OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Gatorubet]

Cool beans. :thumbsup:

You might be surprised at how many people I've run into who have an issue with them. Thus, I thank you for the relief.

Well, to be honest, I have an issue with the anti-homosexual thing, as I think it is more akin to the ancients thinking mental illness was demonic possession, i.e., being gay a "choice" rather than hard wiring, so I don't want my glibness to be taken as point conceding.

 

[muffler dragon]

Well, to be honest, I have an issue with the anti-homosexual thing, as I think it is more akin to the ancients thinking mental illness was demonic possession, i.e., being gay a "choice" rather than hard wiring, so I don't want my glibness to be taken as point conceding.

I didn't take it as a concession in the slightest.

I should make one more note here: my adherence to the Seven Laws is strictly within my circle. They are the guiding principles for MY life. I don't place the weight of observance on anyone else. Furthermore, when it comes to those of a different sexual orientation, I find no where within the Laws that I am to treat a homosexual/bisexual/transgendered human being as anything other than a person.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Well, to be honest, I have an issue with the anti-homosexual thing, as I think it is more akin to the ancients thinking mental illness was demonic possession, i.e., being gay a "choice" rather than hard wiring, so I don't want my glibness to be taken as point conceding.

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman: it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22).[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall be put to death: their blood is upon them" (Lev 20:13).[/SIZE][/FONT]

What say you!? I found these quotes interesting, even though I personally don't care about one's choices.​

 

[muffler dragon]

nt

 

[jwinslow]

Muffler, given your skepticism and stance based upon Jesus' lifetime tasklist (and not beyond), I am curious about your take on this earlier post

Jwinslow already did a great job explaining the answer through the use of Zechariah, but I wanted to supplement it with a bit more information regarding why the Jews failed to recognize Jesus as the messiah. If you turn to Talmud to see what the Jews were looking for you find an interesting dialogue. After studying all of the prophesies and covenants God had made with them, the Jews realized there were two conflicting images of the Messiah present. On one hand was a conquering king who would reign over Israel, defeat her enemies, and establish an eternal kingdom. This version of the messiah they called Mechiac ben David. On the other hand was a suffering servant who would by lowly and who would be struck down. This version of the messiah they called Mechiac ben Yoseph (after Joseph of Genesis).

The Talmud tells us that the Jewish understanding of these two messiah images lead them to believe that depending upon how they acted would determine which one God would send. If they lived righteously and obeyed His commandments, then God would send the conquering king. However, if they sinned and did not follow God's commands, the messiah would come as a suffering servant. As a result of this interpretation of the prophesies, the Jews actually came to hope that the suffering servant would never appear, because if he did, then it meant that God was not pleased with them. Go now to the first century, where the Jews are under oppressive Roman rule and you find they were seeking almost exclusively for the Messiah ben David to appear. Hence why many, not all Jews, did not recognize Jesus as the promised messiah. I emphasize not all the Jews because the historical account of Acts shows us that there were thousands of Jews who did come to accept him as the messiah. Many historians tell us that the Jewish Christians reached over 100,000 before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D and Gentile influences began to overwhelm the Jewish believers within the universal church.

 

[Gatorubet]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman: it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22).[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall be put to death: their blood is upon them" (Lev 20:13).[/SIZE][/FONT]​

What say you!? I found these quotes interesting, even though I personally don't care about one's choices.​

Nah man, that was beaten to death on another thread, so I'm not gonna jack this current thread

 

[muffler dragon]

Muffler, given your skepticism and stance based upon Jesus' lifetime tasklist (and not beyond), I am curious about your take on this earlier post

Okay.

Jwinslow already did a great job explaining the answer through the use of Zechariah, but I wanted to supplement it with a bit more information regarding why the Jews failed to recognize Jesus as the messiah.

I'm not sure if failure to recognize is a good description of the Jews in the first century since most (if not all) were hoping for a Messiah/King to take them out from under the Roman oppression. Anyway... I digress.

If you turn to Talmud to see what the Jews were looking for you find an interesting dialogue. After studying all of the prophesies and covenants God had made with them, the Jews realized there were two conflicting images of the Messiah present. On one hand was a conquering king who would reign over Israel, defeat her enemies, and establish an eternal kingdom. This version of the messiah they called Mechiac ben David. On the other hand was a suffering servant who would by lowly and who would be struck down. This version of the messiah they called Mechiac ben Yoseph (after Joseph of Genesis).

The Talmud tells us that the Jewish understanding of these two messiah images lead them to believe that depending upon how they acted would determine which one God would send. If they lived righteously and obeyed His commandments, then God would send the conquering king. However, if they sinned and did not follow God's commands, the messiah would come as a suffering servant. As a result of this interpretation of the prophesies, the Jews actually came to hope that the suffering servant would never appear, because if he did, then it meant that God was not pleased with them.

Without having the Talmudic quotes that buckeyegrad is referencing, it is difficult to comment concretely; however, I will make the following points:

1) Not all of Jewish tradition holds the "dual Messiah" theory as fact.
2) The Messiah ben Yosef has been described as a person and a personification.
3) IF there is to be a human "dual Messiah"; then the same could hold true for any failed/false Messiah including Jesus. Moreover, if we were to look for those who would fit the Messiah ben Yosef model most; then it would be Bar Kochba or Sabbatini. But there are many who could "fit" that consideration. Therefore, where does that leave us?

Go now to the first century, where the Jews are under oppressive Roman rule and you find they were seeking almost exclusively for the Messiah ben David to appear.

Which, from my POV, strengthens the position that the dual Messiah theory is not a fact.
Furthermore, isn't it curious that Jesus' own followers have no clue what he is talking about when he speaks of suffering? If the above talmudic insinuatoin was clear; then they would have known what he was discussing.

Hence why many, not all Jews, did not recognize Jesus as the promised messiah.

To which I ask: what about those that followed Theudas about a decade after Jesus? Or the thousands of Jews that followed Bar Kochba less than a century after Jesus? The list goes on and on.

I emphasize not all the Jews because the historical account of Acts shows us that there were thousands of Jews who did come to accept him as the messiah. Many historians tell us that the Jewish Christians reached over 100,000 before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D and Gentile influences began to overwhelm the Jewish believers within the universal church.

I'm not one to Appeal to Popularity when it comes to this, but I would say that even IF there were 100,000 Jewish believes in Jesus by the time the Temple was destroyed; then this still leaves us with 2 million or more who didn't believe. (5% leaves us with a fringe group, not a vast majority)

Something to give thought to: do you realize that HAD Jesus been the Jewish Messiah; then we wouldn't even be having this discussion? :)

 

[buckeyegrad]

Outside of what I consider the eisegetical usage of Isaiah 53, I don't see anywhere in the Jewish Bible that the Jewish Messiah was supposed to provide a salvation mechanism for people. Personal accountability is a huge consideration in Judaism.

How else is Isaiah 53 to be applied? Christians are/were not unique in claiming this scripture applied to the messiah as the vast majority of Jews (its even in Talmud) also believed it did before Rashi popularized the idea that it referred to Israel itself, which the text makes an impossibility. If it is not Israel nor the messiah, who else is the suffering servant?

My question of course to you regarding the salvation mechanism is how can anyone approach G-d today since the atoning sacrificies have not occurred since 70 A.D. (and not accepted by G-d since 30 A.D.--Talmud tells us that the red cord did not turn white on Yom Kippur for the 40 years prior to the 2nd temple's destruction) if Yeshua was not the final atoning sacrifice. Leviticus 17 is clear in saying that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. So Torah itself shows that if Yeshua (or some other mechanism) does not provide final atonement, then no one has it today, and no one can approach G-d.

I obviously disagree, but I'll posit something your way instead of debating directly. Can you show me where there are THREE and only three different "persons" displayed in the Jewish Bible?

I assume you are asking for the three "persons" since you know that Elohim shows that there is a plurality in G-d. Even when it is declared in Deuteronomy that G-d is echad, it uses the plural name Elohim for Him.

So having established that there is plurality in the One, why would it be sound to believe there is three "persons" and not more or less? Well, the first clue might be in Isaiah 6:3, where it is said the seraphim cry Holy, Holy, Holy before the thrown of G-d. Why three times? Granted, not a deadlock argument, but a beginning. Next, I would turn to the Ruah of G-d, which is mentioned throughout the Tanakh. So we can establish that there is the breath of G-d (Holy Spirit). Then we have the theophanies of the Jewish Bible, where G-d does appear in fleshly form (to Abraham at Mamre, wrestled with Jacob). So we have a precedence for G-d in a fleshly form. So, there are hints to the triun nature of G-d throughout the Tanakh. I believe the New Testament is a commentary on the Old Testament, illuminated by the Spirit of G-d and taught to us by G-d in flesh form, so we have a more clearer picture of this dynamic of His plurality presented there, but by no means was it a "new" teaching of Yeshua or his followers, but rather a clarification of what was occurring in the past.

 

[muffler dragon]

How else is Isaiah 53 to be applied?

In the pshat interpretation, it's Israel. There is a delineation between the Diaspora Jews and those who have remained.

Christians are/were not unique in claiming this scripture applied to the messiah as the vast majority of Jews (its even in Talmud) also believed it did before Rashi popularized the idea that it referred to Israel itself, which the text makes an impossibility. If it is not Israel nor the messiah, who else is the suffering servant?

1) I caution you on the fallacy that Rashi invented this idea. Origen in Contra Celsus discusses that the Jews believed the Suffering Servant was Israel back in 325 CE. Furthermore, the Targum Jonathan dispells this timing issue within Jewish tradition.
2) If you're not familiar with the acronym PRDS; then I suggest you look it up. It stands for pshat, remez, drash and sod. In short, the Talmudic references you speak of regarding Isaiah 53 are in the drash sense of interpretation. In drash, there is a moral to be learned; not a literal truth. And to answer your question directly, within miDRASH, the Suffering Servant is claimed to be Moses, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Hezekiah, Isaiah, and a few others I believe.

My question of course to you regarding the salvation mechanism is how can anyone approach G-d today since the atoning sacrificies have not occurred since 70 A.D.

The same way that sins were forgiven since Cain brought an improper sacrifice: repentance.
The sacrifices are an outward expression of an inward repentant heart condition and nothing more. Please don't fall for the consideration that Jews can't be forgiven and haven't been for millenia.

(and not accepted by G-d since 30 A.D.--Talmud tells us that the red cord did not turn white on Yom Kippur for the 40 years prior to the 2nd temple's destruction) if Yeshua was not the final atoning sacrifice.

Actually, this is also a fallacy for a number of reasons:

1) Jesus didn't die in 30 CE. He supposedly died in 33 CE.
2) The miracles of the Temple had been decreasing in quantity and quality since the death of Shimon HaTzeddek who lived about 3 centuries before Jesus.
3) Not all of the miracles ceased in 30CE.
4) There are other reasons for the decreasing of the miracles and these contain the following but are not limited to:
a) the hellenization of Israel.
b) the infighting amongst Jews.
c) the decepid state of the Jewish religion. By the time Jesus was crucified, the Sanhedrin wasn't even meeting in the Hall of Hewn Stone.

Leviticus 17 is clear in saying that there is no forgiveness
without the shedding of blood.

Leviticus 17 is about consuming blood; not what it does on the altar. Read the entire chapter.

So Torah itself shows that if Yeshua (or some other mechanism) does not provide final salvation, then no one has it today.

Sorry, but your conclusion is false because it's based on a false premise.

I assume you are asking for the three "persons" since you know that Elohim shows that there is a plurality in G-d. Even when it is declared in Deuteronomy that G-d is echad, it uses the plural name Elohim for Him.

Actually, Elohim, isn't a plural word when it refers to G-d. It's a proper name. The only time that elohim is plural is when it refers to human elements (i.e. Psalm 82).

But to clarify my question, I will ask: how do you determine there are three and only three persons in the godhead?

So having established that there is plurality in the One, why would it be sound to believe there is three "persons" and not more or less?

Slow down. You didn't establish it. Your premise is based on a misunderstanding Hebrew. In Hebrew, plurality is determined by not just the noun, but also the surrounding terms.

Well, the first clue might be in Isaiah 6:3, where it is said the seraphim cry Holy, Holy, Holy before the thrown of G-d. Why three times? Granted, not a deadlock argument, but a beginning.

Sorry, but it's not even a start. Just because something is chanted three times does not allow for the conclusion to be drawn that there are three persons.

Next, I would turn to the Ruah of G-d, which is mentioned throughout the Tanakh. So we can establish that there is the breath of G-d (Holy Spirit).

Ruach simply means spirit. Spirit does not incline itself to separate "person"hood.

Then we have the theophanies of the Jewish Bible, where G-d does appear in fleshly form (to Abraham at Mamre, wrestled with Jacob).

Are you sure about that?

So we have a precedence for G-d in a fleshly form.

If you would like to go through them one by one; then I'm game. Just so you're aware.

So, there are hints to the triun nature of G-d throughout the Tanakh.

Actually, you haven't shown anything about triune natures. You've shown the opportunity for plurality, but nothing that is set up as "three".

I believe the New Testament is a commentary on the Old Testament, illuminated by the Spirit of G-d and taught to us by G-d in flesh form, so we have a more clearer picture of this dynamic of His plurality presented there, but by no means was it a "new" teaching of Yeshua or his followers, but rather a clarification of what was occurring in the past.

As any Christian should feel. The problem is that it stands completely contradictory to the Tanakh and Judaism. Literal anthropomorphism is idolatrous from a Jewish POV.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Moreover, if we were to look for those who would fit the Messiah ben Yosef model most; then it would be Bar Kochba or Sabbatini. But there are many who could "fit" that consideration. Therefore, where does that leave us?

I'm not sure I follow here. How can bar Kosba and Sabbatini fit the Messiah ben Yosef prophesies better than Yeshua? Both of their crusades as "messiah" was based on the ben David emphasis of the prophesies. Neither of them took the mantle of a suffering servant.

Also, although I reference Talmud in understanding the dual messiah, I'm not saying it was correct. After all, the rabbis all assume there are two messiahs, they never considered that there would only be one, but that the fulfillment of all the prophesies would be separated by an expanse of time (which as Peter teaches, is an act of mercy by G-d).

 

[buckeyegrad]

Something to give thought to: do you realize that HAD Jesus been the Jewish Messiah; then we wouldn't even be having this discussion? :)

Why is there an assumption that all of the prophesies had to fulfilled at one time by the messiah? Where in the Tanakh is that said to be the case?

 

[muffler dragon]

I'm not sure I follow here. How can bar Kosba and Sabbatini fit the Messiah ben Yosef prophesies better than Yeshua?

Messiah ben Yosef has been described as a warrior as well. This would fit Bar Kochba.

Here's a link that may be of interest on the topic:

Who is the Moshiach ben Yosef?

Here are some key points regarding Messiah ben Yosef and ben David according to the essay above:

The following points summarize this issue and are agreed to in all the Midrashim that deal with the Moshiach ben Yosef and the Moshiach ben Dovid.

1)They are two different people from two different tribal families.
2) They live at the same time.
3) Moshiach ben Yosef never takes the throne nor is he entitled to.
4) Moshiach ben Yosef is a warrior (Moshiach ben Dovid would also appear to be)
5) Moshiach ben Yosef will be killed in BATTLE[15] and will be the first to be raised from the dead by Moshiach ben Dovid.
6) The period of time from when Moshiach ben Yosef first comes into prominence until he is resurrected after the Moshiach ben Dovid comes to his throne is very short, the longest period is under two years.
The basic chronology of events is that there is a seven-year period. It starts with continually problems, it starts to improve and then in the sixth year it gets worse again. In the seventh year there are great wars in which the Moshiach ben Yosef is first successful and then he is killed in that later part of the year. Many Jewish people will become depressed and fall away. At the end of the seven years Moshiach ben Dovid comes and finishes the job and there comes the resurrection of the dead.

Both of their crusades as "messiah" was based on the ben David emphasis of the prophesies. Neither of them took the mantle of a suffering servant.

Actually, that isn't the case:

Leithart.com | Suffering Messiah

Suffering Messiah

In 1665, one Sabbatai Tsevi of Smyrna announced himself to the world as a Kabbalistic messiah who would bring in the final restoration (tiqqun). Yet, a year later, under a threat of execution from the sultan of Turkey, Tsevi converted to Islam. Instead of giving up their support for Sabbatai, his followers reconceived his messianism in a way that incorporated his apostasy. According to Kenneth Gross's summary:
"Tsevi's conversion was interpreted as a knowing act of self-sacrifice, an embrace of the world of sin. . . . In this way, writes Scholem, 'the Messiah must go his lonely way into the kingdom of impurity and 'the other side' . . . and dwell there in the realm of a 'strange god' whom he would yet refuse to worship.'"

Plus, you can read the first full paragraph on p. 210 of this link:

Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry: From ... - Google Book Search

Also, although I reference Talmud in understanding the dual messiah, I'm not saying it was correct. After all, the rabbis all assume there are two messiahs, they never considered that there would only be one, but that the fulfillment of all the prophesies would be separated by an expanse of time (which as Peter teaches, is an act of mercy by G-d).

The emboldened is wrong. The belief in the "dual messiah" theory is NOT universally held by all Rabbis.

 

[muffler dragon]

Why is there an assumption that all of the prophesies had to fulfilled at one time by the messiah?

1) The Messianic prophesies concern one person. There is no mention of death and resurrection.
2) Because it would be a limiting factor on who is and who isn't the Messiah.

Where in the Tanakh is that said to be the case?

It's difficult to prove a negative. To answer your question, it's not stated anywhere.

Let's go with your train of thought for a second. Let's presume that there IS a dual messiah theory. Why would Jesus get to have a chance at a Second Coming and none of the other myriad of false/failed messiahs?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Leviticus 17 is about consuming blood; not what it does on the altar. Read the entire chapter.

Ok I read it again. I still can't get past 17:11 re: make atonement.

To both Muffler and BGrad. This is all fascinating to me.

 

[muffler dragon]

Ok I read it again. I still can't get past 17:11 re: make atonement.

I'll reproduce the chapter here:

Leviticus 17 (Jewish Tanakh)

1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying:

2. Speak to Aaron and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: This is the thing the Lord has commanded, saying:

3. Any man of the House of Israel, who slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat inside the camp, or who slaughters outside the camp,

4. but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer up as a sacrifice to the Lord before the Mishkan of the Lord, this [act] shall be counted for that man as blood he has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people;

5. in order that the children of Israel should bring their offerings which they slaughter on the open field, and bring them to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the kohen, and slaughter them as peace offerings to the Lord.

6. And the kohen shall dash the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and he shall cause the fat to go up in smoke, as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord.

7. And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the satyrs after which they stray. This shall be an eternal statute for them, for [all] their generations.

8. And you should say to them: Any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers who will sojourn among them, who offers up a burnt offering or [any other] sacrifice,

9. but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to make it [a sacrifice] to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from his people.

10. And any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My attention upon the soul who eats the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people.

11. For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul.

12. Therefore, I said to the children of Israel: None of you shall eat blood, and the stranger who sojourns among you shall not eat blood.

13. And any man of the children of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who traps a quarry of a wild animal or bird that may be eaten, and sheds its blood, he shall cover it [the blood] with dust.

14. For [regarding] the soul of all flesh its blood is in its soul, and I said to the children of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the soul of any flesh is its blood all who eat it shall be cut off.

15. And any person, whether a native or a stranger, who eats carrion or what was torn, shall immerse his garments and immerse himself in the waters, and shall remain unclean until evening, and then he shall become clean.

16. But if he does not immerse [his garments] or immerse his flesh, he shall bear his sin.

Do you see v. 11-12? The "therefore" is the big player in this. It's just like an equation. Both before and after v. 11, the discussion is about consumption of blood; therefore, the context is about consumption.

One addendum I would like to add. An acquaintance of mine sums it up rather well:

Blood is only one way to atone -- and only for two types of individual sins (the chatat for a "missing of the mark" and asham for very specific things, mostly pertaining to Temple impurity). In case of Yom Kippur the only sacricies that atoned for the community of Israel were those that cleansed the Temple of impurity.

Thus, I didn't present my point clearly, because I can see where the above is not given credence.

Yet, something else to keep in mind:

Genesis 4

5. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.

6. And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?

7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."

In this passage, we see how forgiveness can be attained: "improve". Repentance (teshuvah) in Judaism is much more than asking for forgiveness or saying you're sorry. Repentance is about doing that and more (i.e. improving your conduct/effort/works/etc). Furthermore, we see that we, as human beings, can rule over sin. Thus, the sin => repentance => forgiveness thing is demonstrated in Genesis, and precludes the blood sacrifices that were performed on the altar.

To both Muffler and BGrad. This is all fascinating to me.

Glad you enjoy it.