Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 01-14-2010, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

It should also be noted that many passages in the Talmud are basically Jews throwing out ideas. Much like brainstorming. This is one of the complaints that Karaite Jews have about Rabbinic Jews: the Talmud in a lot of places never gives a definitive answer on things. Basically, Talmudic writings are Jews waxing philosophical on a variety of concepts and is not "holy scripture" meant to give hard and fast answers to questions. In this way it's a lot like Platonic dialogs where he presents multiple characters just to give different points of views (until he eventually gives his/Socrates' view). So citing the Talmud as though "Jews" though such-and-such about the messiah isn't really answering much.

yes, it is. it is answering the question about what ideas Jews had. if they had the idea of a leprous messiah, then where did they get those ideas. it is saying plenty.

It's not at all what "Jews" had thought, since the Talmud is not saying what's right and wrong. That's the point. For all you know, the Talmudic authors put that in to illustrate a false opinion.

There's no official Jewish doctrine that says that Isaiah 53 is a messainic prophecy. There are no 1st century Christians writings that say that Isaiah 53 is a messainic prophecy (besides the later inserted Mark 15:28, showing that this was a later Christian doctrine). Even if the Talmud did agreed with you it's not a first century product and might have been influenced by generations of Christian proselytizing. And snipping Isaiah 53 out of the context of Deutero-Isaiah is the only way to make it "messainic" which makes is a quote-mine along the lines of Isaiah 7:14 and Judges 13:5.

The only thing that makes it a messainic prophecy is Christian dogma, and Christians have thousands of years of mutilating, manipulating, and misunderstanding Jewish scripture to suit their own a priori agendas.

sschlichter · 01-14-2010, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

yes, it is. it is answering the question about what ideas Jews had. if they had the idea of a leprous messiah, then where did they get those ideas. it is saying plenty.

It's not at all what "Jews" had thought, since the Talmud is not saying what's right and wrong. That's the point. For all you know, the Talmudic authors put that in to illustrate a false opinion.

There's no official Jewish doctrine that says that Isaiah 53 is a messainic prophecy. There are no 1st century Christians writings that say that Isaiah 53 is a messainic prophecy (besides the later inserted Mark 15:28, showing that this was a later Christian doctrine). Even if the Talmud did agreed with you it's not a first century product and might have been influenced by generations of Christian proselytizing. And snipping Isaiah 53 out of the context of Deutero-Isaiah is the only way to make it "messainic" which makes is a quote-mine along the lines of Isaiah 7:14 and Judges 13:5.

The only thing that makes it a messainic prophecy is Christian dogma, and Christians have thousands of years of mutilating, manipulating, and misunderstanding Jewish scripture to suit their own a priori agendas.

Who said anything about official Jewish doctrine. I am sorry but your statement is emphatically and undenaiably incorrect.

show_no_mercy · 01-14-2010, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

It's not at all what "Jews" had thought, since the Talmud is not saying what's right and wrong. That's the point. For all you know, the Talmudic authors put that in to illustrate a false opinion.

There's no official Jewish doctrine that says that Isaiah 53 is a messainic prophecy. There are no 1st century Christians writings that say that Isaiah 53 is a messainic prophecy (besides the later inserted Mark 15:28, showing that this was a later Christian doctrine). Even if the Talmud did agreed with you it's not a first century product and might have been influenced by generations of Christian proselytizing. And snipping Isaiah 53 out of the context of Deutero-Isaiah is the only way to make it "messainic" which makes is a quote-mine along the lines of Isaiah 7:14 and Judges 13:5.

The only thing that makes it a messainic prophecy is Christian dogma, and Christians have thousands of years of mutilating, manipulating, and misunderstanding Jewish scripture to suit their own a priori agendas.

Who said anything about official Jewish doctrine. I am sorry but your statement is emphatically and undenaiably incorrect.

Ok, Christian

sschlichter · 01-14-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Who said anything about official Jewish doctrine. I am sorry but your statement is emphatically and undenaiably incorrect.

Ok, Christian

No, you are not even understanding what i am positing. the emphasis was on official, not jewish. I am not arguing for an official Jewish suffering servant, i am arguing that their was a contingency of Jews that specifically interpretted this passage in this manner in Jesus' time and more generally (and more prevalent) expected a messiah that would suffer.

~steve

spamandham · 01-14-2010, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

i am arguing that their was a contingency of Jews that specifically interpretted this passage in this manner in Jesus' time and more generally (and more prevalent) expected a messiah that would suffer.

Although I think you're correct, I've hesitated to argue the point quite this strongly in the past since I'm unaware of anything concrete that demonstrates it - beyond the NT that is.

aa5874 · 01-14-2010, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Ok, Christian

No, you are not even understanding what i am positing. the emphasis was on official, not jewish. I am not arguing for an official Jewish suffering servant, i am arguing that their was a contingency of Jews that specifically interpretted this passage in this manner in Jesus' time and more generally (and more prevalent) expected a messiah that would suffer.

~steve

So what exactly is a "suffering Messiah"? How does a Jew become a Messiah through suffering?

The crucifixion of Jews was commonplace in the 1st century and Jesus was crucified after being accused of blasphemy.

Based on Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius the Messiah was expected to be a ruler not a sufferer.

sschlichter · 01-15-2010, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

No, you are not even understanding what i am positing. the emphasis was on official, not jewish. I am not arguing for an official Jewish suffering servant, i am arguing that their was a contingency of Jews that specifically interpretted this passage in this manner in Jesus' time and more generally (and more prevalent) expected a messiah that would suffer.

~steve

So what exactly is a "suffering Messiah"? How does a Jew become a Messiah through suffering?

The crucifixion of Jews was commonplace in the 1st century and Jesus was crucified after being accused of blasphemy.

Based on Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius the Messiah was expected to be a ruler not a sufferer.

both. Joseph in Genesis is the model. suffer first, reign later. some rabbis came to the conclusion that there must be two separate messiahs.

aa5874 · 01-15-2010, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So what exactly is a "suffering Messiah"? How does a Jew become a Messiah through suffering?

The crucifixion of Jews was commonplace in the 1st century and Jesus was crucified after being accused of blasphemy.

Based on Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius the Messiah was expected to be a ruler not a sufferer.

both. Joseph in Genesis is the model. suffer first, reign later. some rabbis came to the conclusion that there must be two separate messiahs.

So, when did Jesus rule after he aupposedly suffered? And please identify a Messiah that only suffered and one who only ruled.

Based on your view, was Jesus the son of Ananus who was beaten to a pulp in Wars of the Jews a suffering Messiah?

sschlichter · 01-16-2010, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

both. Joseph in Genesis is the model. suffer first, reign later. some rabbis came to the conclusion that there must be two separate messiahs.

So, when did Jesus rule after he aupposedly suffered? And please identify a Messiah that only suffered and one who only ruled.

Based on your view, was Jesus the son of Ananus who was beaten to a pulp in Wars of the Jews a suffering Messiah?

A) who said anything about Jesus or whether any messianic expectations came true?

B) No

aa5874 · 01-16-2010, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, when did Jesus rule after he aupposedly suffered? And please identify a Messiah that only suffered and one who only ruled.

Based on your view, was Jesus the son of Ananus who was beaten to a pulp in Wars of the Jews a suffering Messiah?

A) who said anything about Jesus or whether any messianic expectations came true?

B) No

Could you then please name a "suffering Messiah"? How does a "suffering Messiah" save the Jews from their sins or permit the Jews to abandon the Laws of Moses including circumcision while the Temple was still standing and to reject the Feast of the Passover?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.