Among the rabbis, the shofar is often associated with the Coming of the Messiah and the Resurrection of the Dead as well.
Quite frankly, what do we as Christians have to learn from Christ-rejecting rabbis? Their entire religion is rooted in the Talmud, a re-apprasial of the Old Testament done in the wake of Christianity.
Hmm . . . good question. I guess we should also toss out the histories of Josephus, since he was one of those Christ-rejecting rabbis. And the annals of Tacitus, since he was a Christ-rejecting pagan. Whoops, there goes almost all of ancient history.
The Talmud is a collection of legal codes (the Mishneh) and debates among the rabbis (the Gemara). It preserves a lot of cultural context, Jewish idioms, and traditions which actually go back to the first century and can give new insight to the NT. When you read a work such as Alfred Edersheim's The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, where do you think he's getting his information from? The Talmud and other rabbinical sources. He's hardly the only Christian commentator to make careful use of rabbinic tradition either: I submit to you the commentaries of Keil & Delitzsch; Jonathan Lightfoot; Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown; David H. Stern and a host of others. I daresay that you'd be shocked at how many of your commentaries you'd have to throw out if you were truly zealous about rejecting all rabbinical material.
Obviously, the Talmud and other rabbinical sorces cannot be taken as sacred writ--but they do provide useful insight when studied carefully, especially the earlier traditions. The later traditions get pretty superstitious--but then, so do the medieval traditions of the Church, so we're certainly in no position to complain.
I use rabbinical tradition as a historical resource--and when studying God's Appointed Times, it's a vitally necessary resource, for the Church's only commentaries on the Feasts are either dependant on Jewish sources or do nothing more than come up with half-baked arguments not to observe them. If we paid no heed to rabbinic tradition, we would not know, for example, about the afikomen in the Passover dinner, one of the clearest symbols of the Messiah Yeshua to be found anywhere.
Moreover, I become particularly interested when the rabbis and the Apostles are in complete agreement on a matter. Why do you find it objectionable that I point out that the rabbis universally agree with Sha'ul that the Resurrection will occur at the sound of a shofar on the Feast of Trumpets?
Indeed, why do you find it objectionable to use Jewish resources to learn more about the culture, practices, and words of a Jewish Messiah?
Mat 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
He placed 'moral' law above 'ceremonial' law. This is why some 'thought' that he 'broke' the law. You have to remember that Jesus taught in a period of transition, during the development of different schools of interpretation in Judaism. It is inevitable that there would be variant interpretations of the Law as recorded in the Gospels. With the Pharisees, Jesus accepts the Law of the Sabbath; he differs only in the interpretations of that law as found in the Oral Law. The Oral Law detailed the many conditions that allowed for the breaking of the Sabbath.
For example, the Rabbis of the Hillel School of Pharisaism declared that is was permissible to violate the Sabbath to preserve life, that in doing so you violate a Sabbath to ensure the observance of future Sabbaths. This was accepted interpretation by the Hillel Pharisees of which Jesus belonged, but not to the Shammai Pharisees or the Sadducees who were ultra-strict, always adhering to the 'letter of the Law' over the 'spirit of the Law' (Oral Law). It has been said that in elevating the spirit of the Law over the letter of the Law one can understand the minimizing of the ceremonial laws. But it is not that simple according to Jesus. As gentiles, we are not aware that the Oral Law brought a proper understanding to the Written Law if matters were in doubt.
These (least commandments) you ought to have done, without neglecting the others (grave-weightier commandments). In drawing such a contrast, Jesus does not annul the Written Law (613 laws), nor even the ceremonial laws; he only brings priority to the obedience of all the Laws. Jesus did not stand against the Written Law or Oral Law, nor even Pharisaism, but only against the elevation of the 'letter of the Law' above the 'spirit of the Law'.
Rev 2:19
I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last [to be] more than the first.
Notice that works is mentioned twice. The 'moral laws' and 'ceremonial laws'.