Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Sacrifice Of Jesus
11-09-2017, 10:46 AM
Post: #41
RE: The Sacrifice Of Jesus
(11-08-2017 01:20 AM)journeyman Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 09:39 PM)Imprecise Interrupt Wrote:  Early in this thread, you stressed the role of Jesus as teacher. Now you want to say that Jewish thought has the Messiah be a teacher. It is pretty obvious where that is going. Too bad it is not the case.

Actually, I started the thread to show the mainstream Christian view of Jesus' sacrifice is incorrect according to what the OT says.

Early in this thread you stressed the idea of Jesus as teacher. Then you asked me if I agreed that Jews and Christians both considered the Messiah to be a teacher. I did not agree. And here we are still talking about it.

(11-08-2017 01:20 AM)journeyman Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 09:39 PM)Imprecise Interrupt Wrote:  I am not talking about sages. I am talking about the straightforward understanding of what Jeremiah said. Are there any sages who contradict what I said?

Only if you think people will spontaneously have the law written in their hearts.

Jeremiah says so and specifically rules out the need for teaching.

Quote: Jeremiah 31
33
“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.

I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”

declares the Lord.

Again I ask, are there any sages who contradict the straightforward interpretation?


(11-08-2017 01:20 AM)journeyman Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 09:39 PM)Imprecise Interrupt Wrote:  You are quote mining...

No I wasn't. I was pointing out the idea Messiah as a Teacher existed in Jewish thought and cited a passage in the article (Isa.42) where it says "isles'" will wait for His law.

That is not what the Hebrew says. Here is the Chabad translation along with Rashi’s commentary.

Quote: Yeshayahu 42

1. Behold My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him, he shall promulgate justice to the nations.

Behold My servant, I will support him: Behold My servant Jacob is not like you, for I will support him.
My chosen one: Israel is called ‘My chosen one’ ([mss.:] His chosen one) (Ps. 135:4) “For the Eternal chose Jacob for Himself.” Scripture states also (infra 45:4): “For the sake of My servant Jacob and Israel My chosen one.”
whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him: to let his prophets know My secret, and his end will be that ‘he shall promulgate justice to the nations,’ as it is stated (supra 2:3): “And let Him teach us of His ways etc.”


2. He shall neither cry nor shall he raise [his voice]; and he shall not make his voice heard outside.

nor shall he raise [his voice]: He shall not raise his voice. It will not be necessary to admonish and to prophesy to the nations, for they will come by themselves to learn from them [i.e., from Israel], as the matter is stated (Zech. 8: 23): “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”

3. A breaking reed he shall not break; and a flickering flaxen wick he shall not quench; with truth shall he execute justice.

A breaking reed he shall not break: Jonathan paraphrases: The meek, who are like a breaking reed, shall not break, and the poor, who are like a flickering candle, shall not be quenched.
and a flickering flaxen wick: A wet flaxen wick, that is nearly extinguished. Their king will not rob the poor and will not break the poor and the weak.


4. Neither shall he weaken nor shall he be broken, until he establishes justice in the land, and for his instruction, islands shall long.

Neither shall he weaken nor shall he be broken: Heb. וְלֹא יָרוּץ, like לֹא יֵרָצֵץ, he shall not be broken, “for the earth shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as water covers the seabed” (supra 11:9). And they shall obey them, as the matter is stated (Zeph. 3:9): “For then I will make the nations pure of speech etc.” That is what follows: And for his instruction islands shall long. They shall all obey his instruction.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/...rashi=true

According to Rashi, it is Israel not the Messiah. And recall that In Zephaniah it is indeed God speaking, not the Messiah. The word for ‘instruction’ is the general-purpose word that can mean also mean Torah in the sense of Jewish Law. What kind of law or instruction was intended?

The islands (Gentiles) will long for instruction from Israel, not the Messiah. And they shall obey Israel’s instructions. About what? Apparently about justice. Definitely not the Torah which is for Jews. The Gentiles are to follow the Noahide Laws.

That the islands in Isaiah 42 are Gentiles can be seen in Isaiah 66:19. Jeremiah said that the Jews will receive the law in their minds and hearts from God, not the Messiah. He does not say this of the Gentiles.

(11-08-2017 01:20 AM)journeyman Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 09:39 PM)Imprecise Interrupt Wrote:  In all those different interpretations, there is not one that says that the Messiah will be a teacher.

In that article you're right, because although the author of that article says Jews attribbute those passages to Messiah, he ignores that idea and goes right to modern scholars who attribute those passages to individuals who are all dead.

As can be seen in Rashi’s commentary above, not all Jews consider the servant to be the Messiah. (And Hirsch’s arguments about some of the passages to that effect are very questionable.) Others consider the servant to be the nation of Israel. Regardless, there is still no old source connecting the Messiah with teaching.

(11-08-2017 01:20 AM)journeyman Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 09:39 PM)Imprecise Interrupt Wrote:  If symbolism needs to be taught over and above the Law put into the minds and hearts of the Jews, presumably it will be done there. Again, no connection with the Messiah. In any case the Law is about behavior. It is to be taken at a literal level. Why should there be any symbolism?

Why do some Jews believe the menorah is symbolic of the Nation of Israel?

The menorah is the official seal of the State of Israel. Ref Belief has nothing to do with it. It is the official seal of Israel. The link makes it clear that by law it can only be used by the Israeli government and is not to be otherwise used as a symbol for Israel.

(11-08-2017 01:20 AM)journeyman Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 09:39 PM)Imprecise Interrupt Wrote:  I have yet to see you present an example of earlier Jewish thought that calls the Messiah a teacher.

"He will prepare the whole world to serve the L-rd as it is written: For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the Name of the L-rd to serve Him with one consent (Zephaniah 3:9)

"All these matters relating to Jesus of Nazareth...only served to clear the way for King Messiah, to prepare the whole world to worship G-d with one accord, as it is written: For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may call upon the Name of the L-rd to serve Him with one consent (Zephaniah 3:9).Thus, the messianic hope, the Torah, and the commandments have become familiar topics-topics of conversation among the inhabitants of the far isles and many peoples, uncircumcized of heart and flesh."
http://www.drazin.com/?17._The_Messiah_a...Maimonides

It seems Rambam is alluding to Isa.42:4 And there's no need to highlight the rabbis' opinion of Jesus as he blamed Jesus for Rome destroying Jerusalem. I'm surprised by the rabbis' admission. Jesus must have caused quite a stir. I'll finish the rest of it later.

The author of the article did not quote RaMBaM accurately or in full context. Here is what he really said.

Quote: Melachim uMilchamot - Chapter 11

Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also alluded to in Daniel's prophecies, as ibid. 11:14 states: 'The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.'

Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord.

Nevertheless, the intent of the Creator of the world is not within the power of man to comprehend, for His ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts, our thoughts. Ultimately, all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and that Ishmaelite who arose after him will only serve to prepare the way for Mashiach's coming and the improvement of the entire world, motivating the nations to serve God together as Tzephaniah 3:9 states: 'I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of God and serve Him with one purpose.'

How will this come about? The entire world has already become filled with the mention of Mashiach, Torah, and mitzvot. These matters have been spread to the furthermost islands to many stubborn-hearted nations. They discuss these matters and the mitzvot of the Torah, saying: 'These mitzvot were true, but were already negated in the present age and are not applicable for all time.'

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...ter-11.htm

Jesus aspired to be the Messiah but Christianity did terrible things to Jews. Why was this allowed? God’s ways are not obvious to man. Although Christianity did bad things to the Jews, it made Jewish ideas known throughout the world. The Christians who in the beginning bad mouthed Judaism and later did horrible things to Jews talked constantly about Jesus. Christianity and Jesus were synonymous in the mind of Jews. It is not that Jesus himself caused such a stir but that Christians did.

The article is puzzling. Why does it say ‘in the matter of Jesus’ when Maimonides said no such thing? Also, why does the author refer to Zephaniah by that name instead of the Jewish name of Tzephaniah as Rambam did? Not really a major issue of course. But then he quotes the KJV translation instead of the Chabad translation.

KJV: For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.

Chabad from Hebrew: For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language that all of them call in the name of the Lord, to worship Him of one accord. Ref

The Chabad version sounds less like teaching the Torah or anything else than making everyone speak Hebrew.

It is not whether they amount to the same thing. It is why the exact text of the KJV was inserted by the author of the article into the text of Maimonides, who wrote hundreds of years before the KJV existed.

If Maimonides has Isaiah 42:4 in mind, which is possible, it is most definitely not Christian teachings that he was thinking of. Can you come up with any quotes from the gospels where Jesus taught anything that is not from the Tanach? My opinion? Jesus was Jewish but not sympathetic with the way those who wielded power in Jewish circles were doing it. Specifically he was unhappy with the Oral Torah tradition that was expanding the interpretation of the Written Torah in a strict rule obsessive manner of the Pharisees and ignoring the spirit and purpose of the Torah. In addition there was the wealth and power obsessions of the Temple controlling Sadducees who were in league with the Romans and the upper class of Jewish society.


(11-08-2017 01:20 AM)journeyman Wrote:  
Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
Although you addressed the question to Amememhab, I will give my opinion, if you do not mind.

I don't mind at all. I was amazed by the article. Basically, the author calls Jesus a fraud for teaching the law and prophets, which is perplexing. I was stunned by this:

Talmud, Baba Kamma 93a

Rabbi Abbahu said: "A man should always try to be among the persecuted rather than the persecutors...."

Matthew 5:10--11

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

I wonder if in Rabbi Abbahus' mind the Messiah would only talk about Torah, not practice it.

The Baba Kamma quote in context.

Quote:R. Abbahu said: A man should always strive to be rather of the persecuted than of the persecutors as there is none among the birds more persecuted than doves and pigeons, and yet Scripture made them [alone] eligible for the altar.
https://halakhah.com/babakamma/babakamma_93.html

The idea of being persecuted by enemies of the Jews appears a number of times in the OT.

Here is a list. When Matthew wrote his Gospel, the Neronian persecutions were a recent memory.

“I wonder if in Rabbi Abbahus' mind the Messiah would only talk about Torah, not practice it.”

I do not understand what this has to with the Messiah talking about the Torah versus practicing it. But yes, I know where the alleged Jesus ex post facto references are.

And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice
Dylan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2017, 03:23 PM
Post: #42
RE: The Sacrifice Of Jesus
Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
I do not have Paul backwards at all. He said that the Mosaic Law did not negate the covenant made with Abraham (which explicitly involves the requirement for circumcision BTW).

The covenant was made in uncircumcision:

"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram..." Gen.1Gen15:18


Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
Neither did the covenant with Abraham negate the Noachide laws that applied before that, and still apply to Gentiles. Why should another new covenant negate all existing ones? The new covenant mentioned by Jeremiah clearly did not negate Mosaic Law.

He isn't saying it negated the law. He's saying it negated the curse of the law:


Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
Paul also makes it clear that Jews are still obligated to follow the Law and they will be judged on that. But Gentiles will only be judged on natural moral law which they inherently know. This is again the Chabad opinion also as shown above.

Of course, natural law is also known by Jews. But as Paul says in Romans 2, Jews will be judged by Jewish Law, which happens to also cover natural law as described for example in the Noachide laws. What was your point? 

That knowing good and evil should cause people to seek mercy from God:

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;"
Rom.2:12

So later when Paul says sin isn't "imputed" where there is no law, he doesn't mean charged to ones' account. Even the flood story shows that. He's means regarded as offense against God and therefore the laws purpose is established.

Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
Rabbi Sandmel is not entirely accurate in his assessment. The Gospel of John, written near the end of the 1st century, refers to ‘the Jews’. Proto-orthodox Pauline Christianity was well on the road to being separated from Judaism. However, John does refer to Jews who believed Jesus.

One example:

Quote:John 8
31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

The Apostles Jesus selected and the disciples of John the Baptist who followed Jesus (both mentioned in John) were obviously Jews. John also mentions Jesus making the required pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the various festivals, more than any of the other gospels writers. John was not disparaging Judaism or ruling out Jewish participation. He was simply recognizing the fact that mainstream Judaism, as being rebuilt at that time in the rabbinic model, and Christianity were now on different paths. I see no indication of John being modified with the exception of the added-on Chapter 21. John is otherwise a coherent work exhibiting a continuous viewpoint. That viewpoint involves abandoning the idea of the end of days being imminent as originally thought and settling down for the long run with an established church and theology that were now distinct from Judaism.

Rabbi Sandmel wasn't inferring it was completely anti-Jewish, but only the seeds of it are seen there. As far as the "end of days", they learned as we all do.

Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
The Second Temple was built and stood from sometime in the 6th century BC to 70 AD when it was destroyed during the Jewish Revolt. In between it was greatly enhanced. The specifications used were not the same as in Ezekiel. Jewish scriptures say that it was not to be built in that fashion because Israel was back to its old ways. This is how the prophecy of Jeremiah about the messianic age commencing with the return from the Exile became instead a prophecy about the future Olam Ha-Ba as previously discussed. Sounds to me like a cover story because it would not have been possible to build according to those grandiose specifications with the resources available. Not until Herod the Great did the Temple become the grand wonder that so impressed those who visited Jerusalem. I see no reason to connect Jesus with any of this except in having an answer in search of a question.

The question was asked and answered when the 1st temple was built (1 Ki.8:27) and then asked and answered again (Is.66:1-2.) So we see the house where God dwells is in those who fear Him.

Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
It was Rashi quoting Sifre actually.

Are you saying that the meaning of Deuteronomy 11:21 that there will be a resurrection of the dead was clear to you before reading any commentary of the matter? Did you read it in the Hebrew? If not, can you point me to the particular English translation that you derived this knowledge from? Or just what did you mean.

I simply meant it was obvious to me as a follower of Jesus that Gods' promise not only to Abrahams' descendants, but to Abraham himself can only be accomplished by resurrection from the dead.

Quote:Imprecise Interrupt Wrote
Here is how Chabad translates it. The context is keeping the commandments.

Quote:in order that your days may increase and the days of your children, on the land which the Lord swore to your forefathers to give them, as the days of heaven above the earth.

So God promised the Patriarchs who didn't have the law, but now the
stipulation is the law. What's wrong with that picture?

Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
Rashi made some comments about Christians being heretics, which from his viewpoint is correct. But I do not see how that relates to the discussion at hand.

It matters because anyone subjected to prejudice may be affected by it in how he views someone (in this case Jesus) who had nothing to do with it. I did come across an alleged quote of Rashis' where
he is said to have attributed the servant of God to Israel, not the Messiah, because of how the Christians view it (pertaining to Jesus.)
Apparently the person who made this assertion (a Jew who believed in Jesus named Steve Schwarz) was aware of some writing of Rashis' that I'm not currently aware of. But it's no secret that prejudice affected even Rambam because of his comment that because of Jesus, Jews were slaughtered. It's quite possible in Bar Kotchvahs' day, the followers of Jesus refused to fight Rome, but is that a fault? I'll finish the rest later.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2017, 06:41 PM
Post: #43
RE: The Sacrifice Of Jesus
Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
The traditions one finds in the Jewish scriptures is that salvation will be about ‘the nations’ being defeated and the people of Jacob (the Jews) will be left in peace in a perfected world. Originally there was no concept of an afterlife except the vague existence in Sheol. The idea of a real afterlife gradually grew but at first it was for all Jews. Later the idea of judgment based on individual behavior appeared. This idea appears only in late scripture like Daniel. But it is present in both non-canonical works and in the Oral Torah that would later be recorded as the Mishnah. While there are a variety of opinions, the exact nature of an afterlife and the criteria for getting there are not canonically fixed in even Orthodox Judaism.

Just how much "later" do you think Jews hold the Oral Torah to be?

Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
Idolatry is specifically the worship of false gods via idols. The Torah includes laws against idolatry. But violating some other commandment, like putting tzitzit on the corners of clothing, is not idolatry. As I said earlier, a figure of speech is one thing. But neither Judaism nor Christianity believe that violating a commandment literally puts one above God. If that were the case, believing that there can be something higher than God, would negate the value of the religion.

Please show me where Rashi says that violating any part of the Torah is idolatry. I do not recall any such documentation previously.

You simply disagreed. Here it is again.

"De.27:26
 Here [in this curse,] Moses included the entire Torah, and they accepted it upon themselves with a curse and an oath. — [see Shevuoth 36a] Rashi

Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
Sola fide means ‘faith alone’ and it does not appear anywhere in scriptures. It was invented by Martin Luther. Luther himself said that it took a great deal of thought to come to that conclusion. I have already dealt with Paul’s apparently intentional misinterpretation of Habakkuk and do not intend to go there again. My point in this discussion was to show that Deuteronomy 9 referred to a single case and did not express any generic theological principles.

You're having a problem understanding the purpose of the law.

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." Ps.19:7
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2017, 05:18 PM (This post was last modified: 11-10-2017 06:04 PM by Imprecise Interrupt.)
Post: #44
RE: The Sacrifice Of Jesus
(11-09-2017 03:23 PM)journeyman Wrote:  
Quote:Imprecise Interrupt Wrote
I do not have Paul backwards at all. He said that the Mosaic Law did not negate the covenant made with Abraham (which explicitly involves the requirement for circumcision BTW).

The covenant was made in uncircumcision:

"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram..." Gen.1Gen15:18

In Genesis 15, God made a covenant with Abram, promising the land to his many descendants. But God did not yet tell Abram what his side of the bargain was to be. In Genesis 17, God tells Abraham, as he is then renamed, that the requirement for that promise is circumcision.

The two-part covenant already had precedence. In Genesis 6, God says he is making a covenant with Noah. God tells Noah what to do to survive the Flood – him, his family and representatives of all the animal kinds. After the Flood, in Genesis 9, God tells Noah the requirement, which is some new laws that are to be followed.

(11-09-2017 03:23 PM)journeyman Wrote:  
Quote:Imprecise Interrupt Wrote
Neither did the covenant with Abraham negate the Noachide laws that applied before that, and still apply to Gentiles. Why should another new covenant negate all existing ones? The new covenant mentioned by Jeremiah clearly did not negate Mosaic Law.

He isn't saying it negated the law. He's saying it negated the curse of the law:

No, that was Paul talking about the curse of the Law, which is not what any devout Jew believed. Why would you think Jeremiah was saying that Mosaic Law would have been a curse? I know a lot of Christians want to say that things in the OT ‘really’ mean something totally different from what they very obviously do mean. But claiming that does not make it true.

Anyway, what does that mean to negate the curse of the Law. Recall that Jeremiah is talking about the future messianic age. If the alleged curse of the law (a fabrication by quote mining Paul) will be negated then, that would mean that in the messianic age all nations will long for ‘instructions’ from the Jewish nation which was practicing Torah Law. What was it you wanted ‘instruction’ to mean again? Or is Jeremiah some kind of mystical code that does not mean what it means? The truth is that scriptures mean what the author intended the original audience to understand.

(11-09-2017 03:23 PM)journeyman Wrote:  
Quote:Imprecise Interrupt Wrote
Paul also makes it clear that Jews are still obligated to follow the Law and they will be judged on that. But Gentiles will only be judged on natural moral law which they inherently know. This is again the Chabad opinion also as shown above.

Of course, natural law is also known by Jews. But as Paul says in Romans 2, Jews will be judged by Jewish Law, which happens to also cover natural law as described for example in the Noachide laws. What was your point?

That knowing good and evil should cause people to seek mercy from God:

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;"
Rom.2:12

So later when Paul says sin isn't "imputed" where there is no law, he doesn't mean charged to ones' account. Even the flood story shows that. He's means regarded as offense against God and therefore the laws purpose is established.

The Romans 2 quote does not say a word about seeking mercy. It says that those who are not Jews will not be judged by Jewish Law but by natural law. If a sin according to natural law is not imputed to a Gentile (and Paul never uses the word ‘impute’) how is that different from being charged with the sin. Either one is going to be judged according to what one has done, as Romans 2:12 says, or one is not. If a violation against natural law by a Gentile is not an offense against God, why will God judge the Gentile? According to Romans 1, everyone already knows what God expects, so God will judge them on their behavior.

Romans is an elaborate shell game, using ‘sin’ and ‘law’ in multiple senses, sometimes even within the same sentence. Paul is trying to convince the Jewish Christians in the Roman community to accept the Gentile Christians there without them having to follow Jewish Law. Romans is an elaborate song and dance, loaded with contradictions, apparently intended to confuse.

Also, in the Flood everyone except a chosen few were killed with no warning. (Unless you are converting to Islam) Were they imputed with sin? Or was it charged to their account? Were they individually judged based on what they had done? Was all this imputing and charging (or lack thereof) and judging before or after they were dead, or both? I do not see any pertinent connection


(11-09-2017 03:23 PM)journeyman Wrote:  
Quote:Imprecise Interrupt Wrote
Rabbi Sandmel is not entirely accurate in his assessment. The Gospel of John, written near the end of the 1st century, refers to ‘the Jews’. Proto-orthodox Pauline Christianity was well on the road to being separated from Judaism. However, John does refer to Jews who believed Jesus.

One example:

Quote:John 8
31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

The Apostles Jesus selected and the disciples of John the Baptist who followed Jesus (both mentioned in John) were obviously Jews. John also mentions Jesus making the required pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the various festivals, more than any of the other gospels writers. John was not disparaging Judaism or ruling out Jewish participation. He was simply recognizing the fact that mainstream Judaism, as being rebuilt at that time in the rabbinic model, and Christianity were now on different paths. I see no indication of John being modified with the exception of the added-on Chapter 21. John is otherwise a coherent work exhibiting a continuous viewpoint. That viewpoint involves abandoning the idea of the end of days being imminent as originally thought and settling down for the long run with an established church and theology that were now distinct from Judaism.

Rabbi Sandmel wasn't inferring it was completely anti-Jewish, but only the seeds of it are seen there. As far as the "end of days", they learned as we all do.

Rabbi Sandmel said that the Gospel of John gave the impression that no Jews ever followed Jesus, contrary to the Synoptic Gospels. I pointed out that John does refer to Jews who followed Jesus. But he nonetheless refers to Jews as ‘Jews’ suggesting that his community saw themselves as fully separate from Judaism.

(11-09-2017 03:23 PM)journeyman Wrote:  
Quote:Imprecise Interrupt Wrote
The Second Temple was built and stood from sometime in the 6th century BC to 70 AD when it was destroyed during the Jewish Revolt. In between it was greatly enhanced. The specifications used were not the same as in Ezekiel. Jewish scriptures say that it was not to be built in that fashion because Israel was back to its old ways. This is how the prophecy of Jeremiah about the messianic age commencing with the return from the Exile became instead a prophecy about the future Olam Ha-Ba as previously discussed. Sounds to me like a cover story because it would not have been possible to build according to those grandiose specifications with the resources available. Not until Herod the Great did the Temple become the grand wonder that so impressed those who visited Jerusalem. I see no reason to connect Jesus with any of this except in having an answer in search of a question.

The question was asked and answered when the 1st temple was built (1 Ki.8:27) and then asked and answered again (Is.66:1-2.) So we see the house where God dwells is in those who fear Him.

1 Kings 8:27 “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!”

This is from the middle of Solomon’s dedication speech for the First Temple. Following this, he declares that prayers to God should be directed in the direction of the Temple. The Lord dwelt there, as well as in heaven.

“In Solomon's Temple the Holy of Holies formed a part of the house of Yhwh” Ref

God dwelling on Earth referred to the Holy of Holies, where on the Day of Atonement the High Priest entered that sanctuary and spoke the Name of God. It does not refer to Jesus being born as a human.

Now Isaiah…
Quote:Isaiah 66

1 This is what the Lord says:

“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
Where is the house you will build for me?
Where will my resting place be?
2
Has not my hand made all these things,
and so they came into being?”
declares the Lord.

“These are the ones I look on with favor:
those who are humble and contrite in spirit,
and who tremble at my word.

A ‘prophetic’ reference to the restoration of the Temple following return from the Exile. What do you think it means?

(11-09-2017 03:23 PM)journeyman Wrote:  
Quote:Imprecise Interrupt Wrote
It was Rashi quoting Sifre actually.

Are you saying that the meaning of Deuteronomy 11:21 that there will be a resurrection of the dead was clear to you before reading any commentary of the matter? Did you read it in the Hebrew? If not, can you point me to the particular English translation that you derived this knowledge from? Or just what did you mean.

I simply meant it was obvious to me as a follower of Jesus that Gods' promise not only to Abrahams' descendants, but to Abraham himself can only be accomplished by resurrection from the dead.

The promise God made to Abraham is that he would have many descendants, including kings, and that his descendants will have the clan of Canaan. God calls this an everlasting covenant. Is the everlasting part what you mean by resurrection from the dead? Can you explain the connection with resurrection?

(11-09-2017 03:23 PM)journeyman Wrote:  
Quote:Imprecise Interrupt Wrote
Here is how Chabad translates it. The context is keeping the commandments.

Quote:in order that your days may increase and the days of your children, on the land which the Lord swore to your forefathers to give them, as the days of heaven above the earth.

So God promised the Patriarchs who didn't have the law, but now the
stipulation is the law. What's wrong with that picture?

Another case of God adding on more conditions after fulfilling prior promises, as in Genesis 6 and 9 and Genesis 15 and 17. God stated in Genesis 15 that the children of Abraham would be enslaved for 400 years but would then be freed to take possession of the land that was promised. As in the previous examples, there were more conditions added later on. The Hebrews had been freed and would receive a great deal of divine support in ousting the current residents of the promised land. But in what by now is a tradition, there are more rules to obey. Notice that these new rules pertain very much to a well-ordered society and the continuing preservation of the religion based culture in the midst of foreign cultures. Also notice that the rules of the two previous covenants were subsumed in the latest set.

(11-09-2017 03:23 PM)journeyman Wrote:  
Quote:Imprecise Interrupt Wrote
Rashi made some comments about Christians being heretics, which from his viewpoint is correct. But I do not see how that relates to the discussion at hand.

It matters because anyone subjected to prejudice may be affected by it in how he views someone (in this case Jesus) who had nothing to do with it. I did come across an alleged quote of Rashis' where
he is said to have attributed the servant of God to Israel, not the Messiah, because of how the Christians view it (pertaining to Jesus.)

Apparently the person who made this assertion (a Jew who believed in Jesus named Steve Schwarz) was aware of some writing of Rashis' that I'm not currently aware of. But it's no secret that prejudice affected even Rambam because of his comment that because of Jesus, Jews were slaughtered. It's quite possible in Bar Kotchvahs' day, the followers of Jesus refused to fight Rome, but is that a fault? I'll finish the rest later.

I believe I already addressed this point someplace. But it is easy enough to repeat. Jesus himself was Jewish, if perhaps not completely in accord with rabbinic Judaism and the Oral Torah. Christianity became distinct from Judaism and the trouble started. People who used the word ‘Jesus’ a whole lot were doing really bad things to Jews. The ‘deeds of Jesus’ were not anything Jesus personally did or even inspired. But the name was associated with Christianity and Christians did a lot of bad things to Jews.

Jews considered bar Kokhba the Messiah. Christians already had their own Messiah and refused to fight for a different one. That caused a great deal of bad blood between them, although by then (132 AD) there had already been not a little vitriolic verbal sparring. By Rambam’s time, relations had worsened much more and would get even worse.

And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice
Dylan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2017, 07:13 PM
Post: #45
RE: The Sacrifice Of Jesus
(11-09-2017 06:41 PM)journeyman Wrote:  
Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
The traditions one finds in the Jewish scriptures is that salvation will be about ‘the nations’ being defeated and the people of Jacob (the Jews) will be left in peace in a perfected world. Originally there was no concept of an afterlife except the vague existence in Sheol. The idea of a real afterlife gradually grew but at first it was for all Jews. Later the idea of judgment based on individual behavior appeared. This idea appears only in late scripture like Daniel. But it is present in both non-canonical works and in the Oral Torah that would later be recorded as the Mishnah. While there are a variety of opinions, the exact nature of an afterlife and the criteria for getting there are not canonically fixed in even Orthodox Judaism.

Just how much "later" do you think Jews hold the Oral Torah to be?

Jewish tradition has it that the Oral Torah was given the same time as the Written Torah, but not written down at that time. The Mishnah is the written record of the Oral Torah traditions. They began to be written down following the destruction of the Temple. The final single coherent form appeared in the 4th century. Do not confuse this with the Mishneh Torah written centuries later by Maimonides.

(11-09-2017 06:41 PM)journeyman Wrote:  
Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
Idolatry is specifically the worship of false gods via idols. The Torah includes laws against idolatry. But violating some other commandment, like putting tzitzit on the corners of clothing, is not idolatry. As I said earlier, a figure of speech is one thing. But neither Judaism nor Christianity believe that violating a commandment literally puts one above God. If that were the case, believing that there can be something higher than God, would negate the value of the religion.

Please show me where Rashi says that violating any part of the Torah is idolatry. I do not recall any such documentation previously.

You simply disagreed. Here it is again.

"De.27:26
Here [in this curse,] Moses included the entire Torah, and they accepted it upon themselves with a curse and an oath. — [see Shevuoth 36a] Rashi

Rashi does not say anything about idolatry there. As I said, idolatry is a violation of the Torah, there being an explicit injunction against it. But not every violation of a mitzvah of the Torah is idolatry. Regardless, putting one’s self above God can work as a figure of speech but not literally. If I were in fact truly above God, I could start issuing my own rules and God help God if the does not obey them. Tongue

(11-09-2017 06:41 PM)journeyman Wrote:  
Quote:Imprecise Interupt Wrote
Sola fide means ‘faith alone’ and it does not appear anywhere in scriptures. It was invented by Martin Luther. Luther himself said that it took a great deal of thought to come to that conclusion. I have already dealt with Paul’s apparently intentional misinterpretation of Habakkuk and do not intend to go there again. My point in this discussion was to show that Deuteronomy 9 referred to a single case and did not express any generic theological principles.

You're having a problem understanding the purpose of the law.

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." Ps.19:7

And what does that have to do with a discussion of ‘sola fide’? In Deuteronomy 9, God told the Israelites to go kill the Anakites and take their land not because the Israelites were especially righteous – which they were not - but because God wanted the evil Anakites dead. This was a specific instance and not a general rule.

So what does Psalms or the purpose of the law have to do with that?

And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice
Dylan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-14-2017, 10:54 AM
Post: #46
RE: The Sacrifice Of Jesus
(11-08-2017 01:16 PM)Amememhab Wrote:  We concur that the notion of Messiah as teacher must have occurred in first century Jewish thought, with scripture citations to back it up. Question I have, is where in the Hebrew bible? Certainly not Isaiah 52 and 53, which describe a suffering servant but not necessarily a teacher, even though a teacher is a servant, or Jeremiah 31, which actually says that the people will stop teaching and receive instruction directly from God, whom they’re now with.

Jer.31 does say that, but it also says,

"Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke turn Thou me and I shall be turned...
Surely after that I was turned I repented and after that I was instructed..." Jer.31:18-19

Instruction being given after repentance is taught throughout scripture, so it's logical that when teaching is no longer necessary neither will repentance be needed and if that is the case, it's plausible the time when teaching "know the Lord" is no longer necessary will be in the next life, not this one...a view that appears to be supported by the Talmud:

"Resh Lakish opposed [two verses to each other]. It is written, [I will gather them …] with the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together;  whilst it is also written, Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing, for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.  How so?  — They shall rise with their defects and then be healed." Sanhedrin 91b

He's quoting Jer.31:8, although the "Christian" view is that in the resurrection, the people of God are simply raised with no defect.

As far as Isaiah, there are (allegedly) rabbinical commentary connecting the suffering servant to the Messiah, but I haven't cited them because I haven't been able to access the yalkut, targum, etc. in which the rabbis are said to have made such statements. I'll keep looking.

I'll get to the rest of your post later.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-15-2017, 10:00 AM (This post was last modified: 11-15-2017 11:39 AM by Amememhab.)
Post: #47
RE: The Sacrifice Of Jesus
Indeed, Journeyman. The bull runneth loose in his paddock, unwilling to carry the harness and plow. I dunno what to say. We worship a great God.

(11-14-2017 10:54 AM)journeyman Wrote:  [Sanhedrin:] It is written, [I will gather them …] with the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together; whilst it is also written, Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing, for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.

Considering what the Sanhedrin did to Christ Jesus circa 33 CE, I don’t much like them. Where precisely was that quote, anyway? I take your word it was uttered, yet you didn’t cite it completely. But yeah. Our Lord shall gather the hobbled, to comfort them.

I think you believe in Christ, Journeyman, and you try to follow him, as I do, although you tend to interpret scripture texts literally where I see endless allegory, metaphor, metonymy, and allusion to an unseen cosmos God prepares for us but we can’t comprehend—we humans are of sad, limited minds. Satyros recently posted a picture of a mountain crisscrossed by trails, upon which people around our planet were trying to climb, to reach the summit.

So we crawl the Christian path on our hands and knees, sinking to our bellies to inch the last thousand feet to the summit. And poor Amememhab quails at the roughness of this journey through a Mordor of evil (J.R.R. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings), ever up that hill, the path getting narrower and steeper with each step, treacherous gravel underfoot constantly threating to spin me off the path into the talus hundreds of feet below, to die the human death.

Yeah. Satyros and Herminator of Holland will make it there, but they’re sure gonna pant for breaths with sore feet as they near the top. In God’s “house of many mansions” (John 14:2) will Satyros find his gods Odin and Thor, and Herm his beloved Reason. God doesn’t generally throw people into hell, and Hades is headed for the lake of fire anyway (Revelation 20:14)

Journeyman, we are improved over angels, and in the next cosmos some of us shall wear a crown to judge the world, as saints, in white robes, as martyrs, who bend to the chopping block on the gallows beneath the headsman’s axe which severs our heads, yet we’re washed clean in Christ Jesus, white in our robes, now to live forever and ever. “There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Romans 8:1). Death, goodbye. Death’s toast in the New Cosmos.

Brother Journeymen, as you walk the Christian faith, and pain enters your steps, making each forward move and plant of the foot come with ever-greater difficulty, recall that “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him” (James 1:12).

So, wear the crown of life and love the planet we live upon as God did (John 3:16). You’re not me; you’re not your brother, for

“The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren” (Genesis 49:26).

You stated belief in your earlier post:

(11-09-2017 07:31 PM)journeyman Wrote:  All I need to do is tell people what Jesus has done in my life.

That’s plenty said. Walk the Path of Pain in faith, brother. Please be safe and God speed.

Manmade changes in atmospheric chemistry, namely the hike of CO2 concentration in air from the 0.03% quoted in my college physics texts to 0.04% now, with apparent attendant hikes in temperature and cloudiness in most places on this God-given blue, white and green Earth, melting of the Arctic ice, and promise of further trend to come. Denialists in the cartoon-Jesus hate churches say as they wish, yet each year I seem to notice the Utah winter less snowy than it had been in the 1980s or early ’90s, the inches on late January valley floors fewer, the whitecap on the mountain with a higher hemline, the summer with a water shortage. You know they close the irrigation valves in a dry summer here, letting the hay and corn die? Yah. I’m glad we had local peaches this September.

The pastor in my church, who is a woman, preaches on climate change. And in Christ’s name, I believe her. In the 21st century we face grave threats from land use pattern changes, industrial effluents, including the SUVs so many of us drive, new evils driven by inexorable world population growth. I remember 1976 when the figure’d just passed 4 billion people walking our globe. Now it’s 7½, almost double what it was that day. Oh, no! Fear! Fire! Foes! Men of good honor, prepare for battle (J.R.R. Tolkien,The Fellowship of the Ring).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-16-2017, 10:35 AM
Post: #48
RE: The Sacrifice Of Jesus
(11-08-2017 01:16 PM)Amememhab Wrote:  Teaching by Jewish tribesmen the Lord has called by name occurs at Exodus 35:30-34 (Bezalel and Oholiab), but not in a Messianic context, only a context of prowess. Job 12:8 says the plants of the Earth will teach us. Moses is the closest thing to Messiah I can see in the Hebrew bible. So far, Imprecise Interrupt seems to have the tennis court to himself—I confess I’m not sure how the Messiah-teacher was arrived at, only Jesus’s hearers calling him “Master” in the gospels.

Your reference to Job saying plants can teach us is astounding. If that wisdom was applied to the scriptures, Jews would see how Jesus fulfilled all prophecy.

(11-08-2017 01:16 PM)Amememhab Wrote:  Drazin Com’s article is mostly a list of biblical and rabbinic quotes, the latter generally affirming the Hebrew bible. One cannot refute a debate opponent by simply listing quotes from authority; one must construct an argument in own words. Drazin never did so. They haven’t refuted the Christian missionaries as they claim to have done. Hence I wouldn’t rely on their web site were I a Jew resisting Christianization, unless just to retrieve rabbinical and Talmudic quotes to use. Class dismissed. Drazin ought rewrite their paper. They’re on a hobby horse against Christianity, anyway.

I think the point of the article was, Jesus is immersed in Torah. Smile

(11-08-2017 01:16 PM)Amememhab Wrote:  Also hard for me to read a teacher into Isaiah 42:4, where islands wait for God’s law. Verses 6 and 7 are more promising: “I the Lord have called thee in righteousness...for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.” This sounds almost like a social worker as well as teacher. But who does the second-person pronoun “thee” refer to?

Since the sheep follow the Shepherd, it's easy to see how confusion cover who the "thee" refers to.

(11-08-2017 01:16 PM)Amememhab Wrote:  Still, I think the Messiah-teacher thing really caught on only in the 1st century CE or somewhat later; even Jesus never directly calling himself Messiah—he preferred the term “Son of Man.” Christians aren’t big on Messiah, as they think of kingdom “not of this world” and second coming instead, even though God’s kingdom was to be installed on Earth.

It's a shame when Christian teaching doesn't differentiate between the world and the earth.

(11-08-2017 01:16 PM)Amememhab Wrote:  I don’t have much expertise on this issue. I can see your point, that the seeds of a Messiah-teacher are sprinkled throughout the Old Testament. To germinate, however, those seed passages require fresh interpretation. I suspect old-line Jews thought of teaching as a function of prophets, with Messiah a deliverer who leads politically. And I’m gonna defer to Imprecise Interrupt regarding how today’s Jews might view Messiah, as I don’t really know. Opinion in the Jewish community probably varies in a complex way, but most hardly want Christ taking over all those functions.

I don't have much expertise on extra biblical Jewish writings either. You could probably spend ten lifetimes reading it all and even then might not have an unbiased view of the scriptures.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 02:10 PM (This post was last modified: Yesterday 02:45 PM by Amememhab.)
Post: #49
RE: The Sacrifice Of Jesus
(11-16-2017 10:35 AM)journeyman Wrote:  Your reference to Job saying plants can teach us is astounding. If that wisdom was applied to the scriptures, Jews would see how Jesus fulfilled all prophecy... Since the sheep follow the Shepherd, it's easy to see how confusion cover who the "thee" refers to... I think the point...was, Jesus is immersed in Torah. It's a shame when Christian teaching doesn't differentiate between the world and the earth.

Ja. I ain’t too hip to this tough stuff. I struggle to imagine the day, now thousands of years past, when the biblical Hebrews applied the Torah, after Hammurabi’s Babylonian law code perhaps the ancient world’s first decent law of the land, and ja: Christ Jesus learnt and lived that Torah, all the way to the day Pontius Pilate had him nailed to a cross.

Yet plants teach us, the milkweed of 2017 springing up green in its clone, purple flowers in June, then, pollinated by bees, developed its seed pods, to brown and release hundreds of seeds come October. The stalks die, as freeze looms, yet only above ground, as the root lives year after year.

What does the milkweed say? Rather it’s the sentient, smart little beetle Tetraopes tetropthalmus, munching a leaf of that milkweed, who says it to us: “Fall on your knees, and worship the Lord thy God.” I captured one of the beetles, keeping it in prison in a jar with daily fresh milkweed ldeaf, until I had to release it back into the milkweed patch because it’d tries so hard to chew its way out of the paper towel I’d covered the mouth of the jar with. She was so smart, always returning to the same spot to chew when I knocked her to the bottom of the jar, because even this insect of a 20000-neuron ventral nerve cord knew the best approach to win an escape.

Christianity does distinguish between Earth and world. The former, a planet we walk upon, the latter, a sociality we converse in. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). My favorite verse in the Holy Bible.

I’m upticking your rep, by the way. We disagree, but you’ve strived to make arguments on this forum, som of them quite powerful. Good luck, and God speed. Nice post.

Journeyman
Religion Forums
http://www.religionforums.org/Thread-The...#pid300187

“Thee” is the Stuart English second-person singular or plural object pronoun, object of a verb in this case, and its referent should be fairly clear.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)