Sauron

Indeed. There is a difference between:

(a) "I won, really." - Bonaparte

(b) "I won, really." - Homer Simpson

Clouseau fits more readily into category (b) than he will *ever* fit into category (a).

Steven Avery

Sauron, if you are going to use my posts for the lack of specific pre-1st century Isaiah commentary, you should then properly point out that I refuted the accusation of Jewish disinterest you are repeating.

Including a quote from skeptic Paul Tobin, and my note:

The simple facts of the birkat ha-minim, Talmud pasages and Toldet Yeshu supply the evidence you want, on top of the records of the early church writers.

Shalom,
Steven

Sauron

You can include the Tobin citation and your assertion as many times as you like. However, I already dealt with both of them. Repeated for your benefit:

Sauron

Oh, prax - and as an object lesson - remember in your other thread where you whine that skeptics are never satisfied with answers? And then I corrected you and told you that it was the quality of your answers in particular that made skeptics continue to press you?

The above exchange is a classic example. What I asked for was clear. You gave something else entirely. Then I informed you of that mistake. Now, instead of correcting your post and providing #1, #2, or #3, what do we find you doing instead?

Repeating the Tobin citation and your claim, both of which have already been dealt with. Your failure to read carefully is what got you into this boat, and not any particular stubbornness on the part of skeptics. It's all too common with your postings.

Less hurry, more attention to detail.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Sauron -what nonsense.

You barely discussed my statement.

"The simple facts of the birkat ha-minim, Talmud pasages and Toldet Yeshu supply the evidence you want, on top of the records of the early church writers."

Instead you focus on Tobin, and he is clearly demonstrating major early Jewish interest in the emerging Christian movement. Whether you define the movement as "heretical" or not is a secondary issue, so of course the secondary issue becomes your main point of diversion. I actually expected the diversion, since it is so non-relevant to the actual discussion.

The New Testament is a powerful evidence as well for this Jewish antipathy to the Messianic movement, as would be immediately accepted by real historians like David Flusser and even Lawrence Schiffman (based on how I have heard him speak about the Sanhedrin trial). And we have the early church writers.

As usual, your posts are simply nonsense Sauron. You simply want to make a fiat declaration that there was Jewish disinterest in the Messianic movement against a mountain of diverse evidences.

Who are your historian references for this supposed disinterest ?
Earl Doherty ?

How quickly would jumping-jack third parties here be all over a Christian making such an unsupported pseudo-scholarly assertion. Claiming Jewish disinterest in the early centuries to the Christian movement without even a decent scholarly reference.

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
Junque like this is a perfect example of why IIDB is in many cases time-wasting, simply a skeptic/mythicist playground of non-scholarship and muddy thinking.

Jack the Bodiless

Wow, what a derail!

This thread is about Pre-Christian Jewish scholars interpretation of Isaiah 7:14.

We got on to the subject of the "argument from silence" because of Clouseau's assertion that 1st-century Jews were unable to refute Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14.

Now, praxeus, if you have any 1st-century Jewish critiques of Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, I'm sure we'd all be fascinated to hear them! Please provide some quotes!

Clouseau

A criminal who comes up with an excuse after he's had time to think one up goes to jail.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, it does appear that you're trying to re-write the thread again. Did you forget that we won and you lost (on multiple counts)?
Well, actually, we're still waiting for you to "think up" your excuse for trying to argue that the Jews of Jesus' time "couldn't refute" a book that had yet to be written. You want to go to jail when you've thought of one?

You're still not making much sense. Though your choice of handle is appropriate.

Sauron

No, it's exactly on point.

Because your statement doesn't answer the three items I asked for. Once again, for your benefit, you need to show that:

1. the Jews had a "strong interest" in refuting christianity;
2. the Jews cared enough that they would go to the trouble to directly confront christians whom they believed were twisting OT scripture to support their messianic beliefs;

And as a corollary:

3. that there was a huge amount of interest on the part of Jews in the 1st century on this topic, or about christians in general.

Except that he is not doing any such thing.

1. The reaction was not "major" (see #1 on my list);
2. The reaction does not show Jews trying to confront christians on twisting OT scripture (see #2 on my list);
3. The reaction was targeted against a fringe group inside Palestine, when the majority of Christians were outside Palestine in the wider Roman Empire
4. The reaction does not show a huge amount of interest on the part of 1st century Jews on this topic (confronting christians, or christians in general), my item #3


No, my major point - as I have stressed three times now - is contained in items #1, #2 and #3, which you have consistently failed to address.

No, it isn't. Circular referencing the NT to prove a claim found in the NT won't work, prax. Never has.

As usual, my posts make you uncomfortable, as evidenced by your inability to respond to them.

JoeWallack

JW:
The most determined try I've seen by Christian Bible scholarship to find support in Judaism for the Virgin Birth is Roger David Aus' Matthew 1-2 and the Virginal Conception. Aus' argument reminds me of a game of Leapfrog.

His Hypothesis is that the story of the Virgin Birth of Jesus was modeled after Jewish Legends of the miraculous birth of Moses. A summary of his Leapfrog argument is as follows:

1) Hellenistic Judaism had a Legend of some Matriarchs having Virgin Births.

2) Hellenistic Judaism had a Legend of Moses' mother having Virginity restored.

3) 1) is combined with 2) to imply that Hellenistic Judaism had a Legend of the Virgin Birth of Moses even though this can not Explicitly be found.

4) "Matthew" lived in a combined Hellenistic and Palestinian Jewish community and used 3) as a model for Jesus' Virgin Birth.

To his credit Aus is clear that he thinks Hellenistic Judaism understood the above Jewish birth Legends as Figurative. He also implies that he thinks "Matthew's" understanding of Jesus' "Virgin Birth" was figurative as well.

In addition to the Leapfrogging above Aus has two huge problems with his reasoning:

1) He relies mainly on Philo to define "Hellenistic Judaism" here and a complete reading of the relevant Philo makes it doubtful that Philo was aware of any Legend with a common and ordinary sense of a Virgin Birth of any Jewish figure.

2) The evidence indicates that the original "Matthew" had no Virgin Birth.

Regarding Isaiah 7:14, which Aus discusses, Aus does not indicate that he is aware of any support in Jewish writings for a Virgin Birth interpretation there.

Traditionally, the Star of Judaism was Moses and "Matthew" saw a major problem with his Source "Mark" in that the primary Jesus comparison was with Elijah. "Matthew" corrected the comparison to Moses, including the Infancy Narrative.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page