Differences in Biblical Interpetations

[Harmonious]

Very interesting information...

What do you make of the Lord pronouncing a divorce in Hosea 1:9 of the people of the northern kingdom?

Hosea 1:9
"Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God."
​

What do you make of the Lord extending the same status to the southern kingdom of Judah when he likened the two kingdoms to two sisters Aholah and Aholibah?

Ezekiel 23
4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.
5 And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,
...
11 And when her sister Aholibah saw this, she was more corrupt in her inordinate love than she, and in her whoredoms more than her sister in her whoredoms.
...
17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.
18 So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness: then my mind was alienated from her, like as my mind was alienated from her sister.
19 Yet she multiplied her whoredoms
...
22 Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, from whom thy mind is alienated, and I will bring them against thee on every side;
...
31 Thou [Aholibah] hast walked in the way of thy sister [Aholah]; therefore will I give her cup into thine hand.
...
35 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast forgotten me, and cast me behind thy back, therefore bear thou also thy lewdness and thy whoredoms.
36 The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations;
37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.
...
46 For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will bring up a company upon them, and will give them to be removed and spoiled.
47 And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.
48 Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness.
49 And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.
​

It seems very clear to me the old covenant was breached and the "wife" was put to death.
As I see it, a new covenant is indeed needful in order for their standing to be redeemed.

The covenant is still in effect.

The Ten Tribes are forever lost. But the rest of the Jews are still here, and working within the covenant to the best of our ability. (To be completely fair, some of us are, at any rate.)

 

[Pegg]

One thing I have noticed is how differently Jews and Christians interpret the OT. Christians have interpreted the OT as proving the coming of Jesus Christ (and proving Christianity is true) and all I can say is that it seems very different from how I and other Jews I know interpret it. I am not trying to say Christians are wrong and Jews are right, I am just stating the interpretations are different. Other than proving Jesus and Christianity (which are obvious), what are other reasons for very different interpretations often occurring?

i have to say that i've noticed that many of the jewish posters here explain the scriptures by very literal and physical explanations. For instance the laws are seen as purely physical aspects of Gods requirements.

However, Christians do not interpret the scriptures on purely a physical level, but on a spiritual level. The NT jewish writers explained the physical aspects in terms of spiritual truths and we see this especially so in Jesus illustrations.

 

[Harmonious]

Ah. To speak to the OP is what we were doing...

Sir, you have done an excellent job in outlining what the Torah and Old Testament is.

You are most welcome, but I am a lady, not a man.

Thank you for such a clear vision of God's word. Based on what you said, would you agree with the assumption I will now make in how we should interpret the Bible? I assume you are of the Jewish faith but I would like to point out where Christians have continued your vision on to the New Testament.

Based on the last sentence of that alone, I am CERTAIN that I will not agree with your assumption.

But I'll respond to your assertion.

Commenting on the Old Testament the Apostle Paul said "2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God,...." This to me means that all scriptures were "natural theology" before it was written and became "revealed theology."

Oddly enough, I actually agree with this, in theory.

According to Jewish tradition, Abraham (who only had to live according to the Seven Noachide laws and circumcision) actually KEPT the entire Torah, or at least as much of it as was possible TO keep. He wasn't commanded to do other than I explained, but that he instinctively knew to do certain things.

That still is a bit far fetched, but it isn't completely outside of what I'm willing to believe.

The Epistle to the Romans was Paul's introduction of Christians to natural theology. The Epistle makes clearer what Paul meant by his persistent references to the division of the "spirit and the flesh" which was a theme Paul discovered from the beginning of the Torah.

Interesting. Not at all along my belief system, but interesting.

In the Torah God said " Gen:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image,..." God did not say to make man as a statue of God but God was speaking in words of maximum idealism, the image of dabar, the true God as the creator of the universe. God did have an idea or image of what man was to be.

We are agreeing again. It is a beautiful thing.

The Bible is a history of how God has been shaping and creating man into this image,

I'll even go with that.

This the continues theme of the Old Testament and carried over into the New Testament.

But I won't go with that.

The creation of man was first a "spiritual" creation as an idea in the mind, then God took dust of the earth and formed the "flesh" of man but this alone was not possible to be the image of dabar, therefore God breathed spirit and life into man and all of man became a living soul.

I'm not sure where you are headed with this.

Through "inspiration" and influence of the "spirit" the flesh is being carved into God's image. What many people call flaws in God's creation of man and God's plan for man is not flaws at all but God sculpturing and forming the image (idealism) of God in the clay-ness of man. Paul summarized this concept and purpose of creation of man like the following:" 2Thes:2:13:...., brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

Interesting.

(And I never expected to almost be willing to agree with Paul on anything. How do you like that?)

Christ confirmed the distinction of the difference of the flesh and spirit by saying God was a Spirit and that was the way you had to worship God (John 4:23}.

Hmm...

John outright said that was dabar/logos in the first chapter of his Gospel. The theme of the whole Bible was to bring us to the full image of God.Christ was a fleshly image of God but He was truly God in the Spirit.

Nope. From there and forward, we cannot possibly agree with whatever else your missive has to say.

He died in the flesh upon the cross but he rose in both flesh and spirit to take His place on the throne in the Kingdom of God. According to this theme is how we should interpret the Bible.

No, not so much.

As I don't believe it has any relevance at all except to understand what it is that Christians believe, I won't speak about the Christian Scriptures and how they should be interpreted.

As far as Tanach goes...

For the most part, Genesis is mostly history, philosophy, and mysticism. If we understand that God created the universe, He has the right to parcel it out as He sees fit. And the land of Israel was given (and withdrawn, but once again given) to the PEOPLE of Israel, who have since become known as Jews.

Exodus through Deuteronomy give history, but mostly give laws in a general way, as their details were given through the Oral Law, which was meant to stay oral, except when Romans started murdering Jews for TEACHING Torah. So, it was written down.

Joshua covers the conquest of Israel, the apportioning of Israel, and referencing what happened when the Jews kept to God's words (even the temporary commandments, like from which cities it was permitted to take spoils and which were not) and when the Jews did not. (Not necessarily in that order...)

Judges covers a rather large time period where Judges and Prophets primarily led the Jewish people, regardless of what tribe they were from. Sometimes the Jews were successful, and sometimes the Jews were defeated. There is a lot to be learned in what happened when, who led the Jews during which incident, and what were the results.

Both books of Samuel start the period of formal kingship with a human king over Israel.

There is a lot of story telling, many human foibles get revealed, and the Jews had to deal with their choices.

The books of Kings show a bit where the unity amongst the Jews fell, and how certain aspects of the leadership led the Jews astray. Some of the kings were good. Some of the kings were wicked. Sometimes the people were good. Sometimes the people went astray.

The interpretation of Tanach is complicated. There are times when things are literal, like in the Book of Esther. There are times when things are completely allegorical, like in the Song of Songs.

There are methods to study and learn, and understand what each book therein is coming to teach us.

But I will not agree that your conclusion is the right one.

It is interesting, and it explains how YOU understand what you learned.

 

[kylixguru]

The covenant is still in effect.

When did the "one like unto Moses" come and reestablish it? Or, do you deny it needed to be reestablished?

The Ten Tribes are forever lost.

In a way, I think you could say this if you take the word 'forever' in its proper context, which as I understand it has an implied component 'forever (to the end of the age)' but not in the sense of 'forever (for all infinity of time in all ages to come ages without end)'.

As I understand it, the time of the northern kingdom's reassembly as a people happens on Day 1 of the new creation, which is a new age. This is how I see these apparently contradictory concepts being rectified. They clearly shall be reassembled from the four corners of the earth, but it won't be until the beginning of the new age on Day 1 of the new Creation.

But the rest of the Jews are still here, and working within the covenant to the best of our ability. (To be completely fair, some of us are, at any rate.)

I hope you don't find it offensive that from my point of view you are (collectively) where Jacob prophesied you would be in the last days in Genesis 49. Judah is couched down like a sleeping lion waiting to get awakened to fulfil his critical role in starting off the new age in the fulness of the Light.

 

[Debunker]

I find much agreement with you here. I agree Adam was given to be a full and complete manifestation of God. And, I see how Jesus clearly indicated there was more to follow himself and that he was pointing to the future Adam to come to lay the foundation for the new creation.

I question what you mean when you say 'universe'.

That first idea was an idea in the mind of a human being. That human being became "man" when the idea was formed in his mind. The "idea" is the "breath of life" and the dust of the ground was a human being. The "universe" that Man created was first made by forming a spiritual family from the raw materials around him (other particles of dust). They liked his "idea" and willingly devoted themselves to build it up by organizing things.

To use the LDS term 'estate', they say much the same thing with deeper implications.
Our 'first estate' is when we are born spiritually as a part of God's spiritual family.
Our 'second estate' is when we are born physically as a part of God's physical family.
There isn't a 'third estate' or a 'fourth estate' that is distinctly mentioned.
We cycle between the first and second estates in a cyclical manner as individual entities of intelligence who must learn to navigate ourselves in the wind currents.

There is an interplay and cyclical relationship between these two estates that is woven throughout holy writ. It must be fully considered when interpreting holy writ or you will have gaping holes in your understanding.

I could go into the concept of 'estates' more so that it would give an idea of how it affects one's interpretive filters, but that would probably be going too far off topic and really should go into its own thread for those interested.

This a new view from you to me. Where do you arrive this information? Does it come from the teaching of L. Smith or do you get it strictly from the Bible? This thread is about the Bible.

 

[Debunker]

Perfectly understandable.

Christianity assumes the other personages of the Trinity would never manifest in the flesh. Thus, they assume the Holy Ghost would not have a physical advent as Jesus had. But, Jesus told them to watch for the day(time) and the hour(time) of His coming(s) when the Father would setup the Kingdom. Jesus pointed to much more that was yet to be fulfilled.

Thus, a major difference between how the LDS interpret the NT is they see it as pointing to many great and marvellous things we should look for the fulfillment of in practical ways.

For example, Jesus returning in the 'clouds of heaven', according to Joseph Smith Jr. simply meant the advent of the Father to establish His Kingdom would be at a time when all those in positions of governance (world leaders, religious, political, economical, etc.) would be in darkness and far astray from what the Gospel Light would have them doing. To Joseph Smith, 'heavenly bodies' are people who are 'governing ones'. Clouds of darkness in the heavens is great confusion, tumolt, chaos, conflict, secret combinations, etc. among those who are in positions of power over us.

Other rather miraculous sounding things to Christians are decoded to a simple understanding of things. For example, Lucifer's 'fall' from heaven could be as simple as a group of men conspiring to overthrow freedom being impeached from their offices of authority.

Another example. The 'rapture' simply means you know where the advent of the Father is and you go into concealment with Him while the woes of the great tribulation are happening to everyone else. Nobody is 'raptured' off into a secret space station somewhere or hyperdimensionally shifted to another plane in an instant. Those 'raptured' are people hunkered down somewhere in concealment with the Bridegroom.

It might also be the missing pieces he's been looking for. How am I to know? Perhaps my comments will benefit someone just passing by... Perhaps I need to hear something in response to my comments... We just don't always know. At least the author of the OP will have a chance to see the methods others use to interpret holy writ and some examples of how it affects things.

I agree and the more witnesses a person can find to calibrate the truth of that central theme the more complete a person's knowledge becomes. And, at some point, the well Jesus spoke of is opened wide and you then come to know the Father personally. Absent this, you fall short of Eternal Life.

When I ask Christians if they know the Father, they can never bring it into anything practical, consistent and real. Thus, I know the truth is not in them. When you look at the Nicea Creed, by its own admission it denounces the entire basis upon which Eternal Life can be realized. Jesus says you must know the Father but it says man cannot.

Yes! But, how to you bring all of that into practical understanding you can describe in simple pragmatic terms and put a name of an individual upon who best represents that? If you cannot do this with complete confidence and be correct, it's all just myth and fantasy with the reality of it being unobserved and therefore not real to you.

Was it not you who promised not to make this thread part of the debate of LDS, as this was not the intent of the OP? I think you should keep that promise.Where Christ said He was the beginning and the end, Joe Smiths name was not mentioned. And Christ said in the same chapter that nobody was to add to or take away from God's words. I take this to apply to Joe Smith also.

By the way, the Trinity is a post Biblical term are as many other Christian events and terms We have enough post Biblical terms with which to filter out without J. Smith's additions. This thread is about the Bible.

 

[Debunker]

Ah. To speak to the OP is what we were doing...
You are most welcome, but I am a lady, not a man.

Based on the last sentence of that alone, I am CERTAIN that I will not agree with your assumption.

But I'll respond to your assertion.

Oddly enough, I actually agree with this, in theory.

According to Jewish tradition, Abraham (who only had to live according to the Seven Noachide laws and circumcision) actually KEPT the entire Torah, or at least as much of it as was possible TO keep. He wasn't commanded to do other than I explained, but that he instinctively knew to do certain things.

That still is a bit far fetched, but it isn't completely outside of what I'm willing to believe.

Interesting. Not at all along my belief system, but interesting.

We are agreeing again. It is a beautiful thing.

I'll even go with that.

But I won't go with that.

I'm not sure where you are headed with this.

Interesting.

(And I never expected to almost be willing to agree with Paul on anything. How do you like that?)

Hmm...

Nope. From there and forward, we cannot possibly agree with whatever else your missive has to say.


No, not so much.

As I don't believe it has any relevance at all except to understand what it is that Christians believe, I won't speak about the Christian Scriptures and how they should be interpreted.

As far as Tanach goes...

For the most part, Genesis is mostly history, philosophy, and mysticism. If we understand that God created the universe, He has the right to parcel it out as He sees fit. And the land of Israel was given (and withdrawn, but once again given) to the PEOPLE of Israel, who have since become known as Jews.

Exodus through Deuteronomy give history, but mostly give laws in a general way, as their details were given through the Oral Law, which was meant to stay oral, except when Romans started murdering Jews for TEACHING Torah. So, it was written down.

Joshua covers the conquest of Israel, the apportioning of Israel, and referencing what happened when the Jews kept to God's words (even the temporary commandments, like from which cities it was permitted to take spoils and which were not) and when the Jews did not. (Not necessarily in that order...)

Judges covers a rather large time period where Judges and Prophets primarily led the Jewish people, regardless of what tribe they were from. Sometimes the Jews were successful, and sometimes the Jews were defeated. There is a lot to be learned in what happened when, who led the Jews during which incident, and what were the results.

Both books of Samuel start the period of formal kingship with a human king over Israel.

There is a lot of story telling, many human foibles get revealed, and the Jews had to deal with their choices.

The books of Kings show a bit where the unity amongst the Jews fell, and how certain aspects of the leadership led the Jews astray. Some of the kings were good. Some of the kings were wicked. Sometimes the people were good. Sometimes the people went astray.

The interpretation of Tanach is complicated. There are times when things are literal, like in the Book of Esther. There are times when things are completely allegorical, like in the Song of Songs.

There are methods to study and learn, and understand what each book therein is coming to teach us.

But I will not agree that your conclusion is the right one.

It is interesting, and it explains how YOU understand what you learned.

And you my dear are a beautiful person. I am flattered that you took time to answer my post and I am very pleased that you in part agree with Paul and me. I have nothing negative to say about how you interpret the Torah or the Old Testament. I look forward to discussing faith with you in future threads.

 

[kylixguru]

Was it not you who promised not to make this thread part of the debate of LDS, as this was not the intent of the OP? I think you should keep that promise.

The author of the OP asked me to expand on some things that would help him better appreciate fundamental differences in how Joseph Smith Jr. interpreted scripture. I've done my best to not stray away from that as it is in and of itself a very interesting question.

Where Christ said He was the beginning and the end, Joe Smiths name was not mentioned. And Christ said in the same chapter that nobody was to add to or take away from God's words. I take this to apply to Joe Smith also.

I shall keep my promise and refrain from responsing to this missive that is completely irrelevant to the OP.

By the way, the Trinity is a post Biblical term are as many other Christian events and terms We have enough post Biblical terms with which to filter out without J. Smith's additions. This thread is about the Bible.

This thread is about modes of interpreting the Bible. If and how one views the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as One God bears significantly upon how one interprets holy writ. If I have demonstrated that then I believe I have respectfully participated in this thread.

 

[Harmonious]

When did the "one like unto Moses" come and reestablish it?

Joshua and any of the prophets were "one like Moses." Because, you see, no one EVER came to the level of Moses. If one claims that he is, that is proof-positive that he is a false prophet.

Or, do you deny it needed to be reestablished?

Yup, I do deny just that.

And I would tell you that Jeremiah's mention of a "new covenant" could not possibly be literal, because that would negate when God told Moses that the covenant was eternal. (Look to Leviticus 26.)

In a way, I think you could say this if you take the word 'forever' in its proper context, which as I understand it has an implied component 'forever (to the end of the age)' but not in the sense of 'forever (for all infinity of time in all ages to come ages without end)'.

As I understand it, the time of the northern kingdom's reassembly as a people happens on Day 1 of the new creation, which is a new age. This is how I see these apparently contradictory concepts being rectified. They clearly shall be reassembled from the four corners of the earth, but it won't be until the beginning of the new age on Day 1 of the new Creation.

Interesting.

I hope you don't find it offensive that from my point of view you are (collectively) where Jacob prophesied you would be in the last days in Genesis 49. Judah is couched down like a sleeping lion waiting to get awakened to fulfil his critical role in starting off the new age in the fulness of the Light.

I'm not sure what aspect of Jacob's prophecies you are thinking of.

Jews are indeed waiting for our Messiah to come. But more to the point, we are working to teach people so that the world will be filled with Torah.

 

[Harmonious]

And you my dear are a beautiful person. I am flattered that you took time to answer my post and I am very pleased that you in part agree with Paul and me. I have nothing negative to say about how you interpret the Torah or the Old Testament. I look forward to discussing faith with you in future threads.

Thank you for your kind words. I look forward to discussing faith with you as well.

 

[Debunker]

When did the "one like unto Moses" come and reestablish it? Or, do you deny it needed to be reestablished?

In a way, I think you could say this if you take the word 'forever' in its proper context, which as I understand it has an implied component 'forever (to the end of the age)' but not in the sense of 'forever (for all infinity of time in all ages to come ages without end)'.

As I understand it, the time of the northern kingdom's reassembly as a people happens on Day 1 of the new creation, which is a new age. This is how I see these apparently contradictory concepts being rectified. They clearly shall be reassembled from the four corners of the earth, but it won't be until the beginning of the new age on Day 1 of the new Creation.

I hope you don't find it offensive that from my point of view you are (collectively) where Jacob prophesied you would be in the last days in Genesis 49. Judah is couched down like a sleeping lion waiting to get awakened to fulfil his critical role in starting off the new age in the fulness of the Light.

In all fairness to the lady Harmonious, the new age doctrine appears to me to be a New Testament doctrine and should not be applied to what she says in the same light as what you mean by the end of the age. Nevertheless, you do point out some interesting things for Christians.

 

[kylixguru]

Joshua and any of the prophets were "one like Moses." Because, you see, no one EVER came to the level of Moses. If one claims that he is, that is proof-positive that he is a false prophet.

Yup, I do deny just that.

And I would tell you that Jeremiah's mention of a "new covenant" could not possibly be literal, because that would negate when God told Moses that the covenant was eternal. (Look to Leviticus 26.)

Interesting.

I'm not sure what aspect of Jacob's prophecies you are thinking of.

Jews are indeed waiting for our Messiah to come. But more to the point, we are working to teach people so that the world will be filled with Torah.

I realize I am straying off topic here so if you would like to continue this in a new thread I would be happy to. I do have more questions but they are not urgent.

Oh, I realize I should at least provide you the reference for Jacob's prophecy before I leave off. Genesis 49:1 says Jacob would prophesy what would befall his sons in the last days or the "end of time" (which is pretty much now). Pertaining to Judah he said in verse 9-10 (KJV)

9 Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
​

In the last days it shall be Judah's birthright brother who comes to rouse him up.
When the Shiloh Messiah comes, it shall be Christ returned, manifesting in an advent from the House of Joseph in the last days as is indicated here in the portion of this prophecy dedicated to Joseph.

22 Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall:
23 The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him:
24 But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel

​

Thank you kindly for your time and consideration and my apologies for straying off topic some here.

 

[Harmonious]

I realize I am straying off topic here so if you would like to continue this in a new thread I would be happy to. I do have more questions but they are not urgent.

That might be nice.

Oh, I realize I should at least provide you the reference for Jacob's prophecy before I leave off. Genesis 49:1 says Jacob would prophesy what would befall his sons in the last days or the "end of time" (which is pretty much now). Pertaining to Judah he said in verse 9-10 (KJV)

9 Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
​

In the last days it shall be Judah's birthright brother who comes to rouse him up.
When the Shiloh Messiah comes, it shall be Christ returned, manifesting in an advent from the House of Joseph in the last days as is indicated here in the portion of this prophecy dedicated to Joseph.

22 Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall:
23 The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him:
24 But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel​

Ah. Well, Jews don't see that pertaining to Jesus, but of the Messiah. (I realize you see them as one and the same, but Jews generally don't.)

​

Thank you kindly for your time and consideration and my apologies for straying off topic some here.

It was my pleasure.

 

[Debunker]

Joshua and any of the prophets were "one like Moses." Because, you see, no one EVER came to the level of Moses. If one claims that he is, that is proof-positive that he is a false prophet.

Yup, I do deny just that.

And I would tell you that Jeremiah's mention of a "new covenant" could not possibly be literal, because that would negate when God told Moses that the covenant was eternal. (Look to Leviticus 26.)

Interesting.


I'm not sure what aspect of Jacob's prophecies you are thinking of.

Jews are indeed waiting for our Messiah to come. But more to the point, we are working to teach people so that the world will be filled with Torah.[/QUOT)
One short question. what will be the characteristics of your Messiah have when he comes? How will you know he is the one?

 

[kylixguru]

That might be nice.

Ok, I started a thread here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2336922-post1.html

Ah. Well, Jews don't see that pertaining to Jesus, but of the Messiah. (I realize you see them as one and the same, but Jews generally don't.)

Actually I agree with Jews on this point. Join the thread and I'll go into this in more detail.

It was my pleasure.

...

 

[Harmonious]

One short question. what will be the characteristics of your Messiah have when he comes? How will you know he is the one?

He'll be completely human. He will be a great leader and a Torah scholar. He will teach Jews to become Orthodox, and he'll convince all Jews to move to Israel.

He'll bring about world peace, or he'll be responsible in part for it.

If you ever heard about the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, you will have a clue about what he is supposed to be like. However, unlike the Rebbe, the Messiah will actually accomplish everything I've listed and more.

 

[Harmonious]

Ok, I started a thread here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2336922-post1.html

Very cool. I'll see you there.

Actually I agree with Jews on this point. Join the thread and I'll go into this in more detail.

Will do.

...

:hug:

 

[Debunker]

He'll be completely human. He will be a great leader and a Torah scholar. He will teach Jews to become Orthodox, and he'll convince all Jews to move to Israel.

He'll bring about world peace, or he'll be responsible in part for it.

If you ever heard about the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, you will have a clue about what he is supposed to be like. However, unlike the Rebbe, the Messiah will actually accomplish everything I've listed and more.

I have not heard of your Rabbi. If you have made any post on the forum where you teach about the Rabbi, please note them so I can learn about these prophets.

Also, what specific verse in the Torah do you interpret to suggest that there will be a coming Messiah? Thank you, my lady, as I am learning from you.

 

[Harmonious]

I have not heard of your Rabbi. If you have made any post on the forum where you teach about the Rabbi, please note them so I can learn about these prophets.

Oh, dear. You can find as much information as you like about Rabbi Schneerson at Chabad.org.

I don't usually have occasion to speak of him, much. He was a great man, who gave advice to people from all walks of life on just about all matters, during his lifetime.

He was a leader who encouraged his "messengers" to go to different Jewish communities all over the world to ensure that there would be a "Chabad House" where
Torah would be taught to all kinds of people.

I believe that it is at his insistence that there are loads of "Mitzva Tanks" that can be seen all over the place (in NYC, they are REALLY all over the place). In any affair where there are likely to be large numbers of Jews, there are stands where "messengers" encourage Jews to lay Tefillin and recite a few prayers.

He made it a point that, wherever they were, that the "messengers" made a point that the non-Jews, wherever they were, were not left out, and that they should be taught about the Seven Noachide Laws and be made to understand that God has love for them, too.

There are many things he did, over the course of his life. I'm sure I haven't even touched the top of the tip of the iceberg when it come to relating all of the wonderful things he accomplished in his lifetime.

But with all of these wonderful things, he did not manage to convince all the Jews to move to Israel, and if you've seen the news, you know there's not world peace. So while he was a wonderful Messianic candidate, he was, alas, not the Messiah.

Also, what specific verse in the Torah do you interpret to suggest that there will be a coming Messiah? Thank you, my lady, as I am learning from you.

I'm not 100% certain. I'm sure some of it is involved in Jacob's blessing in Genesis, some of it is in Moses' blessing at the end of Deuteronomy. Some of it is involved in the discussion that various prophets had with King David.

This is one of those things that I haven't focused on verses, but understand that such is what Jewish beliefs are.

It's not as important to me to know WHERE the source of a Jewish belief is (although it is often good to know) as much as it is important to know WHAT they are.

I mean... If you want to know where I know the majority of the things I know of the Jewish expectation of the Messiah come from, I can suggest to look in Maimonides' codification of Jewish law on the section on "Laws of Kings."

I'm not sure of the verses, but I know others who do.

 

[Rakhel]

Ah yes. "The Mitzvah tanks" with Schneerson's face "plastered" all over it are hard to miss. :yes: Every time I go to Crown Heights....