Judaism

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Traditional anti-Semitism has to do with a deep-rooted problem in Christianity: the Jews rejected Jesus, plotted to kill him, and handed him over to the Romans.  Early Christians asked themselves, "If Jesus was the Son of God, the long-foretold Messiah, why would God's own Chosen People reject him?" 

well, if they were truly asking that question, they needed only to read their bibles for the answer:

Rom 11 "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! ...Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved."

So, God hardened the heart of the Jews thus leading to their rejection of Jesus, which enabled salvation to be preached to the Gentiles.  Once all the Gentiles who are to be saved are saved, then God will unharden the heart of the Jews so that they will then accept Jesus and thus salvation will come to Israel.

It can't get any more clear cut than that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"early Christians" didn't have a NT, jmf.

as if the Gospel can't be preached from the OT?!...if they didn't have Paul's letter to the Romans, they at least had the OT which was the basis for Paul's letter:  The story of Joseph takes up the last 15 chapters of Genesis...so the dude is quite important.

Where the sons of Jacob rejected by God because they rejected Joseph?  Not at all, rather it was because of their rejection that Joseph was sent to the Gentiles to provide salvation to the Gentiles, and, after he provided salvation to the Gentiles, he then also provided salvation to the sons of Jacob who had rejected him.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

you cited Romans...


and are you saying the Law of Moses was still valid in the interval between the death of Jesus and the compiling of the NT?

huh?!

yes, I cited Romans...and Romans cites the OT...and I stated that the Gospel can be preached out of the OT...

...all of which has nothing to do with the fact that the Law of Moses was superceded by the New Covenant at the moment of Christ's death upon the cross.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

my issue came from you citing a passage in the NT and saying that early Christians should have "read their bibles" when no such "bibles" existed at the time.  it's a slight inconsistency is all.  I'm not disputing the the fact that the NT is rooted in the OT.

ok, I intially didn't know how "early" you meant by "early Christians"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, I was 8 days old (as are most Jews upon a Bris) so dunno. I can tell you the perspective of someone watching a bris though. It's a pretty big event. A lot of ceremony, including the bringing in of the child by the godparents, blessings by the rabbi, the child gets some grape juice/wine. The circumcision itself is barely visible because of all the relatives surrounding the kid. The baby cries (duh!) and everyone celebrates.

And then we eat.

reminds me of:

Phil 3:4 If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

 7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Pressing on Toward the Goal
 12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

First a brief background. In order to convert, there must be an acceptance of the Jewish laws

1) repentance (to turn towards obedience to the word of God)

---

, a ritual cleansing (in the mikvah aka ritual bath)

2) baptism

---

, and a circumcision/blood-letting.

3) having the blood of Christ applied to your heart by the receiving of the Holy Spirit

---

Acts 2:36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

 37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

 38Peter replied, "1) Repent and be 2) baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. 3) And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Only thing is that Judaism came first...

Unless your point is that Jesus and the apostles were influenced by Judaism, which is likely because Jesus was a Jew and doubtlessly learned all of these ideas. While some may not have appealed to him, others are likely to have stuck.

have you been on Pluto the last 2000 years?  you seem totally unaware of the claims of Christianity.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Only thing is that Judaism came first...

Unless your point is that Jesus and the apostles were influenced by Judaism, which is likely because Jesus was a Jew and doubtlessly learned all of these ideas. While some may not have appealed to him, others are likely to have stuck.

have you been on Pluto the last 2000 years?  you seem totally unaware of the claims of Christianity.

Did Christianity come first? You'll have to explain.

Only thing is that Judaism came first...

i've never heard of a Christian teaching stating that the old testament was NOT written prior to the new testament

---

Unless your point is that Jesus and the apostles were influenced by Judaism, which is likely because Jesus was a Jew and doubtlessly learned all of these ideas. While some may not have appealed to him, others are likely to have stuck.

Christianity claims to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament, so OBVIOUSLY it is influenced and based upon the Old Testament. 

In fact, every New Testament doctrine I have read has its basis in the Old Testament.  So much so, I could use the Old Testament exclusively to preach Christianity, which is exactly what the Apostles did.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I was aware of all that. That's why I was curious why you were quoting the New Testament above. Was it to show that Judaism influenced Christianity? Or was there another point?

it was to show how Christianity fulfilled spiritually what the physical circumcision had foreshadowed.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I was aware of all that. That's why I was curious why you were quoting the New Testament above. Was it to show that Judaism influenced Christianity? Or was there another point?

it was to show how Christianity fulfilled spiritually what the physical circumcision had foreshadowed.

Oh, I thought we were discussing Judaism though, not how Christianity fulfills the commandments of Judaism. That could be a whole different thread.

If it's jmfcst, assume that any religious conversation is a lot more about Christianity than whatever is actually being discussed.

For you, that was a decent attempt at humor.  It might actually have been funny...

...except for the fact ALL the scriptural based portions of Judaism are about nothing but Christ.

John 5:39 "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I was aware of all that. That's why I was curious why you were quoting the New Testament above. Was it to show that Judaism influenced Christianity? Or was there another point?

it was to show how Christianity fulfilled spiritually what the physical circumcision had foreshadowed.

Oh, I thought we were discussing Judaism though, not how Christianity fulfills the commandments of Judaism. That could be a whole different thread.

If it's jmfcst, assume that any religious conversation is a lot more about Christianity than whatever is actually being discussed.

For you, that was a decent attempt at humor.  It might actually have been funny...

...except for the fact ALL the scriptural based portions of Judaism are about nothing but Christ.

John 5:39 "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me"

You're right!  Biblical scripture is much funnier.  Sincerest apologies.

relax, I wasn't saying you weren't funny, just that your humor isn't

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You know, we can go on with this repartee forever, but at the end you're still an old guy.

old?  ok, but I'm still cooler and better looking...and, I might add, the chicks dig me. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

John 5:39 "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me"

I really should call it a night, but...

jmfcst's argument, or, rather, Saint Paul's argument is that Jesus of Nazareth completed the Laws of Moses.... 

actually, Jesus used the argument long before Paul:

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

just like the quote from Jesus I previously listed:

John 5:39 "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I believe the mentions of Jesus in the Talmud, like when one of the rabbis (R' Gamliel for those wondering) turned Jesus away from the house of learning (Beit Midrash) as a heretic. He was actually scolded for being so intolerant of Jesus later on and not having a constructive debate with him.

Oh, what could have been.

Actually, R' Gamliel's best student went on to be the greatest advocate of Jesus' teachings.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I believe the mentions of Jesus in the Talmud, like when one of the rabbis (R' Gamliel for those wondering) turned Jesus away from the house of learning (Beit Midrash) as a heretic. He was actually scolded for being so intolerant of Jesus later on and not having a constructive debate with him.

Oh, what could have been.

Actually, R' Gamliel's best student went on to be the greatest advocate of Jesus' teachings.

Does not in any way contradict what I said though. That was likely part of the backlash. Many of those who felt that Gamliel was overly harsh to Jesus likely spread many of his teachings. What you said and what I said are not mutually exclusive at all. In fact, they are complementary in many ways.

This particular student of R' Gamliel was NOT part of any backlash, rather this particular student was Christianity's biggest enemy until Jesus stepped into his life one day and changed his whole destiny.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I believe the mentions of Jesus in the Talmud, like when one of the rabbis (R' Gamliel for those wondering) turned Jesus away from the house of learning (Beit Midrash) as a heretic. He was actually scolded for being so intolerant of Jesus later on and not having a constructive debate with him.

Oh, what could have been.

Actually, R' Gamliel's best student went on to be the greatest advocate of Jesus' teachings.

Does not in any way contradict what I said though. That was likely part of the backlash. Many of those who felt that Gamliel was overly harsh to Jesus likely spread many of his teachings. What you said and what I said are not mutually exclusive at all. In fact, they are complementary in many ways.

This particular student of R' Gamliel was NOT part of any backlash, rather this particular student was Christianity's biggest enemy until Jesus stepped into his life one day and changed his whole destiny.

Could you alliterate more clearly which student?

Saul of Tarsus, of the Tribe of Benjamin, student of Gamliel and better known as the Apostle Paul

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This is a copy of Xahar's thread on Islam.  Anyone who has any questions about Judaism is welcome to come here and ask questions, hopefully I'll have the answer or another fellow Jew will answer for me

How is the following prophecy, which combines the kingship and the priesthood under a single person, going to be fulfilled under the Law of Moses when Moses stated the king must be from the line of David and the priest from the line of Levi?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's actually not so simple it's talking about the Messiah. Rashi (the 'king' of Jewish commentators on the Bible and Talmud) and others bring two explanations for these verses. They say the simple way of understanding the prophecy is that it's talking about the second Temple, and referring to Zerubabel (sp?). However, they do also bring the way you've understood it, that it's referring to the Messiah.

This has nothing to do with your question, though. The answer to your problem is simple: Verse 13 is clearly speaking about two separate people, as can be seen from the last part of the verse 'between the two'. Your problem stems from the fact that the translation from the Hebrew you have is inexact. The correct translation of the part referring to the priest is "and the priest will be on his throne" - i.e. referring to a second person, and this explains the ending of the verse.
Basically, the earlier descriptions in the verse start off with "V'hu" which translates as "it is he" or "and he will". However the description about the priest starts off with "V'haya" which translates as "and there will be".

ok, accepting your translation for V'haya...and keeping with the Messiah timeframe...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

what is a priest doing sitting on a "throne"?  and why is a priest sitting on a throne being connectted with the Messiah?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Rashi explains the 'throne' here means the 'throne of the priestship' (i.e. it's referring to the high priest). This could be understood literally, but more likely means the "position", and not an actual throne. The prophecy is saying that the most powerful man after the king, which is the high priest will not fight with the Messiah, that there will be harmony between them.
Other early Jewish commentators (from 500+ years ago) explain that the translation here is not that the priest will sit 'on' his throne, but it means will sit 'in front' of his throne (the Jewish word "Al" used in this verse can have either meaning). They go on to explain that the high priest will see himself as subservient to the Messiah, and therefore there will be peace - i.e. the high priest won't try to fight the Messiah.

thanks for the input...

I agree it is referring to the High Priest

is there any other place in scripture which ties the High Priest to a throne, whether literally or symbolically?

---

I'd just like to stress, that if you look through the whole prophecy it's clear it's not referring to the Messiah, but to Zerubabel. Even the commentators who say the alternative explanation of it referring to the Messiah qualify it by saying that it's not the real meaning of the verse, but is just another 'hidden' meaning behind the words. A bit similar to what Jews believe about all prophecies given in the bible - that even prophecies given about those times can all have other, hidden, meanings, and can all refer to later events.

agreed, prophecies can be literally applied to one person and symbolically applied to the overall plan of God

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I see you posted through a cell phone, which I sometimes do....

I can't think of any other place off-hand. I'll have a think about it, and ask some others better-versed then me in scripture.

Out of interest, as a Christian, how do you understand the prophecy? When was the part about the priest (whether you understand it as being the same person as the Messiah or not) ever fulfilled? Or is it only going to be fulfilled by the second coming of Jesus?

It goes back to the supremacy of the book of Genesis, the blueprint of God’s plan, and the time period predating the Law of Moses (covenant of Mt. Sinai).

The original biblical precedent for the King of Jerusalem, and the original biblical precedent for a priest of God, is one in the same person, Melchizedek (Gen 14:8 ).  In Melchizedek is the precedent, and the only example, of a priest sitting on a throne:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Judaism understands that Messiah will rebuild the temple of God, for even the whole tabernacle Moses introduced was merely a copy of the origin pattern: “See that you make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” (Ex 25:40)

And, yes, I believe Christ has already been handed the high-priesthood, not on the requirement that he be descended through Levi, but on the Genesis precedent that he has no genealogy, just as Melchizedek, the biblical precedent, had no recorded genealogy yet was greater than Abraham.

And Jesus didn’t enter into only a pattern of the true tabernacle, rather he entered into the true tabernacle that is in Heaven…and offered not the blood of a lamb, but his own blood, and not once a year, but once and for all, for the forgiveness of sins.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I see. But if Jesus has both positions, what does the last part of the verse, about harmony between the two, mean?

I don't understand your question...how could there not be harmony between the High Priest and King if Jesus holds both positions?

basically, both the king and high priest are forerunners of the one messiah

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ah, I think I get you - you're understanding it as meaning harmony between the two positions. Is that correct?
I didn't think of that meaning. I was thinking it meant harmony between the different people holding the two positions.
If you do mean like I think you mean, do you not find the phrase 'harmony between the two' slightly wrong? Doesn't it sound more like it's refering to two separate people?

well, isn't everything "slightly wrong" when using symbolism?...just like in your own interpretation where the priest sitting on a throne is not literal but rather symbolizes that it is referring to the High Priest.

so there is a little play in both our interpretations:  your interpretation takes the two people literally as two separate people while leaving "sitting on a throne" symbolic...my interpretation takes "sitting on a throne" literal while leaving the two separate people symbolic.

But, if we ignore the slight "errors" involved in both our uses of symbolism, we're still left with the fact that the only other reference to a priest and a throne was the Genesis' Melchizedek

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

been reading parts of the Talmud, its amazing how Judaism became a religion that has to attempt to dissect and add instructions to the nth degree so that the instructions themselves become the center of focus.  no wonder Jesus had problems with all that it became.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

been reading parts of the Talmud, its amazing how Judaism became a religion that has to attempt to dissect and add instructions to the nth degree so that the instructions themselves become the center of focus.

Not amazing at all.  Judaism could not have survived as a Temple-centric religion after the destruction of the Second Temple.  Both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism found a substitute for the Temple.  For one it was the Body of Christ, and for the other it was the Body of the Law.

 

but Christianity found a substitute BEFORE the Temple was destroyed, which is one of the reasons why Jesus was thought to be a heretic.  but I wasn't talking about nonTempleCentric religion, rather I was talking about all the details involved in the oral tradition even as it relates to parts of the law that dont have anything to do with the Temple.

example:  the scripture might say, "dont eat strangled animals", and Judaism will turn that command into a whole system of a supposed single proper way to kill an animal and include a long list of instructions the scripture said nothing about.

If, hypothetically, God had said, "Dont wear the color green, "  the Talmud would have a set of 50 instructions on how you're to wear the color blue and wallow around in and glorify the 50 rules of wearing blue it had created and pat each other on the back for abiding by the 50 rules of the color blue, when all God said was,  "Dont wear the color green. " 

This is why Jesus had so many problems and squabbles with what Judaism had turned into to
.
---

Unless your theology is a hyper-supersessionism that posits that there are no further prophecies for the Jews to fulfill as Jews, then there must be some mechanism for Judaism to survive.

 

well, if I can be blunt in order to save time: for prophecy to be fulfilled, the Jews had to reject Christ.  And Judaism is probably going to have to revert back to Temple worship, which means there is a bunch of very heavy stuff that is going to have to happen to the Jews - they're going to have to be convinced the Messiah has come, but it will be a false Messiah - the antiChrist.  But the Jews will understand they have been deceived by the antiChrist and will realize they missed the true Messiah, Jesus and will turn and accept Christ and God will forgive them:

Zechariah 12:10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son."

Revelation 1:7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen.

Rom 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

That's why Satan always wants to destroy the Jews - for if there are no Jews, prophesy can not be fulfilled.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, as long as there isn't a third temple...there can't be an apocalypse right?  Thats an absolutely necessary condition?

well, I never turn endtime interpretation into hard doctrine, for endtime prophecy is the single area of scripture that will be more understood as time goes on:

Daniel 12:4,9
But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”...“Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end."

But I am about 99% convinced that the pre-trib theory is wrong (not that it impact your temple question), and I am 95% convinced that the references to the Temple during the endtimes is in reference to a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.
But I am not going to split hairs over either issue.  In fact, probably the majority of my church is pre-trib, which is partly the fault of my pastor, who isnt pretrib yet couches much of his teachings in a way that is accommodating to different views.

About a dozen of so years ago I was conducting an endtime study series in our church, and I laid out about 3 or 4 of the competing points of view (pre, mid, post trib, etc) and pointed out the strengths and weaknesses of each, not knowing our church was majority pretrib.  And my series received so much opposition I went to my pastor perplexed because I thought what I was teaching was in line with what he believed and taught, and the conversation went something like this:

pastor:  "I also am all but completely convinced the pretrib rapture is wrong, rather I believe that the church will undergo persecution by the antiChrist, and that the antiChrist will be seating in Jerusalem proclaiming himself to be God prior to the rapture."

me:  "and that is exactly how I perceived your understand based on your sermons.  But how can I sit and listen to your sermons and hear one thing, and others sit and listen to the exact same sermons over the years and hear something completely different?!"

pastor: "because I purposely present it in a way that is accommodating to different views"

me: "[but that is dishonest and you're a coward for not making clear what you believe is true]"

pastor:  "no, rather is wise to be vague when discussing a subject not worth splitting hairs over, after all, it isnt a salvational issue"

LOL.  And, I must admit, he is right.