. . . Then you're not aware that within post-Temple practice, prayers have taken the place of animal sacrifice?
That has nothing to do with what an altar is. You can't replace the meaning of words with theology.
-----The new snipped for too much crap in a single post
Perhaps the temple snipped for no one cares about your conjectures
Why, how, could I suggest such things when a natural born Jew seems oblivious?
Because crazy is not obvious to sane people.
As just a guess, it could well be because I may be the first person snipped for high levels of crap
. . . This could be a key to the most fundamental question of this thread. Of what do you speak when you speak of the "Priestly Blessings"? Because Rabbi Hirsch implies that these blessings are tied to the Presence of God where they (the blessings) exist. . . And since if I recall correctly, you're familiar with the Zohar, you may know it opens with a discussion of the cup of blessing that contains the contents of what follows throughout the rest of the Zohar.
What do you understand as the Priestly Blessings?
You are mistaken if you thought I am here to teach you Jewish theology. I am not here for you. I am here in case someone reads your crap and mistakenly assumes that you are describing actual Jewish theology.
. . . Then you can relax, and give me a serious hearing, since, you at least, know that's not happening. You can read this asininity fearless concerning whether anyone is giving it any attention since you've been around these parts long enough to know that they ain't, and that that's not something that matters to me in the least.
OTOH, you don't matter to me, but the off chance that someone reads your crap does.
My spiritual mentor, Col. snipped for I don't care what your spiritual mentor has to say about you or your crap
Where a true student of the word of God is presenting biblical truths he will always be a voice crying out into a wilderness of apathy and unconcern. Isaiah knew this too well.
Spoken like a True Christian™.
. . ."For them [plural], he [singular] received a strike." ----Grammar is almost infinitely malleable.
Grammar is not malleable no matter how much you repeat the idea. There are sometimes where a sentence can have more than one meaning because it would be grammatically correct in multiple ways, not because grammar is malleable. And this is not one of those cases.
The word is a noun, so it correctly translates to "a strike [was struck] to them".
If you choose to ignore the vowel points, then as a verb it would be going on the word עמי - my nation, and would be read, "for the sins of my nation, [he (ie. my nation)] struck to them".
That's one reason the Masoretes added the points to the unpunctuated text: to try to nail the living word down in a manner that could be controlled within the received traditions of the oral Torah (even though that was forbidden).
The Masoretes standardized vowel points according to the simple meaning of all the verses. It is not uncommon for commentaries to give Midrashic interpretations not according to these vowel points.
Without the points a snipped for putrid crap
. . . One of the oddities of Isaiah is the fact that he constantly claims it's the nations, the goy nations, who first recognize the suffering servant. In chapter 11, verse 10 and 11, Isaiah implies that the Gentiles will first recognize the suffering servant (when he's lifted up as a shrine), and then Israel will accept the same suffering servant, the foundation of their faith, later.
No he does not. All it says is that nations will look to him. That requires prophecy because while it's expected that the Jewish people will recognize their own Messiah, it's unexpected that non-Jewish nations will look to the Messiah.
Though it's a thread topic in itself, it's this nuance that undermines the idea that the nation of Israel is the suffering servant spoken of in Deutero-Isaiah. Which is not to deny that the nation too suffers unfairly just like the personage in Deutero-Isaiah. The nation too suffers for righteousness sake.
The nations of Israel is the messianic nation, no doubt. And suffers like the personage in the cross-hairs of Deutero-Isaiah. That can never be denied by a serious student of the word of God.
No it doesn't and also that wouldn't be true if it did imply that the nations recognize the Messiah first.
Nevertheless, it's important to distinguish the singular suffering servant of Deutero-Isaiah from the larger nation. Isaiah 52:15 through 53:1, indeed seems to justify your argument. But in fact it's implying that the nations recognize the singular suffering servant before Israel does. This latter statement is naturally problematic for modern Jews, but Isaiah thoroughly justifies the fact that the nations, not Israel, will first recognize the singular suffering servant who is the true paragon of the entire nation of Israel.
You're using walls of text to hide your unsubstantiated arguments.