arnoldo

The historical person of Jesus gave the Jewish writers of the NT (and Luke )this right. Vernad Eller writes in his book; War and Peace from Genesis to Revelation;

show_no_mercy

The Christian "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53 is basically a quote-mine, out of context bastardization of the entirety of deutero-Isaiah. 2nd Isaiah didn't write "chapters" so thinking that "chapter" 53 pertains specifically to Jesus is manipulating the writing to suit (Christian) agenda. Taking that "chapter" out of its context.

Deutero-Isaiah is one "chapter", where it's obvious that if you read deutero-Isaiah as one context, like it's supposed to be, the "suffering servant" is Israel; established in the "chapters" preceding 53.

Sheshbazzar

On what evidence are you making the claim that the writers of the NT were 'Jewish'?

ph2ter

To understand what Biblical writers really say and from where they arrived at their texts, one must take into account also the ancient mindset. That mindset was pervaded with mythology.
Transformation from polytheism to monotheism was not one time event. Popular culture of ancient Israelites continued to observe the old customs which it inherited from the distant past despite some public proclamation of monotheism. Old Biblical texts were censored or reinterpreted, but the old schema was preserved. Christians only recognized that old schema which was buried under the surface of flat and 1-dimensional reading. Such reading was in resonance with the dominant mindset of the Roman Empire which enabled Christianity to achieve such big success. I always find myself surprised after finding how similar were mythologies and cults of all Semitic and Indo-European peoples. At some point in history ancient Israelites made detachment from the common polytheistic tradition and deflected toward monotheism, but the common tradition still can be found inside the OT.
All the OT is about Israel as God's firstborn and beloved son. All the NT is about Jesus as God's firstborn and beloved son. All the ancient mythologies are about supreme god's firstborn and beloved son which is sacrificed. Original motivation for that theme is taken from the common tradition of all Semitic and Indo-European peoples. That common myth was not originally about Israel, but was about god's son. But also, in some sense also the Israelites were right, because every event among gods was projected into the human sphere. People made identifications with gods and imitated them when performing rituals and in formal social expressions. So, also the Israelites could make identification with god's beloved son. You understand that in doing that the Israelites took the common supreme god only for themselves, made themselves the only legal heir of him. Christians are the Jewish product and represent in some way the Jewish own correction of the 'injustice' which was made to the gentiles after making Yhwh to be the god only for the Jews.

semiopen

This is an interesting line.

semiopen

Almah is used as a respectful title for a young woman, maybe like Miss or the other suggestions I made. This term would probably not be used for a woman who had a child out of wedlock This dispute is mostly Jewish polemics, there are far more outrageous Jewish interpretations of the bible than this one, practically on every page of commentary.

I'm surprised nobody commented on the total crap in Rabbi Shraga Simmons quote. Using his logic (which is Classical Judaism) there never will be a messiah (which is true - why not just say that). Over the years, Jews have accepted many individuals as messiahs, orders of magnitude more dubious than the probably mythical Jesus. We're just masters at pretending that never happened.

show_no_mercy

Well all Jewish messiahs are modelled after the Biblical Joshua (read: Jesus in Greek!). Since Joshua was fictional, it generally does mean that their messiah will never come. Especially in the modern world, where monarchies aren't really how successful governments work.

semiopen

Not to mention the unlikelihood of making sacrifices at the 3rd Temple. Still there is a group of Israeli Kohanim that prepare for that.

Here's a list of false Jewish messiahs.

Jewish_Messiah_claimants

There is a tremendous amount of Classical Jewish animosity to Jesus, this is far beyond any rational explanation of his technical deficiencies and was evident well before any real issue with Christian anti-semitism. Note, Maimonides would say

Maimonides was not hassled by Christians, he lived his entire life in Muslim countries.

semiopen

I've asked forms of this question myself several times and haven't gotten any answers.

Currently he would be considered Jewish because his mother was Jewish. If he was the son of God, and descent was patrilineal, an argument could be made that that would make him Jewish. The tribal descent has always been from the father, so technically if God was the father, he wouldn't be a direct descendant of David.

There is a dubious NT geneology in Mathew showing his descent from David, but that is through Joseph. If Joseph isn't his biological father though, I don't see how direct descent can be claimed.

show_no_mercy

Well a huge religion sprouted up out of the premise that Jesus (or his followers) abrogated the Torah and worshipped a human being as god. How happy could Jews be about a religion of pure apostasy that claims to be the true version of Judaism?