The implicit Resurrection within the Jewish system

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 140
#61
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Where did I say that the Torah laws were binding forever. I've never hung my argument on what you claim. You are putting words in my mouth, just making it up.

You never did – the Torah, itself did. That’s the point! If you want to rely on the words of the “scripture” then you shouldn’t be denying the claim the text makes about being eternal.
 
With the change of priesthood comes a change in laws. Thus, here is a question for you. Do you believe that the covenant God made with Moses is still in effect?

Yes.

the old covenant or Mosaic covenant system can no longer be followed as stipulated or required and agreed to.

According to how YOU understand it.

What? So, any prophecy about the future means nothing?

No, I never said that. I said that not every prophecy is about the future, nor is it intrinsic to prophecy to be about the future, so looking at prophecies which might not be about the future and deciding that they are because you misunderstand what prophecy is would be an error.

As if yours is unlimited and authoritative. You pretend to speak as if what you say is binding. I'm not impressed. Instead, I continually bring you to God's Word. What does it say?

I have brought you God’s word repeatedly. You keep saying “I don’t know Hebrew” and yet you ask for God’s word? My understanding is neither unlimited nor authoritative, but Judaism’s views of its own texts should be authoritative.
 
Your Scripture speaks of a specific person.

Many specific people.

Is this just a game to you?

Yup. Well, not "just" but largely.

Is that your purpose in life, or on this thread, to make the important issues a game?

On this thread? No, my purpose is to point out how little you know and to help others who read this to see that your assertions are made through a particular lens, one which is not as informed about Judaism as you think, so that others might be inspired to learn more before they glom on to your claims. The fact that it is also fun is icing on the cake.

Are you intentionally trying to make a fool of me.

Not without your help.

do you care about truth and conveying it?

Sure. That’s what I’m doing. Does that mean it can’t be fun?

 If so, present why what you believe is God's teachings from Scripture on the issues we are discussing.

I have but you call them assertions and interpretations.

Do you not think Gentiles are worthy?

Of what?

So you say, without anything other than your assertion.

Actually, I quoted the relevant biblical text, twice.

Why do you think that an addition to the Mishnah or the Talmud itself is on par with God's Word?

If you ask that, then you don’t understand what Jews believe about text. Thanks for cementing that fact. Just looking up a word in Google doesn’t tell you anything about context I guess.
 
Yes, I don't know Hebrew, so you think that bars me from knowing God. You seem to think that what God said cannot be known by anyone other than those who speak Hebrew and are Jews. It is kind of like Muslims saying that only those who speak Arabic can understand the Qur'an and what it means. You seem to think that God cannot make Himself clear to anyone but a stiff-necked people who continually ignored or misinterpreted His message by adding to it a number of traditions.
 
Have you ever read Shakespeare in any language other than English? I have. Do you think someone who only reads Shakespeare in another language (or even an updated English version) really “gets” everything that Shakespeare put in there? I can assure you, he doesn’t.
 
What you do is put words there that either come from your mind or some other rabbis mind, without Scriptural reference or proof of interpretation other than by the Talmud or Mishnah. So you continually bring forth what seems to me as your idea of a greater authority than God's word itself.

See, again – if you don’t like it or understand it, you decide that it is something external. If that’s your method then so be it.
 
Finally, you seem to think that there is nothing equivalent to the Hebrew words, so that anyone who is not Jewish and cannot speak Hebrew cannot know God.

I don’t recall saying that. I do believe that anyone who has not studied Hebrew should not be making arguments predicated on an understanding of Hebrew and Hebrew grammar and anyone who has not studied Judaism should not be making assertions about Judaism and its understanding of its own texts.

are you saying that the Hebrew words below do not correspond to the English translation so that we Gentiles cannot know what is being said? 

That’s certainly true by the way (though it isn’t about “Gentiles” – a Jew who can’t study text in Hebrew is missing out also; this is why we teach it).
 
You seem to think that God, who made humanity in His image and likeness, has no compassion for the Gentiles at all, ever. But what do those verses above say?

That’s your interpretation I guess. Judaism teaches the exact opposite.
 
What about Jeremiah 31? Will He not establish a new covenant with the house of Jacob and Israel that includes the nations of the earth?

You misunderstand and quote the verse incompletely. Do you know what the content of that renewed covenant will be? Do you know the part of the verse which explains how it will be different and how the same?
 
So, could you afford a bull, goat, or lamb, according to your position, such as that of a ruler, or rabbi, the latter being an anointed class?

An anointed class? A rabbi? No…and this isn’t about what I could afford. This is about what the text lays out as a suitable sin sacrifice for those who cannot afford a mammal or bird.
#62
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Tradesecret
Pointing out that you are a bully and have personal vendettas is not being a victim. It is calling you out as a bully and personal.  

The fact is - you have been well and truly beaten up over a long period - and the only way you feel you can score a point is by attacking people.  I can't recall the last time you actually persuasively refuted an argument.  Against anyone. 
I agree with you, TradeSecret!

Is that personal?  Probably, I suppose I have been watching you too long. 

#63
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends

Post 49, Part 2:

“Yes, I'm sure you can, and I invite you to do so, according to the way you understand Isaiah 53 as the nation of Israel. I will then show you why your interpretation does not work. I'm letting you know - go ahead.”

Books have been written on this. I’ll refer you to 2 websites because it is faster than showing you verses in Hebrew and grammar you can’t understand. https://uriyosef.wordpress.com/2020/03/19/who-is-the-suffering-servant-in-isaiah-53-part-i-the-jewish-interpretation-valid-or-not-2/
https://www.drazin.com/index07b1.html?12._The_Suffering_Servant
There are plenty of others.
I will get back to you on this section, as soon as I have considered it and a suitable response. 
I investigated and could not find evidence of some of the references in the article. 

The article said:

It is interesting to note that not all Christians subscribe to this view on "Isaiah 53". Several prominent Christian sources agree with the common Jewish perspective that the suffering servant in the Fourth Servant Song is a reference to collective Israel, the Jewish people. For example, Christian bibles, such as the New Revised Standard Version Bible (NRSV), The New Jerusalem Bible, and The Oxford Study Bible, identify Israel as the suffering servant of "Isaiah 53".

Where do they do this??? Here are the first two references, the NRSV, and the New Jerusalem Bible on Isaiah 53:


***

Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, a Messianic Jew, while agreeing on the Four Servant theme of Isaiah, has a different take on what the servant passages portray from your take, as do numerous other messianic Jewish believers in Jesus. Thus, I find justification from sources other than the plain meaning of Jewish text of Isaiah 53. Dr. Fruchtenbaum explains that some rabbis saw a portrayal of two Messiahs, the suffering and dying Messiah "termed Mashiach ben Yosef or Messiah, the Son of Joseph" and then the second Messiah following the first, "termed Mashiach ben David or Messiah, the Son of David." (see 00:16:05) Furthermore, in his book, titled "Jesus was a Jew," on Isaiah 53, he states that until the 1100s, no rabbis thought of that passage as speaking of Israel but of speaking of the Messiah, the suffering servant, who would come before the conquering Messiah. Jesus fits both these messianic figures.    

***

Dr. Fruchtenbaum's identification of the four suffering servant passages speak of the same suffering servant - Jesus:
  1. Isaiah 42:1-4 --> "the ministry of the Servant at His First Coming" and relates to how Jesus fulfilled that aspect.
  2. Isaiah 49:1-13 -> i. the rejected servant, ii. once rejected, He becomes "a light to the Gentiles," iii—the final regathering and restoration of Israel. 
  3. Isaiah 50:4-9 - Messiah's suffering just before death.
  4. Isaiah 52:13-53:12 --> i. suffering of the servant, ii. death of the servant.
***

Your link focused on "the Scientific Method," but its key observations were logically flawed in identifying the servant according to a Judaic narrative. Therefore, the link's identity is not necessarily true, for there are other logical scenarios that it does not well represent. Table III.B-1 shows how the servant can change within the context of one book. The book of Isaiah alone names five different servants of the Lord, and the passage in question does not identify the servant by name. Instead, it calls the servant by the singular pronoun 'he/him." Not only this, many rabbis have questioned the pronoun reference to Israel and have instead linked it with the Messiah. 
 
The descriptions of Isaiah 53 tie in precisely with the NT Messiah and what we know of Him. Time after time, the servant of the Lord is seen as a suffering servant as Jesus was in His crucifixion and death (and His first coming). The passage describes method and purpose of His life and especially death in detail, as laid out further in the NT. 

Scientific Method - Observation Stage (per your link):
If you take the first three verses of Isaiah 53 in the Jewish Scriptures, how do you reconcile what is said with Israel? Here they are:

1Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? אמִ֥י הֶֽאֱמִ֖ין לִשְׁמֻֽעָתֵ֑נוּ וּזְר֥וֹעַ יְהֹוָ֖ה עַל־מִ֥י נִגְלָֽתָה:
2And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him? בוַיַּ֨עַל כַּיּוֹנֵ֜ק לְפָנָ֗יו וְכַשֹּׁ֙רֶשׁ֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ צִיָּ֔ה לֹא־תֹ֥אַר ל֖וֹ וְלֹ֣א הָדָ֑ר וְנִרְאֵ֥הוּ וְלֹֽא־מַרְאֶ֖ה וְנֶֽחְמְדֵֽהוּ:
3Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised, and we held him of no account.

So you say "he" refers to Israel, but then who does "we" refer to, Israel also? For instance, let's replace the two pronouns with Israel in just verse 2 and se how his makes sense:

2And [Israel] came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, [Israel] had neither form nor comeliness; and [Israel] saw [Israel] that [Israel] had no appearance. Now shall [Israel] desire [Israel]?

Is it logical to say the "he" and "we" refer to the same person or entity? No, it is not.

Does the "man" in verse 3 mean an actual man, or does this also represent Israel through personification? Who is the man hiding his face from? Is "he" not representative of Israel? Is Israel hiding from Israel?

***

Take one more example:

8From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them. חמֵעֹ֚צֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט֙ לֻקָּ֔ח וְאֶת־דּוֹר֖וֹ מִ֣י יְשׂוֹחֵ֑חַ כִּ֚י נִגְזַר֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ חַיִּ֔ים מִפֶּ֥שַׁע עַמִּ֖י נֶ֥גַע לָֽמוֹ:
9And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. טוַיִּתֵּ֚ן אֶת־רְשָׁעִים֙ קִבְר֔וֹ וְאֶת־עָשִׁ֖יר בְּמֹתָ֑יו עַל לֹֽא־חָמָ֣ס עָשָׂ֔ה וְלֹ֥א מִרְמָ֖ה בְּפִֽיו:

Has Israel committed no violence? Was no deceit found in his/her (which is it) mouth? Why the distinction between "his" and "her?" Does not God in other Scripture compare Israel to His wife? 

For he [Israel] was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people [Israel?](which people?), a plague befell them.

As you can see, the verses do not make sense if you substitute the pronoun "he" with Israel?

***

I want you to address if your concept of Isaiah 53 is consistent with the early teachings of Judaism and the teachings of the early rabbis? I don't believe it is, but I am willing to look at your proof.

I read the plain exegetical meaning of Isaiah 53, expressing an individual, not a nation, as Dr. Fruchtenbaum points out, and I reiterate. Your interpretation is read into the text, as nowhere in these particular passages is Israel called by name, as it is in other passages.
 
1) i. He, Him, His pronouns speak of a singular, particular person in the text, the suffering servant. 
   ii. My, we, us, they, and them, all speak of Isaiah and his audience, Israel. 

He (the individual servant) suffers for me, us, and our (Isaiah and the people). "We" is a different meaning from "him" and is the purpose of using the contrasting pronouns.

2) As a singular, innocent, willingly, silent person, he suffers on behalf of others who are guilty.

Conclusion: What you do, as a Jew,  is read into the text something it does not say.

#64
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Where do they do this?

I haven't checked all of Uri's claims -- I can get you his email if you would like and you can ask him. I did do a quick look see about Isaiah and pretty quickly found the NASB's text "Just as many were appalled at you, My people, So His appearance was marred beyond that of a man, And His form beyond the sons of mankind."

So there are certainly examples.

Jesus fits both these messianic figures.    

If you are going to rely on the claims of a Christian about Judaism (call him a "messianic" anything if it makes you happy. He clearly knows very little of Judaism and Jewish scholarship) then you have to decide if you are buying in to his sources. Jewish sources teach that there may or may not be a "son of Joseph" messiah, but that if there is, he is shot by an arrow and dies but his death is immediately followed by the appearance of the son of David messiah. So since there was no "immediately followed by" then the application fails. Jesus, by the way, fails in a role as a messiah for independent reasons. You needn't search here to find something which doesn't work.

 The book of Isaiah alone names five different servants of the Lord

Actually, the book explicitly identifies the servant with the nation of Israel repeatedly, starting in 41:8 "But, you Israel, are My servant; Jacob, whom I have chosen; seed of Abraham, My friend." That the nation is called by more than one name is textually precedented all over the place.

the passage in question does not identify the servant by name

That's true. Jesus is indeed, NOT named.

it calls the servant by the singular pronoun 'he/him."

Do you know the central statement in Judaism of God's monotheistic uniqueness? It is called the Sh'ma. You might want to see what number the second person imperative verb is in when it addresses the nation. Also, maybe look at the pronoun in Isaiah 41:8 and check the number there. Yeah...calling the nation by the singular is sort of a common thing in the bible.

who does "we" refer to, Israel also? 

No, not at all. You should go back to 51 and 52 and figure out who is actually speaking the words of 53 so you can see who the first person references are about.

Does not God in other Scripture compare Israel to His wife?

Yes, and to a son (Ex 4:22) so clearly your concern over gender is a matter of poetic writing choice, not a literal signifier of gender.

Why do you not read the section as a whole, and ignore what the text explicitly says, and instead insist on inserting something not at all in the text?

#65
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
Post 49, Part 3:

“Go ahead.   If you don't want to do it here, create a thread.  None of the NT means anything without the resurrection, per the Apostle Paul. He said if it did not happen, our faith was in vain. Jesus was the sacrifice that God resurrected from death. Israel of God is not a physical nation but those who do the will of God. His will is to believe in His Son who has met His righteous requirement. The New Israel of God worships God as He requires, in spirit and in truth.  “

Just like in Harry Potter! Isn’t self-serving fiction incredible? I mean, just look at this paragraph of assertions you have made, all based on the fairy tales you rely on as self-justified.
False analogy. What does Harry Potter have to do with any of this? It does not, in any way, address the biblical narrative. 

“Opinions are nothing but assertions without proof. You are backing nothing up, just asserting it, over and over.”

Remember that tosefta I quoted that you can’t read? Yeah. Anything you don’t like is an assertion and anything you claim must be true. Got it.
Again, I don't read Hebrew so it is up to you to make your meanings clear. I provided the Hebrew script for your purposes, not mine.  Tosefta is a tradition, the very point Jesus makes to those who twisted Scripture. 

Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”


“The eternal covenant has met fulfillment on behalf of believers in Jesus. The Old Covenant does not exist as Israel of old agreed to it.”

That is, in your words, “an assertion.” You prove it with a text which has no value so it remains unproven. The text says that the covenant is eternal but you don’t like that part so you rely on the sequel which says “no, it changed because we say so.”
I express teachings that are not my own. They were written down by Jews claiming to speak from God. 

For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Benediction
Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, that is, Jesus our Lord,

All your claims here, let me just reiterate something from your (and mine) Scriptures:
 
17He who pleads his case first seems just, but his neighbor comes and searches him out. 
יזצַדִּ֣יק הַרִאשׁ֣וֹן בְּרִיב֑וֹ יּבָֽא־וּבָֽא־רֵ֜עֵ֗הוּ וַחֲקָרֽוֹ:

“All along I have been saying that you cannot meet God righteous requirements in the Law of Moses for sin, AS PRESCRIBED. Thus, you cannot justify yourself before God according to His laws.”

But your claim was about God’s condoning immoral behavior with no consequences. And, back to the same point – you don’t even understand how the text says to meet the requirements (there’s that verse you don’t know and Lev 5:11 which you deny exists).
Nope, I conceded your point but also asked if you were rich enough God required the best offering for the identified class, the priesthood. Thus the sacrifice of an animal is not offered by your class. Where do you find that practiced today? You don't. Thus, you are not living according to the Law of Moses that required your finest offering. 

“He does not want YOUR human sacrifices”

So your vision of God is one who wants certain human sacrifice. Gross.
Nope. You are reading into my correspondence something I never suggested. I never said God wanted human sacrifices for the voluntary sacrifice of His Son was sufficient for all time. No other sacrifice could ever meet His righteous requirement, just the one and only. 

“Which laws and texts?”

אָֽנֹכִ֥י אָֽנֹכִ֖י דַ וְאֵ֥ין מִבַּלְעָדַ֖י מוֹשִֽׁיעַ
Right there, black letter support.
Again, I do not find this amusing. It is a failure to communicate to anyone but those who read Hebrew. It offers no proof for those who don't. 

“The Suffering Servant is consistently presented as an individual and not as a plurality or collective noun,”

Your essential argument is about singular vs. plural in the reference to a nation as a collective? One look at בּרכת כּהנים proves your thesis untenable. Of course, this would require you understand Hebrew which you have admitted you don’t. So, what…you write responses which hinge on Hebrew grammar when you admit you don’t know Hebrew? That’s a bit intellectually dishonest. I’m not surprised, of course…
Although I don't read or speak Hebrew I rely on the knowledge of those who do, and that there is sufficient equivalency or else no one could understand God but the Jews and God would be limited in His ability to communicate to others than Jews (heaven forbid).  

“Not the law, those who try and keep it. They never worshiped as required by law. The law is righteous but the very fact is that Israel could never, never, never live up to the Law.”

So God set people up to be failures. Even though he says explicitly that this isn’t the case. OK.
כִּ֚י הַמִּצְוָ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּ֑וֹם לֹא־נִפְלֵ֥את הִוא֙ מִמְּךָ֔ וְלֹ֥א רְחֹקָ֖ה הִֽוא׃
לֹ֥א בַשָּׁמַ֖יִם הִ֑וא לֵאמֹ֗ר מִ֣י יַעֲלֶה־לָּ֤נוּ הַשָּׁמַ֙יְמָה֙ וְיִקָּחֶ֣הָ לָּ֔נוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵ֥נוּ אֹתָ֖הּ וְנַעֲשֶֽׂנָּה׃
וְלֹא־מֵעֵ֥בֶר לַיָּ֖ם הִ֑וא לֵאמֹ֗ר מִ֣י יַעֲבׇר־לָ֜נוּ אֶל־עֵ֤בֶר הַיָּם֙ וְיִקָּחֶ֣הָ לָּ֔נוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵ֥נוּ אֹתָ֖הּ וְנַעֲשֶֽׂנָּה׃
כִּֽי־קָר֥וֹב אֵלֶ֛יךָ הַדָּבָ֖ר מְאֹ֑ד בְּפִ֥יךָ וּבִֽלְבָבְךָ֖ לַעֲשֹׂתֽוֹ׃
 
I mean, how can it be any more clear? Oh, wait – you can’t read Hebrew so this must not exist.
He showed their inadequacy through their example. That can be shown over and over again. God was displeased with them.

And your reply means nothing to me nor probably the majority reading this. You have offered no evidence to us. I remember a pastor once saying that if you want to communicate effectively make sure you take the hay down from the loft so the cattle can graze on it, metaphorically speaking of course. 

“Those OT Jews who had faith in God were justified by the sacrifice that was to be given later.”

People are not justified and one cannot get the benefit of something that hasn’t happened.
Yes, they are justified before God not on the bases of what they have done but on the merit of Another. 

 Yes, they can be justified - by faith, and upon something that has not yet happened. Abraham believed God and his belief was credited to him as righteous. He reasoned that God was able to raise the dead and that God would restore Isaac to life. He also was looking for a country that was not his own, a heavenly country. 
#66
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
What does Harry Potter have to do with any of this? It does not, in any way, address the biblical narrative. 

He is as fictional as any of the characters you cite and his text is as fictional as your gospels. So your claim that citing him is parallel to my claim about the text you cite.

 Tosefta is a tradition

No, it isn't and Jesus wouldn't have said so either. Just because you don't understand doesn't change anything. And saying you don't read Hebrew should remind you that you shouldn't then be making arguments about a Hebrew text that you can't read.

They were written down by Jews claiming to speak from God. 

You say this and quote from the text called "Hebrews" which is unrelated to Judaism? Thanks for the laugh. Do you accept the Book of Mormon? It was written by a Christian claiming to speak from God.

 asked if you were rich enough God required the best offering for the identified class, the priesthood. Thus the sacrifice of an animal is not offered by your class. Where do you find that practiced today? You don't. Thus, you are not living according to the Law of Moses that required your finest offering. 

Having enough money made anyone eligible to buy a mammal. Having less limited someone to buying a bird. Having less led to ground flour. All were the best for the sin offering that the individual could afford. So, point one, this shows that blood is not necessary to effect atonement. Next, as I have stated, any sacrifice requires certain environmental variables be met and when they aren't, the text provides alternate means, even for the very limited number and type of sins that sacrifice can atone for.

 I never said God wanted human sacrifices for the voluntary sacrifice of His Son was sufficient for all time. No other sacrifice could ever meet His righteous requirement, just the one and only. 

So if his "son" was human, then he wanted and accepted human sacrifice. If his son wasn't human then it was no sacrifice at all. Also, his son was not of any of the types of animals (or flour!) that is listed as acceptable for a sin sacrifice. And, of course, this meant that any sacrifices offered right then and there in the desert when God gave the commandments were not good enough and God set the people in the desert up for failure. That's not a Jewish view of God and his relationship with the people.

It offers no proof for those who don't.

And yet you are of those who insist on things even when they can't read and understand that which they are denying. That text says explicitly that there is no one who saves people other than God. I had said, " I don’t need a “savior” except for God who will save me from the current exile."

You asked
Which laws and texts?

so I answered by citing a text. Deal with it. Oh, and by the way, I find this all incredibly amusing.

 You have offered no evidence to us

as you have offered none to me. You don't read the texts I read and don't understand them but you claim to represent their ideas. If I were to give them to you in a translation, they would lose much of their meaning (and open them up to someone's misstatements). So why should I translate them? If you would prefer Aramaic, I am prepared to give 2 or three Aramaic versions, but each one includes interpretation, as any translation would. If anyone wants explanation, then I would be happy to explain to someone who is actually open to learning, and isn't operating with the agenda of disproving my entire religion.

 they are justified before God not on the bases of what they have done but on the merit of Another. 

No, still grammatically wrong.

He reasoned that God was able to raise the dead and that God would restore Isaac to life. 

Do you have any proof of that? I don't see it in the text. Abraham was rewarded for what he did, not for what his great grandson will do.

He also was looking for a country that was not his own, a heavenly country. 

He was not looking for a country. He was led to a land, a physical place (Gen 12:1).
#67
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
Where do they do this?

I haven't checked all of Uri's claims -- I can get you his email if you would like and you can ask him. I did do a quick look see about Isaiah and pretty quickly found the NASB's text "Just as many were appalled at you, My people, So His appearance was marred beyond that of a man, And His form beyond the sons of mankind."

So there are certainly examples.
Just as many were appalled at you, My people, So His appearance was marred beyond that of a man, And His form beyond the sons of mankind.

Yes, many were appalled by you, [Israel], God's people, so HIS appearance was marred beyond that of a man. Many were appalled that Israel rejected Him by handing Him, an innocent man, over to the Roman's, putting Him to disgrace upon a Roman cross and piercing His side and marring His face with a crown of thorns, as well as Him receiving 40 lashes. He took the penalty of many and by His stripes many were/are healed. 

What you do is associate "my people" with Him. They are not the same. My people =/= Him. Isaiah 53 goes on to describe this man's afflictions in greater detail. Yes, He was a MAN of great pain and sorrow that His people [Israel] rejected Him and subjected Him to such a death. Yet He bore the iniquity of many. 

Isaiah 53:2-4
New American Standard Bible

2 For He grew up before Him like a tender [a]shoot,
And like a root out of dry ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we would look at Him,
Nor an appearance that we would take pleasure in Him.
3 He was despised and abandoned by men,
A man of [b]great pain and familiar with sickness;
And like one from whom people hide their faces,
He was despised, and we had no regard for Him.
4 However, it was our sicknesses that He Himself bore,
And our pains that He carried;
Yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted,
Struck down by God, and humiliated.

***

Isaiah 53:2-
New Revised Standard Version

2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
    and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
    nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by others;
    a man of suffering[a] and acquainted with infirmity;
and as one from whom others hide their faces[b]
    he was despised, and we held him of no account.
4 Surely he has borne our infirmities
    and carried our diseases;
yet we accounted him stricken,
    struck down by God, and afflicted.

***

Yeshayah 53:2-4
Orthodox Jewish Bible

2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a Shoresh (Root, Shoresh Yishai, Moshiach, Yeshayah 11:10, Sanhedrin93b) out of a dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire [Chaggai 2:7] him.
3 He is despised and chadal ishim (rejected by men); a man of sorrows, and acquainted with suffering; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our sufferings, and nasah (carried [Vayikra 16:22; Yeshayah 53:12)] our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, [i.e., like a leper is stricken] smitten of G-d, and afflicted [see verse 8 below].
5 But he was pierced [Yeshayah 51:9; Zecharyah 12:10 Sukkah 52a, Tehillim 22:17 Targum Hashivim] for our transgressions, he was bruised mei’avonoteinu (for our iniquities); the musar (chastisement) (that brought us shalom [Yeshayah 54:10] was upon him [Moshiach]; and at the cost of his (Moshiach’s) chaburah (stripes, lacerations) we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own derech (way; see Prov 16:25); and Hashem hath laid on him [Moshiach] the avon (iniquity, the guilt that separates from G-d) of us all.

***

Isaiah 53:2-4
New International Version

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
    and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
    nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
    a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
    he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
    and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
    stricken by him, and afflicted.

***

Isaiah 53:2-4
New Catholic Bible

2 He grew up before him like a sapling,
    like a shoot in arid ground.
He had no beauty or majesty
    that would cause us to look at him;
    nothing in his appearance would attract us to him.
3 He was despised and shunned by others,
    a man of sorrows who was no stranger to suffering.
We loathed him and regarded him as of no account,
    as one from whom men avert their gaze.
4 Although it was our afflictions that he bore,
    our sufferings that he endured,
we thought of him as stricken,
    as struck down by God and afflicted.


#68
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
OK - so you might want to ask Uri about that claim. It isn't one that I made, just one from his article that you don't agree with. 

It is nice, though, that you can concede

 Yes, many were appalled by you, [Israel], God's people

You realize, I hope, that the "you" in Hebrew...

is in the singular.

And you just conceded the use of the singular for the nation, a grammatical point which you had trouble with earlier.

If you want to work with translations, you might as well be using "As many shall be amazed at thee, so shall thy face be without glory from men, and thy glory shall not be honoured by the sons of men."
#69
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
OK - so you might want to ask Uri about that claim. It isn't one that I made, just one from his article that you don't agree with. 

It is nice, though, that you can concede

 Yes, many were appalled by you, [Israel], God's people

You realize, I hope, that the "you" in Hebrew...

is in the singular.
"You" is is permissible of speaking of the one nation, Isaiah's people. "Him" is speaking of an individual Person. "You" can be used in such a way as to include many people. To use "Him" that way is personification, something the text does not suggest and something that Jesus, as "Him" fulfills as recorded in the NT and supported by extra-biblical writings of history.  

You do realize that "you" is different from "him" don't you?

And you just conceded the use of the singular for the nation, a grammatical point which you had trouble with earlier.
No problem conceding that, whether one wants to view/understand it as "my people" or the nation of Israel makes no difference.  They can be used interchangeably.

[a] If you want to work with translations, you might as well be using "As many shall be amazed at thee, so shall thy face be without glory from men, and thy glory shall not be honoured by the sons of men."
[a] As if you don't. 

The Septuagint was a scholarly translation (alleged 72 scholars - 6 from each tribe, into Greek from the Hebrew). The problem I have is not that the Jews have copies of the original Scripture, it is the dating and transmission of these copies and how they were obtained. Are you sure your translations are exact copies of the originals? How were the Scriptures affected by the captivity? Was the original destroyed with the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians? Do you kn ow for sure? Was Ezra working on copies? 

Many ancient Jewish and Christian literary sources like 2 Maccabees, 2 Esdras, Irenaeus, Clement and the Samaritan Chronicle Adler, identify Ezra as producing a new set of Bible manuscripts. Samaritan Chronicle Adler (1900 AD) says that Ezra got his copy of the Paleo-Hebrew Torah from the Samaritans by deceit and he then deliberately made anti-Samaritan changes to the text.
 
“Whereupon Ezra used deceit to obtain an ancient torn Torah from a man who was one of the community of the children of Israel who were Keepers of the Truth… Ezra altered many things in the text of the Holy Torah out of hatred for the community of the children of Israel who are Keepers of the Truth (Samaritans), … adding some things and subtracting many others … many errors were made by him in the book of the Torah” (Samaritan Chronicle Adler, 1900 AD)
 
If Ezra did acquire his copy of the Torah from the Samaritans, it explains why he wrongly assumed that they had made textual changes regarding the location of Joshua’s Altar and Ezra then felt justified in “restoring” the original reading. However, the Samaritan storyline has two major flaws. First, If Nebuchadnezzar burned all the scripture scrolls, where did Ezra get the rest of the books from Joshua down to the prophets since the Samaritans deliberately avoided them? Second, if the copy was damaged, torn and missing sections of text it is unlikely Ezra would use it. Further, the fact that the MT and the SP are very close in text overall with no large lacunas of missing text, is evidence that Ezra had a complete and undamaged Torah to work from. If the Samaritans freely and openly supplied Ezra with the first five books of Moses (Torah) he would have been grateful and accepted their initial offer to help build the Jerusalem temple. The Samaritan Chronicle Adler correctly identifies Ezra as being involved in some significant way based upon some ancient Samaritan tradition but the details may have been lost over time.
 
Since all the Paleo-Hebrew manuscripts were in the hands of Ezra and his 13 assistant translators in a single location, in a general population that could not speak Hebrew, it was almost certain that the minor changes would ever be noticed. With the blatant change of the location of Joshua’s alter from Mt. Gerizim to Mt. Ebal, the other three changes were irrelevant and unnecessary. But Ezra was seriously irked by the Samaritans and he felt the changes in the Bible text were for the greater good in establishing Jerusalem as God’s holy mountain.

***

The Quattuordecim is born: In 458 BC Ezra makes the long trip from Babylon to Jerusalem and begins work translating the Paleo-Hebrew scriptures into the Hebrew script that will be used by Jesus and in the modern state of Israel today. The translation process for all the extant books of the law and prophets is a monumental task and is not completed until the official unveiling in 445 BC.


I raise these points to show that there is uncertainty as to who has it correct, the Septuagint or your Hebrew Scriptures, and that your claims of transmission errors or questionable Scripture are pointing right back to you. Thus, as Christians we accept that Jesus knew better than you do when He used the Septuagint as acceptable Scripture.

Furthermore, Hebrew was largely a dead language around 300BC. 

3.         Hebrew as an oral/spoken language was extinct by 100 AD:
a.           Hebrew went extinct as a working language outside Judea (diaspora) around 300 BC.
b.          Hebrew went extinct as a working language inside Judea around 200 BC.
c.           The only Jews who spoke Hebrew at the time of Christ were the Temple elites (high priests and the Sadducees) who were wiped out in 70 AD.
d.          Hebrew became a dead language in 100 AD.
4.         The only exception were the Masoretes who were a tiny commune of "Aramaic Hebrew" scribes living in Zippori near Nazareth and Tiberias on the west bank of the Sea of Galilee.
a.           The Zippori “Masoretes” were wiped out by 400 AD
b.          The Masoretes living at Tiberias continued till about 950 AD
c.           Between 600 - 900 AD, the Masoretes invented "Masoretic Vowelled Hebrew".
d.          Jews today reintroduced Masoretic (Vowelled) Hebrew after 1915 AD, ending a 1700 year period of extinction. (see below)

AND

3.         These mass language conversions prepared God’s people providentially for the good news of Jesus Christ and conversion to Christianity.
a.           In 587 BC a single Temple housed a copy of the inspired Tanakh in Hebrew.
b.          God foresaw that at the time of the coming of the Messiah in 30 AD, that Hebrew would be extinct.
c.           God providentially put the Septuagint in every one of the thousands of synagogues 150 years before the birth of Christ, each of which had a full immersion baptistry (Mikveh) ready to create Christians!!! 

***

The Septuagint, Hebrew Dead Sea scrolls and the pre-Masoretic text
After the death of Ezra in 445 BC, 163 years would pass until in 282 BC a copy was made of Ezra’s “autograph copy” of the Quattuordecim (XIV) Torah (pre-Masoretic text) and sent to Alexandria where it was translated into Greek and the Septuagint (LXX). The Hebrew copies of the Quattuordecim (XIV) the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) were essentially identical except for the few places Ezra had changed the Bible text to counter Samaritan theology regarding the dispute between Mt. Gerizim and Jerusalem as the place God’s name was to reside. What we find remarkable, is that the Samaritan Pentateuch of today is closer to the Septuagint in many places than the modern Masoretic text of 1008 AD. The same is true of the Dead Sea scrolls which frequently validate the Paleo-Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) and the Greek Septuagint (LXX). For example, the Hebrew (not Samaritan) Dead Sea Scroll 4Q33 Deuteronomyf (100 BC) reads that Joshua’s Altar was built on Mt. Gerizim. Evidently the Jews at Qumran had access to other ancient manuscripts outside the family of Ezra’s Quattuordecim (XIV) and retained the original reading.
On two different historic occasions, the Jews corrupted their own Bible to counter theological adversaries. The Jews in 160-200 AD corrupted the Genesis chronology for anti-Christian purposes unknowingly following in the footsteps of Ezra in 458 BC who, for anti-Samaritan purposes, changed the location of Joshua’s alter from Mt. Gerizim to Mt Ebal as he converted the Paleo-Hebrew Tanakh into Aramaic Hebrew. Noah got drunk, Moses struck the rock, David committed adultery. Perhaps this one textual corruption was Ezra’s great sin. Notice that in historic both cases of 458 BC and 160 AD, the entire collection of Hebrew manuscripts were entrusted into the hands of a small number of men who created a single “autograph manuscript” that would come to dominate the world, all within a Jewish population who were Hebrew illiterate and would be unable to detect the changes.


***

Concerning the Septuagint chronology it is believed that the Jews changed the Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11 "for anti-Christian theological reasons." The article goes on to list the evidence for such claims.

Here is an article that shows the "Chronological historical accounts of the translation of the Torah in 282 BC."
#70
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
"You" is is permissible of speaking of the one nation, Isaiah's people. "Him" is speaking of an individual Person. "You" can be used in such a way as to include many people. To use "Him" that way is personification, something the text does not suggest and something that Jesus, as "Him" fulfills as recorded in the NT and supported by extra-biblical writings of history.  

You do realize that "you" is different from "him" don't you?

Your argument was about singular vs. plural. These are pronouns in the singular. You do know that singular is different from plural, don't you?

Maybe you just never knew that in Hebrew, even the second person pronoun has a number. Unlike English, Hebrew has a singular "you" and a plural "you" and the suffixes that indicate number and person also exist in the second person.

Is your argument now that the issue of singular is only a problem when it is in the third person? Then you are going to hate Psalm 144:15 in which the nation is explicitly (and twice) referred to in the third person singular.

So if it isn't an issue of number, and it isn't an issue of second or third person, then you have nothing.

No problem conceding that, whether one wants to view/understand it as "my people" or the nation of Israel makes no difference.  They can be used interchangeably.

And interchangeably with the singular pronouns so you cannot make the argument that the use of the singular means it cannot refer to the nation.

[a] As if you don't. 

Well, I'm dealing with the Hebrew text but, I see that you are happy to go back to the argument that the Jewish texts are wrong and Jews changed the texts so your translations have to be right (and you don't have to learn Hebrew grammar).

If that's your argument, thus invalidating any statement anyone makes using the Hebrew text, then so be it. I deny your texts and you deny mine. The difference is, I don't need yours and you keep using mine and in error (you know, like ignoring that the text refers to a nation in the singular in first, second and third person). Have fun with that.

#71
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
Please provide a translation. I provided your texts, both the English and Hebraic sides of them for your benefit. I already told you, I do not speak or read Hebrew.

And yet you want to make arguments that require an understanding of Hebrew.
As I pointed out in my last  post, the Septuagint allegedly had a panel of 72 Hebrews from the twelve tribes who would understand what words to use in translating. I also pointed out the problems you have with your Hebrew texts. 
 
You continually refer to the Talmud and Mishnah, plus the oral law. We, as Christians, go on what is written in the Hebrew Bible. If you want to prove something to me then show/convince me via those Scriptures.

That’s great – you have just admitted that what you think of as “Jewish scriptures” and what Jews think of as “Jewish scriptures” are 2 different things, so any argument you make about Judaism which is based in YOUR version of what scriptures are is going to be wrong according to Judaism. But instead of saying “Judaism is operating under a completely different understanding of its own scripture so my assumptions about it might be wrong” you stick with “my assumptions are right and Judaism is wrong in what it says and understands and I can prove it by sticking with MY texts which Judaism rejects.”
Judaism is not the Hebrew Scriptures. From your posts I gather your opinion is that if a person doesn't speak Hebrew they can't understand the Scriptures, and you modern Jews are the only ones who understand what God has said, and to that you can find hundreds of different opinions by rabbis down through the years and ages. 

Many messianic rabbis recognize what I understand and you don't about Jesus Christ and the resurrection. I pointed you to one Jew in particular,  Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, "a leading expert in Messianic Judaic theology."  There are many rabbis who became messianic believers in Jesus Christ. I would put their knowledge of Jewish Scripture against yours any time.  I worked with Jews for Jesus in Toronto on one of their campaigns in the 1990s thanks to Karol Joseph! Their founder, a once Reform Jew, Moishe (Martin) Rosen had such a conviction that he rejected Judaism for Christianity.        
 
 The Mishnah and Talmud were written centuries after the fall of Jerusalem.

Not exactly. Nice try, though.
Evidence? What is the earliest copy you have?

yet I distrust your understanding of the Scriptures based on all the external sources you bring to the table. You do not live under the OT system as mandated by Scripture any more.
 
There’s your problem again. You distrust a Jew’s understanding of Jewish scripture and you insist that you know what was mandated by scripture when you are using a different conception of what scripture is.
Not completely true, I do not distrust all Jewish understanding of the Jewish Scriptures. 

it is not a different religious construct from your Scriptures, I believe you just don't recognize it because of all the addition stuff you being to Scripture

You mean the way you bring additional stuff like the gospels to “scripture”?
The Gospels are Scripture. They expand on the Jewish Scriptures and have mostly Jewish authors who are inspired by God, the same God of the Jewish Scriptures.  

I see your Scripture as CLEAR on meaning

You mean when you decide you get to define what is my scripture and what it means.
Again, many others (including Jews) think as I do, so it is not just me. 

I have a notion of a perfect sacrifice based on ... the sacrifice was to be without blemish or spot.

So no scourge marks, offered on the altar and via the specific method of slaughter taught in Jewish law, performed by a priest? By the rules of sacrifice, Jesus could not have been one, not just because he was a human, but because the entire process doesn’t conform to the “scripture” you want to claim to follow.
[a] Jesus, as a priest in the order of Melchizedek, offered Himself to God. He surrendered Himself to God that we who believe might have life to the fullest. His resurrection is proof God was pleased with His sacrifice. As a type of the OT sacrifice and offering, He was scourged and a crown of thorns was placed on His head. Nails were driven through His hands and feet, and a spear was driven through His body (pierced for our transgressions). He was also sacrificed outside the camp, in this instance outside the city gates, some believe on the northward side. His substitutionary offering for the people carried their iniquity, just like the bull or goat or lamb, it was in place of the sinner. Not only this, the alter He presented Himself before was not just a copy of the heavenly one (as with the Mosaic system of worship and sacrifice) but the very one itself, as explained in Hebrews. 

As C.W.Slemming points out (see Chapter 1, The Burnt Offering) that Christ is seen in shadow or type in each of the five offerings. I'll discuss the burnt offering using some of his points and some of mine. 
Burnt offering - Jesus' skin was flayed or cut to pieces by the whip. His appearance was marred by the blood from the crown of thorns. It was an entire sacrifice like the burnt offering in that He offered Himself completely to His Father, with His will, His body, His mind, for the purpose of God. The OT or Jewish Bible presents a picture of the true reality, the heavenly one, in which the burnt offering signified a consecration of self, a complete offering of oneself. The OT or Jewish Scriptures shadow all points to Jesus Christ - everything (not by coincidence but design). The fire represents judgment.

Let me take another offering, borrowing from Slemming and ad libbing. The Meal offering is a picture of Christ and the fruit of His offering (His gift) since we are in a thread about the the resurrection. One aspect of the Meal Offering was the first grain or first fruits of what was to come. As C.W. Slemming said, 

"...Christ is seen as the corn of wheat which fell to the ground and died that He might bring forth much fruit. He was also the corn of wheat which went through the crushing mill of Gethsemane and the fierce oven of Calvary to become the Bread of Life." p.35. 

14When you bring a meal offering of the first grains to the Lord, you shall bring your first grain meal offering [from barley], as soon as it ripens, parched over the fire, kernels full in their husks, [ground into] coarse meal. 
ידוְאִם־תַּקְרִ֛יב מִנְחַ֥ת בִּכּוּרִ֖ים לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה אָבִ֞יב קָל֤וּי בָּאֵשׁ֙ גֶּ֣רֶשׂ כַּרְמֶ֔ל תַּקְרִ֕יב אֵ֖ת מִנְחַ֥ת בִּכּוּרֶֽיךָ:

Take also the Passover as a picture of resurrection and escape from or deliverance from sin and bondage, the passing of death in Egypt to life in God's Promised Land. Israel leaves the land of bondage and death, the earthly land, and with the exodus journeys to the land of abundance, the land of milk and honey. This is a typology or a picture of the heavenly country (the antitype of the physical reality or type) or the spiritual truth of our life with God found in Jesus Christ.

Continuing with our theme of scourging, the people of God, Israel, are told to sacrifice a lamb without blemish and smear the blood on the door posts and lintel. The blood of Jesus, a Lamb without spot or blemish is applied to the beam and top of the cross by His nailed hands and blooded head from the crown of thorns (the crown mocking His claim as king of the Jews). With the blood  smeared on the door posts and lintel judgment is avoided by the people of God for the angel of death passes over them.

The bitter herbs is also a picture or symbolic pointing to the Lord Jesus Christ. During the Last Supper (a picture of the Passover meal), again taking place during Passover,  the elements of the meal are present, but on the cross He was made to taste of a bitter drink and He noted that His task was a bitter cup to swallow and asked His Father if He would take it away, nevertheless He obeyed God the Father's will.

I could go on and on about the word pictures contained in the OT or Jewish Scriptures that are symbols or types of Jesus Christ contained in the whole journey to the Promised Land. The similarities are so great it would take hours and hours to document even some of them. For instance, Moses said of Him:

Devarim - Deuteronomy - Chapter 18
15A prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me, the Lord, your God will set up for you; you shall hearken to him. 
טונָבִ֨יא מִקִּרְבְּךָ֤ מֵֽאַחֶ֨יךָ֙ כָּמֹ֔נִי יָקִ֥ים לְךָ֖ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ אֵלָ֖יו תִּשְׁמָעֽוּן:

18I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him. 
יחנָבִ֨יא אָקִ֥ים לָהֶ֛ם מִקֶּ֥רֶב אֲחֵיהֶ֖ם כָּמ֑וֹךָ וְנָֽתַתִּ֤י דְבָרַי֙ בְּפִ֔יו וְדִבֶּ֣ר אֲלֵיהֶ֔ם אֵ֖ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲצַוֶּֽנּוּ:

19And it will be, that whoever does not hearken to My words that he speaks in My name, I will exact [it] of him. 
יטוְהָיָ֗ה הָאִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־יִשְׁמַע֙ אֶל־דְּבָרַ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְדַבֵּ֖ר בִּשְׁמִ֑י אָֽנֹכִ֖י אֶדְר֥שׁ מֵֽעִמּֽוֹ:

Yet, many Jews failed and fail to listen to Him. Just as Moses was chosen of God to take the people of Israel out of bondage and to the Promised Land, so too Jesus was the Mediator between God and man, the Second Moses, taking His people (Jews and Gentiles) on the second exodus, out of spiritual bondage in the spiritual Egypt into the greater Promised Land, the heavenly country with the New Jerusalem and new Mount Sinai. Jesus takes for Himself TWELVE disciples, just as God took the twelve tribes. And the journey is again forty years. Just as that one generation in Moses' time displeased God and were not permitted to enter the Promised Land but died in the wilderness, so too the same happened to all those who would not believe the message of their Messiah, the second and greater Moses. From His crucifixion to the judgment and destruction of the Temple and religious system there was forty years (AD 30- AD 70). So, time and time again, the parallels are all there. My understanding is that you just miss them because of your religious indoctrination.  

17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers also did. 18 But the things which God previously announced by the mouths of all the prophets, that His [h]Christ would suffer, He has fulfilled in this way. 19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things, about which God spoke by the mouths of His holy prophets from ancient times. 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your countrymen; to Him you shall listen regarding everything He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ 24 And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken from Samuel and his successors onward, have also announced these days. 25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God ordained with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 God raised up His [k]Servant for you first, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”

The period of restoration was AD 70.

On the Passover see also this excellent article:

#72
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
The sin offering was a life taken in place of the sinner. Do you understand that?

No, because it wasn’t the case unless flour is alive and replaces a life.
Flour was a provision by God for those who were too poor to offer a blood offering, and on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, an animal sacrifice was necessary to cleanse the alter and to atone for the sins of the people.

why should I believe Judaism over the Scriptures?

No one cares if you believe anything in particular, but you should not be asserting that you know Jewish scripture better than Jews when you deny what Jewish scripture IS. You are a Christian. Super to you. But that doesn’t confer on you any understanding of Judaism and you like to start from the position of “because I am a Christian everything Judaism thinks it knows about its own texts is wrong because my texts tell me so.”
Let me say it again, Judaism is not the Jewish Scriptures. What the Law of Moses stipulated, was required by God, and the people agreed to cannot be followed after AD 70.

As I said before, the Jewish Scriptures are largely an account of a stiff-necked, rebellious people who were constantly going astray and disobeying what was required by them under the Mosaic Covenant. I could provide passage after passage that supports my position, and also of God's constant warning of impending judgment and a new covenant that would also be open to the whole world.

You use Judaism to justify the Scriptures rather than the Scriptures to justify Judaism.

No, Jews use the scriptures to help shape what Judaism is. You use the gospels to justify the validity of the gospels.
No, Jews bypass the Scriptures with their traditions because after AD 70 they cannot be followed as agreed to. Why is that? It is because God was displeased with His covenant people. He took a new bride, made up of BELIEVING Jews and Gentiles, in AD 70 (after divorcing the old because of marital unfaithfulness).

You do not recognize what the Jews did to meet the Law of Moses is works based. It is based on what you as the individual and Levite do, not solely on what God does.

This is another incredibly Christian statement and ignores most of what Judaism is. That’s fine, I guess. If you want to reduce your understanding of anything about Judaism to a set of sacrificial laws about which you know very little, then so be it.
Vayikra - Leviticus - Chapter 17
1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 
אוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָֹ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:

2Speak to Aaron and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: This is the thing the Lord has commanded, saying: 
בדַּבֵּ֨ר אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֜ן וְאֶל־בָּנָ֗יו וְאֶל֙ כָּל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֖ אֲלֵיהֶ֑ם זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה יְהוָֹ֖ה לֵאמֹֽר:

3Any man of the House of Israel, who slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat inside the camp, or who slaughters outside the camp, 
גאִ֥ישׁ אִישׁ֙ מִבֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁחַ֜ט שׁ֥וֹר אוֹ־כֶ֛שֶׂב אוֹ־עֵ֖ז בַּמַּֽחֲנֶ֑ה א֚וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִשְׁחָ֔ט מִח֖וּץ לַמַּֽחֲנֶֽה:

4but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer up as a sacrifice to the Lord before the Mishkan of the Lord, this [act] shall be counted for that man as blood he has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people; 
דוְאֶל־פֶּ֜תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵד֘ לֹ֣א הֱבִיאוֹ֒ לְהַקְרִ֤יב קָרְבָּן֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה לִפְנֵ֖י מִשְׁכַּ֣ן יְהוָֹ֑ה דָּ֣ם יֵֽחָשֵׁ֞ב לָאִ֤ישׁ הַהוּא֙ דָּ֣ם שָׁפָ֔ךְ וְנִכְרַ֛ת הָאִ֥ישׁ הַה֖וּא מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמּֽוֹ:

5in order that the children of Israel should bring their offerings which they slaughter on the open field, and bring them to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the kohen, and slaughter them as peace offerings to the Lord. 
הלְמַ֩עַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבִ֜יאוּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אֶת־זִבְחֵיהֶם֘ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֵ֣ם זֹֽבְחִים֘ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הַשָּׂדֶה֒ וֶֽהֱבִיאֻ֣ם לַֽיהֹוָ֗ה אֶל־פֶּ֛תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֑ן וְזָ֨בְח֜וּ זִבְחֵ֧י שְׁלָמִ֛ים לַֽיהוָֹ֖ה אוֹתָֽם:

6And the kohen shall dash the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and he shall cause the fat to go up in smoke, as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. 
ווְזָרַ֨ק הַכֹּהֵ֤ן אֶת־הַדָּם֙ עַל־מִזְבַּ֣ח יְהֹוָ֔ה פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וְהִקְטִ֣יר הַחֵ֔לֶב לְרֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַֽיהוָֹֽה:

7And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the satyrs after which they stray. This shall be an eternal statute for them, for [all] their generations. 
זוְלֹֽא־יִזְבְּח֥וּ עוֹד֙ אֶת־זִבְחֵיהֶ֔ם לַשְּׂעִירִ֕ם אֲשֶׁ֛ר הֵ֥ם זֹנִ֖ים אַֽחֲרֵיהֶ֑ם חֻקַּ֥ת עוֹלָ֛ם תִּֽהְיֶה־זֹּ֥את לָהֶ֖ם לְדֹֽרֹתָֽם:
 
11For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul. 
יאכִּי־נֶ֣פֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר֘ בַּדָּ֣ם הִוא֒ וַֽאֲנִ֞י נְתַתִּ֤יו לָכֶם֙ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ לְכַפֵּ֖ר עַל־נַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶ֑ם כִּֽי־הַדָּ֥ם ה֖וּא בַּנֶּ֥פֶשׁ יְכַפֵּֽר:

What do you not understand about this???

The fact is they did until that system was abolished by God.

The system was never abolished by God. You don’t seem to want to understand this. It was given to be practiced at a certain time, at a certain place and under certain conditions. If that scenario was unavailable, other means were given. Additionally, this was only for a small section of sins – other methods were given for other sins, from the get-go.
Yes, it was. It met its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, Y'shua, Mashiach,  or as the Jew Matthew said, "God is with us." 

Judaism adds a lot to Scripture

You mean like the gospels? No, that’s you. Jesus was a failed leader who misinterpreted and misapplied text while copying other ideas from Jewish scripture. That is, if anyone sees the gospels as accurate and authoritative. Which Jews don’t.
Nope, the Gospel's are Scripture. Nope He did not fail. You do not recognize Mashiach ben Yosef.

Of course you don't recognize the Gospels, they are foolishness to you because of what you have been taught.

1 Corinthians 1:18-25
New American Standard Bible
The Wisdom of God
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who [a]are perishing, but to us who [b]are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the understanding of those who have understanding, I will confound.”
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God [c]was pleased through the foolishness of the [d]message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for [e]signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach [f]Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than mankind, and the weakness of God is stronger than mankind.

#73
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
Post 60, continued:
Exactly what are you referring to? What do you classify as the all?

Let me ask you a question – the Hebrew text requires that all Jewish men place “totafot” on their head. Do you know what totafot are? How is it that I do? The text explicitly states that animals are to be slaughtered according to the laws that God taught. Can you show me where those laws are taught? I know where – do you?
It is the word we translate as phylacteries, basically a little black box with four compartments reminding Jews of God's presence during the Exodus, and containing a scroll or short section of the law within each compartment.

9And it shall be to you as a sign upon your hand and as a remembrance between your eyes, in order that the law of the Lord shall be in your mouth, for with a mighty hand the Lord took you out of Egypt. 
טוְהָיָה֩ לְךָ֨ לְא֜וֹת עַל־יָֽדְךָ֗ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן֙ בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֔יךָ לְמַ֗עַן תִּֽהְיֶ֛ה תּוֹרַ֥ת יְהֹוָ֖ה בְּפִ֑יךָ כִּ֚י בְּיָ֣ד חֲזָקָ֔ה הוֹצִֽאֲךָ֥ יְהֹוָ֖ה מִמִּצְרָֽיִם:

16And it shall be for a sign upon your hand and for ornaments between your eyes, for with a mighty hand did the Lord take us out of Egypt.
טזוְהָיָ֤ה לְאוֹת֙ עַל־יָ֣דְכָ֔ה וּלְטֽוֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֑יךָ כִּ֚י בְּחֹ֣זֶק יָ֔ד הֽוֹצִיאָ֥נוּ יְהֹוָ֖ה מִמִּצְרָֽיִם:

I already pointed out where animals are to be sacrificed/slaughtered within the Law with the offerings and feast days of the Lord and in a specific passage (Leviticus 17). 

So it shall serve as a sign on your hand and as phylacteries on your forehead, for with a powerful hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt.”

And they do all their deeds to be noticed by other people; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.

Well, it remains to be seem which one of us is ignorant as to the truth.

About the pronunciation of a Hebrew word? You don’t read Hebrew and insist that I am wrong in how a word is pronounced.
In reference to what?

It would be fine if you just stuck to the texts of the law and Jewish texts but you import all kinds of rabbinic interpretation to them.

Since you don’t know the Jewish texts, how can you claim anything about the nature of what I bring up?
I know the Jewish texts as translated into English via the Greek by scholars, and Hebrew by Jewish scholars. You seem to think that God cannot convey information of Scripture through any other language but your own language (you limit God), which I might add was reconstructed in 1914 after centuries of disuse. You were not part of the culture of ancient times and a lot of what was taught would be far more clear to those than you. Not only that, I continually mention that because of Israel's hard heart and rebellion and adultery/idolatry, they were not blessed by God in their understanding and lifestyle. 

Yeshayahu - Isaiah - Chapter 29
9Stop and wonder; they became blind and they blinded. They were intoxicated but not from wine; they reeled but not from strong wine.
טהִתְמַהְמְה֣וּ וּתְמָ֔הוּ הִשְׁתַּֽעַשְׁע֖וּ וָשֹׁ֑עוּ שָֽׁכְר֣וּ וְלֹא־יַ֔יִן נָע֖וּ וְלֹ֥א שֵׁכָֽר:

10For the Lord has poured upon you a spirit of deep sleep, and He has closed your eyes; the prophets and your heads who stargaze, He has covered. 
יכִּֽי־נָסַ֨ךְ עֲלֵיכֶ֚ם יְהֹוָה֙ ר֣וּחַ תַּרְדֵּמָ֔ה וַיְעַצֵּ֖ם אֶת־עֵֽינֵיכֶ֑ם אֶת־הַנְּבִיאִ֛ים וְאֶת־רָֽאשֵׁיכֶ֥ם הַֽחֹזִ֖ים כִּסָּֽה:

11And the vision of everything has been to you like the words of a sealed book, which they give to one who can read, saying, "Now read this," and he shall say, "I cannot, for it is sealed." 
יאוַתְּהִ֨י לָכֶ֜ם חָז֣וּת הַכֹּ֗ל כְּדִבְרֵי֘ הַסֵּ֣פֶר הֶֽחָתוּם֒ אֲשֶׁר־יִתְּנ֣וּ אֹת֗וֹ אֶל־יוֹדֵ֥עַ סֵ֛פֶר (כתיב הסֵ֛פֶר) לֵאמֹ֖ר קְרָ֣א נָא־זֶ֑ה וְאָמַר֙ לֹ֣א אוּכַ֔ל כִּ֥י חָת֖וּם הֽוּא:

12And if the book is given to one who cannot read, saying, "Now read this," he shall say, "I cannot read." 
יבוְנִתַּ֣ן הַסֵּ֗פֶר עַל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹֽא־יָדַ֥ע סֵ֛פֶר לֵאמֹ֖ר קְרָ֣א נָא־זֶ֑ה וְאָמַ֕ר לֹ֥א יָדַ֖עְתִּי סֵֽפֶר:

13And the Lord said: "Because this people has come near; with their mouth and with their lips they honor Me, but their heart they draw far away from Me, and their fear of Me has become a command of people, which has been taught. 
יגוַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲדֹנָ֗י יַעַן כִּ֚י נִגַּשׁ֙ הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה בְּפִ֚יו וּבִשְׂפָתָיו֙ כִּבְּד֔וּנִי וְלִבּ֖וֹ רִחַ֣ק מִמֶּ֑נִּי וַתְּהִ֚י יִרְאָתָם֙ אֹתִ֔י מִצְוַ֥ת אֲנָשִׁ֖ים מְלֻמָּדָֽה:

14Therefore, I will continue to perform obscurity to this people, obscurity upon obscurity, and the wisdom of his wise men shall be lost, and the understanding of his geniuses shall be hidden. 
ידלָכֵ֗ן הִנְנִ֥י יוֹסִ֛ף לְהַפְלִ֥יא אֶת־הָעָם־הַזֶּ֖ה הַפְלֵ֣א וָפֶ֑לֶא וְאָֽבְדָה֙ חָכְמַ֣ת חֲכָמָ֔יו וּבִינַ֥ת נְבֹנָ֖יו תִּסְתַּתָּֽר:

15Woe to those who think deeply to hide counsel from the Lord, and their deeds are in the dark. And they said, "Who sees us and who knows us?" 
טוה֛וֹי הַמַּֽעֲמִיקִ֥ים מֵֽיהֹוָ֖ה לַסְתִּ֣ר עֵצָ֑ה וְהָיָ֚ה בְמַחְשָׁךְ֙ מַ֣עֲשֵׂיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מִ֥י רֹאֵ֖נוּ וּמִ֥י יֹֽדְעֵֽנוּ:

This is said of your own people and shows their lack of understanding and openness to their God.


And why do you keep bringing up the Qur'an? I already told you I do not accept it as valid, although I do your Jewish Scriptural texts, the Torah and Tanakh.
The same way you deny the validity of the Quran, I deny the validity of the gospels. You might say “but that’s different” and any Muslim on the planet would say “um…no, it isn’t.” And, again, since you don’t know what Jewish scriptures are, you can’t say you accept them as valid. You accept the texts and versions you personally think fit into your worldview. Anything else, you relegate to assertions or interpretations.
The Jewish Scriptures are Genesis to Malachi in our Bibles, in yours, the Law, the Prophets and the Writings --> the Tanakh. 

You accept the passages that fit into your worldview, which you consider beyond reproach. The rest you relegate to assertion and superstition. You don't seem to realize how many different interpretations of passages by your own rabbis throughout the centuries.

you claim my Messianic notion is flawed while I claim that you, as a Jew, fail to recognize your own Messiah because of your religious bias and indoctrination.

Because the text names many messiahs and explains their job and yet you claim something totally non-textual about what the messiah is and does. And then, oh look…to support your assertion you quote from another of your books of fiction.
The two messiahs recognized by some of your own rabbis of old were Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David, both applying to Jesus, as does in some respect every type of messianic or savior figure in the OT, including Moses, David, Joshua and the rest.

#74
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
As I pointed out in my last  post, the Septuagint allegedly had a panel of 72 Hebrews from the twelve tribes who would understand what words to use in translating. I also pointed out the problems you have with your Hebrew texts.
 
Yes, allegedly. Jewish tradition teaches that it wasn’t 72 (among other differences in understanding the story) https://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-words/septuagint-1.8035 and it was only the 5 books of Moses. Greek translations of anything after that were not part of the story. For more, read here https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/34220/1362
 
Judaism is not the Hebrew Scriptures. From your posts I gather your opinion is that if a person doesn't speak Hebrew they can't understand the Scriptures, and you modern Jews are the only ones who understand what God has said, and to that you can find hundreds of different opinions by rabbis down through the years and ages.
 
Judaism is a religion. Scriptures are not a religion so I don’t see the real innovation in your first claim. Next, you can gather what you want. The texts were given to the Jews in a language of the Jews and in a socio-religious context inhabited by the Jews. Shakespeare scholars analyze Shakespeare and have a better understanding of it than optometrists who are not Shakespeare scholars. Go figure.
 
Many messianic rabbis
 
No such thing.
 
a leading expert in Messianic Judaic theology
 
You mean “an expert in Christianity.” Call it what it is.
 
Their founder, a once Reform Jew, Moishe (Martin) Rosen had such a conviction that he rejected Judaism for Christianity.       

A reform Jew? If only you knew what you just bragged about. Sigh.
 
The Gospels are Scripture
 
No, at best they are Christian scripture. At their worst they are also Christian scripture.
 
Again, many others (including Jews) think as I do, so it is not just me.
 
Many people think the world is flat, Elvis is alive and tomatoes are vegetables (and some of them have gardens!). So? Groups can be wrong.
 
Jesus, as a priest in the order of Melchizedek
 
No such thing in Judaism.

As a type of the OT sacrifice and offering, He was scourged and a crown of thorns was placed on His head. Nails were driven through His hands and feet, and a spear was driven through His body

Invalid as a sacrifice by his being human, and by being blemished in the way you just described. You are working against your own point. Sad really.
Then, you try to set up “shadows” by making whatever connection you need to. That’s also sad. I mean, I can point out how Harry Potter laid down his life so that others could live and I could probably connect him to all sorts of biblical statements and call them shadows. That’s what reverse engineering is all about. And when the text is constructed in an effort to invoke these “shadows” you will more likely find those shadows (as they are intentionally included). A Torah text says “_____” and so gospel writers, in order to validate themselves include “_____” to show how connected they must be to the earlier text.
 
Flour was a provision by God for those who were too poor to offer a blood offering,
 
So blood was not necessary. Check.

 and on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, an animal sacrifice was necessary to cleanse the alter and to atone for the sins of the people.
 
Not actually – the day, itself provided atonement. That’s an essential belief in Judaism and has been for a really long time.
 
What the Law of Moses stipulated, was required by God, and the people agreed to cannot be followed after AD 70.
 
What you think of as “the law of Moses” is not what Jews then and throughout history have considered to be the law of Moses. I have tried to tell you this, but you insist that you know better. Very sad.
 
Jews bypass the Scriptures with their traditions
 
There you go again insisting that anything Jews accept that goes against what you believe is de facto invention. Your position is repeatedly to deny entirely what constitutes Judaism because you don’t agree with it and it disagrees with what you claim about Judaism.
 
What do you not understand about this???
 
You have just made two huge errors. One is that you quoted a section which (if you had continued one more verse) serves to explain why Jews don’t eat blood. These are laws of food. Next, you quote a section which says that no offering can be made outside the temple of meeting. Jesus was not offered at the temple of meeting, so he could not have been a valid offering. What don’t you understand about this?

Yes, it was. It met its fulfillment in Jesus Christ

No, it wasn’t despite your assertion. And laws aren’t fulfilled. They are obeyed.
 
the Gospel's are Scripture

No, they aren’t. They are Christian scripture. And that you then quote from them to try and convince me of anything continues to be laughable. See? You are viewing this as a game! How else could you explain doing something so ridiculous?
 
It is the word we translate as phylacteries, basically a little black box with four compartments reminding Jews of God's presence during the Exodus, and containing a scroll or short section of the law within each compartment.
 
Wait, what? How do YOU translate that? How do you get from the Hebrew to a word meaning “amulet” from a root meaning “guard” and then from that to a box? And where in that definition do you see “scroll”? The translation you chose just has the word “sign” and mentions nothing else by way of definition. Then you quote translations which pick that mysterious word “phylactery” which, as stated, means an amulet. Somehow you have decided on a shape and contents.
 No, you don’t translate it. You rely on Jewish understanding and sourcework based on scripture which you don’t accept as valid. Fascinating.
 
In reference to what?

That name which you keep mispronouncing, even to the point of quoting an outside source that has it wrong, but because you can’t read it, you can’t tell a tzeirei from a shva.
 
I know the Jewish texts as translated into English via the Greek by scholars
 
So what you read is a third level translation by agendized scholars. Got it.
 
which I might add was reconstructed in 1914 after centuries of disuse

Are you now confusing Ben Yehudah’s work on the modern conversational Hebrew with the earlier iterations that were in daily use over the last 3000 years? That’s HILARIOUS!
 
The Jewish Scriptures are Genesis to Malachi in our Bibles, in yours, the Law, the Prophets and the Writings --> the Tanakh.
 
Ooh, so close. But still, not.
 
You don't seem to realize how many different interpretations of passages by your own rabbis throughout the centuries.

I don’t? So you have studied the texts in which these differences are discussed? I have. Why do you assume I don’t know about them? Because I understand their use and place within the scriptural system better than you.
 
The two messiahs recognized by some of your own rabbis of old were Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David, both applying to Jesus,
 
If you truly understood the functions of these two potential personages, you would realize how silly your claim is. The Ben Yosef, for example, (if he comes, and that is not a sure thing, nor a necessary thing according to those rabbis you cite) is a warrior who leads in actual battle and is killed after a violent battle. Nothing symbolic. Violent. Bloody. Armageddon like. Then he is replaced immediately by a very different kind of leader who is universally accepted and, later, becomes a messiah. So, no, not your Jesus.

#75
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
Where did I say that the Torah laws were binding forever. I've never hung my argument on what you claim. You are putting words in my mouth, just making it up.

You never did – the Torah, itself did. That’s the point! If you want to rely on the words of the “scripture” then you shouldn’t be denying the claim the text makes about being eternal.
They are only binding in Jesus Christ, the eternal Savior, who met everyone of them on behalf of those who believe. The Torah finds fulfillment in Jesus Christ. With the change of covenant comes a change in law. The Law is fully met in Jesus Christ. 
 
With the change of priesthood comes a change in laws. Thus, here is a question for you. Do you believe that the covenant God made with Moses is still in effect?

Yes.
Then you are not living up to it, as stipulated and agreed upon, nor can you. 

the old covenant or Mosaic covenant system can no longer be followed as stipulated or required and agreed to.

According to how YOU understand it.
According to Scripture (Leviticus 17, for instance), as mentioned in one of my last two posts.

What? So, any prophecy about the future means nothing?

No, I never said that. I said that not every prophecy is about the future, nor is it intrinsic to prophecy to be about the future, so looking at prophecies which might not be about the future and deciding that they are because you misunderstand what prophecy is would be an error.
I never said every prophecy in the Bible is about the future, so please don't charge me with that belief. My belief is all unfulfilled prophecy applies to the 1st-century and the span up to AD 70.

As if yours is unlimited and authoritative. You pretend to speak as if what you say is binding. I'm not impressed. Instead, I continually bring you to God's Word. What does it say?

I have brought you God’s word repeatedly. You keep saying “I don’t know Hebrew” and yet you ask for God’s word? My understanding is neither unlimited nor authoritative, but Judaism’s views of its own texts should be authoritative.
Again, you seem to believe that only those who speak Hebrew can understand God's words. That would logically mean that God would be incapable of speaking or communicating to anyone other than those willing to learn Hebrew.
 
Your Scripture speaks of a specific person.

Many specific people.
Again, overall you do not recognize this truth that it points to one Person in the people, places, and events contained. Pity. 

Is this just a game to you?

Yup. Well, not "just" but largely.
I realize that. You are mostly playing games.

Is that your purpose in life, or on this thread, to make the important issues a game?

On this thread? No, my purpose is to point out how little you know and to help others who read this to see that your assertions are made through a particular lens, one which is not as informed about Judaism as you think, so that others might be inspired to learn more before they glom on to your claims. The fact that it is also fun is icing on the cake.
And my purpose is to point out that you do not understand what God is conveying in your Scriptures, just like the Jews of old, for the most part, missed out on His blessings.

Are you intentionally trying to make a fool of me.

Not without your help.
Don't be too quick to judge me. Time will tell.

do you care about truth and conveying it?

Sure. That’s what I’m doing. Does that mean it can’t be fun?
You certainly believe you are. 

 If so, present why what you believe is God's teachings from Scripture on the issues we are discussing.

I have but you call them assertions and interpretations.
You seldom exegete a verse of Scripture. 

Do you not think Gentiles are worthy?

Of what?
Of God's mercy and grace?

So you say, without anything other than your assertion.

Actually, I quoted the relevant biblical text, twice.
Quoting and explaining are two different things. It begs why your interpretation is true. 

Why do you think that an addition to the Mishnah or the Talmud itself is on par with God's Word?

If you ask that, then you don’t understand what Jews believe about text. Thanks for cementing that fact. Just looking up a word in Google doesn’t tell you anything about context I guess.
You suggest your oral traditions are on par with the written Word. 
 
Yes, I don't know Hebrew, so you think that bars me from knowing God. You seem to think that what God said cannot be known by anyone other than those who speak Hebrew and are Jews. It is kind of like Muslims saying that only those who speak Arabic can understand the Qur'an and what it means. You seem to think that God cannot make Himself clear to anyone but a stiff-necked people who continually ignored or misinterpreted His message by adding to it a number of traditions.
 
Have you ever read Shakespeare in any language other than English? I have. Do you think someone who only reads Shakespeare in another language (or even an updated English version) really “gets” everything that Shakespeare put in there? I can assure you, he doesn’t.
And do you think that your reasoning, centuries removed, understands the culture of those times and the meanings of the text? Do you think tradition built up by rabbis trumps God's word? And your premise is misleading, for it assumes that every word of an author like Shakespeare can be understood by others if they understand the English of his times, rather than the author's intention --> that would be Shakespeare meaning, which even some during his time failed to grasp. Then you make another assumption that Jesus/Y'shua, a Jew, is not capable of interpreting Scripture for the very reason that you deny who He claims to be. You deny that though Him Gentiles and Jews can know God in a more intimate way than through a legalistic, wooden ritual system of worship that could never get close to God, and go through the veil into the holy of holies, the inner sanctuary.

But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts;
 
What you do is put words there that either come from your mind or some other rabbis mind, without Scriptural reference or proof of interpretation other than by the Talmud or Mishnah. So you continually bring forth what seems to me as your idea of a greater authority than God's word itself.

See, again – if you don’t like it or understand it, you decide that it is something external. If that’s your method then so be it.
The exact same can be said of you regarding the Gospels, written mostly by Jews, claiming inspiration from God. 
 
Finally, you seem to think that there is nothing equivalent to the Hebrew words, so that anyone who is not Jewish and cannot speak Hebrew cannot know God.

I don’t recall saying that. I do believe that anyone who has not studied Hebrew should not be making arguments predicated on an understanding of Hebrew and Hebrew grammar and anyone who has not studied Judaism should not be making assertions about Judaism and its understanding of its own texts.
Again, you assume all my arguments are mine alone, and you do not believe there is a suitable translation so that the words of God cannot be understood by anyone other than those versed in Hebrew, a language only relearned in 1914. Again, I remind you that the Septuagint had an alleged panel of 72 Jews from the twelve tribes.

are you saying that the Hebrew words below do not correspond to the English translation so that we Gentiles cannot know what is being said? 

That’s certainly true by the way (though it isn’t about “Gentiles” – a Jew who can’t study text in Hebrew is missing out also; this is why we teach it).
So then, you propose God is incapable of conveying His word and meaning to anyone other than those who have studied Hebrew.
 
You seem to think that God, who made humanity in His image and likeness, has no compassion for the Gentiles at all, ever. But what do those verses above say?

That’s your interpretation I guess. Judaism teaches the exact opposite.
It is what you seem to be conveying and I KNOW it is not what Scripture teaches. You seem to think that those who cannot understand Hebrew are not favoured by God in understanding Him. Let me remind you of what you wrote:

"That’s certainly true by the way (though it isn’t about “Gentiles” – a Jew who can’t study text in Hebrew is missing out also; this is why we teach it)."
 
You forget that the NT is built on the backs of Jews, and the chief of which is Y'shua. You forget than many Jews have come to a scriptural understanding of Jesus as the Messiah. 

What about Jeremiah 31? Will He not establish a new covenant with the house of Jacob and Israel that includes the nations of the earth?

You misunderstand and quote the verse incompletely. Do you know what the content of that renewed covenant will be? Do you know the part of the verse which explains how it will be different and how the same?
God will put His laws in the hearts of believers (Jews and Gentiles) and they will KNOW Him. Do you really believe you have come into God's rest? Do you think Israel has found her resting place in the physical land? Do you not realize that those who rest, rest from their works, that instead, it is God who works in us? Do you realize that God's rebuilding is a spiritual rebuilding and the picture presented is of the heavenly country, of being in God's presence? Do you know who the remnant of Israel are? Do you not know that His word has gone out to the nations?

9Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock. 
טשִׁמְע֚וּ דְבַר־יְהֹוָה֙ גּוֹיִ֔ם וְהַגִּ֥ידוּ בָֽאִיִּ֖ים מִמֶּרְחָ֑ק וְאִמְר֗וּ מְזָרֵ֚ה יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ יְקַבְּצֶ֔נּוּ וּשְׁמָר֖וֹ כְּרֹעֶ֥ה עֶדְרֽוֹ:

Do you know what the new wine is, the wine of the New Covenant? Did not Rachel weep for her children during the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70? Did not the Lord create a new thing upon the earth? How long will you hide, you backsliding daughter?  Did God not demolish, destroy and afflict His people in order to build them up in a new way? Do you not know that the new covenant is not like the old covenant that God established with Israel when He lead them out of Egypt in which they constantly broke? He has put His laws within their hearts and minds so that they would know Him, so that Israel's neighbour does not need to be taught on how to know God for they shall know Him, from the smallest to the greatest. Do you not know that God would reject the seed or descendants of Israel for what they did, that the new Israel of God is a spiritual house of Jews and Gentiles?   
 
So, could you afford a bull, goat, or lamb, according to your position, such as that of a ruler, or rabbi, the latter being an anointed class?

An anointed class? A rabbi? No…and this isn’t about what I could afford. This is about what the text lays out as a suitable sin sacrifice for those who cannot afford a mammal or bird.
Yet for those who could, where is it offered today???
#76
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
They are only binding in Jesus Christ, the eternal Savior, who met everyone of them on behalf of those who believe. The Torah finds fulfillment in Jesus Christ. With the change of covenant comes a change in law. The Law is fully met in Jesus Christ.
 
Statement of belief, not of fact. Next?
 
Then you are not living up to it, as stipulated and agreed upon, nor can you.
 
You mean in the limited and incomplete way that you understand it. Got it. But who cares about your wrong view?
 
My belief is all unfulfilled prophecy applies to the 1st-century and the span up to AD 70.
 
OK, great. That’s another statement of your belief. It has two problems and is predicated on a flawed definitional premise but that’s ok. Stick with your beliefs.
 
That would logically mean that God would be incapable of speaking or communicating to anyone other than those willing to learn Hebrew.
 
Actually, it wouldn’t mean that. It WOULD mean that God’s words when put into the human language of Hebrew require a knowledge of Hebrew to understand. Do you think God spoke to Bil’am in Hebrew?
 
Again, overall you do not recognize this truth that it points to one Person in the people, places, and events contained. Pity.
 
Again, you show ignorance of the text which points to a number of people and you betray sore need in justifying your own beliefs when you insist that a discussion of many must be talking about one.
 
I realize that. You are mostly playing games.

And you are losing. This is fun!
 
You seldom exegete a verse of Scripture.
 
I have quoted and referred to exegesis while you only eisegete. Go figure.
 
Of God's mercy and grace?

Why would they not be? In fact, in Judaism, there is ample proof of that. If you don’t know that already, then you don’t know Judaism. But that’s not anything new by this time.

It begs why your interpretation is true.

Actually, it was an explicit meaning, not an interpretation. The fact that you label it as such without even knowing it is sad.

You suggest your oral traditions are on par with the written Word

Getting closer! Good for you – those Google lessons are really paying off. How about “I am claiming that elements of the Oral law are divine and Mosaic in source, origin, authority and value.” While you are suggesting that the gospels are on par with what you call “Old Testament” texts.
 
And do you think that your reasoning, centuries removed, understands the culture of those times and the meanings of the text?

No – I think that my understanding is not centuries removed. You need to claim it is to distance it. That’s your choice I guess.
 
Do you think tradition built up by rabbis trumps God's word?

In certain cases, it appears to the uninformed that that is the case. That’s not actually what is happening, but I’ll let you stick with this delusion.
 
And your premise is misleading, for it assumes that every word of an author like Shakespeare can be understood by others if they understand the English of his times, rather than the author's intention --> that would be Shakespeare meaning, which even some during his time failed to grasp.

No, I’m saying that Shakespeare’s meaning can be better gleaned by those who spoke the language (and accent…I saw an interesting presentation about the accent at the time of Shakespeare and how it changed what we might understand about the text). And if Shakespeare also provided a key to understanding to one group, I would rely on that group for explanation.
 
Then you make another assumption that Jesus/Y'shua, a Jew, is not capable of interpreting Scripture for the very reason that you deny who He claims to be.

Well, I deny that he had the skill or the right to interpret the way the gospels indicate he did. Anyone is capable of making anything up. That doesn’t make just anyone right or give just anyone the authority to do so.

The exact same can be said of you regarding the Gospels, written mostly by Jews, claiming inspiration from God.

YES! It absolutely can! Which is why I don’t try to present them as any source of my understanding of the world. That’s the beauty of denying them. You, however, need to deny that upon which you rely.

It is what you seem to be conveying

No, it is what you infer and, worse, impute. But drawing illogical conclusions seems to be your modus.

Yet for those who could, where is it offered today???

Wow. Swing and another miss. Have you even been paying any attention?
#77
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends

What does Harry Potter have to do with any of this? It does not, in any way, address the biblical narrative. 

He is as fictional as any of the characters you cite and his text is as fictional as your gospels. So your claim that citing him is parallel to my claim about the text you cite.
Again, more assertion without a lick of proof. The evidence for Jesus as a literal human being and Messiah is great, such as the Gospels and epistles that claim eyewitness accounts, early church fathers (including Clement Of Rome and Ignatius), Josephus, the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances of Jesus, the martyrdom of the believers, the quick spread of Christianity on the belief of the resurrection, secular historic sources from the period, such as Tacitus in AD 64, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, archaeological sources such as the Nazareth Inscription/Decree. Gary Habermas has identified "about a half-dozen “Minimal Historical Facts,”  that he "reduced from the original twelve."

Gary Habermas identifies seventeen documents from eleven different works of extra-biblical material, including mentioning the Talmud, of which "the oldest manuscript in Hebrew of the entire Talmud" containing unflattering references to Jesus, which is to be expected.

Your comparison is unfounded, especially since we know only Harry Potter is a fiction. The rest is speculation on your part that does not correspond to the historical evidence. 


 Tosefta is a tradition

No, it isn't and Jesus wouldn't have said so either. Just because you don't understand doesn't change anything. And saying you don't read Hebrew should remind you that you shouldn't then be making arguments about a Hebrew text that you can't read.
The old, "you don't read Hebrew" and "you don't read Hebrew" line of defence has already been addressed.

They were written down by Jews claiming to speak from God. 

You say this and quote from the text called "Hebrews" which is unrelated to Judaism? Thanks for the laugh. Do you accept the Book of Mormon? It was written by a Christian claiming to speak from God.
While it is perhaps not related to Judaism, it is related to the Jewish Scripture.

No, the book of Mormon is not a Christian writing and the claims from it are dubious to say the least. Many people claim to speak from God and the evidence does not support the claim, including those of Joseph Smith. 

 asked if you were rich enough God required the best offering for the identified class, the priesthood. Thus the sacrifice of an animal is not offered by your class. Where do you find that practiced today? You don't. Thus, you are not living according to the Law of Moses that required your finest offering. 

Having enough money made anyone eligible to buy a mammal. Having less limited someone to buying a bird. Having less led to ground flour. All were the best for the sin offering that the individual could afford. So, point one, this shows that blood is not necessary to effect atonement. Next, as I have stated, any sacrifice requires certain environmental variables be met and when they aren't, the text provides alternate means, even for the very limited number and type of sins that sacrifice can atone for.
It was necessary according to the Jewish Scriptures for all those who could afford such an offering because presenting ones best is what God requires and as such it is not being practiced today or after AD 70. All the feast day observances are no longer in place. The five offerings are not been observed as stipulated by the Law of Moses, and I have shown you this from the Jewish Scriptures repeatedly. You continue to contradict the Word of God. 

 I never said God wanted human sacrifices for the voluntary sacrifice of His Son was sufficient for all time. No other sacrifice could ever meet His righteous requirement, just the one and only. 

So if his "son" was human, then he wanted and accepted human sacrifice. If his son wasn't human then it was no sacrifice at all. Also, his son was not of any of the types of animals (or flour!) that is listed as acceptable for a sin sacrifice. And, of course, this meant that any sacrifices offered right then and there in the desert when God gave the commandments were not good enough and God set the people in the desert up for failure. That's not a Jewish view of God and his relationship with the people.
You are ad libbing. I said God never wanted human SACRIFICES (plural), yet with Adam's sin and disobedience came a fracture between God and humanity. It was a man who ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was a man who broke the fellowship of Eden with God. Thus, a man needed to restore that fellowship. The Mosaic Covenant shows that their sacrificial system was not adequate to restore humanity. It was only as good as their next sin. If an animal could take away sin then there would be no more need for such a sacrifice, yet the Law of Moses stipulated it (Leviticus 17). It only pointed to the time in which that restoration would happen through types, patterns, and shadows of the greater sanctuary. A righteous man was needed to restore what was broken. A man caused the problem and a man needed to fix it.

Next, God became incarnate (in human form). His Son had two natures, that of God and that of man. He lived completely within the capacity of His human nature while on earth since He came to fulfill all righteousness require by God of humanity. Thus, His sacrifice was sufficient to quench God's justice, for in the Son His justice has been satiated. 

Even with Abraham, God did not want Abraham to sacrifice his son, for He was testing Abraham on his obedience, and even Abraham understood that if God wanted Him to sacrifice his son that God was capable of resurrecting him. God NEVER intended Abraham to sacrifice his son, only as a lesson of the greater sacrifice He would make later in history. The lesson from Abraham is that of obedience and foreshadowing the provision of God.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.

Third, in every type of animal sacrifice or offering the idea of substitution or representation and fulfilling righteousness is present in the sacrifice. It is not the sinner who dies, but the animal representing the sins of the sinner. Thus, the priest lays hand on the animal, identifying with it, and the animal had to be without blemish. And, as I pointed out before with a couple of examples, the Burnt Offering and the Passover meal and feast, they all symbolized of gave typology of a greater truth, the antitype in each case being God. As I said, with the Passover, there are so many similarities that it would take even me, in my limited knowledge, hours to document to you. With the lamb sacrificed at the Passover was the principle that the angel of death passed over the people because of God's provision. The same is true in the New Covenant. Because of Jesus' death provision is made by God to meet the needs of the people, so that they can be righteous before their God. 

Finally, with your last point, about the sacrifices not being good enough, to an extent this is true, for they only provided covering for sin until the better and more righteous sacrifice could be made, a human one that addressed the cause of the first sin and how it effected humanity. They were never able to remove sin and restore an eternal peace and presences with God. Whether or not it is Judaism's view is another subject. 

It offers no proof for those who don't.

And yet you are of those who insist on things even when they can't read and understand that which they are denying. That text says explicitly that there is no one who saves people other than God. I had said, " I don’t need a “savior” except for God who will save me from the current exile."
I have told you a number of times now, my views are shared by many former rabbis and Jews (many of those who speak and write Hebrew).

You asked
Which laws and texts?

so I answered by citing a text. Deal with it. Oh, and by the way, I find this all incredibly amusing.
You failed to communicate with me and the majority on this thread. You are dealing with English speaking people largely and you need to accommodate them in your answers, otherwise you have said nothing that anyone can understand. 

I offered you both Hebrew and English recognizing that you speak and read both languages. 
#78
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
Post 68, Part 2:

 You have offered no evidence to us

as you have offered none to me. You don't read the texts I read and don't understand them but you claim to represent their ideas. If I were to give them to you in a translation, they would lose much of their meaning (and open them up to someone's misstatements). So why should I translate them? If you would prefer Aramaic, I am prepared to give 2 or three Aramaic versions, but each one includes interpretation, as any translation would. If anyone wants explanation, then I would be happy to explain to someone who is actually open to learning, and isn't operating with the agenda of disproving my entire religion.
I have offered much evidence. You fail to see it as such because of your bias. I did not just provide my own take but I listed and quoted sources that supports my views as reasonable evidence.

As for not understanding the text, that is your assumption. I have good translations that are highly capable of explaining what is said, and I have Hebrew and Greek language experts that have translated the original language, of which (until 1914) even the Jews enlarge did not have. Not only this, your charges have a latent insinuation that God cannot communicate with anyone by those who speak Hebrew. That is elitism on your part, yet you also say that God will save Gentiles to, per the Jewish Scriptures, of which I also pointed out.

Then you use another tactic by implying two things, 1) that I am not willing to consider what you say, 2) that I am incapable of learning, basically that I am ignorant of your "higher understanding." I would also like to mention that you are on a thread in which not many speak of read Hebrew, thus why do you think you are teaching anyone anything when you can't provide evidence that they would understand? As I reminded you of earlier in the metaphor, "Take the hay down from the loft so that the cattle can feed from it." It is no good up there. If you can't make your thoughts evident to others so they are capable of understanding you have basically said nothing - empty noise.  

 they are justified before God not on the bases of what they have done but on the merit of Another. 

No, still grammatically wrong.
So you assert without proof whereas I presented my case and you did not address it with counter-evidence.

He reasoned that God was able to raise the dead and that God would restore Isaac to life. 

Do you have any proof of that? I don't see it in the text. Abraham was rewarded for what he did, not for what his great grandson will do.
I do, I have Scripture and I have Abraham's example with confirms this in the Jewish segment of Scripture. He listened to God and was ready to sacrifice his son.  

1And it came to pass after these things, that God tested Abraham, and He said to him, "Abraham," and he said, "Here I am." 
אוַיְהִ֗י אַחַר֙ הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה וְהָ֣אֱלֹהִ֔ים נִסָּ֖ה אֶת־אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלָ֔יו אַבְרָהָ֖ם וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי:

2And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you." 
בוַיֹּ֡אמֶר קַח־נָ֠א אֶת־בִּנְךָ֨ אֶת־יְחִֽידְךָ֤ אֲשֶׁר־אָהַ֨בְתָּ֙ אֶת־יִצְחָ֔ק וְלֶ֨ךְ־לְךָ֔ אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ הַמֹּֽרִיָּ֑ה וְהַֽעֲלֵ֤הוּ שָׁם֙ לְעֹלָ֔ה עַ֚ל אַחַ֣ד הֶֽהָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֹמַ֥ר אֵלֶֽיךָ:

6And Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering, and he placed [it] upon his son Isaac, and he took into his hand the fire and the knife, and they both went together. 
ווַיִּקַּ֨ח אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֶת־עֲצֵ֣י הָֽעֹלָ֗ה וַיָּ֨שֶׂם֙ עַל־יִצְחָ֣ק בְּנ֔וֹ וַיִּקַּ֣ח בְּיָד֔וֹ אֶת־הָאֵ֖שׁ וְאֶת־הַמַּֽאֲכֶ֑לֶת וַיֵּֽלְכ֥וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֖ם יַחְדָּֽו:

7And Isaac spoke to Abraham his father, and he said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" 
זוַיֹּ֨אמֶר יִצְחָ֜ק אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֤ם אָבִיו֙ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אָבִ֔י וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִנֶּ֣נִּי בְנִ֑י וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הִנֵּ֤ה הָאֵשׁ֙ וְהָ֣עֵצִ֔ים וְאַיֵּ֥ה הַשֶּׂ֖ה לְעֹלָֽה:

8And Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And they both went together. 
חוַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֱלֹהִ֞ים יִרְאֶה־לּ֥וֹ הַשֶּׂ֛ה לְעֹלָ֖ה בְּנִ֑י וַיֵּֽלְכ֥וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֖ם יַחְדָּֽו:

9And they came to the place of which God had spoken to him, and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood, and he bound Isaac his son and placed him on the altar upon the wood. 
טוַיָּבֹ֗אוּ אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם֘ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָֽמַר־ל֣וֹ הָֽאֱלֹהִים֒ וַיִּ֨בֶן שָׁ֤ם אַבְרָהָם֙ אֶת־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וַיַּֽעֲרֹ֖ךְ אֶת־הָֽעֵצִ֑ים וַיַּֽעֲקֹד֙ אֶת־יִצְחָ֣ק בְּנ֔וֹ וַיָּ֤שֶׂם אֹתוֹ֙ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ מִמַּ֖עַל לָֽעֵצִֽים:

10And Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife, to slaughter his son. 
יוַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח אַבְרָהָם֙ אֶת־יָד֔וֹ וַיִּקַּ֖ח אֶת־הַמַּֽאֲכֶ֑לֶת לִשְׁחֹ֖ט אֶת־בְּנֽוֹ:

11And an angel of God called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham! Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 
יאוַיִּקְרָ֨א אֵלָ֜יו מַלְאַ֤ךְ יְהֹוָה֙ מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אַבְרָהָ֣ם | אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי:

12And he said, "Do not stretch forth your hand to the lad, nor do the slightest thing to him, for now I know that you are a God fearing man, and you did not withhold your son, your only one, from Me." 
יבוַיֹּ֗אמֶר אַל־תִּשְׁלַ֤ח יָֽדְךָ֙ אֶל־הַנַּ֔עַר וְאַל־תַּ֥עַשׂ ל֖וֹ מְא֑וּמָה כִּ֣י | עַתָּ֣ה יָדַ֗עְתִּי כִּֽי־יְרֵ֤א אֱלֹהִים֙ אַ֔תָּה וְלֹ֥א חָשַׂ֛כְתָּ אֶת־בִּנְךָ֥ אֶת־יְחִֽידְךָ֖ מִמֶּֽנִּי:

13And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and he saw, and lo! there was a ram, [and] after [that] it was caught in a tree by its horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
יגוַיִּשָּׂ֨א אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּרְא֙ וְהִנֵּה־אַ֔יִל אַחַ֕ר נֶֽאֱחַ֥ז בַּסְּבַ֖ךְ בְּקַרְנָ֑יו וַיֵּ֤לֶךְ אַבְרָהָם֙ וַיִּקַּ֣ח אֶת־הָאַ֔יִל וַיַּֽעֲלֵ֥הוּ לְעֹלָ֖ה תַּ֥חַת בְּנֽוֹ:

14And Abraham named that place, The Lord will see, as it is said to this day: On the mountain, the Lord will be seen. 
ידוַיִּקְרָ֧א אַבְרָהָ֛ם שֵֽׁם־הַמָּק֥וֹם הַה֖וּא יְהֹוָ֣ה | יִרְאֶ֑ה אֲשֶׁר֙ יֵֽאָמֵ֣ר הַיּ֔וֹם בְּהַ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה יֵֽרָאֶֽה:

He also was looking for a country that was not his own, a heavenly country. 

He was not looking for a country. He was led to a land, a physical place (Gen 12:1).
Mere speculation on your part. 

Hebrews 11:8-19
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
The Faith of Abraham
8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he stayed for a time in the land he had been promised, as in a foreign land, living in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he looked forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 By faith he received power of procreation, even though he was too old—and Sarah herself was barren—because he considered him faithful who had promised.[a] 12 Therefore from one person, and this one as good as dead, descendants were born, “as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.”
13 All of these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them. They confessed that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth, 14 for people who speak in this way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of the land that they had left behind, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, 18 of whom he had been told, “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” 19 He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead—and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

So, it is not based on speculation on my part, but on evidence from Jews who said they were inspired and directed by God in what they said, and their writings and their lives are confirmation God was with them however much you dislike such thinking. 


#79
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Gary Habermas identifies seventeen documents from eleven different works of extra-biblical material, including mentioning the Talmud, of which "the oldest manuscript in Hebrew of the entire Talmud" containing unflattering references to Jesus, which is to be expected
 
So here is where your chain of silliness falls flat. First off, you are using Christian documents and documents which are from the Christian tradition to try and prove an historical fact that Christianity relies on. That’s a huge problem. There are thousands of websites and books that “prove” that Jesus didn’t exist, or that knock down the “proof” that he did. Ultimately, it is a function of your faith, not any persuaive evidence, which is why there are still contrary views by scholars. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/
Then you try to refer to some guy who makes claims about the Talmud. Thing is, actual Talmud experts say he is wrong. The Talmud NEVER names Jesus and the person spoken about in the stories is probably not Jesus. https://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusi.html Have fun.
 
So, yeah…Harry Potter.
 
The old, "you don't read Hebrew" and "you don't read Hebrew" line of defence has already been addressed.
 
It has been raised, but you can’t address it. You can insist it shouldn’t matter, but it does.
 
it is related to the Jewish Scripture.

No, it is related to what Christians think of as scripture and think is connected to Jewish scripture. But it isn’t.
 
the book of Mormon is not a Christian writing and the claims from it are dubious to say the least. Many people claim to speak from God and the evidence does not support the claim, including those of Joseph Smith.
 
Golly gosh! Exactly what I have been saying about the gospels! I guess your “claim” about the BofM is more real than mine about the gospels.
 
It was necessary according to the Jewish Scriptures for all those who could afford such an offering because presenting ones best is what God requires
 
Well, according to one section of Jewish scriptures, which deals with one situation. And in that situation, blood isn’t required. Thanks for agreeing.
 
All the feast day observances are no longer in place. The five offerings are not been observed as stipulated by the Law of Moses, and I have shown you this from the Jewish Scriptures repeatedly. You continue to contradict the Word of God.
 
Yes they are, and you, still, don’t understand the law of Moses. You just know the small section that you have been told about. If you studied more of it, you would understand how it doesn't contradict.
 
I said God never wanted human SACRIFICES (plural)
 
Oh, so God did want one human sacrifice in your vision of God. And you see that as any less gross? Great. One human had to be murdered and you like that idea. So noted.
 
Even with Abraham, God did not want Abraham to sacrifice his son

Exactly, because God doesn’t want human sacrifice. Not even one. I mean, according to Judaism. Apparently, your idea of religion requires that God DOES want human sacrifice. But it also requires that God someone fathers himself so that he can let people kill him so that the death of a God who cannot die will act as a way of forgiving people who haven’t been born of actions they have yet to commit.
Now that I say it all the way through it makes SO much more sense.

Third, in every type of animal sacrifice or offering the idea of substitution or representation and fulfilling righteousness is present in the sacrifice. I
 
You say this but that doesn’t make it so. Then you speak of a sacrifice which is specifically not for atonement and try to tie it together through the game of “shadows” that you play.
 
my views are shared by many former rabbis and Jews (many of those who speak and write Hebrew)
 
Your views are shared by Christians and people like that reform Jew you cited. If I found a Christian who converted to Judaism and shares my view, would that mean that you would abandon your beliefs or embrace what the convert says? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Judaism_from_Christianity
 
You are dealing with English speaking people largely and you need to accommodate them in your answers, otherwise you have said nothing that anyone can understand.
 
You keep missing the point. You are making claims about a Hebrew document. When I answer, citing that document, you insist that I shouldn’t use Hebrew as the mode of answer. This just points to the ridiculousness of your referring to the document in the first place. You want things watered down via translation because this will validate your use of translation. But your use of translation is one of the flaws of your entire approach. Why would I validate that?
 
You fail to see it as such because of your bias. I did not just provide my own take but I listed and quoted sources that supports my views as reasonable evidence.
 
As have I, but your bias and ignorance make it impossible for you to see it as evidence. Such is life.
 
As for not understanding the text, that is your assumption

So then if you DO understand it, why do you keep asking for me to translate it?
 
which (until 1914) even the Jews enlarge did not have

I wish you understood just how silly this claim is. People before 1914 didn't have Hebrew texts? See this? https://hebrewbooks.org/39835 this is the book of Genesis printed in Russia in 1870. This https://hebrewbooks.org/40102 is from Warsaw in 1876  https://hebrewbooks.org/39837 Leviticus from 1857. This one is a little older https://hebrewbooks.org/43164 Venice 1518 https://hebrewbooks.org/22405 so why do you keep harping about 1914?
 
He reasoned that God was able to raise the dead and that God would restore Isaac to life.

This was your claim – that Abraham reasoned a certain way. Then you cite verses, none of which indicates this. There had been no precedent of resurrection, nor any promise of it. You then cite (as your “proof”) Christian texts which lack the exact same actual evidence that you lack. So you still have nothing but the empty claim, unsupported by the Genesis verses you quote.
 
Mere speculation on your part.
 
Speculation? I cited a verse which supported what I said. Y’see…this is why giving you “evidence” is worthless. You don’t read it. You claimed that the text was about Abraham “looking for” “a heavenly country” so I showed a verse that indicates that it was a real and physical place that God would show him so both parts of your claim are unsupported by the Genesis text and you reject the actual verse and instead, cite so gospel claptrap which has the same problem that you do – the claims are unsupported by the text. Your faith drives you to put those statements over the Genesis text. That you can’t see how empty an exercise this is, is very funny.
 

#80
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
Post 74, Part 1:

As I pointed out in my last  post, the Septuagint allegedly had a panel of 72 Hebrews from the twelve tribes who would understand what words to use in translating. I also pointed out the problems you have with your Hebrew texts.
 
Yes, allegedly. Jewish tradition teaches that it wasn’t 72 (among other differences in understanding the story) https://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-words/septuagint-1.8035 and it was only the 5 books of Moses. Greek translations of anything after that were not part of the story. For more, read here https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/34220/1362
Of course, you and they would make such a claim. The two web addresses require more time to flush out. It is my first time back in a week or so. 
 
Judaism is not the Hebrew Scriptures. From your posts I gather your opinion is that if a person doesn't speak Hebrew they can't understand the Scriptures, and you modern Jews are the only ones who understand what God has said, and to that you can find hundreds of different opinions by rabbis down through the years and ages.
 
Judaism is a religion. Scriptures are not a religion so I don’t see the real innovation in your first claim. Next, you can gather what you want. The texts were given to the Jews in a language of the Jews and in a socio-religious context inhabited by the Jews. Shakespeare scholars analyze Shakespeare and have a better understanding of it than optometrists who are not Shakespeare scholars. Go figure.

 
Many messianic rabbis
 
No such thing.
Sure there is. 






a leading expert in Messianic Judaic theology
 
You mean “an expert in Christianity.” Call it what it is.
Nope. I'm speaking of Jews who were practicing Judaism who believe in the Messiah Y'shua/Jesus. Thus, they have a wealth of experience in Judaism and recognize what the Scriptures teach. 
 
Their founder, a once Reform Jew, Moishe (Martin) Rosen had such a conviction that he rejected Judaism for Christianity.       

A reform Jew? If only you knew what you just bragged about. Sigh.
It is how he describes himself as pointed out in the article.
 
The Gospels are Scripture
 
No, at best they are Christian scripture. At their worst they are also Christian scripture.
Again, I recognize this is based on your prejudice.
 
Again, many others (including Jews) think as I do, so it is not just me.
 
Many people think the world is flat, Elvis is alive and tomatoes are vegetables (and some of them have gardens!). So? Groups can be wrong.

And there is sufficient evidence for the belief. 
 
Jesus, as a priest in the order of Melchizedek
 
No such thing in Judaism.

Bereishit - Genesis - Chapter 14
18And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God. 
יחוּמַלְכִּי־צֶ֨דֶק֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ שָׁלֵ֔ם הוֹצִ֖יא לֶ֣חֶם וָיָ֑יִן וְה֥וּא כֹהֵ֖ן לְאֵ֣ל עֶלְיֽוֹן:

#81
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Sure there is.
 
No, there isn’t but it makes sense that you would claim that there is. It just signals a few more things that you don’t understand. I did pick one of those “biographies” at random to read and found it laughable. It had the kinds of errors that a 5 year old who actually knew anything about Judaism would not make. But hey, you believe what you want to believe. I look forward to your list of Muslim popes next.
 
Nope. I'm speaking of Jews who were practicing Judaism who believe in the Messiah Y'shua/Jesus. Thus, they have a wealth of experience in Judaism and recognize what the Scriptures teach.
 
No, you are speaking of people who have little real knowledge of Judaism but you believe their claims because you know even less.
 
It is how he describes himself as pointed out in the article.
 
Yes, and this is exactly my point. He is describing himself as someone who does not have any real or deep understanding of traditional Judaism and follows a group that rejects most of what traditional Judaism teaches and you trot him out as a Jewish expert because, as I said, you know even less.
 
Again, I recognize this is based on your prejudice.
 
As your statement is based on yours. The difference is, I am being explicit in my label and you are trying to be generic.
 
And there is sufficient evidence for the belief.

Which is what a Flat-Earther would say. Fine.
 
And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God.

So he wore a collar and carried rosary beads and went to a Christian seminary, right? Or do you understand the word “priest” differently? You are taking an English word which is a translation of a technical Hebrew word and conflating all the understandings together as if the text in English presents you with a contemporarily relevant word. This is why I stick with the Hebrew, and in the context of the entire text. Yitro was referred to by the same technical word – do you see him as a priest also?
#82
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
.
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and then to unknown, and then back to a man, and then went to unknown again,  the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, has now changed genders 5 TIMES in their profile page, 


TRADESECRET QUOTE TO THE BROTHER D: “I am not scared to respond to a religious question. Please ask.  And start your own thread.”https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6688-biblical-contradiction?page=2&post_number=45

As your promise “as written” above so states, therefore I ask these questions to you regarding my thread as listed herewith:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6720-jesus-is-still-pissed-at-the-sinful-state-of-louisiana?page=1&post_number=1


1.  Do you think that Jesus’ hurricane “Ida” is appropriate enough for the continued sinning of the state of Louisiana and within the city of New Orleans, as shown within my initial post shown in the above link?

2.  Do you think that Jesus should have brought forth a level 6 hurricane, which is unheard of at this time, but in Jesus being our serial killing Yahweh God incarnate, He could bring forth such a forceful hurricane to really devastate and kill the entire population of Louisiana where it would take years upon years to rebuild because of their sinning nature?  

3.  It is said many times that the United States is a Christian nation, therefore would you agree that the government should not help the people recover from this brutal hurricane because it was Jesus' will that they should die and suffer for their sins?

4.  Scripturally, we're told that our Jesus is ever loving and forgiving, therefore is our Jesus a hypocrite when He brutally killed His Jewish creation, including innocent children, and destroyed Louisiana as shown in the horrific photos and videos that are now seen upon the News channels?

5.   Again, since the USA is a Christian Nation, and where Jesus controls this nation within the scriptures, don't you think that the hurricanes should be named with biblical terminology instead of random alphabetical human names?  An example could be: "The Second Flood of Jesus" and number them sequentially as time goes by. 

Jesus, the membership, and myself await a cogent response to the above questions that you said you would answer as shown in your quote above.

BEGIN:

Topic's author
#83
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
1.  Do you think that Jesus’ hurricane “Ida” is appropriate enough for the continued sinning of the state of Louisiana and within the city of New Orleans, as shown within my initial post shown in the above link?

2.  Do you think that Jesus should have brought forth a level 6 hurricane, which is unheard of at this time, but in Jesus being our serial killing Yahweh God incarnate, He could bring forth such a forceful hurricane to really devastate and kill the entire population of Louisiana where it would take years upon years to rebuild because of their sinning nature?  

3.  It is said many times that the United States is a Christian nation, therefore would you agree that the government should not help the people recover from this brutal hurricane because it was Jesus' will that they should die and suffer for their sins?

4.  Scripturally, we're told that our Jesus is ever loving and forgiving, therefore is our Jesus a hypocrite when He brutally killed His Jewish creation, including innocent children, and destroyed Louisiana as shown in the horrific photos and videos that are now seen upon the News channels?

5.   Again, since the USA is a Christian Nation, and where Jesus controls this nation within the scriptures, don't you think that the hurricanes should be named with biblical terminology instead of random alphabetical human names?  An example could be: "The Second Flood of Jesus" and number them sequentially as time goes by. 

Jesus, the membership, and myself await a cogent response to the above questions that you said you would answer as shown in your quote above.


8 days later

#84
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
Sure there is.
 
No, there isn’t but it makes sense that you would claim that there is. It just signals a few more things that you don’t understand. I did pick one of those “biographies” at random to read and found it laughable. It had the kinds of errors that a 5 year old who actually knew anything about Judaism would not make. But hey, you believe what you want to believe. I look forward to your list of Muslim popes next.
Nope, you cannot deny the evidence of Scripture without harming the text that speaks of an individual, not national Israel. You are the one who reads Israel into the text. 
 
Nope. I'm speaking of Jews who were practicing Judaism who believe in the Messiah Y'shua/Jesus. Thus, they have a wealth of experience in Judaism and recognize what the Scriptures teach.
 
No, you are speaking of people who have little real knowledge of Judaism but you believe their claims because you know even less.
No, I am not. I am speaking of renown Jewish scholars, such as Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides/Rambam). Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Jesus was a Jew, p15-25, lists and documents via quotes several rabbis from early times forward: 
1. Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel.
2. Rabbi Don Yitzchak Abarbanel .
3. Simon ben Yochai.
4. Rabbi Nahman.
5. Rabbi Eleazar ben Kalir.
6. Yepheth ben Ali.
7. Benjamin of Nehawend.
8. Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan.
9. Rabbi Moshe Kohen.
10. Rabbi Saadyeh Ibn Danan.
11. Rabbi Moshe El-Sheikh.
12. Rabbi Eiiyyah de Vidas.
13. Rabbi Naphtali ben Altschuler.
Thus, the tradition Jewish view of earlier days views Isaiah 52-53 as speaking of the Messiah (Mashiach ben Yosef), not national Israel.
  
It is how he describes himself as pointed out in the article.
 
Yes, and this is exactly my point. He is describing himself as someone who does not have any real or deep understanding of traditional Judaism and follows a group that rejects most of what traditional Judaism teaches and you trot him out as a Jewish expert because, as I said, you know even less.
No, the deep understanding of traditional Judaism recognizes an individual Messiah who would save His people and atone for their iniquity. The earliest Targums, per Fruchtenbaum, p 15-16, speak of an individual, per the quote from Rabbi Don Yitschak Abarbanel on Jonathan ben Uzziel belief from the 1st century A.D. 

"But Yonathan ben Uzziel interprets it [of Isaiah 53] in the Thargum of the future Messiah; and this is also the opinion of our learned men in the majority of their Midrashim."   
 
Again, I recognize this is based on your prejudice.
 
As your statement is based on yours. The difference is, I am being explicit in my label and you are trying to be generic.
Not only on mine but on many other learned men, many of them Jews as well as the text itself, without the filters you place on the text. 
 
And there is sufficient evidence for the belief.

Which is what a Flat-Earther would say. Fine.
Again, the flat earth is a different subject entirely. You are trying to use an analogy that does not fit. 
 
And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God.

So he wore a collar and carried rosary beads and went to a Christian seminary, right? Or do you understand the word “priest” differently? You are taking an English word which is a translation of a technical Hebrew word and conflating all the understandings together as if the text in English presents you with a contemporarily relevant word. This is why I stick with the Hebrew, and in the context of the entire text. Yitro was referred to by the same technical word – do you see him as a priest also?
Nope. I have shown that Malchizedek is a priest recorded in the OT, the Jewish Scriptures, not a Catholic priest of which I see very little Scriptural relevance to the Bible. The point is that Y'shua was a priest in the tradition of Malchizedek, not of the Aaronic priesthood. The reason is that with a change of covenant comes a change of priesthood.  
#85
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Nope, you cannot deny the evidence of Scripture without harming the text that speaks of an individual, not national Israel. You are the one who reads Israel into the text.

You say this when you have already admitted that you don’t understand the text in the way it is written. You have made claims about singular vs plural and gender and have been shown that the language of the text supports my point explicitly and via literary/grammatical precedent but you want to keep inserting your fiction into the text blindly.
 
Nope. I'm speaking of Jews who were practicing Judaism who believe in the Messiah Y'shua/Jesus. Thus, they have a wealth of experience in Judaism and recognize what the Scriptures teach.
 …
No, I am not. I am speaking of renown Jewish scholars, such as Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides/Rambam). Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Jesus was a Jew, p15-25, lists and documents via quotes several rabbis from early times forward:
 
See, this is called moving the goal posts. Your claim was about Jews who believe in Jesus as the messiah but when you try to cite a list, it seems that the list is of people who might have accepted that Jesus, if he existed, was Jewish. Those are two different claims. If you want to claim that, for example, Elazar Hakallir believed that Jesus was the messiah, please show me the evidence because I claim that none exists. And Rabbi Nahman? Do you mean the Breslover? Or someone else? I would guess that you have no idea who he is and that anyone would claim that he accepted Jesus as a messianic figure is laughable. Show, don’t tell. Or are you happy letting some other guy make your claims and do your thinking for you?
 
Thus, the tradition Jewish view of earlier days views Isaiah 52-53 as speaking of the Messiah (Mashiach ben Yosef), not national Israel.

That’s a really tired claim. If you wanted to read, I would suggest starting with this thread https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/messiahtruth/early-rabbinic-texts-support-isaiah-53-is-about-th-t7283.html and then we can look at, for example, the text of Yonatan ben Uzziel in the Aramaic. How’s your Aramaic?

What’s really funny is that you then selectively quote the Abarbanel, ignoring what he actually says about the targum’s statement (I am putting in a link to an image as I can't copy and paste the text, but if you want the source, I can get it for you)


The various rabbis who found a way to apply the text to a singular messianic figure did it not with the intent that it was the actual reading, but in a way to connect other teachings they had to the passage in question.
 
Again, the flat earth is a different subject entirely. You are trying to use an analogy that does not fit.

No, the flat earth belief is supported by “evidence” according to its adherents. They have plenty of “experts” to justify the belief. The analogy is the same but you are offended that it lumps your conspiracy theory with theirs.
 
Nope. I have shown that Malchizedek is a priest recorded in the OT, the Jewish Scriptures, not a Catholic priest of which I see very little Scriptural relevance to the Bible.

You haven’t. You have shown that the Hebrew word which later applies to one type of “priest” is also the word that is used for “chieftan” and for religious figureheads in pre-Mosaic communities. That you want to selectively conflate certain instances and then apply your understanding while ignoring other examples is laughable. Jesus was no priest in any sense and there is no “order” of priest that follows Malkitzedek. Remember, Yitro is also called by the same term. Was Yitro a priest? Neither was the recipient of the priesthood that God explicitly gave to the Aaronic line and never took away.

8 days later

#86
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
From Job, the oldest booking the OT.

Job 19:25 - For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

Job 19:26 - And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Job 19:27 - Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

#87
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
But I know that my Vindicator lives;
In the end He will testify on earth—

This, after my skin will have been peeled off.
But I would behold God while still in my flesh,

I myself, not another, would behold Him;
Would see with my own eyes:
My “kidneys.” pines within me.
-------------
But I know that my Redeemer lives, and the last on earth, He will endure.
 
And after my skin, they have cut into this, and from my flesh I see judgment.
 
That I see for myself, and my eyes have seen and not a stranger; my kidneys are consumed within me.
#88
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
Vindicator, Redeemer.
Will stand on the Earth, testify on Earth
See for myself, see with my own eyes

Seems like the implicit resurrection idea began in the first book of the Bible.
#89
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
Those references are not to anyone who has been resurrected. If you wish to create an interpretation that innovates this idea then recognize that it is not an understanding that has any place in (as this thread's title states) the Jewish system. 
#90
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
Job said, he knew that his Vindicator, Redeemer lives and would one day be on Earth, and that one day he would see God with his own eyes.

There is no way for you to spin that into something it is not, or to try to spin something out of it that's there.