Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah

[Tumah]

You are thus saying that the destruction of the Temple atoned for the sins of Israel up to that point? Interesting. Sometimes I wonder whether others read the prophecies for themselves or simply parrot the "deep" ideas found at sites like Chabad.org. The passage actually SAYS:

No, I actually don't use the Chabad website, I use this website and my own books.
Its funny though to hear you say this type of thing, when I watched you make the same translation mistakes over and over and over, because of the Christian bible you refer to.

“Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place."

EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS occurred amongst Israel in DIASPORA? Really? Do only Messianic Jews believe Messiah will usher in a new era for Israel? Of course not. BE CONSISTENT.

No it didn't because Israel wasn't worthy. Had we been worthy, the Messiah would have come. We were given 490 years to rectify the sins that we did after which the Messiah would come. We didn't rectify the sins, so the Messiah didn't come.
That's what the verse is saying. 70 weeks were given for your people to rectify their transgressions so that the Messiah will come.

 

[Tumah]

And the reason I've pegged you as an anti-missionary:

Every Orthodox Jew and many from other streams are automatically anti-missionary.

3. You clearly don't serve as a rabbi for a congregation, or they would take notice that you neglect to minister unto them to spend time on websites being rude to fellow Jews, and to Gentiles. You are obviously a student or teacher in a little clan somewhere with nothing better to do.

A congregation does not a rabbi make.

Y'shua, or Yehoshua, or Yahushua, or if you like, GOD,

One of these things is not like the other...

 

[RabbiO]

Every Orthodox Jew and many from other streams are automatically anti-missionary.

I'd be hard pressed to name any Jew, from any movement, other than ones who have converted, who could be labeled as pro-missionary.

 

[Tumah]

I'd be hard pressed to name any Jew, from any movement, other than ones who have converted, who could be labeled as pro-missionary.

That could be true. I was thinking more in terms of an active stance against missionaries as opposed to a more egalitarian approach to Christianity/other religions. I didn't mean to suggest there might be someone who was pro-missionary.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, I actually don't use the Chabad website, I use this website and my own books.
Its funny though to hear you say this type of thing, when I watched you make the same translation mistakes over and over and over, because of the Christian bible you refer to.


No it didn't because Israel wasn't worthy. Had we been worthy, the Messiah would have come. We were given 490 years to rectify the sins that we did after which the Messiah would come. We didn't rectify the sins, so the Messiah didn't come.
That's what the verse is saying. 70 weeks were given for your people to rectify their transgressions so that the Messiah will come.

I understand. Here's one issue:

The dates for the Messiah to be cut off are 69, not 70, 7s from the decree. That date can be traced to the Gentile date of April 4, 29 AD, in Pesach where Jesus of Bethlehem was crucified.

I need to reject your alternative explanation, therefore. Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Except I make no claim to parse the meaning of the gospels so my knowledge of Greek is immaterial. You claim to explain things that were written in Hebrew without knowing the Hebrew. Starting in approx post 231 you made errors in Hebrew showing you don't know the language. You then conceded that " I can get any rabbi in town to say my Hebrew is poor!" (post 240). So Between what others would say and the errors you make, you are advertising a lack of Hebrew knowledge. Prove me wrong.

I’m not here to “prove you wrong”. I’m here to teach on truth and to say that your being rude hampers your learning.

You consider it rude because I repeatedly point out all your mistakes. Stop making mistakes and you'll see that I am not "rude."

I consider you rude because you say I’m not Jewish, which is likely hate speech and slander that could get you banned from this forum, since I identify as Jewish, and because it seems you are self-appointed to point out everyone’s mistakes while goal post shifting when I point to your mistakes. Are you here to teach? Stop being rude and insulting. Are you here to learn? Clearly you feel you have nothing to learn from any Christian, let alone a Messianic Jew.

In your vitriol you actually stumble on a truth! Someone can be a rabbi and not lead a congregation! How exciting for you to flail wildly and actually say something akin to correct! And I am both a student and teacher, but not so much in a clan. And is there anything better to do than combat your ignorance?

I’m well aware that one can be a rabbi without leading a congregation. Clearly, if you had a congregation, they would need to admonish you for being rude and harming Jewish-Christian and traditional-Messianic Jewish relations.

Ah, the missionary shouts and we all just laugh. Next, I'll explain why you don't even understand the term "Messianic Jew." That should be a hoot.

I feel like with this last sentence you are being ruder than ever. It’s not a “hoot” when I correct someone’s misunderstanding about God or the Jewish Messiah.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Every Orthodox Jew and many from other streams are automatically anti-missionary.


A congregation does not a rabbi make.


One of these things is not like the other...

Tumah,

That's not what I'm saying. Clearly, you are a hobbyist, and you are interested in an exchange of ideas. I'm afraid Rosends is either a Rforums troll or a lurker looking to prey upon people, to make less learned Jews Orthodox to "save their souls", you know--an anti-missionary.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'd be hard pressed to name any Jew, from any movement, other than ones who have converted, who could be labeled as pro-missionary.

I'm using the term in the accepted sense among evangelicals, someone whose come from and goal is to "rescue" Jews from loving God--oops, I mean, Y'shua.

 

[Redemptionsong]

First of all, I highlighted "believing" in your last sentence for the reason that what you say you believe is fine and dandy as far as I'm concerned, but if you check some of your previous posts, you often don't use that word, thus stating things in absolute terms, which comes off as being highly judgmental.

Secondly, if you reread my last post, you'll see that I wrote "this kind of 'fundamentalism'", which clearly is not an indictment of all forms of fundamentalism.

Thirdly, Jesus' approach was not a "fundamentalist" one-- quite the opposite. Back then within Judaism, "fundamentalism" would be the Pharisee approach minus the "building the fence around the Torah", which is what I believe Jesus may have been referring to when he said "laws made by men". I can explain if that's not familiar to you. Instead, Jesus' approach was a very liberal one to say the least, particularly when one considers his approach to the Law itself. He even went further than the school of Hillel, which itself was quite theologically liberal.

Finally, you did not address the questions and points that I brought up with those who may know nothing about Jesus or those who try to live moral lives but are not Christian.

I understand the notion of 'hedging about the law' to mean the creation of man-made laws to safeguard God's law. The additional burden of law created by such 'hedging' had the effect of distancing men from God, rather than encouraging righteousness. Jesus became highly critical of the Pharisees because of their hypocrisy. Nevertheless, I would not describe Jesus as liberal. He fulfilled the Law, and then showed how to live the life God really intended for his children. This was not a liberal approach to the law; it was the fulfilment of the law, which meant going beyond what was commanded in the letter of the law. Jesus demonstrated how to walk by the spirit in love. In order to do the same we must be born-again of his spirit, and not think that we can do it without Him!

 

[rosends]

I’m not here to “prove you wrong”. I’m here to teach on truth and to say that your being rude hampers your learning.

You made a claim that I am wrong. I made a counter claim to prove my point. Now you are not here to "prove me wrong." So your claim is empty. You don't "teach on truth." I am not here to learn from someone who cannot prove his points.

I consider you rude because you say I’m not Jewish, which is likely hate speech and slander that could get you banned from this forum, since I identify as Jewish, and because it seems you are self-appointed to point out everyone’s mistakes while goal post shifting when I point to your mistakes. Are you here to teach? Stop being rude and insulting. Are you here to learn? Clearly you feel you have nothing to learn from any Christian, let alone a Messianic Jew.

Not only isn't it hate speech or slander, I have no reason to think that it is wrong. I also am still waiting for you to show how I point out "everyone's mistakes" and how, if I did, fixing mistakes is a bad thing. Do you like mistakes? Should they be let go by without notice? How would one learn what is right? I'm also waiting to hear where I shifted goal posts. Since you have yet to show me where you caught me in a lie, I don't hold out hope that you will substantiate other attacks on my character. Of course, calling me a liar and attacking my behavior is slander and probably could get you banned...

I’m well aware that one can be a rabbi without leading a congregation. Clearly, if you had a congregation, they would need to admonish you for being rude and harming Jewish-Christian and traditional-Messianic Jewish relations.

Then you know very little about congregations and about rabbinical training and even less about interfaith relations.

I feel like with this last sentence you are being ruder than ever. It’s not a “hoot” when I correct someone’s misunderstanding about God or the Jewish Messiah.

It is a hoot when you think you are but are saying all the wrong things. I find it funny that you assert with such confidence and claim to represent a religion which flatly denies much of what you say. I mean, you could couch any of your statements in a different way, as part of standard Christian theology, but you don't, and this makes what you say laughable.

 

[Tumah]

Tumah,

That's not what I'm saying. Clearly, you are a hobbyist, and you are interested in an exchange of ideas. I'm afraid Rosends is either a Rforums troll or a lurker looking to prey upon people, to make less learned Jews Orthodox to "save their souls", you know--an anti-missionary.

No I don't know. I don't see Rosends doing anything different than I am doing. I don't see him debating Judaism or Orthodox theology with any of the non-Orthodox Jews here or trying to "save their souls". And from earlier posts it doesn't seem like Rosends relates to you as being Jewish. So its unlikely he's trying to "save your soul" either.
I see him posting even less often than I do here, so if one of us are hobbyists, its him. What I do see, is you are having trouble with Rosends' frustration of having to repeat to you over and over the most elementary ideas, such as how context works and how to translate words accurately. I don't really blame him for that. If you don't can't read or understand Hebrew, then its normal that Rosends should be able to more accurately translate words than you. If you don't believe his translation, you can ask for a second opinion from any of the Hebrew speakers here. But you should at the very least recognize that your translators had an agenda in their translation and that shows in the accuracy of their translations.

 

[Tumah]

I understand. Here's one issue:

The dates for the Messiah to be cut off are 69, not 70, 7s from the decree. That date can be traced to the Gentile date of April 4, 29 AD, in Pesach where Jesus of Bethlehem was crucified.

I need to reject your alternative explanation, therefore. Thank you.

There is no group of 69 weeks in this passage.
What does that messiah have to do with the Messiah that we're talking about?
You're year of 29 CE does not agree with the dating by other scholars.

 

[metis]

I understand the notion of 'hedging about the law' to mean the creation of man-made laws to safeguard God's law. The additional burden of law created by such 'hedging' had the effect of distancing men from God, rather than encouraging righteousness. Jesus became highly critical of the Pharisees because of their hypocrisy. Nevertheless, I would not describe Jesus as liberal. He fulfilled the Law, and then showed how to live the life God really intended for his children. This was not a liberal approach to the law; it was the fulfilment of the law, which meant going beyond what was commanded in the letter of the law. Jesus demonstrated how to walk by the spirit in love. In order to do the same we must be born-again of his spirit, and not think that we can do it without Him!

First of all, one simply cannot stereotype "the Pharisees" because they were all over the place theologically. Again, they were not a monolithic group, plus if the gospel accounts are at all even somewhat accurate, Jesus was operating as a Pharisee, and a very liberal one at that.

Secondly, if you don't understand that Jesus was very liberal, then you don't understand Jesus in context of the day. He was quite nonconformist theologically, which is "liberal" almost by any definition of that term.

Finally, most modern day "observant" Jews come from the more liberal elements of the Pharisees going back roughly 2000 years ago, and one of the most respected sages of that time and our time was Hillel who, when asked what the purpose of Torah is, answered as follows: "Do not do unto others that which you would not want done unto yourself; all the rest is commentary; now go study". The is the "Golden Rule" as stated in a somewhat different manner, but the results are the same.

The point being is that Jesus did not invent love and compassion and justice for all, and myriads of Jews before Jesus, during Jesus' time, and currently follow this paradigm. One simply does not have to be a follower of Jesus in order to operate in "the spirit of love".

IMO, Jesus' contribution to this approach I can and do highly respect, so I very much agree with Christians who do follow what he preached. Love is not something that is only found in one religion, and I think we should be rejoicing with those who do try their best to operate out of love and morality regardless of what their religion or denomination is.

 

[Redemptionsong]

First of all, one simply cannot stereotype "the Pharisees" because they were all over the place theologically. Again, they were not a monolithic group, plus if the gospel accounts are at all even somewhat accurate, Jesus was operating as a Pharisee, and a very liberal one at that.

Secondly, if you don't understand that Jesus was very liberal, then you don't understand Jesus in context of the day. He was quite nonconformist theologically, which is "liberal" almost by any definition of that term.

Finally, most modern day "observant" Jews come from the more liberal elements of the Pharisees going back roughly 2000 years ago, and one of the most respected sages of that time and our time was Hillel who, when asked what the purpose of Torah is, answered as follows: "Do not do unto others that which you would not want done unto yourself; all the rest is commentary; now go study". The is the "Golden Rule" as stated in a somewhat different manner, but the results are the same.

I agree that not every Pharisee was self-righteous, Nicodemus being an example of a Pharisee who was prepared to listen; but many had grouped together with the intention of bringing Jesus down, as it says in Matthew 12:14, 'Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.'
The Pharisees had separated themselves, and they worked together as a group with many shared ideas and beliefs..

If we were to take the Oxford Pocket dictionary definition of 'Liberal' as 'willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own', then I would say that Jesus was not very liberal. In Matthew chapter 5 Jesus says, 'For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.'
That's not very liberal.

Throughout the rest of Matthew chapter 5, Jesus quotes from the Law and then adds to it. For example he says, 'Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.'
That might be nonconformist theology, but it was certainly not liberal-mindedness!

The point being is that Jesus did not invent love and compassion and justice for all, and myriads of Jews before Jesus, during Jesus' time, and currently follow this paradigm. One simply does not have to be a follower of Jesus in order to operate in "the spirit of love".

IMO, Jesus' contribution to this approach I can and do highly respect, so I very much agree with Christians who do follow what he preached. Love is not something that is only found in one religion, and I think we should be rejoicing with those who do try their best to operate out of love and morality regardless of what their religion or denomination is.

The commandment to love God exists in the Torah; but let's not forget that this is man's love and man's responsibility towards God. I totally agree that it's a great start. Whoever you are, do your best to love God and your neighbour. But is it enough? If it is enough then Jesus' whole ministry was a pointless waste of time and life.

BUT PREACHING OF THE LAW IS NOT WHAT JESUS CAME TO DO!! HE CAME TO FULFIL THE LAW. He came to deal with sin and death.

So in answer to your question about people who are not Christians, the judgment provided must be determined by their works or deeds . You live by the sword, you die by the sword. You live by righteousness, you are judged according to the Law. You live by grace, you are not under condemnation.
Isn't it therefore best to live by grace?

 

[metis]

The Pharisees had separated themselves, and they worked together as a group with many shared ideas and beliefs...

Again (and again), there's not one Pharisee group, and historians know of at least four of them, often differing significantly from each other. Check even the Wiki article on them for further information.

If we were to take the Oxford Pocket dictionary definition of 'Liberal' as 'willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own', then I would say that Jesus was not very liberal. In Matthew chapter 5 Jesus says, 'For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.'
That's not very liberal.

That's not the area of Jesus being "liberal" that I mentioned.

BUT PREACHING OF THE LAW IS NOT WHAT JESUS CAME TO DO!! HE CAME TO FULFIL THE LAW.

If he ended the Law for any Jew, he's a "false prophet" based on what the Tanakh says, pure and simple. The only other way to "fulfill the Law" would be to obey all the Law entirely, and even that would only be a personal "fulfillment".

So in answer to your question about people who are not Christians, the judgment provided must be determined by their works or deeds . You live by the sword, you die by the sword. You live by righteousness, you are judged according to the Law. You live by grace, you are not under condemnation.
Isn't it therefore best to live by grace?

No. "Grace" by itself is just a theological cop-out since the person hasn't necessarily done one single thing to supposedly deserve it except having some sort of politically-correct belief about Jesus, which to me is what I call "rocking-chair religion"-- just sit back, have one p.c. belief, and you're "saved"! The gospels and epistles speak out against that attitude, such as in Matthew 25 and the Sermon On the Mount.

Listen, I think all that's happening is that we are going round-and-round in circles, so I'll give you the last word. I'll only respond if there's a question of clarification.

Take care.

 

[Redemptionsong]

May the Saviour be with you!

 

[BilliardsBall]

You made a claim that I am wrong. I made a counter claim to prove my point. Now you are not here to "prove me wrong." So your claim is empty. You don't "teach on truth." I am not here to learn from someone who cannot prove his points.



Not only isn't it hate speech or slander, I have no reason to think that it is wrong. I also am still waiting for you to show how I point out "everyone's mistakes" and how, if I did, fixing mistakes is a bad thing. Do you like mistakes? Should they be let go by without notice? How would one learn what is right? I'm also waiting to hear where I shifted goal posts. Since you have yet to show me where you caught me in a lie, I don't hold out hope that you will substantiate other attacks on my character. Of course, calling me a liar and attacking my behavior is slander and probably could get you banned...

Then you know very little about congregations and about rabbinical training and even less about interfaith relations.


It is a hoot when you think you are but are saying all the wrong things. I find it funny that you assert with such confidence and claim to represent a religion which flatly denies much of what you say. I mean, you could couch any of your statements in a different way, as part of standard Christian theology, but you don't, and this makes what you say laughable.

When billions of Gentiles stand before Jesus Christ's throne for judgment, they will not be quizzed on their knowledge of Hebrew or Greek. Tanakh is clear for both of us as Jews:

"He has shown thee, oh man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of thee, but to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God."

Now go and do so!

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no group of 69 weeks in this passage.
What does that messiah have to do with the Messiah that we're talking about?
You're year of 29 CE does not agree with the dating by other scholars.

There are 69 7s in the passage, we both know this (483 360-day liturgical years).

Scholars place Jesus's birth in 4 BCE on Tabernacles (John says "the Word became flesh and "tabernacled" among us") which would make Jesus 33 1/2 years old when He died during Pesach/Pesach eve on April 4, 29 AD. Even Talmud says Jesus was 33 1/2 as "bloody and deceitful men will not live out half their years"!

April 4, 29 AD is 483 360-day years from the decree Daniel mentions. Now, we have to consider, coincidence? Nearly 100% of secular, liberal scholars accept Jesus's life and crucifixion as fact. I also accept His resurrection as fact.

 

[rosends]

Even Talmud says Jesus was 33 1/2 as "bloody and deceitful men will not live out half their years"!

Can you provide the citation for this claim? I'd love to look it up and see Jesus mentioned by name, even in English. Thanks.

By the way, here... (Sanhedrin, 106)
Hast thou heard how old Balaam was? — He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days,4 [it follows that] he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old.5 He rejoined: Thou hast said correctly; I personally have seenBalaam's Chronicle, in which it is stated, 'Balaam the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robberkilled him.'6

Footnote 6 -- According to the view that all the Balaam passages are anti-Christian in tendency, Balaam being used as an alias for Jesus, Phinehas the Robber is thus taken to represent Pontius Pilatus, and the Chronicle of Balaam probably to denote a Gospel (v. Herford op. cit. 72ff.). This view is however disputed by Bacher and others: cf. Ginzberg, Journal of Biblical Literature, XLI, 121.

So you are subscribing to an interpretation of the Talmud that scholars dispute. An earlier footnote explains, " Herford, Christianity in the Talmud, p. 48, suggests that Balaam is frequently used in the Talmud as a type for Jesus"

Here is some additional reading (referring to the cache as the site seems to be down -- scroll down to the relevant discussion for sources which you can choose to ignore).

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c.../jesus.html&num=1&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0

 

[Tumah]

There are 69 7s in the passage, we both know this (483 360-day liturgical years).

I do not know this. I hit ctrl+f and type in sixty nine in Hebrew and nothing comes up.
I see 70 7's.
I see 7 7's.
I see 62 7's
I see 62 7's again.
I see 1 7.
I see 1/2 a 7.
That's all I got in my Daniel 9.

I have never heard of a liturgical year. Nor do I see any reference to it in the Torah. A Jewish year has either 353, 354, 355 or an occasional extra 30 on a leap year.

Scholars place Jesus's birth in 4 BCE

Which scholars? I see 7 BCE, 6 BCE, 4 BCE, 3 BCE and 2 BCE. On what basis are you choosing 4?

on Tabernacles (John says "the Word became flesh and "tabernacled" among us")

You're joking right?
Tabernacles the holiday doesn't mean "to dwell" it means a "hut". You can't say, "I want to hut in that town."
The "Tabernacle" that was used in the desert prior to the Temple is a completely different word. That word does come from the root "to dwell". And has no connection to the holiday, other then that it was one of the three holidays where one needed to pay a visit.

which would make Jesus 33 1/2 years old when He died during Pesach/Pesach eve on April 4, 29 AD.

I see that most scholars (I assume the same ones you mentioned earlier?) put Jesus' death somewhere between 30 and 33 CE.
I assume there's a reason why you chose to make him specifically 33 1/2.

Even Talmud says Jesus was 33 1/2 as "bloody and deceitful men will not live out half their years"!

The Talmud makes no mention of Jesus' age.
Come and see how learned you are:
1. You're relying on a Talmudic statement of a curse about evil people living only half their lives as proof that Jesus must have been 33.
2. You're using a Talmudic statement about Balaam to determine the age of Jesus.
3. You believe that a Christian would agree with the Rabbi citing a book that is not the NT as his proof.
4. You're statement would mean that Jesus was killed by someone named Phineas.

Which is not to say that I disagree with your application of the verse to this case. It seems to fit perfectly.

April 4, 29 AD is 483 360-day years from the decree Daniel mentions. Now, we have to consider, coincidence?

As near as I can tell, you made up a date based on a misunderstanding of the difference between סוכות and משכן. You chose the year among the various options scholars have determined. Then you made up a way to calculate years. Then you determined an age based on... a Talmudic passage about Balaam.
And somehow Daniel's prophecy fit what you wanted it to say! Amazing!

Nearly 100% of secular, liberal scholars accept Jesus's life and crucifixion as fact. I also accept His resurrection as fact.

I also agree that Jesus existed and died on a plank of wood.