I believe Judaism is absolute true

[Harel13]

My response to this is to suggest to you that having the Holy Spirit resting upon you (lsaiah 61:1-3 etc) actually lays a divine power and responsibility on that anointed individual.

I don't know how you define "lay a divine power".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There is strong evidence for a kingdom of Israel, there is not strong archaeological evidence for Judaism. They are not one and the same. And there is actually archaeological evidence against the Moses story.

We have the psalms written by david.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So in this verse, the term "day of yesterday" is explicitly connected to being LIKE a thousand years to God in a piece of poetry. And in the second half of the comparison, a thousand years is like an "ashmura" in the night (1/3 of the night). I notice that you don't then say that any time "ashmura" is used it means a thousand years, or even that a day is the same as 1/3 of the night. That's OK. As I said, we don't take one figurative use as prescriptive in understanding other prophetic uses (especially as Psalm 90 isn't really prophetic, but poetic).

But who cares about that stuff?

You are right! So the use of "2 days" is a reference to 2 thirds of the night, just like it says a day is in Psalms 90!

That conclusion makes no sense. If the 2 days is ONLY a reference to the second exile, then we have nothing to point out the divine nature of the first exile. If the 2 days are the 2 temples and their destructions through which learn to repent so that the third day (the third temple) will make us whole.


OK, you are just injecting it where it has no place. Potayto, potahto.

and also, what's a "divine power"? If every prophet has it, and the messiah is not a prophet, then the messiah doesn't have a divine power. (if you say the messiah WILL be a prophet, then you are relying on Maimonides' writings, and once you start to do that...)

It is possible to communicate a single truth in many different ways; and the divisions of a day and night could be applied also. But there is still good reason to use the 'day as a thousand years' in certain 'day' prophecies that link with the seven days of Genesis 1,2. As you well know, this use of days in prophecy is applied in discussions in the Talmud.

Is a Psalm not both prophecy and poetry? [2 Samuel 23:1,2] The Messiah is a prophet, just as David was a prophet.

 

[rosends]

It is possible to communicate a single truth in many different ways; and the divisions of a day and night could be applied also. But there is still good reason to use the 'day as a thousand years' in certain 'day' prophecies that link with the seven days of Genesis 1,2. As you well know, this use of days in prophecy is applied in discussions in the Talmud.

In teh talmud, the allegorical text is not taken propheticlly but it is used to explicate a prophecy that the world will be destroyed for 2000 years, or that there will be a 1000 year period which will be entirely the sabbath. Neither of those references sees the line from Psalms as a prophecy though one fo them ties it to Hoshea and says that Hoshea is a prophecy of 2000 years of destruction. Is that your preferred reading once you subscribe to the talmud's opinion?

Is a Psalm not both prophecy and poetry? [2 Samuel 23:1,2] The Messiah is a prophet, just as David was a prophet.

Not everything David wrote or anything that any prophet wrote was a prophecy. Not every Psalm is a prophecy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have the psalms written by david.

Possibly written by David. It is rather hard to confirm that sort of claim. There probably was a David, but even that is uncertain:

Myth and Reality of King David's Jerusalem

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of ancient Jerusalem. Excavations in the City of David, today the village of Silwan, just south of the Old City walls, show that the site has been continuously occupied for some 5,000 years. Closer to David's purported time, excavations directed by the late Prof. Yigal Shiloh, uncovered a monumental 20 metre stepped structure, and dated it to the 12th-10th century BCE. This could have been the foundation of the Jebusite stronghold, captured and subsequently expanded by David.

. . .

Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century BCE, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period

. . .

he Book of Judges, which directly contradicts Joshua, and shows the Israelites settling the land over a prolonged period, is nearer historical reality; but even it cannot be taken at face value.

The archaeological surveys conducted over the past two decades in the hills of Menasseh, Ephraim, Benjamin and Judah, on the west bank of the River Jordan, indicate that the origin and development of the Israelite entity was somewhat different from either of the rival accounts in the Bible. The survey was conducted by more than a dozen archaeologists, most of them from Tel Aviv University's Institute of Archaeology. Their conclusions were published in "From Nomadism to Monarchy," edited by Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Prof. Nadav Na'aman.


There is more there. But it seems that even Jewish scholars recognize that David's existence is problematical and that of Abraham and Moses is most likely fiction.

 

[Redemptionsong]

In teh talmud, the allegorical text is not taken propheticlly but it is used to explicate a prophecy that the world will be destroyed for 2000 years, or that there will be a 1000 year period which will be entirely the sabbath. Neither of those references sees the line from Psalms as a prophecy though one fo them ties it to Hoshea and says that Hoshea is a prophecy of 2000 years of destruction. Is that your preferred reading once you subscribe to the talmud's opinion?

Not everything David wrote or anything that any prophet wrote was a prophecy. Not every Psalm is a prophecy.

2 Samuel 23:1,2. ' Now these be the last words of David, David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,
The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.'

In my opinion, words spoken by David but inspired by the Spirit of the LORD are words of prophecy. Do you disagree?

If you believe that some psalms are prophecy and others are not, maybe you would be kind enough to list those that are prophetic and those that are not!

As for the Talmud, it makes no claim to be prophetic, but it does offer helpful commentary when trying to understand and interpret prophecy. I just happen to agree with certain commentators in the Talmud who interpret the days of creation as days of a thousand years. This form of interpretation finds support in scripture, as already quoted. It also fits with the historical reality, of a second exile and the reestablishment of the state of Israel.

Whether one agrees with this day/ thousand year interpretation, or not, one cannot escape the reality of the picture on the ground. Israel as a country exists, after a two thousand year diaspora, and there is a growing interest in the Messiah Yeshua amongst Jews worldwide. To me, this accounts for the 'revival' that precedes the 'raising up' of Judah.

To my understanding, without the Messiah one cannot freely receive the Holy Spirit, and without the Holy Spirit one cannot know God.

 

[rosends]

2 Samuel 23:1,2. ' Now these be the last words of David, David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,
The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.'

In my opinion, words spoken by David but inspired by the Spirit of the LORD are words of prophecy. Do you disagree?

First off, that's a bad translation. The word "psalmist" never appears in the Hebrew. Second, the question of prophecy are introduced with a technical term (a d-b-r root) and David, in this verse is saying that God DID give him prophecies. But that also means that when David didn't introduce his words with that root, they weren't prophecies.

Can you find me, in the particular Psalms written by David, the d-b-r root? That would help you with your followup question.

As for the Talmud, it makes no claim to be prophetic, but it does offer helpful commentary when trying to understand and interpret prophecy.

But only when it says what you want to use. That's not really how it works, though. If you ascribe authority to the sages then you don't get to decide that that only counts sometimes. The idea that the sages see an interpretation in one moment doesn't mean that they, or anyone else, sees it in every situation identically.

To my understanding, without the Messiah one cannot freely receive the Holy Spirit, and without the Holy Spirit one cannot know God.

So your understanding has nothing to do with Judaism. That's fine.

 

[Redemptionsong]

First off, that's a bad translation. The word "psalmist" never appears in the Hebrew. Second, the question of prophecy are introduced with a technical term (a d-b-r root) and David, in this verse is saying that God DID give him prophecies. But that also means that when David didn't introduce his words with that root, they weren't prophecies.

Can you find me, in the particular Psalms written by David, the d-b-r root? That would help you with your followup question.

But only when it says what you want to use. That's not really how it works, though. If you ascribe authority to the sages then you don't get to decide that that only counts sometimes. The idea that the sages see an interpretation in one moment doesn't mean that they, or anyone else, sees it in every situation identically.

So your understanding has nothing to do with Judaism. That's fine.

It has everything to do with scripture, unless, of course, your form of Judaism rejects prophecy from the likes of Jeremiah.

Jeremiah wrote: 'Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that l will make a new covenant with the house of lsrael, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the the covenant that l made with their fathers in the day that l took them out of the land of Egypt; which they brake, although l was an husband to them, saith the LORD:
But this shall be the covenant that l will make with the house of Israel; l will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for l will forgive their iniquity, and l will remember their sin no more.' [Jeremiah 31:31-34]

To you, as a Torah Jew, has this prophecy yet been fulfilled?

If not, when do you envisage it being fulfilled?

 

[rosends]

It has everything to do with scripture, unless, of course, your form of Judaism rejects prophecy from the likes of Jeremiah.

Since that isn't what I asked, you are shifting things. So noted.

Jeremiah wrote: 'Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that l will make a new covenant with the house of lsrael, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the the covenant that l made with their fathers in the day that l took them out of the land of Egypt; which they brake, although l was an husband to them, saith the LORD:
But this shall be the covenant that l will make with the house of Israel; l will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for l will forgive their iniquity, and l will remember their sin no more.' [Jeremiah 31:31-34]

To you, as a Torah Jew, has this prophecy yet been fulfilled?

If you now want to start a new conversation about your misunderstanding the renewed covenant (which is identical with the first in content -- the Hebrew makes that explicit -- but different in delivery due to a change in the nature of people in messianic days) then you should move to a new thread, or look up this discussion in older threads.

If not, when do you envisage it being fulfilled?

When the messiah comes. Since he hasn't, it hasn't happened.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Since that isn't what I asked, you are shifting things. So noted.

If you now want to start a new conversation about your misunderstanding the renewed covenant (which is identical with the first in content -- the Hebrew makes that explicit -- but different in delivery due to a change in the nature of people in messianic days) then you should move to a new thread, or look up this discussion in older threads.

When the messiah comes. Since he hasn't, it hasn't happened.

Whether we're referring to Hosea 6 or Jeremiah 31 the issue of knowing the LORD is exactly the same.

If l accept your statement that the Messiah has not yet come then l must also accept that Torah Jews do not know the LORD, and that they exist in a broken relationship with God.

I believe you're justified in saying the new covenant is not a different covenant, but a renewed covenant. But which covenant does it renew? Does the renewal apply to the covenant with Abraham, or the covenant with Moses? Or does it apply to both?

 

[Harel13]

If l accept your statement that the Messiah has not yet come then l must also accept that Torah Jews do not know the LORD, and that they exist in a broken relationship with God.

I am so utterly shocked at this statement, with you concluding that you remain strong in a view that you've already stated you hold many times, regarding baseless assumptions you make about Jewish worship.

 

[rosends]

Whether we're referring to Hosea 6 or Jeremiah 31 the issue of knowing the LORD is exactly the same.

can you show me where in Hoshea 6, the word "know" is used?

If l accept your statement that the Messiah has not yet come then l must also accept that Torah Jews do not know the LORD, and that they exist in a broken relationship with God.

Feel free to accept that. I accept that you have no understanding of Judaism or God. Somehow, I persevere.

I believe you're justified in saying the new covenant is not a different covenant, but a renewed covenant. But which covenant does it renew? Does the renewal apply to the covenant with Abraham, or the covenant with Moses? Or does it apply to both?

Um, as I said, it makes explicit the content of the covenant it is talking about. How can there be any question?

 

[Skywalker]

can you show me where in Hoshea 6, the word "know" is used?

Feel free to accept that. I accept that you have no understanding of Judaism or God. Somehow, I persevere.

Um, as I said, it makes explicit the content of the covenant it is talking about. How can there be any question?

Jeremiah 31:31 mentions the New Covenant. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

No one really keeps the commandments of the Sinatic covenant. To Jews who believe in Jesus and to rabbinic Judaism, a new covenant was given. The New Covenant that the rabbis follow is the rabbinical tradition that they made up themselves. The new covenant that believers in Yeshua follow is grounded in God's Messiah.

 

[Rival]

Jeremiah 31:31 mentions the New Covenant. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

No one really keeps the commandments of the Sinatic covenant. To Jews who believe in Jesus and to rabbinic Judaism, a new covenant was given. The New Covenant that the rabbis follow is the rabbinical tradition that they made up themselves. The new covenant that believers in Yeshua follow is grounded in God's Messiah.

Do you even have a definition for 'Rabbinic Judaism'? Which Rabbis apparently made it up? When? How come no-one realised? What was originial Judaism like and how do you know? How do you know which Biblical texts are canonical? How do you square Jesus telling you to do what the Pharisees say with your hatred of Rabbinic Judaism (assuming you know that Rabbinic Judaism is really another term for Pharisaic). Why were the Christians relying on the Jews for the date for Easter each year so it coincided with Pesach, if Pharisaic Judaism is so wrong?

Just some thoughts.

 

[rosends]

Jeremiah 31:31 mentions the New Covenant. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

No one really keeps the commandments of the Sinatic covenant. To Jews who believe in Jesus and to rabbinic Judaism, a new covenant was given. The New Covenant that the rabbis follow is the rabbinical tradition that they made up themselves. The new covenant that believers in Yeshua follow is grounded in God's Messiah.

You don't understand it.
Yes Jews do.
No it wasn't.
No they didn't.
No it isn't.
Next?

 

[Skywalker]

Do you even have a definition for 'Rabbinic Judaism'? Which Rabbis apparently made it up? When? How come no-one realised? What was originial Judaism like and how do you know? How do you know which Biblical texts are canonical? How do you square Jesus telling you to do what the Pharisees say with your hatred of Rabbinic Judaism (assuming you know that Rabbinic Judaism is really another term for Pharisaic). Why were the Christians relying on the Jews for the date for Easter each year so it coincided with Pesach, if Pharisaic Judaism is so wrong?

Just some thoughts.

When thet temple was destroyed, 2000 years ago, the rabbis had to invent Judaism anew so that it would work without the service at the temple and the Holy of Holies. Though they kept using the terms Judaism and Torah, they changed the definition: no more biblical Judaism based on the Torah, but from then on it was the traditions of the Rabbis. Many of these customs were even taken from other peoples, among whom Israel lived-Tailsmans, the Hamsa, Lag baOmer, kippah, seance, tefellin, mezuzah, to prostrate on the graves of the saints, the kashrut of meat and dairy, magic, Bar Mitzvah, images of the saints, mantras, and even the breaking of the cup on weddings All of these traditions are not mentioned once in the Old Testament.

 

[Rival]

When thet temple was destroyed, 2000 years ago, the rabbis had to invent Judaism anew so that it would work without the service at the temple and the Holy of Holies. Though they kept using the terms Judaism and Torah, they changed the definition: no more biblical Judaism based on the Torah, but from then on it was the traditions of the Rabbis. Many of these customs were even taken from other peoples, among whom Israel lived-Tailsmans, the Hamsa, Lag baOmer, kippah, seance, tefellin, mezuzah, to prostrate on the graves of the saints, the kashrut of meat and dairy, magic, Bar Mitzvah, images of the saints, mantras, and even the breaking of the cup on weddings All of these traditions are not mentioned once in the Old Testament.

1. There was no Temple during the period of the Judges or Shaul or David. So did they make it up as well?

2. There's more to Judaism than what's written. The Torah is one part of it, the Prophets are another part, but Judaism is a living tradition. Most if not all religions have things outside the scripture. Tradition is just as binding. Most religions do not even have scriptures.

 

[Skywalker]

1. There was no Temple during the period of the Judges or Shaul or David. So did they make it up as well?

2. There's more to Judaism than what's written. The Torah is one part of it, the Prophets are another part, but Judaism is a living tradition. Most if not all religions have things outside the scripture. Tradition is just as binding. Most religions do not even have scriptures.

I'm not saying an interpretation is wrong because it's not explicitly mentioned in the Bible but that doesn't mean it's true either. I don't trust pastors and priests like I used to, I just go to church to hear the word of God. The only one we can trust is God. Clergy can get scriptures wrong-they are not infallible.

 

[Rival]

I'm not saying an interpretation is wrong because it's not explicitly mentioned in the Bible but that doesn't mean it's true either. I don't trust pastors and priests like I used to, I just go to church to hear the word of God. The only one we can trust is God. Clergy can get scriptures wrong-they are not infallible.

Oh yeah this. The bit where you have no answer so say some random thing like this. Very annoying but apparently inevitable.

 

[Harel13]

When thet temple was destroyed, 2000 years ago, the rabbis had to invent Judaism anew so that it would work without the service at the temple and the Holy of Holies. Though they kept using the terms Judaism and Torah, they changed the definition: no more biblical Judaism based on the Torah, but from then on it was the traditions of the Rabbis. Many of these customs were even taken from other peoples, among whom Israel lived-Tailsmans, the Hamsa, Lag baOmer, kippah, seance, tefellin, mezuzah, to prostrate on the graves of the saints, the kashrut of meat and dairy, magic, Bar Mitzvah, images of the saints, mantras, and even the breaking of the cup on weddings All of these traditions are not mentioned once in the Old Testament.

Well, we all know where the kippah came from.