PDA

View Full Version : The Messiah in the Tenakh



Kahtar
Feb 11th 2008, 09:34 PM
This thread is started for the purpose of discussing the Messiah as seen in the Tenakh (Old Testament), from the Christian perspective and the Jewish perspective. It is primarily a discussion between Fenris and myself. However, others can provide their input as well.
But I want it clear from the beginning that this is to be a peaceful discussion, not an argument, nor an attempt to sway anyone's beliefs, nor an opportunity to accuse and judge anyone, but rather a simple laying out of our different views for the sake of understanding each other's views.
With that out of the way, let's begin.

Genesis is always a good place for beginnings, so let's start there.

In Genesis 1, chapter 1, verse 1, there are seven words, in Hebrew.
They are:
Gen 1:1 בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ׃
Transliterated, they are
B'rayshiyth bara Elohiym et ha'shamayim v'et ha'eretz.
This verse sets up, at the very outset of God's revelation to man, a divine pattern, a pattern that is carried out throughout the rest of scripture. This pattern can be seen again in the seven days of creation, the seven patriarchs, the seven festivals of the Lord, the seven furnishings in the tabernacle, seven events in the Exodus, and many others, right down to the seven millennium of man upon the earth.
That pattern is, in my mind, best illustrated pictographically in the menorah, the seven branched lamp-stand in the tabernacle.
Seven branches, the center of which is a bit higher than the others.
From the Christian perspective, the Messiah was called the 'beginning and the end', the 'first and the last', the 'alpha and omega', or in Hebrew, the 'alef and the tet', the first and the last letters of the alef beyt, the Hebrew alphabet.
In the center word in that first verse, we have the alef and tet, forming an unpronounced word 'et'.
Thus, we have the 'first and the last' presented to us in the same position as that center shaft of the menorah.
In keeping with the pattern, in the fourth day of creation, the sun and moon are created, and set in the heaven to 'rule' the day and the night, to establish the (set)times and seasons, the days and years.
Mal'akhi (Malachi) 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
The 'sun of righteousness' in this verse, according to some ancient rabbis, spoke of the Messiah, whom they expected to come sometime during the 'fourth day', or fourth millennium. From the Christian perspective, He did indeed come on the fourth day, right at the very end of it, bringing with Him that healing in his wings, as seen in
Matthew 9:20 And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind [him], and touched the hem of his garment:
Matthew 14:36 And besought him that they might only touch the hem of his garment: and as many as touched were made perfectly whole.
That center position is also seen in the fourth furnishing in the tabernacle, that being the lamp-stand. The lamp-stand is what provided light within the Holy Place in the tabernacle.
From the Christian perspective, the Messiah is 'the light of the world', and the 'Word of God', the Word that lightens our path.
John 1:1-5
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
(4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
(5) And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Tehillim (Psalms) 119:105 NUN. Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

There is more, of course, but I don't want to detract too much from that center word, so I'll leave it at that. We have a million rabbit-trails we could go down already.
We can go further into the letters themselves if you desire.

Fenris
Feb 11th 2008, 10:38 PM
OK, I see some interesting things right off the bat.

Jews and Christians read through the bible in a much different manner. The bible was given to everyone, but that doesn't mean that just anyone can sit down and come up with an analysis of the bible and be correct. Someone has to be the authority who determines what is and isn't within the bounds of interpretation on biblical text. In Christianity, I see people all the time who sit down and reason out some verses, come up with the conclusion that it points to Jesus, and are satisfied with the results. The problem with that (from the Jewish perspective) is that said interpretation is based on no precedent; it's just something a single individual came up with, based on their pre-existing religious beliefs. It's sort of like saying "I know this verse refers to Jesus because I believe it does", which is circular logic. Not that it's wrong, of course. But it won't be convincing for someone who believes otherwise.

OK, so on to the content of your post itself.


In Genesis 1, chapter 1, verse 1, there are seven words, in Hebrew.Right, seven words. Seven is a powerful number for many reasons. Is it significant in this verse? I don't know. There are many questions one can ask about this verse. Why does it start with the second letter of the alphabet? Why doesn't the bible start at Exodus 12:2, the first of God's commandments to the Jewish people? Why does God spend 6 days creating the universe? Couldn't He have done it all in a single instance?


From the Christian perspective, the Messiah was called the 'beginning and the end', the 'first and the last', the 'alpha and omega', or in Hebrew, the 'alef and the tet', the first and the last letters of the alef beyt, the Hebrew alphabet.
In the center word in that first verse, we have the alef and tet, forming an unpronounced word 'et'.Ok , a couple of points here. First of all, basing theology on the location of a word in it's position of a verse is tenuous at best. This is one of those cases I mentioned above: Your belief colors your understanding of the verse. Secondly, the Hebrew word 'et' is all over the bible. If it refers to God here, does it refer to God in other verses as well?



Mal'akhi (Malachi) 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
Now here we come to another interesting way that Christians read the bible differently from Jews: Context. Christians are very apt to take a single verse and use it for a proof outside of the verses (or sometimes chapters) around it. Again, this doesn't make it wrong but it's not something that Jews do. Now, Malachi is the last prophet in the Tanach and this chapter is messianic- a Jew just wouldn't see how it refers to Jesus if the whole chapter is read as a unit. The verse "Remember ye the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances." in particular is interesting in that regard.


Tehillim (Psalms) 119:105 NUN. Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Here again we have the issue of context. psalms 119 starts with the verses "1. Praiseworthy are those whose way is perfect, who walk with the law of the Lord.
2. Praiseworthy are those who keep His testimonies; who seek Him wholeheartedly."

and contains verses like

10. With all my heart I searched for You; do not cause me to stray from Your commandments.

12. Blessed are You, O Lord; teach me Your statutes.

16. With Your statutes I shall occupy myself

33. Instruct me, O Lord, [in] the way of Your statutes, and I shall keep it at every step.

35. Lead me in the path of Your commandments for I desired it.
44. And I shall keep Your Torah constantly, forever and ever.

47. And I shall engage in Your commandments, which I love.
etc etc.

The rabbis always understood Psalm 119 as referring to the Jewish love of the Torah and it's the Laws. In that context, the meaning of verse 105 becomes quite clear: "Your words are a lamp for my foot, and light for my path" obviously refers to the words in the bible, which teach us how to go down the right path.




Our perception of the bible is quite different. This is proving to be a most interesting discussion. :hmm:

Kahtar
Feb 11th 2008, 11:04 PM
Our perception of the bible is quite different. This is proving to be a most interesting discussion. :hmm:Good. That really is what I was hoping, was to see the differences in our perceptions, or perspectives.
As to basing a doctrine upon two letters located in a single verse, no, I would not recommend such either, but you are correct that my perspective is colored, because of course, the Christian perspective, as a whole, is based upon what is presented in the New Testament, and those things we 'see' in the OT are derived, to some extent, from there.
For instance, in the writings of Luke, we read:
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
and so we learn from this that the Torah, Nevi'im and K'tuvim contain things that speak of the Messiah, and which point to Yahshua as being that Messiah.
And so one searches through the scriptures for those things. Some of course, are brought out directly by the writers of the NT. Matthew was good about that, and the writer of Hebrews.

Kahtar
Feb 12th 2008, 04:38 AM
In addressing your previous post, just a few comments:


"Jews and Christians read through the bible in a much different manner"
This is true. For the most part, we tend to view it from a linear Greek mindset. It is difficult for us, who have been raised up that way to change our perceptions. One reason for this discussion.


"Right, seven words. Seven is a powerful number for many reasons. Is it significant in this verse? I don't know. There are many questions one can ask about this verse. Why does it start with the second letter of the alphabet? Why doesn't the bible start at Exodus 12:2, the first of God's commandments to the Jewish people? Why does God spend 6 days creating the universe? Couldn't He have done it all in a single instance?"
I would enjoy discussing all these things you mentioned. I'll address only the last one briefly, because it applies to our topic to a degree. It is my understanding first that of course He could have created the whole thing in an instant, and had no need for 'seven days' to do it in. But He did do it that way, and, from my experience and understanding, He never does something 'offhand'. All He does is with purpose, and quite often more than one purpose.
In the case of the seven days, I believe He did it that way specifically to establish a divine pattern, as previously mentioned, for our teaching and understanding. He clearly established a set pattern in the feasts, and in the construction of the tabernacle and temple, and all their service. All was done for our learning and instruction in righteousness.


"If it refers to God here, does it refer to God in other verses as well? "
It very well may, but I can't provide you with an instance at this time. I'm not sure that it is necessary for it to always refer to God, however.
Have you spent any time studying the ancient Hebrew characters? Each one was a pictograph, and had meaning, and the name of each one corresponded to that meaning.
It is my firm conviction that each and every letter, every jot and tittle, has meaning, and meaning deeper than simply the literal, surface understanding of what is written.
Just to provide an example, let's take a quick peek at the letter alef.
To quote the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon:


The original pictograph for this letter is a picture of an ox head - a representing strength and power from the work performed by the animal. This pictograph also represents a chief or other leader. When two oxen are yoked together for pulling a wagon or plow, one is the older and more experienced one who leads the other. Within the clan, tribe or family the chief or father is seen as the elder who is yoked to the others as the leader and teacher.
The Modern name for this letter is aleph (pla) and corresponds to the Greek name alpha and the Arabic name aleph. The various meanings of this root are oxen, yoke and learn. Each of these meanings is related to the meanings of the pictograph a. The root pla is an adopted root from the parent root la (AL) meaning, strength, power and chief and is the probable original name of the pictograph a.

The l is a shepherd staff and represents authority as well as a yoke (see Lam below). Combined these two pictographs mean “strong authority”. The chief or father is the “strong authority”. The la can also be understood as the “ox in the yoke”. Many Near Eastern cultures worshipped the god la / AL, most commonly pronounced as “el” and depicted as a bull in carvings and statues. Israel chose the form of a calf (young bull) as an image of God at Mount Sinai showing their association between the word la and the ox or bull. The word la is also commonly used in the Hebrew Bible for God or any god.
The concept of the ox and the shepherd staff in the word la has been carried over into modern times as the scepter and crown of a monarch, the leader of a nation. These modern items are representative of the shepherd staff, an ancient sign of authority, and the horns of the ox, an ancient sign of strength.
In Modern Hebrew this letter is silent but was originally used as the vowel “a” as well as a glottal stop. The Greek letter “alpha” derived from the “aleph” is also used for the “a” sound.
The Early Semitic pictograph a was simplified to A and a in the Middle Hebrew script and continued to evolve into the a in the Late Hebrew script. The Modern Hebrew letter a developed out of the Late Semitic. The Middle Semitic was adopted by the Greeks to be the letter “A” and carried over into the Roman “A”. The Middle Semitic script became the number “1” we use today.
Now, I am not sharp enough to go through the Tanach letter by letter and derive all the meaning presented there. However, I am sharp enough to see the possibility, and perhaps probability, that such meaning exists. So whether or not the alef tet speaks directly of God each time, I don't know, but I am quite sure it does speak of something, if the Holy Spirit so chooses to reveal it.


"Now, Malachi is the last prophet in the Tanach and this chapter is messianic- a Jew just wouldn't see how it refers to Jesus if the whole chapter is read as a unit."
As I alluded to in my previous post, the Jews did in fact believe it referred to the Messiah to come. But let me see if I can locate my source on that for you.
Edit:
Okay, in the Midrash Exodus Rabbah, it says:


"with Moses, too, did I make this condition concerning them; as it says, 'If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor' (Ex. 22,24);but if you transgress these commands, I will hand over two pledges, as it says, 'If thou at all take thy neighbour's garment to pledge - habol tahbol' (ib.25).' Moses asked: 'Shall they remain in pledge for ever?' God replied: 'No, only Until the sun appears' (ib.) that is, till the coming of the Messiah; for it says, 'But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings (Mal. 3,20).'



"The rabbis always understood Psalm 119 as referring to the Jewish love of the Torah and it's the Laws. In that context, the meaning of verse 105 becomes quite clear: "Your words are a lamp for my foot, and light for my path" obviously refers to the words in the bible, which teach us how to go down the right path. "
We are not so far apart on this really, for Christians also understand it to be speaking of the words in the Bible, and those words truly are a lamp unto our feet. The difference of course is that we believe that Jesus, whom we believe to be the Messiah, was that very Word made flesh, Who dwelt among us.
You must understand, of course, that within Christiandom, there are many varied beliefs, and so when I refer to Christians, it must be with the understanding that probably not all will agree with what I am saying in every instance. Not so different from Jews, who also have different sects and beliefs. A casual reading of nearly any portion of the Talmud exemplifies that fact.

Fenris
Feb 12th 2008, 02:09 PM
For instance, in the writings of Luke, we read:
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Well, this basically proves my point that the facts concerning Jesus that you find in the Tanach are actually based on faith.

Fenris
Feb 12th 2008, 02:24 PM
In addressing your previous post, just a few comments:
This is true. For the most part, we tend to view it from a linear Greek mindset. It is difficult for us, who have been raised up that way to change our perceptions. One reason for this discussion.
Well, one of the reasons I'm here is to see how Christians think. So it's mutually beneficial.


I would enjoy discussing all these things you mentioned. I'll address only the last one briefly, because it applies to our topic to a degree. It is my understanding first that of course He could have created the whole thing in an instant, and had no need for 'seven days' to do it in. But He did do it that way, and, from my experience and understanding, He never does something 'offhand'. All He does is with purpose, and quite often more than one purpose.
In the case of the seven days, I believe He did it that way specifically to establish a divine pattern, as previously mentioned, for our teaching and understanding. He clearly established a set pattern in the feasts, and in the construction of the tabernacle and temple, and all their service. All was done for our learning and instruction in righteousness.Right. Well again, this goes back to finding hints of Jesus based on belief that they are there.


It very well may, but I can't provide you with an instance at this time. I'm not sure that it is necessary for it to always refer to God, however.
Have you spent any time studying the ancient Hebrew characters? Each one was a pictograph, and had meaning, and the name of each one corresponded to that meaning.
It is my firm conviction that each and every letter, every jot and tittle, has meaning, and meaning deeper than simply the literal, surface understanding of what is written.I am in agreement with you here. But that deeper meaning may not be what you think it is. :lol:

An interesting aside: On a Torah scroll some letters have 'crowns' on them. The story goes that Moses asked God what they were for. God told Moses that in the distant future a rabbi named Akiva would glean many laws from the placement of those crowns.


Just to provide an example, let's take a quick peek at the letter alef.
To quote the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon:OK, it's an interesting read. But I would never try to glean theology from it.


Now, I am not sharp enough to go through the Tanach letter by letter and derive all the meaning presented there. However, I am sharp enough to see the possibility, and perhaps probability, that such meaning exists. So whether or not the alef tet speaks directly of God each time, I don't know, but I am quite sure it does speak of something, if the Holy Spirit so chooses to reveal it.Again, true. But it may not mean what you think. For example, in the Ten Commandments we have the phrase 'Honor your father and your mother'. In Hebrew 'Kabed et avicha v'et Imecha'. The second instance of 'et' (v'et, in this sentence) is grammatically superfluous. The rabbis deduced from it that one most not only honor their parents, but also their older siblings who do, after all, all have a parenting role.


As I alluded to in my previous post, the Jews did in fact believe it referred to the Messiah to come. But let me see if I can locate my source on that for you.
Edit:
Okay, in the Midrash Exodus Rabbah, it says:Right, we won't disagree here because it seems pretty obviously messianic.

We are not so far apart on this really, for Christians also understand it to be speaking of the words in the Bible, and those words truly are a lamp unto our feet. The difference of course is that we believe that Jesus, whom we believe to be the Messiah, was that very Word made flesh, Who dwelt among us.I see.

I'll make an interesting observation. The Jewish understanding of this Psalm makes Jesus superfluous.
]
You must understand, of course, that within Christiandom, there are many varied beliefs, and so when I refer to Christians, it must be with the understanding that probably not all will agree with what I am saying in every instance.Yes, I have noticed.
Not so different from Jews, who also have different sects and beliefs. A casual reading of nearly any portion of the Talmud exemplifies that fact.Right, that is true. The difference of course being that the content of one's beliefs is not of tremendous importance in Judaism.

Kahtar
Feb 12th 2008, 02:54 PM
An interesting aside: On a Torah scroll some letters have 'crowns' on them. The story goes that Moses asked God what they were for. God told Moses that in the distant future a rabbi named Akiva would glean many laws from the placement of those crowns.:hmm: I'd be interesting in knowing more about those crowns. First time I've anything about them.

Okay, we'll go with something perhaps a bit more familiar. That last was a bit obscure even for most Christians.
So let's look at B'reshiyth (Genesis) 3:14-15.
Genesis 3:15-16
(15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
(16) Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

It is commonly taught (in the Christian realm at least) that this serpent is speaking of Satan, that his seed speaks of those who follow him, either knowingly or unknowingly, and that the woman represents Israel, and her seed represents the Messiah, prophecied to be born of a virgin by the prophet Yesha'yahu:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
and again here:
Isaiah 9:6-7
(6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
(7) Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

This story of the virgin birth, and the crushing of the head of the serpent is declared in the constellations.
The virgin is seen in Bethulah (Virgo), in the decan Comah, the desired one, which is a pictograph of a woman seated and holding a child on her lap,
Haggai 2:7 And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
and in the decan Bezah, the despised one (Centaurus), a pictograph of a centaur, a despised creature
Isaiah 53:2-12
(2) For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him.
(3) He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
(4) Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
(5) But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
(6) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
(7) He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
(8) He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
(9) And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.
(10) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
(11) He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
(12) Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
and in the decan Bo, To come, or Coming, (Bootes) a pictograph of a man, perhaps a prince, with a cycle in one hand ready to reap the harvest of the earth.
Psalms 96:11-13
(11) Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad; let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof.
(12) Let the field be joyful, and all that [is] therein: then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice
(13) Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.
The story of this constellation and it's 3 associated decans speak of one born of a virgin, who would come, and be despised and hated, but would become the King and Ruler and Judge of the earth and it's inhabitants.
What is the Jewish understanding of the seed of the virgin?
And feel free to comment on any of the other passages cited, as well.

Fenris
Feb 12th 2008, 03:28 PM
OK, here's a paragraph that Jews consider messianic:

Ezekiel 37: 21 And say unto them: Thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land; 22 23 24 And My servant David shall be king over them, and they all shall have one shepherd; they shall also walk in Mine ordinances, and observe My statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children's children, for ever; and David My servant shall be their prince for ever. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them--it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will establish them, and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for ever. 27 My dwelling-place also shall be over them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 28 And the nations shall know that I am the LORD that sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for ever.' and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all; neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling-places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; so shall they be My people, and I will be their God.

Pretty straightforward. Understood quite literally.

How do Christians understand this?

Fenris
Feb 12th 2008, 03:36 PM
Okay, we'll go with something perhaps a bit more familiar. That last was a bit obscure even for most Christians.
So let's look at B'reshiyth (Genesis) 3:14-15.
Genesis 3:15-16
(15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
(16) Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.Jews understand this to mean that people won't like snakes. Which is actually true! :lol:



Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
The Hebrew actually reads "A young woman is pregnant..." present tense, nothing about virgins.


and again here:
Isaiah 9:6-7
(6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
(7) Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
In Hebrew this is translated "The Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, will call his name 'The Prince of Peace.' Commonly inferred as speaking of king Hezekiah.



Isaiah 53:2-12
(2) For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him.
(3) He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
(4) Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
(5) But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
(6) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
(7) He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
(8) He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
(9) And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.
(10) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
(11) He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
(12) Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.Understood as referring to the Jewish people as a whole, who are referred to as God's servant five times in Isaiah. See my sig for one such example.

Kahtar
Feb 12th 2008, 03:43 PM
Pretty straightforward. Understood quite literally.
How do Christians understand this?
Good question. Among Christians there is a differing of opinion on the end times, the millennial reign, etc. So I cannot speak for all Christians. I can speak for myself however.
I understand this as saying that the children of Israel will gather in their own land. (I think we are seeing that today). I understand that One from the house of David, ie, one of his descendants, will be king over them, and not them only, but over all nations. I believe that He will establish His ordinances and statutes, and that we shall observe and do them. I believe that He will set His sanctuary at Jerusalem, and shall rule the earth from that place.
Where you and I differ is that I believe this coming Messiah will have scars in his wrists and feet, and side, that He has already come a first time, as a suffering servant, to atone once and for all the sins of all mankind (who are willing to accept it), and will come the second time as reigning King.

Kahtar
Feb 12th 2008, 04:01 PM
Jews understand this to mean that people won't like snakes. Which is actually true! :lol:Yes, it is true.:lol: I can be included in that number.


The Hebrew actually reads "A young woman is pregnant..." present tense, nothing about virgins.I see. So then, should it be interpretted as 'A young woman is pregnant, and is bearing a son, and is calling him Emmanuel.'?

In Hebrew this is translated "The Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, will call his name 'The Prince of Peace.' Commonly inferred as speaking of king Hezekiah. Okay.

[uote]Understood as referring to the Jewish people as a whole, who are referred to as God's servant five times in Isaiah. See my sig for one such example.[/quote]You have probably already heard the Christian version of that passage. You view the 'he' as all Israel, whereas we view the 'he' as the Messiah, Who having come in the flesh the first time, suffered on the cross, was despised by his brethren, and all others, Who was wounded and bruised, and bore stripes, was brought as a lamb to the slaughter, all this for the transgression of His people, and all mankind, Whose soul was made an offering for sin, and bore our iniquities, and Who shall return to rule over the earth.

Fenris
Feb 12th 2008, 04:35 PM
Where you and I differ is that I believe this coming Messiah will have scars in his wrists and feet, and side, that He has already come a first time, as a suffering servant, to atone once and for all the sins of all mankind (who are willing to accept it), and will come the second time as reigning King.
Well, the biggest difference really is that we see the messiah as a man and you see the messiah as a god.

Fenris
Feb 12th 2008, 04:48 PM
I see. So then, should it be interpretted as 'A young woman is pregnant, and is bearing a son, and is calling him Emmanuel.'?The context for the verse:

7: 3. And the Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son, to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field.

4. And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.

He's giving a prophecy to king Ahaz: Don't be afraid of the two empires.

11. "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God: ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above."

What is the sign?

14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

And the fulfillment of this prophecy?

2 Kings
16:5 Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war; and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. 6 At that time Rezin king of Aram recovered Elath to Aram, and drove the Jews from Elath; and the Edomites came to Elath, and dwelt there, unto this day. {P} 7 So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, saying: 'I am thy servant and thy son; come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, who rise up against me.' 8 And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria. 9 And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him; and the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.

and

15: 29 In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maacah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried them captive to Assyria. 30 And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.








You have probably already heard the Christian version of that passage. You view the 'he' as all Israel, whereas we view the 'he' as the Messiah, Who having come in the flesh the first time, suffered on the cross, was despised by his brethren, and all others, Who was wounded and bruised, and bore stripes, was brought as a lamb to the slaughter, all this for the transgression of His people, and all mankind, Whose soul was made an offering for sin, and bore our iniquities, and Who shall return to rule over the earth.
I am well familiar with it. Again, this is an interpretation that makes sense only if you already believe that it's about Jesus.

Kahtar
Feb 12th 2008, 08:07 PM
Well, the biggest difference really is that we see the messiah as a man and you see the messiah as a god.mmmm, that too, except we see the Messiah as God, rather than 'a god'.

In the fulfillment you provided, which one was Immanuel, the prophecied son?

Fenris
Feb 12th 2008, 08:09 PM
In the fulfillment you provided, which one was Immanuel, the prophecied son?

He isn't a prophesied son, he's a foil. By the time he's old enough to know good from bad, the threat to Israel will be gone. That's the plain text.

Kahtar
Feb 12th 2008, 08:23 PM
In Hebrew this is translated "The Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, will call his name 'The Prince of Peace.' Commonly inferred as speaking of king Hezekiah.
So the Jews believed that Hezekiah was the Mighty God? See, I would have thought he was just a man.

Fenris
Feb 12th 2008, 08:26 PM
So the Jews believed that Hezekiah was the Mighty God? See, I would have thought he was just a man.That isn't what I said.

"The Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, will call his name 'The Prince of Peace.'"

Kahtar
Feb 12th 2008, 08:26 PM
(11) He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
(12) Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

You say this is referring to Israel as a whole. Please explain to me how it is that Israel is justifying many, and bearing their iniquities. How does Israel bear the sins of many?

Kahtar
Feb 12th 2008, 08:27 PM
That isn't what I said.
"The Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, will call his name 'The Prince of Peace.'"My appologies. I missed that.

Fenris
Feb 12th 2008, 09:19 PM
You say this is referring to Israel as a whole. Please explain to me how it is that Israel is justifying many, and bearing their iniquities. How does Israel bear the sins of many?

OK, let's do the whole chapter, since eventually it's going to come back piece by piece anyway.

To start: Who is the servant? Let's look at other instances of the 'servant' in Isaiah.

Isaiah 41:8 But thou, Israel, [art] my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. [9] [Thou] whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou [art] my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away. (KJV)

[44:1] Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: [2] Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, [which] will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. (KJV)

[44:21] Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou [art] my servant: I have formed thee; thou [art] my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me. (KJV)

[45:4] For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. (KJV)

[49:3] And said unto me, Thou [art] my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. (KJV)

So in all these other instances, at least, the servant's identity is obvious. The servant is all the Jewish people.

Now, on to the chapter in question. The chapter actually begins at 52:13, so we'll start it there.

[52:13] Behold, My servant will succeed; he will be exalted and become high and exceedingly lofty. [14] Just as multitudes were astonished over you, [saying,] ‘His appearance is too marred to be a man’s, and his visage to be human,’ [15] so will the many nations exclaim about him, and kings will shut their mouths , for they will see that which had never been told to them, and will perceive things they had never heard. [53:1] Who would believe what we have heard! For whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed!

This is speaking of the messianic era, when the formerly despised Jews will be recognized as having been right all along. The speaker in 53:1 is the nations and kings in the previous verse.

[2] Formerly he grew like a sapling or like a root from arid ground; he had neither form nor grandeur; we saw him, but without such visage that we could desire.

The nations are still speaking here, about how the Jewish people were undesirable in the past.

[3] He was despised and isolated from men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness. As one from whom we would hide our faces; he was despised, and we had no regard for him.

Indeed, in exile the Jews were despised and poorly treated.

[4] But in truth, it was our ills that he bore, and our pains that he carried – but we had regarded him diseased, stricken by God, and afflicted!
[5] He was pained because of our rebellious sins and oppressed through our iniquities; the chastisement upon him was for our benefit, and through his wounds, we were healed..

Here, the nations will realize that while they considered the Jews stricken by God, it was really the nations themselves that were afflicting the Jews. Rashi says on this verse :

Indeed, he bore our illnesses Heb. אָכֵן, an expression of ‘but’ in all places. But now we see that this came to him not because of his low state, but that he was chastised with pains so that all the nations be atoned for with Israel’s suffering. The illness that should rightfully have come upon us, he bore.Redak states that Israel accepted the punishment of exile as a price to save the rest of the world.

Notice the past tense 'through his wounds, we were healed', because the nations are looking back at history.

A possible explanation of "it was our ills that he bore, and our pains that he carried" was the tendency of nations to blame all their problems on the Jews, from economic woes to the black plague.



[6] We have all strayed like sheep, each of us turning his own way, and the Lord inflicted upon him the iniquity of us all.

The nations will realize that they were wrong, that they 'strayed like sheep'.

[7] He was persecuted and afflicted, but he did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a ewe that is silent before her shearers, he did not open his mouth.

What's interesting about this verse is that this is exactly how the Jews were described during the Holocaust: Like sheep to the slaughter...

[8] Now that he had been released from captivity and judgment, who could have imagined such a generation? For he had been removed from the land of the living, an affliction upon them that was my people’s sin.

Again, the nations are surprised at the Jewish people. The phrase 'removed from the land of the living ' does not necessarily mean death. The land of Israel is called 'the land of the living' in Ezekiel, so being removed from it may indeed refer to exile.

[9] He submitted himself to his grave like wicked men; and the wealthy [submitted] to his executions, for committing no crime and with no deceit in his mouth.

On the grave like wicked men, Rashi says
He subjected himself to be buried according to anything the wicked of the nations would decree upon him, for they would penalize him with death and the burial of donkeys in the intestines of the dogs.[10] The Lord desired to oppress him and afflicted him; if his soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days and the desire of the Lord would succeed in his hand.

Basically, God punished the Jews to make us repent. The speaker from here on out is God.

[11] He would see [the purpose] and be satisfied with his soul’s distress. With his knowledge My servant will vindicate the Righteous One to multitudes; it is their iniquities that he will bear

Ibn Ezra explains the iniquities as Israel sympathizing with the suffering the nations will receive as punishment for their treatment of the Jews.

Rashi makes the connection to Numbers 18:1 The Lord said to Aaron: You, your sons and your father's house shall bear the iniquity associated with the Sanctuary... and states that it becomes their responsibility to warn others not to transgress, as Aaron and his sons were to do.

[12] Therefore, I will assign him a portion from the multitudes and he will divide the mighty as spoils – in return for having poured out his soul for death and being counted among the wicked for he bore the sin of the multitudes and prayed for the wicked.

On this verse, Rashi says

[I]and with transgressors he was counted He suffered torments as if he had sinned and transgressed, and this is because of others; he bore the sin of the many.
and interceded for the transgressors through his sufferings, for good came to the world through him.
Ibn Ezra and Redak note that despite their suffering,the Jews continued to pray for the nations to which they were exiled.


So in the balance, it's quite cryptic because it's a prophecy. But it doesn't have to refer to Jesus.

Kahtar
Feb 14th 2008, 03:44 AM
Hey Fen, I'm not ignoring you. Real life caught up with me a bit. I'll get back to you soon, hopefully with a reasonably thought-out response.

Fenris
Feb 14th 2008, 01:45 PM
No rush. I understand the constrains of real life. :lol:

Kahtar
Feb 14th 2008, 05:33 PM
To some extent, I agree with what you have presented here.
Certainly the Jews have been terribly persecuted down through the centuries, by practically every people group on the planet, including many of those who call themselves Christians.
And further, my understanding of scripture is that the Messiah will come to Jerusalem, and from there rule the world, and Israel will play a part in that rulership. (But not all Israel is true Israel).
And it's true that Israel has 'taken on' the sins of the world, but not, I don't believe, in the way you are suggesting.
They certainly did take unto themselves the sins of the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, following after them and worshipping their gods instead of the one true God. In 'taking on' those sins, they did so by participating in them, making idols to worship, killing the prophets who repeatedly warned them to repent and return to God.
Their suffering has been a result of their own actions and rebellion against God, just as surely as getting burned is the result of putting your hand in the flame. They were warned, repeatedly, but refused to listen and repent. Thus God dispersed them, and gave them a writ of divorce because they broke their covenant with God.
So to say that they willingly took upon themselves the sins of the world, and suffered in their place in order to save the world is to cloud the voice of history, and to give themselves the glory that belongs only to God Himself.
Nevertheless, the day will come when they will repent. On that day' they will proclaim 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord', when they see Messiah coming in the clouds, with scars on His wrists. And He will establish His kingdom on earth and rule from Jerusalem.
When Jacob gave his blessings upon his children, he said of Judah that the ceptre will not depart from his hand until Shiloh comes. Have you noticed that during the last 2 thousand years Judah has not held that ceptre? So did God lie? No, of course not. Fact is, Shiloh came. And that ceptre has been given to Him.
I'm sure you will disagree with that. Nevertheless, that is the position of those who follow Yahshua ha'Mashiach, including those who also happen to be Jewish.

If you are still willing, then I would like to talk a little about the feasts of the Lord.:)

Fenris
Feb 14th 2008, 05:44 PM
To some extent, I agree with what you have presented here.
Certainly the Jews have been terribly persecuted down through the centuries, by practically every people group on the planet, including many of those who call themselves Christians.
And further, my understanding of scripture is that the Messiah will come to Jerusalem, and from there rule the world, and Israel will play a part in that rulership. (But not all Israel is true Israel).
And it's true that Israel has 'taken on' the sins of the world, but not, I don't believe, in the way you are suggesting.
They certainly did take unto themselves the sins of the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, following after them and worshipping their gods instead of the one true God. In 'taking on' those sins, they did so by participating in them, making idols to worship, killing the prophets who repeatedly warned them to repent and return to God.
Their suffering has been a result of their own actions and rebellion against God, just as surely as getting burned is the result of putting your hand in the flame. They were warned, repeatedly, but refused to listen and repent. Thus God dispersed them, and gave them a writ of divorce because they broke their covenant with God.
So to say that they willingly took upon themselves the sins of the world, and suffered in their place in order to save the world is to cloud the voice of history, and to give themselves the glory that belongs only to God Himself.I'm not going to say that it's willing per se. I'm going to throw out a concept I thought of. I haven't read it anywhere, so I can't attest to it's veracity. But I shared it with an Evangelical friend of mine, and he enjoyed it very much.

It's a Jewish belief that only the Jews are capable of bringing the messiah. Now, in the post-messianic world there will be no more sin. Since the Jews haven't been good enough to bring the messiah, all of the sins of the world are indirectly our fault. So in that sense we are being 'punished for the sins of the world'.:hmm:




When Jacob gave his blessings upon his children, he said of Judah that the ceptre will not depart from his hand until Shiloh comes. Have you noticed that during the last 2 thousand years Judah has not held that ceptre? So did God lie? No, of course not. Fact is, Shiloh came. And that ceptre has been given to Him.
I'm sure you will disagree with that. Nevertheless, that is the position of those who follow Yahshua ha'Mashiach, including those who also happen to be Jewish.I've heard this line of reasoning before. It's flawed because there was no Jewish king from 586BC until the second Temple was built, a period of more than 70 years. Then, there was no Jewish king from the line of David after the revolt of the Macabees in 140BC until the present day.

The blessing of Jacob has been understood to mean that the kingship belongs to the tribe of Judah, not that there will always be a king from that line.


If you are still willing, then I would like to talk a little about the feasts of the Lord.:)
I certainly am. I have enjoyed this discussion very much. :)

Kahtar
Feb 14th 2008, 09:16 PM
I'm not going to say that it's willing per se. I'm going to throw out a concept I thought of. I haven't read it anywhere, so I can't attest to it's veracity. But I shared it with an Evangelical friend of mine, and he enjoyed it very much.

It's a Jewish belief that only the Jews are capable of bringing the messiah. Now, in the post-messianic world there will be no more sin. Since the Jews haven't been good enough to bring the messiah, all of the sins of the world are indirectly our fault. So in that sense we are being 'punished for the sins of the world'.:hmm:Certainly an interesting thought, and not entirely without merit.

I've heard this line of reasoning before. It's flawed because there was no Jewish king from 586BC until the second Temple was built, a period of more than 70 years. Then, there was no Jewish king from the line of David after the revolt of the Macabees in 140BC until the present day.
The blessing of Jacob has been understood to mean that the kingship belongs to the tribe of Judah, not that there will always be a king from that line. Also an interesting thought, and actually consistant with Christian understanding, because Jesus was of the Tribe of Judah.

I certainly am. I have enjoyed this discussion very much. :)Good, I'll get started on it soon as I am able.

Kahtar
Feb 16th 2008, 03:29 PM
Okay Fenris, first, since it is the desire of both of us to understand how each other views scripture, to understand the Christian perspective on Old Testament scripture, take a look at these NT verses:
Colossians 2:16-17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.
Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Luke 24:26-27 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Because of these verses, we understand those things written in the Tanakh are written for our understanding and instruction, and that they contain within them things that speak about Christ (Messiah), and that those things are seen in 'shadows' and pictures.
This is why Christians view the skins provided Adam and Eve to be 'shadows' of the Sacrifice, how Joseph is a picture of Christ, and Isaac, etc.
So from that perspective, in looking at the seven feasts of the Lord, we also see these pictures of Christ.
In Passover, we see Christ as the Redeemer and the Lamb of God, the Sacrifice for all mankind to which Adam and Eve looked as they accepted the skins, etc.
In the historical account, they each selected a lamb for a family. In the prophetic 'picture', there is enough for everyone.
As they killed the lamb, and painted it's blood on their doorposts, so we accept the sacrifice of Christ, and His blood covers the 'doorposts' of our heart.
As that blood protected those inside from the curse of death, so the blood of Christ protects us from the curse of death received at the tree in the Garden.
As God redeemed Israel from Egypt, so we are redeemed from the hand of Satan.
Prior to this, they were in bondage to Pharoah. Prior to our salvation, we are in bondage to sin and death.

In the observance of Passover, a lamb of the first year was to be selected, and examined for four days.
Jesus was the 'firstborn' of God, and on Nisan 10 He entered Jerusalem, and was examined for four days by the chief priests and elders, Pilate, Herod, Annas, Caiaphas, Judas, the Centurian and others.
The lamb was to be spotless, free from blemish. Pilate said of Jesus, I find no fault in this man. Only false charges could be brought against Him.
The lamb had to be a male. It was through one man's sin that sin came into the world, and by one Man sin was atoned.
The lamb was to be killed between the evenings, or the ninth hour, 3 pm. That is the time that Jesus died on the cross.
The whole assembly was to kill the lamb. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, which means I killed Him. And you.
Not a bone was to be broken. When the centurians came around to finish off those on the crosses so they could be taken down, they broke the legs on the thieves, but Jesus was already dead, so they did not break his legs, they only pierced his side. (Like Adam's side was pierced in order to form Eve, the church was formed when Christ's side was pierced)
The passover lamb was to be killed outside the city. Jesus was taken outside the city to hang on the cross.

So, from the Christian perspective, Passover, from the original in Egypt to each one thereafter till the coming of Christ was a prophetic picture of the work the first coming of the Messiah,, as the Suffering Servant, was to accomplish, and thereafter, a time of remembrance of what He did do.

Fenris
Feb 17th 2008, 07:16 PM
Heh, that's pretty interesting.

Been thinking about this topic, actually.

You know how you guys find hints of deeper concept in the OT? Jews do the same thing, but instead of theology we find the Law. A big difference is that 1)the plain meaning of the text is never ignored and 2)it expounds on what is already known, it doesn't provide completely new ideas.

the rookie
Feb 17th 2008, 08:22 PM
OK, I see some interesting things right off the bat.

Jews and Christians read through the bible in a much different manner. The bible was given to everyone, but that doesn't mean that just anyone can sit down and come up with an analysis of the bible and be correct. Someone has to be the authority who determines what is and isn't within the bounds of interpretation on biblical text. In Christianity, I see people all the time who sit down and reason out some verses, come up with the conclusion that it points to Jesus, and are satisfied with the results. The problem with that (from the Jewish perspective) is that said interpretation is based on no precedent; it's just something a single individual came up with, based on their pre-existing religious beliefs. It's sort of like saying "I know this verse refers to Jesus because I believe it does", which is circular logic. Not that it's wrong, of course. But it won't be convincing for someone who believes otherwise.

I hope it's okay to jump in for a minute during the relative "lull" in conversation. I found this paragraph in particular very helpful.

I have a question - where does one find the authority to interpret scripture? What would be the starting point for the "uninitiated"?

Secondly, I would imagine that (probably incorrectly) the Jewish answer to the question would have been, in the first century, both rabbinical authority based on the school of thought you subscribed to at that time as well as the Talmud. I am guessing that today the answer would primarily rest on the Talmud as the interpretive authority that helps remove circular reasoning.

Is this a correct assumption?

Fenris
Feb 18th 2008, 02:19 PM
I hope it's okay to jump in for a minute during the relative "lull" in conversation. I found this paragraph in particular very helpful. Hi there rookie. Please do jump in! The more the merrier, I always say.


I have a question - where does one find the authority to interpret scripture? What would be the starting point for the "uninitiated"?

Good question. Well, a couple of things. First of all, there has to be precedent for the line of thinking. Secondly, it can't disagree with established concepts.


Secondly, I would imagine that (probably incorrectly) the Jewish answer to the question would have been, in the first century, both rabbinical authority based on the school of thought you subscribed to at that time as well as the Talmud. I am guessing that today the answer would primarily rest on the Talmud as the interpretive authority that helps remove circular reasoning.

Is this a correct assumption?Hmm. I'm not 100% sure that I understand your point here. If I understand what you're saying, then my response is that the Talmud *is* rabbinical thinking. It's not an arbitrary set of rules, it's a logical set of constructs very similar to a mathematics proof.

Kahtar
Feb 18th 2008, 02:45 PM
You know how you guys find hints of deeper concept in the OT? Jews do the same thing, but instead of theology we find the Law. A big difference is that 1)the plain meaning of the text is never ignored and 2)it expounds on what is already known, it doesn't provide completely new ideas.Yeah. Some rabbi one said 'The Word is like a fig tree. The more you dig the more relish you find'. I always liked that.
As far as new ideas though, let me say this. Before Mt. Sinai, those who listened and followed HaShem did so with the revelation they had, without adding to it, or developing new ideas. But at Mt. Sinai, HaShem introduced to them a new revelation. He did the same with Noah, Abraham, and Moses.
That new revelation did not contract the old, but broadened it, providing further understanding of HaShem and how we are to walk with Him.
Same thing happened with each new prophet.
This is how we view the NT. It is yet further revelation provided us, clarifying and expanding the previous revelation, not contradicting it.
And so we also view the plain meaning of the text, but with the added revelation bringing greater clarity, and in that way we are really not coming up with new ideas, but seeing the old in a new light. Does that make sense?
When HaShem provided Moses with the pattern for the tabernacle, and all it's furnishings and instruments, and even the manner of service that was to take place therein, it was clearly stated to be a 'pattern'. A pattern of what? Was it not patterned after the true temple, and the true Priest, and the true service? A replica, if you will, of the real thing.
If it was all patterned after the real thing, incuding all the service, then the slaying of the lamb was patterned after the real thing, the offering of the incense was patterned from the real thing, the High Priest entering the Holiest was patterned from the real thing.
Thus in Hebrews we find that these were all 'shadows', pictures, for us to learn from.
Even the feasts are a pattern. They are divine appointments with HaShem, and rehearsals. But rehearsals of what? Yes, they look back at history, and 'celebrate' what took place then, but, in my studies, I find they are also prophetic, rehearsals that were to be practiced so that when the time came we would recognize what they were pointing to.
In this way, the Passover was a rehearsal for the offering up of the true sacrifice. Hag HaMatzah, in which the leaven was removed, carried outside of the house was a rehearsal of our sin being carried outside our 'camp'. That hidden teaspoon of leaven which the children are to search for speaks of us searching within ourselves for that little 'hidden sin' that we are to find and expel. And it speaks of He Who took our sin upon Himself being taken outside the city, to be killed and buried.
Bikkurim is the offering up of the firstfruits in the spring harvest, the first harvest. A small portion is 'lifted up' and waved before the Lord. It was a rehearsal of He who was to be lifted up, the 'firstfruits of the kingdom', so that when He was lifted up, raised up from the grave, we would understand and recognize the event.
And of course, all these thing had to happen precisely, according to the pattern given. In the pattern, the lamb was sacrificed at 3 pm on the 14th. At 3 pm, our Sacrifice was hanging on the cross, and according to the written testimony provided, he 'gave up the ghost' at 3 pm. etc.
Tabernacles spoke of, and celebrated, the time when HaShem 'tabernacled with man' on the earth, in the wilderness, and the booths spoke of how the Israelites lived in tents during that wilderness journey.
But it was a rehearsal. For at that time, on the 15th of Tishri, was born He who was to come, the prophecied 'seed of the woman', who would come and crush the head of the serpent, getting his heal bruised in the process. Six months prior to that was born, on the 14th of Nisan, the one who was to prepare the way, the voice crying in the wilderness, the one to whom the children opened the door every Pesach, to see if he was coming, for he was expected on that very day, and on that very day he did come.
And Yom Kippur spoke of the true High Priest, entering into the true Temple, and sprinkling His own blood upon the true Mercy Seat, atoning for the sin of all mankind, both Jew and goy.
And further, Yom Teruah speaks of a yet future time, when the resurrection takes place, the marriage of HaShem to His people takes place, and Yom Kippur speaks of the coming of the King of Kings when He will set up His kingom on earth, and sukkot speaks again of that future time when HaShem is again on earth with His people, in the olam habah, the world to come.

So, no new concepts. Only a new understanding of the old concepts.

Fenris
Feb 18th 2008, 03:13 PM
Yeah. Some rabbi one said 'The Word is like a fig tree. The more you dig the more relish you find'. I always liked that.:lol:


As far as new ideas though, let me say this. Before Mt. Sinai, those who listened and followed HaShem did so with the revelation they had, without adding to it, or developing new ideas. But at Mt. Sinai, HaShem introduced to them a new revelation. He did the same with Noah, Abraham, and Moses.
That new revelation did not contract the old, but broadened it, providing further understanding of HaShem and how we are to walk with Him.
Same thing happened with each new prophet.

No!! The prophets after Moses did NOT introduce anything new. All they did was tell the Jews to follow the moral teachings that they had received at Sinai.



This is how we view the NT. It is yet further revelation provided us, clarifying and expanding the previous revelation, not contradicting it.Some Christians read it that way, as you do. Many read it in such a way that the literal meaning of the text is ignored.


And so we also view the plain meaning of the text, but with the added revelation bringing greater clarity, and in that way we are really not coming up with new ideas, but seeing the old in a new light. Does that make sense?From your perspective, yes. From mine, no.


When HaShem provided Moses with the pattern for the tabernacle, and all it's furnishings and instruments, and even the manner of service that was to take place therein, it was clearly stated to be a 'pattern'. A pattern of what? Was it not patterned after the true temple, and the true Priest, and the true service? A replica, if you will, of the real thing.
Perhaps, but to say that by extension everything in the bible is a pattern for something else is difficult for me to accept.


If it was all patterned after the real thing, incuding all the service, then the slaying of the lamb was patterned after the real thing, the offering of the incense was patterned from the real thing, the High Priest entering the Holiest was patterned from the real thing.Or maybe those acts were the real thing.


Thus in Hebrews we find that these were all 'shadows', pictures, for us to learn from.Right. But again, you have to believe this in order for your view of the bible to lead to the conclusion you already have.


Even the feasts are a pattern. They are divine appointments with HaShem, and rehearsals. But rehearsals of what? Yes, they look back at history, and 'celebrate' what took place then, but, in my studies, I find they are also prophetic, rehearsals that were to be practiced so that when the time came we would recognize what they were pointing to.
Well, a Jewish person would say that they should be reminders to us of the great things that God did for our ancestors, and to remind us that we too owe Him a debt of gratitude. And that is why He can demand more from us that from other peoples. See Amos 3:2 You alone have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.


In this way, the Passover was a rehearsal for the offering up of the true sacrifice. Except that the passover sacrifice was not a sin sacrifice.


Hag HaMatzah, in which the leaven was removed, carried outside of the house was a rehearsal of our sin being carried outside our 'camp'.
Or maybe it stands to remind us to remove our puffiness, our pride, and be humble like the flat piece of Matzah.


That hidden teaspoon of leaven which the children are to search for speaks of us searching within ourselves for that little 'hidden sin' that we are to find and expel.
The children search for a piece of Matzah, not leaven which may not be owned. They search for it simply as a means to keep them awake for the entire seder, because it is a commandment to teach our children of it's cause. See Exodus 13: 8 And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: It is because of that which the LORD did for me when I came forth out of Egypt .



Bikkurim is the offering up of the firstfruits in the spring harvest, the first harvest. A small portion is 'lifted up' and waved before the Lord. It was a rehearsal of He who was to be lifted up, the 'firstfruits of the kingdom', so that when He was lifted up, raised up from the grave, we would understand and recognize the event.Or maybe it shows gratitude to God for blessing our crops.


And of course, all these thing had to happen precisely, according to the pattern given. In the pattern, the lamb was sacrificed at 3 pm on the 14th. At 3 pm, our Sacrifice was hanging on the cross, and according to the written testimony provided, he 'gave up the ghost' at 3 pm. etc.
The sacrifice had to take place on the Temple Mount, by a priest, to a lamb with no wounds. It was then roasted and eaten. I do not see the connection.


Tabernacles spoke of, and celebrated, the time when HaShem 'tabernacled with man' on the earth, in the wilderness, and the booths spoke of how the Israelites lived in tents during that wilderness journey.Or perhaps again, as a reminder of God taking us out of Egypt.


But it was a rehearsal. For at that time, on the 15th of Tishri, was born He who was to come, the prophecied 'seed of the woman', who would come and crush the head of the serpent, getting his heal bruised in the process.A piece of faith, not fact.


And Yom Kippur spoke of the true High Priest, entering into the true Temple, and sprinkling His own blood upon the true Mercy Seat, atoning for the sin of all mankind, both Jew and goy.
And further, Yom Teruah speaks of a yet future time, when the resurrection takes place, the marriage of HaShem to His people takes place, and Yom Kippur speaks of the coming of the King of Kings when He will set up His kingom on earth, and sukkot speaks again of that future time when HaShem is again on earth with His people, in the olam habah, the world to come.So it's all Jesus. Nothing else.


So, no new concepts. Only a new understanding of the old concepts.

Except that your central idea that pervades all of scripture is itself a new idea. New to Jews, anyway...

Kahtar
Feb 18th 2008, 03:35 PM
The prophetic aspect of the feasts, and the whole Word, does not diminish in any way the real events they spoke of, or the real history of Israel, nor does it take away from the physical aspects and meanings of those feasts and events.
It simply adds a dimension not previously seen.
There were many events that Israel experienced that were not written down. Many people existed besides the ones we read about.
But the people and events that were written about were written for a reason. What reason? Our learning of course. Thus, everything, every detail, found within the Word is there for a reason, for us to learn from, to instruct us. That instruction goes beyond the simple learning about history, but does not disclude the history. Nor does the history disclude the spiritual or prophetic understanding.

Kahtar
Feb 18th 2008, 03:45 PM
The sacrifice had to take place on the Temple Mount, by a priest, to a lamb with no wounds. It was then roasted and eaten. I do not see the connection. On the temple mount, yes, but outside the wall. After it was killed, it was then brought in and laid on the altar, and a little later eaten.
Christ was killed outside the walls of the city, and while His physical body was not brought in and laid on the altar and eaten, He was nevertheless subjected to the flames of death and hell.
Why do you suppose the lamb was to be eaten? Was it not to take into oneself that sacrifice, to become one with it?
We take communion in remembrance of the Sacrifice, and we eat it, we take it in, and become one with it. Why? Because it was our sin He died for.
I know. The Passover sacrifice was not a 'sin' sacrifice historically. It was for the divine protection from the curse of death.
What brings about man's death? I'm talking about true death. Is it not sin? Rebellion against God? Without the covering of the blood, we are all destined to suffer that death. But, just as the blood of the lamb covered their doorway, and protected them, and in fact redeemed them from that death, so the true Sacrifice, and the true Blood covers us, and redeems us, from the curse of death. Why? Because through the suffering and death of the One, the payment of death was made for many.

Fenris
Feb 18th 2008, 04:03 PM
The prophetic aspect of the feasts, and the whole Word, does not diminish in any way the real events they spoke of, or the real history of Israel, nor does it take away from the physical aspects and meanings of those feasts and events.
It simply adds a dimension not previously seen.
Right, no doubt...

But what gives one the right to 'find' such things in scripture?

This question holds true for both of the above posts you made.

Kahtar
Feb 18th 2008, 04:31 PM
The children search for a piece of Matzah, not leaven which may not be owned. They search for it simply as a means to keep them awake for the entire seder, because it is a commandment to teach our children of it's cause. See Exodus 13: 8 And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: It is because of that which the LORD did for me when I came forth out of Egypt .

You are speaking of the afikomen.
But I am not.


Prepare a candle, a feather or old toothbrush, some newspaper, and a small bag.
Place pieces of hard chametz that does not make crumbs (a bit of bread can be used) in ten different places around the house. The chametz can be wrapped in paper. Chametz is hidden so that the searcher will have something to find, and the blessing will not be said in vain.
Turn off the lights in the house, and light the candle.
In the room in which the search will begin, the head of the family should say: "Boruch atah, Ad-noi, El-heinu melech ho’olom asher kideshonu bemitzvosov vetzivonu al bi’ur chametz." This translates to "Blessed are you Adonoy our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to burn chametz."

Kahtar
Feb 18th 2008, 04:59 PM
But what gives one the right to 'find' such things in scripture?A rather odd question. What gives any man the right to gain understanding from the Word of God? What gives us the right to understand God, or to learn to walk with Him? Perhaps we should all remain ignorant, ey?
But of course what you are really saying is that only the Jewish rabbis have the authority to interpret the Word, and the rest of us poor little lambs must listen to their voice.
But yet, they are mere men, and I place no more trust in them than I would any man. And the Word is quite clear how these men have led their people in the past. Led them right Assyria, Babylon, Europe..............
And when God sent them a prophet to correct them, they killed the prophet, because after all, who gave him the right to say anything, or to go against the word of the rabbis? So God would send them another one, whom they would also kill.
Nevertheless, to answer your question, from the Christian perspective, HaShem has given us the right to search His Word, and the Messiah has given us instruction and parameters, the Ruach HaKodesh, Holy Spirit, opening our undertanding of the spiritual aspect of the written Word.

Fenris
Feb 18th 2008, 05:38 PM
You are speaking of the afikomen.
But I am not.

Prepare a candle, a feather or old toothbrush, some newspaper, and a small bag.
Place pieces of hard chametz that does not make crumbs (a bit of bread can be used) in ten different places around the house. The chametz can be wrapped in paper. Chametz is hidden so that the searcher will have something to find, and the blessing will not be said in vain.
Turn off the lights in the house, and light the candle.
In the room in which the search will begin, the head of the family should say: "Boruch atah, Ad-noi, El-heinu melech ho’olom asher kideshonu bemitzvosov vetzivonu al bi’ur chametz." This translates to "Blessed are you Adonoy our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to burn chametz."
Ah. I bolded the reason for the Chametz to be hidden.

Fenris
Feb 18th 2008, 05:48 PM
A rather odd question. What gives any man the right to gain understanding from the Word of God?'Understanding' must be based on what is already known; you can't head off in a new direction without a good reason for doing so.


What gives us the right to understand God, or to learn to walk with Him? Perhaps we should all remain ignorant, ey?
But of course what you are really saying is that only the Jewish rabbis have the authority to interpret the Word, and the rest of us poor little lambs must listen to their voice.If I want to gain understanding on medical matters, I go to an expert in the field: a doctor. If I want to gain understanding on legal matters, I go to an expert in the field: a lawyer.

If I want to gain understanding on Jewish scripture, I go to an expert in the field: a rabbi.



But yet, they are mere men, and I place no more trust in them than I would any man.Yet you trust your church leaders...:hmm:


And the Word is quite clear how these men have led their people in the past. Led them right Assyria, Babylon, Europe..............I'm not aware of the rabbis leading anyone astray. Perhaps you could provide an example?


And when God sent them a prophet to correct them, they killed the prophet, because after all, who gave him the right to say anything, or to go against the word of the rabbis?Um, the rabbis did not kill the prophets. Quite the opposite, they canonized them.

The Jews may be the only people in the world that took the words of their critics and made them into holy writings. Something to ponder :hmm:


Nevertheless, to answer your question, from the Christian perspective, HaShem has given us the right to search His Word, and the Messiah has given us instruction and parameters, the Ruach HaKodesh, Holy Spirit, opening our undertanding of the spiritual aspect of the written Word.

Well, it's an interesting premise, considering that it can't be disproved.

Kahtar
Feb 18th 2008, 06:05 PM
Yet you trust your church leaders...:hmm:Actually no. I listen to them, yes. Then I compare what they have said to what the Word says. I find disagreement many times.

Um, the rabbis did not kill the prophets. Quite the opposite, they canonized them.Perhaps I am confusing kings and priests with rabbis. Apparently the rabbis word is taken over that of the king or priest?

Well, it's an interesting premise, considering that it can't be disproved.Or proven, as far as that goes. No more so than it can be proven that the rabbis were given such authority.
Nevertheless, our purpose here is to show each other our differing perspectives. I guess we are doing that.

Fenris
Feb 18th 2008, 06:15 PM
Actually no. I listen to them, yes. Then I compare what they have said to what the Word says.
Well, Jews do the same thing.


Perhaps I am confusing kings and priests with rabbis. Apparently the rabbis word is taken over that of the king or priest?
The teaching role was taken away from the priests because they were indeed corrupted. In the second temple period they were temple functionaries, not teachers or leaders.


Or proven, as far as that goes. No more so than it can be proven that the rabbis were given such authority.
Nevertheless, our purpose here is to show each other our differing perspectives. I guess we are doing that.Yeah, we sure are! :)

Fenris
Feb 18th 2008, 06:24 PM
Outside the introduction of new facts, the differences are not resolvable.:hmm:

Fenris
Feb 18th 2008, 06:56 PM
Here's a nice call for respect of our differences:



Other People's Prayers
By Jonathan Tobin



Interfaith dialogue must be based on the principle that respect is a two-way street

In 1263, the great Spanish scholar Rabbi Moshe ben-Nachman, better known as Nachmanides, was summoned to Barcelona by King James I of Aragon to engage in a rather stressful form of interfaith dialogue with representatives of the Dominican and Franciscan religious orders.
Their debate is known to history as the Disputation of Barcelona. The purpose of those who initiated the event (principally, an apostate Jew) was to compel the conversion of Spanish Jewry to Christianity. Guaranteed freedom of speech, Nachmanides, the sole Jewish representative in the proceedings, gave as good as he got in a free-wheeling medieval rhetorical brawl, in which both sides made it clear how little they thought of their opponents' faith.

Though given a reward by the king for his performance, Nahmanides was eventually forced to flee the country because of the church's anger. In particular, Pope Clement IV sought to punish the rabbi for his courageous defense of Judaism.

CATHOLIC REVIVAL

Flash forward 745 years and the lessons of the Disputation still stand. Public arguments about matters of faith can be a dangerous game whose outcome often serves the purposes of those who wish to spread intolerance rather than knowledge.

Though the context of the present day couldn't be any more different than the circumstances of 1263 Barcelona, many Jews appear to be thinking about interfaith relations with this piece of sad history still in mind.
The latest irritant in Catholic-Jewish relations is the result of the church's revival of an Easter Week devotion in which believers asked to pray for the conversion of the Jews.

As part of an effort to break down divisions within Catholicism that had grown up around the abandonment of the Latin Mass, last year Pope Benedict XVI allowed the saying of the Tridentine rite. The prayer, which was dropped by the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, spoke of Jewish "blindness" and asked the Almighty to "remove the veil from their hearts."

Shocked by this reversion to language that was part of a long history of the teaching of contempt for Judaism, Jewish leaders asked the Vatican to reconsider the move. Last week, the Vatican responded by issuing a new version of the prayer which eliminated the lines about blindness" and the "veil" over Jewish hearts, but did not omit the call for conversion.

The Jewish reaction to this move was anguished. The Anti-Defamation League wrote a letter to the pope asking that he further amend the prayer. The Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist rabbinical movements are all expected to add their pleas soon.

In response, Cardinal Walter Kasper seemed to express bewilderment at the sensitivity of the Jews. He told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, "I don't understand why Jews cannot accept that we can make use of our freedom to formulate our papers." His point was that the prayer "reflects the faith of the church, and furthermore Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we Catholics don't like … one must respect differences." While the cardinal's statement illustrates the slippery slope down which this sort of dispute can soon lead to hurt feelings on all sides, he is, of course, right. Catholics are free to believe whatever they want about the universal truth of the doctrines of their faith. The same right must also apply to everyone else when it comes to their opinions about their own religions and everyone else's. Problems arise not from believing these different things, but how we act on those differences.

On that score, it is important for Jews to understand that the Catholic Church has, in recent generations, moved light years away from the spirit of the Disputation of Barcelona. Under the inspired leadership of Pope John XXIII and later Pope John Paul II, the Vatican discarded the teaching of contempt for Judaism, and introduced new curricula in their schools and churches based on respect for Judaism and recognition of past persecutions.

As for proselytizing, unlike many Protestant denominations, the church has dropped campaigns to specifically target Jews for conversion.
Yet Jewish groups still fear that if the Vatican, in seeking to mollify its own liturgical conservative wing, moves away from the spirit of Vatican II, it will mean that Catholics no longer embrace John Paul II's beliefs that taught Catholics to think of Jews as their theological older brothers whose legitimacy should not be questioned.

That fear is genuine and it is based, in no small part, on the legacy of church-based missionizing that was rooted in compulsion and oppression of Jews.

But as Cardinal Kasper told Vatican Radio in another interview, the revised prayer "does not mean we are embarking on a mission" to convert Jews. Rather, they are just expressing their faith.

Jews and Catholics may have many things in common, but they do not accept the fundamentals of each other's religions. No less than in 1263, Christians believe theirs is the true path to salvation. Jews still disagree. In societies where religion rules all, such as most of the Islamic world, such theological differences are just as much a matter of life and death as they were in Barcelona during the Disputation.

AGREEING TO DISAGREE

But in free societies such as our own, we can merely say, "vive la difference" and leave it at that, knowing none of us will be the worse for wear as a result of our contrasting views about the nature of eternity or divinity.

Genuine interfaith dialogue is not rooted in agreement, but rather, on agreement to disagree. The trick is to do so in a civil manner, and to avoid public attacks on each others faiths that can only lead to discord and prejudice.

So while it is all well and good for Jews to hope that the Catholic Church never chooses to deviate from the path of John Paul II, it is not for Jews to tell Catholics what to say in their prayers, any more than it is legitimate for them to go back to trying to censor the Jewish liturgy as they once did. Respect is a two-way street.

Rather than seek to turn Benedict's revival of the Tridentine mass into a major issue, what we need to do is to stop worrying about Catholic prayers, and instead continue the work of bringing the two faiths closer together in defense of Western freedoms.

This a moment in history when the greatest challenge to religious freedom is not coming from the traditional sources of reaction within Christianity, such as those that sought to punish Nachmanides for defending Judaism at Barcelona. Instead, our challenge comes from forces within Islam that have already sought to censor the beliefs of Pope Benedict for defending the West. Their goal is to dismantle the entire edifice of tolerance that Jews and Christians have worked so hard to create.

Given that reality, this is not the time to pick fights over other people's prayers.

Kahtar
Feb 18th 2008, 07:25 PM
Outside the introduction of new facts, the differences are not resolvable.:hmm:Agreed. It all boils down to one major difference, and we'll not likely resolve that. That being the case, simply seeking to understand each other (with or without agreement) is about the best we can do.
In reference to the article you posted, it is true that we have a common enemy who has raised his head against both of us, and in that, we should stand side by side.
I would just reinterate the point that while there remains some rather ungainly influences from Rome within the protestant ranks, there are many glaring differences between the two.
It has been my observation (perhaps a faulty one) that for the most part, Israel today views Roman Catholics to be the overall representatives of Christianity. That was true several hundred years ago, before the printing and distribution of God's Word to the general populous.
Prior to that, we simply took the word of the priests. They were the ones in authority, the teachers. We had no choice. But with the Word in the hands of the people, it became clear fairly quickly that alot of what the priests were feeding us was not Biblical, thus the protest and separation from RCC.
Some of those things are still being weeded out, albeit slowly, and clearly not all protestants would agree with all my assessments.

Fenris
Feb 18th 2008, 08:24 PM
Agreed. It all boils down to one major difference, and we'll not likely resolve that. That being the case, simply seeking to understand each other (with or without agreement) is about the best we can do.Yeah.


In reference to the article you posted, it is true that we have a common enemy who has raised his head against both of us, and in that, we should stand side by side.And I think we are.


I would just reinterate the point that while there remains some rather ungainly influences from Rome within the protestant ranks, there are many glaring differences between the two.
It has been my observation (perhaps a faulty one) that for the most part, Israel today views Roman Catholics to be the overall representatives of Christianity. That was true several hundred years ago, before the printing and distribution of God's Word to the general populous.
Prior to that, we simply took the word of the priests. They were the ones in authority, the teachers. We had no choice. But with the Word in the hands of the people, it became clear fairly quickly that alot of what the priests were feeding us was not Biblical, thus the protest and separation from RCC.
Some of those things are still being weeded out, albeit slowly, and clearly not all protestants would agree with all my assessments.

Yes, having spoken to many here I have learned of the differences. I was not always aware of them and it makes me glad that I spent the time to learn the difference.

Kahtar
Feb 19th 2008, 04:12 AM
Yes, having spoken to many here I have learned of the differences. I was not always aware of them and it makes me glad that I spent the time to learn the difference.I'm glad you've found some benefit here.

I don't suppose you see anything pertaining to Messiah in the story of Joseph, or Isaac? Or Joshua?

Fenris
Feb 19th 2008, 12:57 PM
I'm glad you've found some benefit here.As am I.


I don't suppose you see anything pertaining to Messiah in the story of Joseph, or Isaac? Or Joshua?
No, those stories were about those individuals and their personal struggles.

Teke
Feb 20th 2008, 05:11 PM
In reference to the article you posted, it is true that we have a common enemy who has raised his head against both of us, and in that, we should stand side by side.
I would just reinterate the point that while there remains some rather ungainly influences from Rome within the protestant ranks, there are many glaring differences between the two.

This seems so out of character and impolite for you Kahtar. If there be enemies of yours in the church, you are commanded to love them. Not take sides.

I see no "glaring differences" between you, a Jew, or a Roman Catholic. You are all human beings. The fact that you or a Jew or Catholic see things differently doesn't make you enemies. It just makes you diverse. If God didn't think that diversity would cause us to grow, I doubt there would be any.



It has been my observation (perhaps a faulty one) that for the most part, Israel today views Roman Catholics to be the overall representatives of Christianity. That was true several hundred years ago, before the printing and distribution of God's Word to the general populous.
Prior to that, we simply took the word of the priests.

Some history will clear this up for you. The Church, whether the Roman church or any other, never kept the gospel from the faithful. In fact, without the church, many of the faithful who were poor would have never had any education at all.

St Cyril and St Methodius brought written language to Christian converts in the 9th century. Russians didn't have a written language, but apparently that didn't stop the church from educating them and giving them the scriptures.

Before the printing press, what was written was later given by the churches (after it was canonized). Before scripture was canonized it was studied in the universities of Alexander and Antioch.

So I don't see where anything was "hidden" from the faithful, or anyone else inquiring of it.

Kahtar
Feb 20th 2008, 10:08 PM
This seems so out of character and impolite for you Kahtar. If there be enemies of yours in the church, you are commanded to love them. Not take sides. Sweety, I did not declare war on anyone, and certainly did not delcare war or take sides against anyone in the church. I did make some remarks against the Roman Catholic political regime. Different thing altogether. Perhaps you should go back and read through the posts on what I actually said, and who the enemy was I was referring to.
Radical Islamic factions have, however, declared war, openly and blatantly, on Israel and the United States of America. In case you haven't seen the news lately, we ARE involved in a war, not of our choosing, and Israel IS our ally in that war. Why are you reading some dark, evil thing in that? Do you think perhaps that the United States and Israel should just roll over and die? Thank you for that judgment.


I see no "glaring differences" between you, a Jew, or a Roman Catholic. You are all human beings. The fact that you or a Jew or Catholic see things differently doesn't make you enemies. It just makes you diverse. If God didn't think that diversity would cause us to grow, I doubt there would be any. I agree, but again, you are reading a whole bunch of stuff into what I have written, which actually surprises me of you.
The fact that me or a Jew or a Catholic see things differently does not make us enemies, nor did I indicate such. I love the Jewish people, and yes, I even love the Catholic people, many of whom have seen beyond the political bent of RCC and actually come into a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Islam declaring war does, however, make us enemies.





As to the rest of your post:
The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary." Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue." Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair." written by David CloudOr, if that is not sufficient for you, here is the decree itself:



DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.
And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.
Besides the above, wishing to repress that temerity, by which the words and sentences of sacred Scripture are turned and [Page 21] twisted to all sorts of profane uses, to wit, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, impious and diabolical incantations, sorceries, and defamatory libels; (the Synod) commands and enjoins, for the doing away with this kind of irreverence and contempt, and that no one may hence forth dare in any way to apply the words of sacred Scripture to these and such like purposes; that all men of this description, profaners and violators of the word of God, be by the bishops restrained by the penalties of law, and others of their own appointment.
INDICTION OF THE NEXT SESSION Likewise, this sacred and holy Synod resolves and decrees, that the next ensuing Session be held and celebrated on the Thursday after the next most sacred festival of Pentecost.

Teke
Feb 20th 2008, 10:47 PM
Kahtar, forgive me if I misunderstood you.:hug:

BTW, the 19th, Roman council of Trent, doesn't mean anything to the rest of Christianity. It only means something to Roman Catholics.
It is not a portrait of Christianity's history. Just the goings on within the Roman church. Which, for the record, doesn't control all of Christendom. :saint:

Kahtar
Feb 21st 2008, 12:08 AM
Kahtar, forgive me if I misunderstood you.:hug:
Not a problem. I can't count the times I've misunderstood you..:D

Fenris
Feb 25th 2008, 01:32 PM
Khatar, what does this mean to you: Zacharia 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'

Kahtar
Feb 25th 2008, 03:46 PM
Khatar, what does this mean to you: Zacharia 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'
I think it means exactly what it says. The question of course, is when? The whole chapter seems to be referring to incidents that have not as yet taken place.

Fenris
Feb 25th 2008, 04:01 PM
Yeah, it seems to be referring to future events.

Kahtar
Feb 25th 2008, 04:30 PM
Yeah, it seems to be referring to future events.Yes. Most likely in the time of the earthly reign of Messiah.
Of course, this brings up another point. That being who exactly is a Jew.
It is the understanding of some Christians that we are 'grafted in'. Not all agree on what we are grafted into. But Paul said this:
Romans 11:17-18
(17) And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
(18) Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
and this:
Romans 9:4-8
(4) Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;
(5) Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
(6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:
(7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
(8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

It is my understanding that when we accept the Hebrew Messiah (which we believe to be Jesus, of course), that we become one 'tree' so to speak. That root that we partake of is the Root of Jesse.

Fenris
Feb 25th 2008, 04:34 PM
Yes. Most likely in the time of the earthly reign of Messiah.
Of course, this brings up another point. That being who exactly is a Jew....

It is my understanding that when we accept the Hebrew Messiah (which we believe to be Jesus, of course), that we become one 'tree' so to speak. That root that we partake of is the Root of Jesse.
So when it says 'Jew' in 8:23, what it really means is 'Christian'?

Kahtar
Feb 25th 2008, 04:54 PM
So when it says 'Jew' in 8:23, what it really means is 'Christian'?What it means is those who partake of that Root. Not all Jews do. Not all Gentiles do. Out of all the peoples of the world, those who look forward to the Coming One, the Root of Jesse, the seed of David, and call Him Lord.

I'll be back later. Have to go fix my roof:rolleyes:

Fenris
Feb 25th 2008, 05:08 PM
What it means is those who partake of that Root. Not all Jews do. Not all Gentiles do.Hmm. That is not specified in the text though. It just says 'Jew'. You're saying that it means 'anyone who believes in Jesus', which I would interpret as 'Christian'.


I'll be back later. Have to go fix my roof:rolleyes:

I wish I could do stuff like that. Instead I hire people to do it and it costs $$$.

As my wife always says, "Jewish men are not too handy". :rofl:

Kahtar
Feb 25th 2008, 05:47 PM
Hmm. That is not specified in the text though. It just says 'Jew'. You're saying that it means 'anyone who believes in Jesus', which I would interpret as 'Christian'.That is true. But it does in the NT, which as you know I believe also is part of God's Word.



I wish I could do stuff like that. Instead I hire people to do it and it costs $$$.:lol: It costs you either way, either in money, or in back pain........

As my wife always says, "Jewish men are not too handy". :rofl:Well I suppose she would know.:D But my wife says pretty much the same......:)

Fenris
Feb 25th 2008, 06:19 PM
That is true. But it does in the NT, which as you know I believe also is part of God's Word.Of course. Still, it does not appear to fit the context of the original verse.



:lol: It costs you either way, either in money, or in back pain........
Well I suppose she would know.:D But my wife says pretty much the same......:):lol:

Studyin'2Show
Feb 25th 2008, 08:13 PM
Khatar, what does this mean to you: Zacharia 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'I know Kahtar has already answered but I wanted to throw something in that hasn't been mentioned. Let's not forget that ALL Yeshua's original disciples were physical Jews, so a spiritual beginning to the fulfillment of this passage has already occurred. We, as followers of Yeshua, are still taking hold of the Jewish men and their witness of Messiah. We have been saved as was promised. There has been a revival, so to speak, of those who now follow the One True God. Once we were heathens but He has called us from every nation, from the east and west and brought us to Him.

Now, with that said, I do see a future 'physical' fulfillment of that passage. I believe much in TeNaKh must be understood with a Hebraic perspective to glean everything from it that the Father intends for us to glean. Many followers of Yeshua have already begun to grab hold of the Jew (who has a Hebraic understanding) to learn all they can from him. I must say that I would not simply grab the hem of a Jew that doesn't have understanding, being that the large majority of 'physical' Jews are atheists or agnostic.

Baruch HaShem!

Kahtar
Feb 25th 2008, 08:26 PM
Good points, S2S. Thank you.
Since we are discussing Zechariah, Fenris, what is your take on this verse:
Zechariah 9:9
(9) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Fenris
Feb 25th 2008, 09:42 PM
Now, with that said, I do see a future 'physical' fulfillment of that passage. I believe much in TeNaKh must be understood with a Hebraic perspective to glean everything from it that the Father intends for us to glean. Many followers of Yeshua have already begun to grab hold of the Jew (who has a Hebraic understanding) to learn all they can from him. I must say that I would not simply grab the hem of a Jew that doesn't have understanding, being that the large majority of 'physical' Jews are atheists or agnostic.

Baruch HaShem!
Hmm. I highlighted the part I found particularly interesting. :hmm: We are kinda seeing this today... They aren't saying "We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you...", but many are taking seriously the verses dealing with God's favor for the Jews. Genesis 12:3, for example...

Fenris
Feb 25th 2008, 09:54 PM
Zechariah 9:9
(9) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

OK, obviously messianic.
Not so obviously referring to Jesus though. He was never a king, and he never ruled (as in the following verse) "from the sea to the west and from the river to the ends of the earth".

Studyin'2Show
Feb 25th 2008, 10:04 PM
Hmm. I highlighted the part I found particularly interesting. :hmm: We are kinda seeing this today... They aren't saying "We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you...", but many are taking seriously the verses dealing with God's favor for the Jews. Genesis 12:3, for example...I'd have to disagree concerning the 'we will go with you' part. Where were they going? Up to Jerusalem to worship YHWH. Hence I do go with those who go to worship YHWH! :pp Plus, more and more of those 'physical' Jews are also followers of Yeshua.

Hallelujah!

Fenris
Feb 25th 2008, 10:11 PM
I'd have to disagree concerning the 'we will go with you' part. Where were they going? Up to Jerusalem to worship YHWH. Hence I do go with those who go to worship YHWH! :pp Well, this may indeed be what it refers to. On the other hand, Jews aren't going to Jerusalem to worship Jesus. Still, an interesting observation.

Plus, more and more of those 'physical' Jews are also followers of Yeshua.

Hallelujah!
Um. I'm not so sure that this is true. Most of the so called 'messianic' temples have very few actual Jews in them.

Kahtar
Feb 25th 2008, 10:13 PM
OK, obviously messianic.
Not so obviously referring to Jesus though. He was never a king, and he never ruled (as in the following verse) "from the sea to the west and from the river to the ends of the earth".True, He has not physically done those things yet. However, according to the NT, He has provided salvation, and rode into Jerusalem on the foal of an ass.
But, as you know, we are expecting Him again, and in His second coming, He WILL rule the entire earth. And that from Jerusalem.

Fenris
Feb 25th 2008, 10:18 PM
True, He has not physically done those things yet. However, according to the NT, He has provided salvationNot mentioned in the OT
and rode into Jerusalem on the foal of an ass.Possibly true. Trivial though.


But, as you know, we are expecting Him again, and in His second coming, He WILL rule the entire earth. And that from Jerusalem.

Right, I understand that.

Kahtar
Feb 25th 2008, 11:11 PM
Not mentioned in the OTSalvation not mentioned in the Old Testament? It is mentioned numerous times, including the verse already quoted.
Gen 49:18 I have waited for thy salvation, O LORD.
Deuteronomy 32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered [with fatness]; then he forsook God [which] made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
1 Samuel 2:1-2 And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the LORD, mine horn is exalted in the LORD: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation. (2) [There is] none holy as the LORD: for [there is] none beside thee: neither any rock like our God.
Psa 3:8 Salvation [I][belongeth] unto the LORD: thy blessing [is] upon thy people. Selah.
Psa 14:7 Oh that the salvation of Israel [were come] out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, [and] Israel shall be glad.
Psa 18:2 The LORD [is] my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, [and] my high tower.
Isa 12:2 Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation.
Isa 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken [it].
Isa 25:9 And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this [is] our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this [is] the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.
Isa 45:17 [But] Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.

Just to list a few.


Possibly true. Trivial though.I suppose, if you feel the fulfillment of prophecy is a trivial thing.

Studyin'2Show
Feb 26th 2008, 12:31 AM
Well, this may indeed be what it refers to. On the other hand, Jews aren't going to Jerusalem to worship Jesus. Still, an interesting observation.

Um. I'm not so sure that this is true. Most of the so called 'messianic' temples have very few actual Jews in them.You can read the post again, my friend. I said going to worship YHWH. ;) Although for us, there's not much difference. :D

No need to conflict over numbers. I didn't offer any percentages, but everyday more Jews are accepting Yeshua. I've only attended one Messianic synagogue as a visitor about a dozen or so times and there was a very significant 'physical' Jewish presence. Of course I live in South Florida and we have a large Jewish presence. I don't know if things are different elsewhere in the world regarding Messianic synagogues.

Fenris
Feb 26th 2008, 01:33 PM
Salvation not mentioned in the Old Testament? It is mentioned numerous times, including the verse already quoted.It doesn't necessarily mean what you interpret it to mean in the Christian sense, though.


I suppose, if you feel the fulfillment of prophecy is a trivial thing.In this case, yes. Because it's a trivial prophecy. Every Jew doing the thrice-yearly pilgrimage fulfilled the prophecy of riding into Jerusalem.

Fenris
Feb 26th 2008, 01:34 PM
No need to conflict over numbers.
Very well, I shall let the topic rest.

Kahtar
Feb 26th 2008, 05:54 PM
Hey, I got my Herbert Danby Mishnah today. Should be getting Rashi in the next few days.

Fenris
Feb 26th 2008, 06:33 PM
Danby? Why don't you get a translation written by someone Jewish?:confused

daughter
Feb 26th 2008, 07:59 PM
OK, obviously messianic.
Not so obviously referring to Jesus though. He was never a king, and he never ruled (as in the following verse) "from the sea to the west and from the river to the ends of the earth".
The original verse, referring to future events, is in the present tense. Does this suggest anything to you Fenris? To me it suggests that the future King's reign will impact on eternity, and is as certain, though future, as though it was already happening. After all, God knows the end from the beginning. Jesus may not be "reigning" in temporal terms at this moment, but at some point Messiah (whoever he will be) shall reign... and in God's view IS reigning now... otherwise, why the use of the present/future tense?

Oh, by the way Fenris... I'm waiting on a delivery of a translation of the whole bible by a Jewish guy. (He believes Jesus is the Messiah.) I'll let you know how it goes. Wish me well with my studies of Hebrew by the way - I get stuck on a regular basis! :hmm:

daughter
Feb 26th 2008, 08:04 PM
Well, this may indeed be what it refers to. On the other hand, Jews aren't going to Jerusalem to worship Jesus. Still, an interesting observation.

Um. I'm not so sure that this is true. Most of the so called 'messianic' temples have very few actual Jews in them.
I don't know many messianic Jews... I do know a lot of gentiles Christians who WANT to be Jewish, and pretend that they are, even persuading themselves that they are.

As a mongrel myself, can I apologise? It's a form of backhanded compliment when Christians start pretending to be Jews. But we're not... even though I've got some Jewish ancestry, I haven't had your history, and I'm sorry for any offense caused by well meaning Christians who are Jewish wannabes.

(Not saying all Christians who attend Messianic gatherings are doing this, but as far as I can gather... some are.)

Kahtar
Feb 26th 2008, 08:08 PM
Danby? Why don't you get a translation written by someone Jewish?:confusedIt was the one I could afford...and in English. He has pretty good reviews, though.

Fenris
Feb 26th 2008, 08:24 PM
The original verse, referring to future events, is in the present tense. Does this suggest anything to you Fenris? To me it suggests that the future King's reign will impact on eternity, and is as certain, though future, as though it was already happening.
Yes, I can see one looking at it in that way.

To me it suggests that perhaps everything that happens is part of the process that brings the messianic era to fruition. So it is realistic to say that 'the messiah is coming' in the present tense.



Oh, by the way Fenris... I'm waiting on a delivery of a translation of the whole bible by a Jewish guy. (He believes Jesus is the Messiah.) I'll let you know how it goes. Wish me well with my studies of Hebrew by the way - I get stuck on a regular basis! :hmm:

It's a hard language. Even I have problems sometimes. I can read it fluently, and speak it after a fashion, but sometimes the nuances are missed...:D

Fenris
Feb 26th 2008, 08:34 PM
I don't know many messianic Jews... I do know a lot of gentiles Christians who WANT to be Jewish, and pretend that they are, even persuading themselves that they are.Yeah, I have heard about this... It's funny, because so many want to be Jewish without being Jewish.

We do accept converts, who are held in high esteem.

From the Talmud:
Said Resh Lakish: The convert is dearer than the Jews who stood before Mount Sinai. Why? Because had they not seen the thunder, and the mountains quaking and the sounds of the horn, they would not have accepted the Torah. But this one, who saw none of these things, came, surrendered himself to the Holy One and accepted upon himself the kingdom of heaven. Could any be dearer then he?


As a mongrel myself, can I apologise? It's a form of backhanded compliment when Christians start pretending to be Jews. But we're not... even though I've got some Jewish ancestry, I haven't had your history, and I'm sorry for any offense caused by well meaning Christians who are Jewish wannabes.No apology is needed.

I'm fascinated with history and have found that every group has some interesting facts buried in their history...

Fenris
Feb 26th 2008, 08:35 PM
It was the one I could afford...and in English. He has pretty good reviews, though.All right. Let me know what you think of it, please.

Kahtar
Feb 26th 2008, 10:15 PM
All right. Let me know what you think of it, please.I'll do that. Danby is given quite a bit of credit for helping bring about a change in the (rather anti-semitic) views of Christians during the last century, and has done some translation of several other works.
This apparently was one of the first complete translations of the Mishnah into English, although certain portions had been done previously. It was first published in 1933.
One thing I like already is the index of scripture references and a topical index at the back. I imagine I'll be using that quite a bit.

daughter
Feb 27th 2008, 11:41 AM
Yeah, I have heard about this... It's funny, because so many want to be Jewish without being Jewish.

We do accept converts, who are held in high esteem.

From the Talmud:
Said Resh Lakish: The convert is dearer than the Jews who stood before Mount Sinai. Why? Because had they not seen the thunder, and the mountains quaking and the sounds of the horn, they would not have accepted the Torah. But this one, who saw none of these things, came, surrendered himself to the Holy One and accepted upon himself the kingdom of heaven. Could any be dearer then he?

No apology is needed.

I'm fascinated with history and have found that every group has some interesting facts buried in their history...
That's very much like what Jesus said to Thomas... "You believe because you saw. Blessed is the one who does not see but still believes."

One thing I love the more I study the Bible is just how Jewish Jesus actually is. The whole description of the last supper... or Christ's last Passover meal, is so much richer when you realise what Passover actually means to a Jew.

If I wasn't Christian I'd be Jewish. I just love the God who leads His people out of slavery. When I read the story of the Exodus, I feel as though I was led out of Egypt too... It's a story for every generation, simply wonderful.

(Guess what story my son and I were talking about on the half hour walk to his school this morning? :D)

Fenris
Feb 27th 2008, 01:25 PM
That's very much like what Jesus said to Thomas... "You believe because you saw. Blessed is the one who does not see but still believes."Yes, exactly.


One thing I love the more I study the Bible is just how Jewish Jesus actually is. The whole description of the last supper... or Christ's last Passover meal, is so much richer when you realise what Passover actually means to a Jew.I don't dispute that. It is my contention that Jesus was a Pharisee rabbi.


If I wasn't Christian I'd be Jewish. I just love the God who leads His people out of slavery. When I read the story of the Exodus, I feel as though I was led out of Egypt too... It's a story for every generation, simply wonderful.
It is.
It's also one of the reasons why God gave us such a lengthy list of rules to follow. Because He did wonderful things for our ancestors, and by extension us today, He has the right to demand more of us than other peoples.


(Guess what story my son and I were talking about on the half hour walk to his school this morning? :D)

What a great topic of discussion!

BTW, we are going to be in Israel for passover.:pp

daughter
Feb 27th 2008, 02:07 PM
ARGH!!! Oh, I wish we could be there. I REALLY wish I could get out to Israel.

I've just had an idea for another thread, if you don't mind starting it... could you start a thread about who you believe Jesus was? Thank you!

Fenris
Feb 27th 2008, 02:30 PM
ARGH!!! Oh, I wish we could be there. I REALLY wish I could get out to Israel.It's an amazing place. The spirituality is palpable.


I've just had an idea for another thread, if you don't mind starting it... could you start a thread about who you believe Jesus was? Thank you!

I would be delighted to. I shall have to consult some refrence material first, though...

Fenris
Mar 25th 2008, 06:40 PM
OK, I'm going to bump this thread up. I'm going to post source text for Jewish Messianic belief. Reading it, you'll see why Jews are still waiting...

"You will return to the L-rd your G-d...
And the L-rd your G-d shall return with your returnees... and He will return and gather you from all the nations amongst whom the L-rd your G-d has scattered you..."
"If your outcasts shall be at the ends of the heavens, from there will the L-rd your G-d gather you, from there He will take you... [He] will bring you into the Land which your fathers have possessed and you will possess it, and he will do you good and multiply you, more than your fathers...
[He] will circumcise your heart (remove its coarse covering, make it receptive to G-dliness) ... to love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul...
G-d will again rejoice over you... for you shall hearken to the voice of G-d... to keep His commandments and statues which are written in this book of the Torah...

- Deuteronomy 30:2-10




It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mount of the house of G-d shall be established atop the mountains, and be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall stream to it.
And many nations will go, and say: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of G-d, to the house of the G-d of Jacob; and he will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths." For from Zion shall go forth Torah, and the word of G-d from Jerusalem.
And he will judge between nations, and decide among the peoples.
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword upon nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
- Isaiah 2:2-

There shall come forth a shoot out of the stem of Yishai, a branch shall grow from his roots. The spirit of G-d shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of G-d... Righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faith the girdle of his reins.
The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid... the cow and the bear will graze... the lion will eat straw as the ox... the suckling child will play on the cobra's hole...
For the earth shall be filed with the knowledge of G-d, as the waters cover the sea.

- Isaiah 11:1-9


I will set my Torah in their innards and write it upon their hearts...

- Jeremiah 31:32


I will take you from the nations, gather you from the countries and bring you to your land... From all your contaminations, from all your idols, I will cleanse you.
I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will place within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
I will place My spirit within you.

- Ezekiel 36:24-27


Ezekiel 37:22 and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all; 23 neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling-places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; so shall they be My people, and I will be their God. 24 And My servant David shall be king over them, and they all shall have one shepherd; they shall also walk in Mine ordinances, and observe My statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children's children, for ever; and David My servant shall be their prince for ever. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them--it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will establish them, and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for ever. 27 My dwelling-place also shall be over them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 28 And the nations shall know that I am the LORD that sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for ever.'
I shall pour forth my spirit upon all flesh.

- Joel 3:1


Behold, I am sending you Elijah the prophet, before the great and awesome day of G-d will come. He will restore the hearts of fathers to their children, and the hearts of children to their fathers.

- Malachi 3:23-24

JesusisGod
Mar 28th 2008, 03:58 AM
Hi Fenris.
I see nothing in anything you've cited that disagrees with NT teaching. Do you?

Fenris
Mar 28th 2008, 09:59 AM
Hi Fenris.
I see nothing in anything you've cited that disagrees with NT teaching. Do you?
Erm yes, pretty much all of it. Jesus did not fulfill any of these in a literal way, as expected.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 28th 2008, 01:29 PM
Erm yes, pretty much all of it. Jesus did not fulfill any of these in a literal way, as expected.I believe the last two words sum it up perfectly. It was not AS EXPECTED. What we have to remember is that God's ways are high above our ways. It makes sense that man can easily misunderstand. ;)

God Bless!

Fenris
Mar 28th 2008, 02:08 PM
I believe the last two words sum it up perfectly. It was not AS EXPECTED. What we have to remember is that God's ways are high above our ways. It makes sense that man can easily misunderstand. ;)

God Bless!And that's why I put those words there- to show a difference between our religions. You believe that they have been fulfilled (but not in a literal way) and we're still waiting for them to be fulfilled as the text says.

JesusisGod
Mar 28th 2008, 05:15 PM
Hi Fenris.

Erm yes, pretty much all of it. Jesus did not fulfill any of these in a literal way, as expected.
I was saying that the NT expectation is that Jesus will return to fulfill Gods promises to Israel. So in that regard, everything you quoted agrees with NT teaching.

I think I mentioned to you before somewhere that my understanding is that when Jesus returns, the children of Israel will be resurrected first and rule the earth with Him forever. Then the gentiles will be raised and either enter life to be governed by Israel, or perish. (Btw, if you get in, remember me will ya?)

Fenris
Mar 28th 2008, 05:22 PM
Hi Fenris.

I was saying that the NT expectation is that Jesus will return to fulfill Gods promises to Israel. So in that regard, everything you quoted agrees with NT teaching. No, it doesn't. The messiah 'returning' after two millennia of his initial appearance is not an OT concept.


I think I mentioned to you before somewhere that my understanding is that when Jesus returns, the children of Israel will be resurrected first and rule the earth with Him forever.Yowza! We don't want to rule the earth forever!


Then the gentiles will be raised and either enter life to be governed by Israel, or perish.Let's set the records straight on this point. From Maimonides:

The Sages and prophets did not yearn for the Messianic Era in order that [the Jewish people] rule over the entire world, nor in order that they have dominion over the gentiles, nor that they be exalted by them, nor in order that they eat, drink and celebrate. Rather, their aspiration was that [the Jewish people] be free [to involve themselves] in Torah and its wisdom, without anyone to oppress or disturb them...




(Btw, if you get in, remember me will ya?)Don't worry about it. :hug:

If that is true (and I don't for one second believe that it is!) I'd take everyone here. Even the people who fight with me.

JesusisGod
Mar 28th 2008, 06:19 PM
Hi Fenris.

No, it doesn't. The messiah 'returning' after two millennia of his initial appearance is not an OT concept.
I hear ya, but didn't mean how you perceive it. I meant from the NT perspective, everything you cited is fine.


Yowza! We don't want to rule the earth forever!
Well, I think as far as God is concerned you're stuck with the job.


Let's set the records straight on this point. From Maimonides:

The Sages and prophets did not yearn for the Messianic Era in order that [the Jewish people] rule over the entire world, nor in order that they have dominion over the gentiles, nor that they be exalted by them, nor in order that they eat, drink and celebrate. Rather, their aspiration was that [the Jewish people] be free [to involve themselves] in Torah and its wisdom, without anyone to oppress or disturb them..
I never meant to imply that it was a desire of Jewish people to "take over the world."

My belief is that when Jesus returns and sets the Jews over the earth they will be unlike any rulers the world has ever seen. They will be fair and just in every determination and rule the world in righteousness. (Btw, I live in NY where our Governor recently resigned in disgrace. I don't think we'll have to bother with such nonsense when the Jews are reigning.)


If that is true (and I don't for one second believe that it is!) I'd take everyone here. Even the people who fight with me.
Thanks Fenris, but the sheep and the goats are going to be divided by Messiah.

Fenris
Mar 31st 2008, 01:54 PM
Hi Fenris.

I hear ya, but didn't mean how you perceive it. I meant from the NT perspective, everything you cited is fine.Well, except finding OT support for the messiah returning more than 2000 years after his first appearance.



Well, I think as far as God is concerned you're stuck with the job.Eh. I think He gave us a different job.



I never meant to imply that it was a desire of Jewish people to "take over the world." That's good. Because I've been told that the reason the Jews rejected Jesus is because he didn't make them "Rich and powerful". I think it's kinda sad that people see Jews like that, and I'm glad you're not one of them.


My belief is that when Jesus returns and sets the Jews over the earth they will be unlike any rulers the world has ever seen. They will be fair and just in every determination and rule the world in righteousness. (Btw, I live in NY where our Governor recently resigned in disgrace. I don't think we'll have to bother with such nonsense when the Jews are reigning.) Hmm.....:hmm:

Teke
Mar 31st 2008, 02:08 PM
Let's set the records straight on this point. From Maimonides:

The Sages and prophets did not yearn for the Messianic Era in order that [the Jewish people] rule over the entire world, nor in order that they have dominion over the gentiles, nor that they be exalted by them, nor in order that they eat, drink and celebrate. Rather, their aspiration was that [the Jewish people] be free [to involve themselves] in Torah and its wisdom, without anyone to oppress or disturb them...


This, freedom, is actually what Christians are to understand by Jesus words.

Jhn 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Man is truly only free when he is in communion with God.

Fenris
Mar 31st 2008, 02:23 PM
This, freedom, is actually what Christians are to understand by Jesus words.

Jhn 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Man is truly only free when he is in communion with God.Please read it again.

Rather, their aspiration was that [the Jewish people] be free [to involve themselves] in Torah and its wisdom, without anyone to oppress or disturb them...

If one is trying to study the Torah but is constantly being interrupted by people killing them, they aren't 'free' in any conventional sense of the word.

Teke
Mar 31st 2008, 03:39 PM
Please read it again.

Rather, their aspiration was that [the Jewish people] be free [to involve themselves] in Torah and its wisdom, without anyone to oppress or disturb them...

If one is trying to study the Torah but is constantly being interrupted by people killing them, they aren't 'free' in any conventional sense of the word.

Well there has been 2,000 yrs of uninterrupted killing of Christians all around the world who only want to study scripture and practice it (worship). So what difference are you pointing out.:hmm:

Fenris
Mar 31st 2008, 03:42 PM
Well there has been 2,000 yrs of uninterrupted killing of Christians all around the world who only want to study scripture and practice it (worship). So what difference are you pointing out.:hmm:That so long as people are being killed for the for faith, they aren't 'free to serve God without anyone to oppress or disturb them'.

Teke
Mar 31st 2008, 04:19 PM
That so long as people are being killed for the for faith, they aren't 'free to serve God without anyone to oppress or disturb them'.

Well, in the brief time we are here, I believe suffering is part of God's plan in educating us. And "freedom" is really a state of mind as well as a state of being (in the ontological sense). However, most do not want to be free, they actually want to be in bondage as that is easier than being free.

But I do understand what your aiming at. There are Christians as well who hold the chiliast view (a later development in theology) in their eschatology.

Lastly, Israel is our example, and they were free and yet did not want to be free, but rather insisted on an earthly king after God said He was their only authority. So in a sense one could say He spoiled them rotten in giving them all they desired.;)

Fenris
Mar 31st 2008, 04:37 PM
Well, in the brief time we are here, I believe suffering is part of God's plan in educating us.Right, no argument.


And "freedom" is really a state of mind as well as a state of being (in the ontological sense).Again, true.


However, most do not want to be free, they actually want to be in bondage as that is easier than being free. I don't agree, but it's really outside the point of the discussion.


But I do understand what your aiming at. There are Christians as well who hold the chiliast view (a later development in theology) in their eschatology.What I'm aiming at is that the prophets described a utopian world quite unlike the one we live in today.

Teke
Mar 31st 2008, 06:26 PM
What I'm aiming at is that the prophets described a utopian world quite unlike the one we live in today.


Yes, like heaven coming down to earth. And we articulate that in our theological and religious beliefs.