Irenaeus was the first person to develop an Old Testament and New Testament that worked together. He was also the first person to cite reasons for admitting or rejecting books into the canon.

Oh Yes, Annie

From you: "What are you trying to say?  Expand your thoughts, please."

Now take a look at the following from the Jewish Scripture:

Isaiah 53 talks about "Israel suffers for the Lord".

Daniel 9 talks about Daniel meditating upon Jeremiah's prophecy and also includes Daniel's confessions of sins.

Zechariah 12 talks about Jerusalem a cup of staggering, Jerusalem a stone of burden and then it talks about Restoration of Judah and Repentance of Jerusalem.

It is your turn to put the above three just in 2-3 lined statements from the Christian OT as developed by Irenaeus. No commentary please, just the factual statement.

After re-writing according to Christian OT, please tell me in a separate post, what prophesies do you see?

BMZ wrote: Now take a look at the following from the Jewish Scripture: Isaiah 53 talks about "Israel suffers for the Lord".

Some Jews say that it speaks of the nation of Israel, some other Jews say it refers to a person on behalf of Israel, yet some say it speaks of the Messiah.  Whichever it is still a prophecy and it is a matter of interpretation.

BMZ wrote: Daniel 9 talks about Daniel meditating upon Jeremiah's prophecy and also includes Daniel's confessions of sins.

What is your point?

BMZ wrote: Zechariah 12 talks about Jerusalem a cup of staggering, Jerusalem a stone of burden and then it talks about Restoration of Judah and Repentance of Jerusalem.

BMZ wrote: It is your turn to put the above three just in 2-3 lined statements from the Christian OT as developed by Irenaeus. No commentary please, just the factual statement.

Irenaeus did not develop the Old Testament.  You are misinterpreting.

BMZ wrote: After re-writing according to Christian OT, please tell me in a separate post, what prophesies do you see?

Re-Writing according to ...."  What are you talking about?

What prophecies do you see?

Annie,

You were totally unable to answer or comprehend.   

I knew you will keep on failing to see my point.    Let me add an honest twist here for you. You dig up prophecies looking to justify the coming of Jesus, the forms of Jesus and the nature of Jesus in the Christian OT, which is neither supported by the Jewish Scriptures (Jewish OT) nor the Jews themselves.

I am sure you will be thrusting instead of piercing!  

Annie,

This is going great!

From you: "Irenaeus did not develop the Old Testament.  You are misinterpreting."

Please don't tell me, tell that to Theresa A. Winters and write her telling that she might have misinterpreted according to your observation.

As for myself, the following statement tells me that Irenaeus did doctor the Jewish Scriptures to make OT compatible with NT:

Irenaeus was the first person to develop an Old Testament and New Testament that worked together. He was also the first person to cite reasons for admitting or rejecting books into the canon.

Annie,

My comments are in blue.

Some Jews say that it speaks of the nation of Israel, some other Jews say it refers to a person on behalf of Israel, yet some say it speaks of the Messiah.  Whichever it is still a prophecy and it is a matter of interpretation.

This non-Jew and non-Christian said the same as in the first part of your comment. Jews do not SAY it is talking about Messiah. Check with a Rabbi. It is NO prophecy and there is nothing to interpret there.

What is your point?

My point is that too is no prophecy. Daniel, not Jesus, is confessing his own sins or the sins of Israel.

What is your point?

My point is still the same. It is not a prophecy and has nothing to do with Jesus or the Messiah. Now, please tell me what is your point in asking me about munclear points?

My apologies in advance for saying this. Annie, you still do not comprehend and I feel sorry for you for instead of putting me out of misery, you are falling deep into misery. .

From you: "Oh, but I did comprehend." No! You did not comprehend at all.

From you, Annie: "Let me put you out of your misery.  Whether a Christian reads the Old Testament in the Greek translated from the Hebrew or the English translated form the Hebrew, they come to the same conclusions about Jesus and the prophecies."

Herein lies the problem. You fail to understand that I am saying that the Christian reads HIS Old Testament, which is attached to the New Testament and that OT is different from the Jewish Scripture from which came the Christian Old Testament. Is this clear now.

Yes, the Jews have their Scripture also translated in English. They have it in the Hebrew also. The Jews do not come to the same conclusions as the Christians. The Jews DO NOT accept the Christian's OT as their Scripture. Period. You may ask Rabbis at some Rabbi.coms or ask Moses.Com or Ask the Rabbi and post here the e-mail that your receive.

From you, Annie: "The proof of that is the Messanic Jews.  They read the Old Testament either in English from the Hebrew scriptures or directly from the Hebrew as many of them read and understand Hebrew and they come to the same conclusions that the Christians do."

Messianic Jews are no Jews, they are simply Christians. That is just a fanciful name given to the Jews who became Christians.   I do not wish to explain what they believe is going to happen and what they stand for. It would not be good for this board and please don't ask me to elaborate. I would rate them as Christians+Jews, which is not really healthy.   They are a dangerous lot! You know well what I mean, so please don't ask. (Hint:Restoration of Jews and Israel at any cost and at the cost of the entire humanity, Planet and the Universe.  )

From you, Annie: "So your effort to imply that Irenaeus wrote the Septuagint falls flat on its face.  Irenaeus had nothing to do with the writing of the Septuagint as I pointed out to you."

There is no talk of who wrote the Septuagint. I never said that Irenaeus had anything to do with the writing of the Septuagint.

You just read again what Theresa A Winters wrote:"Irenaeus was the first person to develop an Old Testament and New Testament that worked together. He was also the first person to cite reasons for admitting or rejecting books into the canon."

Theresa A. Winters, I believe she must be an American Christian, is saying in clear terms that Irenaeus did something to make the two books compatible. He mounted two different wheels on the same axle. can you run that cart? No way!

How did he do that? To find out read some chapters that I recommended. An example: Why was Lord Jesus born without a man father? Answer: Irenaeus, most likely must have reworded Isaiah 7:14 of the Jewish OT to Isaiah 7:14 of the Christian OT.

There it was "A young woman will give birth to a child......" and it was re-written in the Christian OT as "A young virgin will give birth to a child.......", just to use it and justify it as a prophecy for Jesus.

In the Septuagint, there is no young virgin. Are you talking about an Original Septuagint of the Christian OT?

Hope I have made clear that it is not me. You have got to blame Theresa Winters and Arenaeus, please.

Good Night. 

Anything Gnostic is heresy in the Catholic Church, and is also against the beliefs of Protestant denominations.  Kick it to the curb.  (Unless you believe in things untrue.)

God's peace!

BMZ wrote: "Let me put you out of your misery.  Whether a Christian reads the Old Testament in the Greek translated from the Hebrew or the English translated form the Hebrew, they come to the same conclusions about Jesus and the prophecies." Herein lies the problem. You fail to understand that I am saying that the Christian reads HIS Old Testament, which is attached to the New Testament and that OT is different from the Jewish Scripture from which came the Christian Old Testament. Is this clear now.

Believe it or not, I do understand what you are saying.  The Greek translation is not that different from the Hebrew as far as I can see.  You will find differences in translations even in the various English translations from the Hebrew which are translations by the Jews themselves.  The Christian historians read both the Greek and the Hebrew and so do Christian pastors and priests as well as some ordinary Christians who know Hebrew and Greek.

BMZ wrote: Yes, the Jews have their Scripture also translated in English. They have it in the Hebrew also. The Jews do not come to the same conclusions as the Christians. The Jews DO NOT accept the Christian's OT as their Scripture. Period. You may ask Rabbis at some Rabbi.coms or ask Moses.Com or Ask the Rabbi and post here the e-mail that your receive.

I do know that the Jews prefer their Hebrew Scriptures opposed to the translation of the Greek.  The Jews do not come to the same conclusions based on interpretations, not so much on the text.  It is a matter of interpretation and the Jews differ among themselves as to the meaning of particular scriptures.  If you read the thoughts of some Jewish Rabbis you will see this.

BMZ wrote: From you, Annie: "The proof of that is the Messanic Jews.  They read the Old Testament either in English from the Hebrew scriptures or directly from the Hebrew as many of them read and understand Hebrew and they come to the same conclusions that the Christians do." Messianic Jews are no Jews, they are simply Christians. That is just a fanciful name given to the Jews who became Christians.   I do not wish to explain what they believe is going to happen and what they stand for. It would not be good for this board and please don't ask me to elaborate. I would rate them as Christians+Jews, which is not really healthy.  They are a dangerous lot! You know well what I mean, so please don't ask. (Hint:Restoration of Jews and Israel at any cost and at the cost of the entire humanity, Planet and the Universe. )

Don't put all Messianic Jews in the same category, BMZ.  Many (most?) are not Zionists, just as many Jews are not Zionists.  Your comment has no bearing on the subject.  The subject is the interpretation of scriptures.  The Messianic Jews read the Hebrew and come to the conclusion that Jesus is the King of the Jews, the Messiah, the same as Christians do.

BMZ wrote: From you, Annie: "So your effort to imply that Irenaeus wrote the Septuagint falls flat on its face.  Irenaeus had nothing to do with the writing of the Septuagint as I pointed out to you."

I am please to hear you say that Irenaeus had nothing to do with the writing of the Septuagint.

BMZ wrote: How did he do that? To find out read some chapters that I recommended. An example: Why was Lord Jesus born without a man father? Answer: Irenaeus, most likely must have reworded Isaiah 7:14 of the Jewish OT to Isaiah 7:14 of the Christian OT.

You are trying to say that Irenaeus changed the text?  BMZ, have you no idea how impossible that would be?  "Irenaeus most likely reworded????"  On what historical basis do you come to that conclusion?  Irenaeus had nothing to do with the Seputagint.  Period.  The Seuptagint along with "virgin" instead of "young woman" was completed 400 years before Irenaeus was born.  The Seputagint was translated by Jews and not Christians.  The Seputagint was translated from Hebrew into Greek for the benefit of those Jews who no longer understood the Hebrew.

BMZ wrote: Hope I have made clear that it is not me. You have got to blame Theresa Winters and Arenaeus, please.

Yes, it is you, jumping to conclusions and coming up with the wrong one, which cannot be supported with historical evidence.

Hi Annie,

It was nice of you to have checked on your own initiative because you needed that more, not me!   Those are not my sources, I posted what I saw. I don't have time to go and verify the links and sources.

Looks like she turned out like those Ali Sinas and Ibne Warraqs.  

Anyway that article has some truth in it. We cannot just discard it so easily. If it were not Irenaeus, it could have been someone that we don't know, but someone did make changes while writing the Christian OT from the Jewish OT.  That is still more factual.

From you, Annie: "I have already told you that Irenaeus was not the first or only person to give reasons why there are only 4 gospels and cited several historical sources."

I don't think I asked for that. What I know from the Scripture is that 4 gospels were chosen to represent "the four corners" of the world. Is that right?

Annie,

Let me put this way. There are two Scriptures almost the same:

1. The Holy Scriptures of the Jews or call it The Jewish Bible 

2. The Old Testament of the Christians or call it the OT of the Christian Bible.

Which one do I choose as an outsider? Of course #1.

Please note that the Jews do not recognise the OT in the Christian Bible.

This is the problem. I cannot accept that the Christian scholars interpreted the Jewish Scriptures better than the Jews who had them centuries ago.

There are lots of changes made in the words and meanings. I have already shown some and it is a common happening in the Christian OT.

In the mean time, I will try to find comments from Jewish scholars and post.

BMZ wrote: Anyway that article has some truth in it. We cannot just discard it so easily. If it were not Irenaeus, it could have been someone that we don't know, but someone did make changes while writing the Christian OT from the Jewish OT.  That is still more factual.

No BMZ, as I said before the Septuagint was translated by Jews and not the Christians, hundreds of years before Christ.  The scriptures were for the Jews, translated by the Jews, for Jews who did not understand Hebrew.  Nobody made changes, BMZ.  Why aren't you understanding this?  It was simply a matter of reading the Hebrew and translating the Hebrew into Greek.

BMZ wrote: From you, Annie: "I have already told you that Irenaeus was not the first or only person to give reasons why there are only 4 gospels and cited several historical sources." I don't think I asked for that. What I know from the Scripture is that 4 gospels were chosen to represent "the four corners" of the world. Is that right?

No, you are incorrect.  The four gospels chose themselves.  They were the ones that were in constant use before Irenaeus was born.

This is what Irenaeus said.

The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. As David said, when asking for his coming, 'O sitter upon the cherubim, show yourself '. For the cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. For the first living creature, it says, was like a lion, signifying his active and princely and royal character; the second was like an ox, showing his sacrificial and priestly order; the third had the face of a man, indicating very clearly his coming in human guise; and the fourth was like a flying eagle, making plain the giving of the Spirit who broods over the Church. Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these. (3.11.8)

I have already given you other references on the four gospels.  Irenaeus is simply giving a fanciful little analogy.  He had nothing to do with the choosing of them.

Annie

-------------
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4

Annie,

From you: "No BMZ, as I said before the Septuagint was translated by Jews and not the Christians, hundreds of years before Christ.  The scriptures were for the Jews, translated by the Jews, for Jews who did not understand Hebrew.  Nobody made changes, BMZ.  Why aren't you understanding this?  It was simply a matter of reading the Hebrew and translating the Hebrew into Greek."

Annie, I will present my case in the language of a Primary One student:

The Jewish Scripture: Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel"

The Christian OT: Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with the child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

Who is correct? The Jewish Scripture or the Christian OT? I believe the Jewish Scripture is correct here.

The child was never named Immanuel. The mother was supposed to call the child Immanuel but SHE DID NOT!

I know that Immanuel means "God with us" but you, others and I also know that if my name is Immanuel, I am not God with you and others.

Please answer as if you are talking to a child!  

BMZ wrote: Annie, Let me put this way. There are two Scriptures almost the same: 1. The Holy Scriptures of the Jews or call it The Jewish Bible

Yes. 

BMZ wrote: 2. The Old Testament of the Christians or call it the OT of the Christian Bible. Which one do I choose as an outsider? Of course #1.

I use both.

BMZ wrote: Please note that the Jews do not recognise the OT in the Christian Bible.

Didn't I already say that?  When I have a question about the meaning of some OT scriptures, I have a Jew that I go to to get some answers.  He will accept the OT scripture and give an answer.  If the OT scripture is not as clear as the Hebrew, he will tell me the difference.  He prefers the Stone edition of the Hebrew and it is not on the Internet as far as I know.

BMZ wrote: This is the problem. I cannot accept that the Christian scholars interpreted the Jewish Scriptures better than the Jews who had them centuries ago.

OK, but you must consider that the Jews of today have a reason why they reject Messiah Jesus.  I think it is in the interpretation and I don't altogether trust their interpretations and I have a good reason.  I can find lots of Jewish scholars who consider many of the prophecies of Messiah that the Christians do.  Over time the Jews seem to have changed their minds.  I like to go back to the Jewish though that is quite old.  I would suggest that you do the same.

BMZ wrote: There are lots of changes made in the words and meanings. I have already shown some and it is a common happening in the Christian OT.

BMZ, please try to understand that it was the Jews who interpreted the Septuagint.  They chose what they considered the right word.  This does not equate into "changes made in the word and meanings."

I'd like to make one additional point.  The Jews who used the Septuagint did not all become Christians.  Think about it.

Annie

Annie,

From you: "Didn't I already say that?  When I have a question about the meaning of some OT scriptures, I have a Jew that I go to to get some answers.  He will accept the OT scripture and give an answer.  If the OT scripture is not as clear as the Hebrew, he will tell me the difference.  He prefers the Stone edition of the Hebrew and it is not on the Internet as far as I know."

Annie, you have got one Jew and I have two Rabbis in the Singapore Synagogues plus a dozen Jewish scholars from the Mennaseh Trust here. I have The Jewish Scriptures in the Masoretic Text right next to my computer and I ask Rabbis on Moses and other Jewishdotcoms.

None of them agrees with your goodself and your Jew, Annie!

Best wishes and Good Night. 

"BMZ,



Have I become your new best friend? 

I talk to you so much I don't have time to talk to anyone else.

I'm not complaining, it is interesting."

Good exchanges are interesting and challenging, Annie. I wish George were here and it would have been doubly interesting.

George has run away from this site!  Hope this comment will make him come back.

Thanks & Good Night

BMZ

O.K. When the dialogue gets down to who has more Jews, something has gone horribly awry.....

Oddly enough, I was watching a program last night where this Jewish guy was talking about Christians and the OT, and he was saying that they almost always interpret it incorrectly and that if you want a correct interpretation to ask someone Jewish, go to the source.

Hello Mishmish,

Salaam Alaikum,

This link is a good one to know the thoughts of Jews about this topic.

http://ohr.edu/ask/ask00j.htm - http://ohr.edu/ask/ask00j.htm

BMZ

AnnieTwo wrote: bmzsp wrote: Annie, You were totally unable to answer or comprehend.    I knew you will keep on failing to see my point.    Let me add an honest twist here for you. You dig up prophecies looking to justify the coming of Jesus, the forms of Jesus and the nature of Jesus in the Christian OT, which is neither supported by the Jewish Scriptures (Jewish OT) nor the Jews themselves. I am sure you will be thrusting instead of piercing!   Oh, but I did comprehend. Let me put you out of your misery.  Whether a Christian reads the Old Testament in the Greek translated from the Hebrew or the English translated form the Hebrew, they come to the same conclusions about Jesus and the prophecies. The proof of that is the Messanic Jews.  They read the Old Testament either in English from the Hebrew scriptures or directly from the Hebrew as many of them read and understand Hebrew and they come to the same conclusions that the Christians do. So your effort to imply that Irenaeus wrote the Septuagint falls flat on its face.  Irenaeus had nothing to do with the writing of the Septuagint as I pointed out to you. Annie

I was a Christian, and I didnt. The nicene council and Constantine rewrote sections of the Bible to reflect the "divinity of Christ"  The old testaments documents were originally written in Aramaic, NOT GREEK! Many scrolls have been found predating the Nicene council that show the differences. Cruise the web and you will see! You  are biased, that is ok, try to be objective!

David & Mishmish,

Annie has American Jews but I have the Jews direct from the Holy Lands. As a specialist structural engineer, I fixed up their 110 y.o. synagogue and saved it from an imminent collapse.

They were delighted and after an inspection on a hot day, the Rabbi offered me specially imported wine from King David's gardens. When I refused politely they told me it was Kosher (Halal) and safe to drink.   

DavidC wrote: I don't think I can handle the mathematics, Mishmish. I flunked both Al-Jew-bra and Analytic Jew-ometry.

Ouch!

BMZ wrote: Let me do a switcheroo on you. The Jewish Scripture: Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" The child was never named Immanuel. The mother was supposed to call the child Immanuel but SHE DID NOT!

Strange, isn't it?  No Jew can tell you who was called "Immanuel" and there is no evidence that anyone was.  Neither can the Jews tell us who the woman was, some say it was Isaiah's wife and others think it is Ahaz.

Why didn't Mary call Jesus "Immanuel," "God with us?"

23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"�which means, "God with us." NIV

23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"�which means, "God with us." �which means, "God with us." NKJV

23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. KJV

Notice it doesn't say that Mary will call Jesus "Immanuel."  It says they will call him "Immanuel."

Here comes a little copying and pasting:

People and groups in the OT were often getting special 'place' names and temporary names, to be used for a specific purpose. Solomon, for example, got TWO names at his birth (II Sam 12.25)--Solomon and Jedidiah. No reference is ever made to Jedidiah after that, but it doesn't seem to be an issue. See also the story about Pashur in Jer 20:1-6.

• Israel and Judah consistently receive 'temporary' and symbolic names in the Prophets (cf. Ezek 23 and Is 62.3-4)

• Matthew is the one who quotes the 'Immanuel' passage one verse AFTER the he reports the angel's command to name the son JESUS, AND four verses BEFORE reporting that his parents called him 'Jesus'...he doesn't show the SLIGHTEST concern over this "problem"! (in other words, it WASN'T an issue in that culture). This is even more striking in that Matthew is the one arguing that the passage was fulfilled! --the name issue wasn't an issue.

• If you had to call the kid 'Immanuel" for the prophecy to be fulfilled, what in the world are we gonna do with Is 9.6--where the child gets 4 names (i.e. wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace)?!

• And actually, we don't think it was his mother who had to call him 'Immanuel' anyway. Most modern bibles have a footnote at the 'she shall call him...' text, that explains that in the MSS, we have a couple of variants (he, she, they)...Matthew quotes it as 'they'...This could apply to ANYBODY who acknowledged that Jesus was God walking among his people--even John 1 would qualify for this.

This is just not generally considered a problem:

"There is no problem in referring the names Jesus and Emmanuel to the same person. This may well be the reason Matthew spells out the meaning of the name Emmanuel, meq� hJmw`n oJ qeov", �God with us� (LXX Isa 8:8, 10). Indeed this is not a personal name but rather a name that is descriptive of the task this person will perform. Bringing the presence of God to man, he brings the promised salvation�which, as Matthew has already explained, is also the meaning of the name Jesus (v 21b). �They� who will call him Emmanuel are those who understand and accept the work he has come to do. Matthew probably intends the words of Jesus at the end of his Gospel��Behold I am with you always, until the end of the age� (28:20)�to correspond to the meaning of Emmanuel. Jesus is God, among his people to accomplish their salvation (see Fenton, �Matthew,� 80�82).

I mentioned this to Andalus:  According to Hebrew usage a name does not represent a title but a characterization, as in Isaiah 1:26 and 9:6.  The name "Immanuel" shows that Jesus really was "God with us."

And since you requested it, here is my answer for the "child."

Let's say that an angel came to your mother before you were born and said she should call you Bill and she does.  Let's say that she is told that they will call you "the best baseball player of the year."  The term "the best baseball player of the year" is not your given name because your given name is Bill.  But "the best baseball player of the year" is how you will be described.  It is the moniker what you will be known by.

Maybe this article sheds some light on the subject:

The Septuagint was probably the first translation in Greek. It dates from the Third century B.C. and was written by Jews in Alexandria. It Was on this text that the New Testament was based. It remained authoritative until the Seventh century A.D. The basic Greek texts in general use in the Christian world are from the manuscripts catalogued under the title Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican City and Codex Sinaiticus at the British Museum, London. They date from the Fourth century A.D.

At the beginning of the Fifth century A.D., Saint Jerome was able to produce a text in latin using Hebrew documents. It was later to be called the Vulgate on account of its universal distribution after the Seventh century A.D.

For the record, we shall mention the Aramaic version and the Syriac (Pesh*tta) version, but these are incomplete.

All of these versions have enabled specialists to piece together so-called 'middle-of-the-road' texts, a sort of compromise between the different versions. Multi-lingual collections have also been produced which juxtapose the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Aramaic and even Arabic versions. This is the case of the famous Walton Bible (London, 1667). For the sake of completeness, let us mention that diverging Biblical conceptions are responsible for the fact that the various Christian churches do not all accept exactly the same books and have not until now had identical ideas on translation into the same language. The Ecumenical Translation of the Old Testament is a work of unification written by numerous Catholic and Protestant experts now nearing completion[5] and should result in a work of synthesis.

Thus the human element in the Old Testament is seen to be quite considerable. It is not difficult to understand why from version to version, and translation to translation, with all the corrections inevitably resulting, it was possible for the original text to have been transformed during the course of more than two thousand years.

(If anyone is interested in reading more, you can click on this link.)

http://www.tempemasjid.com/maurice/3old.htm - http://www.tempemasjid.com/maurice/3old.htm

God's Peace and Blessings to All.

DavidC wrote: I don't think I can handle the mathematics, Mishmish. I flunked both Al-Jew-bra and Analytic Jew-ometry.

I don't think math is extremely important for interfaith. You actually need Jew-do and Jew-jit-su...

"Patty, go to the "home" page and what do you find?"

Well, well.   I wondered about some of the "wording".  Leave it to me....I could mess up a two man parade!

God's Peace.

Annie wrote:

"What would you expect a Jew to say?

Interesting that Muslims would go to the Jews for a "correct" interpretation when the Qur'an says that the Jews were messing around with their interpretations of scriptures.  So, why would a Muslim trust the Jews for correct interpretations of their scriptures today?

One of the main complaints from the Jews is that they believe that Jesus was unfit to be a prophet because Jesus broke the law which is something I have never heard a Muslim accuse him of.

Annie"

Well, I would expect a Jew to say that they understand their own religion. What would you expect them to say, or rather, what do you expect them to say when you go to them for interpretation? You did say that you do that, didn't you?

Personally, I would think that if you are a student of religion, then you should go to the source of the belief. That does not mean you agree with that belief, or think it is correct, just that you want to be as authentic as possible.

I thought that the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah because he didn't fit any of the criteria: (direct from some Jews)

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

Personally, I would think that if you are a student of religion, then you should go to the source of the belief. That does not mean you agree with that belief, or think it is correct, just that you want to be as authentic as possible.

And that is what I do.  I go to the source.  Just as I go to the source in Islam.

I thought that the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah because he didn't fit any of the criteria: (direct from some Jews)

This is correct and it is not correct.  There was no definitive view of what the Messiah would be in first century Judaism and there was a belief that the Messiah would be divine.

The Jews were looking for a warrior Messiah, someone who weilded a sword, but that was not the kind of Messiah that Jesus was or that God wanted.  Jesus was the direct opposite.  He did not have a bloody sword.  His message was one of peace, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile.  He defeated the Romans and all other pagan religions by claiming that there was only one God and that one God was the only God there is.  And that Jesus was God's Messiah, the one who was to come and defeat the world, which he did by dying on the cross for your sins and for mine.

I would never put my salvation in the hands of today's Jews.

Annie

Mishmish, one of my scholarly "hobbies" is studying Jewish antiquities.  I think you would enjoy reading some of Flavius Josephus' works.  He was Jewish, born just four years after the death of Jesus.  Josephus was born Joseph ben Mattathias in Jerusalem in 37CE.  Briefly, he was a priest, soldier, and scholar.  Here is a brief statement he made regarding Jesus (he first wrote in Aramaic, but later his more detailed works were written in Greek, the most well-known language of the day:)

    Do the Christian gospels record actual events during the First Century A.D./ http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/explanationOfCE.htm - C.E. , or are they the ecstatic visions of a small religious group? 

    There are no surviving Roman records of the First Century that refer to, nor are there any Jewish records that support the accounts in the Christian gospels --- except one. 

    In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account: 
 

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had  first come to love him did not cease.  He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.                                    - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 �63  

Josephus subsequently improved his language skills and undertook a massive work in Greek explaining the history of the Jews to the general non-Jewish audience. He emphasized that the Jewish culture and Bible were older than any other then existing, hence called his work the Jewish Antiquities. Approximately half the work is a rephrasing of the Hebrew Bible, while much of the rest draws on previous historians. This work was published in 93 or 94 http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/explanationOfCE.htm - CE , when he was about 56 years old. 

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/life.htm - http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/life.htm

It is quite interesting to study the very early writings.  Others may find it a bit boring, but if anyone has an interest in them, the link is posted above.

God's Peace.

Well, I have noticed that the New Testament lists Jesus geneology through Joseph, who could not have been his father, back to King David. I have asked why this is, but no one answers my question.

Since it was written that the Messiah was to be related to King David through his father, if Mary was a virgin, wouldn't that automatically disqualify Jesus as the Messiah?

I assume they use it as an arguement because Christians believe it. You can't really have it both ways. Either Jesus was born to a virgin and is not related to King David through his father, or he was not and is related to King David through his father, who may or may not be Joseph.

"I would never put my salvation in the hands of today's Jews.'

The Jews might feel the same way...

Mishmish wrote: Well, I have noticed that the New Testament lists Jesus geneology through Joseph, who could not have been his father, back to King David. I have asked why this is, but no one answers my question. Since it was written that the Messiah was to be related to King David through his father, if Mary was a virgin, wouldn't that automatically disqualify Jesus as the Messiah? I assume they use it as an arguement because Christians believe it. You can't really have it both ways. Either Jesus was born to a virgin and is not related to King David through his father, or he was not and is related to King David through his father, who may or may not be Joseph.

Actually Mishmish, Mary too was a descendent of David.  Mary's Father, Joachim or Eliakim (Eli) was a descendent of David.  And at the age of three, her father and mother Anne dedicated her to the Temple.

The Quran states she is the sister of Aaron, meaning she was descended from the line of Prophets.

019.028
YUSUFALI: "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"

"But the Bible still lists the geneology through Joseph."

Yes, Mishmish. The Bible establishes the genealogy of Joseph first then makes Joseph the husband of Mary who is the mother of Jesus. It should not have been titled The Genealogy of Jesus.

Both Matthew and Luke have made mistakes in the genealogy.

Luke says Joseph was the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki.....and goes on writing his own list.

Matthew says Joseph was the son of Jacob, the son of Matthan, the son of Eleazar.............and goes on writing his own list.

Angela is correct in saying that the genealogy covers that of his mother. Anyway, the Genealogy is not important at all. If it were, the Church Fathers would have fixed the blunders in Matthew and Luke.

That is correct, Mishmish.

By the way, I checked with my Rabbi about the belief of Jews about afterlife. They do believe in afterlife. According to him and some of my other Jews, their dead will be resurrected when their Messiah comes.

Teacher, teacher, please note this.  (This is not for you, Mishmish)

Annie,

From you: "Joseph was Jesus' father through adoption and all that entails."

What is "and all that entails"?  There is nothing there that entails anything.

That still does not make Joseph the real father. Qur'aan describes his name beautifully "Jesus, the son of Mary" whichis more factual.

If you look at the genealogy given by Matthew and Luke, both of them are somehow establishing the genealogy of Joseph. Both make wrong connections, as I have pointed out earlier.

bmzsp wrote: Annie, From you: "Joseph was Jesus' father through adoption and all that entails." What is "and all that entails"?  There is nothing there that entails anything.

Legal rights.

BMZ wrote: That still does not make Joseph the real father. Qur'aan describes his name beautifully "Jesus, the son of Mary" whichis more factual. If you look at the genealogy given by Matthew and Luke, both of them are somehow establishing the genealogy of Joseph. Both make wrong connections, as I have pointed out earlier.

Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph; Luke is the genealogy of Mary.  Would you like some links to help you understand?

Luke 1:  29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

Looks like God took care of the genealogies.

And then Luke went on to butcher the Geneology of Joseph, the father of Jesus. And is that "his father David" in a literal sense or figurative sense, because that can be an issue...

If it was not important that Jesus be connected to King David paternally, why even try?

Mishmish wrote: And then Luke went on to butcher the Geneology of Joseph, the father of Jesus. And is that "his father David" in a literal sense or figurative sense, because that can be an issue...

Luke's account was through Mary, not Joseph.  David in a legal sense.

Mishmish wrote: If it was not important that Jesus be connected to King David paternally, why even try?

No one is saying it isn't important.

Annie,

From you: "Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph; Luke is the genealogy of Mary.  Would you like some links to help you understand?"

No, thanks. I don't need links on that. Looks like you have been misinformed. Both Matthew and Luke call it The Genealogy of Jesus.

Luke 1:  29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

Annie, Angels normally never make a mistake and do not disobey God. Why didn't the Angel tell Maryam to name him Immanuel?

From you, Annie: "Looks like God took care of the genealogies."

Looks like God did not really take care of that.

BMZ wrote: From you: "Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph; Luke is the genealogy of Mary.  Would you like some links to help you understand?" No, thanks. I don't need links on that. Looks like you have been misinformed. Both Matthew and Luke call it The Genealogy of Jesus.

Jesus had two parents, hence two genealogies; one through his legal adoptive father and the other through his mother.

BMZ wrote: Luke 1:  29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." Annie, Angels normally never make a mistake and do not disobey God. Why didn't the Angel tell Maryam to name him Immanuel?

Haven't we gone through this before?

BMZ wrote: From you, Annie: "Looks like God took care of the genealogies." Looks like God did not really take care of that.

Oh, but He did.

Annie

Annie,

From you: "Jesus had two parents, hence two genealogies; one through his legal adoptive father and the other through his mother."

Oh! Please stop that!  English is my third language.

A parent is defined as a person who has begotten or borne an offspring; a father or a  mother. By this definition, only Mary was the rightful parent. She was a single mother, Annie. That is more factual.

You can discuss his mother's genealogy and that of Joseph but you cannot have any Genealogy of Jesus, as he had no man father. Period! Jews gave the genealogies only through the true fathers who begot or fathered their sons. Thanks for allowing me to use archaic terms.

Annie,

From you: "If you adopted a son would he not inherit your possessions as your own biological children would?  Joseph was Jesus' legal father.  Do you see?"

Yes, Annie. An adopted son of mine will have a share to inherit from my material wealth but he cannot share anything of my genes and my true genealogy.

He will still be an adopted son who cannot claim any birth-right from me, although he would have all the love, affection and kindness showered upon by me and my family.

I kinda have to agree with certain logic.  The only reason I think (this is me personally) that Joseph's genealogy is important is because of his betrothal to Mary.  If she was a daughter descended from the line of Prophets including David.  Then her husband would have to be someone of equally high status.  Also, its to show that Joseph too was a pious and faithful soul. 

In most societies, one does not marry beneath them.  Even in societies such as the US you find class structures that hold to a near caste system. 

Mary was an extremely pious and special woman.  She was beloved by God to have been chosen to carry his Word made flesh.  No other will have this honor given to them.

Thus, the man chosen to care for Mary must too be special.  Zachariah was the father of John the Baptist and her protector in the Quran.  Joachim and Anne dedicated her to the Temple according to Eastern Orthodox tradition.  Which means that all her life, Mary was only cared for by the best and the most faithful. 

Joseph could be no less.

bmzsp wrote: Annie, From you: "If you adopted a son would he not inherit your possessions as your own biological children would?  Joseph was Jesus' legal father.  Do you see?" Yes, Annie. An adopted son of mine will have a share to inherit from my material wealth but he cannot share anything of my genes and my true genealogy.

He doesn't have to share your genes.  He is a legal heir.

BMZ wrote: He will still be an adopted son who cannot claim any birth-right from me, although he would have all the love, affection and kindness showered upon by me and my family.

What do you mean by "birth-right?"  Wouldn't you consider him a real part of the family with an equal share in whatever your biological children inherit?

Annie

Annie,

From you: "What do you mean by "birth-right?"  Wouldn't you consider him a real part of the family with an equal share in whatever your biological children inherit?"

Answer to your second part of the question, first. Yes!

By birth-right, I meant that he cannot buy or usurp the birth right of my children like Jacob did with his real twin brother Essau for a bowl of red bean soup.

I think the topic here is whether or not Jesus can be traced through his paternal geneology to King David, and he cannot. Legal adoption does not count as the scripture foretelling the coming of the Messiah did not mention the Messiah would be adopted into the house of David, but born into it.  

Unless the scripture states one thing, but really means something else, which is often the case here.

It is granted on all sides that the Biblical genealogy of Christ implies a number of exegetical difficulties; but rationalists have no solid reason for refusing to admit any of the attempted solutions, nor can we agree with those recent writers who have given up all hope of harmonizing the genealogies of Christ found in the First and Third Gospels. The true state of the question will become plain by studying the Biblical genealogies of Christ first separately, then in juxtaposition, and finally in their relation to certain exceptions to their harmony.

ST. MATTHEW'S GENEALOGY OF CHRIST

The genealogy of Christ according to the First Evangelist descends from Abraham through three series of fourteen members each; the first fourteen belong to the patriarchal order, the second to the royal and the third to that of private citizens. Matthew 1:17, shows that this arrangement was intended; for the writer expressly states: "So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations."

• The writer gives only three names for the time of the Egyptian exile (Esron, Aram, and Aminadab), though the period lasted 215 or 430 years; this agrees with Genesis 15:16, where http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God promises to lead http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm - Israel back in the fourth generation. But according to Genesis 15:13, the stranger shall afflict http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm - Israel for four hundred years.
• The three names Booz, Obed, and Jesse cover a period of 366 years. Omitting a number of other less probable explanations, the difficulty is solved most easily by the admission of a lacuna between Obed and Jesse.
• According to I Paralipomenon 3:11-12, Ochozias, Joas, and Amasias intervene between Joram and Azarias (the Ozias of St. Matthew); these three names cannot have been unknown to the Evangelist, nor can it be supposed that they were omitted by transcribers, for this conjecture would destroy the Evangelist's computation of fourteen kings.
• According to I Paralipomenon 3:15, Joakim intervenes between Josias and Jechonias. We may waive the question whether St. Matthew speaks of only one Jechonias or of two persons bearing that name; nor need we state here all the doubts and difficulties connected with either answer.
• St. Matthew places only nine links between Zorobabel and St. Joseph for a period covering some 530 years, so that each generation must have lasted more than 50 years. The genealogy as given in St. Luke enumerates eighteen generations for the same period, a number which harmonizes better with the ordinary course of events.

ST. LUKE'S GENEALOGY OF CHRIST

The genealogy in Luke 3:23-28 ascends from Joseph to Adam or rather to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God ; this is the first striking difference between the genealogies as presented in the First and Third Gospel. Another difference is found in their collocation: St. Matthew places his list at the beginning of his Gospel; St. Luke, at the beginning of the public life of Christ. The artificial character of St. Luke's genealogy may be seen in the following table:

HARMONY BETWEEN ST. MATTHEW'S AND ST. LUKE'S GENEALOGY OF CHRIST

The fourth series of St. Luke's list covers the period between Abraham and the creation of man; St. Matthew does not touch upon this time, so that there can be no question of any harmony. The third series of St. Luke agrees name for name with the first of St. Matthew; only the order of names is inverted. In this section the genealogies are rather identical than merely harmonious. In the first and second series, St. Luke gives David's descendants through his son Nathan, while St. Matthew enumerates in his second and third series David's descendants through Solomon. It is true that the First Gospel gives only twenty-eight names for this period, against the forty-two names of the Third Gospel; but it cannot be expected that two different lines of descendants should exhibit the same number of links for the period of a thousand years. Abstracting from the inspired character of the sources, one is disposed to regard the number given by the Third Evangelist as more in harmony with the length of time than the number of the First Gospel; but we have pointed out that St. Matthew consciously omitted a number of names in his genealogical list, in order to reduce them to the required multiple of seven.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRECEDING EXPLANATION

Three main difficulties are advanced against the foregoing harmony of the genealogies: First, how can they converge in St. Joseph, if they give different lineages from David downward? Secondly, how can we account for their convergence in Salathiel and Zorobabel? Thirdly, what do we know about the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin?

First Difficulty

The convergence of the two distinct genealogical lines in the person of St. Joseph, has been explained in two ways:

(a) St. Matthew's genealogy is that of St. Joseph; St. Luke's, that of the Blessed Virgin. This contention implies that St. Luke's genealogy only seemingly includes the name of Joseph. It is based on the received Greek text, on (os enomizeto ouios Ioseph) tou Heli, "being the son (as it was supposed, of Joseph, but really) of Heli". This parenthesis really eliminates the name of Joseph from St. Luke's genealogy, and makes Christ, by means of the Blessed Virgin, directly a son of Heli. This view is supported by a tradition which names the father of the Blessed Virgin "Joachim", a variant form of Eliacim or its abbreviation Eli, a variant of Heli, which latter is the form found in the Third Evangelist's genealogy. But these two consideration, viz. the received text and the traditional name of the father of Mary, which favour the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin, are offset by two similar considerations, which make St. Luke's list terminate with the name of Joseph. First, the Greek text preferred by the textual critics reads, on ouios, hos enomizeto, Ioseph tou Heli, "being the son, as it was supposed, of Joseph, son of Heli", so that the above parenthesis is rendered less probable. Secondly, according to Patrizi, the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary began to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth. St. Hilary mentions the opinion as adopted by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, "Nov. Bibl, Patr.", t. I, 477). It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin.

(b) Both St. Matthew and St. Luke give the genealogy of St. Joseph, the one through the lineage of Solomon, the other through that of Nathan. But how can the lines converge in St. Joseph? St. Augustine suggested that Joseph, the son of Jacob and the descendant of David through Solomon, might have been adopted by Heli, thus becoming the adoptive descendant of David through Nathan. But Augustine was the first to abandon this theory after learning the explanation offered by Julius Africanus. According to the latter, Estha married Mathan, a descendant of David through Solomon, and became the mother of Jacob; after Mathan's death she took for her second husband Mathat, a descendent of David through Nathan, and by him became the mother of Heli. Jacob and Heli were, therefore, uterine brothers. Heli married, but died without offspring; his widow, therefore, became the levirate wife of Jacob, and gave birth to Joseph, who was the carnal son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli, thus combining in his person two lineages of David's descendants.

Second Difficulty

The second difficulty urged against the harmony between the two genealogies is based on the occurrence of the two names Zorobabel and Salathiel in both lists; here again the two distinct lineages of David's descendants appear to converge. And again, two answers are possible:

(a) It is more commonly admitted that the two names in St. Matthew's list are identical with the two in St. Luke's series; for they must have lived about the same time, and the names are so rare, that it would be strange to find them occurring at the same time, in the same order, in two different genealogical series. But two levirate marriages will explain the difficulty. Melchi, David's descendant through Nathan, may have begotten Neri by a widow of the father of Jechonias; this made Neri and Jechonias uterine brothers. Jechonias may then have contracted a levirate marriage with the widow of the childless Neri, and begotten Salathiel, who was therefore the leviratical son of Neri. Salathiel's son Zorobabel begat Abiud; but he also may have been obliged to contract a levirate marriage with the widow of a childless legal relative belonging to David's descendants through Nathan, thus begetting Reza, who legally continued Nathan's lineage.

(b) A more simple solution of the difficulty is obtained, if we do not admit that the Salathiel and Zorobabel occurring in St. Matthew's genealogy are identical with those in St. Luke's. The above proofs for their identity are not cogent. If Salathiel and Zorobabel distinguished themselves at all among the descendants of Solomon, it is not astonishing that about the same time two members of Nathan's descendants should be called after them. The reader will observe that we suggest only possible answers to the difficulty; as long as such possibilities can be pointed out, our opponents have no right to deny that the genealogies which are found in the First and Third Gospel can be harmonized.

Third Difficulty

How can http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Jesus Christ be called "son of David", if the Blessed Virgin is not a daughter of David?

(a) If by virtue of Joseph's marriage with Mary, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Jesus could be called the son of Joseph, he can for the same reason be called "son of David" (St. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, II, i, 2).

(b) Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm - St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary's Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e.g. Romans 1:3; II Timothy 2:8. St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary's great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli's cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Irenaeus, St. Ambrose, and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07010b.htm - St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm - Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.