The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Devilsadvocate
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Jesus is the Jewish Messiah

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
1Devilsadvocate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,544 times Debate No: 53281
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

I will argue for how Jesus is the Jewish Messiah within the Scriptures and other Jewish writings. We will conduct a series of debates on the deity of Jesus Christ. I will first note some vital details on the sources i will use before i begin.

The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures by Jewish scholars to a Greek translation dating to the 2nd century B.C.E. It should be noted that it is centuries earlier than the Masoretic text which removes messianic references to Jesus. The Talmud is a compilation of commentaries by Jewish rabbis on the Scriptures passed down orally before Christ. The Targums date around the time of Ezra. It cannot then be argued that Christians inserted their own bias into the text.

begin presenting my arguments first round.

Our first messianic passage will be in Gen. 3:11

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel."

According to targum Pseudo Jonathan, a Jewish commentary says

"And it shall be that when the sons of the woman study the Torah diligently and obey its injunctions, they will direct themselves to smite you on the head and slay you; but when the sons of the woman forsake the commandments of the Torah and do not obey its injunctions, you will direct yourself to bite them on the heel and afflict them. However, there will be a remedy for the sons of the woman, but for you, serpent, there will be no remedy. They shall make peace with one another in the end, in the very end of days, in the days of the King Messiah."

Thus this verse is interpreted to be messianic by Jews.

The Messiah would be born of Bethlehem

Micah 5:1 ""But thou Bethlehem Ephratha, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall One come forth unto Me that is to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from old, from Ancient of Days."

The targum of Jonathan reads:

"And You Bethlehem Ephrath, you who were too small to be numbered among the thousands of the house of Judah, From you shall come forth before Me The Messiah, to exercise dominion over Israel.."

Jesus fulfilled this requirement in Matt. 2:1

1. "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.."

The Messiah would be born of a virgin.

" "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His Name Immanuel" Isaiah 7:14

Rashi, one of the greatest Jewish commentators wrote:

""Behold, the almah shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanu"el." This means that our Creator will be with us. This is the sign: The one who will conceive is a girl (na"arah) who never in her life has had intercourse with any man. Upon this one shall the Holy Spirit have power." (Mikra"ot G"dolot, ad loc.)"

Jesus fulfilled this requirement in Matt. 1:20-21

"20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins."

The Messiah would be the son of David

"I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, 'You are My Son; Today I have begotten thee. Ask of me and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.' "

".."Our Rabbis taught, the Holy One blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the Son of David (may He reveal Himself speedily in our days).." Talmud Sukkah 52a, Soncino translation

Matthew chapter 1 establishes the legal lineage of Jesus being the descendent of King David.

The Messiah would triumphantly enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey to redeem the world according to Jewish tradition.

Zech. 9:9 "... your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

The Persian king Shevor asked a Jew in the Talmud Sanhedrin 98a "..Why doesn't your Messiah come riding on a horse? If he lacks one, I'll be glad to provide him with one of my fast horses!"

Jesus rode on a donkey

John 12:14-15

"14 Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, as it is written:

15 "Do not be afraid, Daughter Zion;
see, your king is coming,
seated on a donkey"s colt."

The Messiah would suffer for his people

"See my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him - his appearance was disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness - so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand." Isaiah 52:13-53:12

Rabbi R. Elyyah de Vidas comments "The meaning of 'he was wounded for our transgressions, ... bruised for our iniquities' is, that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whoever will not admit that the Messiah suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer for themselves."

Rabbi Rashi applied this passage to be messianic (Baron, Rays of Messiahs Glory, pp. 225-229)

The Messiah would be crucified.

Psalm 22:16 "Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men have encircled me; they have pierced my hands and feet."

Rabbi Nehemiah has affirmed this to be a messianic psalm

"..Kaari my hands and feet'- Rabbi Nehemiah says, 'They have PIERCED my hands and feet in the presence of Ahasuerus...'"

This was fulfilled in John 19:23-24.

As we can see, throughout the Scriptures, Jesus fits the biblical description of the Jewish Messiah.
1Devilsadvocate

Con

Pro writes that Septuagint "is centuries earlier than the Masoretic text which removes messianic references to Jesus. "

I beg to differ:

Let's start from the beginning. According to the bible, God dictated the Torah to Moses in 'Hebrew' and he wrote it down in 'Hebrew'. Copies were made & It was given to the people of Israel who were commanded to study it and keep it's laws etc. Naturally over time more and more scrolls were written and inevitably, some had minor mistakes here and there. The logical solution to resolve these minor differences would be to compare it with other scrolls, go by the majority, and fix the errors. Naturally, scrolls in smaller &/ more isolated communities would be more likely to contain errors (due to inability to compare with large/other samples) these errors could perpetuate themselves in that local, until they were hopefully caught and fixed by comparing them to other scrolls in other locals, etc.. The product of this tedious process of copying and comparing from one generation to the next is what we have today - the Masoretic text. There is no evidence that this text has been tampered with, or that supposed "messianic references to Jesus" were removed, etc. If there are other texts that differ, it is more likely that the text came from an error that wasn't caught. This is particularly likely in the case of a translated text such as the Septuagint, for a number of reasons:

1) "omnis traductor traditor" every translator is a traitor which means that every translation is a corruption of the original; the reader should take heed of unavoidable imperfections.
In the preface to the Greek translation of his grandfather’s book, Jeshua ben Sira "apologizes for any defects in his work, on the ground that ‘what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed.”(1)
"The Cannon of Scripture", F.F. Bruce, P. 45-46

2) When it comes to translating, the translation is dependent on how the translator understands the verse, which might be a wrong, in which case the translated text will be wrong. That doesn't happen when you copy the text as is, even if the transcriber misunderstands the text, the text will remain the same.

3) It wasn't the original words of God exactly as he said them, thus there was less of an urgency to keep and copy everything exactly the same.

4) Different people would understand a verse in a different ways, and translate them accordingly. Thus you get numerous different translations of the text. Which can't be solved by simply checking other copies (since it's not based on other translated texts but rather on the translators (mis)understanding of the original text.) Thus you end up with many different versions which makes it even harder to keep things the same.

5) Presumably, one of the major opportunities for catching errors was during the public Torah readings which occur in synagogues every Mon., Thurs., and Sat., as well as Festivals and fast days. Only Authentic Hebrew Torah scrolls are used for that purpose, not translations.

6) Presumably the majority of mistakes were caught by scholars who were very familiar with the texts. Scholars would generally use the original Hebrew texts while most of those using a translation were primarily laymen.

Today, there is pretty much only one universally agreed upon "Masoretic text", while there are many versions of the Septuagint. though scholars are trying to put the pieces together, we don't have the originals, and we don't know what they origionally said.

In Chapter Three of "The Canon of Scripture", F.F. Bruce writes:
"With few and fragmentary exceptions, the Septuagint manuscripts now in existence were produced by Christians". (2)

"In the 3rd century ad Origen attempted to clear up copyists’ errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy." (3)

In "Chronology of the Old Testament: A Return to the Basics" Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, Th.D., Ph.D. writes:
"A significant number of chronologists have fallen into error by using for their foundation the material contained in the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Masoretic Text. This mistake is calamitous...that person who simply puts his/her faith in God's promise to preserve His Word (Jer.1:12; Psa.12:6-7; Isa.40:8; Mk.13:31) concludes that God has done so and that it is to be found where He originally deposited it, namely, in the Hebrew Masoretic Text...
The history of the origin of the Septuagint is embellished with many diverse fables, hence its actual derivation is still being debated. As to hard provable facts, little is known." (4)

In "The Septuagint: A critical Analysis" he writes:
"The Book of Isaiah shows "obvious signs of incompetence". As a translation, it is not only bad; it is the most inferior book within the LXX. H.B. Swete concludes that the Psalms are but little better. Esther, Job, and Proverbs are not faithful translations but merely free paraphrases. The original LXX version of Job was much shorter than the Hebrew; it was subsequently filled in with interpretations from Theodotion..." (5)

On pages 11-15, he discusses the incongruities between the Hebrew and Septuagint with regard Ages of the patriarchs and lengths of kings reigns shows that in both cases that the Hebrew version must be the correct one.

He concludes:
"Even a cursory comparison between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic text (as translated in
the King James Bible) clearly reveals that the Septuagint as it is today is highly inaccurate and
deficient as a translation. To attempt to reconstruct the Hebrew Text (as many connected with the
modern versions are trying to do) from such a loose, deficient and unacceptable translation would be
analogous to trying to reconstruct the Greek New Testament Text from The Living Bible..." (Ad loc.)

"Our first messianic passage will be in Gen. 3:11..."
I see no mention, indication, or even hint of Jesus in the verse nor in the accompanying Targum. As far as I can tell, it has no relevance to the debate.

"The Messiah would be born of Bethlehem..."
1) I fail to see the relevance of this point either. Even if it was prophesied that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem, and even if Jesus was indeed born from Bethlehem, it does not follow from those two premises that Jesus is/was the Messiah.
Consider the following:
P1) All men are mortal
P2) Socrates is mortal
C1) Therefore Socrates is a man (from P1 and P2).
This can be clearly shown to be invalid by replacing the word man with woman, the premises will be true, but the conclusion false.
Another way of putting this is by pointing out that the prophecy (even if taken literally) says that the Messiah will do "x", not that he who does "x" is the Messiah.
(If it was an unlikely event, it would be more significant, but many people were born in Bethlehem (and Ephrath) they weren't Messiahs)
2) Sans Christian literature, there is no evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

"The Messiah would be born of a virgin..."

This argument suffers from the same two as the previous one. However, this argument has additional problems.

1) Virgin is a mistranslation, the Hebrew word used means young girl. Pro may argue that the Septuagint says virgin, and therefore the Jews must have changed it. However, this backfires somewhat since the dead sea scrolls (written before Christianity started) confirm that the Masoretic text is correct.(6)
2) "Shall concive" is a mistranslation הָרָה֙ is always present tense. Even if "shall concieve" is correct, based on the context of the verse it would have to be something will happen in the near future, not centuries latter.
3) Jesus was not called Immanuel.

4) Long story short - The quote from Rashi was completely fabricated, and the source for this misquote admitted it. (see (7) for links and details)
"The Messiah would be the son of David..."

This argument suffers from the same 2 that the first argument did.
Mat. 1, seems to contradict the idea of a virgin birth, as well as the 3rd Chapter of Luke.

"The Messiah would triumphantly enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey to redeem the world..."

This too suffers the same two problems as well as an additional two.

John 12:14-15 which pro quotes says that Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it. However, Luke 19:35 & Mark 11 say that Jesus sent two of his disciples into the village to find a colt. While Matthew 21:5-7 says that Jesus sent his disciples to the village to get a donkey and a colt.

"The Messiah would suffer for his people..."

Really long story short - The supposed quote from R' Vidas does not exist. (See (8) for links and details)

"The Messiah would be crucified...."

Pro quotes Psalm 22:16 "Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men have encircled me; they have pierced my hands and feet."
and claims that "Rabbi Nehemiah has affirmed this to be a messianic psalm" based on the following quote: "..Kaari my hands and feet'- Rabbi Nehemiah says, 'They have PIERCED my hands and feet in the presence of Ahasuerus...'"

I fail to see how this shows that "Rabbi Nehemiah has affirmed this to be a messianic psalm", he said nothing of the sort, (according to what pro wrote) all he did was repeat the verse and add the words "in the presence of Ahasuerus" (explaining/expounding on the verse), how does this show that "Rabbi Nehemiah has affirmed this to be a messianic psalm". On the contrary, R' Nachman's explanation of the verse precludes the possibility of it referring to Jesus, since the era of Ahasuerus was many centuries before Jesus was born.

"This was fulfilled in John 19:23-24"
Those 2 verses say nothing about pierced hands &/ feet.

Footnotes in comments section.
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
1Devilsadvocate

Con

I guess I'll just (re)post my footnotes to the previous round, now:

ootnotes:

(1) http://media.sabda.org...
(2) Pages: 43-45 http://media.sabda.org...
(3) http://media.sabda.org...
(4) http://www.ntslibrary.com... - Chronology of the OT.pdf Page 11-20
(5 http://standardbearers.net... - P.9
(6) http://www.arkcode.com...

(7) I was surprised to read pros' 'quotation' from the commentary of Rashi to Isaiah 7:14, as I did not recall such a Rashi, so I looked it up, lo and behold, it isn't there.
http://he.wikisource.org...
http://he.wikisource.org...
For those who don't read/understand Hebrew, I found an English translation - http://www.chabad.org......
A bit of digging around reveals that Pros source would seem to be David Stern's comments in the "Jewish New Testament" on Matthew 1:23.
http://bgconv.com...
I think what happened here is that the word נתנבאית was for some reason translated as "had intercourse", which is obviously false, the word "נתנבאית" means prophesied.
It appears that I'm not the only one who has noticed this mistake http://judaismsanswer.com...
& http://www.outreachjudaism.org......
& that he himself finally acnowledged that he "misrepresenting Rashi" http://www.biblestudyresourcecenter.com... - Page 36

(8)
Here pro quotes from "Rabbi R. Elyyah de Vidas" [sic] (writing R & Rabbi is redundant unless the "R." is supposed to be part of his name in which case it's false/inaccurate).
I spent many hours searching for (the source of) this 'quote', I believe I have done far more than my due diligence (which Pro should have done) here are my conclusions:

1) In the comment section, I asked pro to provide a Primary source for the quote. He provided two - both of which, are completely unsourced
http://www.messianicgoodnews.org...
http://www.arielaustralia.com...
(which means that they plagiarized, since I now know that they did not get it from any of vidass' works directly)

2) I searched all of the books by Vidas,
Including 2 very old manuscripts of his Magnum opus:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org... - Warsaw -1594
http://www.hebrewbooks.org... - venice - 1600
I found nothing even remotely similar to what he is quoted as saying. Though I did find some interestingly ironic things such as:
Very harsh statements about "הלוקח סוס מן השוק לרכוב עליו להתגאות לעיני בני אדם" - One who takes a horse from the market to ride upon in order to esteem himself in the eyes of people (Who does that remind you of ?). - http://www.hebrewbooks.org...

3) I finally tracked down the culprit who introduced this fake quote (which has unfortunately been 'quoted' by numerous others who failed to check their sources) - Adolf Neubauer & Samuel Rolles Driver
http://books.google.com...
They at least provided the specific book ("Beginning of Wisdom" = ראשית חכמה) and a page number (385 = שפה) - unfortunately the specific edition/printing of the book that they claim to have used was a rare 1597 Venice edition/print, which was extremely hard to find (Venice 1600 was much easier) - though I finally did.
http://web.nli.org.il...
I found that Vidas wrote nothing of the sort, in fact that page doesn't mention the Messiah at all, it discusses the (way and) importance/benefits of eating breakfast (especially/particularly bread), and the ways & importance of studying/learning Torah.

I also noticed there on page 385-386 they mistranslate Psalm 23:5 - http://biblehub.com...

Apparently, Neubauer & Driver seem to do this quite often http://judaismsanswer.com...

In conclusion, this 'quote' from Vidas is a complete and utter fabrication.

Here's an English version of the book- if you'd like to check for yourself - http://books.google.com...;

Pro also quotes "Rays of Messiahs Glory" as saying that "Rabbi Rashi"[sic] (again redundant since Rashi is an acronym in which the "R" stands for Rabbi) "applied this passage to be messianic" - which is completely inaccurate. In fact, he writes just the opposite. http://www.themillennialkingdom.org.uk... (pp. 225-229).
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
1Devilsadvocate

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
1Devilsadvocate

Con

Looks like Pro has F.F.
If he or anyone else would like to debate this (or similar) topic, just send me a challenge.

VOTE CON!

Apendix and random stuff:


More on "Omnis Traductor Traditor" - and the problems with translations:

Earlier I mentioned the concept of "Omnis Traductor Traditor" here I'll expound a bit more on the concept, and try to explain/show how/why it's true:

1) There are some words in almost any language that have no good equivalent in another. Often there is a certain implication/feeling that come from words in the original language that just gets lost when you translate it. If you Google "words that can't be translated", "lost in translation examples", "untranslatable", etc., you'll find many lists of examples. Come to think of it, the verb "Google" would be kind of hard to translate.

2) Idioms, phrases, sayings, etc. - this is a big problem in translating, when these are translated from one language to another the result is often nonsensical if not comical, and sometimes even misleading.
For more on this, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Translation of Idioms and Fixed Expressions: Strategies and Difficulties": http://ojs.academypublisher.com...
"A Brief Overview On Idiomatic Translation": http://www.translationdirectory.com...

3) Often a text can be interpreted or understood in more than one way - A translator will translate the text according to how they understand it, often this leads to other possible meanings/interpretations being unrecoverable/lost.

4) Puns / word play

5) Concepts, or cultural references.

6) Cultural differences may lead to meaning getting lost in translation, or misunderstood/misinterpreted.

7) Law references - for example To "plead the Fifth" in English is a term used in law which very basically means to invoke the right not to answer a question based on the 5th amendment of the constitution. Or an American might say I'm exercising my 2nd amendment right - which probably sounds pretty weird to any non American.

All these make translations extremely error prone, extremely difficult to do accurately, and sometimes impossible.


Quotes:

In the preface to the Greek translation of his grandfather’s book, Jeshua ben Sira apologizes for any defects in his work, on the ground that ‘what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed'.
- "The Cannon of Scripture", F.F. Bruce, P. 45-46 . Original source is Prologue to Sirach 1:21-26

"Reading a poem in translation is like kissing a woman through a veil."
- Bialik

“A satisfactory translation is not always possible, but a good translator is never satisfied with it. It can usually be improved. (Newmark)”
- Peter Newmark, Manual De Traduccion / A Textbook of Translation

"It is not possible to reproduce the delicate turns of thought, the nuances of language, in translation. The freshness of the strawberry cannot be preserved in any extract. This is inevitable"
- The Minister and His Greek New Testament (1923), p. 17

Page of similar quotes - http://translation.utdallas.edu...

Further resources:

"TRANSLATOR,TRADITOR: THE INTERPRETER AS TRAITOR IN CLASSICAL TRADITION" : http://www.academia.edu...

"Language differences in qualitative research: is meaning lost in translation?" : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"Omnis Traductor Traditor!" : http://www.affectedbytruth.com...

"Untranslatability": http://en.wikipedia.org...

More examples:
http://www.omniglot.com...
http://blogthebigword.wordpress.com...


---------------------------------------------------------


Verses of the New testament that indicate that Jesus is/was not God:

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good"except God alone."
- Matthew 19:17 & Mark 10:18

Jesus said "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
-Matthew 26:39

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
- Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34

Speaking of the last day Jesus said "But of That Day or That Hour knows no man, neither the angels, nor the son, but only the father"
- Mark 13:32

Jesus sat on the right hand of God.
- Mark 16:19 & Colossians 3:1 & 1 Peter 3:21-22

"Then He distanced himself from them about a stone throw away, then he knelt down to pray dab his words: "O my Father, if you are willing, take this cup than me... Then an angel from heaven appeared to him to give strength unto Him. He was very frightened and prayed more earnestly..."
- Luke 22:41-44

"I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge, and my judgement is just, because I seek not my own will, but the will of Him who sent me"
- John 5:30

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me
- John 7:16

I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
- John 8:26

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God
- John 8:40

Jesus says - "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak."
- John 12:49

but the Father's which sent me.
- John 14:24

"The Father is greater than I."
- John 14:28

"I ascend to My Father and to your Father, My God and to your God."
- John 20:17

"Jesus of Nazareth was a man"
- Acts 2:22

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
- 1 Timothy 2:5

Jesus was lower than the Angles
- Hebrews 2:9

-------------------------------------

From Pope Benedict XVI and the church:

"... It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about....”
- God and the World: Believing and Living in Our Time - Pope Benedict XVI - Page 209

"... For to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God....for Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible.
- THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION - "The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible" - Section II, A,7:

"“I have ever more come to the realization that Judaism (which, strictly speaking, begins the end of the formation of the canon, that is, in the first century after Christ) and the Christian faith described in the New Testament are two ways of appropriating Israel’s Scriptures, two ways that, in the end, are both determined by the position one assumes with regard to the figure of Jesus of Nazereth. The Scripture we today call Old Testament is in itself open to both ways. For the most part, only after the Second World War did we begin to understand that the Jewish interpretation, too, in the time ‘after Christ’, of course possesses a theological mission of its own.”
"Milestones: Memoirs, 1927-1977" - Pope Benedict XVI

------------------------------------

Additional resources:

Books:

Books by By Professor Bart D. Ehrman such as;
"How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee"
"Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why"

"From Jesus to Paul" by Joseph Klausner, translated by William F Stinespring

"The real messiah? A Jewish Response to Missionaries" By Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan
"Let's Get Biblical! Why Doesn't Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah?" By Tovia Singer
"Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History" By David Klinghoffer

Web:

Jewish anti-missionary sites:
http://jewsforjudaism.org...
http://thejewishhome.org...
http://outreachjudaism.org...
http://countermissionary.org...
http://www.judaismsanswer.com...
http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org...

Contain lists of links to similar sites:
http://www.aishdas.org...
http://www.hareshima.com...

Other relevant pages:
http://ohr.edu...
http://www.aish.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://sites.google.com...
http://www.evilbible.com...
http://www.city-data.com...
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
1Devilsadvocate

Con

Again, I'd like re-extend my offer to debate this topic with my opponent or anyone else.

I'd also like to mention that I've accepted to take on another debate with Pro on the topic:
"The Septuagint is more accurate and closer than the Masoretic text to the originals"
It can be viewed here - http://www.debate.org...

One thing to take away from this debate is the importance of going to the primary sources rather than trust people who quote them, even if it appears in a book, and even if the Authors have a good reputation. This is particularly important when they're also translating the text they're quoting as we have seen Omnis Traductor Traditor.

I left out a point which I should have made with regard Pro's argument from Isaiah 7:14.
The response I gave is a good one, but I have another one as well that I'll mention here:

Even according to Septuagint, the verse does not necessarily mean/say virgin.
The Septuagint uses the term παρθ^1;νος (parthenos), which most translate as virgin.
However, this cannot be so since the same term is used in Genesis 34:2-4 to describe Dinah even after she had been raped. - http://www.academic-bible.com...
I searched over 25 different translations of that verse, and not one translated it as a virgin.

I also found the word listed under 'Maiden' in English-Greek Dictionaries:




With regard Isaiah 7:14, even Christians who accept the M.T. over Septuagint, claim that even the Hebrew word used there עלמה means virgin. Since my opponent didn't mention it, I didn't bother addressing it, but since I have space here, I'll address it.

1) One proof that עלמה mean young girl, not virgin is based on the fact that everyone agrees that the masculine form of the word עלם means a young man, thus it follows that the feminine form עלמה means a young woman, not virgin. To specify virgin, the word would בתולה be used.

2) Everywhere else in the Bible, עלמה is translated as girl http://biblehub.com...

3) Another older argument that is addressed by Jerome is simply based on the fact that we know that the Hebrew word for virgin is בתולה . Thus if virgin was meant, that is the word that would be used (another way of putting this is that since we know the word for virgin is בתולה, it wouldn't make sense to have another word עלמה that means the same thing. Ergo, it must mean young woman). Jerome countered this argument by saying "I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah"! (Jerome, Adv. Javianum I, 32; N&PNF, vi, 370.)
This doesn't really answer the problem fully, but rather creates a different one.
I think the answer is that the term עלמה is like a synonym for 'Naarah' (or vise versa) probably with a slightly different connotation. The question then arises why say that it's a synonym for Naarah, rather than בתולה?
I believe that it makes more sense to say that עלמה is synonym for girl/Naarah rather virgin/בתולה based on the fact that the young girl /Naarah is a much more general and more commonly used.
Synonyms do not mean the same thing http://dictionary.reference.com..., each word has it's own nuances, implication, connotations, associations, etc. which are used to convey something more specific. The more general a word/term is, the more synonyms are needed to differentiate between the different sorts/types. For example, in this case they could Connote different ages of girls or something like that.
Also, words/terms that are more commonly used are more likely to have more synonyms.



I'll end off with a couple of quotes from Thomas Jefferson with regard Jesus divinity:

1821 February 27. (Jefferson to Timothy Pickering). "no one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in it’s advances towards rational Christianity. when we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus, when, in short, we shall have unlearned every thing which has been taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples: and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian...."[14]

1823 April 11. (Jefferson to John Adams). "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."[15]

http://www.monticello.org...



Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 2 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Footnote 8 part 1:

(8)
Here pro quotes from "Rabbi R. Elyyah de Vidas" [sic] (writing R & Rabbi is redundant unless the "R." is supposed to be part of his name in which case it's false/inaccurate).
I spent many hours searching for (the source of) this 'quote', I believe I have done far more than my due diligence (which Pro should have done) here are my conclusions:

1) In the comment section, I asked pro to provide a Primary source for the quote. He provided two - both of which, are completely unsourced
http://www.messianicgoodnews.org...
http://www.arielaustralia.com...
(which means that they plagiarized, since I now know that they did not get it from any of vidass' works directly)

2) I searched all of the books by Vidas,
Including 2 very old manuscripts of his Magnum opus:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org... - Warsaw -1594
http://www.hebrewbooks.org... - venice - 1600
I found nothing even remotely similar to what he is quoted as saying. Though I did find some interestingly ironic things such as:
Very harsh statements about "הלוקח סוס מן השוק לרכוב עליו להתגאות לעיני בני אדם" - One who takes a horse from the market to ride upon in order to esteem himself in the eyes of people (Who does that remind you of ?). - http://www.hebrewbooks.org...

3) I finally tracked down the culprit who introduced this fake quote (which has unfortunately been 'quoted' by numerous others who failed to check their sources) - Adolf Neubauer & Samuel Rolles Driver
http://books.google.com...
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 2 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Footnote 8 part 2:

They at least provided the specific book ("Beginning of Wisdom" = ראשית חכמה) and a page number (385 = שפה) - unfortunately the specific edition/printing of the book that they claim to have used was a rare 1597 Venice edition/print, which was extremely hard to find (Venice 1600 was much easier) - though I finally did.
http://web.nli.org.il...#
I found that Vidas wrote nothing of the sort, in fact that page doesn't mention the Messiah at all, it discusses the (way and) importance/benefits of eating breakfast (especially/particularly bread), and the ways & importance of studying/learning Torah.

I also noticed there on page 385-386 they mistranslate Psalm 23:5 - http://biblehub.com...

Apparently, Neubauer & Driver seem to do this quite often http://judaismsanswer.com...

In conclusion, this 'quote' from Vidas is a complete and utter fabrication.

Here's an English version of the book- if you'd like to check for yourself - http://books.google.com...;

Pro also quotes "Rays of Messiahs Glory" as saying that "Rabbi Rashi"[sic] (again redundant since Rashi is an acronym in which the "R" stands for Rabbi) "applied this passage to be messianic" - which is completely inaccurate. In fact, he writes just the opposite. http://www.themillennialkingdom.org.uk... (pp. 225-229).
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 2 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Footnotes:

(1) http://media.sabda.org...
(2) Pages: 43-45 http://media.sabda.org...
(3) http://www.britannica.com...
(4) www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Jones - Chronology of the OT.pdf Page 11-20
(5)http://standardbearers.net... - P.9
(6) http://www.arkcode.com...

(7) I was surprised to read pros' 'quotation' from the commentary of Rashi to Isaiah 7:14, as I did not recall such a Rashi, so I looked it up, lo and behold, it isn't there.
http://he.wikisource.org...
http://he.wikisource.org...
For those who don't read/understand Hebrew, I found an English translation - http://www.chabad.org...
A bit of digging around reveals that Pros source would seem to be David Stern's comments in the "Jewish New Testament" on Matthew 1:23.
http://bgconv.com...
I think what happened here is that the word נתנבאית was for some reason translated as "had intercourse", which is obviously false, the word "נתנבאית" means prophesied.
It appears that I'm not the only one who has noticed this mistake http://judaismsanswer.com... & http://www.outreachjudaism.org...
& that he himself finally acnowledged that he "misrepresenting Rashi" http://www.biblestudyresourcecenter.com... - Page 36
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 2 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Cont. Footnotes:
(8) Here pro quotes from "Rabbi R. Elyyah de Vidas" [sic] (writing R & Rabbi is redundant unless the "R." is supposed to be part of his name in which case it's false/inaccurate).
I spent many hours searching for (the source of) this 'quote', I believe I have done far more than my due diligence (which Pro should have done) here are my conclusions:

1) In the comment section, I asked pro to provide a Primary source for the quote. He provided two - both of which, are completely unsourced
http://www.messianicgoodnews.org...
http://www.arielaustralia.com...
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 2 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
I found it for real now
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 2 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Nope, I don't see it. can you provide a primary source?
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 2 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
I think I found it.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 2 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Please provide a source for:

"Rabbi Nehemiah has affirmed this to be a messianic psalm

"..Kaari my hands and feet'- Rabbi Nehemiah says, 'They have PIERCED my hands and feet in the presence of Ahasuerus...'""
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 2 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
I've finished my leads & looked into the other 2 books that you mentioned and I also finally found the book you first mentioned in the debate. I believe I have done far more than my due diligence (which you really should have done) here are my conclusions:

1) The way you 'quoted from "Rays of Messiah's Glory" is completely inaccurate. In fact, he writes just the opposite.

2) Both sources that you provided for the Vidas quote, are completely unsourced (which makes it plagiarism, since I now know that they did not get it from any of vidass' works directly)

3) I searched all of the books by Vidas, I found nothing even remotely similar to what he is quoted as saying.

4) I believe I have tracked down the culprit who introduced this fake quote - Adolf Neubauer & Samuel Rolles Driver, they at least provided the specific book and a page number - unfortunately the specific edition/printing of the book that they claim to have used was a rare 1597 Venice edition/print, which was extremely hard to find - though I finally did.
Vidas wrote nothing of the sort, in fact that page doesn't mention the Messiah at all, it discusses the (way and) importance/benefits of eating breakfast (especially/particularly bread), and the ways & importance of studying/learning Torah.

In conclusion, this 'quote' from Vidas is a complete and utter fabrication.

What sayth thou?
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 2 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Thanks,
That's not a Primary source, but I'll check it out (if my current lead doesn't work), perhaps it will lead me closer to the Primary source.
1) Is that the source provided by the book you quoted (Baron, Rays of Messiahs Glory, pp. 225-229)
2) Do you have (access to) the book "Rays of Messiahs Glory" which you quoted, Does he provide a source?
3) Do you have (access to) the 2nd book? Can you check if it provides any (primary) sources?

Any information you can give me might help.

BTW, I've already spent hours trying to track down the quotes primary source without success. I'm starting to suspect that this quote is based a major mistranslation / distortion / complete fabrication.
I'm working on another very promising lead that I've spent hours on (trying to track down a (readable) copy of the 1593 Venice printing of R. Vidas book has proven to be quite a challenge, but I think I just found it, & I'm going to try and read the relevant pages now.)
If that doesn't work I'll check out this source you just provided.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cobo 2 years ago
Cobo
Truth_seeker1DevilsadvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfieto
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Truth_seeker1DevilsadvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Truth_seeker1DevilsadvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF