Why Torah based Jews would be unconvinced

[Redemptionsong]

Ah, so your belief/interpretation wins because you have the "eternal explanation" which is proven correct because Jesus matters which is proven correct because you understand these verses in a particular way. No, that's not circular or self-serving at all...

The word is yechidati which means "my singular one" and it parallels the noun "soul" in the first phrase. It is highly unlikely that the phrase would shift focus mid-verse. (as Rashi writes, "This refers to “Return my soul.” Return my only one from young lions.")

"O Lord, how long will You look on? Return my soul from their darkness, my only one from young lions."

But, of course, we are now talking about Psalm 35 and not psalm 22 which is what I presented information on. If you keep switching what you are talking about, no one will be able to follow anything you say.

There's a clear connection between the passage in Psalm 22 and Psalm 35, and Rashi's wording supports the view that 'my only one' is a reference to his only Son.

What l've omitted to say is that Psalm 22 also talks about the injury to the subject's hands and feet, which are likened to the injuries caused by lions. This also fits with Rashi's interpretation of Psalm 35.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

One cannot hope to understand scripture if one doesn't believe in God's existence.

You have made two errors. The first is that you think an atheist cannot study and understand the Bible. The second mistake is thinking that I am an atheist, when in fact I do believe in God.

 

[dybmh]

All captives in Israel, you mean. 'In Israel' means 'in Christ'.

Scripture please?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

All captives in Israel, you mean. 'In Israel' means 'in Christ'.

You are just making stuff up out of whole cloth. "in Israel" does NOT mean "in Christ."

 

[Redemptionsong]

You have made two errors. The first is that you think an atheist cannot study and understand the Bible. The second mistake is thinking that I am an atheist, when in fact I do believe in God.

No, my post allowed for both options, and if you do believe in God then you'll have an answer based on your understanding of the Tanakh.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Scripture please?

Let's begin by agreeing that the Law applies to lsrael, not to 'all men'.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You are just making stuff up out of whole cloth. "in Israel" does NOT mean "in Christ."

Well, l'm basing this on the teaching that the God of lsrael is also their king. The king is the head of lsrael, and his people are the body, or congregation. Do you disagree?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, my post allowed for both options, and if you do believe in God then you'll have an answer based on your understanding of the Tanakh.

No, my post allowed for both options, and if you do believe in God then you'll have an answer based on your understanding of the Tanakh.

You quite specifically said, that atheists cannot understand the Tanakh. I quote you, "One cannot hope to understand scripture if one doesn't believe in God's existence." As I said, this is simply untrue.

That you made that statement in response to my posts IMPLIES you don't think *I* understand the Tanakh and you are attributing my not understanding to my not believing in God. As I said, I do in fact believe in God.

Thus, yes, you are wrong on both counts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well, l'm basing this on the teaching that the God of lsrael is also their king. The king is the head if lsrael, and his people are the body, or congregation. Do you disagree?

God is King and Father. That doesn't make your statement that "in Israel" means "in Christ." Your conclusions simply don't follow. Again, you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You quite specifically said, that atheists cannot understand the Tanakh. I quote you, "One cannot hope to understand scripture if one doesn't believe in God's existence." As I said, this is simply untrue.

That you made that statement in response to my posts IMPLIES you don't think *I* understand the Tanakh and you are attributing my not understanding to my not believing in God. As I said, I do in fact believe in God.

Thus, yes, you are wrong on both counts.

It's true, l don' t believe that atheists understand the scriptures. An atheist is considered a 'fool' by God, if one is to believe Psalm 14:1. Does a fool understand God's word?

You tell me you believe in God. I believe you. Maybe, you could now tell me what you understand God's plan and purpose to be.

 

[Redemptionsong]

God is King and Father. That doesn't make your statement that "in Israel" means "in Christ." Your conclusions simply don't follow. Again, you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth.

The God that is King in heaven is the same God that anoints 'David my servant' [Ezekiel 37:24] as king over lsrael. And they 'shall have one shepherd'. Which one is the shepherd? Is it the king in heaven, or the king on earth?

 

[rosends]

There's a clear connection between the passage in Psalm 22 and Psalm 35, and Rashi's wording supports the view that 'my only one' is a reference to his only Son.

No, there is no connection other than the one you decide is there. Rashi's comment maintains the parallel to "soul" as a way of representing the valued life, and Jesus was not attacked by lions.

What l've omitted to say is that Psalm 22 also talks about the injury to the subject's hands and feet, which are likened to the injuries caused by lions. This also fits with Rashi's interpretation of Psalm 35.

First, the use of lions in Psalm 35 is not Rashi's interpretation, it is in the words of the Psalm. Rashi's interpretation is that the "only one" is the soul, specifically not Jesus unless you feel the need to insert that to justify your conclusions. Next, Psalm 22 talks of bulls who are like lions and dogs who are like lions, but not about lions, and Jesus was not attacked by dogs or bulls or lions.

 

[dybmh]

Let's begin by agreeing that the Law applies to lsrael, not to 'all men'.

OK. Agreed.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, there is no connection other than the one you decide is there. Rashi's comment maintains the parallel to "soul" as a way of representing the valued life, and Jesus was not attacked by lions.

First, the use of lions in Psalm 35 is not Rashi's interpretation, it is in the words of the Psalm. Rashi's interpretation is that the "only one" is the soul, specifically not Jesus unless you feel the need to insert that to justify your conclusions. Next, Psalm 22 talks of bulls who are like lions and dogs who are like lions, but not about lions, and Jesus was not attacked by dogs or bulls or lions.

The soul belongs to his 'darling' or 'only one', which is the same soul that undergoes the suffering in Psalm 22.

Once again, this is about consistency of meaning. Dogs, bulls and lions are often used in scripture to represent people (and God), or the harm they can inflict, as l'm sure you are well aware. Unless, of couse, you think the suffering of the individual in Psalm 22 took place in the colosseum!

[JPS] Isaiah 56:10,11.
'His watchmen are blind, all of them,
They perceive nothing.
They are dumb dogs
That cannot bark;
They lie sprawling,
They love to drowse.
Moreover, the dogs are greedy;
They never know satiety.'

JPS Isaiah 34:5-7.
'For my sword shall be drunk in the sky;
Lo, it shall come down upon Edom,
Upon the people I have doomed,
To wreak judgment.
The LORD has a sword; it is sated with blood,
It is gorged with fat -
The blood of lambs and he-goats,
The kidneys fat of rams.
For the LORD holds a sacrifice in Bozrah,
A great slaughter in the land of Edom.
Wild oxen shall fall with them,
Young bulls with mighty steers;
And their land shall be drunk with blood,
Their soil shall be saturated with fat.
For it is the LORD's day of retribution,
The year of vindication for Zion's cause'.

JPS Isaiah 31:4.
'For thus the LORD has said to me:
As a lion - a great beast -
Growls over its prey
And, when the shepherds gather
In force against him,
Is not dismayed by their cries
Nor cowed by their noise -
So the LORD of Hosts will descend to make war
Against the mount and the hill of Zion.'

Does the 'dog', the 'bull' or the 'lion' here refer to an animal? As I see it, God has no real objection to the animals he created.

 

[Redemptionsong]

OK. Agreed.

Then we can also agree that the Jubilee applies to those under Israel's law who are held as slaves.

If the Messiah comes as the fulfilment of the Jubilee, it means that what was intended as 'temporal' under the law, is made 'eternal' in Christ (the Messiah). In translation, this means that the slaves are freed 'once for all time', not every 50 years. It also means that the slavery is not physical but spiritual. What does 'spiritual captivity' mean, if not sin?

 

[rosends]

The soul belongs to his 'darling' or 'only one', which is the same soul that undergoes the suffering in Psalm 22.

The soul/life IS the only one -- not that it belongs to the only one. The term means "my only one" as pointing to the soul/life. If you want to assert that the speaker who has the soul is your Jesus figure then claim that the first person speaker is someone else (though the text in 35 says it is of David...you'll say that this is a "type" of something so you can make it represent something else).

Dogs, bulls and lions are often used in scripture to represent people (and God), or the harm they can inflict, as l'm sure you are well aware. Unless, of couse, you think the suffering of the individual in Psalm 22 took place in the colosseum!

Or unless you think that the animals are literal. As the Radak writes, "Dog, lion, and wild oxen are figurative for the kings of the nations of the world among whom we are in exile." But your claim was that there was a specific equivalence because the two psalms speak of wounds like a lion would make, but the text compares the behavior to lions, but the actual attack to dogs. And since Jesus wasn't attacked by a lion or a dog or a bull, you need to keep stretching.

Unless, of course, you want to say that he text refers to Yiftach's daughter, or you want to connect lions to snails and snakes (as in Psalm 58) and show that Jesus was attacked by snails and snakes also. Have fun.

 

[dybmh]

Then we can also agree that the Jubilee applies to those under Israel's law who are held as slaves.

If the Messiah comes as the fulfilment of the Jubilee, it means that what was intended as 'temporal' under the law, is made 'eternal' in Christ (the Messiah). In translation, this means that the slaves are freed 'once for all time', not every 50 years. It also means that the slavery is not physical but spiritual. What does 'spiritual captivity' mean, if not sin?

The belial are spritiual captives. Belial - Wikipedia

Are you know ready to disclose the scriptural support for your claim below?

All captives in Israel, you mean. 'In Israel' means 'in Christ'.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The God that is King in heaven is the same God that anoints 'David my servant' [Ezekiel 37:24] as king over lsrael. And they 'shall have one shepherd'. Which one is the shepherd? Is it the king in heaven, or the king on earth?

You need to get a whole awufl lot better at your paraphrases of verses. Ezekiel 37:24 mentions nothing about anointing. You added that. I'm sure you are thinking of some other verse, but the point is, it is NOT the verse you referenced.

Metaphors are used in the Bible by more than one author, to mean more than one thing or person. For example, in Psalm 23, it is God who is described with the metaphor of a shepherd. In this verse, it is the messiah. But they are two completely different writings. You cannot conclude that simply because David used "shepherd" to describe God, and Ezekiel used "shepherd" to describe the messiah, that therefore the Messiah is God. It just doesn't follow. You realize that Ezekiel is simply saying that Israel will have one human leader, right?

 

[Redemptionsong]

You need to get a whole awufl lot better at your paraphrases of verses. Ezekiel 37:24 mentions nothing about anointing. You added that. I'm sure you are thinking of some other verse, but the point is, it is NOT the verse you referenced.

Metaphors are used in the Bible by more than one author, to mean more than one thing or person. For example, in Psalm 23, it is God who is described with the metaphor of a shepherd. In this verse, it is the messiah. But they are two completely different writings. You cannot conclude that simply because David used "shepherd" to describe God, and Ezekiel used "shepherd" to describe the messiah, that therefore the Messiah is God. It just doesn't follow. You realize that Ezekiel is simply saying that Israel will have one human leader, right?

Ezekiel 37:24.[KJV]
'And David my servant shall be king over them; and they shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them'.

Ezekiel 37:24. [JPS]
'My servant David shall be king over them; there shall be one shepherd for all of them. They shall follow My rules and faithfully obey my laws'.

So, does God not anoint the king who is to be the 'one shepherd' over lsrael?

And if there is to be 'one shepherd', does this mean that there is one shepherd on earth, and another in heaven?

If David and Ezekiel do not share the same shepherd, it is unlikely that they share the same God, or prophesy with the same Spirit.

And what about God's will and purpose? You've not responded to my earlier question.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The belial are spritiual captives. Belial - Wikipedia

Are you know ready to disclose the scriptural support for your claim below?

The scriptural support is to be found in many places, but here is one worth considering.
Jeremiah 31:31-34.
Here Jeremiah points to a time, in the future, when lsrael and Judah will be under a new covenant, unlike the covenant made at Sinai. The new covenant will be a covenant of the heart, and then 'l will be their God, and they shall be My people'.

There is a coincidence here. The point in time when the houses of Israel and Judah begin the new covenant is also the time that the king comes to rule. The presence of the king in the midst of Israel is also the presence of the Spirit in the hearts of his people. In other words, the anointing on the head, the king, becomes the anointing on his people, the body.