Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[Redemptionsong]

Seriously, you have already shown a lack of understanding of biblical text -- please don't try to represent the talmud. You simply don't understand how it operates and what it is saying.
The first line actually addresses your question

and eleven lines up from the medium lines is the spot that the Rambam actually codifies as normative practice and understanding which addresses other issues.

If you can't read the whole thing, don't try to take a little bit and make a case out of it.

I have the Babylonian Talmud in English translation and have read the relevant exchanges. The fact that Jewish authorities have come to reject certain interpretations does not necessarily invalidate other views. The same authorities have rejected Jesus, so l have no reason to follow your chosen interpretation! The Talmud provides proof that other interpretations exist.

 

[rosends]

I have the Babylonian Talmud in English translation and have read the relevant exchanges. The fact that Jewish authorities have come to reject certain interpretations does not necessarily invalidate other views. The same authorities have rejected Jesus, so l have no reason to follow your chosen interpretation! The Talmud provides proof that other interpretations exist.

You have an English translation? Well that makes you an expert, no doubt. And I'm sure you have studied the various people involved and their value and position in the talmudic framework and you understand the precise structure of the talmud to understand how and why variant opinions exist and which ones are considered useful. And no doubt, you wouldn't dare be hypocritical to adopt a singular opinion by a rabbi in one case, but then deny that same rabbi's authority and opinion in another case, right? And you surely get the use of the aggadic sections in terms of establishing belief-points as opposed to the halachic sections. So, yeah, feel free to snip out the little bits that your translations say mean something so that you can misrepresent them as having a particular import in your religious schema. It's about as honest as everything else you have been doing, so have fun!

 

[Redemptionsong]

You have an English translation? Well that makes you an expert, no doubt. And I'm sure you have studied the various people involved and their value and position in the talmudic framework and you understand the precise structure of the talmud to understand how and why variant opinions exist and which ones are considered useful. And no doubt, you wouldn't dare be hypocritical to adopt a singular opinion by a rabbi in one case, but then deny that same rabbi's authority and opinion in another case, right? And you surely get the use of the aggadic sections in terms of establishing belief-points as opposed to the halachic sections. So, yeah, feel free to snip out the little bits that your translations say mean something so that you can misrepresent them as having a particular import in your religious schema. It's about as honest as everything else you have been doing, so have fun!

Yes, I shall continue to glean information from the Talmud, but will always follow the guidance of the great rabbi, Jesus. It seems to me that he gets the interpretation right all the time!

Back to Abraham. In Genesis 18:3, do you read the word 'adonai' or 'YHWH'? To my understanding there are about 134 places in the text where the sopherim altered the text to read 'adonai', when it should be 'YHWH'. This was done out of reverence for the name 'YHWH'. Apparently a full list of altered text is found in the Massorah.

 

[rosends]

Yes, I shall continue to glean information from the Talmud, but will always follow the guidance of the great rabbi, Jesus. It seems to me that he gets the interpretation right all the time!

Back to Abraham. In Genesis 18:3, do you read the word 'adonai' or 'YHWH'? To my understanding there are about 134 places in the text where the sopherim altered the text to read 'adonai', when it should be 'YHWH'. This was done out of reverence for the name 'YHWH'. Apparently a full list of altered text is found in the Massorah.

I haven't seen Ginsburg's list, nor the Ms of either the MP or MM that he used to make the claim but what would the difference be? Are you questioning whether he addressed the three men by a term (plural, "my lords") which sounds the same as the title used for God in other cases? Does this make you think that when he spoke to the three men he was calling them God? Look! A trinity!

Clearly, the issue wasn't a "reverence for the name" because it had been used 2 verses earlier.

Rashi addressed this question a long, long time ago. He points out that in the understanding that Abraham was using the word actually to refer to God, the third verse is connected to the first verse

"Another explanation is that the word is “holy” (referring to God): he asked God to wait for him whilst he ran and invited the travelers."

And if you want to follow the guidance of Jesus, then you need to follow all the teachings of the talmudic rabbis, which include the rejection of Christianity and Jesus. Go for it! Oh, wait...those teachings are ones you won't follow in your pick and choose approach. Oops.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I haven't seen Ginsburg's list, nor the Ms of either the MP or MM that he used to make the claim but what would the difference be? Are you questioning whether he addressed the three men by a term (plural, "my lords") which sounds the same as the title used for God in other cases? Does this make you think that when he spoke to the three men he was calling them God? Look! A trinity!

Clearly, the issue wasn't a "reverence for the name" because it had been used 2 verses earlier.

Rashi addressed this question a long, long time ago. He points out that in the understanding that Abraham was using the word actually to refer to God, the third verse is connected to the first verse

"Another explanation is that the word is “holy” (referring to God): he asked God to wait for him whilst he ran and invited the travelers."

And if you want to follow the guidance of Jesus, then you need to follow all the teachings of the talmudic rabbis, which include the rejection of Christianity and Jesus. Go for it! Oh, wait...those teachings are ones you won't follow in your pick and choose approach. Oops.

When Abraham met the three men, he calls one 'Lord'. This has little to do with the trinity. What appears from the text is that two are angels, and the third is Christ, appearing as 'the angel of the Lord'. It follows that whilst the LORD remains behind to talk with Abraham, two angels travel from Mamre [Genesis 18:22 and Genesis 19:1] to Sodom to assist Lot.

 

[rosends]

When Abraham met the three men, he calls one 'Lord'. This has little to do with the trinity. What appears from the text is that two are angels, and the third is Christ, appearing as 'the angel of the Lord'. It follows that whilst the LORD remains behind to talk with Abraham, two angels travel from Mamre [Genesis 18:22 and Genesis 19:1] to Sodom to assist Lot.

Well, one reading of it is that when Abraham meets three men, he uses a word that means "my lords" (plural). Rashi provides an understanding for the word if it is understood as a singular reference to God (in which case, he isn't speaking to the men, but to God, as per verse 1). Jesus is not mentioned. It is also not from the text that the men are angels. You seem to be accepting a lot of rabbinic commentary here when it suits you. If that's the case, you should probably look at verse 13 and wonder why the 4 letter of God is there. The rabbinic commentary sort of undermines your position.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I haven't seen Ginsburg's list, nor the Ms of either the MP or MM that he used to make the claim but what would the difference be? Are you questioning whether he addressed the three men by a term (plural, "my lords") which sounds the same as the title used for God in other cases? Does this make you think that when he spoke to the three men he was calling them God? Look! A trinity!

Clearly, the issue wasn't a "reverence for the name" because it had been used 2 verses earlier.

Rashi addressed this question a long, long time ago. He points out that in the understanding that Abraham was using the word actually to refer to God, the third verse is connected to the first verse

"Another explanation is that the word is “holy” (referring to God): he asked God to wait for him whilst he ran and invited the travelers."

And if you want to follow the guidance of Jesus, then you need to follow all the teachings of the talmudic rabbis, which include the rejection of Christianity and Jesus. Go for it! Oh, wait...those teachings are ones you won't follow in your pick and choose approach. Oops.

The passage of the Talmud to which l referred, Sanhedrin 97b, actually deals with an idea that is central to Christian understanding as well as Torah Jewish understanding. The idea is that each day of creation can be understood to represent a thousand years of earthly history. In 2 Peter 3:8,9. it says, 'But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with God as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.'

The rabbis of the Talmud would not have been familiar with the writings of Peter, but he knew things that they did not, namely that the long delay in the coming of the Messiah is a matter of mercy rather slackness. This two thousand year delay in bringing judgment has offered thousands of souls the opportunity to repent and believe in the Saviour from sin.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Well, one reading of it is that when Abraham meets three men, he uses a word that means "my lords" (plural). Rashi provides an understanding for the word if it is understood as a singular reference to God (in which case, he isn't speaking to the men, but to God, as per verse 1). Jesus is not mentioned. It is also not from the text that the men are angels. You seem to be accepting a lot of rabbinic commentary here when it suits you. If that's the case, you should probably look at verse 13 and wonder why the 4 letter of God is there. The rabbinic commentary sort of undermines your position.

I would agree that Abraham was talking to God, and not to the angels. Similarly, it appears as if the reason he bowed down was because of the LORD, not because of the angels. On the other hand, Lot does bow down to the angels.

The issue that l still find perplexing, based on your response, concerns the deity of Christ. If the figure that spoke to Abraham was the angel of the LORD, does this not suggest that God can choose to dwell amongst men in any manner of his choosing? If God can appear as an angel, why can he not create himself a human body and live as the Holy Spirit within that body?

 

[rosends]

The passage of the Talmud to which l referred, Sanhedrin 97b, actually deals with an idea that is central to Christian understanding as well as Torah Jewish understanding. The idea is that each day of creation can be understood to represent a thousand years of earthly history. In 2 Peter 3:8,9. it says, 'But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with God as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.'

The rabbis of the Talmud would not have been familiar with the writings of Peter, but he knew things that they did not, namely that the long delay in the coming of the Messiah is a matter of mercy rather slackness. This two thousand year delay in bringing judgment has offered thousands of souls the opportunity to repent and believe in the Saviour from sin.

"slackness" What makes you think the rabbis attributed anything to "slackness"? And where do you think Peter got the idea? He lifted it from the rabbis, setting the precedent (though actually following the precedent) of taking rabbinic teachings and misusing them. You are in great company then! A bunch of intellectual thieves.

 

[rosends]

I would agree that Abraham was talking to God, and not to the angels. Similarly, it appears as if the reason he bowed down was because of the LORD, not because of the angels. On the other hand, Lot does bow down to the angels.

In Lot's case, I believe the word for "angels" is used (though it has another meaning as well). In Abraham's case, the text describes his visitors as men. Abraham bowed out of respect to men of great stature. He also bowed to people in 23:7 (same Hebrew word for bowing, by the way). Were those people angels? Or was one of them God? No. How about Gen 33:6? 48:12? Come on...do a little checking before writing stuff.

The issue that l still find perplexing, based on your response, concerns the deity of Christ.

You should find it perplexing because it is ridiculous.

If the figure that spoke to Abraham was the angel of the LORD, does this not suggest that God can choose to dwell amongst men in any manner of his choosing?

You are conflating God and angel again. And who says anyone "dwelled"? The Hebrew word for angel also means "messenger." Angels convey messages and do tasks in the human world on behalf of God. They aren't God.

If God can appear as an angel,

Why do you keep assuming this is so?

 

[blü 2]

In Isaiah 50, the mother of the suffering servant is sent away. This is not Jesus, since Mary was always with him even after he died on the cross.

The suffering Servant is also the sensible slave whose master; Jesus, put in charge to get things ready for the masters arrival. This Servant is spoken of in the New Testament and in Revelations. He prepares the way for the second coming of Jesus.

After Jesus dies and goes to heaven, there is a political battle in heaven between Satan; Lord of the Earth and Jesus; son of God, with law and the tree of knowledge go good and evil on the line. Satan was still condoned in Heaven up through these political battles. Eventually this leads to a war in heaven and Satan and the third of the Angles are expelled. Satan is no longer condoned by God.

At this time transitional time in revelations, there is a Divine Women in heaven, who is labor about to give birth. Satan is there ready to devour her child, as soon as it is born. She gives birth to a son, who is caught up to the throne of God and protected. Her son will be the suffering servant, who has to evolve in isolation; with no mother and nobody accepts him, until he finally appears as the White Horseman; prepares the way.

The White Horseman has a golden crown; ring of marriage on his head to God. He has a bow and arrow, and goes forth conquering and to conquer, passing in safety by a path he does not traverse with his feet. The bow and arrow is a long distance weapon that can hit a target from far away. He is not obvious, while his color is white; connection to heaven. As the Red horseman, he has a sword; two edged sword. This is more about close in fighting, where the Servant become more noticeable. The prophesy drama has to unfold with the sensible slave ready, when the time is right.

Interesting legends. Thanks.

 

[blü 2]

I believe Jews are prejudiced because they missed it and feel guilty that they did.

They missed that their allegorical Suffering Servant was really about something that was going to happen centuries later?

I'm familiar with Christian claims to that effect, but I see no biblical basis at all for them. The best I can say for them is, they're an attempted retrofit. All claims that Jesus is foretold in the Tanakh are attempted retrofits ─ as messiahs go, Jesus was never a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews, did not restore their political independence, famously resorted to violence against the lawful Jewish Temple traders when his real argument should have been with the Temple administration, and one enduring result of Christianity has been two millennia of rapacious and often murderous antisemitism.

What kind of Jewish messiah would do that? What kind of Jewish god would sent such a messiah? None, surely?

 

[Redemptionsong]

"slackness" What makes you think the rabbis attributed anything to "slackness"? And where do you think Peter got the idea? He lifted it from the rabbis, setting the precedent (though actually following the precedent) of taking rabbinic teachings and misusing them. You are in great company then! A bunch of intellectual thieves.

But, as I said, Jesus himself was looked upon as a rabbi, and his teaching, which Peter followed, would have made these things evident.

 

[rosends]

But, as I said, Jesus himself was looked upon as a rabbi, and his teaching, which Peter followed, would have made these things evident.

Well, as your belief dictates, Jesus, if he existed, was called in your texts as a rabbi. Harry Potter was looked on as a sorcerer.

 

[BilliardsBall]

None of the five versions of Jesus in the NT is a king.

How that does contrast with Bible School 101 that Matthew's gospel is wholly focused on kingship, starting with his genealogy!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't believe I have ever doubted your Judaic status. Nor have I ever complained about your very incorrect usage of tems such as Rabbi Yeshua and Rabbi Shaul (though I have debated you in on the usage). I'm not being rude. I simply state Christianity like I see it. But if you think it's rude, you may of course report it and the staff will deal with it as they see fit (I will of course abstain from the discussion).

A Rabbi at that time was recognized by whom? By how?

I'm not too worried about "Rebbe" Yeshua since He is Melekh HaMashiach!

 

[blü 2]

How that does contrast with Bible School 101 that Matthew's gospel is wholly focused on kingship, starting with his genealogy!

*Chuckle!* The genealogies provided for Matthew's Jesus and for Luke's Jesus are as fake as each other, which is very fake indeed, and even if they were not, they only lead to Joseph, and if there's one thing you can say about the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke, it's that out loud and very clearly Joseph was NOT their father.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I believe there is a place where God says He will provide Himself the sacrifice. I just don't remember where.

Genesis--Abraham and Issac.

Issac's question, where is the RAM for sacrifice?

Abraham's answer, God will provide HIMSELF, the Lamb.

The animal they found nearby, a RAM.

 

[rosends]

Genesis--Abraham and Issac.

Issac's question, where is the RAM for sacrifice?

Abraham's answer, God will provide HIMSELF, the Lamb.

The animal they found nearby, a RAM.

Isaac asked "where is the sheep" ("seh")
Abraham said "God will show us a sheep" (seh")
The animal they found was a ram. ("ayil")

to understand the distinction, read here.

 

[Harel13]

A Rabbi at that time was recognized by whom? By how?

Exactly my point. But since I have considerably better things to do with my time, I won't look up your old posts and quote the relevant ones.