The Jewish Messiah is Yeshua.

[visionary]

Modern Judaism has developed a defined concept of the function of the Messiah, but such definitions were crystallized because of years of controversy, 'Christian' persecution, and messianic disappointment.

In the beginning it was not so. Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth endured cruel torture and was executed by the Roman government. Considerable numbers of Jews believed that He was the Messiah, even after His death.

Declaring that He had risen from the dead, believers suffered torture and horrible death rather than deny His Name. Though He was corporately rejected as Messiah by the nation of Israel, within 30 years of His Resurrection approximately 30,000 Jewish people became believers in Him, and were zealous for the Torah, the Instruction of Moses. He became the reason for a new sect of Judaism. A sect of Judaism that accepted gentiles as equals in worship of HaShem.

It was not until 135 AD when the other sects of Judaism decided that because this new sect would not support them in the revolt, that they were to be no longer considered as a part of Judaism.

[insaneinthebrain]

Interesting history lesson, but it doesn't prove the statement in the thread's title.

[visionary]

The future will tell.

[ChazakEmunah]

Your history is a bit off vis. You might want to go back and study 1st Cent Judaism so you can get a better understanding of how xtianity split-off from the early Netzarim and became it's own religion. Further, none of your pseudo-history supports your assertion. Please try again.

[Lulav]

visionary doesn't understand the concept of casting pearls before swine, or dusting ones feet off. ;)

[ChazakEmunah]

visionary doesn't understand the concept of casting pearls before swine, or dusting ones feet off. ;)
Of course, because we all know that the Jews are swine right? Wow, I never thought I'd see the day when I saw a miso-Judaic statement from you of all people. I guess now that you've revealed yourself you feel free to show you're just as miso-Judaic as the best of 'em huh?

[Torah613]

wow every day another one of em makes such a statement. Absolutely unbelievable. And we thought these people were friends.

Yochanan

[Torah613]

wow every day another one of em makes such a statement. Absolutely unbelievable. And we thought these people were friends.

Yochanan

[kivi]

wow every day another one of em makes such a statement. Absolutely unbelievable. And we thought these people were friends.

Yochanan

kivi says: reality check: Esav hates Yaakov. I am sorry, but what amazes me the most is your constant state of shock and suprise. You maybe sad or fearful or angry or disgusted, but suprised. No! Get a grip.

[anisavta]

Of course, because we all know that the Jews are swine right? Wow, I never thought I'd see the day when I saw a miso-Judaic statement from you of all people. I guess now that you've revealed yourself you feel free to show you're just as miso-Judaic as the best of 'em huh?

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[anisavta]

I have this funny feeling that now Vis is Public Enemy #1. You who have aught against her really do believe in crucifixion don't you?

[ShirChadash]

I have this funny feeling that now Vis is Public Enemy #1. You who have aught against her really do believe in crucifixion don't you?
I thought the accusation du jour was "beheading". [/sarcasm]

[Talmidah]

LOL and here lately its appeared that SC was public enemy #1 around these parts.

[visionary]

Your history is a bit off vis. You might want to go back and study 1st Cent Judaism so you can get a better understanding of how xtianity split-off from the early Netzarim and became it's own religion. Further, none of your pseudo-history supports your assertion. Please try again.It always helps when you point out exactly where you think the deviation is.

[visionary]

In 135AD, with the destruction of Jerusalem, the Beit Knushta (governing body) of the Nesarim reallocated to the far east, establishing themselves in Burma.

The Shemishqo later returned to Jerusalem, where they have been living ever since. The Throne of Mar Ya'akov continues to be occupied by Yeshua's next-of-kin to this very day. The Church is governed by three institutions: the Beit Knushta (Holy Assembly), the Throne of Ya'akov (ie. the leader of the apostles) and the Seat of Moshah (presidency of the body of Israel).

[visionary]

Israel was uprooted from its national homeland and dispersed to the far-flung distant corners of the entire world in 70AD, and the subsequent Bar Kochba rebellion in 135AD. Suppression of the Jewish revolt led to the diaspora (dispersion) of the Jews.

[kivi]

Modern Judaism has developed a defined concept of the function of the Messiah, but such definitions were crystallized because of years of controversy, 'Christian' persecution, and messianic disappointment.

kivi says: It is the current debating tactic of Christian apologists to claim that Christianity and Judaism both start at the same place, some where about 0 CE and both then develop different but legitimate Jewish concepts about the messiah, redemption and salvation and morality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Christianity is not a partner in the devolpment of Jewish ideals. It is, at best, a heresy; at worse, it is just another form of idolatry. The reality is that the Torah True Traditon from Moses to the Pharisees [of 0 CE and later] and then to current Observant/Orthodoxy is a continous, unbroken Tradition. Judaism has spun off heresies from the early times, from Koresh to the false prophets to the Hellenists to the Saddusees and the Essenes to the Karites to the Sabbatarians to current befuddlement of Reform/Conservative/Reconstruction. These heresies all have one great theme, the denial of the primacy of the Oral Torah. Without the primacy of the Oral Torah all forms of mischief occur: polytheism, assimulation, materialism and formalism. All of these heresies either functionally dissappear or leave Judaism. None of them remain within Judaism.

In the beginning it was not so. Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth
kivi says: None of these claims are provable. We have no evidence that a historic Jesus Christi ever existed and most definietly no proof that there is recoverable historic Jesus Christ. Finally, there is not proof that he was a rabbi or from Nazareth or lived at the time claimed. All of v's assersions are conjecture, at best.

endured cruel torture and was executed by the Roman government. Considerable numbers of Jews believed that He was the Messiah, even after His death.
kivi says: Again, there is no evidence for these claims.

Declaring that He had risen from the dead, believers suffered torture and horrible death rather than deny His Name.
kivi says: The frevor of the belief of his followers or their number is no proof of who or what he was.

Though He was corporately rejected as Messiah by the nation of Israel, within 30 years of His Resurrection approximately 30,000 Jewish people became believers in Him,
kivi says: Again, there is no independent proof for any of these claims by v.

and were zealous for the Torah, the Instruction of Moses. He became the reason for a new sect of Judaism. A sect of Judaism that accepted gentiles as equals in worship of HaShem.

It was not until 135 AD when the other sects of Judaism decided that because this new sect would not support them in the revolt, that they were to be no longer considered as a part of Judaism.
kivi says: Christianity's own scriptures claim that a leader of the Pharisees warned the Jews to allow the early Christians to develop as they would. He predicted that they would leave Judaism. They did.

[kivi]

Israel was uprooted from its national homeland and dispersed to the far-flung distant corners of the entire world in 70AD, and the subsequent Bar Kochba rebellion in 135AD. Suppression of the Jewish revolt led to the diaspora (dispersion) of the Jews.

kivi says: The jews were well dispersed long before the 2 Jewish revolts. The largest Jewish community in 135 AD was in the Persian empire, in southern Babylonian, Eretz Israel was the 2nd largest and the smallest were the scattered Jewish communities in the Greco Roman Mediterranean coastal cities.

[ChavaK]

You who have aught against her really do believe in crucifixion don't you?

You'd have to ask the Romans about crucifixation, it was them that
killed Jesus, not us....their favorite method of execution.

[Torah613]

You'd have to ask the Romans about crucifixation, it was them that
killed Jesus, not us....their favorite method of execution.

And one that is not halachically permissable I might add.

Yochanan

[visionary]

The prophecy in scriptures of Yeshua's crucifiction came two humdred years before He came and died and rose again. Thing is... there was no such thing of a crucifiction before the roman empire.

[visionary]

As to historical evidence outside of NT..

Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Yeshua.

[visionary]

Josephus wrote about Him..Called the "Testimonium Flavianum,"

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Quoted in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 95, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194).

[visionary]

Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth." M. Harris, "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors," in Gospel Perspectives V, 354-55

[visionary]

The second, less revealing, reference that Josephus makes describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200

[visionary]

Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

[visionary]

Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):

"And the expression, 'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate." Later Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, "And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."

[visionary]

In the same book 18 of The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus also chose to write a longer sketch of another marginal Jew, another peculiar religious leader in Palestine, “John surnamed the Baptist” (Ant. 18.5.2).

[visionary]

If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

[visionary]

The "proof" for the existence of Yeshua can be found in three main sources. The argument for the existence of Jesus is strengthened because the person of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah is mentioned by independent Christian, Jewish, and Roman sources.

Obviously the person of Yeshua is mentioned quite thoroughly in the New Testament and other early Christian writings but Yeshua is also mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus as I have pointed out in earlier posts. The fact that Josephus, a practicing Jew and a man who was not actively involved Christian circles and not part of the early church mentions the existence of Yeshua of Nazareth in his writings definitely gives credence to the argument for the existence of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah.

In turn, another of the most credible arguments for the existence of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah are the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus. Tacitus was a Roman historian who also mentioned the existence of the crucifixion of Yeshua in his writings. In turn, the writings of Tacitus are viewed by historians as crucial to not only understanding early Middle Eastern history but also what we know of early Germanic tribes in Europe. In essence, while the divinity of Jesus is not something that can be proven historically, the historical community is quite sure that a person named Yeshua did live in the Middle East two thousand years ago and can look to independent historical sources to strengthen their argument.

[ChazakEmunah]

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Pearls before swine?? C'mon, don't tell me you think that is merely an innocent expression. I've heard it before, I was just surprised to hear it from Lulav.

[ChazakEmunah]

I have this funny feeling that now Vis is Public Enemy #1. You who have aught against her really do believe in crucifixion don't you?
I really have no idea why you think that. Vis is not Public Enemy #1 (a term coined during the prohibition era btw). And it seems she is not the only one who needs to go back and study her history. Jews have never, ever believed in crucifixion. It was the Romans favored method of execution (actually there were a couple of different ways they crucified people) for seditionists.

[visionary]

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, former professor of law at Harvard University and once recognized by the Supreme Court to be perhaps the greatest authority on legal evidence who has ever lived, made a detailed examination of the evidence relating to the resurrection of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah, quoted by L.A. Drummon and P.R. Baxter in the 1986 book How to Respond to a Skeptic. (Chicago: Moody Press, p 117.)

He concluded that in any uinbiased courtroom in the world, the evidence would establish the fact that Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah was resurrected from the dead. The documentary evidence has been examined independently by millions of people, each of whom had the opportunity to find mistakes if there were any.

Luke, for example, turns out to be as meticulous a geographer and historian as anyone now living. Calling his Gospel "mythology" is like calling Caesar's Gallic Wars "legendary." Contempt prior to investigation is no way to determine the facts. Unlike some religious literature, the Bible is filled with specific names, dates, places.

Fifty or sixty years ago it was commonplace to scorn these as legendary or inaccurate, but having such an attitude today requires one to ignore libraries full of research in history, archeology and linguistics. Which of course is your privilege; but the recently-published "Under the Influence" by Alvin Schmidt shows that virtually everything that makes the world today better than it was in Roman times stems directly from the life and teachings of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah.

[visionary]

I really have no idea why you think that. Vis is not Public Enemy #1 (a term coined during the prohibition era btw). And it seems she is not the only one who needs to go back and study her history. Jews have never, ever believed in crucifixion. It was the Romans favored method of execution (actually there were a couple of different ways they crucified people) for seditionists.Exactly what part of history are you speaking of?

[ChazakEmunah]

It always helps when you point out exactly where you think the deviation is.
Well, I was trying to encourage you to do the study for yourself, but I can take a few minutes to outline it for you. I do apologize for the way I came across though. It was reactionary, and not constructive at all.


In the beginning it was not so. Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth endured cruel torture and was executed by the Roman government. Considerable numbers of Jews believed that He was the Messiah, even after His death.
It is unknown exactly how many believed R. Y'hoshua, not l'havdil Yeshu", believed he was the Mashiach. What we do know is that they were a minority.


Declaring that He had risen from the dead, believers suffered torture and horrible death rather than deny His Name.
This is not quite the case. There is compelling evidence to suggest that the Netzarim did not in fact believe he had resurrected, and that the stories of his resurrection were added to the "Gospels" at a later date. One only needs to look at the conflicting stories in the NT itself for proof of this.


Though He was corporately rejected as Messiah by the nation of Israel, within 30 years of His Resurrection approximately 30,000 Jewish people became believers in Him, and were zealous for the Torah, the Instruction of Moses.
See my above statement. There are no figures given to suggest how many believed R. Y'hoshua was the Mashiach. But yes, all of his students were shomer Torah, the evidence for this is quite obvious. He was of course corporately rejected because he just did not meet the criteria of the Mashiach. If he had, then he would have become the Mashiach and we would not be having this discussion right now.


He became the reason for a new sect of Judaism. A sect of Judaism that accepted gentiles as equals in worship of HaShem.
There are problems with these statements. First, the Netzarim, as they were then called, were founded before his execution, thus his death was not the unifying factor, his life was. Second, this was not a new sect. The Netzarim were likely a Chasidic subset of the Pharisees. They followed Pharasaic halakha, yet incorporated mystical elements of the Essenes into their daily lives. Third, at no point has Judaism not accepted non-Jews (they cease being called Gentiles the moment they accept the minimum mitzvot) as equals in their worship of HaShem. Throughout the Torah there is a term that is used to refer them time after time. They are called Ger Toshavim (strangers who dwell with Israel). The only reason you see this debate in Acts 15 is because there were some who argued in favor of full conversion. Obviously this was/is not necessary.


It was not until 135 AD when the other sects of Judaism decided that because this new sect would not support them in the revolt, that they were to be no longer considered as a part of Judaism.
Nope, this was hardly the case. The split appears to have started prior to 62 CE, during the tenure of Ya'akov. A group of people, led by "Toeivut" rebelled against his leadership and left for Pella. This was the beginning of the split from Judaism.

The Netzarim joined the revolt along with all the other groups. It was only the remnants of that group that left after they were expelled from Jerusalem (along with all the other Jews) in 135 CE. This was the nail in the coffin for the group. With all the observant Jews gone from Jerusalem, non-Jewish Hellenist leadership was able to take charge of the Netzarim, and the rest as they say, is history. So the source of the split between the Netzarim and Judaism was not the Bar Kochba revolt, it was the removal of the Jewish leadership. In fact, after the Hellenists took over, they were no longer known as the Netzarim, but instead called Nazoreans; and eventually came to be called xtians.

[ChazakEmunah]

Exactly what part of history are you speaking of?
See my post above.

[kivi]

The prophecy in scriptures of Yeshua's crucifiction came two humdred years before He came and died and rose again. Thing is... there was no such thing of a crucifiction before the roman empire.

kivi says: There are no prophecies in the Tanach about a historic Jesus Crhist.

[anisavta]

There are many actually.

[visionary]

Well, I was trying to encourage you to do the study for yourself, but I can take a few minutes to outline it for you. I do apologize for the way I came across though. It was reactionary, and not constructive at all.appreciate it[I]
It is unknown exactly how many believed R. Y'hoshua, not l'havdil Yeshu", believed he was the Mashiach. What we do know is that they were a minority.I believe we are in agreement there. Minority has never been God's issue, He always identified with a remnant.
This is not quite the case. There is compelling evidence to suggest that the Netzarim did not in fact believe he had resurrected, and that the stories of his resurrection were added to the "Gospels" at a later date. One only needs to look at the conflicting stories in the NT itself for proof of this. That is almost a subject in itself worthy of its own thread. See my above statement. There are no figures given to suggest how many believed R. Y'hoshua was the Mashiach. But yes, all of his students were shomer Torah, the evidence for this is quite obvious. He was of course corporately rejected because he just did not meet the criteria of the Mashiach. If he had, then he would have become the Mashiach and we would not be having this discussion right now. His authoriship is not based on corporate approval, by on God's which He received. There are problems with these statements. First, the Netzarim, as they were then called, were founded before his execution, thus his death was not the unifying factor, his life was. Second, this was not a new sect. The Netzarim were likely a Chasidic subset of the Pharisees. They followed Pharasaic halakha, yet incorporated mystical elements of the Essenes into their daily lives. Third, at no point has Judaism not accepted non-Jews (they cease being called Gentiles the moment they accept the minimum mitzvot) as equals in their worship of HaShem. Throughout the Torah there is a term that is used to refer them time after time. They are called Ger Toshavim (strangers who dwell with Israel). The only reason you see this debate in Acts 15 is because there were some who argued in favor of full conversion. Obviously this was/is not necessary.IT was debated then as it is now on how the gentiles should be accepted into the faith, believing Judizers were more along your line of thinking. Paul seems to be inspired against his own pharisee's thinking on that point and leans towards open door to all who have been born again approach to this matter. Nope, this was hardly the case. The split appears to have started prior to 62 CE, during the tenure of Ya'akov. A group of people, led by "Toeivut" rebelled against his leadership and left for Pella. This was the beginning of the split from Judaism.

The Netzarim joined the revolt along with all the other groups. It was only the remnants of that group that left after they were expelled from Jerusalem (along with all the other Jews) in 135 CE. This was the nail in the coffin for the group. With all the observant Jews gone from Jerusalem, non-Jewish Hellenist leadership was able to take charge of the Netzarim, and the rest as they say, is history. So the source of the split between the Netzarim and Judaism was not the Bar Kochba revolt, it was the removal of the Jewish leadership. In fact, after the Hellenists took over, they were no longer known as the Netzarim, but instead called Nazoreans; and eventually came to be called xtians.Will need to see some historical documents on this version of the story.

[kivi]

As to historical evidence outside of NT..

Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Yeshua.

kivi says: You are grossly mistaken about the historic process. What Tacitus is doing is reporting what the Christians are saying about themselves. That is not independent colloboration of the existance of an historic Jesus Crhist, any more than a worshipper of the pagan goddess Juno going into the Temple of Juno is an independent collaboration of the existance of an historic Juno. Only an independent source at the same time as the supposed existance of Jesus Christ can collaborate. As for "The Case for Christ". It is a hack job. If you care, we can go over every point he makes and I will show him to be a pitifully poor historian.

[kivi]

Josephus wrote about Him..Called the "Testimonium Flavianum,"

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Quoted in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 95, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194).

kivi says: It is well documented that the quote you are providing is a forgery.

[visionary]

kivi says: There are no prophecies in the Tanach about a historic Jesus Crhist.David prophecied of the crucifiction of the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua 200 years before there was even a roman empire who invented the crucifiction, device of death.

Psalm 22:16
Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

[kivi]

Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth." M. Harris, "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors," in Gospel Perspectives V, 354-55
kivi says: Again, that is simple reporting about what Christians are saying about themselves. It is not proof of a historic Jesus Christ.

[Torah613]

The prophecy in scriptures of Yeshua's crucifiction came two humdred years before He came and died and rose again. Thing is... there was no such thing of a crucifiction before the roman empire.

Thing is there is no such prophecy in the Tanakh.


Yochanan

[visionary]

kivi says: It is well documented that the quote you are providing is a forgery.It is still debated as to whether what you say is true or not.

[kivi]

The second, less revealing, reference that Josephus makes describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200

kivi says: Again, what you are refering to is a well documented forgery.

[visionary]

Thing is there is no such prophecy in the Tanakh.


YochananIsaiah 53:5
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

[Torah613]

David prophecied of the crucifiction of the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua 200 years before there was even a roman empire who invented the crucifiction, device of death.

Psalm 22:16
Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

historical point of correction. The Romans most certainly did not invent crucifixion. Granted they took it to all kinds of new levels, but crucifixion had been practiced in several cultures throughout the region.

OH and BTW, that's not a prophecy about Moshiach.

Yochanan

[kivi]

Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

kivi says": And this has nothing to do with an historic Jesus Christ.

[Torah613]

Isaiah 53:5
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

Care to look at context adn original language much? Its talking about Am Yisrail, about how we must suffer at the hands of esav until the coming of Moshiach.

Yochanan

[kivi]

Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):

"And the expression, 'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate." Later Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, "And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."

kivi says: And this was totally rejected by the Church fathers to be included in the New Testament. It is obviously a hack job done by pro-'dual nature' supporters.

[kivi]

If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.
kivi says: Wrong. 1st, the historic Jesus Christ that Christianity tries to use does not meet the academic standards that are applied to other ancient historic figures. 2nd, if Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ and not just some run-of-the-mill Roman Emporer, then his historic existance should be held to a higher standard.

[kivi]

The "proof" for the existence of Yeshua can be found in three main sources. The argument for the existence of Jesus is strengthened because the person of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah is mentioned by independent Christian, Jewish, and Roman sources.

Obviously the person of Yeshua is mentioned quite thoroughly in the New Testament and other early Christian writings but Yeshua is also mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus as I have pointed out in earlier posts. The fact that Josephus, a practicing Jew and a man who was not actively involved Christian circles and not part of the early church mentions the existence of Yeshua of Nazareth in his writings definitely gives credence to the argument for the existence of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah.

In turn, another of the most credible arguments for the existence of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah are the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus. Tacitus was a Roman historian who also mentioned the existence of the crucifixion of Yeshua in his writings. In turn, the writings of Tacitus are viewed by historians as crucial to not only understanding early Middle Eastern history but also what we know of early Germanic tribes in Europe. In essence, while the divinity of Jesus is not something that can be proven historically, the historical community is quite sure that a person named Yeshua did live in the Middle East two thousand years ago and can look to independent historical sources to strengthen their argument.
kivi says: See my comment above. The Josephus quotes are well documented forgeries. The use of the New Testament is self serving and not contemporary. The reports of later Roman historians are merely what the Christians are saying about the Christianity. Maybe accurate to Christian belief and faith, at the time, but not useable as to Christian history. So the statement that the 'historic community is quite sure that a person named Yeshua did live in the Middle East two thousand years ago' is not true. Moreover, if the historic proof of his divinity is not possible, as visionary states, then who cares about a historic Jesus Christ??? Jesus Christ only has interest and importance if he is divine. If he isn't, then he does not matter!!!!!

[kivi]

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, former professor of law at Harvard University and once recognized by the Supreme Court to be perhaps the greatest authority on legal evidence who has ever lived, made a detailed examination of the evidence relating to the resurrection of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah, quoted by L.A. Drummon and P.R. Baxter in the 1986 book How to Respond to a Skeptic. (Chicago: Moody Press, p 117.)

He concluded that in any uinbiased courtroom in the world, the evidence would establish the fact that Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah was resurrected from the dead. The documentary evidence has been examined independently by millions of people, each of whom had the opportunity to find mistakes if there were any.

Luke, for example, turns out to be as meticulous a geographer and historian as anyone now living. Calling his Gospel "mythology" is like calling Caesar's Gallic Wars "legendary." Contempt prior to investigation is no way to determine the facts. Unlike some religious literature, the Bible is filled with specific names, dates, places.

Fifty or sixty years ago it was commonplace to scorn these as legendary or inaccurate, but having such an attitude today requires one to ignore libraries full of research in history, archeology and linguistics. Which of course is your privilege; but the recently-published "Under the Influence" by Alvin Schmidt shows that virtually everything that makes the world today better than it was in Roman times stems directly from the life and teachings of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah.
kivi says: bring him on.

[kivi]

There are many actually.
kivi says: Bring them on.

[kivi]

David prophecied of the crucifiction of the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua 200 years before there was even a roman empire who invented the crucifiction, device of death.

Psalm 22:16
Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

kivi says: That is a false translation. The correct translation for Psalm 22:17 is "For dogs have surrounded me, a pack of evildoers has enclosed me, like the prey of a lion are my hands and feet." ArtScroll Tefillin, pages pgs 1452-3 2ndly, what you are trying to present is an unsuccessfull retro-fitting of Christianity into Judaism. It is simple and dis-honest to write a Christian 'result' after the fact and fit it into a preciously written Jewish prophecy. Of course, in this case, it doesn't work, so the translators of the English New Testament just change the words. Hardly compelling evidence.

[kivi]

It is still debated as to whether what you say is true or not.

kivi says: If it is still being debated [which is is not, the consensus is that it is a forgery], how can you bring it as an authority. Authorities are authorities because everybody agrees that they are correct.

[kivi]

Isaiah 53:5
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

kivi says: 1/ This is another false translation into the English. The correct English translation is "He was pained because of our rebellious sins and oppressed through our iniquities; the chastisment upon him was for our benefit, and through his wounds, we were healed. 2/ This verse refers to B'nai Israel as well and not just to a particular Messiah.

[ChavaK]

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, made a detailed examination of the evidence relating to the resurrection of Jesus.

He concluded that in any unbiased courtroom in the world, the evidence would establish the fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Gee, what a surprise....a guy who was a Christian evangelist finds
all evidence establishes Jesus' resurrection. What a shock!!!


The documentary evidence has been examined independently by millions of people, each of whom had the opportunity to find mistakes if there were any.

If you look around on line, plenty of people don't agree with him:

There are two examples of writers in recent years who have made critical assessments of Greenleaf's work, and of legal apologists who model their arguments on his book. Howard Richard Packham is a retired foreign language instructor and former part-time estate planning attorney who holds to an atheist worldview. He has written an internet article criticising the technical arguments set forth by Greenleaf and others. [2] Packham holds that what Greenleaf submits as eyewitness testimony is technically hearsay and therefore does not comprise direct evidence to demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus. He also holds that the criteria for the "ancient documents rule" is not met by the gospel documents and that the force of Greenleaf's argument is thereby undermined. Packham argues that the ancient documents rule technically only applies to a limited genre of legal documents, such as wills and contracts and other specific legal instruments, to which the gospels do not belong. However, there are problems in Packham's argument. The Ancient Documents Rule is not limited to express legal instruments, but covers any type of documents. The criteria for the Ancient Documents Rule is simple and straightforward. According to legal authorities, documents of any type must meet three criteria in order to qualify for the Ancient Documents Rule: 1) that the document is at least 20 years old, 2) presumed to be genuine, 3) come from proper custody (cf. Black's Law Dictionary, FRE 901(b)(8)). Greenleaf, as a writer of highest legal authority, concluded that the Gospels should be received under the ancient documents rule. In §9 of his Testimony of the Evangelists, Greenleaf cites the legal reception by the British Record Commission of the Domesday Book and Ancient Statues of Wales, as well as many other ancient writings. Packham maintains that in a court procedure it is up to a judge to decide if a document may be admitted. However, the issue of allowing any evidence is whether the evidence has enough value for the trier of fact to reach a conclusion, whether for or against (FRE 104 (b) notes). Packham also argues that admitting a document is not tantamount to saying that its contents have automatically been authenticated by the judge's decision. However, that means the written document is allowed into evidence in the case and that evidence of its contents have to be further weighed by the trier of fact. The interesting dilemma is that both advocates and opponents must cite the Gospels in order to admit or omit their contents. Thus the probative value, and the logical and conditional relevancy of the Gospel materials is exhibited. Packham liberally cites the Gospel material and biblical higher critics in order to make his points.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_the_Evangelist



I think I'll stick with national revelation.

[anisavta]

Kivi you have an answer for everything don't you...

[kivi]

Kivi you have an answer for everything don't you...

kivi says: Are you implying that I should be ignorant? :) That I should come here not knowledgable about my subject?:P That I should not have done my homework?:amen: That I should take the work I am about casually or, worse, carelessly?:cool: That I should deal with any of the members of CF at less then the top of my game? :clap: That I should come there unprepared?;) That I should not think and study and learn before I answer a question or challenge a claim or make a claim of my own? :prayer: What standard do you want me to hold?:doh: That I should not know the answer before I respond?:confused:

[ShirChadash]

kivi says: Are you implying that I should be ignorant? That I should come here not knowledgable about my subject?:P That I should not have done my homework? That I should take the work I am about casually or, worse, carelessly? That I should deal with any of the members of CF at less then the top of my game? That I should come there unprepared? That I should not think and study and learn before I answer a question or challenge a claim or make a claim of my own? What standard do you want me to hold? That I should not know the answer before I respond?
:clap:

[visionary]

Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian writing after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, mentions the earlier execution of Jesus, whom he calls a ‘King’.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mara.html

[ShirChadash]

Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian writing after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, mentions the earlier execution of Jesus, whom he calls a ‘King’.
[/URL]cite your sources.
[url]http://www.answering-islam.org/Intro/islamic_jesus.html (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mara.html)

[ShirChadash]

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, former professor of law at Harvard University and once recognized by the Supreme Court to be perhaps the greatest authority on legal evidence who has ever lived, made a detailed examination of the evidence relating to the resurrection of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah, quoted by L.A. Drummon and P.R. Baxter in the 1986 book How to Respond to a Skeptic. (Chicago: Moody Press, p 117.)

He concluded that in any uinbiased courtroom in the world, the evidence would establish the fact that Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah was resurrected from the dead. The documentary evidence has been examined independently by millions of people, each of whom had the opportunity to find mistakes if there were any.

Luke, for example, turns out to be as meticulous a geographer and historian as anyone now living. Calling his Gospel "mythology" is like calling Caesar's Gallic Wars "legendary." Contempt prior to investigation is no way to determine the facts. Unlike some religious literature, the Bible is filled with specific names, dates, places.

Fifty or sixty years ago it was commonplace to scorn these as legendary or inaccurate, but having such an attitude today requires one to ignore libraries full of research in history, archeology and linguistics. Which of course is your privilege; but the recently-published "Under the Influence" by Alvin Schmidt shows that virtually everything that makes the world today better than it was in Roman times stems directly from the life and teachings of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah.cite your sources:
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33097

[ShirChadash]

Well, I was trying to encourage you to do the study for yourself, but I can take a few minutes to outline it for you. I do apologize for the way I came across though. It was reactionary, and not constructive at all.


It is unknown exactly how many believed R. Y'hoshua, not l'havdil Yeshu", believed he was the Mashiach. What we do know is that they were a minority.


This is not quite the case. There is compelling evidence to suggest that the Netzarim did not in fact believe he had resurrected, and that the stories of his resurrection were added to the "Gospels" at a later date. One only needs to look at the conflicting stories in the NT itself for proof of this.


See my above statement. There are no figures given to suggest how many believed R. Y'hoshua was the Mashiach. But yes, all of his students were shomer Torah, the evidence for this is quite obvious. He was of course corporately rejected because he just did not meet the criteria of the Mashiach. If he had, then he would have become the Mashiach and we would not be having this discussion right now.


There are problems with these statements. First, the Netzarim, as they were then called, were founded before his execution, thus his death was not the unifying factor, his life was. Second, this was not a new sect. The Netzarim were likely a Chasidic subset of the Pharisees. They followed Pharasaic halakha, yet incorporated mystical elements of the Essenes into their daily lives. Third, at no point has Judaism not accepted non-Jews (they cease being called Gentiles the moment they accept the minimum mitzvot) as equals in their worship of HaShem. Throughout the Torah there is a term that is used to refer them time after time. They are called Ger Toshavim (strangers who dwell with Israel). The only reason you see this debate in Acts 15 is because there were some who argued in favor of full conversion. Obviously this was/is not necessary.


Nope, this was hardly the case. The split appears to have started prior to 62 CE, during the tenure of Ya'akov. A group of people, led by "Toeivut" rebelled against his leadership and left for Pella. This was the beginning of the split from Judaism.

The Netzarim joined the revolt along with all the other groups. It was only the remnants of that group that left after they were expelled from Jerusalem (along with all the other Jews) in 135 CE. This was the nail in the coffin for the group. With all the observant Jews gone from Jerusalem, non-Jewish Hellenist leadership was able to take charge of the Netzarim, and the rest as they say, is history. So the source of the split between the Netzarim and Judaism was not the Bar Kochba revolt, it was the removal of the Jewish leadership. In fact, after the Hellenists took over, they were no longer known as the Netzarim, but instead called Nazoreans; and eventually came to be called xtians.

ShirChadash says: Don't bother, CE. This is her MO -- she'll ask you, but never really consider your post, and then just go back to spamming the forum and never citing her sources, where she mined her information and plopped it into her posts here as if she knows the info herself.

[ShirChadash]

As to historical evidence outside of NT..

Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Yeshua.
cite your sources:
http://www.probe.org/theology-and-philosophy/theology---christ/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources.html

[ShirChadash]

Modern Judaism has developed a defined concept of the function of the Messiah, but such definitions were crystallized because of years of controversy, 'Christian' persecution, and messianic disappointment.

In the beginning it was not so. Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth endured cruel torture and was executed by the Roman government. Considerable numbers of Jews believed that He was the Messiah, even after His death.

Declaring that He had risen from the dead, believers suffered torture and horrible death rather than deny His Name. Though He was corporately rejected as Messiah by the nation of Israel, within 30 years of His Resurrection approximately 30,000 Jewish people became believers in Him, and were zealous for the Torah, the Instruction of Moses. He became the reason for a new sect of Judaism. A sect of Judaism that accepted gentiles as equals in worship of HaShem.

It was not until 135 AD when the other sects of Judaism decided that because this new sect would not support them in the revolt, that they were to be no longer considered as a part of Judaism.
cite your sources:
http://www.messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/barukh.htm

[ShirChadash]

Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth." M. Harris, "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors," in Gospel Perspectives V, 354-55
cite your sources:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:mceao5SdoSAJ:www.credo.org.au/questions/jesus/evidence/+Furthermore,+one+scholar+interprets+Pliny%27s+statement+that+hymns+were+sung+to+Christ,+as+to+a+god&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://www.credo.org.au/questions/jesus/evidence/

[ShirChadash]

The second, less revealing, reference that Josephus makes describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200
cite your sources:
http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

[ShirChadash]

Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):

"And the expression, 'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate." Later Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, "And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."
cite your sources:
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

[kivi]

Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian writing after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, mentions the earlier execution of Jesus, whom he calls a ‘King’.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mara.html

kivi says: Again, if it is not contemporary, and it is not, it is just a confirmation of the state of Christianity at the time of the document. Now that is valid information and important in charting the development of Christianity. But it doesn't say much about the historic Jesus Christ.

[ChavaK]

Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian writing after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, mentions the earlier execution of Jesus, whom he calls a ‘King’.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mara.html

Gee, I don't see the name Jesus mentioned anywhere in this text.
Nor, in this translation, do I see "king" and "he" capitalized:



What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given[2]

[ChavaK]

kivi says: But it doesn't say much about the historic Jesus Christ.

Especially since the name of Jesus is not even mentioned in the
document....it only says "wise king". I don't think Jesus fits
that description...

[Lulav]

Do not cast your pearls before swine Do not waste good things on people who will not appreciate them. This proverb is adapted from a saying of Jesus from the Gospels, “Cast not pearls before swine.” Jesus appears to be warning his disciples to preach only before receptive audiences.

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

who of you here can honestly say you haven't done this when we share our Messiah's words with you?

I was only quoting the sound advise of my Rabbi, if it offends, he said it would do that too.

[ContraMundum]

Especially since the name of Jesus is not even mentioned in the
document....it only says "wise king".

OK, so who do you think the author was referring to? Which wise King did "the Jews execute....(just) before their Kingdom was abolished"? Did they execute Herod Agrippa? Not according to history, and he was the last before the kingdom ended. Therefore, we know it wasn't him. I'd be interested to see who you think he was referring to.

[ShirChadash]

Do not cast your pearls before swine Do not waste good things on people who will not appreciate them. This proverb is adapted from a saying of Jesus from the Gospels, “Cast not pearls before swine.” Jesus appears to be warning his disciples to preach only before receptive audiences.



who of you here can honestly say you haven't done this when we share our Messiah's words with you?

I was only quoting the sound advise of my Rabbi, if it offends, he said it would do that too.

ShirChadash says: I prefer to feast on the meat of truth, rather than break my teeth on "pearls" which have no nutritional value for the Jewish Neshama.

[ShirChadash]

kivi says: It is the current debating tactic of Christian apologists to claim that Christianity and Judaism both start at the same place, some where about 0 CE and both then develop different but legitimate Jewish concepts about the messiah, redemption and salvation and morality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Christianity is not a partner in the devolpment of Jewish ideals. It is, at best, a heresy; at worse, it is just another form of idolatry. The reality is that the Torah True Traditon from Moses to the Pharisees [of 0 CE and later] and then to current Observant/Orthodoxy is a continous, unbroken Tradition. Judaism has spun off heresies from the early times, from Koresh to the false prophets to the Hellenists to the Saddusees and the Essenes to the Karites to the Sabbatarians to current befuddlement of Reform/Conservative/Reconstruction. These heresies all have one great theme, the denial of the primacy of the Oral Torah. Without the primacy of the Oral Torah all forms of mischief occur: polytheism, assimulation, materialism and formalism. All of these heresies either functionally dissappear or leave Judaism. None of them remain within Judaism.


kivi says: None of these claims are provable. We have no evidence that a historic Jesus Christi ever existed and most definietly no proof that there is recoverable historic Jesus Christ. Finally, there is not proof that he was a rabbi or from Nazareth or lived at the time claimed. All of v's assersions are conjecture, at best.


kivi says: Again, there is no evidence for these claims.


kivi says: The frevor of the belief of his followers or their number is no proof of who or what he was.


kivi says: Again, there is no independent proof for any of these claims by v.


kivi says: Christianity's own scriptures claim that a leader of the Pharisees warned the Jews to allow the early Christians to develop as they would. He predicted that they would leave Judaism. They did.
:clap: excellent post, Kivi.

[ShirChadash]

kivi says: The jews were well dispersed long before the 2 Jewish revolts. The largest Jewish community in 135 AD was in the Persian empire, in southern Babylonian, Eretz Israel was the 2nd largest and the smallest were the scattered Jewish communities in the Greco Roman Mediterranean coastal cities.
:thumbsup: *nodding*

[ChavaK]

Do not cast your pearls before swine Do not waste good things on people who will not appreciate them. This proverb is adapted from a saying of Jesus from the Gospels, “Cast not pearls before swine.” Jesus appears to be warning his disciples to preach only before receptive audiences.



who of you here can honestly say you haven't done this when we share our Messiah's words with you?

I was only quoting the sound advise of my Rabbi, if it offends, he said it would do that too.

Well, you have a faulty premise...these words are not "good things".
You can share your words all you like....I have no problem with that,
not do I take offense at it. However, why do you all get so offended
when we do not accept these words or beliefs? :confused:

We also have a little saying:


One who withholds grain will be cursed by the nation (Proverbs 11:26).In other words, Jews all have an obligation to share our insights and knowledge
of Torah and G-d with other Jews. This does not include the "good things"
you believe in.

BTW, I thank you for using "our Messiah" as a reference to what you
and other messianics believe. It is much more repectful than those
here who keep using "your messiah" and the "Jewish messiah" when
referring to us. :)

[ChavaK]

OK, so who do you think the author was referring to? Which wise King did "the Jews execute....(just) before their Kingdom was abolished"? Did they execute Herod Agrippa? Not according to history, and he was the last before the kingdom ended. Therefore, we know it wasn't him. I'd be interested to see who you think he was referring to.

Don't know....I am most definitely not a historian. I suppose I could go
web hunting and look for answers....but I actually don't really have an
interest doing so because this is nothing more
than an quote from some person I have never heard of, neither of which means not a whole lot to me.

My point was, I think it interesting that he specifically mentions
Socrates and Pythagoras by name, but not Jesus. He only says
"wise king". Why does he not mention Jesus by name, not only
once but twice?


What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had givenAnd we all know it wasn't Jews who killed Jesus.....it was the Romans.
So either he is an anti-semite, or he is speaking of someone else.....

[Torah613]

Do not cast your pearls before swine Do not waste good things on people who will not appreciate them. This proverb is adapted from a saying of Jesus from the Gospels, “Cast not pearls before swine.” Jesus appears to be warning his disciples to preach only before receptive audiences.



who of you here can honestly say you haven't done this when we share our Messiah's words with you?

I was only quoting the sound advise of my Rabbi, if it offends, he said it would do that too.

I agree completely. Do you not notice that I no longer give any quotes from the rebbes?

Yochanan

[Torah613]

Well, you have a faulty premise...these words are not "good things".
You can share your words all you like....I have no problem with that,
not do I take offense at it. However, why do you all get so offended
when we do not accept these words or beliefs? :confused:

We also have a little saying:

In other words, Jews all have an obligation to share our insights and knowledge
of Torah and G-d with other Jews. This does not include the "good things"
you believe in.

BTW, I thank you for using "our Messiah" as a reference to what you
and other messianics believe. It is much more repectful than those
here who keep using "your messiah" and the "Jewish messiah" when
referring to us.

excellent points chava.

Yochanan

[Talmidah]

Well, you have a faulty premise...these words are not "good things".
You can share your words all you like....I have no problem with that,
not do I take offense at it. However, why do you all get so offended
when we do not accept these words or beliefs? :confused:

We also have a little saying:

In other words, Jews all have an obligation to share our insights and knowledge
of Torah and G-d with other Jews. This does not include the "good things"
you believe in.

BTW, I thank you for using "our Messiah" as a reference to what you
and other messianics believe. It is much more repectful than those
here who keep using "your messiah" and the "Jewish messiah" when
referring to us. :)

All very good points, Chava.

[ContraMundum]

Don't know....I am most definitely not a historian. I suppose I could go
web hunting and look for answers....but I actually don't really have an
interest doing so because this is nothing more
than an quote from some person I have never heard of, neither of which means not a whole lot to me.

It's not worthy of a Google, it's simple- who was the last king of the Jews before the end of the kingdom, and was he executed?

That narrows it down to one possible person.

My point was, I think it interesting that he specifically mentions
Socrates and Pythagoras by name, but not Jesus. He only says
"wise king". Why does he not mention Jesus by name, not only
once but twice?

Who knows....it's not really a point because the timeframe is quite specific.

And we all know it wasn't Jews who killed Jesus.....it was the Romans.
So either he is an anti-semite, or he is speaking of someone else.....

Actually, the Romans killed Jesus, but they were not His accusers. Why you wish to play the "anti-semite" card here has got me stumped- and it's getting real old on this forum.

[ChavaK]

I
Who knows....it's not really a point because the timeframe is quite specific.

I just find it interesting, that is all....is it possible their was some
kind of prohibition in effect then....I don't even know what religion
the guy who wrote it was, except he wasn't a a Jew. Was he
Christian, or Muslim, in which case maybe that is why he didn't
mention a name?

Neither the letter nor the names mean anything since it is just a letter,
and not the Almighty's word....just interesting.

[ShirChadash]

Actually, the Romans killed Jesus, but they were not His accusers. Why you wish to play the "anti-semite" card here has got me stumped- and it's getting real old on this forum.
so, pointing out the fact that the romans killed Je*us is pulling the anti-semitism card. mmmmkay. :pink:

[ChavaK]

Actually, the Romans killed Jesus, but they were not His accusers. Why you wish to play the "anti-semite" card here has got me stumped- and it's getting real old on this forum.

Nope, just pointing out the facts....anybody that says Jews killed
Jesus is an anti-semite. Or very ignorant....your choice.

What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King

[kivi]

Lulav, why do you continue to personally insult us. I thought we were supposed to be discussing the issues, not the personalities. I just got another RV for mocking Paul. Yet you are telling me its OK to flame because your Rabbi approves of flaming if the audience is not in agreement with Christian doctrine. That seems to be in contradiction with the rules of CF. So, what I think you are telling me, and correct me if I am wrong, is that its OK for Christians to flame non-Christians because your Rabbi approves it but its not OK for non-Christians to defend themselves because it breaks the rules of CF. Do I have that right?


I, myself, would want to get out of the rut of personal attacks and insults. Of course, I have never reported anyone to the mods. I figure as responsible adults, we can handle our discussions without their invovlement. That would be the ideal. I strive for that ideal. It is easy to be offended. IN fact, the very name of this thread, "The Jewish Messiah is Yeshua" is personally insulting, but we suck it up and move on. If I blew up over any or every little personal insult, I could not do the business of this sub forum. I will not let that type of distraction get in the way of my job, which is to present the Torah True understanding of Judaism, whether there is any one willing to listen or not.
Do not cast your pearls before swine Do not waste good things on people who will not appreciate them. This proverb is adapted from a saying of Jesus from the Gospels, “Cast not pearls before swine.” Jesus appears to be warning his disciples to preach only before receptive audiences.



who of you here can honestly say you haven't done this when we share our Messiah's words with you?

I was only quoting the sound advise of my Rabbi, if it offends, he said it would do that too.

[Tonks]

Clearly. But then again I really don't care what the Jews think, theologically.

[ChavaK]

But then again I really don't care what the Jews think, theologically.

However, Messianics are in a different position since they are trying
to emulate Jewish traditions and teachings, and thus attempting
to bend Jewish theology to fit messianic beliefs.

[Talmidah]

Clearly. But then again I really don't care what the Jews think, theologically.

Cool! Thanks for posting to share that, Tonks! :thumbsup:

[kivi]

http://img.christianforums.com/cache/avatars/Cross%209.gif (http://christianforums.com/member.php?u=116449)ContraMundum http://www3.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/mod.jpg (http://christianforums.com/member.php?u=116449) http://img.christianforums.com/style/statusicon/user_offline.gif
Football is also important.
http://img.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/Male.gif http://img.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/Anglican.gif http://img.christianforums.com/images/flags/United%20Nations.gif http://img.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/3years.gif
http://img.christianforums.com/images/misc/bless.gif (http://christianforums.com/credits.php?do=manage&u=116449#donate) Join Date: 2nd July 2005
Posts: 6,603
Blessings: 105,095
Reps: 646504 (power: 656) http://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_goldstar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_goldstar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_goldstar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_goldstar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_goldstar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_silverstar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_silverstar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_silverstar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_silverstar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_silverstar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_bronzestar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_bronzestar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_bronzestar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_bronzestar.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_bronzestar.gif
http://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_green.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_green.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_green.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_green.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_green.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_greenh.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_greenh.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_greenh.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_greenh.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_greenh.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_gold.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_gold.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_gold.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_gold.gifhttp://img.christianforums.com/style/reputation/reputation_gold.gif


Originally Posted by [B]ChavaK http://img.christianforums.com/style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48024037#post48024037)
Don't know....I am most definitely not a historian. I suppose I could go
web hunting and look for answers....but I actually don't really have an
interest doing so because this is nothing more
than an quote from some person I have never heard of, neither of which means not a whole lot to me.
CM replies: It's not worthy of a Google, it's simple- who was the last king of the Jews before the end of the kingdom, and was he executed?
kivi says: Oh, it is well worth a goggle, or, as in my case, a quick trip to a good history book: "The History of the Jewish People", ArtScroll History Series, R's Scherman and Zlotowotz. There are many potential canditates that fit the rather vague perimeters of the quote. It could be Chizkiyahu, whose spiritual revival was destroyed by Menashe, his son, which set the stage for the later Babylonian destruction of the Southern Kingdom; it could be Tzidkiyahu, the last Dovidic King of the Southern Kingdom who died in the final destruction of the Southern Kngdom; it could have been Gediliah, a member of the Dovidic line, who was the last and only Jewish governor of the Babylonian conquored province, who was killed by Yishmael ben Nesanyah, at the instigation of the Ammonite King, Baalis. It coud be the last Hasmonean King, Hyrkanus or his nephew, Aristobulus, both killed by Herod. There are numerous potential canidates in the last 6 of the Dovidic Kings, especially Yoshiyahu. To say that, by default, is has to be the Christian canidate is to be pre-judging the historic evidence.

CM: That narrows it down to one possible person.
kivi says : As noted above, that is hardly correct.

ChavaKMy point was, I think it interesting that he specifically mentions
Socrates and Pythagoras by name, but not Jesus. He only says
"wise king". Why does he not mention Jesus by name, not only
once but twice?

CM: Who knows....it's not really a point because the timeframe is quite specific.
kivi says: That is also open to question. The time frame stretches over several hundreds of years. Christians have a canidate. They but him forward every chance they get, whether he fits the circumstances of not. This is a case where he most definitely does not fit the circumstances or the quote. CM is merely trying to frame the discussion by pre-elimiating all the potential canidates

ChavaK: And we all know it wasn't Jews who killed Jesus.....it was the Romans.
So either he is an anti-semite, or he is speaking of someone else.....

CM: Actually, the Romans killed Jesus, but they were not His accusers. Why you wish to play the "anti-semite" card here has got me stumped- and it's getting real old on this forum.
kivi says: CM, I don't think she is playing any anti semitic card. The quote under discussion states that the 'King' will be killed by his own people. Therefore, if the Romans killed Jesus, then he is eliminated from the potential list of canidates. Unless to be an 'accuser' makes a Jew libel for the death. That is the point she is making. I think it is very valid.

[ContraMundum]

kivi says: Oh, it is well worth a goggle, or, as in my case, a quick trip to a good history book: "The History of the Jewish People", ArtScroll History Series, R's Scherman and Zlotowotz. There are many potential canditates that fit the rather vague perimeters of the quote. It could be Chizkiyahu, whose spiritual revival was destroyed by Menashe, his son, which set the stage for the later Babylonian destruction of the Southern Kingdom; it could be Tzidkiyahu, the last Dovidic King of the Southern Kingdom who died in the final destruction of the Southern Kngdom; it could have been Gediliah, a member of the Dovidic line, who was the last and only Jewish governor of the Babylonian conquored province, who was killed by Yishmael ben Nesanyah, at the instigation of the Ammonite King, Baalis. It coud be the last Hasmonean King, Hyrkanus or his nephew, Aristobulus, both killed by Herod. There are numerous potential canidates in the last 6 of the Dovidic Kings, especially Yoshiyahu. To say that, by default, is has to be the Christian canidate is to be pre-judging the historic evidence.

...which of them was a wise king executed by the Jews?

None.

Next.

[Torah613]

nor was J*sus executed by the Jews.

You can tell this by the form of execution, which is not halachically allowed. If the Sanhedrin did want him dead, they did have teh power.

Yochanan

[ShirChadash]

nor was J*sus executed by the Jews.

You can tell this by the form of execution, which is not halachically allowed. If the Sanhedrin did want him dead, they did have teh power.

Yochanan
hm. sounds to me like that syrian didn't know Jewish history well either.

[ChazakEmunah]

Do not cast your pearls before swine Do not waste good things on people who will not appreciate them. This proverb is adapted from a saying of Jesus from the Gospels, “Cast not pearls before swine.” Jesus appears to be warning his disciples to preach only before receptive audiences.



who of you here can honestly say you haven't done this when we share our Messiah's words with you?

I was only quoting the sound advise of my Rabbi, if it offends, he said it would do that too.
Shouldn't this then be more proof that Je*us was not G-d? Do you really honestly believe that Ribbono Shel Olam would refer to one of his creations in such a derogatory manner?


As an aside, there's all sorts of textual criticism that could be brought to bear on that sentence, but I'll leave that for another time and place.

[Torah613]

Omayn Chazak, Omayn!

Yochanan

[kivi]

...which of them was a wise king executed by the Jews?

None.

Next.

kivi says: I expect better from you. Any one of them are a great canidate, clearly meeting the requirements of the quote. And compared to the Christian canidate, which does not meet the requirements of the quote in any manner, since he
1/ was not wise,
2/ was not a king and
3/ was not executed by his own,
the potential canidates I presented are light years ahead.

[kivi]

kivi says: I think there is a typo and the word not should be between the word did and have.


nor was J*sus executed by the Jews.

You can tell this by the form of execution, which is not halachically allowed. If the Sanhedrin did want him dead, they did have teh power.

Yochanan

kivi says: It really makes a lot more sense to start from the idea that the entire story of the capture, trial and execution of the supposed Jesus Christ is a total fabrication, created to meet the anti semitic hatred of the early Church Fathers.

[ShirChadash]

Clearly. But then again I really don't care what the Jews think, theologically.
Wow, it's a good thing your theology does not rest upon anything ever given to, believed, taught or thought by Jews.

Oh.

Oops.

[ContraMundum]

nor was J*sus executed by the Jews.

Umm...no....some Jewish people did present Him to the Romans for execution- in other words, certain leaders within the community had Him executed, by the Romans, for their reasons. The blame lies with both those certain leaders and the Roman authorities.

You can tell this by the form of execution, which is not halachically allowed. If the Sanhedrin did want him dead, they did have teh power.Good point to bring up....and this shows that sinners and hypocrites, not the tzaddikim, had Him killed and killed Him. They didn't follow their own laws. The NT doesn't record a good time in history for the Jews or the Sanhedrin, it records a dark era, and the sin became so bad that even the Sanhedrin became sinful, killing an innocent man. In other words, Jesus was killed by the sins of the people, although innocent, in other words in "hatred without cause".

This is so profound, so amazing that some people are afraid to look at it, and it is not Christian propaganda, as the sinful nature of Israel at that time is attested to in the Talmud:

"Why was the first Sanctuary destroyed? Because of three [evil] things which prevailed there: idolatry, immorality, bloodshed . . .

But why was the second Sanctuary destroyed, seeing that in its time they were occupying themselves with Torah, [observance of] precepts, and the practice of charity? Because therein prevailed hatred without cause. That teaches you that groundless hatred is considered as of even gravity with the three sins of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed together . And [during the time of] the first Sanctuary did no groundless hatred prevail? Surely it is written: They are thrust down to the sword with my people; smite therefore upon my thigh,13 and R. Eleazar said: This refers to people who eat and drink together and then thrust each other through with the daggers of their tongue! — That [passage] speaks of the princes in Israel, for it is written , Cry and wail, son of man; for it is upon my people,13 etc. [The text reads] ‘Cry and wail, son of man’. One might have assumed [it is upon] all [Israel], therefore it goes on, Upon all the princes of Israel."

Yoma 9b, Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Press Edition

[visionary]

My favorte verses that show Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah.

For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand; he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. ( Isaiah 53:2-12)

For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. His authority shall grow continually, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. ( Isaiah 9:6-7)

But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. ( Micah 5:2)

Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. ( Zechariah 9:9)

See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. Just as there were many who were astonished at him - so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of mortals - so he shall startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them they shall see, and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate. ( Isaiah 52:13-15)

[ChazakEmunah]

Clearly. But then again I really don't care what the Jews think, theologically.
Quite an astute observation there. Clearly with that sort of mindset you can never hope to even remotely understand even your (xtian) Bible, let alone G-d.

I feel sorry for your soul. You'll go through many more gilgulim until that mindset changes.

[Torah613]

Actually I think Tonks has it about right. Chr*stianity is so far removed from its Jewish foundations that anything theologically Jewish no longer makes sense in that framework.

So, why should Tonks care what Jews think theologically? it has absolutely no relationship to Chr*stian beliefs or practices.

Yochanan

[kivi]

Umm...no....some Jewish people did present Him to the Romans for execution- in other words, certain leaders within the community had Him executed, by the Romans, for their reasons. The blame lies with both those certain leaders and the Roman authorities.
kivi says: Of course, historically, the entire arrest, trial and crucifixtion of Jesus Christ as protrayed in the New Testament is the greatest engine for Christian Jew Hatred in the Christian scriptures. It was put there by the early Church Faythers for just that purpose. The facts of the matter is that the entire story is fictional and in the same league as the Czarist police's forgery of "The Protocal of the Elders of Zion".

Good point to bring up....and this shows that sinners and hypocrites, not the tzaddikim, had Him killed and killed Him. They didn't follow their own laws.
kivi says: If Christianity actually operated out of that, Christianity would not have blamed mainstream Judaism as it has for the last 2000 years. Of course, Christianity is so ignorant of Judaism and how it works that for the last 2000 years it been: 'if its a Jew, kill it'. The facts of the matter are that, even according to even the New Testament, the 95% of the Jews who were Pharisaic in Eretz Israel at the supposed time of the existance of Jesus Christ had nothing to do with anything that was related to him and the small minority that did were heretics and dissappeared from the Jewish people with the destruction of the 2nd Temple through assimulation into the dominate Greco-Roman culture.


The NT doesn't record a good time in history for the Jews or the Sanhedrin, it records a dark era, and the sin became so bad that even the Sanhedrin became sinful, killing an innocent man. In other words, Jesus was killed by the sins of the people, although innocent, in other words in "hatred without cause".
kivi says: The facts of the matter is that it was not the sins of the Jewish peole who killed the supposed Jesus Christ. That is the foundation of Christian Jew hatred. That the Jews had any blame for the fictional death of the supposed Jesus Christ is the horrible slander that has plagued the Jews and allowed the organizatons of Christianity and their descendents to murder, torture and persecute the Jews for the last 2000 years. That vicious fiction must rejected and apologized for by Christianity as whole just like the Australian gov't apologized for the historic evil treatment of the Aboriganines.

This is so profound, so amazing that some people are afraid to look at it, and it is not Christian propaganda, as the sinful nature of Israel at that time is attested to in the Talmud:

"Why was the first Sanctuary destroyed? Because of three [evil] things which prevailed there: idolatry, immorality, bloodshed . . .


But why was the second Sanctuary destroyed, seeing that in its time they were occupying themselves with Torah, [observance of] precepts, and the practice of charity? Because therein prevailed hatred without cause. That teaches you that groundless hatred is considered as of even gravity with the three sins of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed together . And [during the time of] the first Sanctuary did no groundless hatred prevail? Surely it is written: They are thrust down to the sword with my people; smite therefore upon my thigh,13 and R. Eleazar said: This refers to people who eat and drink together and then thrust each other through with the daggers of their tongue! — That [passage] speaks of the princes in Israel, for it is written , Cry and wail, son of man; for it is upon my people,13 etc. [The text reads] ‘Cry and wail, son of man’. One might have assumed [it is upon] all [Israel], therefore it goes on, Upon all the princes of Israel."

Yoma 9b, Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Press Edition[/quote]
kivi says: Only amoungst our own, only amoungst our own. It is in-appropropriate {I use this term because it if I said what I wanted to, I'd get so many RV's as to carpet the entire Outback} to rip it out of context and have it apply to something that it was NEVER intended. Of course, what you are saying is that the Jews deserved to have the 2nd Temple desxtroyed and to be sent into exile because they killed Jesus. It is the guilt of the Jewish people that killed Jesus. And whatever is done to them is justified. Thank you for sharing that with us.

[kivi]

My favorte verses that show Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah.

For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand; he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. ( Isaiah 53:2-12)

For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. His authority shall grow continually, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. ( Isaiah 9:6-7)

But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. ( Micah 5:2)

Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. ( Zechariah 9:9)

See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. Just as there were many who were astonished at him - so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of mortals - so he shall startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them they shall see, and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate. ( Isaiah 52:13-15)

kivi says: of course, since it is an invalid translation of Isaiah, it really has not standing in the matter.

[ContraMundum]

kivi says: Of course, historically, the entire arrest, trial and crucifixtion of Jesus Christ as protrayed in the New Testament is the greatest engine for Christian Jew Hatred in the Christian scriptures. It was put there by the early Church Faythers for just that purpose. The facts of the matter is that the entire story is fictional and in the same league as the Czarist police's forgery of "The Protocal of the Elders of Zion".

Prove it. Be the first. Ever.


kivi says: The facts of the matter is that it was not the sins of the Jewish peole who killed the supposed Jesus Christ. That is the foundation of Christian Jew hatred. That the Jews had any blame for the fictional death of the supposed Jesus Christ is the horrible slander that has plagued the Jews and allowed the organizatons of Christianity and their descendents to murder, torture and persecute the Jews for the last 2000 years. That vicious fiction must rejected and apologized for by Christianity as whole just like the Australian gov't apologized for the historic evil treatment of the Aboriganines.

Umm...kivi...get on the bus. We all agree it was not the sins of the Jewish people that killed Christ- it was the sins of Adam and all of his descendants that was the cause for God to make a plan of salvation.

Have you lost the ability to argue from a point of view that actually addresses Christian beliefs?

Right now, you're making a lot of points- to yourself. We're watching and wondering how someone can maintain such an inner dialogue for so many posts. Kivi says: (fill in the blank here) and kivi replies "good point kivi". Contra looks and wonders what all the fuss is about, and wonders where he can find these same Christians that kivi hates so he can approach them too, 'cos if these Christians actually exist, they need to be corrected. After almost 20 years I haven't met them yet. I think you're looking for a Christian Sasquatch. Better take a decent camera with you.

[/size][/font]


But why was the second Sanctuary destroyed, seeing that in its time they were occupying themselves with Torah, [observance of] precepts, and the practice of charity? Because therein prevailed hatred without cause. That teaches you that groundless hatred is considered as of even gravity with the three sins of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed together . And [during the time of] the first Sanctuary did no groundless hatred prevail? Surely it is written: They are thrust down to the sword with my people; smite therefore upon my thigh,13 and R. Eleazar said: This refers to people who eat and drink together and then thrust each other through with the daggers of their tongue! — That [passage] speaks of the princes in Israel, for it is written , Cry and wail, son of man; for it is upon my people,13 etc. [The text reads] ‘Cry and wail, son of man’. One might have assumed [it is upon] all [Israel], therefore it goes on, Upon all the princes of Israel."

Yoma 9b, Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Press Edition

kivi says: Only amoungst our own, only amoungst our own. It is in-appropropriate {I use this term because it if I said what I wanted to, I'd get so many RV's as to carpet the entire Outback} to rip it out of context and have it apply to something that it was NEVER intended. Of course, what you are saying is that the Jews deserved to have the 2nd Temple desxtroyed and to be sent into exile because they killed Jesus. It is the guilt of the Jewish people that killed Jesus. And whatever is done to them is justified. Thank you for sharing that with us.Wow....how did you get that from my post?

I think you wish that was my point, but I have to dissapoint you and tell you- the testimony of the Talmud is more important to me than your attempt to paint a different history to save face. Accept the words of my fathers and understand that they believed the Second Temple was destroyed because of the sins of Israel in that day. Whether they were right or wrong, no one of Jewish authority has disputed the immorality of Israel at that time. It wasn't the first time, and many Jewish rabbis will tell you, it wasn't the last time either.

It is insane and irresponsible to say "what you are saying is that the Jews deserved to have the 2nd Temple destroyed and to be sent into exile because they killed Jesus" because I didn't say that. The Talmud (which most orthodox Jews believe) gives the reason for the destruction of the Temple. I'm saying that the same reason applies as to why Jesus was crucified.

Eg.:

The Talmud says: The Temple was destroyed because of the sins of the people, namely "hatred without cause". I believe that. I agree with it.

The NT says: That Jesus was crucified for the same reason! I believe that. I agree with it.

That was the zeitgeist my friend. These are two victims of it.

The NT does not teach that the Temple was destroyed because Jesus was crucified. It teaches He was killed by sinners, Jew and Gentile. The Talmud backs up the fact that Israel had the sin of hatred without cause at that time. That's the Jewish witness. There's an abundance of witnesses as to the corruption and ferocity of the Romans at that time too. That's the Gentile witness. Both witnesses attest to the agreeability of the NT testimony on this matter.

[ContraMundum]

kivi says: of course, since it is an invalid translation of Isaiah, it really has not standing in the matter.

Oh yes..only "The Judaica Press" version is correct, right kivi? ...and then, only the "approved" interpretation is valid, right?

Double-plus good brother? :thumbsup:

[visionary]

Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah is the "son of man" with Daniel's friend in the fiery furnace.

[ChazakEmunah]

Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah is the "son of man" with Daniel's friend in the fiery furnace.
And I suppose you will try to say that Je*us was also one of the angels that visited Avraham, and the angel that spoke on HaShem's behalf at the Akeidah, and the angel that wrestled with Ya'akov, and the angel who instructed Y'hoshua right before the Israelites entered Ca'anan. In fact, I bet you believe that every single time there's an instance where an angel visits a human that you think it's Je*us, right?

Look, I was there at one point. I thought I kept seeing Je*us all over the Tanakh, instead I realized that I was imagining something that wasn't there. You're doing the same thing vis. You can't force the appearance of a pre-existent Je*us into the Tanakh, it's just not there.

[kivi]

Prove it. Be the first. Ever.
kivi says: you know as well as I do that it is impossible to prove a negative. But I am not trying to prove anything. Its your religion's story, not mine. Just repeating it, over and over, again, does not make it true. So, every time you claim it happened I will be there to say that it didn't. You prove it, its your message.



Umm...kivi...get on the bus.
kivi says: Mocking is a good debate tactic, I taught it to my debate students as a prime means of getting the discussion off the topic and on to someting else more easily attacked. But it never finds the truth. If what you are about is winning the debate, go for it. But if you are interested in the truth, then I'm your man. :thumbsup:


We all agree it was not the sins of the Jewish people that killed Christ- it was the sins of Adam and all of his descendants that was the cause for God to make a plan of salvation.

Have you lost the ability to argue from a point of view that actually addresses Christian beliefs?

Right now, you're making a lot of points- to yourself. We're watching and wondering how someone can maintain such an inner dialogue for so many posts. Kivi says: (fill in the blank here) and kivi replies "good point kivi". Contra looks and wonders what all the fuss is about, and wonders where he can find these same Christians that kivi hates so he can approach them too, 'cos if these Christians actually exist, they need to be corrected. After almost 20 years I haven't met them yet. I think you're looking for a Christian Sasquatch. Better take a decent camera with you.

[/size][/font]


Wow....how did you get that from my post?

I think you wish that was my point, but I have to dissapoint you and tell you- the testimony of the Talmud is more important to me than your attempt to paint a different history to save face. Accept the words of my fathers and understand that they believed the Second Temple was destroyed because of the sins of Israel in that day. Whether they were right or wrong, no one of Jewish authority has disputed the immorality of Israel at that time. It wasn't the first time, and many Jewish rabbis will tell you, it wasn't the last time either.

It is insane and irresponsible to say "what you are saying is that the Jews deserved to have the 2nd Temple destroyed and to be sent into exile because they killed Jesus" because I didn't say that. The Talmud (which most orthodox Jews believe) gives the reason for the destruction of the Temple. I'm saying that the same reason applies as to why Jesus was crucified.
kivi says: But you are an excellent debater. And by putting in juxiposition the Jewish discussion on why we lost the 2nd Temple: unreasoning hatred and the Christian claim that it was Jews who instigated the supposed death of Jesus Christ, you achieve the same end. There was no unreasoning hatred in the Jewish community in the death of Jesus Crhist, if he ever existed. Maybe the Romans had it in for him, after all they are the ones who killed him. But it was no Zealot knife that did the job, no Sanhadrin in judgement, no High Priest who paid for the betrayal, no Jewish mob calling for his death.

Eg.:

The Talmud says: The Temple was destroyed because of the sins of the people, namely "hatred without cause". I believe that. I agree with it.

The NT says: That Jesus was crucified for the same reason! I believe that. I agree with it.

That was the zeitgeist my friend. These are two victims of it.

The NT does not teach that the Temple was destroyed because Jesus was crucified. It teaches He was killed by sinners, Jew and Gentile. The Talmud backs up the fact that Israel had the sin of hatred without cause at that time. That's the Jewish witness. There's an abundance of witnesses as to the corruption and ferocity of the Romans at that time too. That's the Gentile witness. Both witnesses attest to the agreeability of the NT testimony on this matter.
kivi says: And being an excellent debater you end up with this 'backdoor' accusation against the Jews, that they had anything to do with his death. They did not. It is a cop-out and a great debating sleight-of-hand to say that gentiles and Jews both had a part because the gentile Christians are going to sit there and beat their chests and cry: forgive me, forgive me. That just leaves the Jews, who will not. Because we didn't.

[kivi]

Oh yes..only "The Judaica Press" version is correct, right kivi? ...and then, only the "approved" interpretation is valid, right?

Double-plus good brother? :thumbsup:\
kivi says: Darn right. The Tanach is Jewish scriptures and any one using them without our permisson is involved in an act of theft. Of course, any translaton is erroneous, only the original Hebrew is authentic. But if a translation is used, then only a accepted Orthodox translation is permitted.

[ContraMundum]

kivi says: you know as well as I do that it is impossible to prove a negative. But I am not trying to prove anything. Its your religion's story, not mine. Just repeating