Metacrock

</strong>


Meta =&gt; Darn and just when I thought we were making headway. I am sorry about that. I didn't mean to imply that you were an anti-missionary. I understand what they are (fundies basically) and what you are (athiest) so I did not mean to imply that. Perhaps I argue with them too much, and I failed to distinguish, this was an oversight, it was not an intensional ploy; it also wasn't a mistake in understanding because I figured you couldn't be one and be an atheist.

Meta =&gt;Which one's?

Meta =&gt; Ok now why do you think I am "exceedingly prideful" of my site? just because I linked to it? I lined to it because I had the material availble to do so. Why does that make me prideful? Now why do you think that I think that having a site makes me a scholar? What makes a shcolar is the fact that I am a Ph.D. candidate who has finnished all course work and has only dissertation left to finnish, that I pubish academic journals and go to conferences and I publish an academic journal. I'm a Ph.D candidate at a branch of the University of Texas in history of ideas(that is what makes one a scholar I'm sure you don't know eough about academic life to realize that but that is basically it, that's a scholar does in the professional sense). I said this wasn't my field.

If you don't believe me you can ask Bill Senden as I have asked him to email my committee chairman so if he does than he should know that I speak the truth and he can confirm it. I also asked James Still to do likewise so you can ask him too.

BTW I'd like to know what your credentials are. So you speak Hebrew? Long shoremen on the docks in Israel speak Hebrew. What makes you a scholar?



Meta =&gt; Well you can suspect anything you want to. I know that is full of shit. I doubt that you have even been to graduate shcool. you probably woulnd't know Paul Tillich form a hole in the ground and I have no respect for you at all. I don't consider you a thinker and I don't consider you very knowledgeable. I have yet to see you say anything on this topic that is not triete and I haven't bashed the Singer guys for over one hundred times. In fact compared to them I would say that your level knowldge is medicore.



Meta =&gt; Yea right, the magic of our own weltonshung. You can't speak of our stuff, that's ours. Oooo you have to study it for years before you can quote one passage...yea like you have sure! But that's crap. I can at least study the people who study it and repeat what they tell me. And when I do you just ignore them.

Metacrock!), you've no credibility at all.


meta =&gt;you think you have any credibility with me? You are strictly an amature hack with delusions of historicism. You have no concept of history is about, you have no concept of academic work of scholarship or any of the things you pretend to. You can play the magic knolwedge card all you want to that doens't cut it.



Meta =&gt; The reason I said that, is because if I don't make such disclaimers then people just dismiss it as cut and paste. Some have even gone so far as to deny that it's my website. See nothing i do can ever work because anything I say is automatically caste in the wrong light because I'm evil because I'm a christian so everything I say is wrong. if I don't defned it than its cut and paste. If I try to emphasize the work I did (which gives me a right to quote it) than I'm bragging and trying to imply that it must be so good because I worked on it. So no matter what I say it's just gonna be wrong anyway and you will never listen and you will never debate fairly.


You can make me go away in frustration, but you will never be able to win fiarly in an open debate. You can win by shouting me down and motivating the rabble to hate me, but that's because you know you could never go toe to toe in a fair debate on the shcolarship. Hey, why don't you just insult my spelling? Better yet, I'll send you a picture and you can laugh at my looks. they did that on here once too, atheists are so mature, so intelligent! why don't you question parantage?



Meta =&gt; What difference does it make, if I read it it must be wrong.

Meta =&gt;You are incapable of a fair discussion. I sincerely hope there is a hell for you to go to.

Metacrock

Why? I didn't do anything. he starte insulting me you jackass!@ you really thin that having your integrity and your place in shcool and the academic life you poured yourself into cultivating for years denied with no proof merely becasue you disagree with people shouldn't evoke some sort of anger in one? What a child. What fools you all are.

I will say it again. I used to care about people going to heaven, I don't care now.

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;Everything I say on this board is turned into the opppossite of its meaning or contrued in the worst possilbe light. how do I know if you are not going to respond in the same way. That's why I would despirate to get yout o focuss on what i was saying. I can see now how it sounded condecending.. Ok but I can't wait to see how you are going to turn that into some kind of terrbile insult.

You want to be insulted you will be insulted. You want that I am an evil peice of shit with no good will and everything I say is bad, so there is no way that it wont be that way, because if that's what you want you will see it that way.

Meta =&gt;So because I think my points are being ignored and my words are being twisted then that means that I want to be the center of attention (and of course you don't that's why you are posting in message boards becasue you are content to be ignored and not express your views). So whatever i say it's just wrong,and whatever I do it's just from the worst motive and that the way it's gonna be and it doesn't matter how I try to avoid it that's just he way its gonna be. So what's the point of trying to talk about anything.

you want to be right be right! fine I dont' care.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is that the expectations about Messiah were already fixed, they were extended by the chruch, they weren't made up originally by the chruch. The expectations were barrowed from the community of Jews out of which the early chruch came. So they took things Rabbis already said about these passages and applied them to Jesus. Now maybe they were wrong, maybe their assumptions can't be proven, but they did not make them up! The Jews already expected that Messiah would have a connection of some kind to Is 7:14! The early chruch did not invient that connection. That's all I'm saying!

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

OK. You may well be exactly correct. Permit me, then, two sets of questions:

Meta =&gt;no I can't be correct I'm evil remember? Everything I say is a lie and I have no good motives, I wasn't born of woman, I'm a peice of shit who crawled up out of the fundamentalist gutter to inflict pain on innocent atheists and everything I say has the worst possilbe motive. So I can't be right about anything.


You say that The Jews already expected that Messiah would have a connection of some kind to Is 7:14. Upon what is this assertion based? Furthermore, are you talking about "The Jews" in general, or some Jews and, if so, who?
Referring to the church, you say maybe they were wrong, maybe their assumptions can't be proven, but they did not make them up! I know what you don't think, but I still don't know what you do think. Do you believe that their assumptions are correct, incorrect, or unproven?

Who cares? None of you care so what?

Apikorus

You can make me go away in frustration, but you will never be able to win fiarly in an open debate. You can win by shouting me down and motivating the rabble to hate me, but that's because you know you could never go toe to toe in a fair debate on the shcolarship. Hey, why don't you just insult my spelling? Better yet, I'll send you a picture and you can laugh at my looks. they did that on here once too, atheists are so mature, so intelligent! why don't you question parantage?

Metacrock, get a hold of yourself - you are overwrought! I assure you, I haven't the capacity to "shout you down", and I certainly haven't "motivated the rabble to hate" you (I think they hated you before I started).

You are indeed right that longshoremen on the docks of Haifa speak and read Hebrew. That would mean that they are more capable of reading Tanakh and various rabbinic writings than are you.

I don't consider you a thinker and I don't consider you very knowledgeable.

I am wounded, Metacrock! Nay, devastated!

Look, I find it nearly impossible to have a sensible discussion with you about Judaism. Here's an example of why. Regarding the possibility of a dying and rising Jewish messiah, you asked, "why would they even say that if there is no hermeneutical basis for resurrection in Judaism?" Whoever said there was no basis for resurrection in Judaism? I've been going to an Orthodox synagogue for many years, Metacrock. During the amidah we all say a little prayer (it's in the second of the shemonah esrei): barukh ata adonai m'chayei hameitim - "blessed are you YHWH who gives life to the dead". (Well, generally I am reading Tanakh during the amidah, but I'm after all an apikorus. But I hear the chazzan loud and clear, and I just know they say it! Have you ever been inside a synagogue, Metacrock?) So a benediction explicitly mentioning resurrection of the dead is part of the frikkin' amidah.

Resurrection of the dead has been part of Jewish belief for millennia, probably dating back to the Persian period. (Many scholars suspect this weird concept came in via cross-fertilization from the Zoroastrians.) So anyone who has ever skimmed the siddur knows that Judaism holds in resurrection of the dead (through YHWH, of course). For you to even ask the question betrays considerable ignorance of a subject on which you presume to speak authoritatively. It is laughable!

The issue is not whether resurrection per se is part of Jewish belief - clearly it is - but rather whether Judaism allows for the notion of a dying and resurrected messiah. And the answer to that question is a very strong, but nevertheless qualified NO! It is hard to get more kosher than the Rambam, Metacrock, and in his Mishneh Torah (in Hilkhot Melakhim) makes it clear that mashiach will not be killed in the midst of his redemptive mission. He must accomplish everything before dying.

What sort of texts to the Lubavitchers adduce in justifying the plausibility of a dying and resurrected messiah? Well, the biggie is from the eleventh pereq of massekhte sanhedrin in the bavli - but, hey - you probably knew that anyway! OK, as Warner Wolf would say, let's go to the videotape!

Rav said, 'if he (mashiach) is from the living, he is similar to rabbeinu hakadosh; if he is from the dead, he is similar to Daniel ish chamudot' (b. Sanhedrin 98b)

First a little quiz for you, Metacrock, scholar of the Talmud. Who is this Rav? Is he a Tanna? An Amora? From Babylon or from Palestine? And who is rabbeinu hakadosh? Consider it a homework problem.

OK, back to our text! It looks promising, doesn't it? I mean, the part where Rav says "...if he (messiah) is from the dead...". Now the English "similar to" is a translation of the Aramaic kegon. Let's ask the master Talmudic philologist Rashi what is going on. (Hey, Rashi, could you come over here a minute? Todah rabah!) Rashi explores two possible readings: (1) elide kagon and understand Rav to mean that if mashiach will be from among the living, then he will be rabbi Yehudah haNasi. (Oops! I let it slip out who rabbeinu hakadosh is! See - I'm such a nice fellow I am doing your homework for you, Metacrock! And you essentially told me to go to hell! Don't you feel ashamed?) The reasoning is that Yehudah haNasi was a tzaddik who incurred great suffering. And if mashiach is a dead person, he'll be Daniel, another suffering tzaddik. (Sorry if this doesn't square with your paranoid fantasies regarding Jews denying that messiah will suffer!)

Rashi's second interpretation utilizes kegon crucially. Now Rav is saying that if the model for mashiach is among the living then that model surely must be Yehuda haNasi. And if the model is among the dead, then it is Daniel.

Alas, Rashi doesn't say which reading is more preferable.

As I said, I would be happy to continue this discussion in a separate thread. I find Talmudic exegesis fascinating and it will give me ample reason to dig up even more of my daf yomi notes. Tennis anyone?

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Apikorus

Metacrock, I feel sort of bad that you are going to have a lousy weekend on my account. I'm sorry if you feel deflated and miserable. I'm sure you could run rings around me if we were discussing Tillich and Schleiermacher. (For starters, I've never read a word either has written.) But when it comes to ancient near east history, Hebrew Bible and the rabbinic literature, I think I've got quite a bit more in my tank than have you, and I think it should be obvious to anyone reading this thread. You may disagree, but I suggest if you had better command of this material (and better rhetorical skills) you wouldn't be throwing yourself a pity party at the moment.

You've got lots of ideas, and I wish you well in your Ph.D. studies. I applaud you for your efforts in publicizing your ideas on your web site. I think a little more humility, especially when arguing over issues where you have a shallow education, would become you. I suspect what irks people is that you presume to speak authoritatively when you should be more circumspect and self-critical.

I have never made fun of your spelling, nor would I make fun of your physical appearance or your biological ancestors. (Your intellectual ancestors, though...)

I presume that you regret publicly wishing that I will go to hell. I'll assume you apologize and we can leave it at that. Maybe it is time to close the thread.

-DM-

That, or words that mean the same, has become a Metacrock trademark.

Metacrock is truly a legend in his own mind.

--Don--

Haran

First, everybody CHILL!!! Two people are acting as if they have a corner on knowledge, but we all know better... Meta, I've heard, goes to Perkins Theol. at SMU, a well-respected school. Apikorus is obviously well-read himself, especially on Jewish matters. Perhaps both of you can see fit to tune the sarcasm and "I know better than you" tone down just a little for the rest of us? It's really quite annoying rather than impressive. We could all stand to learn a little more from each other and not beat each other over the head with how much we know. Thanks...

Serious question...But if you still go, why? Family? Just curious. Don't answer if you don't care to.

Apikorus, I believe that all the sources you quote from had plenty of time to develop their anti-Christian polemics. Mishnah - ~200A.D., Talmud - ~500A.D. Akiva & "Judah the Prince"(Yehudah HaNasi) were early, but still had time to modify their beliefs in the Messiah in reaction to Christianity. Maimonides(Rambam) & Rashi are Midieval.

I guess I don't understand why they are such a good authority on why Jesus shouldn't be considered Messiah... I personally think the fact that they knew many of the prophecies that were applied to Jesus very interesting.

Perhaps another thread would be good. I'm interested in hearing more and learning more about the Jewish sources.

BTW, since it is very hard to find the Mishneh or Talmuds online or in your local library, do you know of a good purchasable CD that contains it all? Preferably in English and Hebrew. I know Hebrew, but not well enough so that it doesn't hurt my head to sit down and try to read the whole Talmud in it...

The only website I know of is the following, but it is all in Hebrew:

<a href="http://www1.snunit.k12.il/kodesh/" target="_blank">Torah/TaNaKh/Mishnah/Talmuds (Yerushalmi & Bavli)</a>

Thanks,
Haran

Apikorus

Haran, if you read Hebrew, then you'll have to read the Talmud in translation, since the gemara is in Aramaic. There's a Hebrew translation of the Talmud available by Adin Steinsaltz. You can get the Soncino Talmud (English translation) on CDROM - it's put out by Davka Corporation.

Any decent university library will have an extensive Judaica section with many rabbinic texts - certainly the Talmud.

You seem to assume that anything the rabbis say is suspect and likely to be tendentiously anti-Christian. This is an extreme position to take and I'd invite you to defend using a more sound methodology than merely to assert that Jewish sages "had time to modify their beliefs". (Incidentally, I do not completely discount the possibility that such mischief did occur in isolated instances.)

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Haran

The only website I know of is the following, but it is all in Hebrew:

<a href="http://www1.snunit.k12.il/kodesh/" target="_blank">Torah/TaNaKh/Mishnah/Talmuds (Yerushalmi & Bavli)</a>

P.S. - Apik., when you quote from the Talmud, etc., would you mind putting a link to the appropriate place at the above website for reference? I and any others claiming to know even a little Hebrew would really appreciate it!

Thanks again,
Haran

(Edited for the stupidity in quoting my own previous msg instead of editing it. )

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Haran

Cool. Thanks. There are some libraries near me that have them, but I'm a "sefer-o-phile" so I'd like to have it at home. I have Neusner's translation of the Mishnah, but the translation is not very good English, IMHO.

Sorry. What kind of "methodology" would you like? If I go deeper it takes digging and time away from my reading (incidentally, The Text of the Old Testament by Ernst Wurthwein and Eusebius at the moment). I suppose that I just wanted you to acknowledge that the polemics are very possibly there. Why would the Jews not have reacted polemically to a man who was claimed to be their very own Messiah, especially if he seemed to fit many?/some?/a few? of the prophecies they knew? I imagine there may have been modification or reinterpretation of the prophecies after Simon Bar Kokhba as well, seeing that Akiva, himself, had made the "mistake" of believing him to be a Messiah.

I did understand your point about my assumptions that Rabbinic literature is somewhat "suspect", but I'm only being skeptical and attempting discernment like many here are with the Bible... I'm open to learning more about these sources, though, and don't really have as an "extreme" view of them as you may think from my posts.

Haran