Jesus; the Torah, Nevi'im, and Psalms (Part 2)

Gad you're all over here discussing my post from The Messiah Texts on another thread?? And getting it all wrong. The book's bibliography lists ONLY Scripture itself and the Apocrypha as works from before Christ. Everything else the book covers is listed as A.D. and most of it appears to have been written in the Middle Ages.The stories I quoted ARE stories, FICTION, not scripture. The stories are very fanciful. There are Biblical characters in them who bear little resemblance to their Biblical portrait. The stories I quoted sound to me like something written in the medieval period. but as I said I don't know when they were written as I've been having trouble deciphering the bibliographical arrangement, the abbreviations and the like. I was unable to tell the source and guessed from the notation "Y" that it might be the Jerusalem Talmud which is listed in the Bibliography by the word "Yerushalmi." WHAT the Jerusalem Talmud is I don't know, but I know it was all oral until sometime after Christ.Why might it not include fictional stories to make a point?If anybody cares and I have time I will try to decipher the information in the back of Patai's book and maybe shed more light on the source of this story. A story ABOUT "the" Elijah is not the same thing as the TRUTH about Elijah which is given in scripture, and I find the story very fanciful and untrue to the scriptural portrait myself.But that is not the point of the stories. I posted them because they illustrate the expectation by whoever wrote the stories that the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem, that's all.P.S. The Messiah Texts by Raphael Patai is listed at Amazon, possibly also Barnes and Noble and Borders.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-17-2005 12:09 PM

Whatever their source the stories were written AFTER Christ, presumably by rabbis. Micah is the source of ALL belief that the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem. In the Middle Ages Jewish groups were of course still anticipating the Messiah (and still are) and the stories reflect some ideas they had about his coming.The two stories I posted end with the Messiah's being taken away soon after his birth, the second one with the idea that he is somewhere on earth waiting to make his public appearance.Again, these are STORIES, imaginative fiction to illustrate ideas and expectations about the Messiah, and not presented at all as anything real.Their value to my mind is in their presentation of what those expectations ARE -- and one of them is that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. Another is that his birth will be linked with the destruction of the Temple, which is certainly linked with Jesus though of course He is denied by the authors of the stories.They may suggest a belief that the *real* Messiah was born at the time the Temple actually was destroyed, but somehow never appeared to the world, is perhaps waiting for the right time to appear(?).This message has been edited by Faith, 05-17-2005 12:29 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-17-2005 01:32 PM

As I said, I would try to figure out the difficult bibliography in this book (The Messiah Texts, by Raphael Patai) and I finally did figure out that the first story I quoted is definitely from the Jerusalem Talmud, which I thought might be what the notation meant, but now I'm sure. But unfortunately he doesn't date each entry from it, all he says is that he gave the latest dates for the latest redaction of the Talmuds, with the understanding that much of it was not written down for even centuries after the stories were first told. So he dates the Babylonian Talmud to the 6th century AD, with the understanding that some of it goes back to the first century BC, and he lists the Jerusalem Talmud (or Palestinian Talmud or Yerushalmi) at the 4th century AD, saying nothing I'm able to find about the earliest entries.The notations for the two stories I quoted because of their references to Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah are "Y. Ber. 5a" for the first one, and "B'reshit Rabbati, pp. 130-31" for the second one.The second one I found out is a rabbinical writing of some sort from the 11th century AD. That's all he says.But finally, by looking under "Palestinian Talmud" I eventually found some information online. Here it says its commentaries originated between the 3rd and 5th centuries AD, and it appears that this particular story was created in the "5th generation" of the Palestinian Talmud by "Berechiah" the most likely name that the "Ber." of the notation might refer to on the list of contributors to it: This message has been edited by Faith, 05-17-2005 11:23 PM

Messiah Texts.It was published by Wayne State University Press, not the "popular press" and it's thoroughly scholarly, written by a respected scholar.It's thoroughly documented, only in a way I have trouble figuring out. It is SO thoroughly documented that I have to search three or four different locations* to find out anything. That's a KIND of "badly documented" but not the kind you are implying. This message has been edited by Faith, 05-19-2005 10:27 AM

They describe seekers of the Messiah as traveling to Bethlehem to see him. You really have to stretch to garble things up as you do above.

I just read on the Moderation thread a complaint about a certain poster's misrepresenting things in a peculiarly irritating way, and I'd just like to point out that that kind of irritating dishonest misrepresentation is used against me all the time here, and this is a case of it.I didn't say, for starters, that "it had nothing to do with the Elijah that [you] are thinking about." The fictional story obviously has the Biblical Elijah in mind, only in my judgment (and I think it obvious) it is a bad portrait that suggests little of the true Elijah -- besides which, unlike the scriptural accounts of the real Elijah, it is FICTION!!!I said nothing about anything in the stories "=Jesus." You are resorting to lies and cheap tricks.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-19-2005 10:04 AM

The point is made if only one Rabbi anywhere, who does not believe in Jesus Christ, reads Micah 5:2 to refer to the literal town of Bethlehem as the expected birthplace of the Messiah. This proves that such a reading is reasonable whether it is the most favored understanding or not (and really I think until recently it most likely was though I have no way of proving that at this point). There were certainly more than the two in my examples, so my point is proved.But I know. DeNile is very definitely not a river in Egypt. It runs right through this forum.

But the occasion was my quoting from The Messiah Texts, and the discussion of the character of Elijah presented there, which seems to me not to be true to the Biblical portrait; AND the name Menahem which is applied to the Messiah there, so the mocking was definitely at me and was based on a misrepresentation of what I'd said. Apparently you simply included it with other similar things you were mocking. Well of course I agree that that reference to Immanuel does refer to Jesus, as it is a title, not merely a name. In the Messiah Texts there is a poem written in 1946 by someone named Immanuel Haromi, called in English "Sonnet on the Messiah" which is reprinted from a book titled Mahb'rot 'Imanuel. I THINK but can't be sure, that this is a title being used to refer to the subject of the poem, the Messiah. It is a poem about the yearning for the coming of the Messiah and it advises him not to ride an ass which is an interesting allusion to the Zechariah prophecy. But it's the title that interests me -- it's nobody's name, I gave the author's name which is different, and it's not the compiler's name which is Haberman. So it must be a title for the Messiah. From a Jewish point of view, not a Christian point of view.I think Patai (author of the MT) in general avoids things that confirm connections with Jesus Christ. He's like you guys here. But certain things show up anyway, such as the title of this poem, can't be helped, just because these prophecies HAVE been understood even among the Jews to refer to the Messiah. Menahem is the name for the Messiah given in the stories I quoted, so I naturally took it as a straw man mocking of me as if I'd equated Menahem with Jesus, simply taking off from the remarks about Elijah, which were again nothing but mocking a misrepresentation of what I'd said. Well, it was about lying about what I personally had said, which I could easily enough prove, not the usual kind of accusation. Nevertheless I will retract it.

Interesting. I did a brief google myself but I guess I used the wrong spelling.It would help to know what "Mahbarot" means I think.

Yes, Jewish names usually do describe character or attributes or even anticipate events in some names God gave. However, Immanuel in Micah 5:2 is prophecy, even if it is also a name. It means "God with us" and it is one of many names ascribed to the Messiah, including Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), many of which show the expectation that the Messiah would be none other than God Himself. By the way this particular prophecy in Is 9:6 is quoted (p.11) among the Biblical texts that describe the Messiah in the book I've been referencing here, The Messiah Texts by Raphael Patai, again, a Jewish atheist scholar.

Well, for one thing they're half right, he IS a human being and the prophecies also say that. But it's also in their scriptures that he will be God himself and I don't know all their thinking about why they don't recognize this. Some rabbinical thinking has posited two Messiahs because of the different portraits given in the prophecies, the suffering servant and the kingly conquerer, and even three in some cases, and in this book on Jewish Legends I keep quoting from, the passages that show him to be God Himself are clearly noted, though I haven't yet sat down and read the book, merely skimmed through it, so I don't know how they interpret it all.Anyway the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah and hold to many of the same prophecies of his coming the Christians do, but they get some of it wrong nevertheless (or they would recognize Jesus, as some of them do anyway). Jesus' own disciples knew he was the Messiah but they misunderstood a lot of the meaning of the prophecies about him nevertheless, which only started to become clear after the resurrection and became even clearer when He sent the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-22-2005 01:41 AM

It doesn't matter what ELSE the passage may conceivably refer to, it refers to the Messiah according to the Church over 2000 years, and the first members of the Church, by hundreds of thousands, were Jews. The gospel was first propagated throughout the synagogues of the Roman empire. It doesn't matter that since then the unbelieving Jews insist on a contrary reading. They have it wrong.There's no point in discussing this further. There is no empirical resolution to this question, nor any other kind of resolution except recognizing the Messianic implications that have been recognized through the centuries. So let's agree to disagree.

Of course not, what a silly idea. THIS Immanuel is, however, the Messiah. The word evokes God Himself, and it fits with all the other references to the expectation that Messiah will be God as I already mentioned.And by the way, there are NO OTHER references to an "Immanuel" in the Old Testament, just the two messianic references of Isaiah 7:14 and 8:5. Not one.So -- many after the close of the scriptures named their children "Immanuel" -- after the Messiah, just as some Christians, especially Hispanics, name their sons "Jesus." The name "Jesus" is based on "Joshua" which means "God (YHWH) is Salvation", and nobody claims there aren't many who carry that name, yet it has specific meaning in reference to Jesus the Christ.However, it is interesting that the name "Immanuel" has only these two references in the Bible, which are really one, referring to the Messiah.Besides, shouldn't the name show up in a genealogical list somewhere if it refers to a child born at the time? At the very least, a child born with such portent should be mentioned again SOMEWHERE, but there is no other mention -- until the New Testament.

I wasn't talking about the New Testament, I was talking about the general affirmation of the virgin birth in the entire early church, hundreds of thousands of whom were Jews, and the gospel was preached in the synagogues and many Jews believed, Jews who knew their scriptures. I'm talking about PREACHING in the synagogues. The written gospels were part of the work of the apostles but the major work of the preachers was preaching the word based on teh OLD TESTAMENT throughout the Roman empire. Paul went to synagogue after synagogue. He preached to Jew and Gentile both. Well, you are at odds with the traditional orthodox church and a belief that denies most of what the church teaches is usually heretical or a cult or something, especially a belief that denies the deity of Christ which involves the virgin birth and other prophecies of his deity. Sorry. I will not even address the rest of your post. You trust your own fallible mind over the minds of great men over the history of the church, men led by the Holy Spirit, and there's no arguing with you, you're sure you're right and everybody else is wrong and there is no point in discussing this further as I said.

It IS mentioned where Matthew quotes the passage in 1:23. Nor is "God our Righteousness" his literal name but it IS his name. Nor are "Wonderful Counselor Mighty God Everlasting Father Prince of Peace" his literal names but they are his name. You think you understand how names are used in the OT but you are missing that names are character attributes.In Patai's Messiah Texts there is a chapter called the Preexistence and Names of the Messiah. The idea of his preexistence is also denied by Jews today but here it is affirmed as true of the Messiah in a book about Jewish legends of the Messiah, and such an idea certainly adds up to his having to be God Himself. But about the names of the Messiah, there are many suggested here: "R. Yose the Gallilean said "The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said 'Everylasting Father, Prince Peace (Isaiah 9:5)...R. Abba bar Kahana said 'LORD [Adonai] is his name, for it is written ';I will raise up to David a righteous shoot... he shall be called 'The Lord is our righteousness."... In the house of R. Shla they said 'SHILOH is the name of the Messiah ...(Gen 49:10) .... Rav Huna said: 'The Messiah is called by seven names and they are Yinnon, Tzidqunu [our justice] Tzemah [Shoot] Menahem [Comforter] David, Shiloh and Elijah.... The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Pele [miracle] Yo'etz [counselor] Mashiah [[anointed] El [God] Gibbor [Hero] and Avi Ad Shlom [Eternal Father of Peace].NOW. SEE THE ABOVE. It's just a partial list of a bunch of NAMES that are attributed by various RABBIS to the Messiah they expect. NAMES NAMES NAMES. And yet they don't mean NAME in the sense you keep insisting "Immanuel" has to be a name. It does not. The names of the Messiah are ATTRIBUTES. And some of the above identify Him as GOD HIMSELF, all of it drawn from scripture. It certainly doesn't all fit with Christian interpretation but enough of it does to show that the Christian interpretation is perfectly justifiable. Take it up with the Hebrew language. You trust your own mind to judge everything sacred, feel free to judge the Hebrew language too. Why not. THE NAME CARRIES HEAVY PORTENT. YOU DON'T CALL THE BIRTH OF A CHILD A SIGN AND GIVE HIM THAT WEIGHTY A NAME JUST TO SEND HIM OFF TO HIS BAR MITZVAH.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-23-2005 01:26 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-23-2005 01:26 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-23-2005 01:28 AM