Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Book Worth Checking Out
#1
Shlama akhay,

WHAT THE RABBONIM SAY ABOUT MOSHIACH, by Douglas Pyle

I bought this a couple months back, read it quickly and passed it on to share. i recently received it back, and after going over it again a bit slower, find it to be a really great testimony towards Yeshuwa as the Messiah. there are ample witnesses from the TN"K, Talmuds, Midrashim, rabbonim, targumim, etc. that display the ancient Hebrew perception of Messiah so very well. the book never actually mentions Yeshuwa, but it doesn't have to, since it is so clear from examples given who the Messiah would have to be.
some of the actual passages from the TN"K wherein the rabbonim relate to Messiah i had personally never considered before, so it is interesting to see their method of exegesis -- very similar in style of Paulus', i noticed. i'd like to compare with the AN"K and see if those derivations can still be applied, and also with the targum readings for those places, just to try to get an idea as to how they came up with some of them.

it is not as comprehensive in nature as Raphael Patai's THE MESSIAH TEXTS, which is also a very great compilation, so this book is easier to get through in one setting.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#2
Ben Masada Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:Shlama akhay,

WHAT THE RABBONIM SAY ABOUT MOSHIACH, by Douglas Pyle

I bought this a couple months back, read it quickly and passed it on to share. i recently received it back, and after going over it again a bit slower, find it to be a really great testimony towards Yeshuwa as the Messiah. there are ample witnesses from the TN"K, Talmuds, Midrashim, rabbonim, targumim, etc. that display the ancient Hebrew perception of Messiah so very well. the book never actually mentions Yeshuwa, but it doesn't have to, since it is so clear from examples given who the Messiah would have to be.
some of the actual passages from the TN"K wherein the rabbonim relate to Messiah i had personally never considered before, so it is interesting to see their method of exegesis -- very similar in style of Paulus', i noticed. i'd like to compare with the AN"K and see if those derivations can still be applied, and also with the targum readings for those places, just to try to get an idea as to how they came up with some of them.

it is not as comprehensive in nature as Raphael Patai's THE MESSIAH TEXTS, which is also a very great compilation, so this book is easier to get through in one setting.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
----------------------------------

This book, "What the Rabbonim say about Moshiach," you assume it to be talking about Jesus because of your preconditional notions you bring to the book as you read it. For example, when you read Isaiah 53, of course all you have in your mind is Jesus. However, if you focus your attention as you read it, the point is about the Suffering Servant, and Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that we don't have to assume that the Messiah could be an individual. (Isa. 41:8,9; and 44:1,2,21) Besides, if you could use Logic, for the Messiah to be an individual, it would not make sense. The individual is born, lives his span of life and then dies. Are we to expect a Messiah in every generation? It makes no sense. The Messiah does not die, and this is possible only if we think of the collective Messiah in the People of Israel. After all, God promised David that Israel would stay forever as a lamp in Jerusalem. (I Kings 11:36) And Jeremiah compared Israel's permanence as a People before the Lord to the natural laws. (Jer. 31:35,36)


Shlama,

first off, thanks for the above bolded/underlined. i'm more interested in going the CHaBaD route anyway, personally, as Scripture suggests, so that is probably why i am not using the logic you prefer. Logic is a bit too Greek a times for my taste, even though i confess i've surely spent enough of my life pandering to logic. but if that is your cup of tea, i'm not preventing you from drinking it.

as to the content of your reply, however:

perhaps you should read the book itself and see what the rabbonim actually say -- not the new-fangled ideas that are popular in counter-missionary positions, mind you, but the ancient understandings of the particular chapter of which you speak. they refer to this not as the NATION, but as a man - the Messiah. if you want to believe otherwise, that is fine, but you're hard pressed to retain the title of Baal Teshuvah, since you'd not technically have returned to the understandings of your ancient rabbonim, but instead, you'd be in the same camp of Judaism as you've elsewhere on this site placed Paulus -- making up his own form to fit his understanding.

i do so hope you don't go that route, however, and even if you don't want to pay any attention to the ancient rabbonim, maybe you would attend to the words of the prophet YeshaYahu himself in this very chapter, which make it hard pressed even more so to see Israel the Nation as the suffering servant described here.

the chapter repeatedly speaks of this inidividual as a "he" and in the singular. but you've taken the more recent approach and applied it to the nation itself. so let's look at it a little and see if your position holds up Scripturally:

verse 4: He bore peoples sicknesses and carried pains.
thought for the day: can a nation do this?

verse 5: He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for wickednesses, the chastisement for our peace was on him, and we are healed by his stripes.
thought for the day: when is Israel pierced for transgressions, crushed for our sins, and all the rest?

verse 6: the Holy One laid on him the crookedness of all
thought for the day: is Israel the vicarious sacrifice for everyone else? how so?

verse 8a: As for his generation...
thought for the day: who is "Israel's" generation here?

verse 8b: for the transgression of My people he was stricken.
thought for the day: I thought Israel was the people of the Holy One? the above passages clearly speak of a vicarious nature of this suffering, and yet here your position makes it seem that the Holy One struck His people in place of His people? that doesn't fit at all. even Greek logic fails here.

verse 9: he was appointed a grave with the wrong
thought for the day: Israel died? i am under the impression that Am Yisrael Chai...

verse 10: he made himself an offering for guilt.
thought for the day: this is quite a bit more than just a single man dying for Am Yisrael vicariously, rather, it puts the entire nation of Israel dying for itself, vicariously. again, even Greek logic is stumped on this one.

and i'll stop there for now. i do not see the NATION as being the suffering servant here - but as the text otherwise clearly indicates -- a man, a single human life. the ancient rabbonim didn't see the nation as the suffering servant here, either, but the life of the Messiah. you can hold whatever position you like, but i think if we let the Word and the ancient rabbis speak for themselves, we realize that it is, to quote your own words, "your preconditional notions you bring to the Book" that lead you to your current understanding.

note: i capitalized the "B" in the above "book" to stress the point. i don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth, so my action is here stated plainly.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#3
Jesus was a ransom for many. Also in the 11th chapter of john, from verse 47 from the aent-And the chief priests and the pharisees gathtered together and were saying. "what will we do for this man does many miracles? and if we allow him to do thus , all men will believe in him and the romans will come and take away our land and our nation?'. Now one of them whose name was Qayaypa was the high priest in that year and he said to them,"You do not know anything , and you do not realize that it is better that one man should die for us for the sake of the nation, than all the nation should perish'. And this he did not say from his own will because he was the High priest in that year. He prophesied that Y' shua was about to die for the sake of the nation. And not only for the sake of the nation but that also the sons of Elohim who are scattered that he might gather into one nation'.
Reply
#4
Ben Masada Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:Shlama akhay,

WHAT THE RABBONIM SAY ABOUT MOSHIACH, by Douglas Pyle

I bought this a couple months back, read it quickly and passed it on to share. i recently received it back, and after going over it again a bit slower, find it to be a really great testimony towards Yeshuwa as the Messiah. there are ample witnesses from the TN"K, Talmuds, Midrashim, rabbonim, targumim, etc. that display the ancient Hebrew perception of Messiah so very well. the book never actually mentions Yeshuwa, but it doesn't have to, since it is so clear from examples given who the Messiah would have to be.
some of the actual passages from the TN"K wherein the rabbonim relate to Messiah i had personally never considered before, so it is interesting to see their method of exegesis -- very similar in style of Paulus', i noticed. i'd like to compare with the AN"K and see if those derivations can still be applied, and also with the targum readings for those places, just to try to get an idea as to how they came up with some of them.

it is not as comprehensive in nature as Raphael Patai's THE MESSIAH TEXTS, which is also a very great compilation, so this book is easier to get through in one setting.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
----------------------------------

This book, "What the Rabbonim say about Moshiach," you assume it to be talking about Jesus because of your preconditional notions you bring to the book as you read it. For example, when you read Isaiah 53, of course all you have in your mind is Jesus. However, if you focus your attention as you read it, the point is about the Suffering Servant, and Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that we don't have to assume that the Messiah could be an individual. (Isa. 41:8,9; and 44:1,2,21) Besides, if you could use Logic, for the Messiah to be an individual, it would not make sense. The individual is born, lives his span of life and then dies. Are we to expect a Messiah in every generation? It makes no sense. The Messiah does not die, and this is possible only if we think of the collective Messiah in the People of Israel. After all, God promised David that Israel would stay forever as a lamp in Jerusalem. (I Kings 11:36) And Jeremiah compared Israel's permanence as a People before the Lord to the natural laws. (Jer. 31:35,36)
Tsaddiq HaDor
Reply
#5
...said the pot to the kettle.
Reply
#6
Ben Masada Wrote:He made himself an offering for guilt by surrendering and letting himself go into permanent exile. A single man cannot die for another because this is against the Scriptures. (Deut. 24:16; II Kings 14:6; Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 8:4)

Shlama,


First off, the passages you cite don???t fit into the discussion at hand. Contextually, the Torah verse you reference is a passage that is speaking of distorting right-ruling, ie, your son kills a man, and you must be put to death for his action. THAT is the true context. Don???t distort the context about distortion of right-ruling. Don???t pick and choose without context or you will keep shooting yourself in the foot. Since the rest of the passages are built off that first idea, you???re going nowhere by including them. Although I must say I???m failing entirely to see how Ezekiel 8:4 plays into your point even if the context could be thrown out the window???.

That said, your examples have nothing to do with the issue at hand in YeshaYahu 53: substitutionary sacrifice. That is the heart of the Levitical system, and the Levitical system is merely a copy of the reality shown to Moshe when he was on the mountain. This means there is a true reality of substitutionary sacrifice in heaven, mirrored by the one here on earth. That is where Messiah???s death would be applied.

The fact of substitutionary sacrifice is undeniable, and even predates Torah with the binding of Yeetschaq, whom the Holy One told Avraham to sacrifice, and upon His staying of his hand, HAD to provide another blood to cover the required blood of Yeetschaq.

Okay, now I ask you to explain yourself concerning my former Scriptural rebuttal to your reply: you are diametrically, positionally opposed to the rabbonim by your stance that YeshaYahu 53 is speaking of the nation of Israel as opposed to a single man.

How do you reconcile your view in regards to Scripture, which clearly speaks of an INDIVIDUAL dying for a NATION? How do you reconcile your view in regards to the words of the rabbonim, which clearly interpret the passage as speaking of an INDIVIDUAL MAN dying for the NATION?

Until you can reconcile your view with the above, the reality of your position is nothing more than that of which you accuse Paulus of being: a sectarian living out his own view of Torah. And hey, that is all well and good if that is okay with you, but if that is your position, you???re disarming yourself from speaking against Paulus and Yeshuwa Himself. If you???ve spent any time here, you know the requirements of this site: present whatever view you might have, and if it can be defended via Scripture, you???re likely to have some intelligent, meaningful discussions. But taking things out of context and claiming to be a Baal Teshuvah while not even holding to the views of the more revered of our rabbis is a poor choice in such a discussion as this.

Bring something to the table worthy of discussion, instead of chasing rabbit trails by distortion of context.


Chayim b???Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#7
Ben Masada Wrote:This book, "What the Rabbonim say about Moshiach," you assume it to be talking about Jesus because of your preconditional notions you bring to the book as you read it. For example, when you read Isaiah 53, of course all you have in your mind is Jesus. However, if you focus your attention as you read it, the point is about the Suffering Servant, and Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that we don't have to assume that the Messiah could be an individual. (Isa. 41:8,9; and 44:1,2,21) Besides, if you could use Logic, for the Messiah to be an individual, it would not make sense. The individual is born, lives his span of life and then dies. Are we to expect a Messiah in every generation? It makes no sense. The Messiah does not die, and this is possible only if we think of the collective Messiah in the People of Israel. After all, God promised David that Israel would stay forever as a lamp in Jerusalem. (I Kings 11:36) And Jeremiah compared Israel's permanence as a People before the Lord to the natural laws. (Jer. 31:35,36)

Tsaddiq HaDor[/quote]
-----------------------------

Patronizing is not a good method to communicate knowledge.[/quote]

if that is how you feel, are you not paying attention to your own words BOLDED ABOVE? if you simply must, patronize away, but don't be hypocritical about it.... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#8
Hi ben, the romans may have crucified many, that not's the point. The point is Jesus is the messiah and He was crucified for our sins , He was a ransom for us. In the old covenant and in the new, remission is only through the shedding of blood.
The other point is if only believe in 20% of scripture of course your going to have arguements with those that believe in most of the scriptures.
Reply
#9
Also no we don't expect a messiah in every generation, there is only one messiah, Jesus and the next time He comes is to judge us. Paul does not contradict the rest of the scriptures. The fact that you, ben only believe in 20% of the new testament is really troubling, are we just wasting our time talking to you, should we move on to someone else who believes that God's word is his word, may God have mercy on you and on all of us.
Reply
#10
sean Wrote:Also no we don't expect a messiah in every generation, there is only one messiah, Jesus and the next time He comes is to judge us. Paul does not contradict the rest of the scriptures. The fact that you, ben only believe in 20% of the new testament is really troubling, are we just wasting our time talking to you, should we move on to someone else who believes that God's word is his word, may God have mercy on you and on all of us.

Please don't equate 20% of the Apostolic Writ to 20% of scripture... since it's only 1/4 the length of the TaNaKh: You should say he believes in 80% of the scriptures <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#11
Hi Aaron, point taken. Ben saids he only believes in 20% of the new testament, I don't know how much of the old testament or old covenant scriptures he believes in.
Reply
#12
Ben Masada Wrote:You are totally mistaken. I said that's against the Scriptures that an individual should die for another. A father dying for his son is an individual dying for another. It is forbidden by Torah. Jesus was an individual. He could not die for another. My quote, therefore, has everything to do with the issue at hand.

Ben, I'm not falling for your evasive manuever. If you're going to address a point of Scripture you MUST address it in its context. I clarified the context of the passages you pulled out to support your view, showing the issue that the Torah speaks of is about UNJUSTLY making someone else pay for another's crime by taking their life. THAT is context, THAT is what Scripture speaks to. nowhere does it say a person cannot give their life for another. Don't make a commmandment of men equal to the commandments of Yah, and don't make them up as you go along. RESPECT what the text says, or go elsewhere. It is as simple as that. Deal with the Scriptures honestly in their context, or don't bother answering my posts.

Ben Masada Wrote:That's not an individual dying for another.

Ben, i don't know what your definition of an individual is, but to me, it is any one thing of something. but the point I was making is showing that substitutionary sacrifice is essential, even before the Torah itself was established.

Ben Masada Wrote:Is Exodus 4:22,23 speaking about an individual or the whole of Israel? Israel. Thank you. So, "he" in Isaiah 53 is Israel, the Suffering Servant.

Context, Ben. Don't take things out of context. Of course the whole of Israel is referred to in Sh'moth. But that is in another context, of which you are full aware. Tell me HOW Israel DIES for Israel in Isaiah 53. Tell me HOW Israel bore the sins of Israel. Tell me HOW Israelwas a guilt offering for Israel. Answer according to the text, or else take a pass. I'm not interested in your opinion, I'm interested in meaty textual discussion where the integrity of the text is upheld. Just answer according to the text. It is not a difficult request. Furthermore, why do your refuse to answer my questions about how you can be a BAAL TESHUVAH yet OUTRIGHT REJECT the position of the ancient rabbonim concerning the understanding that this text speaks about a singular MAN who they understood to be the Messiah? Are you ashamed of opposing the weight of understandings of the avot? Are you willing to say that they were flat wrong, because if you continue to hold your current position on Isaiah 53, that is the reality of the matter.

Ben Masada Wrote:Please, do not include Jesus in my speaking against. Jesus was a loyal Jewish man who lived according to his Faith, which was Judaism. I rather deffend him from the Christian charges of having been a demigod.

I will respect your position on this, since I can't hold you to the integrity of the text of the NT. I don't agree with you, but I will respect this and stick to the text that we both hold of value.

Ben Masada Wrote:I think I have brought here substantious food for thought. The problem is that it is too solid for your digestion. You still need baby food which is found only in the chit-chatting of common beliefs. Burning one, there is no learning in the discussion of common beliefs. All the learning is found in controversy. And please, don't get too nervous. It is so easy not to pick up my posts for a reply. That's all you have to do. Ignore my posts.

Think what you want about the substance of your arguments. All that I've asked repeatedly is that you deal with the texts in context. That is not asking too much, I would surmise. Think what you want about my needing baby food, but I enjoy debate when it is productive, that is, when the texts are approached with integrity. I've not seen that from your responses, I can honestly say. I don't mind debating someone and going away when finished still differing, as long as we've both been faithful to the texts we've approached. You're not being faithful to them, however, because the context is as clear as a bell, but you're ignoring it. Ignoring context might be acceptable when approaching a matter in the RDS of PRDS, but we're dealing with the PESHAT here, and so I'm not backing down in my demands. If you don't want to deal with what the text actually says in context, that is your perogative, but I would highly suggest that you ignore my posts. Otherwise, we're wasting each other's time, which gets us nowhere.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#13
Ben Masada Wrote:Everything is well explained in my thread, "Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David." Good luck!


okay, i've read it, and i'm still not seeing anything but you taking everything out of context. i also see a very blatant substitutionary sacrifice in your placing Israel's punishment as FOR Judah's. so you have part of the nation making atonement for the other part of the nation... you create some esoteric method of the suffering of a nation somehow being applicable for the salvation of another. you say a person cannot die for another, yet you are advocating the punishing of a nation as being a substitutionary sacrifice for another nation--that's amazing. everything is taken out of context in this regards. but personally, in my dealings with anti-missionaries, they always present seemingly clever methods to circumvent the traditional understanding of the text, and yet when you boil it down to what the text really says, they have no ground to stand on in their positions. this never makes them too happy, and they usually leave. understandably so.

simply put, if you want to play hardball and deal with the issues actually presented in the text, and honor the overwhelming majority view of the rabbonim, you have to discard your sectarian view of who the Suffering Servant of YeshaYahu 53 really is. why? because you aren't being consistent with the text. have some integrity towards the Word, man. that isn't too much to ask. if i sound like a broken record, it is because there is not really any other way to come at this debate until you deal with the issue at hand.

so here's the deal:
  • the TN"K does not agree with you on the identity of the Suffering Servant
    the overwhelming majority of the rabbonim do not agree with you
    Christians do not agree with you
    Netzarim do not agree with you

so to me, your position is that of a single person who can't come to terms with what the text or his own people promote, or the people who, some being his own, believe in Messiah having already come, promote, so you've circumvented it by developing a grand scheme that destroys the context of the whole issue, and dishonors the Word within which you are interacting. you bring no argument to the table other than your own personal take on the matter. and that is okay, to a degree. you're more than welcome to have your own opinions, but if you want to be taken seriously ANYWHERE where individuals actually value what the text really says, you're going to have to abandon your sectarian position.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)