RyanS2

Indeed they are. Of course, some prophecies are so obscure in their rendering that you can literally "make the equation fit the math" instead of vice versa.

MetaCrock, the post wasn't aimed nor targeted at you or your beliefs. I was wondering what Apikorus take on it was. For instance,

"O yea right, they dont' have any motive to say that do they?"

And the Jews you are quoting didn't? Jews were undergoing some rather harsh racial discrimination at this point, and to deny Yeshua, the beloved of the American people, would have been nothing short of cultural suicide.

"That really shows your ignorance!"

Umm... Meta, take your medication, go get your degree from high school, and then re-read what I wrote. The very first thing I wrote was that I WAS NOT THE ONE SAYING THIS!!!! When you talk of sloppy pseudo-scholarship, constantly badgering me over something I state I didn't say is a bit weird. Of course, it also shows how weak the beliefs in your saviour guy are. (Ad hominem is the result of someone who doesn't have a better argument.)

Again, on the original question, Apikorus, what is your take on it?

Jayhawker Soule

First, an admission: I am not a biblical scholar; I neither speak nor read Hebrew; I even have trouble with old english. So, please forgive the questions.

Regarding Isaiah ...

Is the following a reasonably good quote of Isaiah 7:14?

Is the following an accurate transliteration?

Is it accurate that "harah" denotes is past tense, i.e., conceived?

Finally, speaking of tense, and speaking to those who see 7:14 as foretelling Jesus, why offer Ahaz a sign that would not occur until long after his death?

Regarding Apikorus v Metacrock:

Meta, what specifically are you attacking as "Not true"? Also, what is your position on Isaiah 7:14? And, what is the relevance of "Gensis [sic] (maybe) 3"?

Really? You seem to be suggesting that neither term implies virgin. This, in turn, would suggest that neither term should be translated as "parthenos". I would be interested in seeing this substantiated, i.e., in seeing your references maintaining that (a) the two terms are synonomous, and that (b) neither term possesses a sexual connotation.

Also, would you please direct me to the source material concerning tombs where wives with children are referred to as Bethulah?

This seems a little strange. One might similarly argue that almah could imply brunette because a young woman in that context can be brunette.

Apikorus

Ryan, I apologize for being late in responding to your question. The chabad (Lubavitch) source you quoted certainly presents a coherent argument, and one which is compelling to many religious Jews.

The inescapable fact which Metacrock and his ilk cannot explain away is that the rabbis knew of all the Christian claims regarding Jesus - at times they were invited to acknowledge their correctness under penalty of persecution or death - yet they still rejected them. This is because Jesus failed to satisfy many of the most basic requirements of Jewish messianic belief: that messiah must rebuild the Temple, that messiah must gather in the exiles, that messiah must accomplish these tasks and redeem the world prior to his death, etc.

There's a story of how rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, a major Orthodox scholar and first president of Yeshiva University, had listened quietly on a train to a missionary arguing with a yeshiva bochur (a yeshiva student) about the issue of messiah. The missionary attacked his opponent by ridiculing the revered Jewish sage rabbi Akiva, who famously held that bar Kokhba was the messiah. A little while later came the rav's stop. He leaned over to the missionary and gently asked him, "how do you know that bar Kokhba was not the messiah?" "Because he died without bringing redemption to the world," came the answer. With a knowing smile, Rav Soloveitchik slowly nodded his head in assent, and then departed.

At this point, Metacrock will likely be unable to restrain himself from regurgitating various quotes from Miller and/or Edersheim purporting to demonstrate that these requirements were not hard and fast. I.e. that messiah could die before completing his mission and be resurrected, that he could be divine, etc. Metacrock's problem here is that he himself is appallingly ignorant of the rabbinic literature. He reads hardly a word of Hebrew, and his Aramaic is as excellent as his Hebrew. So he is fettered by his slavish adherence to secondary sources - in particular the 19th century work by Edersheim, who was a bona fide scholar, but who was a convert to Christianity and whose agenda clearly extended well beyond dispassionate scholarship. This is why most serious modern scholars of Jewish messianism don't so much as cite Edersheim's work. Those who do, such as Raymond Brown, generally only cite it for his examples, rather than his (laughably tendentious) explanations. At any rate, Metacrock is only seeing a very small part of the picture - the Talmud is vast, as is Jewish messianic thought - and only the part he likes to see. The fact of the matter is, again, that none of the rabbinic sources he or Edersheim quotes says that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah. Indeed they all deny it! The traditional Christian response is to view this as some sort of massive conspiracy orchestrated by the rabbis, or else as the result of a divine punishment - a "veil" placed over the eyes of the Jews, who could not see Jesus in their scriptures when he's clearly there in every verse. FOr instance, take that reference to Eve's "seed" in Genesis 3:15. I mean, clearly that must refer to Jesus! What else could it possibly be? An aetiological myth explaining why humans fear snakes and why snakes slither on the ground? Don't be silly!

Incidentally, at the moment there exists a fascinating schism in the Lubavitch community, wherein a small but vocal subset has by acclamation apparently deemed the former Lubavitcher rebbe (Menahem Mendel Schneerson, 1902-1994) the messiah. A dead messiah! Some say the rebbe is not really dead, but is in fact in a place of concealment, and that he will return soon. (Now where have we heard this before?) Some say that he will be resurrected and complete his mission, and cite rabbinic texts which support the notion of a dying and resurrected messiah. For example, some rabbinic writings identify king David as the messiah. Do they mean to say that David himself would be resurrected and fulfill the messianic role? Perhaps just a teeny bit they do! (Of course, these texts are few and exceedingly far between. Thus, belief in a dying and rising messiah is an extreme minority view within Judaism. No less an authority than the Rambam emphatically excluded such a possibility.)

Some of these extreme messianist Lubavitchers go beyond assigning mere messianic attributes to the dead rebbe. They even assign him divine attributes. They deform a famous messianic acclamation and apply it to the rebbe: yechi adoneinu moreinu v'boreinu melekh hamashiach l'olam voed - "may our master, teacher, and creator the king messiah live forever and ever!" (The traditional acclamation has v'rabbeinu - "our rabbi" - where these folks substitute v'boreinu.)

This is all fascinating and somewhat scandalous stuff! In fact, there is a new book out by an Orthodox Jewish professor of history at Brooklyn College named <a href="http://www.jewsweek.com/aande/067.htm" target="_blank">David Berger</a> who has written a polemic in book form entitled "The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference". If you don't know much about the world of Orthodox Judaism (e.g. if terms like the "Council of Torah Sages" don't mean something very definite to you), then don't bother buying the book. But you can probably get a fair sense of the conflict by surfing the web, or reading the brief interview I linked.

Incidentally, Metacrock, there are many reasons why Menahem Mendel Schneerson is a far better candidate for messiah than was Jesus!

By and large such extreme messianism within Lubavitch is marginalized, and Berger seems to be a bit of an alarmist. But for an apikorus such as myself this all makes for some moderately fascinating bedtime reading.

There's a joke which goes like this:

Q: What religion is closest to Judaism?

A: Chabad.

In fairness, though, and in part to answer Metacrock's (probably rhetorical) question of what other Jews think of Lubavitch, my impression is that most are of two minds. One outstanding and extremely positive aspect to Chabad is that they welcome absolutely everyone, no matter what their level of Jewish observance. The mission of Chabad is to infuse Jews the world over with the passion of hasidism, and they are incredibly effective. There's another joke that goes like this: We don't know if there is intelligent life on Neptune, but if there is, surely Chabad is there. Chabad has insinuated itself around the globe. They're in major cities, in small towns, on college campuses, Europe, Israel, the former Soviet Union - everywhere! Chabad rabbis are as a rule quite nonjudgemental; I am genuinely fond of my rabbi and I consider him to be a person of rare kindness and generosity.

Another important aspect to the Lubavitchers, as opposed to, say the Satmar or Breslover Hasidim, is that Chabad does not isolate always itself the way these other groups do, within insular communities. Chabadniks quite often are fully functioning members of pluralistic American society. It certainly is true that some Chabad communities are insular, but in general Chabad's mission (often attributed to the vision of the rebbe himself) has been one of reaching out, rather than of looking inward.

Hasidim have in general revered their rabbis. The Mitnagdim - the historical opponents of the Hasidim - didn't engage in the same sort of adulation. Perhaps more accurately, the Mitdagdim tended to revere their rabbis (the parade example being the Vilna Gaon) for their intellectual prowess. The Hasidim, on the other hand, took a more mystical attitude. To get a flavor of how the Hasidim regard their rabbis (the parade example being the Baal Shem Tov), I'd recommend reading stories from Martin Buber's delightful book, "Tales of the Hasidim". During the past 100 years or so, the fissure between these two Orthodox groups has narrowed somewhat, but there remains a distinct mystical reverence for hasidic rabbis which you don't find among other non-Hasidic Orthodox Jews.

Many Jews - particularly the more weakly religious ones (e.g. Reform, Reconstructionist) regard mystical rabbi worship as somewhat meshugge. And the extreme messianic element within Lubavitch, generally concentrated at the Mother Ship at 770 Eastern Parkway, but also strongly at Kfar Chabad in Israel, has provoked considerable alarm.

While there is a general suspicion that the extreme messianic chabadniks are all meshugge, the tendency thus far has been to say that at least they're our meshugges, and perhaps things will turn out for the best. (This attitude is precisely what David Berger characterizes as the "scandal of Orthodox indifference".)

This must all be quite the painful realization to many messianic Jews who profess faith in Jesus as the messiah. Even Jewish atheists like me are not so completely rejected. Messianic Jewish Christians are quite often ostracized and reviled as traitors. Virtually no Jewish rabbis will serve on ecumenical councils with messianics. Organizations like "Jews for Jesus" are despised and are the focus of "countermissionary" efforts by Jews for Judaism, Outreach Judaism, Yad L'Achim, etc. Why the asymmetry? It hardly seems fair!

The answer, I suspect, has to do with the fact that Christianity has historically been the cultural matrix within which Judaism functioned as an isolated and often persecuted entity. Though most modern Christians like Metacrock harbor no ill will toward Jews (I believe Metacrock is a self-important fool, but the thought that he might be an antisemite has never so much as crossed my mind), the historical context can never be erased. And that context includes century after century of vicious persecution of Jews at the hands of Christians. The topic of Christian antisemitism is perhaps best avoided here - it would make for an interesting independent thread, but it is entirely beside the point of this thread. But it does bear crucially on the issue of why messianic Jewish Christians are ostracized from the larger Jewish community.

Our Jewish ancestors included rabbis who labored to preserve our texts and traditions. The Tannaim and Amoraim created the Mishnah and the Talmuds - the latter a vast colloquy of Jewish thought extending across centuries and across countries from Palestine to Persia. The Masoretes preserved the Hebrew Bible with such meticulous devotion that there are barely two hundred exceedingly minor discrepancies - almost all in spacing and vowel pointing as opposed to the consonantal text itself - between the Leningrad Codex of the Hebrew Bible of 1008 CE and the Second Rabbinic Bible of Bomberg and ben Chayyim of 1524. The medieval rabbonim - Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam, Maimonides, Nachmanides, et al. wrote extensive discourses on Jewish law, defended Judaism against allegations of heresy in disputations with Christian authorities when the Talmud was under threat of being burned, etc. etc. etc. For 2000 years our ancestors have labored across the globe to preserve Judaism despite overwhelming external pressures. (Hence the blueprint to virtually every Jewish festival, major or minor: (a) They tried to kill us. (b) We won. (c) Let's eat!) To reject all this in favor of modern scientific rationalism, as I do, is one thing. But to reject it and profess religious faith in Jesus is a bit like a Red Sox fan in Boston declaring his undying admiration for and devotion to the New York Yankees. The Yankees have enough fans (I'm one of them!).

I think most humans have a visceral psychological reaction to betrayal, and Jewish Christians tend to be viewed as having betrayed their own people. The fact that Christians have historically persecuted Jews just makes it that much worse. Still, at some level I recognize all this as a bit tragic; many messianic Jewish communities are honestly dedicated to pursuing a relationship with God as well as in perpetuating their (now often syncretized) authentic Jewish traditions. But "normative Judaism" has always railed against what it perceives as aberrant worship - if you have any doubt this is true just read the frikkin' Bible! - and to embrace Jewish Christianity would be to accept a cancer into Judaism (given the overwhelming dominance of Christianity in the West). So Jewish Christians will continue to be ostracized and reviled.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Metacrock, when you reply to this, we expect there will be no more usages like "idiot" and "yutz." We also expect there to be something substantive in your reply. Listing Jews who think Jesus is a neat guy is not proof of anything. One can hold a high opinion of Jesus without believing he was the Jewish messiah; many people do.

Michael
Administrator

Apikorus

Oh rats. Does this mean I must exclude "frikkin' moron" from my rhetorical vocabulary? In my defense I will say that I tend to apply it in a nonspecific sense, as in "you've got to be a frikkin' moron to believe X". (Usually where X is, coincidentally, a position advocated by Metacrock.)

Really I don't mind being called a yutz or an idiot or even worse (though I claim exclusive rights to the term "frikkin' moron"), especially when it comes from the likes of Metacrock.

But you da man, Michael. I will bend over for my spanking if and when necessary! I understand there is a benefit to keeping the discussions from getting too out of hand. Cheers.

For the record, I think that Jesus probably was a real sweetheart. You can put that on your web pages, Metacrock!

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Haran

However, during Moses' time, the Israelites had prophecies and revelations from Moses and apparently still didn't comprehend, judging by their many mistakes... Isn't it just possible that the Rabbis knew of these prophecies, but incorrectly understood them? Yet again in the Bible, God used the unexpected, Jesus, just as he used unexpected, stuttering Moses?

Earlier, I think you used an example of Exodus 28? to show that you could just make up a prophecy. Forgive me if I'm off-base, I don't feel like going back and looking it up... Anyway, what I'm curious about is if it was considered prophecy by the Jews of Jesus time as some of the other verses under discussion were?

Thanks,
Haran

Apikorus

Haran, if you believe in magic, sure!

But allow me to turn your question on its ear: Isn't it possible that the rabbis were right and Jesus wasn't the messiah?

Nomad

Oh my... have I just stumbled into the Jews for Judaism site or what? Since Apikorus is a self proclaimed atheist, however, I already know what he thinks of the rabbis (i.e. not much), but in order to rattle some Christian cages he seems intent on spouting the party line.

Let's see what he's got.

Rule number one of extremism goes something like this: take no prisoners, concede no ground, allow no ambiguity, and assert with conviction.

There is not one prophecy in the ENTIRE Hebrew Bible that points to Jesus even in the smallest degree. (Well, actually it does, but only bad stuff like what Apikorus is going to point out in Ezekiel, but why not argue all sides, so long as it looks damaging to the enemy, right?

I don't think Apikorus believes the above statement, and in other posts he does qualify it and say that there is "precious little" about Jesus in Hebrew Scriptures, so I am going to assume that he is just funnin' us here.

Here is our first interesting claim, because it is based upon a presupposition. Basically, the argument that will be made here is that there is only one legitimate meaning to what the Scripture says in a given passage, and what we can know with certainty is that it definitely did NOT point in any way, shape or form to what Christians think it means.

Now that we have established Apikorus' modus operendi, we can proceed further.

Okie doke, this is probably the biggest hobby horse in the Jewish anti-missionary lexicon. Nothing gets these guys lathered up faster than hearing a Christian (especially if he/she is an apologist or missionary) say the words... "Isaiah 7:14." The next best thing a Christian can say is "almah", and trust me on this one, as soon as he/she does, stand back and watch the fireworks.

Rather than beat this dead horse, I will give my own position, then offer some interesting thoughts from another scholar, who happens to be a Jew, and a rather famous researcher into the historical Jesus.

My view: Matthew was the first person we know of that connected the belief in Jesus' virgin conception to Isaiah 7:14. Luke either did not know about it, or rejected the connection. In any case, neither man created the story of the virgin conception, as each recorded the belief independently of one another, and the chances that they did so coincidentally is close to zero. Do I think that Matthew's exegesis of this passage has merit? Yes. Is it critical? No. He may even be mistaken, and it certainly has an apologetic purpose. Now you all know why I almost never debate it any longer. It doesn't seem to matter much except to die hard Jewish missionaries (and their counterparts on the Christian fundamentalist side) anyway. Nuff said here.

On the other hand, in a recent discussion I had with Mahlon Smith, a Jewish scholar, and member of the famous Jesus Seminar, he made a startling claim. I will quote directly from his post, offer some insights into what it means if he is right, then give my view of his opinion.

From <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/8759" target="_blank">Mahlon Smith on the Infancy Narratives</a>:

Now, this last statement was so astonishing in my view, that I actually questioned Dr. Smith directly on his claim <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/8778" target="_blank">here</a>. After all, if two different 1st Century men, writing independently of one another could, and DID understand Isaiah 7:14 to be talking about a virgin conception for the future Messiah, then this is very big news. It means, very simply, that this Christian 1st Century understanding of the LXX's Isaiah 7:14 was not only reasonable, but could actually be assumed by one of them, namely Luke. What this means is that later Jewish apologetics that removed the LXX translation, and henceforth denied the legitimacy of understanding Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy of a future virgin conception of the Messiah is mere polemic! I have yet to be convinced that Luke thought of Isaiah 7:14 in this fashion, and told Dr. Smith so, but if he is correct, then there is no reason to accept 3rd Century rabbinical statements, and retranslations of the Greek Scriptures as being legitimate. Quite simply, they would represent nothing more than anti-Christian apologetics, and one would be forced to wonder why a true sceptic would find such a thing any more legitimate than Christian apologetics. Best case, one would have to choose to be agnostic as to which argument was more reasonable, especially regarding what people believed back in the 1st Century when Luke and Matthew were composing their gospels.

Even without Smith's statements above, I would tread carefully before saying that a post Christian NT Jewish translation is any more legitimate than is the LXX itself. Suffice to say, the LXX, Matthew and Luke all use the word PARTHENOS, and in context, the word can be understood to mean "virgin", and the LXX was written long before Jesus, Matt or Luke ever showed up on the scene.

As with many things, matters are rarely so cut and dried as it may appear. Does Isaiah 7 have only one possible meaning, and no other? Perhaps. Could a later midrash be applied to it, for example? Perhaps not. What is certain, of course, is that there was no child named Immanuel who lived at the time of Isaiah or the Syro-Ephraimite war. This presents few problems for Apikorus, as he does not think that any real prophecy took place here at all. But for the observant Jew, Isaiah is a true prophet, and therefore all of his prophecies must be legitimate. If this person wishes to reject the Christian understanding, then so be it, but he is then required to offer his own interpretation. Interestingly, I have yet to see a religious Jew do this.

Well, since Apikorus admits to mere mischief making here, I am going to skip over much of this section. I will, however, pause at a couple of the more interesting assertions.

This one almost certainly came from Jews for Judaism, or an affiliate. As I dealt with this on the thread, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000194&p=" target="_blank">Genealogies Revisited</a> a year ago, I will invite readers to see that thread for the rebuttal to the “Curse of Jehoiakim” argument. Again, I know Apikorus won’t be bothered by the arguments either way, as he considers Jeremiah’s prophecy on Jehoiakim to be bunk, but later rabbinical tradition does seem to show that Jehoiakim was rehabilitated, and the prophecy cancelled at a later date. Best case, for Apikorus and other sceptics is to point to this one as a contradiction of some sort. What it is not, however, is faulty exegesis by later Christians against what the rabbis say themselves.

And here the entire argument that Jesus was never buried in a tomb has been completely debunked. See <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000195&p=" target="_blank">Jesus Christ: Worth Burying in a Tomb?</a>. I am not sure if Apikorus wishes to argue the point, so I will leave it for now.

Done already?

Now, on a more serious note, I do not expect non-Christians to accept Christian exegesis of the OT Scriptures, or even of NT Scriptures for that matter. I do, however, expect them to respond to actual Christian arguments, and show why our specific hermeneutical approach is flawed, and with examples, hopefully better than an old saw like Isaiah 7:14. If Jesus had failed to fulfill even one single possible prophecy (please note again the extremism of this position), then it must be one of the great miracles of human history that the ONLY Messianic claim in all of Jewish history that has had any kind of staying power failed so miserably on this crucial front. To paraphrase what G.K. Chesteron once said regarding Christianity being wrong about every single thing it ever claimed in its entire 1900 year existence, “that is no small achievement!”

So, is there a serious point to this thread, or were you just hoping to yank some Christian chains Apikorus? And if you do have a serious point to make, please make and defend arguments you happen to believe yourself. Those I promise to take seriously.

Nomad

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>

Haran

If, by "magic", you are referring to the supernatural, then sure! I also have no problem with the possibility of God working through natural phenomenon.

Why the rhetoric? Not sure why you think you turned my question on its ear even so... After all, remember this?

Mark 8:27-29
27. Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"
28. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.
29. "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

Me? I answer like Peter:

Peter answered, "You are the Christ."

The only reason I responded to your earlier was to show you the possibility that you seemed to be overlooking, or at least not presenting. (...Because you don't believe in "magic"?)

Ani Yodea...
Haran

RyanS2

"Matthew was the first person we know of that connected the belief in Jesus' virgin conception to Isaiah 7:14. Luke either did not know about it, or rejected the connection. In any case, neither man created the story of the virgin conception, as each recorded the belief independently of one another, and the chances that they did so coincidentally is close to zero."

I read this and I say, "HUH?" The Gospel of Q remember? Matthew borrows 90% of his writings, almost verbatum, from Mark, and Luke borrows 50% from Mark. Hardly independant of each other. Other theories are that Mark and Luke borrowed from Matthew as the primary source, while others have the "Gospel of Q", because maybe they weren't using Mark/Matthew, but an independant source which Mark/Matthew was copying. Even St. Jerome noted that Luke was made by anonymous other disciples because of this.