PDA

View Full Version : Some thoughts on Jerusalem NOTE BY PP: This is between Fenris and ProjectPeter



Fenris
Dec 6th 2007, 02:08 PM
This rabbi was my high school principal. It was a privilege.


Jerusalem, earthly and heavenly

BEREL WEIN , THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 5, 2007

A number of years ago I visited San Diego, California to deliver a lecture at a local synagogue. On the next day, I prevailed upon my friend and colleague, the rabbi of the synagogue to accompany me across the US-Mexican border to visit Tijuana. Ignoring the advice of the rabbi that the visit was not worth the time I insisted in doing so anyway. The rabbi was right. Tijuana was vastly disappointing. But on the way back, crossing into the United States from Mexico an incident occurred that has remained stamped in my memory ever since.


The burly Mexican American customs officer at the border examined my passport and paused. He then asked me in awe and wonderment: "Do you really live in Jerusalem?"


When I answered affirmatively he looked at me and said: "How blessed you must be to be able to live in Jerusalem."


It was a moment of transcendent revelation to me. Truly, I should feel fortunate and blessed to live in Jerusalem. The customs officer confirmed a truism to me that, like other truisms in life, I sometimes tend not to remember and concentrate on.


I live in a very special place at a very special time. I have an opportunity granted to me that was denied to generations of my more worthy ancestors. I should savor and appreciate this opportunity and not treat it in a cavalier or mundane fashion. The Jewish past has an opportunity to currently live with and through me. There is responsibility carried with this opportunity.


The Talmud asks: "Why are the hot springs baths of Tiberias not located in Jerusalem?" Why are the great and tasty fruits of the Ginossar area not grown in Jerusalem?"


The Talmud responds: "So that no one should ascend to Jerusalem for the sweet fruits or for the hot baths. Rather, one ascends to Jerusalem for the sake of Jerusalem itself."


JERUSALEM is its own attraction. It does not rely upon natural wonders, outstanding weather or unusual surroundings for its attraction. It is holy, mysterious, the soul of Jewish history and longing. The rabbis taught us that there is a heavenly Jerusalem perched over the earthly Jerusalem. In order to truly appreciate the earthly Jerusalem one must also be able to glimpse the heavenly Jerusalem as well.


To see Jerusalem as a piece of real estate, a place on the map, is not to see it at all, let alone appreciate its role in Judaism and Jewish life and thought. The driving force behind Zionism, even its most secular format, was the hunger of the Jewish people for Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the emotional battery that charged all of the movement of the return to Zion by Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries. The earthly Jerusalem with all of its wonders and problems, greatness and shortcomings, is a product of seeing the heavenly Jerusalem with eyes of tears and hope.


Nehemiah built the walls of Jerusalem at the beginning of the Second Temple period with one hand on the sword and the second one on the building locks. But Midrash records that his eyes were always looking heavenward at the heavenly Jerusalem.


THE CAPITAL'S diplomatic fate is a hot topic of conversation these days. The people who claim to represent our best interests regarding the city apparently only see the earthly Jerusalem. In their practicality they have become wildly impractical. There is no way for a body to survive once its heart has been broken asunder.


There has never been a Jewish power in our history that contemplated willingly ceding Jerusalem or any part of it to others, especially to sworn enemies who denigrate our faith and question our right to exist. It is the complete disregard, whether out of ignorance or ideology, of the heavenly Jerusalem that brings one to compromise the very existence of the earthly Jerusalem, a Jerusalem that we should feel so blessed and appreciative to control.


A friend of mine summed up the matter when he told me this story about his aged father who had just come to Israel on aliya in his eightieth year. The son settled the father in a very comfortable senior citizen residence in the coastal part of the country. But after two months the father insisted on relocating to Jerusalem. He said: "I have not waited for 80 years to finally come to the Land of Israel and not to live in Jerusalem."


We see the traffic jams, the torn-up streets, the problems of living in a metropolis that is still developing. That is the earthly Jerusalem. But the heavenly Jerusalem resonates in our souls and hearts and that is what makes life in the earthly Jerusalem so meaningful and important.


How can it be otherwise?

threebigrocks
Dec 6th 2007, 05:57 PM
This rabbi was my high school principal. It was a privilege.


The earthly Jerusalem with all of its wonders and problems, greatness and shortcomings, is a product of seeing the heavenly Jerusalem with eyes of tears and hope.

That right there says a more in half a sentence than many can say in paragraphs. Hope of that heavenly Jerusalem is what pushes us to continue on, in despite of the worldly shortcomings.

You had a very wise principal! :)

ProjectPeter
Dec 8th 2007, 03:47 PM
This rabbi was my high school principal. It was a privilege.
Hey... what are your thoughts on the heavenly Jerusalem? Curious as to how you view that being Jewish.

Fenris
Dec 9th 2007, 03:29 PM
I don't know much about a heavenly Jerusalem. But supposedly there is a heavenly temple that will be placed upon the temple mount in the messianic era. Since it will be created by God it will never be destroyed, unlike the first two.

ProjectPeter
Dec 10th 2007, 12:06 PM
Would you mind telling me your understanding of the Messianic era?

Fenris
Dec 10th 2007, 02:09 PM
Of course.

The Jews will return to Israel: "And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12 and numerous other places)

The Temple will be rebuilt: .."I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27 among others)

There will be universal peace: "..they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)

Everyone will acknowledge God: "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23 and elsewhere)

How does this square with the Christian concept of the Second Coming?

ProjectPeter
Dec 10th 2007, 02:25 PM
Of course.

The Jews will return to Israel: "And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12 and numerous other places)

The Temple will be rebuilt: .."I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27 among others)

There will be universal peace: "..they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)

Everyone will acknowledge God: "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23 and elsewhere)

How does this square with the Christian concept of the Second Coming?
It would vary depending on the persons eschatology... but that shouldn't surprise you! :lol:

With those that believe in the literal 1000 year rule and reign of Christ on earth... it would match perfectly for the most part. I for one do believe in the literal 1000 year reign of Christ so it squares well with me. I'd like to share some of that with you but it would likely just bring about a bunch of argument which I'm not interested in participating in. I've never been one to spend a lot of time arguing the End Time events because honestly... I figure there is so much that we can only speculate on until we're actually in that time. But shoot... maybe it's time to put that old habit away and just lay it out. :lol: I figure we are getting close to that time so in for a penny... in for a pound.

Let me start working that... I am curious as to what you would think about it.

Fenris
Dec 10th 2007, 03:08 PM
It would vary depending on the persons eschatology... but that shouldn't surprise you! :lol:Yeah, I should have expected than answer! :D


With those that believe in the literal 1000 year rule and reign of Christ on earth... it would match perfectly for the most part.Interesting. I wonder how those who believe otherwise interpret the scripture involved.


I for one do believe in the literal 1000 year reign of Christ so it squares well with me. I'd like to share some of that with you but it would likely just bring about a bunch of argument which I'm not interested in participating in. I've never been one to spend a lot of time arguing the End Time events because honestly... I figure there is so much that we can only speculate on until we're actually in that time.You are in good company with that opinion: The Jewish sage Maimonides said much the same thing!


Let me start working that... I am curious as to what you would think about it.I am curious what you're going to tell me!

ProjectPeter
Dec 10th 2007, 04:30 PM
Yeah, I should have expected than answer! :D

Interesting. I wonder how those who believe otherwise interpret the scripture involved. Many believe that all of the prophecy in the Old Testament has already been fulfilled. Much of it with Christ and then finished in 70 AD. Some believe even all of the prophecy... both old and new Testament... have been fulfilled. That latter is a much smaller camp though.



You are in good company with that opinion: The Jewish sage Maimonides said much the same thing!I think Daniel may have said it first or at least officially. :) Remember in that last chapter... Daniel wanted to understand that mystery but was told by the angel... not for you to know Daniel. When it was time to be known... it'll be known (my paraphrase :))

Daniel 12:7 And I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed.
8 As for me, I heard but could not understand; so I said, "My lord, what will be the outcome of these events?"
9 And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time.
10 "Many will be purged, purified and refined; but the wicked will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand.
11 "And from the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
12 "How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days!
13 "But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."



I am curious what you're going to tell me!I'll give you some basic on it... then I am going to copy it in my blog. I actually started a new section the other day about my eschatology. Like I said... never been one to debate it much because I think that's the problem that so many have today. Over the years they've followed teachers and studied something on their own and have drawn their conclusion a bit prematurely. It wasn't time for that revelation yet. That being said... I'm figuring we're nearing that time so there have been some good teaching come from some folk of late. I call it good anyway because I agree with it... but I suppose that too stands to reason! :lol:

Fenris
Dec 10th 2007, 05:53 PM
Many believe that all of the prophecy in the Old Testament has already been fulfilled. Much of it with Christ and then finished in 70 AD. Some believe even all of the prophecy... both old and new Testament... have been fulfilled. That latter is a much smaller camp though. Ah. Interesting, interesting.


I think Daniel may have said it first or at least officially. :) Remember in that last chapter... Daniel wanted to understand that mystery but was told by the angel... not for you to know Daniel. When it was time to be known... it'll be known (my paraphrase :))Yes, he did speak of the end time being concealed. Maimonides says in his laws of kings:


All these and similar matters cannot be [clearly] known by man until they occur, for they are undefined in the words of the prophets. Even the Sages have no established tradition regarding these matters, beyond what is implied by the verses; hence there is a divergence of opinion among them.


In any case, neither the sequence of these events nor their precise details are among the fundamental principles of the faith. One should not occupy himself at length with the aggadot and midrashim that deal with these and similar matters, nor should he deem them of prime importance, for they bring one to neither the awe nor the love [of G‑d].


Similarly, one should not try to calculate the appointed time [for the coming of Moshiach]. Our Sages declared (Sanhedrin 97b): "May the spirits of those who attempt to calculate the final time [of Moshiach's coming] expire!" Rather, one should await [his coming] and believe in the general conception of the matter, as we have explained.






I'll give you some basic on it... then I am going to copy it in my blog. I actually started a new section the other day about my eschatology. Like I said... never been one to debate it much because I think that's the problem that so many have today. Over the years they've followed teachers and studied something on their own and have drawn their conclusion a bit prematurely. It wasn't time for that revelation yet. That being said... I'm figuring we're nearing that time so there have been some good teaching come from some folk of late. I call it good anyway because I agree with it... but I suppose that too stands to reason! :lol:Yes, by all means, please share!

ProjectPeter
Dec 10th 2007, 07:17 PM
Ah. Interesting, interesting.

Yes, he did speak of the end time being concealed. Maimonides says in his laws of kings:


All these and similar matters cannot be [clearly] known by man until they occur, for they are undefined in the words of the prophets. Even the Sages have no established tradition regarding these matters, beyond what is implied by the verses; hence there is a divergence of opinion among them.


In any case, neither the sequence of these events nor their precise details are among the fundamental principles of the faith. One should not occupy himself at length with the aggadot and midrashim that deal with these and similar matters, nor should he deem them of prime importance, for they bring one to neither the awe nor the love [of G‑d].


Similarly, one should not try to calculate the appointed time [for the coming of Moshiach]. Our Sages declared (Sanhedrin 97b): "May the spirits of those who attempt to calculate the final time [of Moshiach's coming] expire!" Rather, one should await [his coming] and believe in the general conception of the matter, as we have explained.




Yes, by all means, please share!
Okay... I will start bit by bit. I'll ask a favor of folks too. Even though you may disagree with my end times belief... that's cool... just understand that I am not going to debate it with you in this thread. You can refute it and whatever if that helps you get through the day and all. Just don't expect any rebuttal on my part. That isn't my goal here... it's simply what I believe. :)

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
2 And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in Thy sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8 ¶But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

God created the earth and everything on it in six days. On the Seventh Day God rested. Since the beginning, God has began a pattern that we see throughout the Scripture. Six days of work... rest on the Sabbath.

As much as it might pain some folks to ponder... God also rest on the Sabbath. Does that mean God rest every "seven literal days?" I'm thinking not and these two passages by David and Peter explain something that I think mystery revealed among statements that for years seemed to be hyperbole simply stating "a long time period."

This used to be known as the "7 Day Theory" although I am long beyond the point of counting it theory. In other words... God created the earth and all in it over a six day period of time (be it literal or six thousand years is not relevant).

From the time of start of the genealogy of Adam to the period of Christ we have 4000 years (1 day at 1000 years= 4 days). From the time of Christ to today we are at 2000 years (1 day at 1000 years= 2 days) and this would bring us somewhere near the end of the sixth day. This would mean that God's day of rest is near should this pan out to be mystery revealed and not simply theory.

Now... to what was revealed to John.

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,
3 and threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he should not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

This is when God will rest again. His enemy, Satan, can no longer operate because he is bound for that 1000 years. Satan will no longer deceive the nations and Christ Himself will reign on the earth.

That is the basic idea of the seven day pattern that I see. There are other things as well that I think bolster this in a major way and I'll share them in another post.

Fenris
Dec 10th 2007, 07:51 PM
God created the earth and everything on it in six days. On the Seventh Day God rested. Since the beginning, God has began a pattern that we see throughout the Scripture. Six days of work... rest on the Sabbath.

As much as it might pain some folks to ponder... God also rest on the Sabbath. Does that mean God rest every "seven literal days?" I'm thinking not and these two passages by David and Peter explain something that I think mystery revealed among statements that for years seemed to be hyperbole simply stating "a long time period."

This used to be known as the "7 Day Theory" although I am long beyond the point of counting it theory. In other words... God created the earth and all in it over a six day period of time (be it literal or six thousand years is not relevant).
Not too much for me to disagree with there. The rabbis actually surmised that the maximum time for the coming of the messiah would be 6000 years after Creation for the same reasons that you listed.

The fact that we have seen the recreation of the state of Israel and the ingathering of the Jewish exiles from more than 100 countries, as prophesied, should tell us that the end is very nearly here.

ProjectPeter
Dec 10th 2007, 08:13 PM
Okay... now for some other interesting passages!

The parables of Jesus are about His kingdom and how we are to enter. The simplicity of the parables are important and one must understand the simple first. I do not believe that God will reveal any mystery until first the simple is understood. But that being said... there is mystery in much of the writings.

An example can be found in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus is asked... who is my neighbor. This was after making it clear that the Law and Prophets can be simply summed up in Love God with all your heart, soul and mind and of equal importance, love your neighbor as you love yourself. In this parable it is commonly excepted that Jesus is the one portrayed as the good Samaritan. A man is beaten and left in a ditch by robbers. He bings the man with oil and wine (Spirit and blood) and takes the man to an innkeeper (his ministers) and he pays the innkeeper 2 denarii telling the innkeeper to care for him until he returns. What was 2 denarii? It was simply two days wages. Look at the passage in Matthew for confirmation.

Matthew 20:9 "And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius.
10 "And when those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; and they also received each one a denarius.
11 "And when they received it, they grumbled at the landowner,
12 saying, `These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.´
13 "But he answered and said to one of them, `Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius?
14 `Take what is yours and go your way, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you.

Another example... what Jesus told Herod.

Luke 13:32 And He said to them, "Go and tell that fox, `Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.´
33 "Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem.

Today and tomorrow (2000 years) I will work (through my body) performing healings and casting out devils... and on the 3rd day... I will finish what I have to do on the 3rd day (seventh day).

1 Corinthians 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,
24 then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
28 And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all.

After Satan is loosed for that short season and then cast into the lake of fire... the last enemy abolished is death. The end of all when Satan is cast into the lake and judgment is complete.

And just for you... some Old Testament. :) Hosea 6:1 "Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us.

Hosea 6:1 "Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us.
2 "He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day That we may live before Him.
3 "So let us know, let us press on to know the LORD. His going forth is as certain as the dawn; And He will come to us like the rain, Like the spring rain watering the earth."


It is during that third day when God's beloved will be revived and you will know that Jesus is Lord and Israel will be healed. It will be as rain on Georgia's parched earth. You know I have to go there... always going to try! :) There is more if you are interested.

ProjectPeter
Dec 10th 2007, 08:21 PM
Not too much for me to disagree with there. The rabbis actually surmised that the maximum time for the coming of the messiah would be 6000 years after Creation for the same reasons that you listed.

The fact that we have seen the recreation of the state of Israel and the ingathering of the Jewish exiles from more than 100 countries, as prophesied, should tell us that the end is very nearly here.
That's cool... didn't know that. But shoot... it makes so much sense to me. God created it in six... He works on the seven day principle. To us... 1000 years is a time span we cannot even begin to fathom. But to God... it is but a day. I think of the time when man lived that long and it is amazing to even ponder. I think the insaneness of it all is why so many people can't take the first 11 chapters of Genesis as literal. It just bugs them out to a point where it has to be some sort of fairy tale or some sort of story to make a point... a fable if you will.

But interesting that there are Rabbi's who think the same.

ProjectPeter
Dec 10th 2007, 08:34 PM
I am doing something that I have never done before and that is asking everyone else to allow me the opportunity to share this with Fenris without it being a debate on Eschatology. If you have a problem with this then please post in Chat to Mod's. If you want to comment to the original post then please do that. Just don't pick apart my words at this point in time... it will just take the thread where it really doesn't need to go and that serves no purpose.

Fenris
Dec 10th 2007, 08:57 PM
Okay... now for some other interesting passages!
...
Today and tomorrow (2000 years) I will work (through my body) performing healings and casting out devils... and on the 3rd day... I will finish what I have to do on the 3rd day (seventh day).

OK, so you're tying in the 7 days of creation with the 200 years since Jesus came. Interesting.

ProjectPeter
Dec 10th 2007, 09:05 PM
OK, so you're tying in the 7 days of creation with the 200 years since Jesus came. Interesting.
Well think about it. 4 days (4000) years from Adam to Christ. Then we've had two days (2000 years) since Christ was here... coming to the 6000 year time where we sit now.

I know you've read the New Testament from previous discussion. So let me go here and think of the similarities of when Christ returns on the Mount of Olives...

Exodus 19:10 The LORD also said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments;
11 and let them be ready for the third day, for on the third day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.
12 "And you shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, `Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death.
13 `No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether beast or man, he shall not live.´ When the ram's horn sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain."
14 So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people, and they washed their garments.
15 And he said to the people, "Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman."
16 ¶So it came about on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunder and lightning flashes and a thick cloud upon the mountain and a very loud trumpet sound, so that all the people who were in the camp trembled.
17 And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain.
18 Now Mount Sinai was all in smoke because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked violently.
19 When the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and God answered him with thunder.
20 And the LORD came down on Mount Sinai, to the top of the mountain; and the LORD called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up.

I can go into more detail if needed... but some reading and pondering should at least make you feel a little bit of a chill! :lol:

Fenris
Dec 10th 2007, 09:07 PM
But interesting that there are Rabbi's who think the same.
Well, I have to be honest with you. Theology and messianism is less important in Judaism than in Christianity. I'll provide an interesting example: Hillel (the Elder) was the one who started the whole 'House of Hillel' with all of it's followers. He was the grandfather to the Gamliel mentioned in the NT. He was the leading torah scholar in his generation, and his rulings are still followed to this day.

Hillel did not believe in an individual messiah. His feelings were that the messianic prophecies about an individual messiah had already been fulfilled by king Hezekiah and no individual would step forth in the future to fulfill them. Rather, he thought that the messianic fulfillment would be through a historic process and not a person.

His view are very unusual; even eccentric. They were not followed by any other rabbis of his era and no religious Jew currently believes as he did. But he was not ostracized for his beliefs by the Jewish community because religious Jews did not, and do not, place theology above doing God's will. It's an interesting topic, to be sure, but less important than following the instruction manual that God entrusted to us.

Fenris
Dec 10th 2007, 09:09 PM
I know you've read the New Testament from previous discussion. So let me go here and think of the similarities of when Christ returns on the Mount of Olives...
I am familiar with this chapter, it is from my Bar Mitzvah portion. :D

Which NT chapter are you tying it to?

ProjectPeter
Dec 10th 2007, 09:18 PM
Well, I have to be honest with you. Theology and messianism is less important in Judaism than in Christianity. I'll provide an interesting example: Hillel (the Elder) was the one who started the whole 'House of Hillel' with all of it's followers. He was the grandfather to the Gamliel mentioned in the NT. He was the leading torah scholar in his generation, and his rulings are still followed to this day.

Hillel did not believe in an individual messiah. His feelings were that the messianic prophecies about an individual messiah had already been fulfilled by king Hezekiah and no individual would step forth in the future to fulfill them. Rather, he thought that the messianic fulfillment would be through a historic process and not a person.

His view are very unusual; even eccentric. They were not followed by any other rabbis of his era and no religious Jew currently believes as he did. But he was not ostracized for his beliefs by the Jewish community because religious Jews did not, and do not, place theology above doing God's will. It's an interesting topic, to be sure, but less important than following the instruction manual that God entrusted to us.In many ways I agree. Reason being... it was going to happen at a future time. What folks did here in the nasty now and now was the deciding factor because many would see the "end times" simply because their time came to an end. It would be but a certain people that saw that time spoken of by the angel to Daniel. The angel even made it clear to Daniel that he wouldn't see it but it was for a later time. So the instruction manual for the nasty now and now is and has been of utmost importance. It is also one of the reasons you don't see me going around in End Times forum posting with such urgency over the years I have been here... instead I spend the majority of my time in Bible Chat talking about how it is that we're supposed to be living while we have breath in our bodies.

That being said... I do now believe the time is very short. Believe it with every ounce of being in my being. So times are changing the more I see that grand day appearing. :)

ProjectPeter
Dec 10th 2007, 09:21 PM
In many ways I agree. Reason being... it was going to happen at a future time. What folks did here in the nasty now and now was the deciding factor because many would see the "end times" simply because their time came to an end. It would be but a certain people that saw that time spoken of by the angel to Daniel. The angel even made it clear to Daniel that he wouldn't see it but it was for a later time. So the instruction manual for the nasty now and now is and has been of utmost importance. It is also one of the reasons you don't see me going around in End Times forum posting with such urgency over the years I have been here... instead I spend the majority of my time in Bible Chat talking about how it is that we're supposed to be living while we have breath in our bodies.

That being said... I do now believe the time is very short. Believe it with every ounce of being in my being. So times are changing the more I see that grand day appearing. :)
Oh several... Matthew 24 for example.

Matthew 24:27 "For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.
28 "Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.
29 ¶"But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken,
30 and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.
31 "And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Fenris
Dec 10th 2007, 09:22 PM
IThat being said... I do now believe the time is very short. Believe it with every ounce of being in my being. So times are changing the more I see that grand day appearing. :)

I agree.
I even suspect that the war of Gog and Magog may have been world war 2.

Fenris
Dec 10th 2007, 09:25 PM
Oh several... Matthew 24 for example.


Well...the revelation at Sinai is very different from this in one fundamental way- every Jew in the world stood at Sinai to hear God. If God were going to alter the rules, as it were, He would have to notify every Jew. Yes?

ProjectPeter
Dec 10th 2007, 10:36 PM
Well...the revelation at Sinai is very different from this in one fundamental way- every Jew in the world stood at Sinai to hear God. If God were going to alter the rules, as it were, He would have to notify every Jew. Yes?
Well I could make the case that He did notify them but as was done prior... they didn't always like the messenger. ;)

Fenris
Dec 10th 2007, 10:41 PM
Well I could make the case that He did notify them but as was done prior... they didn't always like the messenger. ;)Yes, Jews did not always treat the prophets well. After all, no one likes their alarm clock.:D

But still, the prophets did nothing to alter the fundamentals of Judaism. Unless you're going to posit that the Judaism practiced in the first century was unlike the Judaism practiced at Sinai.

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 01:30 AM
Yes, Jews did not always treat the prophets well. After all, no one likes their alarm clock.:D

But still, the prophets did nothing to alter the fundamentals of Judaism. Unless you're going to posit that the Judaism practiced in the first century was unlike the Judaism practiced at Sinai.
Well, I wasn't there mind you... but I figure there were some differences just as there is with most things over the course of that many years. I figure a strong Scriptural case could be made that there was certainly some change. Mind you I am speaking of changes in Judaism... not the Law. Certainly there was more tradition built over those years.

I suppose that you think Jesus made "fundamental" changes?

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 01:17 PM
Well, I wasn't there mind you... but I figure there were some differences just as there is with most things over the course of that many years. I figure a strong Scriptural case could be made that there was certainly some change. Mind you I am speaking of changes in Judaism... not the Law. Certainly there was more tradition built over those years. Well, there had to have been SOME change. No system can remain in place and be perfectly static. But in many instances the Torah is vague in the details; Jews would argue that this was deliberately so. This would make human beings part of the process of interpreting the Law, as opposed to merely reading and following it.


I suppose that you think Jesus made "fundamental" changes?That is my perception, yes. Am I mistaken?

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 01:45 PM
quo
Well, there had to have been SOME change. No system can remain in place and be perfectly static. But in many instances the Torah is vague in the details; Jews would argue that this was deliberately so. This would make human beings part of the process of interpreting the Law, as opposed to merely reading and following it.Sure... but then that has gotten folks into trouble now and again too. And that's not just a Jewish thing... Christians do the same.



That is my perception, yes. Am I mistaken?Did he change the fundamental things or more the traditional things? I mean think of this in light of what you just said above. Jews would argue that the Torah is vague in many areas and deliberately so etc. Jesus comes and they weren't so keen on the human being part of the process of interpretation long about then. :)

You've read the gospels right... where would you see the biggest change instituted by Jesus... in the fundamental things of Judaism?

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 02:50 PM
quoSure... but then that has gotten folks into trouble now and again too. And that's not just a Jewish thing... Christians do the same.True. Still, having studied the Talmud I can say that the interpretation is based on logical rules not unlike a proof in mathematics.


Did he change the fundamental things or more the traditional things? I mean think of this in light of what you just said above. Jews would argue that the Torah is vague in many areas and deliberately so etc. Jesus comes and they weren't so keen on the human being part of the process of interpretation long about then. :)
Well, a lot of what he said was similar to Pharisee interpolation. For example, violating the sabbath when human life is at stake was not only permitted but actually obligated according to the rabbis.



You've read the gospels right... where would you see the biggest change instituted by Jesus... in the fundamental things of Judaism?A few come to mind. The most fundamental change, I suppose would be the concept that the law is a curse and the placing of faith before actions.

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 03:32 PM
True. Still, having studied the Talmud I can say that the interpretation is based on logical rules not unlike a proof in mathematics.Understand that.



Well, a lot of what he said was similar to Pharisee interpolation. For example, violating the sabbath when human life is at stake was not only permitted but actually obligated according to the rabbis.One could say the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. Just as you say it might take killing a life in order to show love to your neighbor thus saving his life.


A few come to mind. The most fundamental change, I suppose would be the concept that the law is a curse and the placing of faith before actions.I am not aware of where Jesus called the Law a curse. Mind you Paul used that sort of language but that needs be taken into context and one will understand that Paul understood and believed the law to be holy.

As to placing faith before actions... think of this because that isn't what Jesus taught nor the others. They simply taught that faith requires actions of others. Jesus said freaky things like okay... I don't condemn you. Now... go and sin no more. His analogy of the goats and the sheep... feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those sick and in prison... those are folks with faith, in action. It is easy, even for non-believers in Christ, to get caught up in the religious speak of the day where folks quote John 3:16 as the catch all, end all passage. It isn't. :)

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 03:46 PM
One could say the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. Just as you say it might take killing a life in order to show love to your neighbor thus saving his life. Hmm. I think the rabbis would say that it is within the letter of the law and would demonstrate why this is so.


I am not aware of where Jesus called the Law a curse. Mind you Paul used that sort of language but that needs be taken into context and one will understand that Paul understood and believed the law to be holy. Language aside, I think the concept of the law as a curse remains.


As to placing faith before actions... think of this because that isn't what Jesus taught nor the others. They simply taught that faith requires actions of others. Jesus said freaky things like okay... I don't condemn you. Now... go and sin no more. His analogy of the goats and the sheep... feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those sick and in prison... those are folks with faith, in action. It is easy, even for non-believers in Christ, to get caught up in the religious speak of the day where folks quote John 3:16 as the catch all, end all passage. It isn't. :)So one's actions can cause them to merit the afterlife whether they believe in Jesus or not?

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 04:09 PM
Hmm. I think the rabbis would say that it is within the letter of the law and would demonstrate why this is so. Some would interpret it that way... some wouldn't. Again... much like Christianity debates the same sort of things.


Language aside, I think the concept of the law as a curse remains.You'll have to give me some examples there. While I don't have the gospels memorized word for word... I've got it memorized and I can't recall anything said by Jesus that would lead me to that conclusion.


So one's actions can cause them to merit the afterlife whether they believe in Jesus or not?No. But then let me clarify this because unlike many Protestant or Evangelical Christians... I don't think it a simple NO. I believe that God is God and being God... He ain't stupid nor weak. So I want to clarify my no.

In Romans 2 Paul says something that has been a bone of contention for a lot of Protestant folk over the years (I'll add that I find it amusing). I'll highlight some of the passages but please read the whole thing.

Romans 2

1 Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.
3 And do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment upon those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?
4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?
5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
17 ¶But if you bear the name "Jew," and rely upon the Law, and boast in God,
18 and know His will, and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law,
19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,
20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth,
21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one should not steal, do you steal?
22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?
24 For "THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU," just as it is written.
25 For indeed circumcision is of value, if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
27 And will not he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Now reading that... why would I say NO still? Because I believe that the person that has the heart like this... is like the Centurion in Acts. Cornelius wasn't looking for Jesus... Cornelius was simply a godly Gentile that was righteous and God heard his prayer. So God... being God... got the message of Christ to him. I believe it would be the same today as well and honestly... if a man won't go then I'd have no problem believing that God would send an angel just as recorded He did many times in the Scripture.

So my answer is NO... but with that clarification.

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 04:25 PM
Some would interpret it that way... some wouldn't. Again... much like Christianity debates the same sort of things.
Well..I think the logic in this case is pretty well accepted by religious Jews across the board. Fine points in law are subject to debate but not the larger concepts.


You'll have to give me some examples there. While I don't have the gospels memorized word for word... I've got it memorized and I can't recall anything said by Jesus that would lead me to that conclusion.We'll come back to this later.


No. But then let me clarify this because unlike many Protestant or Evangelical Christians... I don't think it a simple NO. I believe that God is God and being God... He ain't stupid nor weak. So I want to clarify my no.
...
So my answer is NO... but with that clarification.Right but even this is a radical break from Judaism as it was practiced. Nowhere in the bible do we see a punishment for non belief; only for noncompliance with the law.

Yes, we are obligated to love God and love our fellow man. But how do we show that love? By following His law.

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 04:43 PM
Well..I think the logic in this case is pretty well accepted by religious Jews across the board. Fine points in law are subject to debate but not the larger concepts.I understand your point and like I said... by and large I agree. That too would be the same in Protestant Christianity etc.



We'll come back to this later.okay... I'll remind you if you forget. :)


Right but even this is a radical break from Judaism as it was practiced. Nowhere in the bible do we see a punishment for non belief; only for noncompliance with the law.

Yes, we are obligated to love God and love our fellow man. But how do we show that love? By following His law.But that was always the point that Jesus made. Many said they followed the law but did they really?

Tell me... would you agree that the greatest commandments would be love God with all your heart, soul, and mind... and love your neighbor as yourself? Jesus says that the law and the Prophets hinge on this. Wouldn't you agree with that?

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 04:49 PM
I think there's also a different perception of what the law is going on here.

Many of the laws are sensible and reasonable. Many of them have a logical reason or even many logical reasons. But some have no meaning at all. Or at least, no meaning that can be discerned by human intelligence. The point here is that all of the commandments operate on two levels. There is the point that we can understand on a religious/sociological/moral/ethical level and then there is the metaphysical level which is beyond human comprehension.

If God gave us a law to do which makes sense, fine and good. But even if it doesn't we are to do it, because it spiritually elevates us in ways that we cannot comprehend.

So is the Jewish perspective, anyway.

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 04:51 PM
Tell me... would you agree that the greatest commandments would be love God with all your heart, soul, and mind... and love your neighbor as yourself? Jesus says that the law and the Prophets hinge on this. Wouldn't you agree with that?Yes, I do. And that is why I keep the law- to show God I love Him enough to do what he asks.

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 05:12 PM
I think there's also a different perception of what the law is going on here.

Many of the laws are sensible and reasonable. Many of them have a logical reason or even many logical reasons. But some have no meaning at all. Or at least, no meaning that can be discerned by human intelligence. The point here is that all of the commandments operate on two levels. There is the point that we can understand on a religious/sociological/moral/ethical level and then there is the metaphysical level which is beyond human comprehension.

If God gave us a law to do which makes sense, fine and good. But even if it doesn't we are to do it, because it spiritually elevates us in ways that we cannot comprehend.

So is the Jewish perspective, anyway.How do you read this passage to mean?

Ezekiel 20:23 "Also I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands,
24 because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes, and had profaned My sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers.
25 "And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live;

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 05:24 PM
Well, if we look a few verses earlier in the chapter we see 11. And I gave them My statutes, and My ordinances I made known to them, which, if a man perform, he shall live through them.

So obviously there is nothing defective about God's law.

Rather, God is saying that He gave us the good laws, but he also gave us the free will to choose bad laws as practiced by Israel's pagan neighbors. The very next verse is And I defiled them with their gifts, that is to say, God allowed them to give gifts to the pagan gods, defiling the Jewish people.

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 05:26 PM
Yes, I do. And that is why I keep the law- to show God I love Him enough to do what he asks.With your being Jewish... I wouldn't dissuade you of that. I'll not comment further until I get your reply from my last post.

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 05:31 PM
With your being Jewish... I wouldn't dissuade you of that.
That's good. ;)

Eventually we will converge on the bedrock principles of our respective faiths, and will be able to budge no further.

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 05:36 PM
Well, if we look a few verses earlier in the chapter we see 11. And I gave them My statutes, and My ordinances I made known to them, which, if a man perform, he shall live through them.

So obviously there is nothing defective about God's law. Okay... let's start there in the beginning of that passage.

Ezekiel 20:5 and say to them, `Thus says the Lord GOD, "On the day when I chose Israel and swore to the descendants of the house of Jacob and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt, when I swore to them, saying, I am the LORD your God,
6 on that day I swore to them, to bring them out from the land of Egypt into a land that I had selected for them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands.
7 "And I said to them, `Cast away, each of you, the detestable things of his eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.´
8 "But they rebelled against Me and were not willing to listen to Me; they did not cast away the detestable things of their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. ¶Then I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.
9 "But I acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they lived, in whose sight I made Myself known to them by bringing them out of the land of Egypt.
10 "So I took them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness.
11 "And I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live.


Is it safe to say here that we would be talking about the original Ten Commandments as opposed to the entire Law of Moses?

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 05:40 PM
That's good. ;)

Eventually we will converge on the bedrock principles of our respective faiths, and will be able to budge no further.
Oh I don't buy that. I don't know that we have time left on earth to find a part of all the Scripture that we can't find some budge! :lol: There's a lot in there!

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 05:55 PM
Is it safe to say here that we would be talking about the original Ten Commandments as opposed to the entire Law of Moses?Jews don't differentiate between the two.

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 06:20 PM
Jews don't differentiate between the two.
Okay... dare to be a rebel. ;) Why would they not be different? I mean here is how I see it. I have no problem calling the Law of Moses of God. I believe that.

But then God did actually pen (for lack of a better way to put it) those words with His own finger and He decided the Ten were enough at that point in time right? I figure had He wanted it to say more... He'd of wrote more. So that in and of itself is different... right?

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 07:00 PM
Okay... dare to be a rebel. ;) :lol:


But then God did actually pen (for lack of a better way to put it) those words with His own finger and He decided the Ten were enough at that point in time right? I figure had He wanted it to say more... He'd of wrote more. So that in and of itself is different... right?The Ten are general concepts that are spelled out in greater detail at other points in the bible. But they are no more important than any of God's other commandments.

In any case, we have no reason to assume that the Ten are what are being referred to in the passage in Ezekiel.

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 07:23 PM
:lol:
The Ten are general concepts that are spelled out in greater detail at other points in the bible. But they are no more important than any of God's other commandments.

In any case, we have no reason to assume that the Ten are what are being referred to in the passage in Ezekiel.
I would say we do though. Here me out and bring some logic with you here and let's see where it goes.

Tell me the equality between "idolatry" and "boiling a kid in its mothers milk?" THis is just feeding my own curiousity. Not meaning to debate it although I would disagree.

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 07:32 PM
Tell me the equality between "idolatry" and "boiling a kid in its mothers milk?" THis is just feeding my own curiousity. Not meaning to debate it although I would disagree.

What makes you believe there is a connection? (Mind you, there actually is one but I'm going to hold off on it for a moment.)

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 07:44 PM
What makes you believe there is a connection? (Mind you, there actually is one but I'm going to hold off on it for a moment.)
I don't see it... that's why I asked. I've heard apologetics on the why... but I have a hard time seeing that as equal to any of the original Ten. Matter of fact... what has it to do with "love God with all your heart, soul and mind... and your neighbor as yourself?

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 08:03 PM
I don't see it... that's why I asked. I've heard apologetics on the why... OK well I'm not saying that every commandments has a connection to every one of the Ten, or even any of them, but in this case there is. It was apparently a Caananite pagan ritual and considered very cruel.


but I have a hard time seeing that as equal to any of the original Ten.Our finite human intelligence has no right to formulate opinions on the relative worth of God's commandments.


Matter of fact... what has it to do with "love God with all your heart, soul and mind... and your neighbor as yourself?God asked us to do this. That's enough for me.

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 09:22 PM
OK well I'm not saying that every commandments has a connection to every one of the Ten, or even any of them, but in this case there is. It was apparently a Caananite pagan ritual and considered very cruel.But with the ten... you can say that each of those are tied directly into love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and your neighbor as yourself... right? I'll move on after your response... just getting a feel for where you're at here.

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 09:34 PM
I suppose so. I never really thought about it, to be honest.

Edit: Judaism has a somewhat different approach on the matter. Of course the ideal is to love God and love your neighbor, and in fact we are commanded to do so. But the point is that we do things commanded regardless of how we feel, that perhaps the acts themselves might lead us to that outcome.

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 10:23 PM
I suppose so. I never really thought about it, to be honest.

Edit: Judaism has a somewhat different approach on the matter. Of course the ideal is to love God and love your neighbor, and in fact we are commanded to do so. But the point is that we do things commanded regardless of how we feel, that perhaps the acts themselves might lead us to that outcome.
Think of it this way.

Out of the ten... which are ones that cover "love God" and which are the ones "love neighbor?

Exodus 20:2 ¶"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 ¶"You shall have no other gods before Me.
4 ¶"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7 ¶"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
8 ¶"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
12 ¶"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
13 ¶"You shall not murder.
14 ¶"You shall not commit adultery.
15 ¶"You shall not steal.
16 ¶"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 ¶"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

It's really cool when realized... makes the fact that they are hinged on those two greatest commandments greater! :) Truly fascinating too that when it is recorded in the gospels... it was something that the Pharisee/Saducee didn't argue but in fact agreed on. That was something that always fascinated me.

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 10:33 PM
OK....I won't argue the point. Is it going somewhere?

ProjectPeter
Dec 11th 2007, 10:56 PM
Yeah.... but not until tomorrow! I'm calling it a night for now! :lol:

Fenris
Dec 11th 2007, 11:00 PM
Until tomorrow, then.

Good night, my friend. :hug:

ProjectPeter
Dec 12th 2007, 12:51 PM
Okay... a new day! I'm going to ask you a few things just to continue to get a feel for what you believe and as well I hope I make a point. So hang with me through this and let's see where we go with a couple of scenarios.

It is late at night and my wife needs some medicine. Problem is... I am in the middle of nowhere and she needs it quickly. The drug store is closed and the hospital is too far away. So I break into the drug store, steal the medicine (I don't bother anything else) and I go home and tend to my wife.

Now... according to the Law of Moses... am I judged a thief?

Fenris
Dec 12th 2007, 01:14 PM
Depends.

Is her life at stake?
Will you apologize and make restitution when possible?

ProjectPeter
Dec 12th 2007, 01:59 PM
Depends.

Is her life at stake?
Will you apologize and make restitution when possible?
What does the law allow for "when possible" and how much restitution are we talking about? I would certainly pay for the product... is that enough?

Fenris
Dec 12th 2007, 02:13 PM
What does the law allow for "when possible" and how much restitution are we talking about? I would certainly pay for the product... is that enough?
I believe that Exodus states a thief must pay double as restitution. But if a life is at stake then that could be termed a defense. So let's say there did exist a Sanhedrin: You would go before them and state that you stole medicine to save your wife's life. They would make note of it as an affirmative defense and order you to pay for what you stole, and no more.

You didn't answer my first question. Is your wife's life at stake?

ProjectPeter
Dec 12th 2007, 02:48 PM
She's sick... I don't know if she's "dying." Maybe she would live without it but she's sick... perhaps in pain. I just want her better. Take it further... my kids are hungry. I steal some food. Even further... I'm hungry and I steal some food etc. How am I judged by the law?

Fenris
Dec 12th 2007, 02:54 PM
She's sick... I don't know if she's "dying." Maybe she would live without it but she's sick... perhaps in pain. I just want her better. Take it further... my kids are hungry. I steal some food. Even further... I'm hungry and I steal some food etc. How am I judged by the law?How would the civil and criminal laws in any country that you live treat those acts?

ProjectPeter
Dec 12th 2007, 03:00 PM
Depends on the judge now days. The Law means little any longer.. ;)

Not talking about the laws of my country though. Talking about the Law of Moses (God's Law). I'm figuring God isn't all that fond of most of our national laws now days. :)

Fenris
Dec 12th 2007, 03:18 PM
You're missing a point about OT law. It was not only religious law, it was actually the civil and criminal law code for a country. 'The law of love' is not going to work on a national and societal level.

ProjectPeter
Dec 12th 2007, 05:45 PM
I understand that actually. But would the Ten work that way?

Fenris
Dec 12th 2007, 06:40 PM
The Ten can't work that way alone, because no punishments are specified. One has to read further into the bible to find the punishments for the crimes specified in the Ten Commandments.

ProjectPeter
Dec 12th 2007, 07:35 PM
Why do you think God didn't apply punishments to it when He penned it?

Fenris
Dec 12th 2007, 08:02 PM
As I said, the Ten are for brevity. They are general guidelines. If we need the specifics then we have to do more reading. Then we come to the deeper facets of the Ten and also punishments for violating them, where applicable.

ProjectPeter
Dec 12th 2007, 08:19 PM
Not making fun of you so don't take it that way. But I figure God wasn't big on brevity and I think if He needed to write smaller... He could have! :)

Think of this... do you think that Moses just sat down and penned all of that over the period of a week or two or do you think he added stuff as they went on in the Wilderness? As you said... it was laws for a nation that Moses wrote. Not just the moral laws (for terms sake). What God wrote... Laws that anyone could follow truth be told. Not strange laws or not laws that were built around not looking like pagan practices etc. Simple Laws. No judgment for man to do... just here is what I want you to do. Do this and you'll do well.

Later... we have added laws with judgment (legal for the nation) and there lays the difference.

Fenris
Dec 12th 2007, 08:24 PM
You could certainly look at it that way.

But the Jewish perspective is that God gave all the laws to Moses at Sinai. In fact, we see every verse in the bible as being equally significant.

ProjectPeter
Dec 12th 2007, 08:32 PM
So do I! And I am not making light of any of the Laws. But I think one of the thing often missed... is the fact that God laid out the Ten without punishment. Now don't get me wrong either... God will judge man. No DOUBT at all on that issue. But I think of what God tells the people through Joshua and through Moses... choose life or choose death. Here it is... you're call (my paraphrase but you know it's accurate).

Let me press on to something else to make my point. Back in that day... what was required of those who transgressed... not judged worthy of death?

Fenris
Dec 12th 2007, 08:40 PM
So do I! And I am not making light of any of the Laws. But I think one of the thing often missed... is the fact that God laid out the Ten without punishment. Now don't get me wrong either... God will judge man. No DOUBT at all on that issue. But I think of what God tells the people through Joshua and through Moses... choose life or choose death. Here it is... you're call (my paraphrase but you know it's accurate). Yes but you're missing the Jewish perspective on punishment too. The punishment is not a bad thing; it's a good thing. The punishment is what purges the sin.


Let me press on to something else to make my point. Back in that day... what was required of those who transgressed... not judged worthy of death?

Many things. Restitution through money, 40 lashes, sacrifice...

ProjectPeter
Dec 13th 2007, 11:59 AM
If they didn't offer that restitution, or take the lashes or offer the sacrifice?

Fenris
Dec 13th 2007, 01:08 PM
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Could you reword your last post please?

ProjectPeter
Dec 13th 2007, 01:18 PM
Let's take something that requires sacrifice? What if a sacrifice isn't offered? What if there is no sacrifice that can be offered... no restitution... etc? The only thing the law requires for that sin is death?

Fenris
Dec 13th 2007, 01:27 PM
Let's take something that requires sacrifice? What if a sacrifice isn't offered? What if there is no sacrifice that can be offered... no restitution... etc? The only thing the law requires for that sin is death?
Well, it's a complicated topic. Different sins require different atonement. I know everyone thinks about sacrifice, but the fact is that sacrifice was generally only brought for accidental sins. Intentional sins are of a worse category and usually require stricter punishments. But in any case the sacrifice or other act is only one part of the atonement process.

But what is to be done if one can't bring sacrifice/ receive lashes/ etc? Well, the Tanach specifies that there are many ways of appeasing God, as part of the process.

Of course, there are also positive commandments that we are obligated to do. There is no punishment for failure to do them; there is only the lost opportunity for spiritual advancement.

ProjectPeter
Dec 13th 2007, 01:45 PM
What are some of the "many ways" to appease God?

Fenris
Dec 13th 2007, 02:17 PM
What are some of the "many ways" to appease God?
OK, things we can do:

Yom Kippur

Leviticus 23:27 Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement; it shall be a holy gathering to you; and you shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire to the Lord. [28] And you shall do no work in that same day; for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your G-d.

Obedience to God

1 Samuel 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams.

Prayer

Hosea 14:1 O Israel, return unto the LORD thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. [2] Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

Psalms 69:30 I will praise the name of G-d with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving. [31] [This] also shall please the LORD better than an ox [or] bullock that hath horns and hoofs.

Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked [is] an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright [is] His delight. [9] The way of the wicked [is] an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.

Numbers 14:20 And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land

[U]Feeling bad about what one has done

Psalms 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering. [17] The sacrifices of G-d [are] a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O G-d, thou wilt not despise.

Practicing mercy

Proverbs 16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.

Daniel 4:27 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.

God doing it 'just because'

Micah 7:18 Who is a G-d like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy. [19] He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. [20] Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.

Doing good and turning from evil

Jonah 3:[10] And G-d saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and G-d repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

In general, the rabbis deduced from the scripture that the modern-day penitent should to the following :


Ceasing to commit the forbidden act
Regretting what he or she has done
Confessing before God; If the wronged party is another person, that person must also be asked for forgiveness
Firmly resolving never to repeat those actions

Fenris
Dec 13th 2007, 02:36 PM
But I think one can focus on sin too much and miss out on the bigger picture.
A person who does not sin is not good; such a person is simply not bad. In order to be good one must do the positive acts that God expects of us. And in such a way do we earn the right to become close to God in what comes after.

ProjectPeter
Dec 13th 2007, 05:24 PM
OK, things we can do:

Yom Kippur

Leviticus 23:27 Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement; it shall be a holy gathering to you; and you shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire to the Lord. [28] And you shall do no work in that same day; for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your G-d.

Obedience to God

1 Samuel 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams.

Prayer

Hosea 14:1 O Israel, return unto the LORD thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. [2] Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

Psalms 69:30 I will praise the name of G-d with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving. [31] [This] also shall please the LORD better than an ox [or] bullock that hath horns and hoofs.

Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked [is] an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright [is] His delight. [9] The way of the wicked [is] an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.

Numbers 14:20 And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land

[U]Feeling bad about what one has done

Psalms 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering. [17] The sacrifices of G-d [are] a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O G-d, thou wilt not despise.

Practicing mercy

Proverbs 16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.

Daniel 4:27 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.

God doing it 'just because'

Micah 7:18 Who is a G-d like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy. [19] He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. [20] Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.

Doing good and turning from evil

Jonah 3:[10] And G-d saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and G-d repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

In general, the rabbis deduced from the scripture that the modern-day penitent should to the following :


Ceasing to commit the forbidden act
Regretting what he or she has done
Confessing before God; If the wronged party is another person, that person must also be asked for forgiveness
Firmly resolving never to repeat those actions


But I think one can focus on sin too much and miss out on the bigger picture.
A person who does not sin is not[I] good; such a person is simply not bad. In order to be good one must do the positive acts that God expects of us. And in such a way do we earn the right to become close to God in what comes after.Those rabbi's seem to pretty much come to the same conclusion as Christ did eh?

Why do the Jews not offer sacrifice today?

Fenris
Dec 13th 2007, 05:57 PM
Those rabbi's seem to pretty much come to the same conclusion as Christ did eh? Which is why religious Jews see Jesus as unnecessary.


Why do the Jews not offer sacrifice today?No Temple, no altar, no sacrifice.

ProjectPeter
Dec 13th 2007, 06:53 PM
Is the temple the only place sacrifice can be made?

Fenris
Dec 14th 2007, 01:23 AM
Before the temple was built, no.
Once it was built, yes.

ProjectPeter
Dec 14th 2007, 12:21 PM
Is that written in the Law somewhere as a requirement or is that just the accepted reason why sacrifice is no longer something the Jews do?

Fenris
Dec 14th 2007, 12:41 PM
It is a known fact that after king Solomon built the Temple sacrifice was no longer permitted anywhere else. One possible verse for the ruling is Deuteronomy 12:21 If the place which the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you[ i.e. the Temple site in Jerusalem], then you may slaughter of your herd and flock which the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you; and you may eat within your gates whatever you desire.

In other words, if you're far from the Temple and you want to eat meat, you may slaughter the animal in the proscribed manner. It doesn't speak of sacrifice of the animal, which is what was done at the Temple, because that isn't permitted except at the Temple.


or is that just the accepted reason why sacrifice is no longer something the Jews do?There are no 'accepted reasons' in Judaism. There is Halacha, that is to say, Jewish Law, which is based on what is written in the bible with a logical process of exposition. It feels like you're insinuating something else here...

ProjectPeter
Dec 14th 2007, 01:05 PM
It is a known fact that after king Solomon built the Temple sacrifice was no longer permitted anywhere else. One possible verse for the ruling is Deuteronomy 12:21 If the place which the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you[ i.e. the Temple site in Jerusalem], then you may slaughter of your herd and flock which the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you; and you may eat within your gates whatever you desire.

In other words, if you're far from the Temple and you want to eat meat, you may slaughter the animal in the proscribed manner. It doesn't speak of sacrifice of the animal, which is what was done at the Temple, because that isn't permitted except at the Temple.

There are no 'accepted reasons' in Judaism. There is Halacha, that is to say, Jewish Law, which is based on what is written in the bible with a logical process of exposition. It feels like you're insinuating something else here...Actually I was just wondering why it isn't done still because of that passage in Deuteronomy. Sacrifice was such an emphasis in the Law... I knew it wasn't done because of no Temple... just wondering who made that rule.

Since sacrifice (blood) was required for atonement... how are Jews atoned for today?

Fenris
Dec 14th 2007, 01:13 PM
Actually I was just wondering why it isn't done still because of that passage in Deuteronomy. Sacrifice was such an emphasis in the Law... I knew it wasn't done because of no Temple... just wondering who made that rule. It must have been a known law, because no one made sacrifice at any time after the destruction of the Temple. Either Temple, first or second, now that I think of it.


Since sacrifice (blood) was required for atonement... how are Jews atoned for today?
Sigh. This is probably the most common misconception about Judaism. As I already posted 1) Sacrifice was only done for accidental sins, plus a few types of sins against the community. Read Leviticus. It is very specific in what sacrifice was done for. Also 2) I cited many verses that plainly demonstrate that God accepts many other acts for atonement: Yom Kippur observance, prayer, performing acts of kindness, etc.

Fenris
Dec 14th 2007, 01:22 PM
Ah, Peter, here's another verse on lack of sacrifice while in exile:

Hosea 3:4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and [without] teraphim.

Fenris
Dec 14th 2007, 01:56 PM
And here's a little story that demonstrates the Jewish perspective on God's expectation of us:


Rabbi Zusha used to say: "When I die and come before the heavenly court, if they ask me, 'Zusha, why were you not Abraham?' I'll say that I didn't have Abraham's intellectual abilities. If they say, 'Why were you not Moses?' I'll say I didn't have Moses' leadership abilities. For every such question, I'll have an answer. But if they say, 'Zusha, why were you not Zusha?' for that, I'll have no answer."

God doesn't expect us to be perfect and he won't hold us to account for falling short of perfection. He will, however, hold us accountable when we fall short of our own individual potential.

ProjectPeter
Dec 14th 2007, 02:26 PM
It must have been a known law, because no one made sacrifice at any time after the destruction of the Temple. Either Temple, first or second, now that I think of it.

Sigh. This is probably the most common misconception about Judaism. As I already posted 1) Sacrifice was only done for accidental sins, plus a few types of sins against the community. Read Leviticus. It is very specific in what sacrifice was done for. Also 2) I cited many verses that plainly demonstrate that God accepts many other acts for atonement: Yom Kippur observance, prayer, performing acts of kindness, etc.Sure... on a regular basis. The other sins (major sins for lack of a better word) had no offering of sacrifice since the punishment according to law was their death. But even then annually wasn't there that sacrifice for all of Israel?

ProjectPeter
Dec 14th 2007, 02:29 PM
And here's a little story that demonstrates the Jewish perspective on God's expectation of us:



God doesn't expect us to be perfect and he won't hold us to account for falling short of perfection. He will, however, hold us accountable when we fall short of our own individual potential.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
No problem with that. Every man will stand before God for their own actions. Scripture is clear on that front.

Fenris
Dec 14th 2007, 02:43 PM
I'm not sure what you're referring to. The Yom Kippur sacrifice?

Fenris
Dec 14th 2007, 02:47 PM
I have to ask a question: what leads you to believe that sacrifice is the only way to atone for sin?

ProjectPeter
Dec 14th 2007, 02:54 PM
I have to ask a question: what leads you to believe that sacrifice is the only way to atone for sin?
Aaron had to make sacrifice to atone for their sins... seven days if I recall. Had to do the same for the altar thus making it holy.

Once a year... it was done.

Exodus 30:10 "And Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year; he shall make atonement on it with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once a year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the LORD."

Leviticus is full of examples as well. Mind you... I agree that it isn't the "only" way to make atonement but that was only for certain things. Tithes was a way of atonement etc. But for sin... it was sacrifice by and large... according to the Law. Right?

Fenris
Dec 14th 2007, 03:08 PM
Aaron had to make sacrifice to atone for their sins... seven days if I recall. Had to do the same for the altar thus making it holy.

Once a year... it was done.

Exodus 30:10 "And Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year; he shall make atonement on it with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once a year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the LORD."This is referring to Yom Kippur. Leviticus 23 implies that it is the day itself that aids in the atonement, and that is certainly how it is understood today.


Leviticus is full of examples as well. Mind you... I agree that it isn't the "only" way to make atonement but that was only for certain things. Tithes was a way of atonement etc. But for sin... it was sacrifice by and large... according to the Law. Right?When possible, and even then only for the listed sins.

ProjectPeter
Dec 14th 2007, 03:22 PM
Talking the one spoken in the Exodus passage that I quoted! You're the Jewish guy so you have to tell me what they call it... I don't know being as Gentile as one can get! :lol:

As to the listed sins sure... as to when possible... I still see that passage we spoke of earlier making that possible whenever. Mind you... not sure if slaughter or sacrifice is really saying something different (more or less) but even still... do Jews still slaughter as prescribed in that passage or do they just go buy the kosher meat in the store! :lol: I'm not sure that doing that would fullfill the requirement of that passage.

And by the way just so you know... this is just again more of my curiosity as to things and not necessarily to make some grand spiritual point. I think it is all part of things yes... but nothing major short quenching my curiousity. :)

Fenris
Dec 14th 2007, 03:28 PM
As to the listed sins sure... as to when possible... I still see that passage we spoke of earlier making that possible whenever. Mind you... not sure if slaughter or sacrifice is really saying something different (more or less) but even still... do Jews still slaughter as prescribed in that passage or do they just go buy the kosher meat in the store! :lol: I'm not sure that doing that would fullfill the requirement of that passage. Jews see the earlier passage I cited as being an indicator of the Oral Law, since God refers to something He commanded that can't be found anywhere in the bible.


And by the way just so you know... this is just again more of my curiosity as to things and not necessarily to make some grand spiritual point. I think it is all part of things yes... but nothing major short quenching my curiousity. :)Yeah, I figured as much. :idea::lol:

Some food for thought should be the fact that is would appear that God forgave the Jews for their sins in the period between the first and second temples. And there was no sacrifice during that period.

ProjectPeter
Dec 14th 2007, 03:59 PM
Jews see the earlier passage I cited as being an indicator of the Oral Law, since God refers to something He commanded that can't be found anywhere in the bible.
Yeah, I figured as much. :idea::lol:

Some food for thought should be the fact that is would appear that God forgave the Jews for their sins in the period between the first and second temples. And there was no sacrifice during that period.
Why did they stop between those periods of time?

Fenris
Dec 14th 2007, 04:03 PM
Because there was no Temple. Obviously.

ProjectPeter
Dec 14th 2007, 05:33 PM
But even in Ezra they offered sacrifice before the temple was actually built. Couldn't at least the Jews in Jerusalem do that? I understand the "those afar" and there are directions for that. Shoot... is there a group that still offers sacrifice? Maybe there are some sects that still do it there... don't know.

Fenris
Dec 14th 2007, 05:47 PM
But even in Ezra they offered sacrifice before the temple was actually built. Please show me where.


Couldn't at least the Jews in Jerusalem do that?Now? I think at the present time the Passover offering could theoretically be done... but no one is.


Shoot... is there a group that still offers sacrifice? Maybe there are some sects that still do it there... don't know.

Not at the present time, no.

We are bound by a few restrictions (disclaimer:I am not 100% certain on all the details) No temple, no high priest, no altars. We are not even certain of the exact location on the temple mount for any of the altars, and that is very important. We are not supposed to ascend to the temple mount while ritually impure, which we are all presumed to be.

When the second temple was built, they knew where the altars were supposed to go; we lack that knowledge. We do not have the ashes of the red heifer to purify our ritual uncleanliness.

ProjectPeter
Dec 14th 2007, 06:59 PM
Please show me where.

Ezra 3:3 So they set up the altar on its foundation, for they were terrified because of the peoples of the lands; and they offered burnt offerings on it to the LORD, burnt offerings morning and evening.
4 And they celebrated the Feast of Booths, as it is written, and offered the fixed number of burnt offerings daily, according to the ordinance, as each day required;
5 and afterward there was a continual burnt offering, also for the new moons and for all the fixed festivals of the LORD that were consecrated, and from everyone who offered a freewill offering to the LORD.
6 From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings to the LORD, but the foundation of the temple of the LORD had not been laid.


Now? I think at the present time the Passover offering could theoretically be done... but no one is.Cool... I'd think so too but always wondered why it wasn't done.


Not at the present time, no.

We are bound by a few restrictions (disclaimer:I am not 100% certain on all the details) No temple, no high priest, no altars. We are not even certain of the exact location on the temple mount for any of the altars, and that is very important. We are not supposed to ascend to the temple mount while ritually impure, which we are all presumed to be.

When the second temple was built, they knew where the altars were supposed to go; we lack that knowledge. We do not have the ashes of the red heifer to purify our ritual uncleanliness.When God had them rebuild the Temple before... God gave them all the required knowledge and even things that were lost... some even before the remnant got back into the land. Why do you think God isn't doing that now which seems to go against the pattern?

Fenris
Dec 16th 2007, 02:57 PM
Ezra 3:3 So they set up the altar on its foundation, for they were terrified because of the peoples of the lands; and they offered burnt offerings on it to the LORD, burnt offerings morning and evening.
4 And they celebrated the Feast of Booths, as it is written, and offered the fixed number of burnt offerings daily, according to the ordinance, as each day required;
5 and afterward there was a continual burnt offering, also for the new moons and for all the fixed festivals of the LORD that were consecrated, and from everyone who offered a freewill offering to the LORD.
6 From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings to the LORD, but the foundation of the temple of the LORD had not been laid.Let me read this in entirety and get back to you.




When God had them rebuild the Temple before... God gave them all the required knowledge and even things that were lost... some even before the remnant got back into the land. Why do you think God isn't doing that now which seems to go against the pattern?
Two things; they had prophets at that time; and they had people who were alive when the first temple stood and could verify the location of the altars and the holy of holies. we lack both.

Jewish tradition has it that Elijah the prophet, who was alive when the temple stood, will come back and tell us where the altars stood and also reveal the hiding place of the ark and ashes of the red heifer, moses staff, and a few other hidden artifacts.

Question for you, Peter, if I may: Why do you think that the Jews didn't accept Jesus?

ProjectPeter
Dec 16th 2007, 03:20 PM
Oh I figure there wouldn't be just one simple answer. A large portion wouldn't have because they expected a conquerer that would deliver them from the Romans rule. But I wouldn't say that has to be the catch all answer. He was radical no doubt. Calling Himself things like the Son of God would have caused a few convulsions I figure. He certainly didn't hold to the traditions that they did and He certainly got their britches in a bunch by not holding to the Sabbath like many thought he should... things like that. So basically... not just one answer to that question I suppose.

All of those would be tangible things perhaps. Spiritually... they were blind.

Fenris
Dec 16th 2007, 03:26 PM
Oh I figure there wouldn't be just one simple answer.Fair enough.


A large portion wouldn't have because they expected a conquerer that would deliver them from the Romans rule.
Now, what would have led Jews to incorrect beliefs about the messiah?


Calling Himself things like the Son of God would have caused a few convulsions I figure. It's my understanding that he didn't say that. He called God 'my father', which is actually still used in Jewish prayer to this day.


He certainly didn't hold to the traditions that they did and He certainly got their britches in a bunch by not holding to the Sabbath like many thought he should... things like that.So it is said. Why wasn't that used against him at his trial?



All of those would be tangible things perhaps. Spiritually... they were blind.

Cryptic. Please explain.

ProjectPeter
Dec 16th 2007, 04:14 PM
Fair enough.
.
Now, what would have led Jews to incorrect beliefs about the messiah?Again... I would suppose many things. A large one would likely be the fact that they read the prophecy in that way (much can be because He will come and rule) and yet they didn't read other prophecy which portrayed something else as well.


It's my understanding that he didn't say that. He called God 'my father', which is actually still used in Jewish prayer to this day.When he said, the "Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath... I figure they understood that for what was meant! But there are also other passages in the recordings of Matthew-John.

Matthew 14:33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!"

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Luke 22:70 And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then?" And He said to them, "Yes, I am."

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, `I SAID, YOU ARE GODS´?
35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,´ because I said, `I am the Son of God´?
37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."



So it is said. Why wasn't that used against him at his trial? It was a much lesser charge than what they accused him of.

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God."




Cryptic. Please explain.Shouldn't be.

Isaiah 32:1 Behold, a king will reign righteously, And princes will rule justly.
2 And each will be like a refuge from the wind, And a shelter from the storm, Like streams of water in a dry country, Like the shade of a huge rock in a parched land.
3 Then the eyes of those who see will not be blinded, And the ears of those who hear will listen.

Isaiah 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
9 And He said, "Go, and tell this people: `Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.´
10 "Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Lest they see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed."
11 Then I said, "Lord, how long?" And He answered, "Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, Houses are without people, And the land is utterly desolate,

Fenris
Dec 16th 2007, 09:09 PM
Again... I would suppose many things. A large one would likely be the fact that they read the prophecy in that way (much can be because He will come and rule) and yet they didn't read other prophecy which portrayed something else as well. Isn't it odd, though, that the people who's holy text the bible is are the only ones who are reading it improperly?


When he said, the "Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath... I figure they understood that for what was meant! But there are also other passages in the recordings of Matthew-John.

Matthew 14:33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!"

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Luke 22:70 And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then?" And He said to them, "Yes, I am."

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, `I SAID, YOU ARE GODS´?
35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,´ because I said, `I am the Son of God´?
37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."I'm not sure that I see these references as blasphemous.


It was a much lesser charge than what they accused him of.

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God."
Why, exactly, is this illegal under Jewish law?


Shouldn't be.

Isaiah 32:1 Behold, a king will reign righteously, And princes will rule justly.
2 And each will be like a refuge from the wind, And a shelter from the storm, Like streams of water in a dry country, Like the shade of a huge rock in a parched land.
3 Then the eyes of those who see will not be blinded, And the ears of those who hear will listen.

Isaiah 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
9 And He said, "Go, and tell this people: `Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.´
10 "Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Lest they see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed."
11 Then I said, "Lord, how long?" And He answered, "Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, Houses are without people, And the land is utterly desolate,

To say that Jews who don't follow the law or don't read the bible are bind is one thing; but to say that those who do follow it to the best of their ability are still blind...

ProjectPeter
Dec 16th 2007, 11:06 PM
Isn't it odd, though, that the people who's holy text the bible is are the only ones who are reading it improperly? Shoot no! Look around in Judaism as well as Christianity and all the disagreement. Doesn't surprise me at all.



I'm not sure that I see these references as blasphemous.
Why, exactly, is this illegal under Jewish law?Elsewhere is just says he committed blasphemy. They counted that as such.



To say that Jews who don't follow the law or don't read the bible are bind is one thing; but to say that those who do follow it to the best of their ability are still blind...Thing is... none of those commandments started out with "do your best to keep the Sabbath" "do your best to sacrifice" "do your best not to be a witch" or "do your best not to commit adultery" etc. So "doing your best" is a great concept today... but not exactly a concept taught in Scripture.

Fenris
Dec 16th 2007, 11:19 PM
Shoot no! Look around in Judaism as well as Christianity and all the disagreement. Doesn't surprise me at all.Well it causes credibility problems for me. Obviously.


Elsewhere is just says he committed blasphemy. They counted that as such.Blasphemy does not carry a death penalty though. And the crimes that do carry the death penalty were not even brought up at trial. And where were the pharisees at his trial? They defended Stephen at his trial, why didn't they defend Jesus at his?


Thing is... none of those commandments started out with "do your best to keep the Sabbath" "do your best to sacrifice" "do your best not to be a witch" or "do your best not to commit adultery" etc. So "doing your best" is a great concept today... but not exactly a concept taught in Scripture.Yes, but you're changing the subject here. The gospels are full of quotes about how Jews hated the prophets. The fact is, many did. But the ones who followed God did not. They wrote down what the prophets said and canonized it. They were the precursors of the rabbis. So you can't at once both blame the rabbis for not following the prophets and at the same time acknowledge that they were the ones that taught their words to the world.

ProjectPeter
Dec 16th 2007, 11:48 PM
Well it causes credibility problems for me.That;s the sad reality of it. But as I said... not a problem unique to Christianity. Jews, Muslims, etc... I suppose all have the same issues hence the credibility problems among most religions I figure.


Obviously.Blasphemy does not carry a death penalty though. And the crimes that do carry the death penalty were not even brought up at trial. And where were the pharisees at his trial? They defended Stephen at his trial, why didn't they defend Jesus at his?The accounts where just that... accounts. I am figuring much wasn't written and as to what happened at the "trial." Those guys weren't there and hence the reason I figure so much was missing as to what all happened at the time.


Yes, but you're changing the subject here. The gospels are full of quotes about how Jews hated the prophets. The fact is, many did. But the ones who followed God did not. They wrote down what the prophets said and canonized it. They were the precursors of the rabbis. So you can't at once both blame the rabbis for not following the prophets and at the same time acknowledge that they were the ones that taught their words to the world.It speaks of those that followed God... devout men and women. That it speaks of Jews who hated the prophets... Old Testament History makes that right clear. There was always a remnant and always will be. But I'd make the claim that the remnant then.... they followed John the Baptist and then later Christ. ;)

Fenris
Dec 17th 2007, 02:03 AM
That;s the sad reality of it. But as I said... not a problem unique to Christianity. Jews, Muslims, etc... I suppose all have the same issues hence the credibility problems among most religions I figure.perhaps. But my issue remains unaddressed.



The accounts where just that... accounts. I am figuring much wasn't written and as to what happened at the "trial." Those guys weren't there and hence the reason I figure so much was missing as to what all happened at the time.Does that mean that the gospels have mistakes?


It speaks of those that followed God... devout men and women. That it speaks of Jews who hated the prophets... Old Testament History makes that right clear. There was always a remnant and always will be. But I'd make the claim that the remnant then.... they followed John the Baptist and then later Christ. ;)Well, by definition you have to believe that...

ProjectPeter
Dec 17th 2007, 11:56 AM
perhaps. But my issue remains unaddressed. I suppose there are many that would say that.


Does that mean that the gospels have mistakes?Why does it have to be a mistake if they didn't mention exactly what went on in the trial? The Law is very clear on blasphemy right? They shall be put to death. It says Jesus blasphemed and that is what He was accused of... they called for His death.


Well, by definition you have to believe that...Sure... as a Christian it stands to reason. :)

Fenris
Dec 17th 2007, 11:59 AM
Why does it have to be a mistake if they didn't mention exactly what went on in the trial? The Law is very clear on blasphemy right? They shall be put to death. It says Jesus blasphemed and that is what He was accused of... they called for His death.


Two things.
First of all, show me where in the bible it says that a blasphemer must be put to death. Second, show me where Jesus committed blasphemy.

Fenris
Dec 17th 2007, 12:07 PM
Another question I have follows up on the fact that most Jews did not accept Jesus. As I already mentioned, it appears that Jewish understanding of the bible, then and now, does not point to Jesus/God as the messiah. At what point do you believe that Jewish understanding of the bible went astray so as to cause this outcome?

ProjectPeter
Dec 17th 2007, 12:45 PM
Two things.
First of all, show me where in the bible it says that a blasphemer must be put to death. Second, show me where Jesus committed blasphemy.
Leviticus 24:16 `Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

ProjectPeter
Dec 17th 2007, 01:02 PM
Leviticus 24:16 `Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.
Shoot... that's hard to say time specific. There was but a remnant that made it to Babylon and but a remnant that came back to Jerusalem etc. When, in all of that time, did they get to the point where God blinded them (majority) to the point where couldn't recognize Jesus as Christ... not sure I can answer that biblically with a specific timeline. But it was done to that certain generation as would be evident in that they rejected Jesus as the Messiah... but that is stating the obvious.

Fenris
Dec 17th 2007, 01:21 PM
Leviticus 24:16 `Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.This doesn't mean what you think.

A better translation: And one who blasphemously pronounces the Name of the Lord, shall be put to death...

Rashi's commentary: "And one who blasphemously pronounces the Name" [This teaches us that] one is not liable [to the death penalty] unless he pronounces the [four-letter Divine] Name. However, one who curses using an ancillary Name [for God, rather than the explicit, four-letter Name], is not [liable to the death penalty].

This refers to pronouncing God's four-letter name in vain. Although, oddly enough, it is not know today how it is pronounced. It was used in prayer one time a year: by the High Priest, on Yom Kippur, in the Holy of Holies.

Fenris
Dec 17th 2007, 01:22 PM
Shoot... that's hard to say time specific. There was but a remnant that made it to Babylon and but a remnant that came back to Jerusalem etc. When, in all of that time, did they get to the point where God blinded them (majority) to the point where couldn't recognize Jesus as Christ... not sure I can answer that biblically with a specific timeline. But it was done to that certain generation as would be evident in that they rejected Jesus as the Messiah... but that is stating the obvious.

Why would God blind the very people He chose to be His?

In any case, so you think that this occurred at some point after the destruction of the First Temple?

ProjectPeter
Dec 17th 2007, 01:51 PM
This doesn't mean what you think.

A better translation: And one who blasphemously pronounces the Name of the Lord, shall be put to death...

Rashi's commentary: "And one who blasphemously pronounces the Name" [This teaches us that] one is not liable [to the death penalty] unless he pronounces the [four-letter Divine] Name. However, one who curses using an ancillary Name [for God, rather than the explicit, four-letter Name], is not [liable to the death penalty].

This refers to pronouncing God's four-letter name in vain. Although, oddly enough, it is not know today how it is pronounced. It was used in prayer one time a year: by the High Priest, on Yom Kippur, in the Holy of Holies.I guess this is part of what I see as the problem. It is like okay... God (no matter how you spell it) doesn't care if you say something bad using God (spelled this way) as long as you don't use the actual Hebrew spelling and phonetic sounding name. This is what we mean when using terms like "by the letter of the Law and not the spirit of the Law."

It is much like Jesus said when he said you have heard it said in the days of old that thou shall not murder... but I say... if you have hatred in your heart for your brother then you've murdered him.

You have heard it said thou shall not commit adultery but I say if you look at her with lust in your heart then you have done the deed.

It isn't about the letter of the law. If God wanted the letter of the Law to be filled and that made one right... then the sacrifice offered by the Jews would have never been rejected as unsavory and a stench to God's nostril. It would have made them right according to the letter of the law. But that act of following the Law.... didn't help them at all.

ProjectPeter
Dec 17th 2007, 01:59 PM
Why would God blind the very people He chose to be His?

In any case, so you think that this occurred at some point after the destruction of the First Temple?The same reason he blinded them before... disobedience.

And no... I figure those that rebuilt the temple were fine spiritually. They were of a remnant as is clear in Scripture. But then there is a pattern in Scripture too. They were fine for a period of time and yet always seemed to turn away from God and when that happened... God allowed another nation to rule over them or overthrow them etc. When they were walking in the ways of God... there was never that issue as they defeated anyone that felt froggy enough to try.

Fenris
Dec 17th 2007, 02:03 PM
I guess this is part of what I see as the problem. It is like okay... God (no matter how you spell it) doesn't care if you say something bad using God (spelled this way) as long as you don't use the actual Hebrew spelling and phonetic sounding name. This is what we mean when using terms like "by the letter of the Law and not the spirit of the Law." Well, why not? I mean, isn't it disrespectful if I callmy father by his proper name? He's always 'dad' or 'father' not 'Avraham'. How much more so to call my father in heaven by his proper name?


It is much like Jesus said when he said you have heard it said in the days of old that thou shall not murder... but I say... if you have hatred in your heart for your brother then you've murdered him.
I just don't see it. This makes no difference between idle thoughts of the mind and people who actually inflict human suffering.


You have heard it said thou shall not commit adultery but I say if you look at her with lust in your heart then you have done the deed.


It isn't about the letter of the law. If God wanted the letter of the Law to be filled and that made one right... then the sacrifice offered by the Jews would have never been rejected as unsavory and a stench to God's nostril.C'mon, this is a disingenuous statement. Sacrifice worked fine if the person fulfilled the rest of the repentance process. The point of God not accepting the sacrifices was that people brought sacrifice but continued to sin. Of course a sacrifice like that won't be accepted, just like a mass-murderer accepting Jesus while continuing to kill won't be absolved. Right?


It would have made them right according to the letter of the law. But that act of following the Law.... didn't help them at all.Because they didn't follow it.

Fenris
Dec 17th 2007, 02:05 PM
The same reason he blinded them before... disobedience.What an odd statement. What about bad people who claim to be 'Christian'? They seem to have no problem seeing the truth in the bible.


And no... I figure those that rebuilt the temple were fine spiritually. They were of a remnant as is clear in Scripture. But then there is a pattern in Scripture too. They were fine for a period of time and yet always seemed to turn away from God and when that happened... God allowed another nation to rule over them or overthrow them etc. When they were walking in the ways of God... there was never that issue as they defeated anyone that felt froggy enough to try.

OK, so it wasn't the generation that rebuilt the Temple. So it was sometime between 500BC and 30AD?

ProjectPeter
Dec 17th 2007, 02:17 PM
What an odd statement. What about bad people who claim to be 'Christian'? They seem to have no problem seeing the truth in the bible.They don't see nothing... if they did then they wouldn't be "bad." Just because a person claims... don't mean they are.


OK, so it wasn't the generation that rebuilt the Temple. So it was sometime between 500BC and 30AD?I would say as a nation... sure.

Fenris
Dec 17th 2007, 02:52 PM
They don't see nothing... if they did then they wouldn't be "bad." Just because a person claims... don't mean they are. Well how come their disobedience doesn't lead to blindness?


I would say as a nation... sure.
Can we follow major Jewish movements during the period and try to narrow it down a bit?

ProjectPeter
Dec 17th 2007, 04:16 PM
Well how come their disobedience doesn't lead to blindness? Notice what I said... the don't see anything. They are blind. ;)



Can we follow major Jewish movements during the period and try to narrow it down a bit?You can if you wish. I'll have to leave that up to you because I don't have time of now to research it out to try and narrow it down to a time specific (if that is even possible).

Fenris
Dec 17th 2007, 04:25 PM
You can if you wish. I'll have to leave that up to you because I don't have time of now to research it out to try and narrow it down to a time specific (if that is even possible).
Well, I don't think that they did make a mistake, obviously, but as an intellectual exercise I have thought up time periods were such a thing could have happened. I made a post about it here somewhere, lemme go looking...

ProjectPeter
Dec 18th 2007, 09:31 PM
What did you come up with on that Ezra passage? Just curious as to if you studied it out.

Fenris
Dec 18th 2007, 09:40 PM
I'm sorry, I haven't looked it up yet. I have a book of Ezra at home, complete with many Jewish commentaries. I must look at what they have to say...

ProjectPeter
Dec 19th 2007, 11:22 AM
Cool... just wondering if you looked at it yet. :)

Fenris
Dec 19th 2007, 06:43 PM
OK Peter, here is what I was able to glean: The temple had not been rebuilt, obviously. They rebuilt the altars in the proper places on the temple mount. Because they were afraid of the non Jewish denizens of the land, they hurriedly offered sacrifices so as to gain favor with God. If you read carefully you will see what types of sacrifices they brought and what types they did not bring: They brought the regular daily sacrifices, plus any additional for holidays, plus any free-will sacrifices brought by the people. They do not appear to have brought any sin-sacrifices.