Fundamental contradiction in Christianity?

[Skeptical]

Having spent the past few years reading about Christian texts and origins and about 1st century Palestinian culture, it has been on my mind recently that there seems to be a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Christianity. To whit, if Christianity depends for its foundations on Judaism and the long Jewish traditions of communication with Yahweh, how can it simultaneously claim that Jewish people and traditions were fundamentally wrong about the Messiah, certainly one of the most important, if not the most important question in its history? Standing back a bit and looking at it "from afar" so to speak, the whole idea seems absurd on its face.

From what I can tell, the only other "fundamental" areas of disagreement between Judaism and the early Christians were regarding diet, circumcision and meal sacraments, i.e eating with non-believers. Those may have been big disagreements in the 1st century, but they seem pretty minor in comparison to a disagreement about the Messiah. So there doesn't seem to be a lot of disagreement between the early Christian movement and Judaism _other_ than about Jesus and where or not he was the Messiah.

All in all, it seems more like Christianity hijacked the heritage of Judaism than that it was a continuation. I know the beginnings of Christianity are complicated, and perhaps some of the original followers still considered themselves Jewish, but over time this idea definitely eroded and Paul certainly seems to have been interested in making a break with Judaism.

Is it legitimate to take a groups religion and say, "yes, we like your religion very much, except for this small fact that you were wrong about the most important question in your religions history, so we're going to start our own based on yours"? The whole enterprise just seems to want to stand on the shoulders of Judaism while at the same time cutting its feet out from under it.

I think this point of view really crystallized for me with the whole argument about the 10 commandmants displays. Many Christians were frothing at the mouth about it, and yet they simultaneously essentially condemn the entire religion of Judaism since they completely missed when the Messiah arrived. In fact, in my experience a lot of Christians spend a lot of time hammering on the OT, while not realizing or caring that they are simultaneously implicitly denying the authority they purport to obey by following Jesus as the Messiah. The whole thing now seems very bizzare and supremely ironic to me.

Am I wrong? Am I stating what has always been painfully obvious to everyone else but me? Thoughts?

[judge]

Having spent the past few years reading about Christian texts and origins and about 1st century Palestinian culture, it has been on my mind recently that there seems to be a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Christianity. To whit, if Christianity depends for its foundations on Judaism and the long Jewish traditions of communication with Yahweh, how can it simultaneously claim that Jewish people and traditions were fundamentally wrong about the Messiah, certainly one of the most important, if not the most important question in its history? Standing back a bit and looking at it "from afar" so to speak, the whole idea seems absurd on its face.


The message in the gospels seems to be that the religious people who revered the texts did not themselves even understand them, or have any connection to God.

Jesus for example asks how the messaih can be davids son and his lord.

He tells the saduccees that abraham is alive and not dead.

He tells the pharisees that they ignore the weightier matters of the law and pay strict attention to minor things.

In this day is that really so hard to believe?

[manimal2878]

I think it is because most christians including the pastors and preachers have never read the bible as a whole and looked at it's story without their dogma and doctrine attached.

It seems to me that the NT rebukes ALL of the OT laws including the 10 commandemets.

If christians wanted to post the beatitudes or some parable, while I would still think it wrong, at least it would be a desire not contradicted by their own religious beliefs.

[Chris Weimer]

It's always been painfully obvious to most Jews ;)

[Sven]

The message in the gospels seems to be that the religious people who revered the texts did not themselves even understand them, or have any connection to God.

[...]

In this day is that really so hard to believe?
No, it's indeed not hard to believe that anyone can make up a story including this claim. :rolleyes:

[jonesg]

Having spent the past few years reading about Christian texts and origins and about 1st century Palestinian culture, it has been on my mind recently that there seems to be a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Christianity. To whit, if Christianity depends for its foundations on Judaism and the long Jewish traditions of communication with Yahweh, how can it simultaneously claim that Jewish people and traditions were fundamentally wrong about the Messiah, certainly one of the most important, if not the most important question in its history? Standing back a bit and looking at it "from afar" so to speak, the whole idea seems absurd on its face.

From what I can tell, the only other "fundamental" areas of disagreement between Judaism and the early Christians were regarding diet, circumcision and meal sacraments, i.e eating with non-believers. Those may have been big disagreements in the 1st century, but they seem pretty minor in comparison to a disagreement about the Messiah. So there doesn't seem to be a lot of disagreement between the early Christian movement and Judaism _other_ than about Jesus and where or not he was the Messiah.

All in all, it seems more like Christianity hijacked the heritage of Judaism than that it was a continuation. I know the beginnings of Christianity are complicated, and perhaps some of the original followers still considered themselves Jewish, but over time this idea definitely eroded and Paul certainly seems to have been interested in making a break with Judaism.

Is it legitimate to take a groups religion and say, "yes, we like your religion very much, except for this small fact that you were wrong about the most important question in your religions history, so we're going to start our own based on yours"? The whole enterprise just seems to want to stand on the shoulders of Judaism while at the same time cutting its feet out from under it.

I think this point of view really crystallized for me with the whole argument about the 10 commandmants displays. Many Christians were frothing at the mouth about it, and yet they simultaneously essentially condemn the entire religion of Judaism since they completely missed when the Messiah arrived. In fact, in my experience a lot of Christians spend a lot of time hammering on the OT, while not realizing or caring that they are simultaneously implicitly denying the authority they purport to obey by following Jesus as the Messiah. The whole thing now seems very bizzare and supremely ironic to me.

Am I wrong? Am I stating what has always been painfully obvious to everyone else but me? Thoughts?

Are you using the human failure of christians to adhere to the teachings of Jesus as an excuse to dismiss those very teachings?
If you ignore the christians and focus on the Jesus figure you get a different example.

"Is it legitimate to take a groups religion and say, "yes, we like your religion very much, except for this small fact that you were wrong about the most important question in your religions history, so we're going to start our own based on yours"?"

Well, thats not what happened, it was Jesus who took things in a different direction. His followers followed.

[Dharma]

Are you using the human failure of christians to adhere to the teachings of Jesus as an excuse to dismiss those very teachings?
If you ignore the christians and focus on the Jesus figure you get a different example.

"Is it legitimate to take a groups religion and say, "yes, we like your religion very much, except for this small fact that you were wrong about the most important question in your religions history, so we're going to start our own based on yours"?"

Well, thats not what happened, it was Jesus who took things in a different direction. His followers followed.

well that would be all right. But if you claim Jesus was the Messiah, and Christianity is a branch of Judaism -- the Jews NEVER worshipped their king AFTER the 10 commandments. So Christianity is blaspheming Judaism by saying Jesus is God, which is the most basic tenet of Christianity.

The 10 Commandments forbid worship of any other diety other than Yahweh.

[Nay-Sayer]

Well, thats not what happened, it was Jesus who took things in a different direction. His followers followed.
Not exactly. Christians DO NOT follow the example of Jesus. By no means....

[Dharma]

Not exactly. Christians DO NOT follow the example of Jesus. By no means....

That varies by interpretation.

[gee]

Skeptical;

So glad you brought these points up.
Good post! However, it's huge. I'll comment on one point.

"...how can it simultaneously claim that Jewish people and traditions were fundamentally wrong about the Messiah"

There's a flaw in your premise here:

"fundamentally wrong"? On the contrary! Christians believe that the Jewish people and traditions were fundamentally right about the Messiah. Jesus didn't pop out of nowhere in the Jewish tradition. They had been expecting a Messiah for a long time. With the 400 years of silence from God between the OT and Jesus appearing; they were awaiting something....

gee

[Nay-Sayer]

That varies by interpretation.Please elaborate....

[Dharma]

Please elaborate....

That varies by biblical interpretation as to what scriptures constitute Christianity and what did Jesus REALLY mean when he said "I have come to fulfill the Law", which if interpreted to mean the Mosaic laws, would justify many immoral and moral things, not to mention the many contradictory things Christ himself said.

[Dharma]

Skeptical;

So glad you brought these points up.
Good post! However, it's huge. I'll comment on one point.

"...how can it simultaneously claim that Jewish people and traditions were fundamentally wrong about the Messiah"

There's a flaw in your premise here:

"fundamentally wrong"? On the contrary! Christians believe that the Jewish people and traditions were fundamentally right about the Messiah. Jesus didn't pop out of nowhere in the Jewish tradition. They had been expecting a Messiah for a long time. With the 400 years of silence from God between the OT and Jesus appearing; they were awaiting something....

gee

since when did the Jews worship their King? If the Jews are fundamentally right, than Christians are fundamentally WRONG.

[Nay-Sayer]

That varies by biblical interpretation as to what scriptures constitute Christianity and what did Jesus REALLY mean when he said "I have come to fulfill the Law", which if interpreted to mean the Mosaic laws, would justify many immoral and moral things, not to mention the many contradictory things Christ himself said.Your theory is fine and dandy but I'm speaking in terms of practical application. Christians are quick to trumpet that Jesus was without sin. If that's true then the only possible meaning of that is Jesus did not break the Mosaic Law. Chrsitians, who take every opportunity to break the Mosaic Law [to the letter or in the spirit of], do not follow Jesus' example. Now, I realize that there are some Christians out there who follow the Law of Moses, but these groups are the exception and NOT the rule. The vast majority of Christians, in practice, do not follow the example of Jesus....

[Skeptical]

He tells the pharisees that they ignore the weightier matters of the law and pay strict attention to minor things.

In this day is that really so hard to believe?

I wasn't really talking about those sort of minor issues. I wasn't even really talking about Jesus. What I was talking about was the Christian religion as it has come down over the ages. My point is that it seems fundamentally contradictory to base a religion (Christianity) on the foundations of another religion (Judaism) while simultaneously claiming that the followers of the foundational religion were fundamentally wrong about one of the most important events (if not the most important) in their history.

As it see it, the Christian religion tries to both venerate and desecrate Judaism at the same time. This seems to me to involve a fundamental contradiction. See my pont?

[Skeptical]

Are you using the human failure of christians to adhere to the teachings of Jesus as an excuse to dismiss those very teachings?
If you ignore the christians and focus on the Jesus figure you get a different example.

That's not exactly my point. My concern in this thread is not really directly related to Jesus, more to the Christian religion as a whole. The teachings of Jesus are not really relevant to my point in this thread. But, I agree that Christianity as it is almost universally practiced over the ages bears little resemblance to what Jesus is reported to have taught and preached.


"Is it legitimate to take a groups religion and say, "yes, we like your religion very much, except for this small fact that you were wrong about the most important question in your religions history, so we're going to start our own based on yours"?"

Well, thats not what happened, it was Jesus who took things in a different direction. His followers followed.

I think this is highly debatable. That is the traditional Christian interpretation, but that doesn't make it so. EP Sanders makes a powerful argument in "Jesus and Judaism" that Jesus wasn't trying to "move in a different direction" in a general sense, although he was certainly saying and doing things that were different from some groups within Judaism. (although certainly not all) The differences between Jesus' teachings and those of other groups within Judaism in 1st century Palestine have been vastly exaggerated by later Christian apologists.

I also think it is highly doubtful that Jesus said anything about being a "son of god" or being sent to save the world from its sins. That is a particular spin that was given post mortem, and it most likely was a Pauline invention.

In any case, my point is even if Jesus was trying to move in a "new direction", the direction as interpreted by later Christians was so non-Jewish that the only logical course of action would have been a complete break with Judaism. If the Jews were so wrong on the Messiah, then why should any of their other traditions be trusted? But the early and modern Christians did not make this break and in fact in their words and deeds often seem to prefer the OT to the NT. The whole business seems very schizophrenic.

[Skeptical]

There's a flaw in your premise here:

"fundamentally wrong"? On the contrary! Christians believe that the Jewish people and traditions were fundamentally right about the Messiah. Jesus didn't pop out of nowhere in the Jewish tradition. They had been expecting a Messiah for a long time. With the 400 years of silence from God between the OT and Jesus appearing; they were awaiting something....

gee

But they weren't expecting anything like what Christians claim about Jesus!

Sorry to shout, but that is my central point. There is nothing that I am aware of in either the OT or other Jewish sources about Messianic expectations that can reasonably be applied to what Christians claimed for Jesus. (yes, I'm aware of all of the "prophecies" taken out of context from the OT that Mat believed related to Jesus, so let's not get sidetracked into that)

On the contrary, all of the Jewish traditions up to that time expected the Messiah to be an earthly ruler in the tradition of David, not a "son of God" come to "save the world from its sins". In fact, that very concept seems to me very non-Jewish. As far as I know, Jews always talked to God directly, they didn't need someone else to save them from their sins, that was what God did.

The only traditional Messianic tradition that Jesus definitely fulfilled was that he was Jewish. He might have been of the line of David, but other than that he didn't meet any of the other criteria. So, by traditional Jewish standards up to that point, he clearly wasn't the Messiah. If he _was_ the Messiah, then the Jewish tradition was so horribly flawed it seems to make no sense to continue to follow those traditions from the Christian POV.

[Dharma]

Your theory is fine and dandy but I'm speaking in terms of practical application. Christians are quick to trumpet that Jesus was without sin. If that's true then the only possible meaning of that is Jesus did not break the Mosaic Law. Chrsitians, who take every opportunity to break the Mosaic Law [to the letter or in the spirit of], do not follow Jesus' example. Now, I realize that there are some Christians out there who follow the Law of Moses, but these groups are the exception and NOT the rule. The vast majority of Christians, in practice, do not follow the example of Jesus....

Well Christians make up a new theology where the sin offering is no longer the lamb, but his whole self...i.e. the final sin offering after which man has to offer no more. Atleast that's the Catholic version.

[Johnny Skeptic]

The only traditional Messianic tradition that Jesus definitely fulfilled was that he was Jewish.

I beg to differ with you. If Jesus was actually conceived by the Holy Spirt, he could not possibly have been Jewish, but rather was made to look Jewish by the Holy Sprit. Not only that, if he had actually genetically been from the line of David, he would have had a sinful nature.

[neilgodfrey]

As it see it, the Christian religion tries to both venerate and desecrate Judaism at the same time. This seems to me to involve a fundamental contradiction. See my pont?

Christianity does indeed both venerate and descrate Judaism. You might be interested in getting a hold of Jeffrey Siker's "Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in early Christian controversy" (1991).

Essentially the idea is that given the culture of the time earliest Christianity needed to be able to claim roots in antiquity to establish any credibility as "true". But also in keeping with the culture of the day it was quite comfortable in applying allegorical meanings to these ancient texts in order to establish its own distinct identity.

So it needed the Jewish literature as its foundation. It also needed to hijack that literature from the Jews by plying its own allegorical spin.

[Skeptical]

Well Christians make up a new theology where the sin offering is no longer the lamb, but his whole self...i.e. the final sin offering after which man has to offer no more. Atleast that's the Catholic version.

I understand that tradition perfectly. My point is that the Christian traditions relating to Jesus bear no resemblance to the Jewish traditions for the Messiah. The Christian view of who Jesus was cannot be reconciled with the Jewish Messianic conception, ergo from the Christian perspective the Jewish traditions were completely and totally wrong on a matter of fundamental importance. Given this, the only logical position would be to break from the "foundation" of Judaism. Yet, the early Christians did not do this and neither have modern Christians. In fact, modern Christians embrace and venerate nearly all Jewish traditions while rejecting one of the most fundamental at the same time.

Hence, the fundamental contradiction of which this thread is the title. At least, it seems to me to be a fundamental contradiction and I haven't seen anything so far that would indicate a reasonable different view.

[Skeptical]

I beg to differ with you. If Jesus was actually conceived by the Holy Spirt, he could not possibly have been Jewish, but rather was made to look Jewish by the Holy Sprit. Not only that, if he had actually genetically been from the line of David, he would have had a sinful nature.

It may be a theological nuance, but my understanding was always that if the mother of a child is Jewish the child was considered Jewish. I could be wrong.

In any case, that would only make my point even stronger. I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the Jewish Messianic criteria that Jesus could plausibly have fulfilled. But, your point is taken.

[Skeptical]

Christianity does indeed both venerate and descrate Judaism. You might be interested in getting a hold of Jeffrey Siker's "Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in early Christian controversy" (1991).

Essentially the idea is that given the culture of the time earliest Christianity needed to be able to claim roots in antiquity to establish any credibility as "true". But also in keeping with the culture of the day it was quite comfortable in applying allegorical meanings to these ancient texts in order to establish its own distinct identity.

So it needed the Jewish literature as its foundation. It also needed to hijack that literature from the Jews by plying its own allegorical spin.

I've read something along those lines in other sources. I'm not sure which one, but I distinctly remember reading that in the 1st century Roman empire anything "new" was looked down upon, so the early Christians tried desperately to tie Jesus and Christianity to the Jewish traditions.

The more I have thought about this subject the more bizarre it seems to me. Honestly, the fundamental contradiction seems so basic that I don't understand how I never really saw it before, nor do I understand how it can be reconciled now.

Is there any Christian apologetic that has even tried to answer this problem in a reasonable way (if there is such a thing)? Thanks for the other reference BTW, I'll put it in my stack of "to be read". :)

[GakuseiDon]

But they weren't expecting anything like what Christians claim about Jesus!

Sorry to shout, but that is my central point. There is nothing that I am aware of in either the OT or other Jewish sources about Messianic expectations that can reasonably be applied to what Christians claimed for Jesus. (yes, I'm aware of all of the "prophecies" taken out of context from the OT that Mat believed related to Jesus, so let's not get sidetracked into that)

On the contrary, all of the Jewish traditions up to that time expected the Messiah to be an earthly ruler in the tradition of David, not a "son of God" come to "save the world from its sins". In fact, that very concept seems to me very non-Jewish.
FWIW, Richard Carrier touches on this point, in his rebuttal of JP Holding's "Impossible Faith". Carrier believes there is evidence that the Jews were expecting a Messiah who shared quite a few similarities to the Gospel Jesus (see esp "1.4. Many Converts Expected a Humiliated Savior").
http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/christianity/crucified.html#11

[GakuseiDon]

I've read something along those lines in other sources. I'm not sure which one, but I distinctly remember reading that in the 1st century Roman empire anything "new" was looked down upon, so the early Christians tried desperately to tie Jesus and Christianity to the Jewish traditions.

The more I have thought about this subject the more bizarre it seems to me. Honestly, the fundamental contradiction seems so basic that I don't understand how I never really saw it before, nor do I understand how it can be reconciled now.

Is there any Christian apologetic that has even tried to answer this problem in a reasonable way (if there is such a thing)?
Can you explain a little more by what you mean by "contradiction"? If it is along the lines of Christianity both accepting and rejecting Judaism, which parts within Christianity contradict? The earliest Christians believed that the OT prefigured Jesus Christ, but the Jews of the day disagreed. That doesn't imply a contradiction within Christianity, it just means the Christians could have been wrong. Can you give a concrete example of the contradiction?

[TedM]

... if Christianity depends for its foundations on Judaism and the long Jewish traditions of communication with Yahweh, how can it simultaneously claim that Jewish people and traditions were fundamentally wrong about the Messiah, certainly one of the most important, if not the most important question in its history? Standing back a bit and looking at it "from afar" so to speak, the whole idea seems absurd on its face.

One answer that makes sense to me is that its founder was profoundly Jewish, and a strict follower of the Jewish laws and traditions. This appears to be supported some by the idea that Jesus and his followers were an offshoot of the Essenes, or the JBap group, and that the original Christians were the Nazarenes, who taught strict adherence to the Jewish Law, yet obviously believed that Jesus had been the messiah that has ushered in the kingdom of god and would soon return. In Acts the original Christians in Jerusalem were called a 'sect' with the name 'Nazarenes', and it seems likely that this is related in some way to Jesus's alleged hometown of 'Nazareth'. It may also explain why James was called 'James the Just', and in Acts Jesus is called 'The Just One'.


With an actual human as inspiration all that is needed is to find a new interpretation or embrace some of the new interpretations about what kind of Messiah was expected. My understanding is that there were competing concepts within Judaism about what the Messiah would be like. The early use of Isaiah 53 by the NT authors could be a sign that the earliest Christians 'created' a new interpretation for the Messiah from it, or since they appeared to use it as OT support for their interpretation it could also be seen that they were appealing to a pre-existing expectation of a suffering Messiah. My understanding is that parts of Isaiah 53 (verse 2) for example, was considered by the Jews to be a Messiac reference, and verse 2 is referring to the same entity as the entire chapter.

So, one possibility is that the early believers were actually very strict Jews and they embraced the concept of a suffering Messiah. They either then created this Messiah out of thin air in their imaginations, or one of their members or someone like themselves in philosophy became 'like' a Messiah through his actions, deliberate or not.

ted

From what I can tell, the only other "fundamental" areas of disagreement between Judaism and the early Christians were regarding diet, circumcision and meal sacraments, i.e eating with non-believers. Those may have been big disagreements in the 1st century

This was a big deal, and it appears that those who initially favored not making any changes were the Nazarene group in Jerusalem, ie the very earliest followers that included Peter, James and John.

but they seem pretty minor in comparison to a disagreement about the Messiah. So there doesn't seem to be a lot of disagreement between the early Christian movement and Judaism _other_ than about Jesus and where or not he was the Messiah.

To me the differences are best explained by the traditional belief that Jesus had been a real man who was really crucified and who had inspired certain peoples prior to his crucifixion and who for whatever reasons inspired people after his death to believe he had risen and had been the Messiah that the people had been desparately seeking--so much that whatever differences existed between the life/death of Jesus and traditional expectation were not enough to overcome its success in finding a way to syncronize the two faiths. It may also be that the earliest Jewish Christians emphasized their Jewishness to a high degree so that that their message about Jesus would be more palatable to the avg Jew--ie the Nazarenes would be beyond reproach for their adherence to the Jewish traditions, making their claims about this risen Jesus seem more legitimate.

ted

[Johnny Skeptic]

One answer that makes sense to me is that its founder was profoundly Jewish, and a strict follower of the Jewish laws and traditions.

Jesus could not possibly have been Jewish. All that can be claimed by Christians is that he was made to look like a Jew by the Holy Spirit, in other words, an impersonator. In Matthew, an angel tells Joseph that Jesus would be conceived by the Holy Spirit. That means that Jesus could not possibly have been from the genetic line of David. No Jew from the genetic line of David could possibly have qualified as being "a lamb without spot or blemish." Only a non-human could meet that qualification since the texts say "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

[TedM]

Jesus could not possibly have been Jewish. All that can be claimed by Christians is that he was made to look like a Jew by the Holy Spirit, in other words, an impersonator. In Matthew, an angel tells Joseph that Jesus would be conceived by the Holy Spirit. That means that Jesus could not possibly have been from the genetic line of David. No Jew from the genetic line of David could possibly have qualified as being "a lamb without spot or blemish." Only a non-human could meet that qualification since the texts say "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

No one is going to take you seriously if you keep writing things like that. He most certainly could have been Jewish despite your claim in support of supernatural events that you don't even believe. You sound like you are just trying to be contrary here to this discussion. You said yesterday you weren't going to respond to my posts and you already have twice. I may decide to do the same but I hope to have a better record of compliance. :) p.s. don't take this too seriously, but please do keep in mind that we are talking about possible historical issues--not supernatural ones.. take care,

ted

ted

[offa]

Having spent the past few years reading about Christian texts and origins and about 1st century Palestinian culture, it has been on my mind recently that there seems to be a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Christianity. To whit, if Christianity depends for its foundations on Judaism and the long Jewish traditions of communication with Yahweh, how can it simultaneously claim that Jewish people and traditions were fundamentally wrong about the Messiah, certainly one of the most important, if not the most important question in its history? Standing back a bit and looking at it "from afar" so to speak, the whole idea seems absurd on its face.

Wow, you are confused. The difference between Jews and Christians is about Jesus turning water into wine. The Jews had a monopoly on religion by right of birth. Jesus' transformation allowed those not of the blood (not wine, but water) to collect tithes. Jesus really existed and wiped his ass just like you and me, and Jesus really died some thirty years after the crucifixion (that he survived).

[TedM]

Wow, you are confused. The difference between Jews and Christians is about Jesus turning water into wine. The Jews had a monopoly on religion by right of birth. Jesus' transformation allowed those not of the blood (not wine, but water) to collect tithes. Jesus really existed and wiped his ass just like you and me, and Jesus really died some thirty years after the crucifixion (that he survived).

I'll play along. How did Jesus survived for 30 years without any peep of that from Paul? What's your theory in a nutshell?

[gee]

Dharma;

If the Jews are fundamentally right, than Christians are fundamentally WRONG.

You are exactly right! Both cannot be correct. (I think you probably know which side I'm on)

Some Jews do believe; however.
It's interesting to note that one of Israel's biggest supporters in the world today is the evangelical community in America.

gee

[lee_merrill]

Can you explain a little more by what you mean by "contradiction"? If it is along the lines of Christianity both accepting and rejecting Judaism, which parts within Christianity contradict? The earliest Christians believed that the OT prefigured Jesus Christ, but the Jews of the day disagreed. That doesn't imply a contradiction within Christianity, it just means the Christians could have been wrong. Can you give a concrete example of the contradiction?
Well, yes, that's what I'm wondering too. And also, we have a prediction of the Jewish people refusing their Messiah, in the Bible, so how is this a contradiction if this happened?

Isaiah 53:4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

Isaiah 53:12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.

Daniel 9:25-26 Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.

And Gentiles believing, also was predicted:

Isaiah 42:6-7 I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

So here we have a fundamental confirmation, not a fundamental contradiction, it would seem...

Regards,
Lee

[badger3k]

Dharma;



You are exactly right! Both cannot be correct. (I think you probably know which side I'm on)

Some Jews do believe; however.
It's interesting to note that one of Israel's biggest supporters in the world today is the evangelical community in America.

gee

Unfortunately, it is only for the Evangelicals own purposes. They believe that for the Rapture to occur, there has to be an Israel and Israeli Jerusalem. After that, according to the Rapture material I have read, the Jews will either convert to Christianity or they will be condemned to Hell with everybody else. Not exactly what I would call a real "supporter" of Israel (since their support implicitly hopes for the destruction of Israel in the end).

[Skeptical]

Can you explain a little more by what you mean by "contradiction"? If it is along the lines of Christianity both accepting and rejecting Judaism, which parts within Christianity contradict? The earliest Christians believed that the OT prefigured Jesus Christ, but the Jews of the day disagreed.

It wasn't just a disagreement in terms of whether the criteria that Jesus "fulfilled" were met, it was a fundamental disagreement on what the concept of the Messiah actually was. From what I have read, there were very specific criteria in the Jewish traditions that described the Messiah. The Christians didn't argue that Jesus met these criteria, they simply substituted a lot of new criteria and then claimed that Jesus met these new criteria.

I'm aware that there were varying traditions within Judaism regarding the Messiah, and there may even potentially have been some traditions that held ideas similar to those given by the early Christians. However, that does not mean that there was not an overwhelmingly prominent view and one that fits most closely with traditional Jewish expectations for the Jewish people and the nation of Israel as the chosen people of Yahweh. (see generally "The Sceptar and the Star" by Collins and "Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs" by Horsley)

The rejection of the most prominent criteria by the early Christians was more than just a disagreement about Jesus. It was a rejection of long held traditions within Judaism in favor of, at best, a very minority position not well supported by scripture. (hence Mat's tortured attempts to "find" Jesus in the OT)


That doesn't imply a contradiction within Christianity, it just means the Christians could have been wrong. Can you give a concrete example of the contradiction?

If the Christians were wrong, then the entire Christian religion is based on false assumptions and all modern Christians are simply confused Jews following an abberated, psuedo-Judaic cult. But that's not my point.

I'll try to be more clear.

My argument is that it is a contradiction, in broad terms, to on the one hand base a religion (Christianity) on the basis of an older religion (Judaism) while at the same time rejecting one of the most important, if not the most important, traditions within the older religion, i.e. what the Messiah is to be.

Again, it is not just that there was disagreement on whether Jesus was the Messiah. In order for Jesus to be the Messiah a long-standing tradition within Judaism had to be fundamentally wrong. That the Messiah would be a warrior King in the tradition of David was not cooked up over night, it was integrated into the fabric of the Jewish expectations and history. If this concept was wrong, so much of the Jewish traditions integrated with this concept would be wrong that it seems to me to make no sense to both reject those traditions, but keep others. If the Jews were wrong on this score, there seems to be no reason to rely on their traditions on any other.

The closest analogy I can think of would be another nation taking the US constitution and saying "yes, we like this very much, except for the parts about separation of powers. We think all of the powers should be incorporated under a Monarch, but we like the rest". The problem with that would be there is almost no "rest" left to take. The entire document is premised on separation of powers and the way the powers are apportioned takes that into account. Granted, the Messianic conception may not have been quite this central to the Jewish history and expectations, but it's pretty close. If you strip out the traditional Messianic expectations and everything they entail and say they are all wrong, then there is so much that gets stripped out your basically rejecting the entire Jewish religion.

If that is the case, then fine. My point is the Christians wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to almost completely repudiate Judaism and one of its most important traditions, but then pick out those parts of Judaism they "liked" and keep only those.

I see similar issues with the rejection of the dietary laws and circumcision, but I don't consider the rejection of those traditions as central as the rejection of the Messianic tradition. Again, I realize there were variations in the expectations, but I have not seen any evidence to indicate that the Davidic King expectations was not by far the primary expectation. This expectation seems also to fit much more closely to the other Jewish traditions of the Jew's place in Yahweh's plans.

Fundamentally, one could argue that Jesus changed all of this, that the Jews were wrong, that Yahweh changed his mind, etc, etc. But if you go down that road, then why try to salvage any of the older Jewish traditions? The early Christians seemed to be moving definitely in the direction of rejecting the older Jewish traditions wholsesale, but then trying to incorporate them selectively when it served their purposes. At best this seems to be nothing more than a matter of expediency not based on any theologically principled account.

On a principled level, it seems to me a contradictory approach. It's not quite the same as saying both A and not-A, but it is more like saying A,B, and C, but not-D and not-E. But the problem is that A, B, C, D and E are not individuated units of data, but are instead interrelated, so that the rejection of one or several of them casts serious doubt on the validity of the others.

That is what I meant by saying I saw this as contradictory.

[Skeptical]

Wow, you are confused. The difference between Jews and Christians is about Jesus turning water into wine. The Jews had a monopoly on religion by right of birth. Jesus' transformation allowed those not of the blood (not wine, but water) to collect tithes. Jesus really existed and wiped his ass just like you and me, and Jesus really died some thirty years after the crucifixion (that he survived).

It's quite possible I am confused, wouldn't be the first time. ;)

However, I'm not quite sure I see how any of what you said is germane to this thread. My question/point is related to the "rejection yet acceptance" of Judaism by the early and modern Christian church. If there was something relevant to that in your post, I must say I missed it.

[Skeptical]

Well, yes, that's what I'm wondering too. And also, we have a prediction of the Jewish people refusing their Messiah, in the Bible, so how is this a contradiction if this happened?

Isaiah 53:4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

Isaiah 53:12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.

I could be wrong, but I think your interpretation that Isaiah 53 is a Messianic reference is questionable. I am _not_ an expert on Isaiah by any means, but a casual search on the web reveals there is disagreement on the context of Isaiah. Of course, the traditional Christian interpretation is that it is Messianic, but that doesn't make it so.

Since 53 is part of the 2nd phase of Isaiah I looked at the headings of the chapters before and after 53 that are part of the same writing period. It's interesting as I think it shows a pattern that doesn't support the idea that 53 is a Messianic reference. Granted, I realize the headings are not part of the writings, but my point is that the headings show a general pattern of the content of the chapters that is interesting:

(all taken from the NAB translation)

ch 49: The servant of the Lord (49:3 "You are my servant, he said to me, Israel, through whom I show my glory) i.e. The servant is Israel?

ch 50: Salvation only through the Lord's servant (50:1 "...It was for your sins that you were sold...) Jews sold into slavery?

ch 51: Exhortation to trust in the Lord (51:16 "...who say to Zion. You are my people.") Again, speaking of/to Zion/Israel?

ch 52: Let Zion rejoice (52:2 "...ascend to the throne, Jerusalem; Loose the bonds from your neck, o captive daughter Zion") Again, speaking of/to Zion?

ch 53 No heading, speaks about a "suffering servant"

ch 54 The new Zion (Jerusalem compared to a deserted wife, now finds herself with returning children)

ch 55 An invitation to grace (55:3 "..I will renew with you the everlasting covenant, the benefits assured to David") Speaking to Israel

There seems to be a definite pattern that the suffering is by the nation of Israel, that the nation needs to repent and that it will be returned to glory. All of that seems to conflict with the idea that 53 refers to a future Messiah. If it refers to a particular individual, it would seem much more likely to refer to someone during this time period of the Jewish return to Zion, not a future Messianic figure.

Even if your interpreation is plausible, what needs to be shown is that this view was prominent in the pre-Christian Jewish traditions. That it was not is my argument/point.

But, I'm sure you'll point out if I am wrong. References to contrary scholarly opinions welcome.


Daniel 9:25-26 Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.

Perhaps I'm missing something here. According to the notes in the NAB:

"(refering to 9, 25)...either Cyrus, who was called the annointed of the Lord to end the exile (Is 45, 1), or the high priest Joshua, who presided over the rebuilding of the altar of sacrifice after the exile (Ezr 3, 2)"

How is this verse germane?


And Gentiles believing, also was predicted:

Isaiah 42:6-7 I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

First, it seems pretty clear from the surrounding chapters and context that Is 42 is referencing Israel, not a Messianic figure. The NAB says:

"42, 1-4: Servant: there are three other "Servant-of-the-Lord" oracles: is 49, 1-7; 50, 4-11; 52, 13-53, 12. Many identifications have been proposed, e.g. historical Israel, ideal Israel, an OT historical character before or during the lifetime of the prophet, the prophet himself".

Granted, I realize that the Christian traditions hold these references are to a future Messianic figure aka Jesus, but I can see no compelling reason to view them that way.

In any case, what Christians believe about these verses is actually irrelevant for my argument. What is relevant is what the references were thought to refer to in pre-1st century Jewish traditions. What the traditional Christian interpretation of these passages is is therefore irrelevant since my argument is that the Christians were rejecting mainstream Judaic tradition and the verses in question are not sufficiently self-explanatory to show otherwise.


So here we have a fundamental confirmation, not a fundamental contradiction, it would seem...

In order to address my point, you will have to show that the Christian interpretation was the mainstream view in pre-1st century Judaism. I have not seen anything that shows this to be the case, but I welcome any references. (scholarly ones preferred)

My point is not whether the early Christians were right or wrong, it is whether or not it was a plausible extension of Judaic thought or whether, as I see it, it was a fundamental rejection. Even if the verses you cite can somehow be reconciled to the Christian position, what is relevant for my point is how they were seen in the pre-Christian JEWISH tradition.

[Skeptical]

In Acts the original Christians in Jerusalem were called a 'sect' with the name 'Nazarenes', and it seems likely that this is related in some way to Jesus's alleged hometown of 'Nazareth'. It may also explain why James was called 'James the Just', and in Acts Jesus is called 'The Just One'.

I tend to agree that the earliest church in Jerusalem was just a new sect within Judaism, probably composed of some people who actually knew Jesus. Paul's influence, I believe, radically changed the focus of this group. But that is for another thread. :)


With an actual human as inspiration all that is needed is to find a new interpretation or embrace some of the new interpretations about what kind of Messiah was expected. My understanding is that there were competing concepts within Judaism about what the Messiah would be like. The early use of Isaiah 53 by the NT authors could be a sign that the earliest Christians 'created' a new interpretation for the Messiah from it, or since they appeared to use it as OT support for their interpretation it could also be seen that they were appealing to a pre-existing expectation of a suffering Messiah. My understanding is that parts of Isaiah 53 (verse 2) for example, was considered by the Jews to be a Messiac reference, and verse 2 is referring to the same entity as the entire chapter.

My understanding was that Is 53 was not traditionally seen in the pre-Christian Jewish traditions to be Messianic, but I welcome references to the contrary.


<snip>
To me the differences are best explained by the traditional belief that Jesus had been a real man who was really crucified and who had inspired certain peoples prior to his crucifixion and who for whatever reasons inspired people after his death to believe he had risen and had been the Messiah that the people had been desparately seeking--so much that whatever differences existed between the life/death of Jesus and traditional expectation were not enough to overcome its success in finding a way to syncronize the two faiths. It may also be that the earliest Jewish Christians emphasized their Jewishness to a high degree so that that their message about Jesus would be more palatable to the avg Jew--ie the Nazarenes would be beyond reproach for their adherence to the Jewish traditions, making their claims about this risen Jesus seem more legitimate.

ted

I agree that the "synthesis" was probably done for matters of expediency instead of principle. My problem with it is that when you peel back the onion, the traditions of Christianity seem not so much extensions to Judaism as outright rejections of much of the central traditions, while still trying to maintain the "respectability" of the long Jewish historical tradition.

The early Christian church may not have intended nor realized the extent to which their ideas would eventually signal a repudiation of these traditions, but it appears to me that this is what they ultimately did.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: And also, we have a prediction of the Jewish people refusing their Messiah, in the Bible, so how is this a contradiction if this happened?

Skeptical: There seems to be a definite pattern that the suffering is by the nation of Israel, that the nation needs to repent and that it will be returned to glory. All of that seems to conflict with the idea that 53 refers to a future Messiah.
But there are difficulties in various places, if this must refer to Israel:

Isaiah 53:8 And who can speak of his descendants?

But Israel was promised to never die out, there will always be Jewish people (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:24-26).

Isaiah 53:9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

This is difficult indeed to apply to Israel here, how can it be said that this nation indeed has had no violence or deceit?

Isaiah 5:7 ... and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, an outcry!
Isaiah 59:6 Their cobwebs are useless for clothing; they cannot cover themselves with what they make. Their deeds are evil deeds, and acts of violence are in their hands.

And most importantly, we have this verse:

Isaiah 53:8 ... for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

Here most certainly "my people" must be a reference to Israel, yet this is clearly not someone bearing punishment for their own sin, but rather someone else, bearing punishment for the sins of "my people," distinctly Israel.

As far as scholarly commentaries that take this view, here are two:

"Our present passage speaks so eloquently of the work of Christ that even the inclusion of his name could add but little more to the extent of its disclosure of him." (Expositor's Bible Commentary)

"MAN’S UNBELIEF: MESSIAH’S VICARIOUS SUFFERINGS" (chapter heading, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown)

Daniel 9:25-26 Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' ...After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.

Skeptic: According to the notes in the NAB:

"(refering to 9, 25)...either Cyrus, who was called the anointed of the Lord to end the exile (Is 45, 1), or the high priest Joshua, who presided over the rebuilding of the altar of sacrifice after the exile (Ezr 3, 2)"

How is this verse germane?
But both Cyrus and Joshua the priest accomplished the tasks predicted for them by Scripture, so this must refer to someone else, and the Messiah is most prominently "the anointed one," so I would expect the thought of most Jewish people would turn first to him, and then would take this as a prediction of not being accepted, when the Messiah came:

Mark 9:12 Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?"

Lee: And Gentiles believing, also was predicted...

Skeptic: First, it seems pretty clear from the surrounding chapters and context that Is 42 is referencing Israel, not a Messianic figure.
Yes, that's a good point, I agree that this is not unmistakably the Messiah, but I meant only that here we have a prediction of Gentiles believing, which would be most astonishing to Jewish people.

Skeptic: Even if the verses you cite can somehow be reconciled to the Christian position, what is relevant for my point is how they were seen in the pre-Christian JEWISH tradition.
Expectancy for the Messiah was pretty high, at the start of the first century! Witness the number of people claiming that they were the one, perhaps they had been counting years, up to 'sixty-two sevens.'

And I think arguments from the verses can be made that there are predictions about the Messiah being rejected, however people then or now may have interpreted them.

Regards,
Lee

[Johnny Skeptic]

And also we have a prediction of the Jewish people refusing their Messiah.

We do not have any such thing. In order for you to reliably prove your claim that the Jewish people refused their Messiah, you first have to prove that he was their Messiah. There is not any evidence at all that he was their Messiah. For instance, Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled Micah 5:2, but he couldn’t possibly have fulfilled the prophecy because it predicted that someone would come who would become ruler in Israel, which of course Jesus did not do.

There is not any evidence at all that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

A good deal of scholarship disputes the Christian claim that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb.

There is no evidence that Jesus rose a donkey into Jerusalem.
Isaiah conveniently said nothing about the Resurrection, just like Ezeliel conveniently said nothing about Alexander conquering Tyre. That is God's way, to create dissent instead of disccouraging dissent.

[Skeptical]

Hi everyone,


But there are difficulties in various places, if this must refer to Israel:

Isaiah 53:8 And who can speak of his descendants?

But Israel was promised to never die out, there will always be Jewish people (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:24-26).

Isaiah 53:9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

This is difficult indeed to apply to Israel here, how can it be said that this nation indeed has had no violence or deceit?

Isaiah 5:7 ... and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, an outcry!
Isaiah 59:6 Their cobwebs are useless for clothing; they cannot cover themselves with what they make. Their deeds are evil deeds, and acts of violence are in their hands.

And most importantly, we have this verse:

Isaiah 53:8 ... for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

Here most certainly "my people" must be a reference to Israel, yet this is clearly not someone bearing punishment for their own sin, but rather someone else, bearing punishment for the sins of "my people," distinctly Israel.

As far as scholarly commentaries that take this view, here are two:

"Our present passage speaks so eloquently of the work of Christ that even the inclusion of his name could add but little more to the extent of its disclosure of him." (Expositor's Bible Commentary)

"MAN’S UNBELIEF: MESSIAH’S VICARIOUS SUFFERINGS" (chapter heading, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown)

I agree that it is possible to take some of the specific verses from 53 and interpret them favorably in comparison to the stories of Jesus in the NT. Without going into whether the Gospels were intentionally written to draw this, my point was that if you look at the context of the surrounding passages, if 53 is interpreted the way Christians traditionally interpret it, it seems textually out of place. Multiple interpretations are possible, and the Christians interpretation is certainly not required by the text, especially in context of the surrounding passages.

The Christian interpretation might be plausible, but again back to my point the question really isn't what the early Christian community thought, it is how these passages were interpreted in pre-Christian Jewish traditions since my argument is not about correctness, it is about consistency.

Thanks for the reference. I would prefer online references if possible since I already have a dozen books in my reading list, but I didn't make that clear so thanks for the reference anyway.


But both Cyrus and Joshua the priest accomplished the tasks predicted for them by Scripture, so this must refer to someone else, and the Messiah is most prominently "the anointed one," so I would expect the thought of most Jewish people would turn first to him, and then would take this as a prediction of not being accepted, when the Messiah came:

Mark 9:12 Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?"

But again, this is the interpretation of the early Christians, not pre-Christian Judaism. In order to show the Christians were not rejecting long standing traditions about the Messiah we need to know if this was a mainstream Messianic view. My argument is that it was not, not whether it was right or wrong. Again, consistency with tradition is my argument, not correctness.


Yes, that's a good point, I agree that this is not unmistakably the Messiah, but I meant only that here we have a prediction of Gentiles believing, which would be most astonishing to Jewish people.

I'm not sure I agree with that. A lot of the OT mentions things about Yahweh being the one true God and how the Jews are to show an example to the rest of the world. I don't think it is far fetched at all to imagine that having Gentiles convert to Judaims was on the traditional Jewish menu of "to do's". In fact, my understanding is that there are modern Jewish missionaries, although I do not know to what extent this was practiced in pre-Christian times.


Expectancy for the Messiah was pretty high, at the start of the first century! Witness the number of people claiming that they were the one, perhaps they had been counting years, up to 'sixty-two sevens.'

I understand there were Messianic expectations. My point is not whether there were expectations, my point is what the substantive content of those expectations was. Realizing that there were various expectations, my argument is that by far the predominant expectation was for a warrior King in the tradition of David AND that this expectation fits very closely with the other traditions within Judaism of a return of Israel to its glory days as evidence of Yahweh's greatness.

There were other themes within Judaism of Messianic expectation to be sure, but nothing I have seen in any references indicates these other expectations were widely believed and supported. Certainly nothing approaching the expectations for a Davidic return.


And I think arguments from the verses can be made that there are predictions about the Messiah being rejected, however people then or now may have interpreted them.

Regards,
Lee

Perhaps, but I believe the more likely explanation is that BECAUSE the vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, the early Christians took pains to find verses that could be interpreted to fit the reality. There is much in the OT that is sufficiently ambiguous to be plausibly interpreted this way on its face, Is 53 being one of the more obvious choices. That's why a lot of these references are good for "finding" prophecies, they are sufficiently ambiguous to mold individual verses based on personal ideological preferences.

A related point to this is that one of the surest pieces of evidence that Jesus did not fit the widely held Messianic expectations is that the vast majority of Jews then and now did not accept him because he simply did not fit the criteria most of them expected. If they were wrong on this, as the Christians argued, they were wrong in a systematic way and serous doubt is cast on a wide range of traditional Jewish traditions. Which fits perfectly into my argument.

Again, my main point is not whether the early Christians were right or wrong about their particular interpretations but whether or not they were rejecting long standing Jewish traditions regarding Messianic expectations. Simply put, my argument is:

1) The Messianic interpretations of the early Christians were fundamentally different than the vastly predominant Messianic expectation within Judaism.

2) By rejecting this tradition, the Christians were rejecting many related traditions within Judaism since the Jewish Messianic expectations were predicated on fundamental views of the Jews place in the world as the chosen of Yahweh, much of their laws and traditions were focused around these concepts and the predominant Messianic expectation was built on this foundation. If it is wrong, there is no reason to accept many of the foundational traditions. One cannot plausibly reject ONLY the traditional Messianic expectations without rejecting far more of the Jewish traditions.

3) By rejecting all of these traditions, they were essentially rejecting Judaism and starting a new religion whose only relationship to Judaism was that Jesus and some (most?) of his early followers were Jewish by birth.

4) Given this, it is logically inconsistent and contradictory to try to "tie" Christianity to Judaism in any way, the only theologically consistent approach would have been to break with Judaism in name as it had already done so in fact.

5) To the extent that the early Christian church realized this, they were acting in bad faith by claiming to base Christianity on Judaism, probably for matters of expediency. Seen today with the benefit of 2,000 years of hindsight and historical information, it looks like a foundation built on contradictory ideas.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Yes, that's a good point, I agree that this is not unmistakably the Messiah, but I meant only that here we have a prediction of Gentiles believing, which would be most astonishing to Jewish people.

Now that is cute since the notion that Jesus was the Messiah was quite astonishing to the vast majority of Jews themselves.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: And also we have a prediction of the Jewish people refusing their Messiah.

Johnny: In order for you to reliably prove your claim that the Jewish people refused their Messiah, you first have to prove that he was their Messiah.
Well, I don't think that is required here, for the objection was that Jesus was refused by Jewish people when (by implication) the Messiah shouldn't have been, so the objection is answered if this was predicted for the Messiah, whether or not Jesus was really the one.

Now that is cute since the notion that Jesus was the Messiah was quite astonishing to the vast majority of Jews themselves.
Well yes, it was, I agree. God might act in quite unexpected ways, as in, for example, the Exodus, or in refusing to be yet another fertility god, with condoning dissipation...

Isaiah 30:10-11 They say to the seers, "See no more visions!" and to the prophets, "Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions. Leave this way, get off this path, and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!"

Skeptic: I agree that it is possible to take some of the specific verses from 53 and interpret them favorably in comparison to the stories of Jesus in the NT.
But my argument was from the passage itself, not from a comparison of parallels! Yes, there are parallels as well, but that was not my point in this answer.

Lee: But both Cyrus and Joshua the priest accomplished the tasks predicted for them by Scripture, so this must refer to someone else, and the Messiah is most prominently "the anointed one," so I would expect the thought of most Jewish people would turn first to him...

Skeptic: But again, this is the interpretation of the early Christians, not pre-Christian Judaism.
Actually, this is a point from the very text of the passage, an implication there, so now we have to examine whether this implication is correct, regardless of the view people may have had of the overall passage.

Skeptic: but again back to my point the question really isn't what the early Christian community thought, it is how these passages were interpreted in pre-Christian Jewish traditions since my argument is not about correctness, it is about consistency.
First, the consistency I want most is a consistent view of the passage, as above. But here (http://www.amfi.org/ABOUTWHOM.htm) is a web page which even says that the predominant view, among Jewish rabbis until the 11th century C.E., was that Isaiah 53 was Messianic.

I would prefer online references if possible...
Well, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/) is online.

There is much in the OT that is sufficiently ambiguous to be plausibly interpreted this way on its face, Is 53 being one of the more obvious choices.
And as you might expect, I don't find this passage so ambiguous!

Regards,
Lee

[Johnny Skeptic]

And also we have a prediction of the Jewish people refusing their Messiah.

In order for you to reliably prove your claim that the Jewish people refused their Messiah, you first have to prove that he was their Messiah.

Well, I don't think that is required here, for the objection was that Jesus was refused by Jewish people when (by implication) the Messiah shouldn't have been, so the objection is answered if this was predicted for the Messiah, whether or not Jesus was really the one.

Since there is not even one single piece of evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, it is quite natural that the vast majority of Jews would have rejected him. Micah 5:2 mentions that from Bethlehem Ephratah one would come who would be ruler in Israel, but Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. That alone would have been more than enough reason for most Jews to reject him.

Isaiah 53:3-5 say "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

Regarding "we esteemed him not," the book of Acts mentions "many thousands" of Christians. The word we could reasonably be taken to mean all Jews, which obviously was not the case. If I said "We went to dinner," you would assume that everyone in the group went to dinner. Isaiah could easily have cleared up this matter by being more specific, but God has always gone out of his way not to be specific. For instance, God could easily have told Ezekiel that Alexander would conquer Tyre centuries later, but he much preferred to encourage dissent instead of discouraging dissent. In typical fashion, Isaiah did not mention anything at all about the resurrection of the Messiah.

Now that is cute since the notion that Jesus was the Messiah was quite astonishing to the vast majority of Jews themselves.

Well yes, it was, I agree. God might act in quite unexpected ways, as in, for example, the Exodus.

What Exodus? What plagues? What parting of the Red Sea?

Lee, you said in another post that you did not find a certain Scripture to be ambigious. Does that go for all other Scriptures as well?

[Skeptical]

But my argument was from the passage itself, not from a comparison of parallels! Yes, there are parallels as well, but that was not my point in this answer.

OK, but such a view, I hold, was still the considerable minority position in pre-Christian Jewish tradition.


Actually, this is a point from the very text of the passage, an implication there, so now we have to examine whether this implication is correct, regardless of the view people may have had of the overall passage.

But "correct" imples correct in relation to a standard. The only way this passage is a "correct" Messianic passage from the Christian POV is if it refers to a suffering savior who was to come ala Jesus since it clearly does not refer to a Davidic King.

My point was that since it clearly does not refer to a Davidic King it is therefore not consistent with the predominant traditional Jewish expectations. Anything else it refers to is irrelevant for purposes of my argument in this thread.


First, the consistency I want most is a consistent view of the passage, as above. But here (http://www.amfi.org/ABOUTWHOM.htm) is a web page which even says that the predominant view, among Jewish rabbis until the 11th century C.E., was that Isaiah 53 was Messianic.

Consistency for purposes of my argument means consistency with the predominant pre-Christian Jewish tradition. I looked at the web site you listed and I am not convinced they are telling the whole story. Principally because I have read other sources that offer similar references that say the opposite.

For example, many of the references are far too late to be of use. Anything later than 200 CE cannot be of use in determining what the prevailing pre-Christian tradition was unless it incorporates earlier references. References to the 11th century and beyond for example are for all intents and purposes worthless. They tell us nothing about what the pre-Christian Messianic view was.

The article also doesn't address one of the primary problems with pre-Christian Messianic interpretations: there was a variety of expectations, often in disagreement with each other. The article is a Christian apologetic, so obviously the author is going to take that POV, but in doing so it doesn't really address my principle point.

Here is a quote from jewishencyclopedia.com that I think really highlights my main argument that the conception of Jesus as Messiah contradicted pre-existing Jewish traditions:

"In the rabbinical apocalyptic literature the conception of an earthly Messiah is the prevailing one, and from the end of the first century of the common era it is also the one officially accepted by Judaism. As proof of this may be given: (1) "The Prayer for the Coming of the Messiah," mentioned above, inwhich the Messiah is called "descendant of David." (2) The information given in the second century by Justin ("Dialogus cum Tryphone," ch. xlix.) and by the author of "Philosophumena" (ix. 30). Both writers state expressly that, contrary to the belief of the Christians, the Jews emphasize the human origin of the Messiah, and the author of "Philosophumena" adds that they expect him to be descended from David. (3) The liturgy of later times, which, like the Daily Prayer, calls him the descendant of David throughout. His mission is, in all essential respects, the same as in the apocalypses of the older period: he is to free Israel from the power of the heathen world, kill its ruler and destroy his hosts, and set up his own kingdom of peace"


Well, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/) is online.


And as you might expect, I don't find this passage so ambiguous!

Regards,
Lee

You are of course entitled to your opinion. It's not ambiguous in terms that _someone_ is suffering, the only question is to who/what is referred. Like I said, I am not an expert on Isaiah, so I defer to those who are. I have seen scholarly commentary from both those who agree and disagree that is is Messianic, so I think it is legitimate to hold both positions.

However, from my POV, what is relevant is whether such a view was predominant in pre-Christian Jewish tradition. From my research, I would conclude that it defnitely was not. In fact, the whole Isaiah discussion has been a distractor from my main argument, but that is my fault for getting into it, I find it interesting.

All of the pre-Christian Messianic traditions I have seen have held that although there were disparate views, the predominant Jewish view was for a Davidic King, not a suffering servant. If this was the predominant view, as I hold that it was, then whether Is 53 is seen after that period as Messianic, however correctly, is simply irrelevant.

If the Jewish Messianic traditions of a Davidic King were wrong, as the Christian POV says, then I believe my argument that the Christians were rejecting much of the Jewish traditions wholesale holds and the rest of my argument follows naturally from this basis.

The only fatal flaw to my argument would be if:

1) Messianic expectations OTHER than for a Davidic King were widespread within pre-Christian Judaism

OR

2) My argument that the Davidic King expectations fits precisely into many other traditional Jewish traditions and therefore its rejection entails rejection of those related traditions, is wrong

[Johnny Skeptic]

First, the consistency I want most is a consistent view of the passage, as above. But here is a web page which even says that the predominant view, among Jewish rabbis until the 11th century C.E., was that Isaiah 53 was Messianic.

So in the 11th century Jews finally got it right. My compliments to them. At any rate, the main issue is whether or not Jesus fulfilled prophecies that Christians claim are Messianic prophecies, and there is in fact no evidence that Jesus fulfilled even one single one of them. Jesus provably did not fulfill Micah 5:2, since the prophecy mentioned someone who would become ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel, there is no evidence at all that he ever will, and there are not any New Testament Scriptures that I am aware of that say that Jesus will become ruler specifically in Israel. If there are any such Scriptures, I would like to know about them.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Johnny: Since there is not even one single piece of evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, it is quite natural that the vast majority of Jews would have rejected him. ... Regarding "we esteemed him not," the book of Acts mentions "many thousands" of Christians.
Well, we can't have it both ways! If virtually no one accepted him, that is proof, and if many thousands accepted him, that will prove your view, then we have, I think, a question or two to ask about your view here.

In typical fashion, Isaiah did not mention anything at all about the resurrection of the Messiah.
Well, he did, actually:

Isaiah 53:11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied...

"Of life" is not in all the texts, but it is in the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicating that the phrased dropped out, not that it was added, and this rather clearly indicates resurrection.

Lee, you said in another post that you did not find a certain Scripture to be ambiguous. Does that go for all other Scriptures as well?
Certainly not all Scriptures are equally clear, I think Isaiah 53 is clearly messianic, though.

Lee: Actually, this is a point from the very text of the passage, an implication there, so now we have to examine whether this implication is correct...

Skeptic: The only way this passage is a "correct" Messianic passage from the Christian POV is if it refers to a suffering savior who was to come ala Jesus since it clearly does not refer to a Davidic King.
But again, I'm not taking any point of view here in making this point about the passage, it does not require one view or another, for the point to be made. These points, actually:

Isaiah 53:8 And who can speak of his descendants?

But Israel was promised to never die out, there will always be Jewish people (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:24-26).

Isaiah 53:9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

This is difficult indeed to apply to Israel here, how can it be said that this nation indeed has had no violence or deceit?

Isaiah 5:7 ... and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, an outcry!
Isaiah 59:6 Their cobwebs are useless for clothing; they cannot cover themselves with what they make. Their deeds are evil deeds, and acts of violence are in their hands.

And most importantly, we have this verse:

Isaiah 53:8 ... for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

Here most certainly "my people" must be a reference to Israel, yet this is clearly not someone bearing punishment for their own sin, but rather someone else, bearing punishment for the sins of "my people," distinctly Israel.
These points need to be addressed specifically, they do not assume the Christian view.

Lee: But here is a web page which even says that the predominant view, among Jewish rabbis until the 11th century C.E., was that Isaiah 53 was Messianic.

Skeptic: many of the references are far too late to be of use.
But if the Jewish people held these references to be Messianic, through several centuries after Christ, surely that is a quite strong indication that they had considered them messianic previously.

Quote from Jewish web site: Both writers state expressly that, contrary to the belief of the Christians, the Jews emphasize the human origin of the Messiah, and the author of "Philosophumena" adds that they expect him to be descended from David. (3) The liturgy of later times, which, like the Daily Prayer, calls him the descendant of David throughout. His mission is, in all essential respects, the same as in the apocalypses of the older period: he is to free Israel from the power of the heathen world, kill its ruler and destroy his hosts, and set up his own kingdom of peace.
This does not explain, however, why they seem to have considered Isaiah 53 messianic at one time. And whether Jesus was human or divine is not part of the point being discussed here, and Jesus also said clearly he would do the above things, fulfilling that aspect of the predictions of the Messiah, fulfilling all aspects, the suffering servant, and also "dividing spoil with the strong" (Isa. 53:11).

However, from my POV, what is relevant is whether such a view was predominant in pre-Christian Jewish tradition. From my research, I would conclude that it defnitely was not.
Well, the web site you quoted says "and from the end of the first century of the common era it is also the one officially accepted by Judaism," so I think this conclusion falls under your criticism! For it is not about Jewish belief before Christianity.

Regards,
Lee

[Johnny Skeptic]

Since there is not even one single piece of evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, it is quite natural that the vast majority of Jews would have rejected him. ... Regarding "we esteemed him not," the book of Acts mentions "many thousands" of Christians.

Well, we can't have it both ways! If virtually no one accepted him, that is proof, and if many thousands accepted him, that will prove your view, then we have, I think, a question or two to ask about your view here.

If no one accepted him, that is proof of what? You need to understand that it doesn't make any difference whatsoever what people believed back then, only whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. Perception and reality are often two entirely different things. Just because Matthew perceived that Jesus fulfilled Micah 5:2 does not mean that Jesus did fulfill Micah 5:2. Of course, we know that Jesus did not fulfill Micah 5:2 because he did not become ruler in Israel as the prophecy promised. In addition, there is no evidence that he ever will.

Lee, when are you going to reply to my post #141 in the thread on the Babylon prophecy?

[Skeptical]

Well, the web site you quoted says "and from the end of the first century of the common era it is also the one officially accepted by Judaism," so I think this conclusion falls under your criticism! For it is not about Jewish belief before Christianity.


If you going to continue to selectively ignore much of the substance of my posts, I see not point in continuing to reply to you. You have not even attempted to reply to the substantive numbered points in my last 2 posts. Most of what you have replied to completely misses the point.

This response above is typical. First, you selectively quote only what you want. The part you left out is "In the rabbinical apocalyptic literature the conception of an earthly Messiah is the prevailing one". In case you didn't read the rest of the article, the "rabbinical apocalyptic literature" it refers to is pre-Christian. Hence, the "and" that starts your quote, as in "in addition to".

Additionally, I never said that this web site was my only source, that would be downright silly. I can give you lots of references if you want, you can start with "Jesus and Judaism" by Sanders. I can give you a half dozen more if you want. Also, I never said that anything post-Christian wasn't useful, I said anything from the 2nd century on would be suspect unless it incorporated earlier sources.

Honestly, if your going to continue to post it would be helpful if you didn't selectively filter only what you think you can answer. So far, you haven't even attempted to answer most of the substantive points of my posts.

Let's keep it simple, do you deny that the predominant pre-Christian Messianic belief in Judaism was for the return of a Davidic King?

[TedM]

My understanding was that Is 53 was not traditionally seen in the pre-Christian Jewish traditions to be Messianic, but I welcome references to the contrary.

According to this amazing piece of work http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/appen09.htm

In regard to Is. liii. we remember, that the Messianic name of 'Leprous' (Sanh. 98 b) is expressly based upon it. Is. liii. 10 is applied in the Targum on the passage to the Kingdom of the Messiah.

Verse 5 is Messianically interpreted in the Midrash on Samuel (ed. Lemberg, p. 45 a, last line), where it is said that all sufferings are divided into three parts, one of which the Messiah bore - a remark which is brought into connection with Ruth ii. 14. (See our comments on that passage.)

I'm not up on the dates of these Jewish works, but you may find that this supports a pre-Christian Messiah found in Isaiah 53 by some.

I agree that the "synthesis" was probably done for matters of expediency instead of principle. My problem with it is that when you peel back the onion, the traditions of Christianity seem not so much extensions to Judaism as outright rejections of much of the central traditions, while still trying to maintain the "respectability" of the long Jewish historical tradition.

I don't know enough about Judaism or early Jewish Christianity to say. My understanding is that perhaps the Jewish Christians believed that the kingdom of God the prophets wrote about had begun with Christ and that they should therefore get ready to rule the entire world from Jerusalem. As such, Gentiles would be welcome in some kind of fashion since the prophets talked of their acknowledgement of the Jew's God. HOW they were welcome appears to have been greatly debated, with Paul being the liberal one that eventually was most effective--helped no doubt by the destruction of many Jews in the 1st century..

The early Christian church may not have intended nor realized the extent to which their ideas would eventually signal a repudiation of these traditions, but it appears to me that this is what they ultimately did.

Looks that way to me to, due in great part to Paul's ideas on salvation through faith as the way in which Gentiles would become part of the kingdom of God.

ted