Weary in well doing

SonWorshipper · Oct 28, 2003

I'm sorry YatzivPatgam, I don't agree, prayer and repentence only work with the blood, or death and hence shedding of blood. We can see that from all the way back in Gan Eden, where the sin of Adam and Eve is covered not by their makeshift leafy underware but rather the shedding of blood by HaShem himself and using the skins to hide their nakedness. He made a blood atonement for them then, and it continued through Aarons line, and then on down until the temple was no longer needed.

yod · Oct 29, 2003

I never understood this. No matter how many times HaShem forbade human sacrafice, forbade kings from offering up their only begotten children, and taught over and voer again the Righteous cannot suffer for the sins of the wicked, people say this guy hung on a cross for me and call it "Torah".

Sometimes, I just don't get you guys.

Like the ashes of the red heifer....it's a mystery.

How does the high priest take on sin in this ceremony? The Temple Institute told me just last week that the one (High Priest) who perfomed the offering for sin, became sin. His sacrifice cleansed others while making him "cursed", so to speak.

What do you suppose the Lord was saying here?

SonWorshipper · Oct 30, 2003

Good Question.

yod · Oct 30, 2003

And according to Daniel chapter 9 the Messiah would come before the destruction of the Second Temple.

So my question is this;

If not Yeshua, then who?

YatzivPatgam · Oct 30, 2003

SonWorshipper said:
I'm sorry YatzivPatgam, I don't agree, prayer and repentence only work with the blood, or death and hence shedding of blood. We can see that from all the way back in Gan Eden, where the sin of Adam and Eve is covered not by their makeshift leafy underware but rather the shedding of blood by HaShem himself and using the skins to hide their nakedness. He made a blood atonement for them then, and it continued through Aarons line, and then on down until the temple was no longer needed.

Without even looking at the Tanakh;

How do you suppose ISrael came out of the first exile?...wasn't with a drop of blood? How did Israel get forgiven for the golden calf? Wasn't with blood. How come we are given instructions for methods of atonement with the specific purpose of not having a temple are given to us?

HaShem didn't "bleed" for Adam and Eve, he is incorpreal. Thats skitting the line of idolatry.

Oy!

YatzivPatgam · Oct 30, 2003

yod said:
Like the ashes of the red heifer....it's a mystery.

How does the high priest take on sin in this ceremony? The Temple Institute told me just last week that the one (High Priest) who perfomed the offering for sin, became sin. His sacrifice cleansed others while making him "cursed", so to speak.

What do you suppose the Lord was saying here?

They should have clarafied for you. He "takes" the sin becuase he specificly makes the offering, but makes atonement with non blood methods.

YatzivPatgam · Oct 30, 2003

yod said:
And according to Daniel chapter 9 the Messiah would come before the destruction of the Second Temple.

So my question is this;

If not Yeshua, then who?

Christian translation and interpetation of the book of Daniel, I'd rack up as one of the most ludacris I've seen, not to mention of the looooooongest to discuss, even longer that Isaiah 53, which has alot of garbage out there about it.

There is good reason why christians took Daniel away from Ezra and placed him between Ezekeil and Hosea. It does nothing but split up a logical progression of events.

I'll make a few breif observations, but I am weary of getting to detailed, becuase Simchat deserves more of my time then he has been getting

1) No language or culture in history forms the number sixty-nine by combining 7 with 62. Hebrew would form this number by literally saying 9 and 60.

2) The Moshiach ben Dovid is supposed to rebuild the temple, not be a herald of it's destruction, it's a dierect contradiction to the simple Messianic agenda.

3) an Intresting observation I had while studying Christanity's claim to fame with this passage. In Chapter 9 it reffers to the "annointed" as being YIKAREIT , a Christian apologists claim that the proper translation is "cut off", reffering to J-man's death. Of course, if you look past STRONG and use a real lexicon and look at the history of the word, we see that it's "Will be cut off" and reffers to a spiritual transgressor being removed from the Great Assembly. If you wanna say J-man is just that, then, by all means

yod · Oct 31, 2003

They should have clarafied for you. He "takes" the sin becuase he specificly makes the offering, but makes atonement with non blood methods.

Why do you think they call it the "ashes of the Red Heifer???"

I'll continue this when I have more time to discuss it but I don't get my theology from "Christians".

Totally jewish.

Be back later.....

YatzivPatgam · Nov 1, 2003

yod said:
I'll continue this when I have more time to discuss it but I don't get my theology from "Christians".

Totally jewish.

Be back later.....

That I doubt. Otherwise, Daniel 9 wouldn't point to J-guy for you.

yod · Nov 1, 2003

Are you saying that all jewish people everywhere agree on every point of interpretation?

Then you are ignoring that all of the writers of the New Covenant were jewish.

Even the ancient rabbis saw passages like Isaiah 53 as pertaining to the Messiah (and not the nation of Israel) until they reacted to the christian interpretation in the 12th Century. Same with Daniel 9 and other passages that were reinterpreted by later sages.

But that isn't completely what I meant by that statement. I have always gone to a messianic synagogue where the teachers have always been jewish.

I have studied under 2 rabbis who were raised in Orthodox yeshiva until the day their eyes were opened.

It doesn't matter to me whether you think they are jewish or not. The fact is that they are....and they have interpreted the Bible through jewish eyes...not christian ones.

This is the very reason I am messianic. I find the jewish interpretation to be more valid and the contemporary christian interpretation to be tainted by cultural barriers and therefore is suspect in some areas.

I'm also aware of how both sides have "found" new theologies in response to the other. You seem to be repeating the latest anti-missionary explanations.

sojeru · Nov 1, 2003

hi yod, i partially agree with you.
Thing is, what the rabbis interpret, i'd say since the 12th century is still correct however hidding the fullness or rather not giving it all.
So it isnt really a re-interpreting of scripture that the rabbis have went through.
However, because of the "christian" interpretations of these things we jews have only brought PART of the interpretation foward while we know the rest....we did this knowing that the christians do not have the jewish way of interpreting scirpture readily available to them in their training.
What i mean and am refering to is PRDS...
NO scripture can lose its P'[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. But We jews in an anti-missionary response BRING FOWARD the REMEZ and not the P'[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] as to what scripture "actually" means...
even when it comes down to Micha and the Prophecy about mashiach being from beit lechem.
NO DOUBT that is the P'[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
However, some of us are saying in anti-missionary response say that the passage ACTUALLY says or means, "The messiah will be born from the seed of the family of beitlechem", thus only saying- however very misleading because here we do infact do away with the pshat, affirm that the messiah could be born anywhere not necessarily in beit lechem.
so no doubt, in these days- we do need a correcting in current halacha.
There can only be ONE way to walk, and we most indeed need this today with all the differing factions of orthodoxy and especially in these corruptions that we dish out. However, our interpretations are still valid.
Hope it was made clear.

yod · Nov 1, 2003

However, our interpretations are still valid.
Hope it was made clear

clear as mud!

who is "our"?

Are you speaking for Orthodox, Conservative, reform, or secular?

Are you speaking for Chabad or the other sects within sects out there?

The point is that there has always been a wide berth of opinion in the sons of Jacob....just ask Korah if you can find him.

for instance, it was stated that Yeshua spoke against the High Priest and/or Sanhedrin in a recent debate.

Nothing could be farther from the truth! He didn't speak against the office, he spoke against the corrupt persons in the office.

Matthew 23

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

And the Maccabean Revolt installed their own priests completely ignoring the Torah command that the High Priest be descended from Eleazar, son of Aaron, so Caiphus was completely illegitimate!

This was the reason for the Essene community in Qumran.

Look at how many varying degrees of interpretation were present with Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, Zealots, Nazarites, etc., etc., etc...

So I think it is better to see what the rabbis said BEFORE they reacted to a percieved threat from an outside religion. This would be more authentic.

How do you interpret Isaiah 48 and specifically who is speaking in verse 16?

Shamash Of Yeshua · Nov 2, 2003

We must not forget that many times the majority of Israel have disobeyed YHWH. If I remember right didn't Isaiah say he was the only one left and YHWH said to him that HE had 7,000 others hidden away when all of Israel was seeking to kill Isaiah.
So I could say that according to the following scripture that the majority of those who are sitting in Moses' seat were corrupt:
Mat 16:6-12 HNV Yeshua said to them, "Take heed and beware of the yeast of the Perushim and Tzedukim." (7) They reasoned among themselves, saying, "We brought no bread." (8) Yeshua, perceiving it, said, "Why do you reason among yourselves, you of little faith, 'because you have brought no bread?' (9) Don't you yet perceive, neither remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you took up? (10) Nor the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? (11) How is it that you don't perceive that I didn't speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the yeast of the Perushim and Tzedukim." (12) Then they understood that he didn't tell them to beware of the yeast of bread, but of the teaching of the Perushim and Tzedukim.

Luk 12:1 HNV Meanwhile, when a multitude of many thousands had gathered together, so much so that they trampled on each other, he began to tell his talmidim first of all, "Beware of the yeast of the Perushim, which is hypocrisy.

So now what do we have to tell Man's doctrines from YHWH's doctrines or rather how can we know if a person is INSPIRED by YHWH. Shall we test them as a Prophets words are tested? Or shall we TEST THE SPIRIT of those who claim to know YHWH's WAYS of LIFE. Didn't Yeshua say that when He left that another would come and that other was the Holy Spirit who would teach us and so on. I have said in the past that I can't trust gentile translated text vs. Jewish(or rather Hebrew) translated text. Yet now I sit here and can't even trust most of any thing whether written by Jews or gentile. Do you know why. Because a Jew is a MAN as well as a gentile is a MAN and therefore can LIE(whether intentional or not). For we know that those who are BLIND can't teach others that are blind, because they will only lead those that are blind over a cliff.

Shalom,

Tag

YatzivPatgam · Nov 2, 2003

BS'D

Are you saying that all jewish people everywhere agree on every point of interpretation?

No. I'm saying there is legitmate Jewish Theology and then there is Christian Theology.

Then you are ignoring that all of the writers of the New Covenant were jewish.

Point being? Karl Marx was Jewish, does that Marxism a Jewish ideal?

Even the ancient rabbis saw passages like Isaiah 53 as pertaining to the Messiah (and not the nation of Israel) until they reacted to the christian interpretation in the 12th Century. Same with Daniel 9 and other passages that were reinterpreted by later sages.

This is old and quite unfounded. Take a look at at a 3rd century book called " Contra Celsum" written by Church Father Origen. In Chapters 54 and 55 he describes a time when he attempts to evangelize Jews by Using Isaiah 53, but to no avail and is explained the Jewish postion, which strangely mimics almost exactly the interpetation we hold today.

But that isn't completely what I meant by that statement. I have always gone to a messianic synagogue where the teachers have always been jewish.

I have studied under 2 rabbis who were raised in Orthodox yeshiva until the day their eyes were opened.

I wish I had a shekel for every time I have heard this. Oddly enough, I can't track down these well educated "Orthodox Jews" who have had their eyes "opened". I'll try again;

You wouldn't happen to have these men's E-mail would you? Also, where did they obtain their smeeka? Which Yeshiva's did they attend and where were they located?

It doesn't matter to me whether you think they are jewish or not. The fact is that they are....and they have interpreted the Bible through jewish eyes...not christian ones.

And there are people who interpet the bible through Jewish eyes who think Lubavitcher Rebbe is Moshiach, ditto that people who still think Shabbati Zvi is. Jewish they may be, but wrong they are.

This is the very reason I am messianic. I find the jewish interpretation to be more valid and the contemporary christian interpretation to be tainted by cultural barriers and therefore is suspect in some areas.

There is nothing "Jewish" about being a mezzie. It's still contemporary christanity. By the by, I still find Contemporary Christian Scholars to be more on the ball then Mezzies and I'm curious why so many mezzies want to distance themselves from such folks.

I'm also aware of how both sides have "found" new theologies in response to the other. You seem to be repeating the latest anti-missionary explanations.

The debate has been rageing since 3rd century and earlier. There is nothing new in the disscussions we are having today.

sojeru · Nov 2, 2003

hi Yod'

Look at how many varying degrees of interpretation were present with Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, Zealots, Nazarites, etc., etc., etc...

these werent different interpreters/interpretations...
these groups each had their own mission- not interpretations.
I find great fault with the sadducees and those that believed similar to them.
However, the essenes interpretation of biblical prophecies, halacha and the such are very close to the pharisees....now biblical prophecies they expounded and brought insight to certain parts about messiah- for this is what they focused on- the communities righteousness and the messiah. And so it sounds much like the sound of the pharisees interpretation.
Now, how about halacha- the halacha of the pharisees penetrated through out all of judaisms.
Every judaism that existed were bound to their halacha.
Even if the judaisms were not in agreement to some of the halachic rulings- this is why Messiah came, to correct halacha.
The masters of halacha today are the orthodox.
Conservative may see it as a burden on some points- the TRUE shomrim/nazareans NEED STEP UP to the plate of being leaders of the ORTHODOX beit din as James, brother of Jesus was leader of the ancient beit din of the pharisees. (its writen in talmud of ya'acov hatzaddik)
ALL OF JUDAISM was connected because of halacha (the way in which to walk) and there was a 'broad road' teaching that existed.
Messiah CORRECTED it as Talmud said that the messiah would correct it- and James rose up after Messiah to make sure it stayed that way- but after the destruction of the beit hamikdash, we no longer had that connection- especially after yavne and even more after the gentile rulers that constituted their new religion of christianity.

yod · Nov 2, 2003

I wish I had a shekel for every time I have heard this. Oddly enough, I can't track down these well educated "Orthodox Jews" who have had their eyes "opened". I'll try again;

You wouldn't happen to have these men's E-mail would you? Also, where did they obtain their smeeka? Which Yeshiva's did they attend and where were they located?

Then let me help you.

I will contact as many as you want to talk to and give them your email.

How many would you like? Off the top of my head I can think of close to a dozen. Should we go one at a time or all at once?

I'm not sure how many would have the time to argue with you but if you are genuinely interested in hearing their story, I'll ask some of them to email you.

sojeru · Nov 2, 2003

I dont you are to be trusted Yatziv,
i dont believe you are genuine at all.
what is it- you want to track down the orthodox yeshiva's and rabbis that do have a belief in Y'shua as Mashiach? what will you do then, get rid of them by having them presented before another beit din?

I dont know your motives- however, it seems that you only have one agenda and that is to seperate those ORTHODOX jews that do believe and say they are christians when we have been reared in orthodoxy.

i hope this is not you...because the impression that you leave upon me is not a good one.
You could probably care less- but my perception is My reality- and i dont see a good reality with you.

yod · Nov 2, 2003

YatzivPatgam said:
BS'D

No. I'm saying there is legitmate Jewish Theology and then there is Christian Theology.

Click to expand...

And who decides what is legitimate theology when there is no monolithic agreement?

Point being? Karl Marx was Jewish, does that Marxism a Jewish ideal?

Click to expand...

Had Marx found thousands of Jewish followers who were willing to die for him (as Yeshua did), then the answer would be "yes"

This is old and quite unfounded. Take a look at at a 3rd century book called " Contra Celsum" written by Church Father Origen. In Chapters 54 and 55 he describes a time when he attempts to evangelize Jews by Using Isaiah 53, but to no avail and is explained the Jewish postion, which strangely mimics almost exactly the interpetation we hold today.

Click to expand...

This is the first time I've heard that. If that is correct, then I admit to being wrong.

And there are people who interpet the bible through Jewish eyes who think Lubavitcher Rebbe is Moshiach, ditto that people who still think Shabbati Zvi is. Jewish they may be, but wrong they are.

Click to expand...

Oh? They are still jewish? Can you see how this contradicts your position on messianic jews?

There is nothing "Jewish" about being a mezzie. It's still contemporary christanity. By the by, I still find Contemporary Christian Scholars to be more on the ball then Mezzies and I'm curious why so many mezzies want to distance themselves from such folks.

Click to expand...

I seem to get in trouble around here for embracing both heritages. When I speak about christianity in a negative light, it is always about the cultural aspects, or traditions, being put on the same level as biblical truth. This isn't exclusive to any one religion as I'm sure you would agree.

There are lots of abberant theologies that I strongly disagree with yet I am not ashamed to be a christian though I am quite embarressed by some of my brothers antics....and our sordid history of persecution of jewish people.

But you will never hear me say that I am messianic "jewish" or "gentile". It's not about those kind of classifications to me. It is about understanding the Bible from the jewish perspective it was written in. I am of the belief that Yeshua did not come to start a new religion.

The debate has been rageing since 3rd century and earlier. There is nothing new in the disscussions we are having today.

Click to expand...

I think there has been "some" change in attitudes since then.

YatzivPatgam · Nov 2, 2003

yod said:
Then let me help you.

I will contact as many as you want to talk to and give them your email.

How many would you like? Off the top of my head I can think of close to a dozen. Should we go one at a time or all at once?

I'm not sure how many would have the time to argue with you but if you are genuinely interested in hearing their story, I'll ask some of them to email you.

They can 0contact me either at my Private E-mail at YatzivPatgam@aol.com or at JewishOutreach@Jerusalem.edu , but my school adress hasn't been working as of late.

I speak Yiddish,Hebrew and some Russian if they are immigrants, they can contact me in those languages if need be.

YatzivPatgam · Nov 2, 2003

sojeru said:
I dont you are to be trusted Yatziv,

:: Cues James Bond music ::

Whats not to trust, Miss Money Penny?

Click to expand...

Weary in well doing

Old Timer

the wandering goy

Old Timer

the wandering goy

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

the wandering goy

Active Member

the wandering goy

just a Jew

the wandering goy

Servant

Active Member

just a Jew

the wandering goy

just a Jew

the wandering goy

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency