Posted on 03/01/2007 8:30:44 PM PST by blasater1960
Animal sacrifices should be renewed on the Temple Mount, a member of the radical Sanhedrin organization told Ynetnews.
In ancient Israel and Judea, the Sanhedrin served as the highest court in the land, and was made up of 71 top judges. Now, a group of îåãòä
fringe rabbis say they have reformed the group, although the organization has received no recognition from Israel's official religious authorities.
"In the Torah there are around 200 commandments dealing with animal sacrifices," said Rabbi Dov Stein, of the Sanhedrin organization. "The Torah of Israel demands animal sacrifices. When the people of Israel were in the Diaspora, it couldn’t be done. But now, there is the supreme institution, the Sanhedrin, made up of experts, and it can be done. The new Sanhedrin, like the old, will educate the people of Israel on how to keep and safeguard the Torah."
(Excerpt) Read more at ynetnews.com ...
The temple will be rebuilt in our generation I believe. Although I won't be here when the Antichrist stands in it and proclaims himself as god.
The Temple must be rebuilt prior to Christ's return and taking control of the planet.
That's interesting...
I don't know if it means anything, but this coin is listed on the Temple Institute's website --
http://www.templeinstitute.org/cgi-bin/store/commerce.cgi?product=gift
Of course, it's in the gift section of their store, and not part of the Temple implements and furnishings that they have listed elsewhere on their website.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Amen to that...
Hebrews . . about the best of all the books of the Bible in some ways, Old or New.
As I have said, some of these groups, as reactionary and Biblical as they sound, are into ecumenism and dialogue with other religions without insisting on all non-Jews drop their false religions for the Noachide Laws. How in the world liberal ecumenism is able to mix with the advocacy of animal sacrifice I have absolutely no idea.
As I said, my own nature and inclination say go ahead . . . but the Gedolim are the bosses, not me.
Not in the so-called "Old" Testement. So totally irrelevant for any Jew.
Once again I apologize for the succinct, terse and synoptic nature of my reply. There aren't enough heartbeats in a multitude of lifetimes sufficient to render a comphrehensive reply, nor are there enough hearteats in numerous lifetimes available to read such, and neither do sufficient electrons exist in the universe available for me to push so as to even remotely address the topic with sufficient depth.
I understand all the arguments and objections respecting the interpretation that Isa 53 is referring to Messiah. However, I beg to differ, in that what specifically is said in the passage can in no way be interpreted referring to Israel as a nation if proper hermenuetics are employed, nay not even a casual reading of the passage will result in exegesis of such; it is patently eisegetical.
The following points emerge from a close reading of Isa 52:13-53:12:
No other person claiming to be Messiah has been so consistently rejected by all Jewry. Psa 118:22 speaks of Messiah as the stone that the Jews rejected (He being refered to "the stone" in Gen 49:24; Dan 2:43,44; Zec 3:8,9). Isa 8:14 speaks of Messiah being a stone which Israel will stumble at. It is also worthwhile considering how many of those who typified Messiah such as Moses, David, Joseph and several of the judges were initially rejected by their brethren, although later accepted.
God would make "his soul" , i.e. " him" , " an offering for sin" (v.10). The Law required that the offerer lay his hand on the sin offering before it was killed, to associate himself with it (Lev 4:4,15,24,29). In this way the animal bore the offerer's sins, in the same way as the scapegoat bore Israel's sins on the day of Atonement. This fact is definitely alluded to here: "Bearing their iniquities" (v11), "He bare the sin of many" (v12), "the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (v6). These verses are conclusive that a human offering and sin-bearing sacrifice is being described here . It is noteworthy that the bullock's blood was to be "sprinkled" seven times before the Lord to make atonement (Lev 4:6,17); and the same Hebrew word occurs earlier in this same suffering servant prophecy: " My servant...his visage was so marred more than any man...so (on account of his sufferings) shall he sprinkle many nations" (Isa 52:13-15).
The blood of slain animals offered in sacrifice is not in itself a valid way to atone for sin - this merely pointing forward to "the blood" of the perfect sacrifice (an illustraation of the atonement and type of Messiah). That perfect sin-bearing sacrifice, which Isa 53 intimates was to be made by the willing death of the suffering servant, therefore gained forgiveness of sin for all time is some sort of reference to Israel is nothing but sanctimounious pontificating nonsense. The seed of the woman was to destroy sin, the seed of the serpent, through his own temporary sufferings (the bruising on the heel, Gen 3:15). "Sin" in this context must include all transgressions which have ever been committed (or will be), and all those which ever would be after the time that perfect sacrifice was made on Calvary's cross. This perfect sacrifice would not be so if there were other sacrifices still needed after it had been made. Therefore this perfect sacrifice which the "volume of the book" of the Old Covenant constantly pointed forward to (Psa 40:7), would provide atonement for future sins. Thus in the same way as the efficacy of the perfect sacrifice reached back to provide forgiveness of the sins committed under the Old Covenant, so its efficacy reaches forward as well. It is noteworthy that the Orthodox Jewish book of Zohar interprets Isaiah 53 by saying that it illustrates how God chooses to smite one just man in order to save many others.
Unlike tenses in the Greek, tenses in Hebrew are frequently used as part of linguistic idiom, i.e., manner of speaking. To accept arguments based upon them is something very few who appreciate the Hebrew of the Torah would be willing to do. A good example of the problem with Hebrew tenses can be found in Gen 17:5,6. The use of the past tense in "a father of many nations have I made thee" shows that this tense can be used to show Divine intention. The same principle is applicable in Isa 53 - the past tenses there indicate God's intention to do things which elsewhere in the same prophecy are spoken of in the future tense.
This "prophetic perfect" tense in Hebrew grammar is definitely recognized by Jewish expositors. The use of past and then future tenses is surely to teach that there was to be a certain order in Messiah's work as outlined in this passage - first sacrifice, and then honour. Messianic prophesies normally had a primary fulfilment; in this case the minor fulfilment was in Hezekiah, and therefore it is fitting that there is a mixture of tenses, as parts of the prophecy are more specifically relevant to him than others. An excellent example of this can be found in Psa 110:1:
The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand.Who is talking, who is the object and who is the receiver? Seeing that Messiah was to be a descendant of David, it follows that he could not have existed before he was born, and therefore God could not have literally spoken to him. Thus David is using the past tense in a prophetic sense.
Moreover, the present tense is also used in Hebrew prophecy describing future events (Isa 9:6; 60:1). Due to omniescience and omnipresence, the Lord of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can speak of things which are not yet as though they are; the latter of the foregoing implying that Jehovah exists throught all of time, and also must have knowlege of all time(s).
The foregoing notwithstanding, nevertheless, I do concede that the suffering servant of Isa 53 does have application to the people of Israel. However, the Targums interpret Isa 53 as specifically referring to Messiah (Sanhedrin 98b); there is good reason to support their implication that not all references to the "suffering servant" are to the people of Israel. Isa 49 speaks of the servant being called by God out of the womb (hinting at a virgin birth?), and being "His (God's) servant to bring Jacob again to him...to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel" (v.1,5,6). This clearly differentiates the " servant" and the people of Israel. The " we" referred to in Isa 53 is Israel: "When we shall see him (the servant) there is no beauty that we should desire him (as Jews today claim that they see nothing attractive in Jesus)...we esteemed him not...for the transgression of My (God's? Isaiah's) people (Israel) was he (the servant) smitten". Similarly the same servant in Isa 49:7 is described as "him whom man despiseth... whom the nation abhorreth" when he came to save them from their sins. This is further proof that the Jews were firstly to reject their Messiah and subject him to tremendous mockery and death. No other individual has been so mocked by the Jews as Jesus. Israel desperately need a Messiah now - and that Messiah must be one whom previously they rejected, mocked and killed. The only candidate is Jesus Christ. There certainly are many connections between the language used of the suffering servant in Isa 53, and that of Psa 22:6 and Psa 69:7,10,19 which also describe the suffering of Messiah. These verses again show how one individual is mocked by his Jewish brethren. Seeing the resemblance of the person spoken of being so similar to the spoken of in Isa 53 it buggers astonishment that the person described could even remotely be construed to be the Israel as a natiuon.
Other various Targums and Midrashim can be seen applying to Messiah. Messiah was to be despised (Psa 22:6; 69:19-22); rejected (Psa 118:22); mocked (Psa 22:7,8; 69:8,20; 89:51,52); whipped (Psa 129:3); impaled on a stake (Psa 22:1,2,14-17); thirsty (Psa 22:16); given wine nixed with gall (Psa 69:20-22); have lots cast for his clothes (Psa 22:18,19); have unbroken bones (Psa 34:21); rise from the dead (Psa 16:10); ascend to Heaven (Psa 68:19); be at the right hand of God (Psa 80:17; 110:1); be High Priest (Psa 110:4); judge the nations (Psa 89:3-5); reign eternally (Psa 89:35-37); be the Son of God (Psa 2:7); speak in parables (Psa 78:2); calm a storm (Psa 89:10); have Hosanna sung to him (Psa 118:25,26); be blessed for ever (Psa 45:1-4,8,18); and come in glory at the Last Day (Psa 102:6-23). The picture which the rabbinic writings had created of Messiah was exactly the person whom Jesus was and whom the early church preached. To construe Isa 53 as being something other than what the clear meaning of the reading inimates is neither consistant, nor intellectually honest.
Finally, please allow me to be so bold to say that if only the idea of accepting Jesus as Messiah can be accepted as possible, so many familiar Scriptures will be illuminated as having echoes of the crucifixion; e.g. Isaac carrying the wood of his own sacrifice and obediently allowing himself to be offered as the first seed of Abraham so clearly points forward to the record of Jesus Christ's crucifixion. I pray for the Spirit's guidance and minstry to you, for humility and understanding so that the Scriptures themselves can give you that courage and ability to accept that which has seemed impossible for so very, very long.
Shalom.
Thanks for the ping....
OK
I've also had the thought that the Dome of the Rock is possibly and logically the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel. I can think of no greater "desolation standing in the Holy Place". Lately, I've found that there have been in history and are now those who agree. I think Sir Isaac Newton was one of them if what I read in some of his purported religious writing was truly from him. - Taking that premise, supposedly he had counted the year / days of that prophecy in the book of Daniel and came up with an approximate time that would encompass the tribulation period and Jesus Christ of Nazareth would return to the earth to execute judgement and receive His own. - Considering the catastrophic events of the past several years, it isn't difficult to see that we may just be living in the tribulation period, hidden by the mindset that the capital "T" Tribulation we're looking for may well just be hidden in plain sight and not just compressed into seven literal years. - I'm looking up, for my redemption draweth nigh. A dear Christian man we all loved at church, the personification of I Corinthians Chapter 13's description of "Charity", died last Monday, and it's getting to the point where I know more saints Christ will bring with Him when he comes back than I do here in this mortal coil.
The servant is intimated physically suffering more than any other individual human being will ever do (52:14).
The text does not say how or why the servant is marred. Only that he is (It does not say he was beat by the Romans).
The news about the servant would be widespread, but would be perfect, although dying in the company of wicked men (53:9).
It doesnt say that, he is never described as perfect.
The servant would have a distinctive hallmark of not speaking up in his own defence (Isa 53:7)
He did speak up in his own defense.
"In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession." James 6:13 And Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 35Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:33)
I am short on time so I will include the following from a Jewish perspective, this is good but the author does get aggressive towards the end:
Before we examine Isaiah 53 verse by verse some preliminary issues must be considered . Isaiah 53 is only understood properly when read in the context of the Jewish Bible as a whole .
Earlier on in the book of Isaiah, God had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people. Chapter 53, however, occurs in the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation", which tell of the supposed restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a vindication of their status as God's "chosen people".
In chapter 52, for example, Israel is described as "oppressed without cause" (v.4) and "taken away" (v.5), yet God promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel will again prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3, 8-12).
Chapter 54 further elaborates upon the redemption which awaits the nation of Israel. Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their status (even according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as follows:
"`This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication is from Me,'declares the Lord."
In the original Hebrew texts, there are no chapter divisions, and Jewish and Christian scholars agree that chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13. Accordingly, our analysis must begin at that verse.
52:13 "Behold, My servant will prosper."
Israel in the singular is called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10) - Other references to Israel as God's servant include Jer. 30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by God , as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk. 1:54.
===== 52:15 - 53:1 "So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would believe what we have heard?"
Quite clearly, the nations and their kings will be amazed at what happens to the "servant of the L-rd," and they will say "who would believe what we have heard?".
====== 52:15 tells us explicitly that it is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in Isaiah 53.
===== 53:1 "And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
In Isaiah, and throughout the Jewish Bible , God's "arm" refers to the physical redemption of Israel from the oppression of other nations (see, e.g., Isa. 52:8-12; Isa. 63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19; Ps. 44:3).
====== 53:3 "Despised and rejected of men."
While this is clearly applicable to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be reconciled with the Christian Bible account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly "praised by all" (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9-11).
Even as he was supposedly taken to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned his fate (Lk. 23:27). Jesus had to be taken by stealth, as the rulers feared "a riot of the people" (Mk. 14:1-2).
====== 53:3 "A man of pains and acquainted with disease."
Israel's adversities are frequently likened to sickness - see, e.g., Isa. 1:5-6; Jer. 10:19; Jer 30:12.
====== 53:4 "Surely our diseases he carried and our pains he bore."
In Matt. 8:17, this is incorrectly translated, and said to be literally (not spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus' healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4 itself.
53:4 "Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted."
See Jer. 30:17 - of God's servant Israel (30:10), it is said by the nations, "It is Zion; no one cares for her."
====== 53:5 "But he was wounded FROM (NOTE: not FOR ) our transgressions, he was crushed FROM (AGAIN: not FOR) our iniquities."
Notice above how the Christians mistranslate and write "FOR our transgressions " rather than " FROM our transgressions " .
Whereas the nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant's sufferings stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout the Jewish Bible - see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the Davidic Messiah according to the Jews "shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth" (Isa. 42:4).
====== 53:7 "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth."
Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44, wherein King David speaks of Israel's faithfulness even in the face of gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as "sheep to be slaughtered" in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).
Regarding the claim that Jesus "did not open his mouth" when faced with oppression and affliction, see Matt. 27:46, Jn. 18:23, 36-37.
====== 53:8 "From dominion and judgement he was taken away."
Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslate, since - by Jesus'own testimony - he never had any rights to rulership or judgement, at least not on the "first coming." See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.
====== 53:8 "He was cut off out of the land of the living" and 53:9 "His grave was assigned with wicked men."
See Ez. 37:11-14, wherein Israel is described as "cut off" and God promises to open its "graves" and bring Israel back into its own land. Other examples of figurative deaths include Ex. 10:17; 2 Sam. 9:8; 2 Sam. 16:9.
The Jewish Bible repeatedly says that if a descendant of David is righteous, he will not be "cut off " (karet). For example, see 1Kings 2:4, 8:25, 9:4-5; Jeremiah 33:17; 2Chronicles 6:16, 7:18. But if a descendant of David or priests are unrighteous, they will be cut off (karet). For example, see Jeremiah 33:18; Joel 1:9.
Therefore, if this verse is speaking of Jesus being "cur off", then that must mean he was unrighteous and was cut off from his (supposed) royal heritage.
======= 53:8 "From my peoples' sins, there was injury to THEM ."
Here the Prophet makes absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew, that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual.
The Hebrew word "lamoh", when used in the Jewish Bible , always means "to them" never "to him" and may be found, for example, in Psalm 99:7 - "They kept his testimonies, and the statute that He gave to them."
======= 53:9 "And with the rich in his DEATHS ."
Perhaps King James should have changed the original Hebrew, which again makes clear that we are dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will "come to life" when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14). "DEATHS" (Plural)
====== 53:9 "He had done no violence."
See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the Christian Bible account of Jesus . Actualy this denotes that the servant is suffering at the hands of the Gentile nations without provocation .
======= 53:10 "He shall see his seed."
The Hebrew word for "seed", used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants in the Jewish Bible . See, e.g., Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. A different word, generally translated as "sons", is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.).
======= 53:10 "He will prolong his days."
Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God himself ?
======= 53:11 "With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just."
Note again the correct translation based upon the Hebrew translation : "the Servant will cause many to be just" he will not.... "justify the many."
Israel is to serve as a "light to the nations" which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God of Abraham, this by example and preserving the word of God (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) .
======== 53:12 "Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty."
If Jesus is God, does the idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jews -righteously suffered "FROM" the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps. 44) ? -
Dr.Raphael Patai a noted anthropologist,Biblical scholar and author writes in his book " Messianic Text " page 1-2 that :
"... it also must be pointed out that several of these Biblical Messianic prophecies are Messianic only in the light of these later interpretations . At the time of their composition ,these passages may have had other meanings .The important prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah about the Suffering Servant for instance,are considered by Jewish as well as Christian scholars as referring to the people of Israel as a whole .
In Isaiah 49:3 the Suffering Servant is explicitly identified with Israel . On this basis,as well as on the basis of certain other features, all the so called "Servant Songs " ( Isa.42:1-4 , 49:1-6 , 50:4-9 and 52:13 -53:12 ) have long been taken to speak of the sufferings of exiled Israel as personified in "The Servant of the Lord ".
Yet these same passages became IN TALMUDIC TIMES identified with the Messianic theme , and so they have remained in Jewish FOLK CONSCIOUSNESS throughout the ages . In fact it is quite probable that the concept of the suffering Messiah,fully developed IN THE TALMUD , THE MIDRASH , AND THE ZOHAR "
What Dr Raphael Patai is telling us is that Isaiah 53 at the time of its composition had no Messianic connotations whatsoever .
The Jewish concept of a Davidic Messiah who would rule the world from Jerusalem and suffer with and for the Jewish people (not for the sins of the Jewish people or for humanity as a blood sacrifice ) began to develop during the Jewish exile in Babylon.
The Jews reminisced of the "better days " when they were a powerful and sovereign nation under the rulership of David and Solomon . The Idea of a Davidic Messiah developed due to the suffering and frustration of a nation in exile who yearned for their homeland and for a day their enemies would bow before them and serve them .
Christians have taken Jewish Messianic folklore completely out of context by interpreting Midrashic homilies in a literal sense .The result is a non-Semitic distortion of Jewish folklore woven with Greek/Roman Mythos " Christianity " .
Now that most non-Jewish scholars concede that Isaiah 53 refers to the Jewish people... Some Christians have tried to find support for their beliefs in Rabbinic writings. Traditional Judaism NEVER believed that there would be a supernatural virgin-born Messiah who would be killed as an atonement for sin. If this had been the traditional Jewish belief all along, it certainly came as a shock to the Jewish followers of Jesus.
When the Nazerene told his followers that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer...Peter protests, "GOD forbid it lord, this shall never happen to you." (Mat. 16:22) Peter didn't joyfully exclaim: Praise GOD, you are the suffering servant of Isaiah 53! The Disciples never knew that the Messiah was supposed to suffer - (Mat. 17:23, Lk. 18:34, Jn. 20:9)
Jesus' enemies, such as Herod (Mat. 2) certainly didn't think that the Messiah was supposed to be killed - otherwise why help his cause by trying to kill him!?
In reality, the Jewish people expected the Messiah to rule as king over a restored Israel in an age of universal peace and belief.
( Jer. 23:5- 6, Isaiah 11:1-9, 2:1-4, Ezekiel 37:21- 28...) This had always been the Jewish understanding of Messiah, and Isaiah 53 was understood as referring to the Jewish people all along. It's not an idea invented by Rashi in the Middle Ages.
The church father Origen reports that this was the Jewish understanding in his time, hundreds of years before Rashi. (Contra Celsum) Actually, there are ancient sources that have explicit reference to a supernatural, virgin-born savior, who dies by murder to achieve salvation for believers who can experience him by eating of his flesh...You can read all about it in the mythologies of Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus, Bacchus, Isis, etc.
Those Christians who desperately ransacked the Talmud to find support for their preconceived ideas are not students of the Talmud with any interest in the actual teachings of Rabbinic Judaism. They merely use the Talmud like a drunk uses a lamp post - not for illumination, but for support.
Most Christians who read the Talmud are not really in the position to know what it means (although some well educated honest Christian scholars do) much as they would claim that a non-Christian can't really understand the New Testament. (I Cor. 1:18). Some have the audacity to say Christians know Tanach(Jewish Bible) better than the Jews ( comical to say the least).
Most of these Christian Talmudists don't even own a Talmud much less read it themselves . They rather get their information from collections of secondary sources put together by other Christian Talmudist .
When these collections are checked, the Talmudic passages are frequently incorrectly cited, usually quoted out of context, and occasionally completely manufactured.
Did the Rabbis ever notice that there are two different pictures of the Messiah in the Bible? Did they resolve this tension by proposing a theory of 2 Messiahs, a Messiah son of David and a Messiah son of Joseph? That depends on whether you read what the Talmud actually teaches, or accept the propaganda of the so Christian-Talmudists.
R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven; whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee...] lowly, and riding upon an ass! - If they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass. - Sanhedrin 98A
The minor figure of a Messiah son of Joseph has nothing to do with how Talmudic sages perceived contradictory passages in the Bible. He does figure into Rabbinic Apocalyptic-Midrashic speculation.
Ask a "Christian-Talmudist" to explain the difference between "PSHAT" and "DRASH".
Ask a "Christian-Talmudist" about why the Talmud applies Isaiah 53 to Moses, any pious person who suffers, and sick men who have had an ejaculation (he will see his seed, he will prolong his days...)
Ask a "Christian-Talmudist" why most non-Jewish Biblical scholars, (many of them Christian) accept the real traditional Jewish understanding of Isaiah 53, Daniel 9:24-27 , and Isaiah 7:14; without having a "Jewish" ax to grind. They have more in common with Rabbi Akiba, Rashi, and Rambam than Oral Roberts and Martin Luther.
If you would like to learn the Jewish perspective on the Issues dont go to your Christian Bookstore or rely on the 700 Club and the "Zola Levite Show " for your Information .
Finally, I would recommendt this free tape series online here. http://www.simpletoremember.com/audio/anti-missionary-mp3s.htm
They are very good regarding the jewish perspective. A lot of which is clearly derived from the Hebrew. The Christian bible translation often uses words that are not there in the Hebrew or severely misinterprets the Hebrew. Look up online Jewish texts and compare them.
Shalom Shalom
The abomination that stands there making desolate is the anti-christ itself either defiling the third temple, e.g. with an inverted crucifix stabbed ito the belly of a Levitical "unclean animal" corpse's belly and then left to rot, or it is the explicit act of the "Beast' in the form of the anti-Christ seating itself in the temple and demanding to be worshipped as God.
IMHO a legitimate persecution complex exists for those professing Judaism, or having any sort of Jewish ancestry (and especially those living within the nation's borders).
I'm sorry that those images are so blunt and graphic, but it only sets the stage for what the Scripture verse in question possibly could refer to. Whatever the event, incident or act will be: it will be an abomination beyond reproach or comprehension all of recorded Jewish history. If they have ever believed that Jehovah had abandoned them, massive numbers of Jews will do so at that time.
What other abomination could there possibly be other than something that claims to be God seating itself in the very Temple that the Jews at the time would believe to be the fruition of all their eschatology, only to be manifest in utter and complete ruin. A dream that had come to fruition and aattributed to be the sacrosanct Temple of the Jews (and something established being the instrumental piece of the global peace plan)?
There's only one way that in the current scheme of things that Islam would acquiesce to building of a 3rd Temple. Does anybody believe for a second that there'd be any acquiescence to a Jewish Temple being built anywhere?
You say that "The text does not say [the Servant] was beat by the Romans".
Alright. If I'm constrained by those rules, then so is everybody else (as are you). Certainly no mainstream Jewish doctrine, history or theology is eisegetical, and if any exists it could only be espoused by fringe groups. and only my interpretation can be faulted in that regard, i.e., explicit literal specified occurance naming people, places and things unconcieved and inconcievable at the time have not been mentioned. When was Isaiah writen and when purportedly, reputedly and alledgedly murdered? can we, according to the method of reasoning that you present, discount and dismiss all prophecy if it is not absolutely clear with regard and respect to the reference made?
You say: "It doesnt say that, he is never described as perfect." (respecting Isa 53:9).
Well, then, what does Scripture say? Does what Scripture means actually depend on anything that it says? Or is Scipture actually existentially interpretive? Any arbitrary verse of Scripture could mean three (or infinitely more) different things simultaneously. Is the meaning of any statement contained by Scipture akin to the meaning of any piece of art? If it is akin to art, i'd say that that verse, the chapter, book and all of Scripture is nothing more than a work by Picasso. And given that premise, your interpretation is no more valid than any other.
If the foregoing is true, then you might as well sacrifice your children to Molech. First off they have no future, and socondly to do so or not is strictly an artistic expression. And what defines "art", is it the "Piss Hannakah" or something else?
Whole heartedly agree.
I prefer to let obscure text remain obsure in light of the much stronger body of text. I also agree that mainstream "orthodoxy" doesnt mean to be eisegetical, often times, I believe that it depends on the text chosen to interpret from, such as the Septuagiant. I would strongly encourage the study the Jewish versions of the Bible and see how they render certain passages in question. I think that is a valuable thing, unless a person is inclined to think that the Jews lie about their own scriptures, (which I certrainly dont think you are).
"Well, then, what does Scripture say? Does what Scripture means actually depend on anything that it says?"
Well, IMHO, it just easier to start with the known and go from there. For example, " I am the L-rd your G-d, besides me the is no other". To me, that settles that question. G-d, in this passage, as well as others like it, establishes his absolute Oneness. His Singular Unity. So, in light of this very clear statement. I would say, that if G-d chose to reveal Himself at Sinai to Israel as a Triune entity, with one of the Triune unity a hybrid god-man, he would have done so directly and unambiguously. Something like, I am L-rd your G-d, besides be there is my Son, who is both god and man. You shall give the Son the same honor to him as Me. You shall pray in his name....etc.. But, instead, it is obscure Prophetic passages or Psalms that are used to establish the god-man. So, I have to go with the clear. I highly recommend.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/audio/anti-missionary-mp3s.htm
Listen, for free and understand that the audience is primarily Jewish, so he may occasionally make a reference that to the Chsitian may seem harsh but hang in there and here him out....I think you'll find it interesting at the least.... Shalom Shalom..
Touche'
You chose not to parry, but to side step, and then thrust. Your argument is non-sequitor; it exposes your neck to my rapier.
In my commmentary (#173), I stated that:
explicit literal specified occurance naming people, places and things unconcieved and inconcievable at the time have not been mentioned. When was Isaiah writen and when purportedly, reputedly and alledgedly [was Messiah] murdered? Can we, according to the method of reasoning that you present, discount and dismiss all prophecy if it is not absolutely clear with regard and respect to [a modern day] reference?First off: my reply in #173 was addressed to the specific issue raise to that which I replied.The reply being: "It doesnt say that, he is never described as perfect." (respecting Isa 53:9).
Secondly: the latter part of my commentary is hyperbole, in that the assumption being made as basis for refutation is so far over the top that it rates nothing less than just that; the nature of the hyperbole itself addresses precisely just what is over the top.
Anyways, I'm not so sure that all of this nitpicking is all that relevent, in that I detect some intimiation that whomever is advocating this whole Temple sacrife thing is actually a "fringe" group, and that when all is said and done, at the end of the day, and all the water and fluff boils away, the "Sanhedrin" per se, have not been reconstituted (because nobody acknowledges these "Sanhredren" as having any specific legal authority).
Perhaps this debate should be declared a draw, and just let the Spirit work in our hearts, and through the Torah, that our minds may be illuminated to His Truth?
That notwithstanding, and nevertheless, I will check out the link you sent me. This Gentile can take it as well as he gives it. And one thing beyond any doubt in my mind, I've a far way to go to learn how to give as well as I've been given. Eh? Your tag-line says all that needs to be said 'bout that.
Shalom.
Are you a memebr of PETA?
Yikes! I didnt relize it was that serious!
Stay in touch and do let me know what you think about that discusion....(very compelling so beware!)
And we were irredeemable from the intentional sins (which we all have committed) until a Greater Sacrifice appeared.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.