionate and faithful high Priest with regard to things pertaining to God for the sake of atoning for the sins of the people." The following verse adds: "For in that He has suffered, He Himself having been tested [or tempted], He is able to give aid to those being tested [or tempted; cf. verse 15]." Subsequently, He entered His rest (4:10), a rest we are to strive to enter (4:11).

It is hard for a Western Christian to think in this ancient Greek-language, Hebrew-dominated framework. Since Protestants do not typically define a priest as a sacrificer.

Fenris
Jan 3rd 2008, 01:56 PM
Yes. It is what we were created to do.Hmm. Well, Jews view the purpose of human creation being to do God's will as codified by the Law. God is infinitely good and wants to do good to us. But the best kind of good He can do to us is to give us something we have earned. So He gave us the Law so that when we follow it, to the best of our ability, we give Him a reason to be good to us.

Teke
Jan 3rd 2008, 03:11 PM
Hmm. Well, Jews view the purpose of human creation being to do God's will as codified by the Law. God is infinitely good and wants to do good to us. But the best kind of good He can do to us is to give us something we have earned. So He gave us the Law so that when we follow it, to the best of our ability, we give Him a reason to be good to us.

I wouldn't deny that God pays those who labor for Him. ie. just rewards
But anyone can do that, believers or otherwise. As scripture gives examples such as Neb, who having not brought down Tyre, was given Egypt instead as payment for his trouble/labor.

However, those who seek Him alone, not their own reward, receive the greater blessing of knowing Him. IOW being children of God, not servants who labor for reward.

I don't really understand what you mean by "a reason to be good to us", as He created us and put us in His creation. I would think that the creation would be evidence of His goodness toward us. Giving us all we need to live here.
The concept of mankind being able to appease the Almighty is foreign to Christianity. As He is above such human concepts and is not a created being that can be appeased by creation.

Our relationship is not only work related. We are to strive for an intimate relationship. IOW that which is spiritual, because God is Spirit.

Fenris
Jan 3rd 2008, 03:41 PM
I wouldn't deny that God pays those who labor for Him. ie. just rewards
But anyone can do that, believers or otherwise. That's exactly right. We believe that God is less interested in what we believe than in what we do. Let's be honest: belief is based on intangible things. Our actions are what we really have control over, and that is why God judges us on that.




However, those who seek Him alone, not their own reward, receive the greater blessing of knowing Him. IOW being children of God, not servants who labor for reward.The Talmud states that we should be servants who labor for no reward. And no doubt it is better to serve God out of love than out of fear or to get a reward. But serving God, even for ulterior motives, is still better than not serving God at all.



I don't really understand what you mean by "a reason to be good to us", as He created us and put us in His creation. I would think that the creation would be evidence of His goodness toward us. Giving us all we need to live here. All the pleasure in this life is but a drop compared to basking in God's presence in the world to come.


The concept of mankind being able to appease the Almighty is foreign to Christianity. As He is above such human concepts and is not a created being that can be appeased by creation. It's not about appeasing God. It's about doing His will so that he will have the opportunity to tell us we earned what He gives us. And that makes it all the sweeter.


Our relationship is not only work related. We are to strive for an intimate relationship. How do you show someone you love them? By doing things that you know make them happy. It doesn't matter if the object of your love is your spouse or your God; the principle remains the same.

Teke
Jan 3rd 2008, 07:16 PM
Nice post Fenris. :)
But how can you say that belief is based on intangible things. Don't we believe there is a Creator because there is a creation?
Do we not feel compassion in love when holding the hand of the sick or dying?
It would seem that the tangible leads us to believe in the intangible.

Fenris
Jan 3rd 2008, 08:36 PM
Nice post Fenris. :)Thank you. :)


But how can you say that belief is based on intangible things.Because it is. The very fact that we can't prove each other wrong, even though we are reading from the same book, means that it isn't logic that leads us to our beliefs.


Don't we believe there is a Creator because there is a creation?You and I say that, yes. But many scientists would say otherwise. Because they do not have whatever intangibles it is that led you and I to believe in God.


Do we not feel compassion in love when holding the hand of the sick or dying?
It would seem that the tangible leads us to believe in the intangible.
Yes, it can. The rabbis long advocated doing the right thing for whatever reason because they felt that one would eventually come to do it for the right reason.

Teke
Jan 3rd 2008, 09:02 PM
Because it is. The very fact that we can't prove each other wrong, even though we are reading from the same book, means that it isn't logic that leads us to our beliefs.

I doubt we are to be proving each other wrong with a book or any other created object. And it wasn't logic or the book which brought revelation to me. I was just minding my own business in my life when bam, the revelation came. The experience and the heart couldn't deny it.



Yes, it can. The rabbis long advocated doing the right thing for whatever reason because they felt that one would eventually come to do it for the right reason.

This is similar to what the desert fathers teach.

Fenris
Jan 3rd 2008, 09:20 PM
I doubt we are to be proving each other wrong with a book or any other created object. And it wasn't logic or the book which brought revelation to me. I was just minding my own business in my life when bam, the revelation came. The experience and the heart couldn't deny it.
Well, good for you. My revelation came more gradually, over time. As I lived and experienced more, I could actually see the divine hand, guiding events to some holy outcome.