The implicit Resurrection within the Jewish system

The section of texts called "Writings" (in which Job is found) were written within an already extant construct of religion so their meaning has to fall in line with that idea.

Now, while resurrection (as I have said) might be found within Judaism as a structure, it is not found in those lines unless one reads in a theological interpretation which is not part of Judaism.

Untrue. How would you know this? It is clear from the text that Job's friends did not share any already existing "construct" of religion as they disagreed fundamentally on doctrine.

I'm saying nothing about Judiasm, but the idea IS in the text, whether Judiasm follows the text is their business, but their particular opinion of Judaism doesn't change scripture at all.

Why would you continue to be so arrogant as to insist that your beliefs about Judaism are actually what Judaism is?

But you are and that's the problem. The purpose of this thread was a claim that resurrection could be found in the Jewish system as evidenced by particular texts. When you present this text within this thread, you are claiming that this is proof that something is true (as per the title) "within the Jewish system."

The idea may be in how YOU read the text but it isn't in how Judaism reads it. And, by the way, words like "death" and "worms" and "destroy" are not in the verse you cite. They are interpolations added by the translation you chose.

I can go through the Hebrew if you would like so you can see precisely what he words say and you will see how the translation you presented added in words that are not there. Your vision of the meaning here has nothing to do with the Jewish system.

...my focus is on Judaism, not anyone else's understanding of some English version of texts as seen through the lens of other beliefs. 

I made no comment about what Judiasm is. I showed what scripture clearly says. The doctrine of resurrection is in the text, regardless of what some Jews say.

That you view this as a "problem" is of no concern to me.

They are translations, not interpolations.

your constant excuse of "you aren't a Jew" has worn thin. Both Jews and non use the same modes of communication. The idea of a resurrection is expressed several times in the OT by Jewish characters in the OT.

I too am not interested in anyone else's understanding of any version of texts as seen through the lens of their beliefs. My focus remains on reality.

No, as your text inserted words that are not in the original. That makes them interpolations -- insertions, and not translations.

"Worn thin" to whom? To you?

So what?

It is just that Judaism doesn't understand this particular text as being one that invokes the idea of resurrection.

Then your statement of your particular interpretation of the texts on a thread about the Jewish system is irrelevant to anyone who wants to stay focused on the titular topic,...

I made no comment about what Judiasm is. I showed what scripture clearly says. The doctrine of resurrection is in the text, regardless of what some Jews say.

You are commenting in a thread specifically about the Jewish system and showing what you believe the scripture says. Those are two different positions.

You mean your particular brand of Judiasm.

Yes, this is very true.

As I am an orthodox rabbi,

I can really only speak about the ideas implicit within orthodox Judaism. 

If you have insight into another branch of Judaism,..

Though I don't remind anyone of anything at every chance (for example, I have posted on this thread many times and have not reminded anyone of anything regarding my background in most situations so your blanket claim is wrong) when it is a relevant point I mention it.

As to your other claim that my status does not make me "correct," I never claimed it did. However it does mean I have the requisite knowledge to represent the codified teachings of a larger group and not simply state a personal belief.

Your statement that "I have insight into the text in question" does not answer what I asked.

actually, I said that it is explicit in Judaism (check post 97). If you read through this thread you will see that my position is that the claim isn't evidenced by the texts cited in the original post, not that the concept isn't in Judaism.

Among Orthodox Jews, belief in the resurrection is still generally understood as a literal prophecy that will come to fruition when the messiah comes.

So until then resurrection is a Christian concept.

Whereas in Judaism it is still an unfulfilled prophecy.

yes, that makes it a concept within Judaism. Thank you.

No, until then it is still a Jewish concept that Christianity lifted when it tried to appropriate Jewish concepts.

In Christianity it is still an unfulfilled prophecy also unless you see Jesus as being alive again. Is your argument that an idea within a system isn't a concept? 

Though, in Jewish texts there are tales of resurrection (such as 2 Kings 13), so that would make it something which happened within the Jewish system and therefore not only a prophecy of the future.

Your use of "concept" is very unclear. The fact that there has not yet been a 3rd temple built (something that Jews pray for every day) means that there is no "concept" of the 3rd temple in Judaism? That's absurd.

So when in Kings a man is resurrected it became an actual thing in Judaism, well before Jesus was born, died and failed to fulfill anything akin to the role of messiah for so, so many reasons. And if Jesus was resurrected then he already had a second coming and failed twice. Great job.

And, yes, a prediction incorporates a concept. One cannot predict something which isn't an idea, so in Judaism, resurrection is a concept, the subject of many prophecies. You need to learn how to use words correctly. 

Judaism still works for the Jews. And quoting a text which has no value to Jews in order to "prove" some claim about Jews is useless.

When Christ returns to earth and sets up the Kingdom of God, He will restore a repentant Israel to its position of leadership in the world (Isaiah 11:12; 14:1-2). A humbled, obedient people will then serve in the capacity God intended for them.

I checked. No mention of Jesus there. We don't need his help. Try again.

Looking at Jewish history. Jews achieve atonement by animal sacrifice and the shedding of blood in the Temple.

Imaging the collective guilt and sin carried by the Jewish people since?

We can understand the resentment Jews have towards Jesus.

He was sent to save the Jews but failed as much as the blame rest on the Jews for rejecting Jesus.

You just cancelled the Jews again by declaring, “We don't need his help. Try again.”

Are you suggesting a third attempt might be need by Jesus just for the Jews because the spiritually unwashed Jews need more time to repent having lost the ability to seek atonement through animal sacrifice?

ooh, swing and a miss.

none because your presupposition is wrong. Strike two.

resentment? I say we giggle.

well, he did fail, I'll give you that. Sad that so many people were forced to glom onto a failure.

it doesn't cancel Jews to say that hjews don't need Jesus. It cancels Jesus. Try to keep up.

A third attempt? So you are admitting he failed twice? And yet you still hitch your horses to that? And again, you don't understand biblical atonement, so strike three.

For all intents and purposes, the Jewish practice of animal sacrifice ended in AD 70, the year that the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. With the temple gone, there is no longer a place for the sacrifices to be offered according to the Mosaic Law (see Deuteronomy 12:13–14). Repeatedly in the Old Testament, the point is made that sacrifices were required to make atonement for sin (e.g., Exodus 29:36; Leviticus 4:31; 9:7; 14:19; 15:15; Numbers 15:25). The shedding of blood is what consecrated things and people to the Lord (Leviticus 16:19; cf. Hebrews 9:22).

With no blood sacrifice today, the Jews have no lawful way of atoning for their sin. Passover is still observed, but without the sacrifice. Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is still on the calendar, but there is never an offering made for sin. The stipulations of the Mosaic Law remain unchanged, but the Jewish people cannot make things right with God—they cannot find forgiveness—without an animal sacrifice.

Imaging the collective guilt and sin carried by the Jewish people since?

Theological usage of the term “atonement” refers to a cluster of ideas in the Old Testament that center on the cleansing of impurity (which needs to be done to prevent God from leaving the Temple), and to New Testament notions that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3) and that “we were reconciled to God .

I wonder what is left for a Rabbi to teach when all of the major denominations of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist) have rejected Messianic Judaism as a form of Judaism. And by doing so denied the Jews the promises of the messianic period in the Hebrew Bible.

You wonder because you don't understand Judaism at all. Why you are so proud to parade your ignorance is the real mystery. I can't wait for you to repeat exactly what you wrote again, as if that will change anything.

But you do being a Rabbi and you also confirm the Jews still reject Jesus as their promised messiah.

One can only see Judaism as having failed the Jews who are living on land a fraction of what it’s Arab Muslim neighbours own. Arabs own land 650 times the size of Israel.

What have the Jews done with their covenant with God? The majority of Jews live in exile.

Yes, because he wasn't. 

No, one can see Judaism as having succeeded, living in palces all around the world. I'm not sure what you consider "success". First you look at number of adherents and yet you admit that there are more Hindus that Chisitians so by that metric Christianity is a failure. Then you look at a little bit of geography but Vatican city os tine.

I dealt with the Finkelstein issue in another thread. Your fixation with him (and with not reading things, and with repeating content) is noted.