Tracing Jewish Ancestry

 

Even more, Arabs (or better, Palestineans) and Jews have the same origin. Jews, Canaanites, Phoenicians and many other peoples were all part of the same group of tribes in a distant past, before religion divided them.

 

The queen of Sheba is Arab (semitic to be more precise) from near Maarib today (the temple mentioned in the Bible and the Quran still stands today).

 

Another thing that I want to ask here, and call me naive if you want, All semitic peoples are Patrilineal exept for the jews, why is that?

 

Al-Jassas

 

Sorry for the delay, and thanks for responding. Life has been taking up a great deal of what should be my forum time lately.

 

Originally posted by IamJoseph I am aware of these genuine errors and sharlatan messiahs in this event, and BTW, they were not messiahs because they failed to prevail over Rome, in contradiction of how Moses did confront the Pharoah. The criteria for a Messiah becomes non applicable unless the crises is first confronted: the dead do not need a messiah. This prevailing over Rome never happened by any Messiah, and the notion of celebrating a Roman win is akin to accepting a Nazi win during the Holocaust - and not pointing any blame elsewhere aside from upon the victims. This event could thus have been a test to many nations: did any chant, 'AM I MY BROTHER'S KEEPER?' [Genesis] - which clearly is the case when the Jews fleed W.W.11 Europe by many nations.

 

I was really just saying that the fact that Jesus did not attempt to throw off the Roman yoke was a good part of the reason that the Jews of his time did not accept him. And I believe that the dead do need a Messiah -- the reason being that they are not really dead in the sense of not existing. In Christian theology, the theanthropos allows the righteous to participate by grace in his divinity, and thus those who served the Lord under the Old Covenant are rescued from the Fall. As for the Cain quote, I believe that you and I can both agree that we are, in fact, called to be our brother's keeper.

 

One can also say, the Hebrews' war against Rome in 70 CE constituted the greatest defense for freedom of belief in all recorded history. IMHO, this makes the sacrifice of 1.2 Million peoples' defense as the Messiah of this time. Its just another view.

 

It's certainly up there, and I'd also make a case for the Maccabean revolts. Your view of the sacrifice of the zealots as a manifestation of a sort of Messianic mission is interesting, although I would wonder what the revolt actually accomplished, and if these accomplishments are worthy of being considered as a Messianic manifestation. Interesting take though.

 

The crieria of a Messiah is a wholly Jewish concept and a mandated law this will occur. There is a clear set of criteria listed in Isaiah, which is an expansion of verses alluded to in the Mosaic texts. So a Messiah could only be awaited for by Jews, not by the people of Europe or Arabia, as this was never their belief. The Judean jews awaited and Jews do so till now, and will be able to recognise a failed or successful occurence - and this is what happened in the period when Rome invaded the region. Messiahs sprung up every 50 years, by over zeal and also fake ones. The jews rejected all of them eventually, even against the best wishful hopes for one, and we know that Isaiah has not been fullfilled. The messiah criteria included that the dead, not the Messiah, must be resurrected; all nations will be at peace and cease war; even the animals and humans shall become reconsiled - and that a child will lead them.

 

Well, the concept of a Messiah is not limited to Judaism, Christianity, or any other single religion, but I take your point. Since both Christians and Jews are operating within the context of the Old Covenant Scriptures delivered to the chosen people of God, we must certainly turn to those Scriptures for the criteria. And the Scriptures revealed under the Old Covenant certainly speak of a mission broader than the nation of Israel. How else would one read the prophecy of Malachi?:

 

"For from the rising of the sun even to its going down, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered to My name, and a pure offering, for My name shall be great among the Gentiles," says the Lord Almighty. [Mal 1: 11]

 

Furthermore, we believe that Christ has fulfilled the criteria outlined in the Old Covenant Scriptures. The Gospel of Matthew and Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews both make the case, and it might be interesting for us to discuss this in a separate thread. Let us look to a couple of passages that foretell the coming of Christ (I am presenting a Christian interpretation; feel free to present a Rabbinic interpretation):

 

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Proclaim it aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King comes to you; He is righteous and saving; He is gentle and mounted upon a donkey, even a young foal. He will utterly destroy the chariots out of Ephraim and the horse out of Jerusalem. The bow of war shall be utterly destroyed, and there shall be abundance and peace among the nations. He shall rule over the waters as far as the sea and over the rivers to the ends of the earth. And by the blood of your covenant, you freed your prisoners from the pit having no water. [Zec 9: 9-11]

 

Aside from the reference to Christ's entrance into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, we also have a prophecy of the eternal kingdom, as well as a foreshadowing of the harrowing of Hades and the redemption of the righteous among the Israelites of the Old Covenant. But let us continue. Though there are many prophecies contained in the book of Psalms, the Crucifixion Psalm (Psalm 21; 22 in the Masoretic) stands out. Here is an excerpt which, in striking detail, describes the Crucifixion of Christ:

 

For many dogs surrounded me; An assembly of evildoers enclosed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. I numbered all my bones, And they look and stare at me. They divided my garments among themselves, And for my clothing they cast lots. [Ps 21: 17-19]

 

Since you mentioned Isaiah, let us deal with a couple of passages that demonstrate that the Messiah will bring God's salvation to the Gentiles:

 

For Zion's sake I will not be silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until My righteousness goes forth as light, and My salvation burns like a lamp. The Gentiles will see your righteousness, and kings your glory; and one will call you by your new name, which the Lord shall name. [Is 62: 1-2]

 

Go through My gates, make a way for My people, throw the stones off the road, and lift up a standard for the Gentiles. For behold the Lord caused this to be heard to the ends of the earth: "Say to the daughter of Zion, 'Behold, your Savior is come, and has His reward, and His work before His face,'."One shall call them a holy people, the redeemed of the Lord, and you shall be called a City Sought for and Not Forsaken. [Is 62: 10-12]

 

Isaiah also delivers a prophecy of the Virgin birth, although you and I would disagree on the translation (owing to a tradition regarding Divine inspiration in the translation of a term in the Septuagint):

 

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and you shall call His name Immanuel. [Is 7: 14]

 

Ezekiel also references the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, and the coming of Christ in the flesh:

 

Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary that faces toward the east, but it was shut. So the Lord said to me, "This gate shall be shut. It shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it, because the Lord God of Israel will enter by it; therefore, it shall be shut. As for the prince, he will sit in it to eat bread before the Lord. He will go in by way of the gate chamber and go out the same way. [Ez 44: 1-3]

 

This is just a handful of passages in the Old Testament that foretell the coming of Christ, and that Christians believe demonstrate that Jesus has fulfilled the criteria for the Messiah. Really, the whole of what has come to be known as the Old Testament, From Genesis to Daniel (the Orthodox Church, in the tradition of the Fathers, uses the Septuagint canon) is a foreshadowing of the coming of the Christ. Everything from the dimensions of the ark of Noah to the prophecies outlined above speak to the Incarnation of God in the flesh. The Incarnation of the god-man Jesus Christ was necessary to correct the sin and fall of Adam.

 

Obviously, christians saw some verses applying to their beliefs via some perspectives, mostly via retrospection, but these are 'genuinely' not shared by Judaism - it was never intended to be rejectionist of a Messiah, which is a totally ubsurd conclusion all things considered. Such a charge does not have any vindication, and this was soon seen by Islam, which rejects totally the premise of Resurrection. Jews become bashed whichever way they would have turned, and amazingly, even by just standing still!

 

There is, unfortunately, a sordid history of anti-Semitism; I will not deny it. Neither will I deny that this stretches across cultures, and that the Jews have had a rough time of it in mosst areas of the world in which they settled. We do need to distinguish, however, anti-Semitism from legitimate disagreement; Christian criticism of the Jewish rejection of Christ, or the arguments from the Hebrew Scriptures for Jesus's status as the promised Messiah outlined above, do not constitute anti-Semitism. I believe you do understand this distinction, but I need to be sure we're on the same page.

 

Not really. All 55 Jewish prophets are cherished and honored every year, their writings being believed in as holy writ and revelation, etc. If you mean that some sectors first debated, argued, battled and demanded proof and made alternative suggestions - this is normal fare, and accounts for the mental gymnastics of this peoples. Perhaps this is the reason they got chosen, as opposed Europe believing [too] readilly, and Muslims being fastediously obedient to the point of never questioning.

 

I was speaking of the fact that many prophets had a rough go of it in their own time, not that they are not venerated today.

 

You will know that Abraham and Moses engaged in vigourous debates with the All-Mighty - to the point the text shows exasperation from the big chief! But behind all this, when one accepts a belief after all deliberations, that belief is the most powerful. Trust, trust - but also - check, check. Let me site a Medrash parable which explains what was happening here.   One day, in a very greviously hot day in the canaan desert, Abraham was called upon by God. But at this time, Abraham was assisting and tending to some people who became overcome while crossing the desert, providing them with water and sustainence. Abraham replied to God:   "I cannot come now, some people need my help'.   The next verse says:   'AND THE LORD WAITED ON ABRAHAM'.   So its all one's perspective what is really occuring.

 

Interesting. I've never heard that before. What, exactly, is it from? I don't doubt the authenticity, but I'd be interested in reading more for myself.

 

This appears applicable only to christianty's conclusion, and then of islam, and no where else in Judaism's history. In fact, this is best pointed at christianity: unlike the Jews, their belief was only 2 or 3 centuries old, and yet they rejected islam! So I would not say the Jews rejected anyone - they just remained jews. They cannot be expected to alter their 2000 year beliefs, and accept two contradicting premises of the Gospels and the Quran.

 

Well, first Christianity was not only two or three centuries old when it rejected Islam; it had been around for six centuries. By the historical criteria you wish to use in dating Christianity -- a false criteria, I believe -- Jewish beliefs were not 2000 years old as you state, but were either around 600 years old (dating from the Exile) or had not been formed yet (dating from the revision of the Hebrew canon by the school at Jamnia, among others).

 

In any case, IMHO, everyone has the right to chose their beliefs, without being crucified for it. Jews appear not as unbelievers but fastedious believers here. The previous Pope also finally made this admission - Jews do not need any other belief or savier other than the Hebrew bible. Why is this such a problem for Christians and Muslims - do they wish to save or destroy Jews? And what about those bad Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists etc - or better, what about how Muslims and Christians will deal with each other? The picture becomes different once we zoom out and look from a far what humanity is up to, and then we have to apply the principle of reciprocity. A doctrine cannot only apply to another and not the person claiming it.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the last sentence or two. Hypocrisy has, unfortunately, marred every religion and sect known to history. It is a part of our fallen nature that must be struggled against. As for whether or not those of other faiths need to be within the canonical bounds of the Church to be saved, that is for God to decide. God bestows grace where, when, and as He wills.

 

Better than the doctrine, 'WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU DO UNTO THERS', I prefer, 'WHAT IS HATEFUL TO YOU - DO NOT UNTO OTHERS'. The former can be used for good and bad.

 

Interesting. I actually think both could be abused, or cause harm, but I would agree that the second is less likely to do so.

 

Yes, I believe you and that christian belief is genuine and Godly inclined. But I don't agree with that view of the prohets taken by christianity - and this is equally genuinely. Muslim belief is also genuine. It appears we were not meant to wear the same colored hats, and this is where RESPECT OF ANOTHER can only be evidenced. It has no merit with kin and neighbours - this is biological and self preserving. Thus one must honor, rather than just love, one's parents [5th C]: much more demanding, and therein is the rub!

 

Well said.  And it is honest dialogue like this which helps us to understand each other, even when -- or, rather, especially when -- we do not agree.

 

There are more negatives which you don't see - thus Christianity had to negate many laws and provisions to uphold its beliefs, in the guise these are 'fullfilled'. Jews had no such choices, and do not see the first two of the 10 commandments as fullfilled, variable or not applicable. This was given as an omen when islam emerged: try convincing a Muslim it is ok to worship a man and his image, then consider that Judaism is more than twice as old as islam. Do the DNA genes maths.

 

Well, we take a rather different view of the Law of Moses -- in Christian belief, the purpose of the Law is to serve as a tutor to lead us to Christ. I will say at the outset that the Ten Commandments have not passed with the New Covenant. The Law demonstrates to us that we cannot justify ourselves, nor can we truly realign our wills with God due to the consequences of the Fall. Thus, it is in our participation in Christ, who perfectly fulfilled the Law, that we achieve theosis and ultimately heal our fallen nature. Thus, there are parts of the Mosaic Law which are no longer applicable, such as those which were designed to maintain a separate chosen people defined by ethnicity.

 

Sorry, this is not acceptable. A law is not a law unless mandated in sacred writ, upfront with the author's proof, and evidenced in robust challenge, in the presence of many. And if anything said is in contradiction of what was said before by another - then only the original person, in this case, Moses, can affirm or deny it. Its about reciprocity - consider how you would behave if a Muslim told you his belief, and vice versa. You cannot accuse someone of what you would never do.

 

Well, I have had several discussions with Muslims about a variety of topics; you may check through some of the threads from earlier this year in the Philosophy and Theology subforum if you wish to know how I behave in such circumstances. That said, at the Transfiguration Moses was present, and once again, Christianity hold that Jesus, as the theanthropos, supercedes Moses. We take a somewhat different view of the role of Scripture than those who subscribe to Judaism or Islam; for us, Truth is a person, not a collection of sacred texts.

 

While in one sense, having various Gospel writers, saying things in some contradiction, is a positive factor - it infers reality and truthful circumstances, as opposed everyone gospel writings matching perfectly. The issue is that not everyone can accept those beliefs. This is not a crime per se. All beliefs have their own CHOSEN doctrine - and I see the Hebrew bible's chosen the most agreeable: by example only. Exclusive kingdom keys, and no God w/o Mohammed are different kinds of chosen.

 

What are often called contradictions in the Gospels are generally the result of the individual purposes of the authors. As Origen notes, a perfectly reasonable explanation for the discrepancy between the chronologies of the Gospel of John and the synoptics may be explained by the fact that John is concerned with delivering spiritual truth, and sometimes subordinates historicity to this mission. While I obviously don't agree with your choice of faith, I think you have taken a very reasonable position: tolerance without sacrificing honesty and integrity.

 

It was very sudden, with no history of belief, and it also was a very political move.  It need not have been authentic. Christianity went on the commit the greatest crimes in history thereafter.

 

There was certainly a political aspect to it, which I believe I noted above. I simply do not think that history teaches that this was the only factor. And while it need not have been an authentic conversion, history demonstrates that it undoubtedly was. To be sure, Constantine represents an anomaly; the first Christian emperor was quite different from his successors. Still, he was the first Christian emperor. As for you comment regarding "the greatest crimes in history," while not justifying the many evils commited as a result of hypocrisy and a lack of true faith, I would simply note that your characterization is quite subjective, and perhaps betrays a bit of a lack of self-examination. After all, what of some of the events recorded in the history of Israel, such as the ban?

 

I don't see any choice here for christianity. What ever is the problem in harkening to the father - after saying thank you to the alledged son for bringing you to where there is no alternative? But to each his own, and any changes will require more than a messiah anymore. Note that it says, 'I SHALL JUDGE ISRAEL ['I'], *AND* THE NATIONS'. That is one formidable 'AND' - thus the last Prophet says 'WALK HUMBLY BEFORE YOUR GOD'. No one knows what are the complex factors of Judgement.

 

Well, true Christ is the one mediator between God and Man. Still, the ontological ladder you are describing, which was a belief held by some in the fourth century, is impossible within the properly understood context of human falleness. As Athanasius states, God became Man that Man might become God. That is to say that our only salvation is through union with God, or theosis. Through this union with the new Adam, we are able to reverse the consequences of the original rebellion of the first Adam's will against God. By uniting our will with Christ's human will, which is inerrantly led by his divine will, we participate in his divinity. This is the significance of the Eucharist, where we become, as Peter states, "partakers of the divine nature." And if, as is required, Jesus Christ is God, then he is one in essence with the Father (for he is divine and eternally begotten). Thus, we can establish neither and ontological nor a chronological ladder in the Godhead -- although we may establish an etiological priority with the Father as the fountainhead of divinity in the Trinity. Every aspect of Trinitarian theology and Christology is concerned with practical, soteriological conditions.

 

As for judgment, you are quite correct; only God sets the criteria.

 

The reverse has been the problem for Jews, or it is disguised as a problem: they fastediously upheld the commandments, without adding or subtracting, incurring many existential wars before Christianity emerged. This is what is so powerful with the Roman war with the Jews - which is not even mentioned in the gospels.

 

It is alluded to, but you are quite right. The absence is certainly interesting.

 

You see that, and you have only words of belief, al biet genuine belief. Specifically, what revelation are you referring to - what message - which law - which truth - other than a name? There is no message - millions sacrificed themselves, in far worse conditions than what is portrayed in the Gospels. In fact I cannot even ratify a sacrifice with Jesus: have you forgotten, a decree of Heresy hovered over all f Judea at this time, and one was subject to crucifixtion unless they bowed to Rome's emperor? How did jesus act in this instant, and how was his sacrifce greater than another jew with a large family who gave their lives willingly before the assured Roman onslaught?

 

I believe I have outlined above what the nature of the revelation I am referring to is, but if you wish me to clarify anything, please let me know. As for the special nature of Christ's sacrifice, it is connected to who and what he is. First, he was innocent, having fulfilled the divine commandments. Second, he is God in the flesh, revealing in his Person Truth. This is not to do injustice to the other innocents among the children of Israel who were crucified. After all, Christ welcomed a guilty thief, even as he was being crucified.

 

But you have to reason this out without the factor of belief, as I tried to do? i say, belief is subject to critical compulsion impacts, which is mysterious and not subject to one's mind and reasoning. And that differing compulsions were placed on all sectors of humanity at different times. However, if there was a Sinai type revelation to humanity - the term belief would become superfluous because of the manifest premise. But the religions are not asking for a global revelation, and want to destroy all by their own preferred beliefs and decrees. Let's not confuse this with love!

 

Would you mind clarifying this a bit? I'm not sure I quite take your meaning here. Thanks in advance.

 

Cheers,   Imj

 

Always a pleasure, Joseph. Looking forward to hearing from you.  God bless and keep you.

 

-Akolouthos

 

Debate by all means - but be in context and not so vague what part you are debating. Otherwise check your own driving history, because it appears you never indulged in real history lessons.