|
|
Post by alon on May 20, 2019 15:26:24 GMT -8
Who or what is Azazel, or what does he/it represent?
Leviticus 16:8 (CJB) Then Aharon is to cast lots for the two goats, one lot for Adonai and the other for ‘Az’azel.
Leviticus 16:10 (CJB) But the goat whose lot fell to ‘Az’azel is to be presented alive to Adonai to be used for making atonement over it by sending it away into the desert for ‘Az’azel.
Leviticus 16:26 (CJB) “The man who let go the goat for ‘Az’azel is to wash his clothes and bathe his body in water; afterwards, he may return to the camp.
Dan (curious) C
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on May 21, 2019 7:17:31 GMT -8
Azazel is a villain in “X-men” that has the power of teleportation.
We should be careful when looking for an explanation of azazel or we may wind up believing in the X-men. I do not see the term as a name. It is more a state of existence or non-existence. The two goats according to 16:5 were a sin offering. I don’t think God who shares his glory with no one will share his sin offering with a demon or satan. The two goats represented the states of existence of God’s People – Isreal. The goat that was sacrificed represented Israel as acceptable to God whereas the scape goat represented a sinful Israel that was unacceptable to God and was separated from him. This is the only two states in which a person can exist.
If you are still looking for a demon in this story compare it to Leviticus 14:16. Do you see the bird that is let go being given to a demon? The birds in 14:16 represent an individual and the goats in 16:8, 10 & 26 represent a nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on May 21, 2019 9:46:09 GMT -8
Also see the following thread. . Post by jimmie on Apr 23, 2018 at 5:48pm לַעֲזָאזֵל l•ozazl –to or for goat of departure. אֹ is not with the לִ in this word. Not sure how anyone could see a reference to God in it. To try to make this word into a name is a mis-justice to the text. Maybe “the living bird” (echie etzphr) that is release in chapter 14 should also be converted to a name. Read more: theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4433/29-acharey-mot-after-death#ixzz5oaAOwUTH |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 21, 2019 13:19:36 GMT -8
... I do not see the term as a name. It is more a state of existence or non-existence. The two goats according to 16:5 were a sin offering. ... The two goats represented the states of existence of God’s People – Isreal. The goat that was sacrificed represented Israel as acceptable to God whereas the scape goat represented a sinful Israel that was unacceptable to God and was separated from him. This is the only two states in which a person can exist. Very interesting take on this passage. Good insights. Actually I'm not looking for a demon. And the birds are in Lev 14:1-8. And no, that passage has nothing to do with demons. It is of a person being declared cleansed of tzara'at. I absolutely agree. So let's break it down phonetically. Since Hebrew was originally a picture language, and according to Dr. F Seekins and ohers every letter in a word has meaning which it imparts to that word, we can get a sort of "word picture" by looking at each letter individually, then combining them. עֲזָאזֵל ʻăzâʼzêlעֲ ayin; to see, know or experience זָ zayin; to cut, cut off, a weapon א aleph; strength, mighty, leader, first, also implies a gentleness- (can refer to God as in the "aleph and the tav") זֵ zayin; again the weapon which forms the first part of the compouns "zel" ל lamed; control, authority, the tongue One possible picture we can get from this would be your interpretation: to experience being cut off by the strong (ultimate) leader, cut off by the words of the (ultimate) authority. And you are correct, there is no א aleph written in that compound "zêl." But since Hebrew doesn't use vowels as we know them, zêl still sounds the name אל, or "El," who is the ultimate authority. It is by His command the goat was sent out, and the unrighteous will be punished. It is by His word they will be judged. So I'm not sure you can divorce azazel from God, whether seeing Him as part of the judgement or represented by one or both goats. Just brainstorming. Don't read any absolutes into this, yet. Yeah, I may combine these two later. Depends on how long this one gets. I'd like to get more discussion on it and see how it goes. Suffice to say, when this is over I may have to revive my "I Found Out I Ws Wrong" thread ...  Dan (thinkin' out loud) C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 23, 2019 6:48:59 GMT -8
So no one else has an opinion on this? OK, so let's look at that goat. The sins of the nation were placed on it, and it was then taken outside the city to be killed. The confusion comes because it was let go, but this was a death sentence since a lot of wild beasts were outside at the time, waiting to take a stray animal for dinner. So this goat bore the sins of those who believed there would be a Messiah outside the camp and was executed. If we are correct and these moedim were prophetic, this does sound like Yeshua.
But Yom Kippur is a fall feast. This sounds like the Pesach. So the fall moedim are then connected back to the spring moedim. This in itself might be prophetic of the fact Moshiach ben'Yoseph and Moshiach ben'Dovid are one. He will not only resurrect, as represented by the yearly feast cycle, but He will return as the feasts are thus connected.
Any other ideas?
Dan (maybe stretching, maybe not) C
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on May 23, 2019 12:42:36 GMT -8
I'm not sure. I need to think about it and study it more. Interesting perspectives to consider.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 23, 2019 15:35:23 GMT -8
I'm not sure. I need to think about it and study it more. Interesting perspectives to consider. While you are studying, here’s something more to look at. Wikipedia: ישוע בר אבא Yeshua Bar ʾAbbaʾ, literally "son of the father" is a figure mentioned in the New Testament of the Bible, in which he is an insurrectionary held by the Roman governor at the same time as Jesus, and whom Pontius Pilate freed at the Passover feast in Jerusalem, while keeping Jesus as a prisoner.
Not a bad bit of theology for Wikipedia right there. And Yeshua was a very popular name at the time of Yeshua HaMoshiach. Mark 15:7 And G1161 there was G2258 one named G3004 Barabbas, G912which lay bound G1210 with G3326 them that had made insurrection with him, G4955 who G3748 had committed G4160murder G5408 in G1722 the insurrection. G4714
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: STRONGS NT 912: Βαραββᾶς
Βαραββᾶς, -ᾶ, ὁ, (from בַּר son, and אַבָּא father, hence, son of a father i. e. of a master [cf. Matthew 23:9]), a captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ: Matthew 27:16f (where manuscripts mentioned by Origen, and some other authorities, place Ἰησοῦν before Βαραββᾶν, approved by Fritzsche, DeWette, Meyer, Bleek, others; [cf. WH Appendix and Tdf.s note at the passage; also Treg. Printed Text, etc., p. 194f]), Matthew 27:20f, 26; Mark 15:7, 11, 15; Luke 23:18; John 18:40.
Not many do it, since prevailing “wisdom” gets in the way, but in Hebrew or Aramaic this can also be translated “the Son IS the Father.” And that puts a whole new understanding on this passage. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: STRONGS NT 4955: συστασιαστής
συστασιαστής, συστασιαστου, ὁ (see στασιαστής), a companion in insurrection, fellow-rioter: Mark 15:7 R G (Josephus, Antiquities 14, 2, 1).
THAYER’John 18:40 Then G3767 cried they G2905 all G3956 again, G3825saying, G3004 Not G3361 this man, G5126 but G235Barabbas. G912 Now G1161 Barabbas G912 was G2258 a robber. G3027Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: STRONGS NT 3027: λῃστής
λῃστής, ληστου, ὁ (for ληιστής from ληίζομαι, to plunder, and this from Ionic and epic ληίς, for which the Attics use λεῖα, booty) (from Sophocles and Herodotusdown), a robber; a plunderer, freebooter, brigand:Again, we are always taught that Barabbas was a bad man. A robber and an insurrectionist; and another place we are told he was a murderer. But think, the insurrection was against Rome! Barabbas was a Jewish freedom fighter! And yes, they would have often stole arms and supplies from the enemy, and they would have killed the enemy as well. Rome would most certainly have considered this robery and murder. New World Encyclopedia: Barabbas was a Jewish insurrectionist c. 30 C.E. whom Pontius Pilate freed at the Passover feast in Jerusalem, according to the Christian narrative of the Passion of Jesus. According to some sources, his full name was Yeshua bar Abba, (Jesus, the "son of the father").
Barabbas had been charged with the crime of treason against Rome—the same crime for which Jesus was also convicted. The penalty was death by crucifixion. However, according to Christian sources, there was a prevailing Passover custom in Jerusalem that allowed or required Pilate to commute one prisoner's death sentence by popular acclaim. The crowd was offered a choice of whether to have Barabbas or Jesus released from Roman custody. According to the closely parallel gospels of Matthew (27:15-26), Mark (15:6-15), Luke (23:13–25), and the more divergent accounts in John (18:38-19:16), the crowd chose for Barabbas to be released and Jesus to be crucified. A passage found only in the Gospel of Matthew.
Both Yeshua and Barabbas were charged, but only Yeshua was convicted, after Barabbas was set free. So there was a choice between two men, and by the custom it was up to the people to choose. Now the game was fixed in this case, however by the custom the choice of which prisoner to free is up to the people. So until the lots fall, we don’t know which goat would be chosen; and until the voice of the people is heard we don’t know which man would be freed. It is primarily from the Caesarean text we get the inclusion of Yeshua in Barabbas name. The addition of τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (ton legomenon Criston, “who is called Christ”) to ᾿Ιησοῦν in vs. 17 does make more sense if Barabbas is named Yeshua as well. Otherwise all they’d have to say is “Jesus.” No other appellation would be necessary. And, as the Shema says and Barabbas name echoes, the Lord is One. Not 2, (binarism), nor 3 (Trinitarianism), but One. And that is why you won’t see this text used to translate from in your New Testament. It pulls the rug from under a staple of Christian doctrine. The late (Rabbinical) Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews said: “The Bible instructed the High Priest to select two goats and then cast lots to determine each one’s fate. By way of the lots, God would determine which goat would be consecrated to Him and which would become the scapegoat sent into the desert to die. The commandment required that the two goats be identical in appearance, size, and value. These goats would look like twins – the same on the outside – but their destinies would be completely different.
The idea of twins that are opposite in nature is familiar in the Bible. Although twins, Jacob and Esau could not be more different. Ultimately, as adults, they took very different paths in life, and Jacob became the father of God’s people while Esau became the father of Amalek – the nation designated by the Bible as God’s archenemy. The twin goats on Yom Kippur are meant to remind us of Esau and Jacob.
The message of the twin goats is that while their appearance may fool men, there is no fooling God. He only determines their appropriate fate.”
Well, so far we’ve been describing how Yeshua Bar Abbas and Yeshua HaMoshiach were very similar. Both fought in their own way to free the Jewish people. Both were willing to put their lives on the line for this cause. One was Almighty God and ones name said He (Yeshua HaMoshiach) was Almighty God. Both did what they did out of love for God’s people. So what is this “idea of twins that are opposite in nature is familiar in the Bible. Although twins, Jacob and Esau could not be more different. Ultimately, as adults, they took very different paths in life, and Jacob became the father of God’s people while Esau became the father of Amalek – the nation designated by the Bible as God’s archenemy.”
Well, it is not much of a stretch to think Yeshua Bar Abbas might have hated the Romans as much as he loved his own people. Yeshua HaMoshiach died for the Roman soldiers who crucified Him as much as for His own people. Had they repented at any time before death He would have welcomed them into the Commonwealth of Israel and eternal life. So yes, there was a difference. To man’s eyes, those goats would have been the same. Same size, color, value, etc. But inside, where only God can see there was some difference. Was Barabbas wrong? Did he sin in opposing Rome? We are not told much about him, so really this “evil Barabbas’ idea is just conjecture and traditional interpretation. Ultimately there is only one very important internal distinction, and that is only one of them was God, whose blood could be the remission of our sins. Both goats were killed in the end, and now that Rome knew and was watching Barabbas I imagine his fate was sealed anyhow. But only one goat bore the sins of the nation outside the city, there to die. Only one of the men bore all sins and willingly died for us to be able to join to Israel and be saved. Dan (lookin' harder at this now) C Note: this was a teaching from Rav S, but I wrote what I could remember and did my own researchto get the rest. About half his and the bigger half mine. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 26, 2019 14:37:24 GMT -8
No new comments. Does this at least raise some possibilities for some of you? I grew up in Texas and New Mexico. There are Anasazi cliff dwellings scattered through the Southwest, particularly AZ and NM. Some of these are in areas deviod of trees, and for over 100 yrs archaeologists wondered why these Indians would build in places where wood was so scare for both building and for fires. And why did they suddenly abandon these sites? It wasn't until fairly recently that someone said the obvious: There were trees there when these Indians originally came, but they built with then burnt everything within a practical distance, so they left to find cliffs with caves and nearby forests and built again. Duh. MJ is the "Duh" in the dogmatic traditional wisdom of the church expositors. We answer things they in their restricted understanding never can. Every answer we give is not right, but we are always ready to reexamine even our own answers. In fact, we routinely do this. Azazel and Barabbas are two things I am willing to look further at, and to put my understanding up for "peer review." (Ya'll are peers now ... kewl!  ). This may or may not be the correct or complete understanding, but at least it asks the question "Is our traditional understanding right?" So ya'll peer harder at this and let me know whatcha'think. Dan (Duh) C |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on May 28, 2019 5:01:07 GMT -8
Does God ever require his people to submit to an ungodly government? If he does wouldn't that make an insurrection against that ungodly government an insurrection against God?
I believe Jesus spoke to this in the following Verse:
Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
It is better to submit to an ungodly government than to rebel against it before regaining your savour (right standing with God).
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on May 28, 2019 8:42:25 GMT -8
I've thought there was a connection between Barabbas and Azalel for a long time. I think I mentioned it briefly on here in a conversation that may relate to what you're asking Alon. Though they always somehow fit together in my mind, I need to look further into it to understand how they relate to the bigger picture.
I've heard conflicting things about Barabbas and what was behind Pilate choosing him so not sure what to make of the rest of it yet. But I do think there's a connection between the two somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 28, 2019 10:44:32 GMT -8
I've thought there was a connection between Barabbas and Azalel for a long time. I think I mentioned it briefly on here in a conversation that may relate to what you're asking Alon. Though they always somehow fit together in my mind, I need to look further into it to understand how they relate to the bigger picture. I've heard conflicting things about Barabbas and what was behind Pilate choosing him so not sure what to make of the rest of it yet. But I do think there's a connection between the two somehow. That's part of the problem we face is all the conflicting things we've been told about this and other topics by men who think they are wise but really know nothing at all. They are in fact worse off because they are educated in false doctrines which are either willfully ignorant of the Jews that authored their texts, or worse actively try to remove any Jewishness from these texts. Try coming at this sideways as well as considering what everyone else says. What do you think it says, and why? Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 28, 2019 11:40:40 GMT -8
Does God ever require his people to submit to an ungodly government? If he does wouldn't that make an insurrection against that ungodly government an insurrection against God? I believe Jesus spoke to this in the following Verse: Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. It is better to submit to an ungodly government than to rebel against it before regaining your savour (right standing with God). He requires us to work within that kind of government and be smart about it. But submit? No. Something I came upon in my studies might shed more light on the passage you quote here. Salt to a mid or near eastern person of the 1st cen and before was one of the elements thought to be indestructible. Of course we know it is NaCl, Sodium Chloride, and it can be broken down by any competent Chem student. However to them it could not. A salt covenant was considered very serious. Those eating at a table where salt was present entered into a covenantal relationship. Also, everyone had his own small bag of salt, often carried on his person. If 2 or more men took a pinch from their salt bag and placed it on a cloth, then the cloth were brought together at the corners, shaken and the salt mixed; then the salt were divided up, each man getting back his own measure, or pinch. If any one of the men could divide the grains so each man got his original pinch back, grain for grain, then the agreement could be declared nullified. Even today our Chem student, nor the prof either could do that! So when Yeshua said "if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted" He got their attention. Salt, an indestructible element in their eyes could never cease being salt! It could not lose its savor. All the water in the sea cannot make the salt therin cease being salt! So what is He actually saying to them? To find out we must do that favorite thing of Meshiachim everywhere- read it in context: Matthew 5:13-17 (ESV) “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
Salt that has been contaminated is good for nothing but to be trampled and mixed further with the dust of the earth. We are pure salt, and we add savor to bland dogmas of other religions. Christian friends always ask what I think or know about biblical topics. And they seldom interrupt when I speak of them. And we are light! That was always the calling of Yisroel. The Jews were meant to be a light to the pagan nations surrounding them. And Jews who traveled to distant lands spread that light by their example and when they explained things to pagan acquaintances. And I guarantee people took note and asked. Jews are people, and you can find all kinds. But the ones I know are honest, hard working, and generous; the opposite of what a demonic inspired world paints them. Israel's neighbors cry for the murder of every Jew, yet when their own people cause unbelievable misery in their lands, they flock to the Israeli border and are given free food and medical care. People see that light, and are drawn to it. And they are given pure "salt" with no expectation of repayment. All we see in the media is the retaliatory strikes Israel makes when those same people launch attacks on its citizens. But those attacks are not covered, or they are downplayed so Israel looks like the aggressor. Yet Israel exercises restraint, minimizing civilian casualties as much as possible; even passing by many targets protected because civilians are used as human shields byt the tue aggressor, Islam. Salt and light, feely shared. And far from being told we have to submit to the evil that controls our government and many institutions such as the media, we are called to share the truth and oppose the evil. Share not just the word, but the truth of the word. Share the truth about Israel and other things where people are being told lies. We have an entire generation now entering adulthood which has been brainwashed by ha'satan himself in schools and particularly colleges and universities. This is a vast darkness, but even a match briefly burning can be seen for miles in the thickest darkness. And even a little salt can be tasted when added to our food. That is what Yeshua is calling us to be and do here. Not to submit. And not to (metaphorically) beat anyone unconscious with your Bible. But to give understanding, assistance, care for and to others around you. Be a beacon of truth. Oppose the darkness, and add savor to the bland diet fed to other religious acolytes. And yes, from time to time we, like the Jews of our Bibles may be called to civil war to purge the evil from our midst. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on May 28, 2019 13:04:00 GMT -8
Romans 13 talks about this and is often taken out of context. The conversation was assuming governments that maintain order and good laws generally consistent with G-d's will. We are to submit to rulers and regulations consistent with what is good.
"For rulers are not terrorist to good works, but to evil."
Romans 13:4
It's clear in this country we are tending toward unrighteousness and unG-dly laws that are inhibiting the good works of those who are G-dly. I don't think we need to start any wars, but I think we may eventually be dragged into one just because we can't agree or live the way they're trying to dictate.
When anyone is violating the wellbeing of those who cannot defend themselves, we have even the example of Yeshua Himself stepping in on behalf of those the Jewish leaders were exploitIng. Then we have Daniel praying when the man-made law was against it.
Eventually, it will be no choice except to deny G-d in this world so of course we can't obey every government. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what we're discussing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on May 28, 2019 14:05:44 GMT -8
Sure looks as though Jeremiah is telling Zedekiah to submit to Babylon. Of course at this time Babylon is closer to God than Israel is.
Jer 38:17Then said Jeremiah unto Zedekiah, Thus saith the LORD, the God of hosts, the God of Israel; If thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the king of Babylon's princes, then thy soul shall live, and this city shall not be burned with fire; and thou shalt live, and thine house: 18But if thou wilt not go forth to the king of Babylon's princes, then shall this city be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and thou shalt not escape out of their hand. 19And Zedekiah the king said unto Jeremiah, I am afraid of the Jews that are fallen to the Chaldeans, lest they deliver me into their hand, and they mock me. 20But Jeremiah said, They shall not deliver thee. Obey, I beseech thee, the voice of the LORD, which I speak unto thee: so it shall be well unto thee, and thy soul shall live. 21But if thou refuse to go forth, this is the word that the LORD hath shewed me:
I agree we can be called to war, but we can be called to surrender. If we refuse to fight when called to do so or insist on fighting when we should not, destruction will follow.
I don't disagree with what you have said about salt and how it was used. However there is a very easy way for salt to loose its' savour. When salt is mined from the salt flats of the dead sea is has a high percentage of clay in it. Expose the salt to water and the salt will dissolve and leave behind the clay. The clay looks like salt but will not taste like it. You just throw the clay into the street to tread under foot.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 28, 2019 14:39:41 GMT -8
Sure looks as though Jeremiah is telling Zedekiah to submit to Babylon. Of course at this time Babylon is closer to God than Israel is. Jer 38:17Then said Jeremiah unto Zedekiah, Thus saith the LORD, the God of hosts, the God of Israel; If thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the king of Babylon's princes, then thy soul shall live, and this city shall not be burned with fire; and thou shalt live, and thine house: 18But if thou wilt not go forth to the king of Babylon's princes, then shall this city be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and thou shalt not escape out of their hand. 19And Zedekiah the king said unto Jeremiah, I am afraid of the Jews that are fallen to the Chaldeans, lest they deliver me into their hand, and they mock me. 20But Jeremiah said, They shall not deliver thee. Obey, I beseech thee, the voice of the LORD, which I speak unto thee: so it shall be well unto thee, and thy soul shall live. 21But if thou refuse to go forth, this is the word that the LORD hath shewed me: I agree we can be called to war, but we can be called to surrender. If we refuse to fight when called to do so or insist on fighting when we should not, destruction will follow. This was a specific prophecy concerning a specific event made to a specific person. All prophecy is not for the ages, as we were taught in church. Yes, we can learn from this prophecy, but we can't say "Well this is what God says to do." He does not. And we know this because we read it in context with the rest of the Bible whee the vast majority of cases God says "Resist!" Melech Tzedekiah and the nation were about to be judged. He asked the prophet Yirneyah what he could do to make this easier on everyone, particularly himself, and that is what the prophet told him: basically, "You already blew it. Ya'll wouldn't listen when I warned you before, now it's time to pay the piper. Just give up and ask for mercy, because you have already been delivered into their hands." Jeremiah 37:1-2 (ESV) Zedekiah the son of Josiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon made king in the land of Judah, reigned instead of Coniah the son of Jehoiakim. But neither he nor his servants nor the people of the land listened to the words of the Lord that he spoke through Jeremiah the prophet.
Very interesting addendum to our understanding of salt mining, and how that applies to our passage. But the salt here is not losing it's savor, it is just being refined. The clay that remains has lost the savor of the salt, but the salt itself is stil salt, just in a more pureified (refined) form. sa·vor (sā′vər) n.
1. A specific taste or smell: the savor of fresh mint.
2. The quality of something that is perceived as taste or smell: "There is little savor in dead men's meat" (StephenVincent Benét).
3. A distinctive quality or characteristic: enjoyed the savors of local life on their trip.The refinement process worked with clay of the sea, which may heve acted a a filter to keep out other contaminants. But I doubt you could do the same process with salt droped in the dust of the street. All the contaminants would be present in the dust, even clay dust, as that filters nothing. Dan C |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
