Torah Lishmah
New Member
Study of Torah for its own sake
Posts: 37
|
Post by Torah Lishmah on Jun 2, 2015 23:43:28 GMT -8
Shalom Dan, I'm still writing a response to post #18799, #18872, and your last one #18984. I don't want to leave any stone unturned. The reason why I suggested a thread about Talmud is because much of what you have written about it in this thread is not accurate (at least you wrote of it with some respect, and tact. Something Jews almost NEVER see). Here are just of the things I would like to present in an Talmud thread: The text of Talmud, in many places, is codified. One who is not taught by the initiated (a competent Rabbi) will NEVER understand it properly. There are prerequisites for Talmud study as well. It is absolutely impossible to just pick up a Talmud, and read it with understanding. This was done intentionally, so gentiles could not understand the text, without being led by an competent Rabbi (among many other reasons). Did you know there are mitzvot in the written  that are absolutely 100% impossible to keep without the text of the Talmud? The "arguments" and "debates" you speak of, actually aren't that at all, it just seems that way. I would like to present some history on the Talmud, and why it was eventually written down, and when. As well as some history on the men who are quoted in it, and the men who put it together. If you make a thread entitled "Introduction to Talmud" I can show you some things that would blow your mind. For instance, did you know that the man Melchizedek spoken of in the book of Hebrews is actually Noach's son, Shem? NOTHING written in that thread will debase Christians, or MJ's, nor will it be geared toward evangelizing (Jews don't do that anyway). Just some really important information one needs before reading anything Talmud related. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jun 3, 2015 6:20:55 GMT -8
The reason why I suggested a thread about Talmud is because much of what you have written about it in this thread is not accurate (at least you wrote of it with some respect, and tact. Something Jews almost NEVER see). Here are just of the things I would like to present in an Talmud thread:
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by maranguape on Sept 12, 2018 8:35:43 GMT -8
Why would an observant Jew need Yeshua!
Do you know of any observant Jew who needs Yeshua? Jesus has been dead for over 2000 years. What for would the living need the dead?
Resurrection cannot be claimed because there has never been an eyewitness to his claimed resurrection. If any one can provide me with one,
I will rephrase all my views about NT Theology.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 12, 2018 9:53:28 GMT -8
Why would an observant Jew need Yeshua! Do you know of any observant Jew who needs Yeshua? Jesus has been dead for over 2000 years. What for would the living need the dead? Yes, every Jew, observant or otherwise needs Yeshua. He is the Living God. Your denial of resurrection is well documented here, so it is no surprise that you would deny the resurrection of Yeshua as well. However that fact is well documented in the NT, which is part of the SoF here. You mean besides all Jerusalem at the time? Well, there were the remaining 11 apostles. Their claims to have seen the risen Messiah were better and more permanently documented than your denials here. Consider too that to a man those apostles remained steadfast in their commitment to the gospel of Yeshua as the Risen Lord. As Chuck Coleson says, in a group that size which is under constant pressure to recant, someone always does. Yet none of them did. And almost to a man they died horrible deaths when all they'd have had to do to save themselves was to renounce the resurrection of Yeshua and His title of Moshiach. Yet none did. And these were the same men who had fled when Yeshua was Himself crucified. It takes a LOT to change 11 men like that! You don't face being crucified, stoned, beaten to death, or buried alive yourself (among other methods of execution) unless you truly believe in your cause. All they had to do was to denounce Yeshua as the Risen Messiah and they'd have lived. Yet none did. We won't hold you to having to rephrase your views on the NT. That is between you and HaShem. But I pray you will; well, actually what I pray for you is what I pray for all of us- that you/we will come to see and accept the truth. But to do that we all need an open mind. That is part of what it means to be Messianic; we've questioned everything we believe, passing it all through the fire and keeping only what remains. And the resurrection of Yeshua is one of those things which has stood the test for us. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 12, 2018 12:29:35 GMT -8
Not only did they die for His sake, but they simply didn't revert back to their prior beliefs before they met Him. They all continued on not only believing, but as Alon said, convicted and zealous on Yeshua's behalf enough to die for His message to us. The Gospels and letters would have never even been written; let alone still a topic of conversation, joy, and debate. But beyond that, there is His Spirit that simply gifts us with the faith and hope in G-d we couldn't achieve on our own. Belief in a resurrection is ultimately an issue of faith given by G-d through His Spirit. None of us could hold on to that hope without the Spirit that simply gives us enough strength and faith to hope in what is ultimately the limitlessness of G-d's love. G-d made us to be with Him and all of scripture is about how that will be achieved perfectly and unrestricted eternally regardless of our mistakes and weaknesses. We weren't made to die. We die apart from G-d, but with Him there's life as in the beginning. That's why I need Yeshua. I can't get to G-d any other way.
If you really don't believe you need a savior maranguape, there's not much we can do to convince you of any of this. Our faith comes through the Spirit of G-d that is a gift of G-d upon the recognition of one's sin that separates from G-d. So we first knew our need for a savior to reconcile us to G-d. It isn't a logical process based on arguments and man's understanding. It's a very humbling yet uplifting spiritual process of growing and testing faith that occurs in relationship with G-d. We struggle with doubt, but G-d grows our faith through it by fellowship in His Spirit. I don't like the way this sounds, but we're starting from fundamentally different places as we all have a foundational belief in the need to be saved and you don't. We can't bridge that gap in our differing understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 12, 2018 13:36:19 GMT -8
Not only did they die for His sake, but they simply didn't revert back to their prior beliefs before they met Him. They all continued on not only believing, but as Alon said, convicted and zealous on Yeshua's behalf enough to die for His message to us. The Gospels and letters would have never even been written; let alone still a topic of conversation, joy, and debate. But beyond that, there is His Spirit that simply gifts us with the faith and hope in G-d we couldn't achieve on our own. Belief in a resurrection is ultimately an issue of faith given by G-d through His Spirit. None of us could hold on to that hope without the Spirit that simply gives us enough strength and faith to hope in what is ultimately the limitlessness of G-d's love. G-d made us to be with Him and all of scripture is about how that will be achieved perfectly and unrestricted eternally regardless of our mistakes and weaknesses. We weren't made to die. We die apart from G-d, but with Him there's life as in the beginning. That's why I need Yeshua. I can't get to G-d any other way. If you really don't believe you need a savior maranguape, there's not much we can do to convince you of any of this. Our faith comes through the Spirit of G-d that is a gift of G-d upon the recognition of one's sin that separates from G-d. So we first knew our need for a savior to reconcile us to G-d. It isn't a logical process based on arguments and man's understanding. It's a very humbling yet uplifting spiritual process of growing and testing faith that occurs in relationship with G-d. We struggle with doubt, but G-d grows our faith through it by fellowship in His Spirit. I don't like the way this sounds, but we're starting from fundamentally different places as we all have a foundational belief in the need to be saved and you don't. We can't bridge that gap in our differing understanding. I see what you are saying, however we are all different, and come to Yeshua in different ways. For me it was looking at the facts, then all the inductive reasoning, then finally deciding "I'm an idiot!" and quit fighting the Ruach and accept His salvation. And yes, it is the Spirit Who moves us to look at the evidence in the first place. But HaShem gave us a mind, as well as a nature, and He expects us to use them. Your nature is more spiritual, more nourishing. Mine is more logical and reasoning. But HaShem uses both for His work here. I've said before, you have insights I could never have. So do others here. But all our views make up what, if we look back in the archives is a pretty good documentation of and discussion on contemporary thought on the Word of the One True God. LOL, our own lil' old Talmud  Dan  C ( ^ that's my thinking kippah  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 12, 2018 14:03:52 GMT -8
Not only did they die for His sake, but they simply didn't revert back to their prior beliefs before they met Him. They all continued on not only believing, but as Alon said, convicted and zealous on Yeshua's behalf enough to die for His message to us. The Gospels and letters would have never even been written; let alone still a topic of conversation, joy, and debate. But beyond that, there is His Spirit that simply gifts us with the faith and hope in G-d we couldn't achieve on our own. Belief in a resurrection is ultimately an issue of faith given by G-d through His Spirit. None of us could hold on to that hope without the Spirit that simply gives us enough strength and faith to hope in what is ultimately the limitlessness of G-d's love. G-d made us to be with Him and all of scripture is about how that will be achieved perfectly and unrestricted eternally regardless of our mistakes and weaknesses. We weren't made to die. We die apart from G-d, but with Him there's life as in the beginning. That's why I need Yeshua. I can't get to G-d any other way. If you really don't believe you need a savior maranguape, there's not much we can do to convince you of any of this. Our faith comes through the Spirit of G-d that is a gift of G-d upon the recognition of one's sin that separates from G-d. So we first knew our need for a savior to reconcile us to G-d. It isn't a logical process based on arguments and man's understanding. It's a very humbling yet uplifting spiritual process of growing and testing faith that occurs in relationship with G-d. We struggle with doubt, but G-d grows our faith through it by fellowship in His Spirit. I don't like the way this sounds, but we're starting from fundamentally different places as we all have a foundational belief in the need to be saved and you don't. We can't bridge that gap in our differing understanding. I see what you are saying, however we are all different, and come to Yeshua in different ways. For me it was looking at the facts, then all the inductive reasoning, then finally deciding "I'm an idiot!" and quit fighting the Ruach and accept His salvation. And yes, it is the Spirit Who moves us to look at the evidence in the first place. But HaShem gave us a mind, as well as a nature, and He expects us to use them. Your nature is more spiritual, more nourishing. Mine is more logical and reasoning. But HaShem uses both for His work here. I've said before, you have insights I could never have. So do others here. But all our views make up what, if we look back in the archives is a pretty good documentation of and discussion on contemporary thought on the Word of the One True God. LOL, our own lil' old Talmud Dan C ( ^ that's my thinking kippah ) It's interesting you say that because, in all honesty, I can't remember a time I wasn't saved. I talked to G-d all my life just ongoing prayerfulness for as long as I can remember. I fell away a bit in college and struggled with Yeshua but I have definitely been blessed to feel drawn to Him from my earliest memories. I don't know why I'm so blessed but that someone in my family really loved G-d and so blessed me. In the meantime, my experience of evil lately has definitely opened my eyes a bit and I can relate a lot more to other people's experiences of salvation. We do all come from different places, and they're all worthy. G-d, and each one of us, is so fascinating that way. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Sept 12, 2018 16:02:01 GMT -8
Resurrection cannot be claimed because there has never been an eyewitness to his claimed resurrection. That is like saying "Creation cannot be claimed because there has never been an eyewitness to his claimed creation" You are correct in that there were no earthly eyewitness to Jesus' actual resurrection. There are eyewitnesses to the effect that Jesus' resurrection has had on the world. Just as there are eyewitnesses to the effect creation on the world. |
|
|
|
Post by garrett on Sept 13, 2018 7:55:11 GMT -8
Why would an observant Jew need Yeshua! Do you know of any observant Jew who needs Yeshua? Jesus has been dead for over 2000 years. What for would the living need the dead? Resurrection cannot be claimed because there has never been an eyewitness to his claimed resurrection. If any one can provide me with one, I will rephrase all my views about NT Theology. An interesting question but it is very elementary as far as debate goes. You mentioned that resurrection cannot be claimed because there has never been an eyewitness to His claimed resurrection. As written by the disciples, Yeshua himself said he would be resurrected. After this occurred, His disciples saw him, spoke with Him, ate with Him, etc. And many others witnessed Him as well. They wrote about what He said, what He did and what happened. This is something we can choose to believe or not believe. The , the writings and the Prophets point to specific things this Moshiach would do, in some very specific manners with descriptions. Again, we can choose to believe this or not. We can choose to believe the witnesses who wrote about His resurrection or we can choose not to believe them. Ironically, Yeshua predicts the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:1-2). And it's destruction was so. And the reasons for the destruction of the Temple (and dispersion of the Jews - each time) point to specific sins, behaviors and disbelief. Two thousand years later it still has not been rebuilt. We can choose to believe what He said about the destruction of the Temple or not. The Bubonic plague wiped out scores of people ages ago. Yet we have no living witnesses and no corpses to attest to this sickness that took the lives of so many people. We only have some writing by witnesses who experienced what happened. We can believe it or not. Also, how many witnesses are required in order for us to believe what they said? One? Two? Eleven? A thousand? Isaiah sums this up well in Chapter 58:2 - "Hearing you will hear and shall not understand. And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed. Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears. Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them." It's food for thought. Fulfillment of the scriptures is what makes them alive to this day. May G-d bless you - garret |
|
|
|
Post by maranguape on Sept 16, 2018 14:27:33 GMT -8
Hello everyone! This is not my question, of course, but that of a certain man who has been an advocate against Messianic Judaism in the past.
He, I believe, depends a great deal on the  stream of Orthodox Judaism, but even I can see that the writers at Chabad.org, in their writings, sometimes sound an awful lot like Believers without ever actually saying Yeshua's name, which since Yeshua was speaking from a completely Jewish standpoint, is understandable. For that matter, so does much of the Talmud when discussing Maschiach. Perhaps this guy has finally noticed that.
He asks, "Why me, being a -Observant Jew, would need to believe in a man named Yeshua? Note that I am a practicing, born Jew. Being born Jewish means nothing, if not in conjunction with living -observant. Do not your own Christian scriptures state that the Jews "were entrusted with the whole revelation of G-D"? Romans 3:2
I truly do not know if he is still seeking for answers, or simply trolling here and there asking difficult questions that Christians never can answer (I stumbled over him again at a YouTube site, but I would like to give him a really good answer from a Judaic standpoint, not a Gentile one, so I ask your help.
Q
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats exactly what I have been after, good answers to my questions from a Judaic standpoint, not a Gentile. If you have them, what
is taking you so long? For instance, every time Jesus sent his disciples on a mission to spread the gospel of salvation, he would
warn them not to go the way of the Gentiles, especially if they were of the Samaritan kind. (Mat. 10:5,6) Why? I do not understand,
considering that Israel aka the Jewish People has been assigned as light unto the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:6) Can you give me an answer from the Judaic standpoint? |
|
|
|
Post by maranguape on Sept 16, 2018 16:22:05 GMT -8
Maranguape: Why would an observant Jew need Yeshua! Do you know of any observant Jew who needs Yeshua? Jesus has been dead for over 2000 years. What for would the living need the dead? Resurrection cannot be claimed because there has never been an eyewitness to his claimed resurrection. If any one can provide me with one, I will rephrase all my views about NT Theology. If my question is so elementary as you imply above, I am sure that, finally, I'll have someone who will give me the right answers. Let's proceed! Good! So, let's start by providing me with an eyewitness for Jesus' resurrection. The disciples were Jewish and, they never wrote a page of the NT. Jesus himself never even dreamed the NT would ever rise as it was written quite a number of years after he passed away. The gospels were written, probably, by Hellenists, some of them former disciples of Paul. Then you mention above that "many others witnessed him as well." I think I said that there has never been an EYEWITNESS to the resurrection of Jesus and not witnesses. Witnessing is a testimony of hear-say and not of having seen. It means you have failed to provide an eyewitness to Jesus' resurrection. Not even the angel of Matthew who removed the stone saw anything as the tomb was empty. Now, would you please quote to me what the prophets pointed to what Jesus did? Who said that Yeshua predicted the destruction of the Temple, the Hellenist who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew? To report about something which happened in the past is not a prophecy. Besides, Jesus was not a prophet. After the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon and with the establishment of the New Covenant, the prophetic system in Israel had ceased to exist. (Micah 3:6) The bubonic plague has world History as a witness of its happening; the resurrection of Jesus has only the NT. That's quite different. I am not against that you or the whole of Christianity believe it, but please, do not make use of a Jew to contradict HaShem's Word that, once dead, no one will ever return from Sheol aka the grave. (II Samuel 12:23) Besides, if you read Psalm 49:12,20 (JPS), those who pass away are taken to the eternal home of the dead. It means that one will never returns from the eternal world to come. This is a reference to the message of HaShem to Israel aka Ephraim taken by Prophet Isaiah about the endless exile of Israel to Assyria when this conquered Samaria as that had been determined by HaShem when He rejected Israel as His People and confirmed Judah to remain as the only People of the Lord Almighty. (Psalm 78:67-69) So, HaShem's message to Israel had been given by Isaiah in the form of a parable as the People would not understand in order not to repent and be saved. Their fate had been Divinely decided upon and could not be revoked. May G-d bless you - garret HaShem be with you too - Joseph |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 16, 2018 20:11:22 GMT -8
Here is the problem: you’ve been given answers, however you ignore them or declare them invalid, like you are the arbiter of truth. And as far as your personal beliefs, you are. But here the SoF holds that authority. So we can discuss these things so far, however we’ve reached the point where for many issues you are going to have to yield. Otherwise it becomes and endless circular argument.
All the gospels, and in fact the entire NT was written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to the risen Lord. It is not recorded whether the angel witnessed the resurrection itself or not, so that is a non-starter. But your assertion that someone had to witness the actual resurrection itself is ludicrous, as they’d have to have been entombed with Yeshua! Otherwise, blink and you missed it.It is enough that He was seen and spoken to afterwards by many, including those who knew Him intimately.
Next let’s deal with the term “Hellenist.” You throw that around quite liberally, however you’ve given not a single instance proving it. Neither Yeshua, the disciples, nor Paul were Hellenists. And the only one I can give you any leeway on is Paul, since Christianity has misquoted him and used him to justify all manner of abuses towards Judaism. However he was a Pharisee until the day he died, with all that implies.
He gave you his reference, Matthew 24:1-2. And your only refutation is to throw out the term Hellenist again and accuse the writer of perfidy. And yet you once again use the same tactic as the Christians, taking a verse out of context and building your own lie about it:
Micah 3:4-6 (ESV) Then they will cry to the Lord but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have made their deeds evil. Thus says the Lord concerning the prophets who lead my people astray, who cry “Peace” when they have something to eat, but declare war against him who puts nothing into their mouths. Therefore it shall be night to you, without vision, and darkness to you, without divination. The sun shall go down on the prophets, and the day shall be black over them.
This was not saying prophecy is ended, as it is clearly prophetic of particular times and events. In fact, prophecy says in the end times prophecy will be rampant (Joel 2:27-28)
And yet that is precisely what you asked him to do earlier in this same post. As to your argument against resurrection, this specific cookie cutter argument has been dealt with many times, and you were asked to shelve it.
modeator note: this is a warning, that this particular issue has been refuted many times, and you’ve never responded to any of the refutations. You just keep repeating your assertion. This goes against the SoF here as well. Last time I want to see it brought up. Violation will be cause for disciplinary action, up to and including having privileges revoked. I have seldom resorted to this, however your endless repetition is growing tiresome, and I do have other things to do besides answer the same assertion over and over.
True, however since prophecy clearly continued after Isaiah, your recourse to his words actually support our position.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Questor on Sept 17, 2018 19:08:32 GMT -8
Thats exactly what I have been after, good answers to my questions from a Judaic standpoint, not a Gentile. If you have them, what is taking you so long? For instance, every time Jesus sent his disciples on a mission to spread the gospel of salvation, he would warn them not to go the way of the Gentiles, especially if they were of the Samaritan kind. (Mat. 10:5,6) Why? I do not understand, considering that Israel aka the Jewish People has been assigned as light unto the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:6) Can you give me an answer from the Judaic standpoint?
I am sorry you think me slow in answering you, but age and ill health get in my way, and I have had to reduce the amount of writing I do on the web. As for a Judaic viewpoint…I am somewhere between half and three-quarters Jewish but was raised without any hint of it, so what I know comes from books written by Jews. However, I have no trouble putting myself in other people’s shoes once I know what they are going through, and a little of how they think.
Antiochus Epiphanes began the problems, in attempting to de-Judaize the conquered population of Judea, and attempted to make them culturally Greek by force, and idol-worshipers as well. Having settled into their identity as Jews returned from the first diaspora, the small population in Jerusalem that returned with Ezra were attempting to wipe away the contamination of Babylon, and were vigilant in refusing anything but a return to the past as they thought it had been according to the stories they were told of how life was like prior to exile. There had been people who refused to bend to the least changes of Babylon culture on their Jewish Identity, and Ezra was one of these.
Once back in Judea, the new Temple was the primary focus of their lives, as was the cherishing of Jewish customs, ritual and Jewish sovereignty. Anything that attempted to lessen the importance o their Jewishness was unacceptable. Then the Greeks suddenly were overrunning the re-established Jewish identity, and while some Jews eventually accepted being tainted with Greek manners, morals, and philosophy in order to survive, others were vehemently against it...zealously so, to the point that they became a party with political and social influence that began to be called Zealots.
The Maccabees put an end to the occupation along with others who took the set-apart nature of being Jewish as being particularly under attack, and an affront to G-d. Unfortunately, Greekified Jews had been far too close to Antiochus Epiphanes for anyone’s comfort, and the Pharisees arose, those who kept themselves as far from any but their own sect of Jews, and those of the Priestly class, whose ritual purity was deemed equivalent to their own.
Some two hundred years passed and the Jews were ruthlessly occupied again with a foreign force...the Romans. There was a King on the throne of Judea that was not of the house of David and was appointed merely because he went to school with the Emperor in Rome, and worse was Half Idumean. There were several political pressure groups being clarified...the Essenes had long since withdrawn to the desert to live in terms of purity that they felt exceeded the Priests, the Sadducees, the Pharisees and Scribes...all of whom argued that their way was the most set-apart, and thus most acceptable to G-d.
Adding fire to flames of discord between Jews was the House (Yeshiva) of Shammai, who was very conservative in his outlook…to the point of hating Gentiles vehemently, and detesting everything not Jewish. The House of Hillel, a competing Yeshiva to Shammai in terms of rank and importance in Judea was rather more liberal in their thinking, but still maintained an equally high view of ritual purity and adherence to the Covenant of Sinai. The House of Hillel was not against the Gentiles simply because they were Gentiles. Still, except for business, and a chance meeting they too were not particularly friendly to those Gentiles over-running the land. By the time of Yeshua's advent, and his loose association with the House of Hillel, those Gentiles that encountered Jews were considered to be tainting the Jews they met...taking away their set-apartness by merely being too near to a Jew, and consequently were ruthlessly avoided.
Yeshua is sometimes said to be a Pharisee in outlook, but of a more liberal bent like the House of Hillel, except where divorce was concerned. The School of Shammai hated Gentiles and carried every tradition and legal reason to avoid gentiles as if they were in a war. Of course, with Herod and his Roman friends, it is not an unreasonable viewpoint.
For Yeshua to send out his many disciples directly to non-Jews would have stirred up problems that would harm the timing of everything he was attempting to do by bringing too much attention to bear on Yeshua. He was already well known by the Pharisees of both Houses, the Scribes, Priests, Zealots, and even the Essenes. He did not want too much controversy too soon. And so he avoided letting Jerusalem and the near surrounding areas have much news of what he was planning at any time, and moved frequently from house to house and village to village. Gentiles that were private persons, particularly Gerim Toshavim, were unlikely to be noticeably non-Jewish, as it is always uncomfortable to not blend in with the people you do business with, and live nearby.
The fact that a Roman Centurion was mentioned tends to lead me to believe that there were quite a few of the military residing in Judea that were interested in Judaism and could take instruction as a proselyte as the Jewish Religion was both popular and legal within the Roman Empire.
Thus from the few mentions of Non-Jews proportionate to Jews that Yeshua did help, there were probably a great deal more people who were not Jewish that were healed and taught…including the two women of Canaanite heritage coming to Yeshua for their children. If a single mention of Yeshua teaching and healing Gentiles is in the Scriptures, how much more is it likely that there were many Gentiles that were met and healed by Yeshua? And with several mentions of Gentiles being healed, how much more likely was it that a great many Gentiles were healed...particularly when Yeshua probably healed many people every day?
When coming back from the Galil, Yeshua entered a Samaritan village for an afternoon of teaching the people there after talking to the woman at the well, and later went back for a full two days with his talmidim. This two-day visit with the Samaritans was an astonishing thing to do at the time and its importance is such that it is usually deemed representative of the last two thousand years of the light going out to the Gentiles, and only now beginning to return to the Jews. The two days are counted as meaning 'one day to a thousand years' by many expositors on the Brit Chadashah…representing the time period between Yeshua's advent, and his expected return during the Time of Jacob's trouble.
Yeshua generally refused Gentiles who came to him for healing…at least at first. When a Gentile woman came to him begging a healing for her child, Yeshua refused, saying he had come only for the lost sheep of Israel. The woman persisted, and in the end, Yeshua healed the daughter. But Yeshua's statement that he had come to Judea at that time for the lost sheep of Israel was frequently re-stated to Judeans and was evidently a statement that holds more importance than people have cared to give the phrase.
Yeshua's statement may refer to the Israelites that were no longer known as Israelites in the world and who no longer worshiped the Most High as much as his words might apply to Jews who were not following the Sinai Covenant, and thus were just as lost as those in the dispersion who did not know their heritage once several generations passed. However, one thing is also true...Gentiles were welcome to Yeshua as soon as they made their determination to be helped by him plain to see, and that they needed and trusted him.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 17, 2018 20:16:13 GMT -8
Thats exactly what I have been after, good answers to my questions from a Judaic standpoint, not a Gentile. If you have them, what is taking you so long? For instance, every time Jesus sent his disciples on a mission to spread the gospel of salvation, he would warn them not to go the way of the Gentiles, especially if they were of the Samaritan kind. (Mat. 10:5,6) Why? I do not understand, considering that Israel aka the Jewish People has been assigned as light unto the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:6) Can you give me an answer from the Judaic standpoint?
I am sorry you think me slow in answering you, but age and ill health get in my way, and I have had to reduce the amount of writing I do on the web. As for a Judaic viewpoint…I am somewhere between half and three-quarters Jewish but was raised without any hint of it, so what I know comes from books written by Jews. However, I have no trouble putting myself in other people’s shoes once I know what they are going through, and a little of how they think.
Antiochus Epiphanes began the problems, in attempting to de-Judaize the conquered population of Judea, and attempted to make them culturally Greek by force, and idol-worshipers as well. Having settled into their identity as Jews returned from the first diaspora, the small population in Jerusalem that returned with Ezra were attempting to wipe away the contamination of Babylon, and were vigilant in refusing anything but a return to the past as they thought it had been according to the stories they were told of how life was like prior to exile. There had been people who refused to bend to the least changes of Babylon culture on their Jewish Identity, and Ezra was one of these.
Once back in Judea, the new Temple was the primary focus of their lives, as was the cherishing of Jewish customs, ritual and Jewish sovereignty. Anything that attempted to lessen the importance o their Jewishness was unacceptable. Then the Greeks suddenly were overrunning the re-established Jewish identity, and while some Jews eventually accepted being tainted with Greek manners, morals, and philosophy in order to survive, others were vehemently against it...zealously so, to the point that they became a party with political and social influence that began to be called Zealots.
The Maccabees put an end to the occupation along with others who took the set-apart nature of being Jewish as being particularly under attack, and an affront to G-d. Unfortunately, Greekified Jews had been far too close to Antiochus Epiphanes for anyone’s comfort, and the Pharisees arose, those who kept themselves as far from any but their own sect of Jews, and those of the Priestly class, whose ritual purity was deemed equivalent to their own.
Actually, many of the sects of the time would not associate with others from different sects. The Pharisees were not the worst for this by far. But you are correct that they all thought their way was the only right way, and all wanted to be set apart, holy when the expected Messiah came.
Some two hundred years passed and the Jews were ruthlessly occupied again with a foreign force...the Romans. There was a King on the throne of Judea that was not of the house of David and was appointed merely because he went to school with the Emperor in Rome, and worse was Half Idumean. There were several political pressure groups being clarified...the Essenes had long since withdrawn to the desert to live in terms of purity that they felt exceeded the Priests, the Sadducees, the Pharisees and Scribes...all of whom argued that their way was the most set-apart, and thus most acceptable to G-d.
Adding fire to flames of discord between Jews was the House (Yeshiva) of Shammai, who was very conservative in his outlook…to the point of hating Gentiles vehemently, and detesting everything not Jewish. The House of Hillel, a competing Yeshiva to Shammai in terms of rank and importance in Judea was rather more liberal in their thinking, but still maintained an equally high view of ritual purity and adherence to the Covenant of Sinai. The House of Hillel was not against the Gentiles simply because they were Gentiles. Still, except for business, and a chance meeting they too were not particularly friendly to those Gentiles over-running the land. By the time of Yeshua's advent, and his loose association with the House of Hillel, those Gentiles that encountered Jews were considered to be tainting the Jews they met...taking away their set-apartness by merely being too near to a Jew, and consequently were ruthlessly avoided.
Rabbis Shammai and Hillel were close friends. But they had very differing views. And they were not the only Yeshivas of the time. It was a time when Judaism was not very unified in many ways. But most hated being ocupied because they felt they could not worship properly under occupation. That and, let's face it, who wants to be occupied?
Yeshua is sometimes said to be a Pharisee in outlook, but of a more liberal bent like the House of Hillel, except where divorce was concerned. The School of Shammai hated Gentiles and carried every tradition and legal reason to avoid gentiles as if they were in a war. Of course, with Herod and his Roman friends, it is not an unreasonable viewpoint.
Yes. He also agreed with Rav Shammai when He cleared the Temple. I am Shamaimite by nature in this respect, so I love reading how He took the time to gather the materials, make a scourge, then drove out not just those men but all their livestock as well in an extended act of righteous indignation. And even Rav Hillel said at one point that sometimes everyone else needed to get out of the way and let the Shamaimites do their job.
For Yeshua to send out his many disciples directly to non-Jews would have stirred up problems that would harm the timing of everything he was attempting to do by bringing too much attention to bear on Yeshua. He was already well known by the Pharisees of both Houses, the Scribes, Priests, Zealots, and even the Essenes. He did not want too much controversy too soon. And so he avoided letting Jerusalem and the near surrounding areas have much news of what he was planning at any time, and moved frequently from house to house and village to village. Gentiles that were private persons, particularly Gerim Toshavim, were unlikely to be noticeably non-Jewish, as it is always uncomfortable to not blend in with the people you do business with, and live nearby.
Yeshua probably had a close relationship with the Essenes. But as to His talmidim, they were being trained. You keep them close when training them. Another thing is salvation has always come through the Jews. The Gentiles observed them and wanted what they had (spiritually). People like the Roman Centurion you mention below.
The fact that a Roman Centurion was mentioned tends to lead me to believe that there were quite a few of the military residing in Judea that were interested in Judaism and could take instruction as a proselyte as the Jewish Religion was both popular and legal within the Roman Empire.
Thus from the few mentions of Non-Jews proportionate to Jews that Yeshua did help, there were probably a great deal more people who were not Jewish that were healed and taught…including the two women of Canaanite heritage coming to Yeshua for their children. If a single mention of Yeshua teaching and healing Gentiles is in the Scriptures, how much more is it likely that there were many Gentiles that were met and healed by Yeshua? And with several mentions of Gentiles being healed, how much more likely was it that a great many Gentiles were healed...particularly when Yeshua probably healed many people every day?
When coming back from the Galil, Yeshua entered a Samaritan village for an afternoon of teaching the people there after talking to the woman at the well, and later went back for a full two days with his talmidim. This two-day visit with the Samaritans was an astonishing thing to do at the time and its importance is such that it is usually deemed representative of the last two thousand years of the light going out to the Gentiles, and only now beginning to return to the Jews. The two days are counted as meaning 'one day to a thousand years' by many expositors on the Brit Chadashah…representing the time period between Yeshua's advent, and his expected return during the Time of Jacob's trouble.
Even though Samaritans were generally looked down on, they were still Jews. They had their own (modified) and their worship was on the wrong mountain, but heir heritage was still Jewish.
Yeshua generally refused Gentiles who came to him for healing…at least at first. When a Gentile woman came to him begging a healing for her child, Yeshua refused, saying he had come only for the lost sheep of Israel. The woman persisted, and in the end, Yeshua healed the daughter. But Yeshua's statement that he had come to Judea at that time for the lost sheep of Israel was frequently re-stated to Judeans and was evidently a statement that holds more importance than people have cared to give the phrase.
Yeshua's statement may refer to the Israelites that were no longer known as Israelites in the world and who no longer worshiped the Most High as much as his words might apply to Jews who were not following the Sinai Covenant, and thus were just as lost as those in the dispersion who did not know their heritage once several generations passed. However, one thing is also true...Gentiles were welcome to Yeshua as soon as they made their determination to be helped by him plain to see, and that they needed and trusted him.
Gentiles were always welcome. But they ceased to be Gentiles and became proselytes. They joined the nation of Israel, trusted and worshiped their God alone, becoming obedient to . And they believed in the promise of a Messiah, just as we believe that the promise was met in Yeshua. That's how salvation works, then and now.
As to the talmidim, after receiving their smicha they were sent out into the world of the Gentiles. However they still went mostly to the synagogues in the diaspora and not to Gentile churches. Salvation was still to the Jews first, and came to the Gentiles through the Jews.
Dan
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 18, 2018 12:56:28 GMT -8
That was a really useful history lesson for me. Thanks
I wonder if it was also just a way to protect the disciples. It wasn't until after He ascended that the Helper was given to them. Remember how quickly they fell away during the betrayal and trial. I just think going into pagan cultures with demonic gods would have been too much for them at that time perhaps.
Additionally, we Gentiles weren't ready for them. Remember the gadarenes who begged Yeshua to leave their town after He healed the demon possessed man. We were not ready to be healed and accept Yeshua generally. Those few who were earnestly sought Him out and were healed and blessed. There's just an order that protects and prepares us with the best chance of accepting Him.
Beyond that I think it's just a matter of G-d's faithfulness being exhibited through devotion to Israel. Though He Was generally rejected, He did His part to reach them. Otherwise, we could find fault with Him for neglecting them.
|
|
that are absolutely 100% impossible to keep without the text of the Talmud? The "arguments" and "debates" you speak of, actually aren't that at all, it just seems that way. I would like to present some history on the Talmud, and why it was eventually written down, and when. As well as some history on the men who are quoted in it, and the men who put it together. If you make a thread entitled "Introduction to Talmud" I can show you some things that would blow your mind. For instance, did you know that the man Melchizedek spoken of in the book of Hebrews is actually Noach's son, Shem? NOTHING written in that thread will debase Christians, or MJ's, nor will it be geared toward evangelizing (Jews don't do that anyway). Just some really important information one needs before reading anything Talmud related.
)
stream of Orthodox Judaism, but even I can see that the writers at Chabad.org, in their writings, sometimes sound an awful lot like Believers without ever actually saying Yeshua's name, which since Yeshua was speaking from a completely Jewish standpoint, is understandable. For that matter, so does much of the Talmud when discussing Maschiach. Perhaps this guy has finally noticed that.
