"Virgin Birth" Questions

[Omniskeptical]

Your first mistake with me is to assume that the NT has truth value for me as a Jew. It isn't a part of my religious beliefs or scriptures so I reject the premise immediately.

Second, there is no account in the Oral law that reflects this as ever having been said so I reject the validity that he said this at all. Much less that he is making a "prophecy" of any kind. To me, reading the narrative, he was defending the accused and basically telling his accusers that this movement isn't worth their time. He isn't making any type of "prophetic" claim at all.

No, he was encouraging the Judai and perhaps the whole Israelite council to beat the followers of Yeshu. He made a prophetic claim, and continued to back it up, because he thought God wasn't backing them up.

Secondly, the oral "torah" has few historical merits for this time, if any. It is just as meaningless to me as the NT is to you.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

No, he was encouraging the Judai and perhaps the whole Israelite council to beat the followers of Yeshu. He made a prophetic claim, and continued to back it up, because he thought God wasn't backing them up.

Secondly, the oral "torah" has few historical merits for this time, if any. It is just as meaningless to me as the NT is to you.

Your take and my take on those events seem at odds. I am assuming you are referencing Acts 5 and the chief priests and Sadducees that arrested the apostles. Funny I notice the Pharisees defending the apostles and the priests and Sadducees were again them. Gamliel was the head of the Sanhedrin around that time and most respected Pharisee. If he spoke, the Pharisees went with him. The part I would question is the beating part. That makes little sense to me. Hey let's defend them but beat them also. Yeah ok!

Oh well, what do I care it isn't part of my religion. You may as well include the Koran in our discussions well. Lol

As for your acceptance of the Oral Torah I don't expect you to accept it and never expected you to accept it as true. From my standpoint it has more value for law and theology than your NT does.

[Omniskeptical]

You may as well include the Koran in our discussions well. Lol

Not at all likely, except to point out how it was made to be a fraud from the start.

From my standpoint it has more value for law and theology than your NT does.

While I don't believe it to be factual, I think it has more merit than the Koran. And I do believe there isn't idolatry in the Greek NT.

[Teallaura]

He was being pretentious.

Er, who was?

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

G-d did not need to make the promises in the first place, as far as I can tell.

How so? In a barren couple, either the man's seed or woman's seed is missing or not working (in ancient cultures, the problem would have been assumed to lie with the woman). In a virgin birth, the man's seed is missing. I'm fairly certain the G-d who made man out of the dust of the earth and woman from the rib of man would not have any problem doing the relatively minor tweaks necessary for giving a barren woman children or a virgin birth.

sure.

Christians, as far as I am aware, do not think that G-d would need to cause a virgin birth based on this verse; they believe that a virgin birth is a possible interpretation of the verse.

With all due respect, you're not asking a question that has any meaning in our worldview. It's like asking someone who believes "the sky is green" the question "Why is the sky purple?"

We know enough to determine that there were differences between them and between them and the Pharisees (which you tacitly admit with your next sentence).

It is the type of Judaism, as far as we can tell, closest to that adhered to by Jesus, but there were certainly differences. He indubitably thought they were overly concerned with splitting hairs over laws and outward observance.

No, I was stating the obvious as the basis for making my point. I was not intending to disparage you or your points.

Thank you for clarifying

I disagree with your synopsis somewhat, but it's really beside the point I was trying to make. I would be surprised to find anything in the Oral Torah which supported Christianity because of the long history of opposition between the groups; it's the type of information least likely to be passed down (or, if passed down, disclosed to the opposing out-group).

There is nothing in the Oral Torah, per se, that would support Christianity as the Oral law is more concerned with Jewish Life and practices than anything else. However there are many bases in the Oral Torah for some Christian Beliefs such as resurrection of the dead, that there is a messianic notion, and a few others.

This is at least a slight exaggeration; the final parting happened about the time of the bar Kochba revolt about 135 CE. Even after that, the overarching goal in the development of doctrine in normative Christianity was fidelity to the tradition they had received. My weekly service is based on the synagogue service from which it developed (with the Eucharist established by Jesus added).

I would love to discuss each of these items but not in this thread. It is distracting from the main argument. I admit I embellished a little on that point. Sorry! I should have said slightly less than two millennia.

That said, I think you missed part of the argument I was making. The gospels (as written, not simply as understood) equate Jesus with "the son of G-d." It is my understanding that this is not a title for the messiah in Judaism, but the gospels presuppose that it is.

I agree. It's especially needed within Protestantism, which largely abandoned its tradition 5 centuries ago.

From a Jewish perspective Christianity diverged in the time of Paul. Jesus, Jacob (James), Peter, and the early disciples would have been indistinguishable from other Pharisees of their day, IMO.

As far as I understand, prophecies in general tend to be understood only in hindsight, or tend to be fulfilled in ways that people do not expect. When people experience something unexpected, they tend to search the scriptures for clues as to why. Jesus' rejection and humiliating death were certainly not what the Jews of his day were looking for in a messiah, but it was argued to be shown in the Tanakh afterward (and predicted by Jesus beforehand). The NT texts are replete with references to the Tanakh, and the Tanakh seems to have been the primary text for evangelism well into the 2nd century CE (see Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho (c. 150) and On the Apostolic Preaching (c. 180) by Irenaeus); the NT was written for internal edification, not evangelism. The texts are generally not written written as exegetical tools; Paul's epistle to the Romans and the epistle to the Hebrews are exceptions to the general rule, and neither of those addresses the virgin birth.

I appreciate that you responded to me, by the way. I'm never sure how a Jew is going to respond to my user name (which was not chosen with interaction with Jews in mind).

My first reaction as to chuckle and smile. Its kind of amusing.

[mitzi]

Have we failed? The goalpost was changed to make Gamaliel look good and as if we failed. Gamaliel was not a Levite, like Jewish history claims. He was the false prophet though.

The comment given from Gamaliel was on whether or not Jesus was the Messiah and whether "if" the followers would fail in there mission and as a "new creation" that was blessed by God.

Quoting:"Our Saviour and Lord, not long after the beginning of his ministry, called the twelve apostles, [185] and these alone of all his disciples he named apostles, as an especial honor. And again he appointed seventy others whom he sent out two by two before his face into every place and city whither he himself was about to come. [186]" website

Also, in the new testament, and if we're speaking of someone who was not a "truth" or "one" chosen by God,- the position of High Priest was questionable (He was appointed High Priest of the Jews by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus in about A.D. 18, according to Josephus, a first century Jewish historian (Ant., XVIII, ii, 2). Gratus was the predecessor of Pontius Pilate). Caiaphas was not suppose to be in an authoritative position and given the status of High Priest....I consider that the Messiah during this period of time and considering the circumstances would not have "much" clout, in the first place. So I don't know why the question about the "Messiahship" was up for debate.

...although, there was a prophecy that came out of Caiaphas who had expressed this concern when he said that it would better for one man to die than for a whole nation to suffer (John 11:43-50). This was soon after Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead. Also Caiaphas was also present at the trial of the Apostles John and Peter. He was one of the leaders who questioned the two men about the miraculous healing of a lame man at one of the gates of the Temple (Acts 4:6-7).

[mitzi]

He said the movement would come to no effect, being it was not from God; as though he were on God's side to begin with.

our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

[Omniskeptical]

Gamaliel was not prophesizing...

He then goes on to have the apostles beat; he was betting on weakness, and that was the start of his "prophecies".

[Xtian Rabinovich]

As far as I understand, prophecies in general tend to be understood only in hindsight, or tend to be fulfilled in ways that people do not expect. When people experience something unexpected, they tend to search the scriptures for clues as to why. Jesus' rejection and humiliating death were certainly not what the Jews of his day were looking for in a messiah, but it was argued to be shown in the Tanakh afterward (and predicted by Jesus beforehand). The NT texts are replete with references to the Tanakh, and the Tanakh seems to have been the primary text for evangelism well into the 2nd century CE (see Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho (c. 150) and On the Apostolic Preaching (c. 180) by Irenaeus); the NT was written for internal edification, not evangelism. The texts are generally not written written as exegetical tools; Paul's epistle to the Romans and the epistle to the Hebrews are exceptions to the general rule, and neither of those addresses the virgin birth.

Well put Mr. Pig.

[mitzi]

He then goes on to have the apostles beat; he was betting on weakness, and that was the start of his "prophecies".

Please read:Gamaliel, based on his advice, does not seem to be as agitated as some. His words are good advice then and now. They speak to taking a long view of history and having patience to judge people and events very carefully.Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:[39] But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God., Philips Translation).

The tail end comment Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to youAnother Added thought:
Gamaliel's Wisdom: see website
"What can we take from this short, straight-forward account of a private meeting among men who felt threatened by the growing movement of Christianity?

Learn a little history. Gamaliel studied the stories of failed movements within recent Jewish experience. He knew why they failed. He walked his friends through two incidents, reminding them of the failures. Gamaliel knew his history. So should we.

Be patient and let the fruits speak for themselves.

Time and fruits have a way of sorting things through to the truth.

I suggest you add Gamaliel to your list of wise counselors. His wisdom rings true today

[Omniskeptical]

Gee, you really don't know what you are talking about, do you? And please don't copy-paste; it doesn't impress me.

[mitzi]

Gee, you really don't know what you are talking about, do you? And please don't copy-paste; it doesn't impress me.

Are you asking if I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the question about the Virgin Birth?

1. Why would G-d need to cause a "Virgin Birth?"
2. What event/events/issue/issues caused a need for a "Virgin Birth?"
3. Is there clear evidence or are there reasons within the Hebrew bible and the Oral Torah for the need of a Virgin Birth to bring the Messiah into the World?

The postings answered the questions that you posted.

The Virgin Birth - gave the Christians it's bible origins or its beginnings (creation) and the Apostle John states, "17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." so the "why" question (#2) should be seen as being the answer for the "event/events/issue/issues"- . The birth of Jesus was seen as divine (holy) and also stated, "he (God) has made him known". As the Exodus was the beginning of the Jewish nation with the receiving of the Torah and also as to consummate the relationship with God, we were, as Christians, drawn (consumed) to the God through the son. Every steps that were made, as well as in the Exodus, where seen in the new testament writing with Pentecost - manifestation of the Spirit of God.

Maybe perhaps you don't understand the weight of your question, yet. It would be like someone asking "why" did God need to use Moses to deliver the Jews out of Egypt - and why did he have to divide the waters for the people to cross the sea of reeds, or to continue to "ask" for food and water (and this being lightly said) or why did you have to go out to the desert to receive the Torah, etc. Moses said it the best:

Your eyes have seen all that the Lord did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. 3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials

[Omniskeptical]

The virgin birth was a marker of credentials for messiah, and of fatherhood for God. No other god could imitate it, and no other messiah could claim his "birth" to be this way. Virgin Conception, but I don't know about virgin birth, now that I think about it. Few could challenge God and his messiah enough.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

The virgin birth was a marker of credentials for messiah, and of fatherhood for God. No other god could imitate it, and no other messiah could claim his "birth" to be this way. Virgin Conception, but I don't know about virgin birth, now that I think about it. Few could challenge God and his messiah enough.

How is a "virgin birth" a marker of credentials in any capacity? Please elaborate.

[Omniskeptical]

A virgin with child can't be faked at all.