Robert said

Poohbear said

Say what? Are you referring to antisemitism? Heard someone say yesterday that some people persecute Jews because they killed the Christ. I doubt a single arsonist, basher, vandal or Jew killer would feel deeply for the suffering Messiah. Jews were persecuted and hated long before Jesus. The Egyptians found Jews “abominable” and the Canaanites hated Jews as well.   

You blame Jews for not accepting your Christian interpretation of their Jewish scriptures and claim they ignore or explain away their own scriptures. And yet you do not even understand the languages in which the Jewish scriptures are written. How is that not anything but pure arrogance and ignorant religious intolerance?  

You don’t have to know ancient Hebrew to understand what the Jewish Tanakh means. You can check in the Interlinear if you like. ie 1 Samuel 1

** you do not have permission to see this link **

This largely agrees with most authoritative modern translations. There are differences, I encountered one yesterday with the use of the “present continuous tense” of the Greek in the NT. And apparently the “law” in the Tanakh was more akin to “instruction.” But these differences don’t distract from the themes and messages concerning the Messiah. One of interest is the word “pierce” in Isaiah which could mean torn or clawed by a lion – this is trotted out by some Jews to “show” David in Psalm 22 doesn’t speak of the crucifixion – and ignore the rest of the chapter which details this crucifixion. 

Robert said
Not only is using an interlinear a hindrance and even an active deterrent to learning a language in general, but for you, as I’ve already pointed out to you, it is an even worse hermeneutical vicious circle. You read and believe a Christian interpretation of a poorly translated text, then you examine an interlinear that also relies on a poorly translated Christian interpretation of a Hebrew text, and believe you have found additional evidence for your Christian interpretation. Yours is an even more vicious spiral in that you do not even consider the possibility that the passion narrative was constructed using the pesher language of the prophets and psalms

It may be that you are just not capable or objective enough to have an intelligent discussion about this type of matter. Much worse than your ignorance, I am more offended by the arrogance of your accusatory dismissal of Jewish interpretations of Hebrew scriptures:

• • Most Jews did not want a Redeemer, they wanted a king. So whole tracts of scripture were simply ignored, or explained away.

• • Jews were persecuted and hated long before Jesus. The Egyptians found Jews “abominable” and the Canaanites hated Jews as well.

• • this is trotted out by some Jews to “show” David in Psalm 22 doesn’t speak of the crucifixion – and ignore the rest of the chapter which details this crucifixion

I’ll give you another chance to answer my question: How is that not anything but pure arrogance and ignorant religious intolerance?    

Well it’s not “arrogance” and “religious intolerance.” For one I am not arrogant (but sense a lot of it on anti-religious forums) and I am not intolerant. I am part Jewish myself, have worked with a Jewish organization and read a lot of Jewish books. I don’t need to learn Hebrew to understand Israel, anymore than having to learn German and Russian to understand the book I am reading at the moment, “Stalingrad” by A.Beevor.

Do YOU believe David in Psalm 22 and 69 is speaking of himself, Israel or the coming Redeemer?

Do you mean Pesher as in Barbara Thierings favorite technique?

Robert said

Poohbear said 

Well it’s not “arrogance” and “religious intolerance.” For one I am not arrogant (but sense a lot of it on anti-religious forums) and I am not intolerant. I am part Jewish myself, have worked with a Jewish organization and read a lot of Jewish books. I don’t need to learn Hebrew to understand Israel, anymore than having to learn German and Russian to understand the book I am reading at the moment, “Stalingrad” by A.Beevor.

Do YOU believe David in Psalm 22 and 69 is speaking of himself, Israel or the coming Redeemer?

Do you mean Pesher as in Barbara Thierings favorite technique?  

You can simply deny it, but note the actual question, asked now three times and twice avoided, was how is this not arrogance and religious intolerance when you categorically dismiss Jewish views and interpretation in such a facile manner without any real understanding or consideration of the language or original perspective of the authors? To use your analogy, do you seriously deny that understanding Russian or German might enhance your ability to comprehend the German siege of Stalingrad? Think of all of the original sources that you could study directly. How can you possibly deny this?

I do not claim to know exactly who the author of Psalm 22 is or of whom he is speaking. I do not have any scholarly expertise in this specific question, thus I refrain from absolutist and derogatory claims such as yours. I do, however, have a pretty good understanding of Hebrew and can thus understand the work of critical scholars who interpret the original texts from a non-ideaological, non-apologetic expert perspective, which contributes to my strained patience for the opinions of those who have no expertise whatsoever in the original sources and yet who pretend to pronounce with obviously feigned authority on the interpretation of matters they clearly do not understand.

The phenomenon of pesher exegesis should not be confused with the specifics of Barbara Thiering’s widely rejected theories. To understand this Jewish method of exegesis, you should study the Dead Sea Scrolls, eg, the commentary on Habakkuk.  

Quote – ” how is this not arrogance and religious intolerance when you categorically dismiss Jewish views and interpretation in such a facile manner without any real understanding or consideration of the language or original perspective of the authors?”

To disagree is not “arrogance.” Otherwise Jews could be “arrogant” also. There’s no “religious intolerance” because I fully tolerate Jewish sensibilities – and I have attended Jewish services myself out of respect and interest – but not belief. At one “shubbers” service (Aussie slang for Sabbath) a reading Jew asked for someone to nominate a chapter from Isaiah, and I suggest Chapter 53, the suffering Redeemer. He said he did not have this chapter in his bible. I don’t think of him as being “arrogant” or “intolerant” (well, maybe a tad intolerant of his own Tanakh)

Translations don’t really feature much in arguments here – only two come to mind, “virgin” in Isaiah and “pierce” in Psalms. It’s the interpretations. For the life of me I can’t figure why the Jews dismiss the Messianic Redeemer and focus solely upon the Messianic King. Both are there in the Tanakh, and they accept that much. Also, what do Jews make of their 1800-1900 year exile, mass deaths and being driven out of 120 countries (as my family was in Portugal.) Jacob said Israel would last till the Messiah came – not any more than that, and Daniel said the nation that destroys Israel and the Temple would also destroy the Messiah.

Robert said
No, disagreement is not necessarily arrogance, but, again, categorical dismissal of Jewish views and interpretation in a facile manner without any real understanding or consideration of the language or original perspective of the authors is. You keep trying to side-step this. 

I’ve already corrected your misunderstanding of this text of Daniel, at least two if not three times already, so that’s a third mistranslation you should have already added to your list.

Jewish suffering in the diaspora can be attributed to many causes over the centuries, beginning some 2,700 years ago. Perhaps the most disgusting interpretation is that it is deserved on account of their having killed the Christian Messiah.   

Yes, some employ the “argument” that the Jews killed the Messiah. But people who willingly murder Jewish men, women and children are not seriously concerned for the Messiah. Jesus himself was a Jew. There should be about 250 million genetic Jews today – but the bible states the Jew will be few in number; a blessing to the nations that bless the Jew; a unique people for when the Moabites, Edomites, Egyptian, Phillistines etc are long gone and one day again in Jerusalem they will be a nation again – against all the odds and the reproach of the “scholars.”

I see the original perspective of many Tanakh authors, from Genesis to Malachi, to speak of the coming Messiah – both King and Redeemer. As Redeemer he will be “just and having SALVATION and lowly and riding upon a colt” and it “will be told to the generations yet born that he has done this.” Jews don’t deny this translation – they kind of circumvent it.

Robert said

Poohbear said

 … Jews don’t deny this translation – they kind of circumvent it.  

Are you even cabable of discussing a text without this constant anti-Jewish polemic?   

Saying that many Jews “circumvent” Redeemer texts isn’t “anti-Jewish polemic” or antisemitism. It is stating a fact that most religious Jews look to the Savor as King, and are not inclined to contemplate the Savor as Redeemer. Many don’t feel the need of redemption, they just want to see the glory of Israel restored. I know, I talk to them often about this. Their argument with Christians is that Jesus “did not tick the boxes” to be the Messianic King, and talk of him raising from the dead to fulfill all the prophecies is “lame.” And so it sounds. But there’s verses like Zechariah 9 and 12 which show the Jewish people mourning when their King comes to them, for they will see it’s the same lowly man they crucified. And Jews don’t adequately answer this.

Robert said
When you constantly, almost in every post it seems, say that ‘the Jews simply ignore whole tracts of their own scriptures’, or ‘explain them away’, or ‘trot out’ what you feel are mistranslations, or ‘don’t adequately answer’ your misinterpretations, that surely  sounds like an arrogant polemic to me, especially from someone who does not even understand the language. 

There is not simply one Jewish misunderstanding of all these texts as opposed to your correct Christian apologetic interpretation. There are many interpretations by Christians and Jews. The best interpretations, I submit, must be respectful of the language and historical context in which texts are written. Bible 101. Actually, this can be learned in any good high school.

If you spoke to “them” enough, you would know that the Talmud and other Jewish sources contain very rich, including even ‘Jewish Christian’, interpretations of Zechariah 9, 12 and Daniel 7. You would need to do some actual reading of the Talmud to know this, but make sure you read one that is not censored to avoid murderous Christian persecution by those who cannot tolerate genuine deep reflection on the various meanings of some of these texts that you polemicize.  

I am wary of saying “murderous Christians” – that’s an oxymoron. That murderous people who are cultural Christians, violating tenants of Christianity and observing the Gospels in the breach. 

The Talmud is a rabbinical discussion of the Tanakh. It has little authority if you don’t accept the rabbis. As for “polemic” you need to be explicit. I in turn will be explicit – the rabbis have little appreciation of the Redeemer in their Tanakh.

Robert said
It may be an oxymoron, but throughout history many Christians have murdered, tortured, and oppressed many Jews and, low and behold, they seem to have had theological and cultural attitudes toward the Jewish scriptures not unlike your own. They believed that they possessed the authority to interpret the Jewish scriptures with very few ever bothering to learn the languages. 

We’re talking about interpretations of texts, not about authority. One of the things I love most about the Talmud is that it is a centuries long discussion of many different points of view.

I think I’ve been pretty explicit about what I consider to be your Christian apologetic polemics against Jewish interpretations of their own scriptures. Given your unfamiliarity with the language, I also consider it to be an arrogant and offensive attitude motivated by your own Christian beliefs which are intolerant of interpretations that differ from your own.  

I often like to read an Old Testament verse in both the Interlinear and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. To know a verse in Hebrew or Greek I don’t need to know these languages – just the various interpretations of the verse at hand.

I know modern Greek and it does give you a different insight into the New Testament. Learning Greek is super-hard and the cost-benefit is not good – you can pick up Greek translations/interpretations at the stroke of a key. Same with Hebrew.

The latter half of Isaiah 52 and all of 53 is a case to point. Jews don’t deny the text of the suffering figure as Christians translate it – but claim Isaiah is about Israel and not Jesus. Thus it’s interpretation and not translation. And strangely, they contort Judaism to explain away Isaiah 53, adding things not even in the Torah – Jews redeeming Jews.

Robert said
‘Jews claim, strangely contort Judaism to explain away their scriptures, adding things not even in the Torah’. That’s all you got. You are hopeless.   

Yes, under the Mosaic law atonement for sin came through ritual purification and cultic sacrifice. When Rabbis in the Middle Ages were challenged regards 52/53 Isaiah they came up with this theory that the suffering figure was actually Israel, suffering to redeem Israel. Frankly, it smacks of desperation and “explaining away” because this isn’t in the Torah. 

A second strategy is to challenge the word “pierce” in verse 5 as really meaning crushed or mauled by a lion, and not the piercing of the crucifixion. And then… just ignore the rest of the chapter which speak of one who under great suffering has laid down his life for all people. 

Truth be told the Rabbis cannot explain how their Messianic King can suffer and die for people. So verses about the Redeemer (the one who pays our price) are downplayed. It’s intellectually dishonest.

Robert said
Did the intellectually dishonest Jews come up with a fraudulent understanding of their own scriptures or did they faithfully express their belief, engendered by one of their own authors from hundreds of years earlier, an author who shared their ancient faith, and knew that their faithful belief in God would inevitably lead some to suffering and maltreatment by others? Only this time, the punishment, derision, and persecution would come from medieval and even modern Christians who claimed the Jews were wrong not to accept a Christian interpretation of their own Jewish scriptures.

It must be a terrible thing for your religious faith to be based upon the defamation or persecution of others whom you claim are being dishonest about their own faith and scriptures.

Why not believe in your own truth, however feebly it may be based on your own experience or your own writings, and stop the defamation of others? Can you make a single post here that tells us how your beliefs bring a measure of goodness into our world without accusing others about how their beliefs are somehow dishonest? Just one post that does not accuse the Jews? Just one, please? That’s all I ask. Just one post that does not accuse the Jews of dishonesty. Can you?  

On another forum I am currently arguing about Trump and guns. Doesn’t mean I defame Americans. I am part American and part Jewish. Don’t defame anyone. 

Nothing dishonest about Jews as compared to other peoples. I feel deeply for Israel and hope to be there next year. My own ancestors were driven out of Portugal and settled in England. And when the Rabbis talk about the Messiah king coming then for sure I believe that – it’s in scripture. But… there’s another king in scripture that Rabbis don’t talk a lot about and that’s the King who comes to give his life for his people. Daniel said the Messiah will be destroyed by the “people of the Prince” who destroy Israel. That was a serious problem to Jews – how could God allow Israel to be destroyed, and how could their Messiah be destroyed as well? Well the Prince was Titus, son of the Emperor Vespasian, and the Messiah was Jesus.

Robert said
Well, again, ‘Daniel’ did not say that. If you would’ve paid better attention to the Hebrew I translated for you, you would have realized that. And he also didn’t know anything about Vespasian or Titus. But at least you did not accuse the Jews of dishonesty in that post. That’s progress.  

Daniel 9:26, “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.”

Cut off – to destroy, as Isaiah 53 said.

Not for himself – dying for others

People of the prince – Titus, son of the Emperor

City and sanctuary – Jerusalem and the temple.

Flood – Israel was overrun with Romans and their auxilliaries.

Desolations – about two million Jews died.

There is no provision in anything I have read in Rabbinic literature to describe this Messiah who died for his people. Yet this Messiah is in nearly every book of the Tanakh.