Vorkosigan

Nothing at all. The point is (and has been), why are the conclusions of those who've spent a lifetime studying these texts, and decided they do refer to Jesus, dismissed out of hand because these people have become Christians?

They are not "dismissed" out of hand. They are dismissed after consideration of the evidence. As Rodahi put it, anyone can see that there are no references to Jesus in the OT. Indeed the various messiah references make it clear that Jesus could not have been the messiah.

We also notice a pattern: that the only scholars who believe that Jesus is mentioned in the OT are religious conservatives. What does that suggest to you? This does not mean that religious conservatives cannot do good work, rather, it shows that in certain areas they are simply unable to view things objectively. And the mythical Jesus prophecies in the OT is one such area.

Finally, this whole conversation has consisted of dodges on your part. If it were really true that Jesus is referred to in Isaiah, or anywhere else, you would simply trundle out the passages and end this thread. But you seem to be unable to do that. Perhaps because there are none?

Michael

JohnV

Already covered.
That's dismissing them out of hand.
Or perhaps because there's room for reasonable people to disagree on these passages (done purposely according to Paul), so there's no point in me bringing them up here. I know I won't get anywhere debating specifics when a board moderator makes an absolutist statement such as:
Therefore, I'm taking a circumstantial approach with the Acts quote, then I'll call it quits.

Apikorus

Rich, apparently you know very little of Judaism. There are far more than 10 commandments to Jewish law. (Traditional Jewish sources identify 613 commandments in the Torah.)

Judaism also recognizes a "dual Torah" concept. There is "torah she bikhtav" - the written Torah (i.e. the Pentateuch). There is also "torah she beal peh" - the oral Torah, which contains laws which God spoke to Moses at Sinai (just as the written law contains what God had Moses write). The oral law is codified in a document known as the Mishnah. In Mishnah tractate Pirkei Avot there is a discussion of how the oral law was tranmitted from God to Moses and later passed down.

Many of the elements of the oral law are alluded to in the written Torah, it is said. Furthermore, it is impossible to understand Torah (= oral + written) without studying the Talmud, which contains extensive commentary on the Mishnah. As an example, the Torah says to observe the Sabbath and not to do any work on it, but it does not describe what constitutes work. The details, though, are described in Mishnah tractate Shabbat (where the 39 melakhot - types of work - are delineated).

You mentioned that religious Jews do not observe many of the cultic laws described in the Book of Leviticus. This does not have anything to do with the fact that these are not included in the decalogue - there are many other Torahitic laws outside the decalogue which religious Jews do observe, such as kashrut (dietary laws), shatnez (not mixing wool and linen), etc. The reason observant Jews do not follow laws of the sacrificial cultus simply is that there is no Temple. When the Third Temple is built, they say, Judaism will resume animal sacrifice exactly in the way it is mandated in the Torah. (Of course, this would also lead to World War III since any Third Temple would have to be built over the Dome of the Rock.)

There are nonetheless extensive discussions of these sacrificial laws in the Mishnah and Talmud.

The structure of Jewish Law is rich and I haven't even begun to discuss it here. You might want to read an introductory book on the Talmud to learn about this.

To reiterate:

(i) The decalogue ("10 commandments") is not singled out in Judaism as being more important than other Torahitic mitzvot (commandments). There are in fact 613 mitzvot (248 affirmative, 365 negative, incidentally).

(ii) Judaism holds that there are two Torahs - one oral and one written. Together they are simply known as Torah. The oral torah is codified in the Mishnah and commented on in the Gemara. Mishnah + Gemara = Talmud.

(iii) There are many Torahitic mitzvot which cannot be carried out today. Those dealing with Temple sacrifice are an example. There is also a commandment to kill an Amalekite on sight, but this too is no longer possible (since, according to the Talmud, the Assyrian ruler Sennacherib had mixed up populations after the fall of the Northern Kingdom).

[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

Kosh

And therein lies the problem that I have
with the Christian God or I say the
invented Pauline God? (and I suspect the
same goes for many on this board). I'm not
gonna suscribe to a theology whose God
likes to play head games. If he wanted us to
follow him, he should have made it utterly,
plainly clear and concise. Heck, a yearly
appearance before us all would do just fine.

Or as my charismatic Christian pals used to
be fond of saying:

"My God is bigger than that!"

Rich

Apikorus- overall thanks for the information...but not to be a jackass but I stated the exact thought above. I never said their was only 10 commandments but IMO the Jews DO hold the 10 commandments in higher regard than the rest of the law regardless of your assertion. Otherwise why would there be so many books written on them? I haven't seen a whole lot of books on not eating crawfish.

This is basically what I was getting at but with a greater emphasis on the Mishnah (which some Jews do hold to).

This is a nice explanation as to why Jews don't sacrifice animals but quite contradictory from what I heard from another rabbi. Plus this fails to explain the fact that there are many commandments that they are not following (I could list dozens- killing witches, killing rapists, etc.)

Any you can suggest?

I am curious which specific branch of Judaism you refer to because I don't think all of them would handle these subjects the same.

Incidentally, you addressed the admittingly weakest part of my post (a speculation) and failed to answer any of the other questions
I proposed...I am curious why this is? This topic seems somewhat peripheral to the discussion on hand so maybe a new thread should be started. Maybe I could learn something.

JohnV

Thanks, kosh, that's probably another reason that many people didn't believe.

Apikorus

Rich, what books on the decalogue are you referring to? Dr. Laura?! There are hundreds of books on kashrut, incidentally.

The reason why Jews do not sacrifice animals is exactly as I said - there is no Temple. If you thought you heard otherwise from a rabbi, then either you or the rabbi was mistaken. Are you sure this was a legitimate rabbi you asked? No legitimate rabbi would say what you claimed.

The fact that there is no sitting Sanhedrin means that some other commandments are (temporarily) suspended. I assure you there are very detailed reasons for all of these matters which go back many centuries, if not millenia.

There are many fine introductory books on Jewish law. Try Ronald Isaacs' "Every Person's Guide to Jewish Law".

[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

Rich

Apikorus-

I have continued the discussion on sacrifice under To Apikorus- Jewish sacrifice
since this is straying too far from this topic.

rodahi

JohnV: Or perhaps because there's room for reasonable people to disagree on these passages (done purposely according to Paul), so there's no point in me bringing them up here. I know I won't get anywhere debating specifics when a board moderator makes an absolutist statement such as:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any reader with average intelligence and reading ability can easily see Jesus is neither mentioned or alluded to in this chapter. The same goes for all of the OT.
rodahi


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

Therefore, I'm taking a circumstantial approach with the Acts quote, then I'll call it quits.

You must have a good reason for questioning my statement because you keep alluding to it. Isn't this a great chance for a Christian apologist--you--to show just why he thinks Jesus is mentioned or alluded to in Isaiah 6, or anywhere else in the OT? Complaining (and threatening to "quit") doesn't really constitute an agument on these boards.

Present a good, well-supported argument, e.g., Jesus IS mentioned or alluded to in Isaiah 6 and other parts of the OT, and you will get the attention (and possibly the respect) of many SecWeb readers.

This is your chance to demonstrate the incorrectness of my assertion.

rodahi

JohnV

OK, here's your statement:
I took this to mean at least average intelligence and reading ability. If this assumption is correct, then I already refuted your statement:
If you meant average only, then I know people with average intelligence and reading ability who think the OT alludes to Jesus, so you're wrong again. At this point, if you wish to continue, the burden of proof is on you. Your challenge to me - "to show just why he thinks Jesus is mentioned or alluded to in Isaiah 6, or anywhere else in the OT?" - is an attempt by you to duck the burden of proof and shift it back on me, and I'm not biting. You're the one using slippery techniques here.
As I've shown, I already have.
If Bible scholars who agree with me are dismissed because they are Christians and therefore biased, why should I expect different treatment?