The implicit Resurrection within the Jewish system

As a Christian I believe Jesus has met every righteous aspect of the Law, thus fulfilling it. The NT goes into depth regard this point.

As a Jew, I know the rules for “righteous” under Jewish law, and he ain’t it. Also, laws are not fulfilled, they are obeyed. And, of course, if your measuring rod is texts that hold not value or authority for me, then quoting them is worthless.

No name Yeshua?

Nope none. There was a nickname of yay-shu-a with the stress on the first syllable. Is that how you pronounce the nickname of your God? This is really basic Hebrew. There is also a Hebrew word which can be transliterated as “y’shu-a” with the stress on the second syllable, but that isn’t a name. Which one did you mean?

Take one example of what is applied to God in the OT as being applied to Jesus in the NT:

exactly – your “proof” is that the writers of later books took passages from the earlier books and applied them to someone else. By that logic, if I took passages and applied them to Harry Potter, you would say that there is “proof” that Harry Potter is identical with God. Silly, empty, illogical assertions on your part.

Prophecy is a big topic.

yes, and very different from what you understand. The biblical notion of prophecy and prophet is not centered around “predictions”

Maybe it is you who does not recognize some Messianic prophecy?

ah, more of the “Jews don’t understand texts aimed at and given to Jews”. Thanks. Do the Russians often tell the Americans “you don’t understand the American constitution”? And quoting from “Corinthians”? Do you think that means anything to me?

Other elements, but what about the atonement for sin?

yes, that is covered as well.

Do you offer burnt offerings in the prescribed manner?

How about meal offerings, sin offerings, trespass offerings, or peace offerings?

according to the text, I am not supposed to, so I follow the rules that the law lays down. You seem to be familiar with only a small set of rules. You quote all sorts of verses about the sacrificial system, but ignore some others (like rules indicating where and in what condition one is allowed to do those things, and what to do if the criteria cannot be met). You should learn more before you start asking these questions because they are already answered.

Here are some random facts:
According to Jewish law, atonement through sacrifice only covers a small section of sin

According to Jewish law, atonement on the day of atonement happens without sacrifice at all

According to Jewish law, sacrifices had to be given in the temple by people ritually pure.

The temple was destroyed and all people are in a state of impurity.

According to Jewish law, there is a verse which says what we can do instead of sacrifices in this situation.

Do you know that verse?

Well, that also.

And that is what the text of the NT teaches, a text that I would hazard you know very little of and yet speak from a point of authority on.

Oh, I don’t speak with any authority on the gospels, even though I have read a bunch of it. I certainly don’t quote it here to make any points. In fact, I have stated that it is useless because it has no authority. If I wanted to, I could certainly post verses that I have studied that would raise serious theological questions for you, but that’s not the goal.

 

I understand that an animal sacrifice was needed for sin, per the Law of Moses,

No, not really, but keep going. This is fun.

 the idea of a substitutionary payment for sin. The animal was acting in place of the sinner and it was a costly sacrifice, even so, yet it preserved the life of the sinner.

No, not at all. By that logic, [a] there should be no capital punishment, [b] just animal sacrifice replacing the human life. Or the sacrifice should be for sins that would otherwise require human death. But that’s not the case. Keep going…

 I understand that from the beginning of Genesis there was a principle of sacrifice, and Abel's sacrifice was considered more noble than Cain's.

There was no “principle”. There was an idea of ceding to God something of value.

 An animal sacrifice was always only a temporary sacrifice for sin until God could give the sacrifice which would atone for sin forever.

then you only understand Christianity and not Judaism because that idea has nothing to do with Judaism or the Jewish bible.

 Hebrews 9 explains this in great detail for anyone who wants to understand the OT system of sacrifice better.

See how to prove your point you have to quote form a non-Jewish text? QED.

They act as a substitute until God would make a sufficient sacrifice, a sinless human to restore righteousness.

Yeah, um…yuck. Humans aren’t fit for sacrifice under biblical law. In fact, human sacrifice is frowned upon. Also, humans are not sinless with rare exceptions and Jesus wasn’t one of those exceptions. And sins don’t “restore righteousness.”

After that time, Jews were no longer obedient to the covenant they made with God, nor could they be because God was displeased with that covenant yet used it for a purpose to demonstrate.

That is your assertion. It is meaningless, but there you go.

Where is that practiced in our day by the Jewish people? That was required by God until He established the New Covenant in His Son.

A wrong assertion, full of problems. It reflects a lack of understanding of the bible, of Jewish law and of logic.

The idea that you have the ability to live without sin before a holy God on your own merit is not what your OT Scriptures teach by its examples.

nor is it what anyone claims. That makes this a strawman.

yet the day he ate of the tree of knowledge he was barred from the intimate presence of God, and that very day he died spiritually to God.

if you knew Hebrew you would see why this is a mistake. But you don’t. So you don’t.

Not as mandated by God.

 Show me where.

 

In most any neighborhood where there are Jews. The Levitical priesthood (the “kohanic” system) still exists and there are a variety of laws mandated by God that we follow because of it, especially related to life cycle events (birth, marriage, death). You didn’t know this? You thought that the Levitical system was defined by and limited to sacrifices?

 

Jesus accepted the Septuagint as Scripture. Every translation from Hebrew finds word equivalents. Even your own Hebrew language (the one you probably speak) was reconstructed from ancient texts. What are the dated earliest known Scriptures you have in written form (plus you have no autographs from the original writers)?  

 

So your argument about my understanding the text is that I don’t because all I have is the written Torah scrolls that are the same in most every Jewish community, and the oral law which has been transmitted faithfully for thousands of years. If the extent of your argument is “you don’t even have the original, so nothing you say is authoritative” then have fun. You have even less than I have (and if you think that Jesus relied on a Greek translation and not the Hebrew, then you think very little of him).

Again, nice assertion back up without one scintilla of evidence.

Evidence that laws are not fulfilled? That’s a matter of English. Laws are obeyed.
Evidence that there are laws for righteousness in Jewish law? I can cite codes of Jewish law to show that Jesus’ behavior wouldn’t qualify as righteous. Would you like that? It is pretty straightforward.
Evidence that the gospels hold no authority for me (or for Jews)? What kind of evidence would you like? A signed declaration from a rabbi stating this? Because I’ll write one up and sign it. And, yes, I’m a rabbi.

Yeshua or Y'shua (ישוע‎ with vowel pointing יֵשׁוּעַ‎ – Yēšūaʿ in Hebrew)

 

That’s hilarious. If you read Hebrew, you would know that the English pronunciation doesn’t even match up to the Hebrew that is listed there. The nickname you listed is pronounced “yay-shu-a” with the stress on the first syllable. If you are going to use a nickname, at least pronounce it correctly.

My contention is they applied it to the rightful Person and you cannot dispute it with anything other than assertion to my knowledge.

 

Because your assertion that it was applied to the rightful person is based on your theological belief and nothing more. The Torah says X about God and a gospel writer applies X to Jesus. Since you believe in Jesus you say “hey, great job.” Anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus says “um…no.” And when someone comes along and applies X to anyone else, believers say “hey, great job” and you say “um…no.”

I contend there is quite the difference between Jewish traditions and Scripture.

Yes, that is your assertion

 Jesus was very fast to critique those who held to tradition above God's word.

But who cares? These quotes are from books that have no authority. If the Quran has quotes that show that Christians are wrong, does that mean anything to you?

Well, the Old Covenant people had a bad record of understanding their God. Your God called them stiff-necked people and the Hebrew testimony is one of them always going astray. The track record is not good.

 

So, two points: the [a] first is that, again, you keep going back to “people to whom the text was given and about whom it was written and who know the language in which it was written don’t understand it as well as outsiders”. You know who is an expert on medical textbooks? Kindergarten teachers.
The [b] second is that you are relying on many of the words of prophets which just proves the point I made about understanding what prophecy is. Thanks for the confirmation.

The shoe fits the other way too, as evidenced by your very Hebrew Scriptures. So, it is not a question of me telling you but your very Scriptures telling you.

 

The texts confirm that the Jews don’t understand the texts? And please try not to mix metaphors.

Again, you assert it but supply no evidence. 

Well, one part of the answer is found in Hoshea. Have at it! (but no, not 6:6)

The whole point of the Messiah was that Israel could never live up to the "rules" laid down in the Law.

Yes, that is your Christian idea of a messiah. That isn’t at all the biblical and Jewish notion of the messiah.

If you sinned unintentionally, you needed a sacrifice to atone for that sin.

A small group of sins was, indeed, covered by sacrifice, but that sacrifice could be of flour. So was that replaced by the sacrifice of the Pillsbury Dough Boy?

 

Nevertheless, it is required.

At a certain time, at a certain place, in a certain state. And if those criteria aren’t met, then there is another approach. That’s Jewish law.

 

Again, you make these broad statements without a shred of evidence so that nothing can be discussed further. 

 

Ok. Tosefta of Yoma, 4:7

 

עבר על מצות לא תעשה ועשה תשוב' תשובה תולה ויום הכפורים מכפר שנ' כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם וגו

 

Start discussing

 

Thus, they are not meeting the requirements of God, nor can they. That is the reason a better sacrifice was always planned by God.

Then you don’t understand all the requirements.

 

Are you referring to such verses as Hosea 6:6

Nope. Swing and a miss.

 

Yes, God does, but how do you think you meet that requirement? Hence, the need for the Saviour, the Messiah! Please pay very close attention to the underlined below:

 

Isaiah 53? Oh boy…you need some really basic help. I can send you to websites that explain Isaiah 53, verse by verse and idea by idea to help you understand why your theologically driven view of it is completely wrong. Just let me know. I mean, this is really simple and basic stuff. I thought you were a bit more aware than that.

Please go ahead with those verses.

Well, I could quote Jesus' saying to follow the Pharisees in what they teach, or I could point out Romans 11. But that’s not the point of this thread.

Again, just another assertion. They is nothing to go on about. You did not refute anything. You make no points, just give your opinion to date.

Well, actually, I’m giving you the opinion of Jewish law. Are you an expert in Jewish law? I’d love to show you lots of sources.

We are speaking of the Old Covenant. Jews no longer live under the Old Covenant for they cannot find forgiveness for their sins without meeting the requirements of God.

Yes, Jews live under the existing and eternal covenant but we understand it better than you do.

Besides this, God never condoned immoral behavior and especially not with zero punishment. He would not be just if He did so.

Never said he did. That’s another strawman.

He set up a covering for sin until the better offering could be made, a human life offered freely without blemish or spot, completely righteous and holy before God.

God doesn’t want human sacrifice. If that’s what you are hanging your hat on then good luck…

My works or merit will not meet God's righteous standards. What makes you think yours will?

Jewish law and texts tell me so. So I don’t need a “savior” except for God who will save me from the current exile.

Now, the problem with sacrifices is that they had to be continually offered for every new sin.

No…remember, most sins are not covered by sacrifices. That’s textual.

 

 (as I laid out in Isaiah 53).

So you really DO need a primer on Isaiah 53 I guess. Here is one resource. I have lots of others https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/topics/isaiah-53/

Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement covered Israel's sins for the entire year

Sin exists. In the future, even in messianic times, sin will exist, as will sacrifices and atonement processes. Sin is atoned for. Trying to create a distinction between “covered” and “removed” or something like that is totally alien to Judaism.

Your OT system of worship is weak in that it does not meet God's righteous requirement for it does not do away with sin or unrighteousness.

Ah, I see. God gave a deficient and incomplete system and then demanded people live by it. That’s your idea of God, I guess. Sneaky of him.

 The purpose of the Law of Moses was one of a school teacher to lead us to the Messiah.

And doom all people who lived until Jesus’ birth to eternal punishment for following the incomplete legal system that was demanded of them. Interesting.

Note that passage - "ALMOST ALL THINGS ARE CLEANSED WITH BLOOD, ACCORDING TO THE LAW."

Note that that passage comes from the gospels and is not anything with any value in Judaism. Did you want to quote from the Mahabharata also?

You came to the conclusion that the statement of evening and morning constituting the day can be understood to say that " it is an inbuilt design by God to the Jewish people that resurrection is his plan for his people."

That’s a fanciful conclusion to draw – not that Judaism doesn’t have an idea of resurrection in it, but I haven’t heard any Jewish thinkers tying it to this construction of the day. The phraseology of evening and morning established the structure of a day which has practical implications in how we fulfil certain commandments. But it isn’t tied to resurrection.

Judaism DOES have an idea that sleep is a mini-version of death (the oral law speaks of sleep as “one sixtieth of death”) and this has additional implications in terms of ritual impurity and the morning’s need for hand washing.

It is perfectly fine for you to speak of Christianity’s seeing these and other biblical events as symbolic or allusions (“shadows” is often a word I hear used) but that’s not how they work in Judaism.

My Hebrew Teacher - 

Tradesecrete wrote: I do  understand Orthodoxy. I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church. 

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4953-apostasy-from-true-christianity?page=4

#91

But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications.  #20

Yes, I studied in an university which had a variety of different religious figures. 

 It is none of your business.  

At least I am consistent with my worldview - unlike you - who is in denial - and irrational. 

At least I am consistent with my worldview

“that is a claim you make, but you have no documented genealogies to prove this. Your new priesthood do not follow the mandates of the Hebrew Bible in many respects.”

So you don’t understand חזקת כּהונה? That’s OK. What your underlying claim is, is that the essence of the entire religion is flawed and you know better than thousands of years of study, understanding and belief. And you say all this with no knowledge of Judaism. Amazing.

“Do you really think you can meet the righteous standards of God on your own merit? Is your faith satisfactory to God outside your acceptance of His perfect offering for your sins?”

See, that’s Christian theology imposing itself, and Christian verbiage trying to apply itself to a different religious construct. You have this weird notion of “perfect offering for your sins” and think that, because your vision of Christianity embraces it, any other religion is wrong, even when it comes to the essential construct of those other religions. You’re wrong, but your arrogance about your position blinds you, so you see in Judaism not what Judaism IS, but what you have decided it is in order to justify your conclusions.

“The difference between the Hebrew Scriptures and the NT is the 1st is a covenant of works in which you try and meet God's holy and righteous stand on your own merit. The 2nd is a covenant of grace, not by works, so that no one can boast before God of what they have done but instead rely on a perfect righteousness that is obtained by His grace and mercy to us.”

This statement is so steeped in Christianity that it is unintelligible to a Jew. You don’t know “Hebrew scriptures” you invent and demand this “covenant of _____” idea and then talk of “boasting before God.” All alien to Judaism.

“What makes you think you have the original autographs? You don't. They were destroyed with the destruction of Jerusalem for they were kept in the Holy Place - the temple. Why do you think you have something other than the traditions of men with these oral traditions? And, what makes you think your copies are from the autographs when the Septuagint as well as the Hebrew texts, sometimes quoted by Jesus, show acceptance by Jesus. Jesus accepted the Septuagint as a reliable translation as shown by His quoting from it, and as I pointed out, it can be traced back further than any of your texts, except for a brief quote.”

So you are back to “Jews don’t have the actual text so Judaism is wrong. Jesus accepted a particular translation, so Jesus must be right.” Jesus also referred to the Jewish oral law as authoritative. I guess you have to accept that it is right also.

“Sure, go ahead, but why should I believe you or your Rabbis in the areas they do not agree with Scripture?”

Since you don’t agree with what Judaism considers “scripture” why would anyone care about what you would or would not believe?

“I documented that it is accepted, and that it is a name. I never professed to be an authority on reading or speaking Hebrew. I go on what others have documented.”

So you can’t understand that what you copied and pasted is wrong on its face. You are relying on a black letter error but can’t understand that because you are happy in your ignorance. So noted.

“And I showcase that my assertions are justified by the Jewish Scriptures themselves.”

No, by your vision of what you think of as “Jewish scriptures.” Since you don’t understand actual Jewish scriptures, your assertions are wrong.

“You fail to recognize the authority. They have an authority that one day you will answer to. As for the Qur'an, it contradicts the teaching of the Jewish Scriptures and Christian Scriptures. The NT does not. What the NT does is provides the fulfillment of the OT or Hebrew Scriptures. You just don't recognize that because you do not recognize your Messiah and you heap a load of interpretations onto the text of Scripture, per Jesus.”

I see the gospels as useless and contradictory to Jewish text and law, the way you see the Quran and I have no concern that in some future moment I will have to "answer" for this in anything but the best way. You fail to see these problems because you only see Jewish text through those very same gospels. The failure is yours. You start with an invented messianic notion and work backwards to justify this flawed vision.

“[a]  The Hebrew Scriptures teach that as I pointed out with numerous verses that call them stiff-necked or disobedient. “

And that the torah laws, written and oral are eternal and binding and do not change. You sure you want to go with that?

“[b]  I don't follow your point. The words of the prophets are the words of those who spoke the message of God, the message about what was to come.     “

Only sometimes. Sometimes they spoke of what was important to impart, or what already came and what might or might not come. The essential aspect of prophecy in Judaism is the source of the insight, not the future focus of it.

“The shoe fits the other way too, as evidenced by your very Hebrew Scriptures. So, it is not a question of me telling you but your very Scriptures telling you.”

 Just your limited view of text.

“I have been arguing just that - the Jews did not understand the text or whom their Messiah was, or is. “

So there you have it. Jews got texts and had a relationship with God for a whole bunch of years, built 2 temples and thrived, but you say that Jews didn’t understand a central idea of Judaism. You realize, I hope, that there were many “messiahs” before Jesus was even born, right? And somehow, Jews recognized them just fine.

“Again, stop playing games and just list what you want to say. “

But this is so much more fun. You keep insisting stuff about Judaism but aren’t even familiar with a central verse that defines much of Jewish practice. This proves my point, again and again, that you speak from ignorance but instead of admitting you don’t know, you forge ahead.

“The whole point of the Messiah was that Israel could never live up to the "rules" laid down in the Law.”

Maybe that’s a Christian idea of what a messiah is. That isn’t what is found in Jewish text and law.

“The Messiah was the deliverer of Israel, appointed and anointed by God. “

Not exactly, no. Nice try, though.
I noticed that you didn’t discuss the tosefta I quoted. Why is that? Oh…you don’t know Hebrew and yet you keep making claims that are against Hebrew scripture and law. You want things in words you understand but when I put them there you say “that’s an assertion, bring proof.” The Hebrew IS THE PROOF. Your ignorance can’t stop that fact.

“Not the sin offering. It was different from the burnt offering, peace offering, trespass offering, or meal offering. It was a bull, goat, or lamb, depending on who sinned.”

So you are saying that a flour offering didn’t expiate sin? Have you even read Lev 5:11?

“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.

Yes, I studied in an university which had a variety of different religious figures. 

 It is none of your business.  

You  make it the business of others from the moment that you declared freely  your back story to the www that now all of a sudden includes being tutored in Hebrew by a Hebrew among your other claims to fame. No doubt you will complain about what it is that YOU have freely chosen to reveal about yourself at a later date. you just can't help yourself. I have told you, when one of your other personas makes these claims on your behalf they will always fall back on you, the Reverend "Tradey" Tradesecrete.

At least I am consistent with my worldview - unlike you - who is in denial - and irrational. 

I don't believe there is anything irrational about my own beliefs where these ambiguous half stories that make up the scriptures are concerned. You believe that a three days old  rotten stinking corpse rose from the dead, I don't. I have never witnessed this alleged phenomena and neither have you. Yet you question the minds of those those that don't believe it and their "irrationality"? 

At least I am consistent with my worldview

And so am I until something causes me to change my world view.  And it is not your "world view" that I am bringing into question is it thicko?  No.  What I bring into question are these unreliable ambiguous half stories that go to make up the scriptures.

Please just keep to the topic. You know it is against the rules to derail people's threads with your personal vendettas.  

 Tradesecret wrote: In order for me to study Hebrew, I needed a teacher. That he was a Hebrew was a bonus. 

your personal vendettas. 

Odd that you also call your learned teacher "A Hebrew"

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.