Do Jews hold the Virgin Mary in high regard or with reverance?

[Saint Fool]

I've been reading Sandstorm by James Rollins.

Triads are a theme in the book and one is based on the idea that Jews, Christians and Moslems revere Mary, the mother of Jesus.

The Christian reverence is a given (although it varies in importance from denomination to denomination.) I know that the Koran mentions her several times as the mother of a great prophet, but I don't understand how Rollins makes the Jewish connection. Personally, I think he's pulling it out of thin air.

Thanks for any explanation you can give me as to how he might have come up with this idea or any thoughts on why it might be perfectly valid.

[Popeyesays]

Either Mary was the mother of the Messiah or not is the issue with Jews.

If she was, then the whole denial of Jesus as the Moissach is moot and a mistake.

I do not think there would be any special place for her outside of accepting that reality.

Regards,
Scott

[Sakamonda]

Any Jews who know better than I (I am a Buddhist Gentile who is well-read in religion) feel free to correct me, but----

In order for Jews to hold Mary into reverence in any way, it would mean that they believe that Jesus was the Judaic Messiah, something Judaism rejects outright as apostatic. To Jews, Mary was merely the mother of a political figure who lived in Augustus Caesar's time. They would likely also regard the "virgin" mythology as B.S. fabricated by early Christians as a means to convert Jews to their beliefs. Indeed, much research has shown that the "virgin" mythology didn't even come up until several centuries AFTER Jesus of Nazareth's death, as part of a conference held by the leaders of several Christian sects organized by the Emperor COnstantine as a means to unify several different mythologies into one.

[Medievalist]

She isn't disrespected or respected; she's just not very interesting or important.

[Saint Fool]

That's what I thought. Thanks.

[TeddyG]

She isn't disrespected or respected; she's just not very interesting or important.

Not to be picky here...but in some ways this is untrue in others correct.

Since Jews do not believe in Jesus or any of the theology that came about afterwards - the original question is a non-question. Just makes no sense in the context of Judaism. If Mary did exist during the time the NT places her, she was just another woman who lived during the time.

However, there is something known in the Talmud as "The Missing Parts of the Talmud". (Hesronot Ha'Shas in Hebrew). To make an incredibly long historical notation short, the Talmud originally contained quite a few "Jesus" stories which were in many ways not exactly "kind" towards Jesus or the early Christians. More to the point, most of these stories place Jesus (or a figure very much like him) many years before the NT claims that he lived.

Additionally many of these stories are filled with parable and certain need to interpert very specific mystical connotations. Among these stories are those of the mother of Jesus, who is actually singled out as a hairdresser in quite a few of them. (and with other some non-complimentary terminology to be honest). She is at best seen as a figure who may have been manipulated and at worst...well we leave that.

These stories (whether late editions or not into the Talmud) were censored out of the text by the Church. Thus the talmud has different "folios" or "editions". There is the Vatican Codex from the 1000's or 1200's at the time of censorship) the Munich Codex and the Vilna Codex. It is the Vilna Codex that has been printed for hundreds of years and the traditional codex. The Munich Codex which I think is from the 1600's was used by certain commentaries (the Ein Yaakov being the most famous) and that codex did have some of the censored stories still within it. And thus the commentary of the Ein Yaakov contains mention of some of these stories.

This past century - the 1900's - The Vatican Codex was finally opened for Jewish scholarship and the old stories, also those of Jesus, were printed in a sep. edition a very very small work btw, called "The Missing Parts of the Talmud".

To note that anyone who studies the Talmud regularly will in most cases, not all, be able to tell when a section suddenly goes missing, most often happening in the Tractate Sanhedrin. Additionally, the English Soncino version of the Talmud makes notation at times when a particularly well known "Jesus" story should have been in the text and is not.

ETA: Some of the most recent new editions of the Talmud contain the originally church censored stories on the page in a footnote. It is difficult to fully explain in just one post, but pagination and placement in the Talmud is crucial to find places of notation that appear in tens of thousands of works. Thus pagination cannot ever be changed. (This applies to the Babylonian Talmud not the Jerusalem Talmud - yes there are two! They are also very distinct and different from one another in quite a few places)

All this being said the "Jesus stories" are they are called, really are just looked upon as a curiouso for most Jews and Talmud scholars. They are all taken with the proverbial grain of salt, each one of them can be contested in terms of originality and source and time. However, some of them due allow us to make sense of previous seemingly disjointed statements that were made in the Talmud itself. Mary all together, if memory serves me is mentioned three times in all these stories. She was just not someone that the Talmud saw any reason to deal with.

Thus the question to Jews today is a non-question. Makes no sense in the context. Jews see Zerubavel the son of Shaltiel (mentioned in Zachariah) at the beginning of the 2nd Temple Era, as the last known official descendent of David. There ends the line to the knowledge of mankind.

[erika]

One question on this. Do Jews not believe Jesus actually existed? There is overwhelming secular (i.e. Roman) evidence that substantiates his life and death. And what of Josephus' writings? I certainly understand people seeing him as just another man, but to dismiss his existence outright seems odd to me, like alleging that Alexander the Great didn't exist or we never landed on the moon. But whatever. Just trying to get a little clarification.

[TeddyG]

It makes no difference actually. If Jesus did or did not exist, for all intent and purpose he did exist.

As to Josephus and the Jesus passage. I strongly suggest you take a look at the scholars on that one. It is incredibly suspect.

1. http://members.aol.com/Fljosephus/question.htm

2. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus)

Make your own decision.

But Jews do not believe in Jesus, other than that he was a normal person living during a very difficult time. And certainly hold no reverance for Mary his mother (to answer again the original question in the thread)

[jst5150]

Erika, a good answer is "it depends." Some acknowledge he existed. Others don't. Eddie Izzard has a great take on this in his comedy special, "Circle."

However, I think Teddy nailed it. And without becoming too theological with the discussion, one of Teddy's first sentences wrapos it up nicely: "Since Jews do not believe in Jesus or any of the theology that came about afterwards - the original question is a non-question."

[erika]

Yeah, that makes sense. I figured it was one of those, who cares situations, but I wanted to be sure. And before anyone accuses me, I wasn't trying to convince anybody of anything. My attitude is that I don't think the great Infinite is going to confine us to nonexistence just because we interpret history differently. It's all preordained I figure and we just believe what we must.

[Saint Fool]

Thanks for the response, Teddy. The idea of the Jewish/Muslim/Christian Mary worship was just so bizarre that I had to ask.

Wanders off to look at other shinier threads.

[Lisamer]

And then...There are the Jews for Jesus...but that's a whole other story! ;)

[TeddyG]

And then...There are the Jews for Jesus...but that's a whole other story! ;)

Having taught Polemics in University (as my kids would say like 200 years ago) and having dealt with this stream which is so totally not important and very small though very vocal and active in Jewish Communities like Long Island and lower Manhattan and in LA and SF, I can say without rancour, that for now, this group is really not something that causes any problems.

First off, the "pure" Jew for Jesus will not believe in "Mary". So that will answer the original question. Second, the Jew for Jesus is on incredibly shaky ground in terms of any ability to use the OT to prove their point. (And I am not getting into specifics here - though any "knowledgable reading" of their literature vis-a-vis the sources will point this out.)

The Jews for Jesus are important only when it comes to missionary activity. That is where they get there press from. Traditional and non-traditional Jewish communities are for various reasons, wary and suspicious of missionary activity in any form.

However, in regard to the Mary question if you insist on including this group, then in their own original stance - e.g. that it is possible to remain a Jew and still believe in Jesus - the subject of Mary is still a non-subject.

[skylarburris]

Teddy, quick question for you. Did the Jews not preserve the Talmud themselves? Did the Catholic church alone preserve it? I was a little confused by your post about the church censoring parts of the Talmud and then opening them up for study. I just wanted clarification. I understand that we owe the preservation of much existing ancient literature to the monks and copyists; I just didn't think we would owe the preservation of the Talmud to them. (I'm a Christian. I just enjoy reading this forum from time to time and learning things.)

[smiley10000]

I'm not Teddy, but I'll try to answer your question.

The Jewish people were heavily persecuted by the Christian majority. This meant many things like these sections of the Talmud had to be removed to save our ancestors lives. The Talmud was preserved by the Jewish people and passed down in every generation but those sections that were controversial had to be removed for our safety.

It wasn't only in the Talmud that such censorship existed. Sections of prayers would also cause rioting if the Christians felt that it was directly meant to offend them.

Any other questions, ask Teddy :tongue
:)10000

[TeddyG]

Okay Smiley is somewhat correct here.

First the Talmud. In the ages we are talking about when Jews were dispersed to the 4 corners of the earth and were forced to leave Israel, and Christianity was spreading over the world, the Jews were no longer living in their land. Additionally, the Talmud please keep in mind was created way after the second temple destruction, around 400-600 years later. It went through first the Mishnah and then Talmud. Until that point without getting into the "specifics of the law" most oral law was indeed just that - "oral". It took a decree to allow the "oral law" to be "written" down. That became the Mishnah and Talmud.

But once the Talmud was there and written and spread and certainly immediately accepted as the compendium of Jewish knowledge until that time, and until our day, it became a force to be reckoned with. The OT could not be wiped out or edited by the Christian world. (Words could be translated differently, but Christians could not touch the body of the OT text as it was accepted by them as well to be the word of God).

However the Talmud was a different story. Thus the Church itself "censored" the Talmud. Though, as I think I mentioned, it is of course impossible to censor all of it when spread to so many places, and thus there are various codices of the Talmud. Vatican, Munich, Vilna etc.

When printing became possible, for whatever reason which is not important now, but is critical for the development, it was the Vilna text that was adopted for the Babylonian Talmud. Once this took place then all other "versions" were really on a back burner. The Vilna codex or its precursor actually, had been one of those editions censored by the Church around 700-500 years beforehand.

As to what Smiley mentions about "prayer". Here she is correct. In our Sabbath prayer there is what we call "Shacharit" and an added part "Musaph" (Musaph actually means "addition")

Now in Shacharit of every day including Sabbath and Holidays the prayer the "Shema" is recited. This is recited twice a day in the morning and in the night. Shema begins with the famous statement of Jacob "Hear Oh Israel. The Lord Is Our God, the Lord Is One."

Now this prayer the Christians knew well as it was at the crux of Jewish belief and prayer. They also interpreted it as a direct affront to the concept of the Trinity. Which in this case it is not. Be that as it may, they felt the Jews were stating that God is One and thus the Trinity was impossible. This was an affront to many Christians of the time. And do not forget there were quite a few knowledgeable Jewish apostates as well who became important in the church.

And thus for many years they would not allow the Jews to say it during Shacharit. And indeed in the 1000 and 1100's and up until even the 1300's the official Church would send an "observer" to the synagogue to make sure the Jews would not repeat the Shema under pain of death.

But the "christian observer" on Sabbath would only stay for Shacharit, as Musaph was recited much later and did not contain the Shema. So what did the Jews of that time do? They placed the Shema inside what is known as the "kedusha" during Musaph and thus everyone would say the Shema after it was safe to do so. And this is still part of the prayers today. We say the Shema in the "kedusha" of Musaf as well as in its normal place during Shacharit.

That is what Smiley is alluding to.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Hello,


First, I want to say that this thread is fascinating to me... in a good way. As a Gentile Christian (raised as a Conservative Baptist, specifically), I am finding this thread to be highly refreshing. I frankly do not understand why Christians would persecute the Jews, just because of what I've read in my Bible concerning them. (I.e. God's chosen people; Christ saying "Salvation is of the Jews"; etc.) Why anyone would, as the cliche goes, 'bite the hand that feeds him', just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Second, I never have heard of the Mary issue within Judaeism. Of course, I'm not Jewish, so I don't have any real experience within the said faith. I've heard that Catholics pray to Mary, but I also know that Baptists and other Protestant denominations, don't. So this thread really has been interesting to me.

Third, I have question:

I've heard that one of the problems Jews have with Christianity is that they believe they have to stop being Jewish to be a Christian. My question is: is this a real issue, or is this a myth?

My reason for asking this is that I've read verses in the NT, that say that a Gentile who accepts Jesus as the Messiah becomes part of Israel, not the other way around. Of course, few Christians I have known even mention Scriptures like this, but as a Christian myself, and wanting to know more about the people that, really, my faith originated from according to what I've read in the NT, I just wonder if this point of contention has something to do with a Christian viewpoint that is un-Scriptural where God's Chosen People are concerned, or if it might be based on something else.

[Higgins]

Hello,


First, I want to say that this thread is fascinating to me... in a good way. As a Gentile Christian (raised as a Conservative Baptist, specifically), I am finding this thread to be highly refreshing. I frankly do not understand why Christians would persecute the Jews, just because of what I've read in my Bible concerning them. (I.e. God's chosen people; Christ saying "Salvation is of the Jews"; etc.) Why anyone would, as the cliche goes, 'bite the hand that feeds him', just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Second, I never have heard of the Mary issue within Judaeism. Of course, I'm not Jewish, so I don't have any real experience within the said faith. I've heard that Catholics pray to Mary, but I also know that Baptists and other Protestant denominations, don't. So this thread really has been interesting to me.

Third, I have question:

I've heard that one of the problems Jews have with Christianity is that they believe they have to stop being Jewish to be a Christian. My question is: is this a real issue, or is this a myth?

My reason for asking this is that I've read verses in the NT, that say that a Gentile who accepts Jesus as the Messiah becomes part of Israel, not the other way around. Of course, few Christians I have known even mention Scriptures like this, but as a Christian myself, and wanting to know more about the people that, really, my faith originated from according to what I've read in the NT, I just wonder if this point of contention has something to do with a Christian viewpoint that is un-Scriptural where God's Chosen People are concerned, or if it might be based on something else.

This is a complex topic. One thing you might want to consider is why anyone who was not a Christian would find the NT particularly convincing on religious matters.
Another point to consider is that "Christianity" probably spent several hundred years forming as a set of sects in Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Damascus, Alexandria and so on and current Christianity is almost unbelievably different from what it was when the NT was written. Judaism and Christianity are even more different than NT Christianity and modern Christianity. It would be at least as hard to change from being a Modern Jew to being a modern Christian as it would for a NT Christian to change into a Modern Christian.

[Sassenach]

Hello,


First, I want to say that this thread is fascinating to me... in a good way. As a Gentile Christian (raised as a Conservative Baptist, specifically), I am finding this thread to be highly refreshing. I frankly do not understand why Christians would persecute the Jews, just because of what I've read in my Bible concerning them. (I.e. God's chosen people; Christ saying "Salvation is of the Jews"; etc.) Why anyone would, as the cliche goes, 'bite the hand that feeds him', just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Second, I never have heard of the Mary issue within Judaeism. Of course, I'm not Jewish, so I don't have any real experience within the said faith. I've heard that Catholics pray to Mary, but I also know that Baptists and other Protestant denominations, don't. So this thread really has been interesting to me.

Third, I have question:

I've heard that one of the problems Jews have with Christianity is that they believe they have to stop being Jewish to be a Christian. My question is: is this a real issue, or is this a myth?

My reason for asking this is that I've read verses in the NT, that say that a Gentile who accepts Jesus as the Messiah becomes part of Israel, not the other way around. Of course, few Christians I have known even mention Scriptures like this, but as a Christian myself, and wanting to know more about the people that, really, my faith originated from according to what I've read in the NT, I just wonder if this point of contention has something to do with a Christian viewpoint that is un-Scriptural where God's Chosen People are concerned, or if it might be based on something else.

You might remember that Christians haven't exactly been flexible about people who don't accept their beliefs. [Jesus as the only way, etc.]

You can't be a Jew and a Christian--they are two fundamentally different belief systems. [Despite "Messianic Jews" claim!]

[Sean D. Schaffer]

You might remember that Christians haven't exactly been flexible about people who don't accept their beliefs. [Jesus as the only way, etc.]

You can't be a Jew and a Christian--they are two fundamentally different belief systems. [Despite "Messianic Jews" claim!]


I'm sorry, Sassenach; I didn't mean to be offensive in my question. It was an honest one, without any ulterior motives. I did not come here to your forum so that I could win anybody to my faith. Rather, I simply want to know how Jews think.

I suppose you would want to know why I am asking this kind of question? I ask because Jesus Himself was a Jew and was pretty darned proud of that fact. As were the majority of the Apostles. The first Church was the Church of Jerusalem, and was made up almost entirely of Jews.

I want to understand where my faith came from, how the people Jesus Himself would have known, thought. How can I as a Christian reconcile myself with your people if I do not understand how your people think? Sassenach, I don't know what you believe, but I believe that Jesus claimed to be a Jewish Messiah, and because of that I want to know how the people He came from think and live and believe. If I believe I'm serving a Jewish God--which I do believe, wholeheartedly--then I must be able to think like the people He came to preach to did.

I'm not asking anyone to turn to my faith here. I'm trying here to understand the faith from which my faith had its origin.

Nothing more, nothing less. No ulterior motives here. I simply want to understand the People of God.


Nevertheless, if I offended in any way, shape or form by my question, I apologize for being offensive. Such was not my intent. I simply came here with the idea that I might come to a better understanding of the Jewish People, whom I myself love dearly. If God said that He had chosen the Children of Israel as His 'Special' people, then I most certainly want to know how God's Chosen People serve and worship their God.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

This is a complex topic. One thing you might want to consider is why anyone who was not a Christian would find the NT particularly convincing on religious matters.
Another point to consider is that "Christianity" probably spent several hundred years forming as a set of sects in Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Damascus, Alexandria and so on and current Christianity is almost unbelievably different from what it was when the NT was written. Judaism and Christianity are even more different than NT Christianity and modern Christianity. It would be at least as hard to change from being a Modern Jew to being a modern Christian as it would for a NT Christian to change into a Modern Christian.


Thank you kindly for your answer, Sokal. I was so caught up in answering Sassenach's post that I did not even think to read this one. What you have just said is a major eye-opener for me. I knew that Modern Christianity was vastly different from NT Christianity, but I never really knew how it was different. I had read that the original Church was made up primarily of Jews and thus would have been much more observant of the Jewish traditions and the Torah than Christians are today.

I am just beginning to learn much of the real history of my own faith. All I have ever known has been what some pastor told me in a Baptist Church. I admittedly know very little about the faith from which my faith stems, but I think your post has told me a bundle right here that I might never have figured out just on my own.

This is why I asked my original question. You see, Sokal, I want to go back to the kind of Christianity the early Church believed in. It's one of the passions of my present-day life. I personally have seen so much hypocrisy within the modern Church's people, that I have become disillusioned with the faith I was originally taught. People would teach me to believe something, and then when I would practice what I was taught, those same people rebuked me for doing wrong. It's this inconsistency that bothers me, Sokal, about many of the tenets of the Modern Christian faith.

One thing I started doing, so that I might be better able to understand the Jewish people and how they relate to the original Christian faith, is to not read from my King James Version anymore. I went out to a local bookstore and bought a Jewish Bible, one that was done by a Messianic Jew in Jerusalem. It contains the Tanakh and the (I hope I spell this right) B'rit Hadashah, which have not been intermingled with each other, but that also have not been separated by the usual NT and OT designations.

To me, this is another way of trying to understand the faith that is the basis for what I believe. If I find that my faith is not right somehow, I want to know about it, so that I might change accordingly... not my belief in Jesus, (or Yeshua, as the case may be), but rather my belief in something that either He did not believe in Himself, or something that does not match with the teachings of the Tanakh.

[Sassenach]

I'm not offended. However, generally when Christians want to understand Jewish belief, there is frequently an ulterior motive--usually evangelizing.

There are innumerable books on Judaism, as well as web sites, if you're interested in learning more about ancient and modern Judaism.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I'm not offended. However, generally when Christians want to understand Jewish belief, there is frequently an ulterior motive--usually evangelizing.

There are innumerable books on Judaism, as well as web sites, if you're interested in learning more about ancient and modern Judaism.


Thank you kindly, Sassenach. I do understand what you're saying about ulterior motives. There was a time when I would have held such motives, but I'm beginning to see that, really, if anyone is to change, I should. Like I said in my previous post to Sokal, I was raised with a lot of inconsistencies in what I believed. Part of that, I am convinced, has to do with lack of knowledge on the part of many Christians.

Long ago, Sassenach, I read in my KJV that a Gentile who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, became 'graffed' (I know, it should be grafted, but we're talking King James English, here) into the cultivated olive tree of the Children of Israel. This is what got me started on the idea that maybe much of what I had been taught was somehow mistaken... either through misconception or misinformation. I was taught at a young age, for instance, that the Church replaced Israel as God's Chosen People. But that is not what I read in my NT, the book that people of my own faith hold as holy.

Could you suggest some sites, specifically, to me that I could look up about the Jewish faith and its people? Also, do you remember off the top of your head some of the books that you might personally recommend?


Thank you kindly for your help. I very much appreciate it.

:)

[TeddyG]

One thing I started doing, so that I might be better able to understand the Jewish people and how they relate to the original Christian faith, is to not read from my King James Version anymore. I went out to a local bookstore and bought a Jewish Bible, one that was done by a Messianic Jew in Jerusalem. It contains the Tanakh and the (I hope I spell this right) B'rit Hadashah, which have not been intermingled with each other, but that also have not been separated by the usual NT and OT designations.

Ian..
The reason I did not reply earlier is indeed you did sound as if you were trying to take this thread into some type of evangelical path. Thus I desisted from answering, as such a path though sadly would not have come as a surprise to me, but there is just no need to get into these discussions on a place like AW. l am glad you kind of explained yourself.

Now to what you worte and what I bolded above.

If you want to read the OT in English and you want to get a "Jewish" view of it then you certainly have picked the wrong way to go about it. Reading an English rendition created by "messianic" jews is actually much worse than reading the KJV. Indeed you must know that even the chapters used in OT and the division has ancient Christian influence (not getting into this here.) Jews divide the Torah (Five Books of Moses) according to "Parsha Petucha" and "Parsha Setumah" (and again this is not for discussion here.) A bible produced by a Messianic Jew, for a Jew to be brutally honest, is much much worse than using the KJV. It is simply wrong from every possible viewpoint and simply a hodgepodge of "belief" inserted willy-nilly upon words.

And now let me explain:

Polemics, Biblical Scholarship & Religious debate between Christian and Jew when entering into the Bible - specifically the OT - is very dependent upon verse structure and word meaning. Indeed it is the focal point of how things are looked at in many cases. Thus a "messianic" Jew (and since this is a fringe group I will assume I am familiar with the text you are using as there are not many) will interpret these words according to his needs and desires. That is NOT Judaism. That is Christianity clothed in yet another shroud of Turin.

Let me give you a real live example. The Virgin Birth. And before I give this one example among hundreds if not thousands, let me state unequivocally this is not meant as an attack or in any disrespectful manner upon beliefs of a Catholic. This is to simply explain some things in how verse reading goes on and it subsequent re-interpetation.

Scholars will tell you that the Virgin Birth actually finds its roots in Roman gods and Idol Worship. It was not a strange concept to the pagans at that time. And this is something that early Christianity incorporated into its religious centrality for a myriad of reasons.

There was almost a pathological need on the part of the Church (sometimes even until today) to show that these things were "prophesied" in the OT. And thus the early leaders of the Church scoured the OT for clues. Some knew the original Hebrew, some were already a couple of generations removed from Judaism and thus had no ability to read the original.

And thus the verse from Isaiah was adopted (totally taken out of context and totally lifted from anything surronding it but hat is another discussion) for the virgin birth.

Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman (almah) is with child, and she shall bear a son and call his name Immanu'el." (The name means "God is with us".)

This is the famous "virgin" birth predicted as Christians beleave in the OT. The inherent claim here is that the Hebrew word Almah means "virgin" and thus the Virgin Birth is predicted in the OT. (And I have no doubt your version translates this word as Virgin.)

Well as they say someone made a big boo-boo. Because simply put Almah does not only NOT mean virgin - it actually means "a strong vigorous woman" or "strong vigorous man". "Elem" (m) and Almah (f) Actually to put it starkly - Almah means the exact oppisite of a virgin!

It kind of gets more complicated. Because the way we know terms and definitions is through their use in the OT. The context of the word being used and why and how. The root of the word. (this is a critical study in the roots of any language).

I must turn your attention to "Proverbs" in the OT for a minute. Now whether you ascribe to the theory that it was written by King Solomon or whether you ascribe to the theory that Proverbs is a compendium of knowledge - all theories are clear about one thing. It was written and redacted into the OT way before, (hundreds of years before) Mary and Jesus ever existed. Thus seeking in Proverbs is a legitimate way to define certain words such as "Almah" for Polemics.

But since you are a "believing" Christian, then there would be no need to express any sort of doubt in the authenticity of King Solomon's authorship here. Thus we are looking at one of the three books written by the King who is called "the wisest man upon the earth". Therefore it should be safe to assume that his parables do make sense!

In a section of Proverbs, where Solomon enters into parables based upon the number three and four we read:

Proverbs 30 18-20

"Three things which are too wondrous for me, and four which I know not;
The way of the vultures in the sky; the way of a snake upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea - and the way of a man with a young woman ("almah"). Likewise the way of an adulterous woman; she eats and wipes her mouth and says I have done nothing wrong".

Solomon compares three things which essentially have something in common to a forth - 'the way of a man with an almah' and then to a FIFTH an adulteruous woman.

So what is this "Almah" we keep on referring to? Well let us look at the context of this parable.
There are three types of possiblities: 1) Virgin 2) Young Woman 3) Adulterous woman

What is the common denominator between the first three things.
1. When a vulture flies through the sky (or any bird) after it is gone is there a trace of it? Answer is no.
2. When a snake goes upon the earth - after it is gone it leaves a trace, markings in the earth - BUT when a snake travels upon a rock is there a trace of its passage? Again no.
3. When a boat travels in the sea - after it disappears upon the horizon is there any trace upon the water that it was once there? Again no.

Thus when a man is with an almah - so too afterwards there is no trace that he was there. This is compared to the adulterous woman who "wipes her mouth and says I have done nothing wrong".

If this word "almah" meant virgin - there would be a trace! We would know that a virgin was deflowered simply because she once had a hymen and there was blood and now there is no longer a hymen (remember this is in context of parable not in medical context). There is no sense in comparing the man with the young woman - in this parable - to the adulterous woman who can essentially hide what she has done like the snake, the vultures, the ship - unless this "almah" is NOT a virgin. A virgin will leave a sign - forever. Because once she was a virgin and now she is no longer!

Not only can "almah" NOT mean a virgin - but it means exactly the opposite.

It means someone who is NOT a virgin.

The word for virgin in Hebrew is "betulah" (f) and "betul" (m)
Thus this whole "virgin birth" prophecy in Isaiah makes no sense whatsoever to the Jew. And indeed Almah and Elem are used in the OT again and again. NEVER DO WE FIND IT REFERS TO A VIRGIN.

This is just one very small example of how words are interpreted differently and in the wrong context or even taken out of context from the original. Indeed I can point to a place where a comma is purposely misplaced and thus changes all the meaning of poetic verse!

So be careful. If you want to read a Jewish translation of the Bible, and understand how Jews see the OT then the lesson here is to stay far away for any "messianic" interpretation of the Bible by messianic Jews.

All that being said it comes down to a matter of belief. And as I have said again and again, Jews simply do not believe in Jesus or any messianic idea coming from him.

[alices]

Two interesting wiki articles on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah#Isaiah_7:14_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%2C_the_mother_of_Jesus#Virgin_Birth_of_Jesus

[TeddyG]

whereas Wikipedia is an excellent source of knowledge at times I would be incredibly hesitant especially with that article on Almah to accept it as a "truism". (Actually Wikipedia is great for certain things, and on others such as this, it is only good for background, IMHO)

1. The sources mentioned in that article - are really very paltry and if you look you will see they are kind of "slanted" and certainly leave out a wealth of Jewish Biblical Scholarship (Zeitlin, among the most famous).

2. Take al look at the "Talk" page.

3. I am really sorry but some things in that article are just plain wrong, especially the ref. to the word Betulah.

Be all that as it may, I am not going to enter into any sort of Polemic debate here at AW. It is a useless endeavor and serves no purpose.

In a thread asking Jews how they feel about the Virgin Mary my points are in place.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Thank you, Teddy. I highly appreciate your answer, and it does open my eyes to a lot of stuff.

I looked in the Bible that I told you I had gotten, and just one quick thing: the Scripture you mentioned from Isaiah 7:14, I believe it was--and I was honestly expecting it to translate it as 'virgin'--translated the word you mentioned as 'young woman'.

Now, please understand, I am not trying to impugn you or anything like that. I've known you on these boards for some time now, and I know you are an extremely knowledgeable man. So I expected the translation, knowing how much you do know about the Bible in its original form, to say as you had said, 'Virgin'.

But now I am understanding so much more about this Virgin-birth issue that I never understood before. From what I've gleaned from this thread so far, the virgin birth is not an OT concept, and therefore is incompatible with the beliefs of the Jewish people.

This is something that I never, in my wildest dreams, ever thought could be challenged. But then again, few things that I have learned over the last few years have ever been easy to learn.

However, I will consider what you have said concerning the Bible that I have, and I will see if maybe I can get a hold of a real Jewish Tanakh. I found one at the bookstore that I got this one from, and I believe it was from a society called the 'Jewish Publication Society'. I don't know, honestly, if they are reputable or not, but I do understand that they have only published the OT and not the NT.

It will have to be sometime next month that I purchase this book, but I do want to know more of how the original Tanakh was written, and not so much from a perspective that might cloud the translation.


Thank you again, Sir. I very much appreciate everything you have shown me in your post and on this thread.

:)

[TeddyG]

This is interesting. I am glad it said "young woman".

JPS is the official publication wing of the Conservative Movement and a FINE translation. You can find some it on line.

Jewish Publication Society (http://www.jewishpub.org/)

I personally use the Koren Publication edition (http://www.booksinternational.com/index.htm) (Koren is the name of the publishing house and the edition is known as the "Jerusalem Bible") and I have often found it the best in most areas BUT also not perfect.

But the JPS version is great too.

[alices]

whereas Wikipedia is an excellent source of knowledge at times I would be incredibly hesitant especially with that article on Almah to accept it as a "truism". (Actually Wikipedia is great for certain things, and on others such as this, it is only good for background, IMHO)

1. The sources mentioned in that article - are really very paltry and if you look you will see they are kind of "slanted" and certainly leave out a wealth of Jewish Biblical Scholarship (Zeitlin, among the most famous).

2. Take al look at the "Talk" page.

3. I am really sorry but some things in that article are just plain wrong, especially the ref. to the word Betulah.

Be all that as it may, I am not going to enter into any sort of Polemic debate here at AW. It is a useless endeavor and serves no purpose.

In a thread asking Jews how they feel about the Virgin Mary my points are in place. I posted the Wiki links as “interesting articles” only, not as a definitive source of fact slanted to one side or the other, and definitely not to enter into a debate. I apologize if you took any offense.

[TeddyG]

i take no offense in these things...i am so far beyond that stage :D
No my words were not in offense...I have just noticed a predilection here at AW to accept Wikipedia as "fact" when it is not.

I wanted to make it clear that though Wikipedia has an article written in a specific manner 1) there are serious objections to the article 2) It is not by any means comprehensive and indeed slanted in its sources.

As to your bringing it up...you actually did the thread a great favor. Cause sooner or later it would have been mentioned!!!

When I take offense at something here: 1) I will not comment in public 2) it will find a way onto one of my blogs :D

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Snipped...

I think it would be hard to figure out what the Jews living 2000 years ago thought. In my opinion, it's not just a matter of reading the Torah, even in a good translation, or just talking to Jews who are alive today. I would think you would need to have the skills of or obtain the services of a historian.

I hadn't even thought about that, Eeek. But I think you make a good point. I will probably have to look up how the Jews of Jesus' time thought and believed, etc., through historians and the like.



You say "think and live and believe" in the present tense. But will leaning how Jews today think and live, etc., do much to answer your question about the people that Jesus came from? Sure, there are some important continuities in Judaism, but I think the differences between, say, myself and people who lived thousands of years ago are huge.

Actually, I do also want to know how the Jewish people think and live and believe today too. Part of my reason for this is for the sake of reconciliation. I know that Christians have, for centuries, treated the Jews as less-than-human in some cases. Although I am only one man, I want to be able to reconcile at least myself, if not the rest of the Church, to your people. How anyone within the Church can say that the Jews are somehow evil or otherwise not right with God, and then read a Bible written, as I understand it, entirely by Jews, is the utmost form of hypocrisy there is, in my opinion.

But also, I want to learn the faith of Judaeism to an extent, (and I'm sure this is going to sound corny to some), so that I might learn to practice some of the Jewish ways. I already have a Mezuzah (sp?) on my door post, to remind me of the tenets of the Torah, and I'm wanting to put together a set of phylacteries to wear when praying and such, again so that I might be reminded of God's Word. There is, in my own faith, very little in the way of religious symbolism--I was raised Baptist, so I don't partake in things such as Mass or going to the Confessional--and I personally think that such symbolism would provide me with some form of meaning to many of the things I believe and/or should believe.



This whole notion of Jews as the "chosen people" is problematic to some Jews, probably because Jews have gotten so much flak for it, over the ages. You'll find some Jews denying it outright, others saying it's a concept as obsolete as animal sacrifices, others trying to find the most self-effacing definitions possible of what it means. And actually, I think even in the traditional definitions, it doesn't mean quite what it sounds like it does.

Now that just blows my mind! I never heard of that, although I do understand to an extent why some Jews would believe it. For years, I thought the official symbol of the Church was always the Cross, and I never knew that the original symbol for the Church was, in fact, a fish. Some things, I guess, do really change over the centuries. But honestly speaking, I got my idea of the Jews being God's Chosen from the Torah. I never would have guessed that many Jews don't like that term so much.

If it offends, I will stop calling you all that. It is not my intent to intimidate or otherwise hurt anyone's sensibilities.



This question wasn't addressed to me, but I would like to recommend myjewishlearning.com (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/index.htm). I think this is a very good site, accessible and well-written.


Thanks, Eeek. I'll be sure to look that site up. I appreciate your help very much. :)

[TeddyG]

I might learn to practice some of the Jewish ways. I already have a Mezuzah (sp?) on my door post, to remind me of the tenets of the Torah, and I'm wanting to put together a set of phylacteries to wear when praying and such, again so that I might be reminded of God's Word.

Why? Why would you want to use a Mezuzah and wear Teffilin (phylacteries)? These are not incumbent upon anyone not Jewish, and only Messianic Jews would combine these two sets of "commandments" - NT and OT together.

However, I find it incredibly interesting - and I say this in all sincerety - that you chose those two "symbols" and "commandments". Without my prying into your private life would you mind telling us why you chose these two?

I mean there is Kosher, there is prayer, there are at least 613 commandments that I know of :)...why those two? Really interesting!!!!

And remember, I am sure you know but it would be good to explain this...

A Mezuzah is NOT the box! It is the parchment inside which must be written by a "sofer" - it cannot be printed etc.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Why? Why would you want to use a Mezuzah and wear Teffilin (phylacteries)? These are not incumbent upon anyone not Jewish, and only Messianic Jews would combine these two sets of "commandments" - NT and OT together.

However, I find it incredibly interesting - and I say this in all sincerety - that you chose those two "symbols" and "commandments". Without my prying into your private life would you mind telling us why you chose these two?



I chose these two commandments and symbols simply because I want to remind myself of the Torah and through it the entire Word of God. To me, Teddy, they're a symbol of all the things God said. I looked up the Mezuzah in, of all places, the dictionary (I could not find it in my Eerdman's Bible Dictionary, which I found very strange). I knew that somewhere in the OT God told His People to "Tie them upon your hand" and "put them at the front of a headband around your forehead", as well as "write them on the door-frames of your house and on your gates" -- Deut. 6:4-7. The idea, for me, was not so much to be holier than I previously was, or more right with God, but rather to remind myself of the whole of God's Word, so that I might be able to remember to keep the rest of his commandments.

So basically, I wanted to have something tangible to remind me of everything written in the Scriptures. I want to follow the commandments to the best of my ability--all of them, frankly--because I hold to the idea that the Torah was never taken away. I know there is a major belief in Christianity that somehow, Christ's death on the Cross took away the OT, but that's not what I read in my Bible. Rather, I read that when Christ came, He said, "The Son of Man came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill." If His goal was to keep the commandments and be right with God in the sense of the Torah, then I believe I have a similar obligation. The Mezuzah and the Phylacteries, for me, are the commandments that remind me the most of the Word of God, and give me the constant need to abide by what God said.

There is another OT Scripture I continually think about, in Ecclesiastes, the last chapter. It says: "Let us hear the conclusion of the matter: fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man". -- KJV. This obvious love for all the Word of God throughout the OT is something that I do not wish to ignore. I've read several other places, too, that mention God's Word in the most reverent of terms.

That's the long way of saying I just want to be reminded of the Word of God in its entirety and in a tangible fashion. If I am to live the life prescribed by the Torah--which I want to do to the best of my ability--then I first must be reminded, IMO, of the whole of the Torah. This is simply a way for me to do this.

[Higgins]

One thing I started doing, so that I might be better able to understand the Jewish people and how they relate to the original Christian faith, is to not read from my King James Version anymore. I went out to a local bookstore and bought a Jewish Bible, one that was done by a Messianic Jew in Jerusalem. It contains the Tanakh and the (I hope I spell this right) B'rit Hadashah, which have not been intermingled with each other, but that also have not been separated by the usual NT and OT designations.


As has been remarked already, approaching Judaism of any kind via a modern "Messianic" modality is very problematic.

For your personal project, it might be far more helpful and comprehensible for you to start with the history of early Christianity and leave the Jews out of it as much as possible until you have some historical grounding in the area.

Or, to put it another way, you have a historiographic problem, so you should find a fairly big, moderately good library such as any big state school in the US would have and dive into the immense scholarly literature on the history of christianity. I recommend for starters Owen Chadwick (a very standard scholar), Bart Ehrmann (brilliant) and for special fun Eisenmann on James "the brother of Jesus"....

[TeddyG]

Ecclesiastes 11:12-14


"And furthermore my son be admonished: of making many books there is no end: and much study in a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter, when all is said and done, fear God and keep his commandments, for that is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing; whether it be good or whether it be evil."

an interesting choice - more so for a writers forum!

[Sean D. Schaffer]

As has been remarked already, approaching Judaism of any kind via a modern "Messianic" modality is very problematic.

For your personal project, it might be far more helpful and comprehensible for you to start with the history of early Christianity and leave the Jews out of it as much as possible until you have some historical grounding in the area.

...Snipped.


I appreciate what you're saying, Sokal. But I know that there are a lot of strange teachings within my own faith, more than I care to know. One reason I decided to ask the good people here about the Jewish faith, is that I hold to the idea that the Jewish faith is the basis for my own. If I am to understand how a true Christian should think (NT, not modern) then I want to know everything I can know about the people from whom Christianity originally sprang. I have my OT, although I plan on getting a Jewish Tanakh pretty soon, and not just a Messianic version of it, and with it as well as other resources I am only now learning of, I want to learn how the original faith believes now as well as in OT times.

I know so much about Christianity that the knowledge basically makes me sick. I see so many fringe beliefs within my own faith, that sometimes I wonder if what I was taught, was even right with the original OT. This is why I have decided to follow the path I'm on, instead of finding out more about my own faith. The more I read about Christianity, the more my head spins with stuff that has nothing to do with the faith I read about in my NT.

I believe if I really want to understand the New Testament, I must first understand the Old Testament and the people who live under it. Since the OT was first, it stands to reason in my own mind that it would be the basis for what I really need to believe to become right with the God Who wrote it.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Ecclesiastes 11:12-14


"And furthermore my son be admonished: of making many books there is no end: and much study in a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter, when all is said and done, fear God and keep his commandments, for that is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing; whether it be good or whether it be evil."

an interesting choice - more so for a writers forum!


Thank you. I do apologize for quoting the verse out of context. That is something that I am working on changing. In the churches I was raised in, such out-of-context quotes were quite commonly used, and I admit that I have for many years done the same thing.

I do understand now, though, that this is not a good thing. It is difficult sometimes for me to remember, but I am slowly learning. And I think even a small step in the right direction, is better than merely standing still, so at least I am making some progress. :)

[Higgins]

I believe if I really want to understand the New Testament, I must first understand the Old Testament and the people who live under it. Since the OT was first, it stands to reason in my own mind that it would be the basis for what I really need to believe to become right with the God Who wrote it.

You still have to start somewhere. The Cambridge Hist of Judaism starts with the founding of the Second Temple and has a large excursus on Zoroastrianism. At least it is a definite time and a definite context.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

You still have to start somewhere. The Cambridge Hist of Judaism starts with the founding of the Second Temple and has a large excursus on Zoroastrianism. At least it is a definite time and a definite context.


Cool. I will definitely see what I can find out about the history you mentioned. Thank you for your help, Sokal. :)

[Higgins]

Cool. I will definitely see what I can find out about the history you mentioned. Thank you for your help, Sokal. :)

Just 50 bucks:


http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Judaism-W-Davies/dp/0521218802

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Just my opinion, but I think it's a mistake to think of anyone as less than human, and the remedy for that is to recognize that all humans are worthy of being treated as such. I think that stands by itself as a general rule, and doesn't require knowledge of a particular culture to shore it up. In other words, no justification is necessary, in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine that you want to learn how Jews live and think, etc. More knowledge is a good thing. But I don't think that it has to be a prerequisite for accepting humans as human. Those are two separate things, the way I see it.

Thanks for your help, Eeek. I personally do not hold the viewpoint of any person being less-than-human; rather, I have read quotes of other Christians holding that viewpoint. I have never understood it, frankly.



That doesn't sound corny to me, but rather (sorry!) strange. It's outside my own experience, anyway. I'm curious -- are you doing this as an individual, or are you part of a group that is adopting Jewish practices?


No, I'm doing this as an individual. I guess what I've been trying to say in a roundabout way, without really knowing how to say it, is that I want to learn how to worship and serve the God of Israel properly. I believe that much of how I was raised was wrong, because of many of the doctrines that I was raised to believe. These were doctrines that, when I read my Bible, made no sense to me.

I actually read a Scripture earlier tonight from Isaiah, I believe, where it mentions a foreigner who holds to the covenant of Adonai. I also read somewhere recently in my NT a verse that I have known for many years, but that does not say what I thought it did. I thought it talked about calling on the Name of Jesus, when in fact, it refers to calling on the Name of Adonai. To me, this is a revolutionary thought, because it tells me that many of my suspicions about the OT and NT were perhaps correct. What intrigues me about the Scripture I just mentioned, is it is also a quote from the Tanakh, the Book of Joel 3:5 (2:32 in my KJV).


Many things change over the centuries. How similar do you consider your own life to be to that of people living thousands of years ago?

You make a very convincing and common sense point. To be honest, I must admit I was naive concerning Jewish society, because I literally did think that they lived and believed like the people of Moses' time. It never even entered my mind that times do, in fact, change. For that I feel like laughing at myself for my naivete.



If your goal is to learn about contemporary Jewish life, I think you can't do that just by reading the Torah alone, anymore than someone who had just arrived from Mars and wanted to find out what's it like to live in America could find out just by reading the Constitution. It would give you a hint of what life is like in America, but there's so much more to it.

I see what you're saying now, although I admit I did not think about that before. One thing I have been doing is perusing the website you suggested. I am amazed at the diversity and the beliefs of the Jewish People in general. Is a Gentile allowed to join that site? If so, I would definitely be interested in doing so.



It's not offensive, per se, but I get the sense from reading what you've written that you are putting Jews up on a pedestal, which is not a good place for anyone to be. I appreciate what you are saying about reconciliation, but in my opinion flipping the notion of Jews as mythically evil into the notion of Jews as mythically good still leaves out the reality of Jews as people. (Apolgies if I'm misreading what you wrote.)

It's not what I intended, but I do see where you could have thought I was doing that. I called the Jews God's Chosen only because of what my Bible tells me, in the OT. But in a way, I think I am guilty of having superhumanized (is that a word?) the Jewish People without thinking about it necessarily in those terms. I do admit I have a glowing opinion that might blind me to some of the more ordinary aspects of God's People, that I never intended. I will definitely work on that attitude.



You're welcome. I hope that this post didn't offend!

Oh, no, the post didn't offend at all. I am very happy to be learning so much right now. A lot of the information on this thread, and some of the links that have been provided for me, have already proven invaluable in my better understanding of the differences between my faith and that of the Jewish People, as well as the commonalities.

I just hope that I might be allowed to stick around this forum for a while, so that I might learn more. The subject of Judaism has always fascinated me, because of what I know from my OT about the Torah and the Prophets, and the amazing things that the Bible says God has done for those who love Him.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Hello,

I wanted to take a quick post and apologize to those who post on this particular forum, for some behavior that, though I was not personally aware of the implications thereof, could easily have been deemed offensive or even evangelistic in nature.

I had heard about persecution of Jews by Christians, but I did not know how bad it had gotten. I knew that there were forced conversions, but it never hit home with me until earlier today. I want you all to know that converting you to my faith was never my intention. I rather wanted to know more about Judaism so that I might be able to learn to follow G-d in the proper way. I have read, for instance, in the Torah, how Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, offered 'Strange fire' before G-d. I knew that He had killed them for this, and I do not wish to end up doing wrong in my efforts to please Him, partially because of this.

But I offer my apologies to you all, for having made you leary of me or my intents. Although I was unaware of the fact that people try to use the methods I was using these last couple days, to convert your people to my faith, I still believe I have approached you all in the wrong manner. I am sorry that I have offended any of you, because I never intended to offend anyone.

I also wish to apologize for having not been clear in what I was saying. I am made greatly afraid by entering a group of people I have not dealt with in this manner before, and trying to learn how they live and think and worship their G-d. What I really want to do is learn how I, as a Christian Gentile, can serve the G-d of Israel, Whom I was raised to love, in the proper manner. I promised you before that there were no ulterior motives, and I honestly do not have any. I simply want to worship and serve the G-d I have loved all my life, Who the leader of my faith refered to as Supreme, in a way that is more pleasing to Him than I am at present.

I do not wish to become completely Jewish, because, well, I am a Gentile, born into a Gentile family. I do not wish to lose my identity as what I originally was. But at the same time, I do wish to understand how a Gentile can better serve the great G-d.

Someone has suggested, and I have seen examples of, seven rules that Gentiles are asked to follow to properly worship the G-d of Israel. I will look that up, because I know that my faith as-is, is not what I had read in my NT to believe in. There is so much to the Christian faith that has changed over the last two thousand years, that I honestly do not know what my faith originally believed in, in the first place. I know we believed that the G-d of Israel was the One True G-d, but aside from that, I really do not know what I worship or even what He claimed to be.

Thank you all very kindly for your answers, and for your patience with me. I have a lot of things to think about this Friday morning. I want you all to know that you have all been a tremendous help to a man who is searching for what is right and good in his own life.

I wish you all the best that life can give you, and Happy Hanukkah to you all. :)