If no one like Moses, Who then is the Messiah Who provides Redemption?

[Melchizedek]

Exodus 32

32 But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."

Moses offered himself up for the redemption of Israel. But Moses was not the Messiah, thus:

33 The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book.

HaShem rejected Moses's offer to redeem Israel on his merit, and thus was proven to not be the Messiah, the Redeemer of Israel, because Moses was not righteous enough - even though Moses, on his own righteousness, spoke with HaShem face to face - a relationship with HaShem unlike anyone else! Yet he was rejected as the Redeemer of Israel! This standard then also eliminates anyone who is not like Moses, such as Isaac, though he was offered, was instead the one in place of the one "seen" - HaShem. This also eliminates King David, Abraham, and Jacob, who all also offered themselves up to redeem Israel on the merit of their own righteousness, and who too were rejected as the Messiah, falling short, seeing as how they too were not like Moses - whose own righteousness was also not enough to effect redemption and thus forgiveness for those who sinned and whose names will be blotted out of God's book, either!

My question: if it is written "no one like Moses," (Deut 34:10) then who is it then that will be a "prophet like you from among your brothers" (Deut 18:18) who HaShem will raise up for us, and who we must listen to?

Who then is more righteous than Moses? Only One who is perfect.

Who is Israel's Redeemer, Who is the Messiah, Who is like Moses, but instead of rejecting him, God accepts as the Redeemer of Israel? If no one is like Moses, Who is it then whose merit, whose righteousness exceeds that of Moses and thus can redeem Israel? Whose death can make atonement and redemption for Israel and thus effect forgiveness so that that one may not be blotted out of God's book? Only One Who is perfect!

Who then is Israel's Messiah, Savior, King, Who also is Israel's Redeemer, One like Moses, and is even the only One who dies the death of the righteous and makes atonement and redemption for all Israel so that they are not blotted out because of their sin? Who is it whose righteousness exceeds that of Moses, who is thus perfect, whose righteousness exceeds that of Moses that God accepts as the Redeemer of Israel? HaShem!

As it is written, "HaShem my Rock and my Redeemer." (Psalm 19:4)

HaShem is Israel's Redeemer.

Thoughts?

[Melchizedek]

I didn't think this was such a hard question. Any have a response? If Messiah redeems Israel into the Olam Habah, and the Torah says that HaShem is Israel's Redeemer alone, then according to the Torah, who is Israel's Messiah?

[Lulav]

Exodus 32

32 But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."

Moses offered himself up for the redemption of Israel. But Moses was not the Messiah, thus:

33 The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book.

HaShem rejected Moses's offer to redeem Israel on his merit, and thus was proven to not be the Messiah, the Redeemer of Israel, because Moses was not righteous enough - even though Moses, on his own righteousness, spoke with HaShem face to face - a relationship with HaShem unlike anyone else! Yet he was rejected as the Redeemer of Israel! This standard then also eliminates anyone who is not like Moses, such as Isaac, though he was offered, was instead the one in place of the one "seen" - HaShem. This also eliminates King David, Abraham, and Jacob, who all also offered themselves up to redeem Israel on the merit of their own righteousness, and who too were rejected as the Messiah, falling short, seeing as how they too were not like Moses - whose own righteousness was also not enough to effect redemption and thus forgiveness for those who sinned and whose names will be blotted out of God's book, either!

My question: if it is written "no one like Moses," (Deut 34:10) then who is it then that will be a "prophet like you from among your brothers" (Deut 18:18) who HaShem will raise up for us, and who we must listen to?

Who then is more righteous than Moses? Only One who is perfect.

Who is Israel's Redeemer, Who is the Messiah, Who is like Moses, but instead of rejecting him, God accepts as the Redeemer of Israel? If no one is like Moses, Who is it then whose merit, whose righteousness exceeds that of Moses and thus can redeem Israel? Whose death can make atonement and redemption for Israel and thus effect forgiveness so that that one may not be blotted out of God's book? Only One Who is perfect!

Who then is Israel's Messiah, Savior, King, Who also is Israel's Redeemer, One like Moses, and is even the only One who dies the death of the righteous and makes atonement and redemption for all Israel so that they are not blotted out because of their sin? Who is it whose righteousness exceeds that of Moses, who is thus perfect, whose righteousness exceeds that of Moses that God accepts as the Redeemer of Israel? HaShem!

As it is written, "HaShem my Rock and my Redeemer." (Psalm 19:4)

HaShem is Israel's Redeemer.

Thoughts? Good post.

Also think of this, Moshe lead them up to the 'promised land' but he couldn't go in because of his one sin of striking the rock that is Messiah, the one whom living waters flow from. But Yehoshua lead them in.

Moshe brought them so far, and Yehoshua takes them all the way.

[RebYosef]

You don't deal with the grammatical implications Devarim 18 at all. I suggest reading Lulav's thread ( I cannot link yet ) and comment, before the rest of your post can be adressed.

[ContraMundum]

Dev 18- the grammatical implications? The grammar is not the issue- it's how it is interpreted after the fact. In this case at the end it doesn't actually change anything, no matter which way you spin it. If it refers to more than one Prophet throughout the generations, then the last Prophet is Yeshua. If the grammar is deemed to refer to merely one prophet, then according to Dev 34 we are told that no such prophet arose who was like Moses. Again, it points only to Yeshua.

While logically both positions can be correct, prophets coming in each generation until the final one, the idea that Dev 18 points only to the idea of many prophets throughout all generations and that's it forever cannot be correct, as the end of prophecy is an immutable logical fact, and therefore there must be a final prophet.

We know from history that indeed the Jewish people at the time of the first century began to look more and more for a great final Prophet, which clearly shows the Christian interpretive of Dev 18 and 34 has not only precedence but is in fact stronger. We can attest to this both in the DSS (4Q Tesimonia cf. 1 QS 9:1) and in the first century document known as the NT (Jn 1:19-21; 7:40; Lk 7:16, Acts 7:37).

I'm not for a minute going to think that anything outside of the "approved" ideas of the Rabbis will convince an RJ of anything, but I do think it is sometimes important to prove that our position is not only logical and reasonable, it does have precedence.

[RebYosef]

Dev 18- the grammatical implications?

Yes.

The grammar is not the issue

I'm sorry you think this way. A clear example of poor methods of exegesis.

it's how it is interpreted after the fact.

You can't interpet it, if you can't even read it correctly, now can you?

In this case at the end it doesn't actually change anything, no matter which way you spin it.

It's not a matter of spin, but a matter of fact.

If it refers to more than one Prophet throughout the generations, then the last Prophet is Yeshua.

That would be your beleif.


If the grammar is deemed to refer to merely one prophet, then according to Dev 34 we are told that no such prophet arose who was like Moses. Again, it points only to Yeshua.


Again, you are an error here. A simple understanding of the grammar shows this not to be the case.


While logically both positions can be correct, prophets coming in each generation until the final one, the idea that Dev 18 points only to the idea of many prophets throughout all generations and that's it forever cannot be correct, as the end of prophecy is an immutable logical fact, and therefore there must be a final prophet.


In Jewish theology, Prophcey has ceased until a new age. I would think you would be aware of this.

We know from history that indeed the Jewish people at the time of the first century began to look more and more for a great final Prophet

Some poltical groups and relgious sects, were looking for a Messianic Saviour.

which clearly shows the Christian interpretive of Dev 18 and 34 has not only precedence but is in fact stronger. We can attest to this both in the DSS (4Q Tesimonia cf. 1 QS 9:1)

Do you wish to equate the beleifs in the DSS to Christanity? We can actually pull up that fragment if you like and read it, see how much it looks like a Christian beleif.

and in the first century document known as the NT (Jn 1:19-21; 7:40; Lk 7:16, Acts 7:37).

Some notion of textual criticism.

I'm not for a minute going to think that anything outside of the "approved" ideas of the Rabbis will convince an RJ of anything,

This has nothing to do with Rabbis, but merely looking at an ancient text. Would you like to do that? If you feel my understanding of the Hebrew ( or Aramaic if you wish) is wrong, then please correct me.

[ContraMundum]

I'm sorry you think this way. A clear example of poor methods of exegesis.

OK...whatever you say. "The Rabbis are always right, even if black is called white". The idolatry of ideas and darkened human reasonings.

Double-plus good brother.

It's not a matter of spin, but a matter of fact.It is a matter of spin. This is the point. I can't help it if you cannot grasp that.

Again, you are an error here. A simple understanding of the grammar shows this not to be the case. Yet- we remain unconvinced. Why? Simply put- the exegesis is the easy part. What the "Approved" Rabbis say after the fact is what we should focus on.

In Jewish theology, Prophcey has ceased until a new age. I would think you would be aware of this.Clearly, Jewish theology is therefore proven wrong. Why bring that up? We already know the RJ world-view. We think that Yeshua was a prophet who got it right- 100% right, in an age that RJs claim had no prophecy. I'll tell you what: I'll take the prophecy of Yeshua and you can have Bar Kochba or whoever as yours. Enjoy your endless search for the prophet like Moses (or whatever Messianic/Prophetic foibles your sect are into this decade).

Do you wish to equate the beleifs in the DSS to Christanity? We can actually pull up that fragment if you like and read it, see how much it looks like a Christian beleif.How you come up with that I have no clue! No, we don't equivocate the beliefs of the DSS with the beliefs of the NT. I thought you knew that already. What I said, in plain English, is that there is historic precedent in Judaism in the 1stC for the certain matter I was mentioning. This is not to say that any portion of Judaism in the 1stC actually had it right. In fact, I'd say none of them had it right, totally. The path was lost long before.

This has nothing to do with Rabbis, but merely looking at an ancient text. Would you like to do that? If you feel my understanding of the Hebrew ( or Aramaic if you wish) is wrong, then please correct me.Again, you miss the point. We'd probably come to the same conclusions as you regarding the parsing of the text. It's what we then do with it.

I don't know what they teach you people these days, but most RJs I know who have a clue are not fundamentalists, and therefore do not bind the scriptures to a fundamentalist discipline, as you appear to. Clearly, the exegesis of the text is not the issue at hand- I think you wish it were, but sadly, it is not, nor can it logically be so, as the same exegetical methods produce differing opinions on this text. You should know that.

I have no idea what you are intending to achieve here, but clearly it is not dialogue. If you insist on "teaching the dumb Christians", perhaps you are better suited at another site where you can teach your views to people- one of the popular anti-missionary sites might be good for that, people will glady recieve such teachings there, and if I'm not mistaken, you've been to those before.

[Torah613]

contra, you are probably used to dealing with chasidim or modern orthodox. RebYosef appears to be mitnagadisher.

Yochanan

[ContraMundum]

contra, you are probably used to dealing with chasidim or modern orthodox. RebYosef appears to be mitnagadisher.

Yochanan

Imagine one of the mitnagim coming here telling us he is speaking from a majority opinion! LOL :D

Are there any actually left?

Oh well...Yochanan, you may well be right. I'd rather deal with a Hasid or a MO- at least they can admit to the importance of tradition in their method. I respect that a lot.

[Torah613]

actually there are quite a few left.

Yochanan

[kivi]

Imagine one of the mitnagim coming here telling us he is speaking from a majority opinion! LOL :D



Are there any actually left?
kivi says: I'm one. In fact, most of Observant Judaism is mishnagim.

Oh well...Yochanan, you may well be right. I'd rather deal with a Hasid or a MO- at least they can admit to the importance of tradition in their method. I respect that a lot.[/quote]

[RebYosef]

Imagine one of the mitnagim coming here telling us he is speaking from a majority opinion! LOL :D.

Are there any Orthodox here that disagree?


Are there any actually left?

Of course. We can live freely with Hasids and even attend their shuls.

Oh well...Yochanan, you may well be right. I'd rather deal with a Hasid or a MO- at least they can admit to the importance of tradition in their method. I respect that a lot.

We are not speaking of tradition, we are speaking about whats literally written in the text. Mech asked if anyone had any thoughts, and it would be useless for me to further comment till he justifies his interpetation of Deut. 18.

OK...whatever you say. "The Rabbis are always right, even if black is called white". The idolatry of ideas and darkened human reasonings.

I have yet to bring up any Rabbi.

It is a matter of spin. This is the point. I can't help it if you cannot grasp that.

Okay, the term in the passages is "navi" is not attached to a definite article, thus making the term generic. It would violate basic hebrew grammar for this to be read as an English special noun ( i.e Prophet )

More to the point, kamoni(like me) and kamocha(like you) are both conjugations of ke'mo. Which means, the passages conveys in it's most basic and obvious way, that the comparisons are not to be identical, but merely similiar.

That is not spin, that is merely a fact of the matter.

Yet- we remain unconvinced. Why? Simply put- the exegesis is the easy part. What the "Approved" Rabbis say after the fact is what we should focus on.

You remain unconvinced because the Christian Testament attributes this passage to your saviour, that is going to trump anything else becuase thats a simple matter of faith. However, that doesn't excuse gross ignorance of whats actually written.

Clearly, Jewish theology is therefore proven wrong. Why bring that up? We already know the RJ world-view. We think that Yeshua was a prophet who got it right- 100% right, in an age that RJs claim had no prophecy.

Again you are mistaken, Joshua was alive and well during the time of prophecy.

How you come up with that I have no clue! No, we don't equivocate the beliefs of the DSS with the beliefs of the NT. I thought you knew that already. What I said, in plain English, is that there is historic precedent in Judaism in the 1stC for the certain matter I was mentioning. This is not to say that any portion of Judaism in the 1stC actually had it right. In fact, I'd say none of them had it right, totally. The path was lost long before.


It's in the details. You make a certian claim about the sect at the Dead Sea, and I offer to investigate it with you. You'd glaze over their beleifs in attempt to bolster some sort of ideal about Jewish Christians in the 1st centuary.

Again, you miss the point. We'd probably come to the same conclusions as you regarding the parsing of the text. It's what we then do with it.

If this were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't know what they teach you people these days, but most RJs I know who have a clue are not fundamentalists, and therefore do not bind the scriptures to a fundamentalist discipline, as you appear to.

Is being a fundamentalist binding myself to the basic meaning of a passage as it is written in Hebrew? Well then color me a Fundamentalist then.

Clearly, the exegesis of the text is not the issue at hand- I think you wish it were, but sadly, it is not, nor can it logically be so, as the same exegetical methods produce differing opinions on this text. You should know that.

You don't use the same methods, otherwise, we would be in agreement.

I have no idea what you are intending to achieve here, but clearly it is not dialogue.

Merely voicing the studied opinion, one which you don't favor.

If you insist on "teaching the dumb Christians", perhaps you are better suited at another site where you can teach your views to people

If I wanted to engage with disputations with Christians as a whole, I'd be in the General Apologetics forum. However, most Christians don't deem to instruct Jews about the history of their religion, the nature of Rabbinic texts or their culture as you are apt to do. Notice that I don't use the same language as you, such as " you people" nor do I ever bring up Christians as a whole, like you often do with your "RJ"s. When ever I adress something, I adress the person and their ideas, not the groups they belong to.

It's not your faith that I'm at issue with here, it's what you say about mine, that I do have issue with.

perhaps you are better suited at another site where you can teach your views to people- one of the popular anti-missionary sites might be good for that, people will glady recieve such teachings there, and if I'm not mistaken, you've been to those before.

I have never been apart of an Anti-missionary organization, nor have I ever posted on their forums. I have no desire to.

[Torah613]

RebYosef, I would just like to stand up and give you a pat on the back for this post. Very well written.

Speaking of the qumron community, did you hear that archeologists found a set of Tfilin there that have been positively dated to the time period? Whats even more amazing is, you'll never guess what they look like....thats right, the same tfilin we wear today. Imagine that, the Oral Torah is correct.

Yochanan

[ContraMundum]

Of course. We can live freely with Hasids and even attend their shuls.

I know...I've seen the debates!

Okay, the term in the passages is "navi" is not attached to a definite article, thus making the term generic. It would violate basic hebrew grammar for this to be read as an English special noun ( i.e Prophet )

More to the point, kamoni(like me) and kamocha(like you) are both conjugations of ke'mo. Which means, the passages conveys in it's most basic and obvious way, that the comparisons are not to be identical, but merely similiar.If there's one thing I can't stomach on this forum anymore, it's people who don't actually listen or read what is written in plain English, personally addressed to them. I've already said that your exegsis is agreeable. Why do you insist on repeating yourself?

You remain unconvinced because the Christian Testament attributes this passage to your saviour, that is going to trump anything else becuase thats a simple matter of faith. However, that doesn't excuse gross ignorance of whats actually written.Ah...yes...the "dumb Christians" argument. Ad hominem. Discarded.

Again you are mistaken, Joshua was alive and well during the time of prophecy.According to Dev 34, there was no prophet in Israel during Joshua's time after Moses' passing. I'll go with that. Believe what you want.

It's in the details. You make a certian claim about the sect at the Dead Sea, and I offer to investigate it with you. You'd glaze over their beleifs in attempt to bolster some sort of ideal about Jewish Christians in the 1st centuary.I'll explain it to you again. A second time. You don't get a third at this stage. I still don't know your motives.

a) All the Jewish sects were wrong in the 1stC. This includes the Qumran sect and the Pharisees.
b) They were not wrong about everything.
c) The Messiah corrected the errors.

Now, if I'm not mistaken, I was taught growing up that Moshiach would do just that kind of thing when He came. Can you not see that it is logical if His first advent has already occured then while we cannot accept the errors of the 1stC we can accept what they got right? We accept what He clarified and corrected. You are still waiting for this. It's not rocket science.

If this were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.I'm not convinced we are having a discussion. You are teaching your tangents, and not even coming close to actually addressing my point. A discussion would have addressed my points far more concisely. At present, you are preaching, teaching and not listening.

As for the rest of your post....

I won't say what kind of thought would come to the conclusion that Christians are instructing Jews here.

The Christians here don't teach Rabbinic Judaism. They teach their faith. You rock up and critique it. Not one Christian comes to this forum and says "let me teach you Rabbinic, Orthodox Judaism". They teach their faith, not yours. You don't own their faith, they don't own yours. There is no need to constantly belittle them and then play the victim, OK?

Again, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work this out.

All I do is critique what I think is wrong in modern day RJism (and I only do it with those who come here to destroy faith, others I am happy that they share their faith with us) from a Christian perspective- on a Christian forum. Fancy that!

I have never been apart of an Anti-missionary organization, nor have I ever posted on their forums. I have no desire to.I'm sorry, but I don't believe that. Forgive me if I'm wrong, please. I'm just a fallible person trying to work you out and discover your motives.

[RebYosef]

I know...I've seen the debates!

Where?

If there's one thing I can't stomach on this forum anymore, it's people who don't actually listen or read what is written in plain English, personally addressed to them. I've already said that your exegsis is agreeable. Why do you insist on repeating yourself?

Since your first post, you have made the claim it changes nothing. I would disagree, hence I asked the orginal poster to explain his stance better.

Ah...yes...the "dumb Christians" argument. Ad hominem. Discarded.

That is not at all what I said or implied. Point in fact, did I say such thing when you made this comment?

I'm not for a minute going to think that anything outside of the "approved" ideas of the Rabbis will convince an RJ of anything, but I do think it is sometimes important to prove that our position is not only logical and reasonable, it does have precedence.

I recall not taking insult to this at all. When I said something similiar, you take it as "dumb Christians".

You want to talk about motives?

According to Dev 34, there was no prophet in Israel during Joshua's time after Moses' passing. I'll go with that. Believe what you want.

I don't see how Deut 34. would prohibit the existence of a Prophet during the 1st centuary, before 70 AD.

I'll explain it to you again. A second time. You don't get a third at this stage. I still don't know your motives.

You failed to mention the final prophet, in this brief resummary.

Now, if I'm not mistaken, I was taught growing up that Moshiach would do just that kind of thing when He came. Can you not see that it is logical if His first advent has already occured then while we cannot accept the errors of the 1stC we can accept what they got right? We accept what He clarified and corrected. You are still waiting for this. It's not rocket science.

But thats not the method you employ. You like to hint that "The Rabbis" engaged in some sort of cover up and changed things around so Joshua did not look like the messiah.

More to the point,

I'm not convinced we are having a discussion. You are teaching your tangents, and not even coming close to actually addressing my point. A discussion would have addressed my points far more concisely. At present, you are preaching, teaching and not listening.


As of now, no one has actually adressed the grammar. You hand waved it, for other arguments, but never adressed it.

They teach their faith. You rock up and critique it.

Of the few threads I have been on in this messianic forum, this has yet to happen. Most posts demand a response and if one is not forth coming, people wonder why the Orthodox have not responded.

Not one Christian comes to this forum and says "let me teach you Rabbinic, Orthodox Judaism".


You must have forgotten about this little gem by Melchizedek....
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47821280&postcount=4

I find it amazing that those that claim to be Jews, don't believe the Torah, Talmud, Midrash Rabbah, and other Jewish literature. Such people must ask themselves if they are really Jewish, or if they are simply hanging on to some genelogical claim to be part of a social club. Judaism is not a social club, it's a matter of life and death!


You even had a pithy remark in that thread too, but I digress....

There is no need to constantly belittle them and then play the victim, OK?

Please show me an example of playing victim.

All I do is critique what I think is wrong in modern day RJism (and I only do it with those who come here to destroy faith, others I am happy that they share their faith with us) from a Christian perspective- on a Christian forum. Fancy that!

Yet, you seem to feel that you should not be responded to.

[ContraMundum]

I don't see how Deut 34. would prohibit the existence of a Prophet during the 1st centuary, before 70 AD.

Neither do I. That's ironic of you to say so though. You said "In Jewish theology, Prophcey has ceased until a new age." We know that Jewish theology dates the cessation of certain forms of prophecy to Malachi. We also know that other forms of lesser prophecy remain (as we've touched on). So, I have to ask you, what exactly is your personal position on this? We know Orthodox Judaism's position about the cessation of prophecy well before 70 AD, but what's yours?

But thats not the method you employ. You like to hint that "The Rabbis" engaged in some sort of cover up and changed things around so Joshua did not look like the messiah.

I don't know about a cover up, but they did reform- radically- the religion. They had to. This is not a Christian idea- any decent, scholarly book on Jewish history written by Jews will tell you the same. If it says otherwise, it's probably published by Feldheim. LOL :D

As of now, no one has actually adressed the grammar. You hand waved it, for other arguments, but never adressed it.

The grammar of that passage is irrevelant to this discussion. Most respectable Christian commentaries and commentators will readily agree with your tackling of the text. It is not making an impact on the discussion at all.

As I said before, it's what one does afterward that matters.

[Lulav]

It's like the elephant story.................:)

[RebYosef]

Neither do I. That's ironic of you to say so though. You said "In Jewish theology, Prophcey has ceased until a new age." We know that Jewish theology dates the cessation of certain forms of prophecy to Malachi


We do now, We don’t have conclusive proof that was a belief held during the first century.


We also know that other forms of lesser prophecy remain (as we've touched on).


I agree.


So, I have to ask you, what exactly is your personal position on this? We know Orthodox Judaism's position about the cessation of prophecy well before 70 AD, but what's yours?


Orthodox Judaism’s position. Classical Prophecy ended after Malachi, but this may not have been realized/discovered until later. However, there are lesser forms still available today.


I don't know about a cover up, but they did reform- radically- the religion. They had to. This is not a Christian idea- any decent, scholarly book on Jewish history written by Jews will tell you the same. If it says otherwise, it's probably published by Feldheim. LOL


I would agree, after 70 C.E, the faith had to move it’s center of gravity from the Temple. And with that, had to come changes as well. However, what I was referring to, was a comment you made in the “ How could a Jew begin to believe in a Triune….” thread on page 5...

Post Number 21[/SIZE]]
The Pharisaic sect are easily the most influential in Orthodox Judaism in our day- but their Judaism is rather different to the Judaism of the Second Temple period. Things have changed. Lots of things. One of the things that has changed is that certain ideas about Messianic prophecy, once clearly acceptable opinions, have been pushed under the carpet because they inevitably point to Jesus. In their stead, other opinions about the Messiah have been enshrined and labelled "true". Yet, to this day, there is nothing but confusion and diversity when Jews discuss Moshiach. Christians say that the truth was there all along, but now, it's desperately attempted to be kept hidden to keep certain sects in power.


There is a lot I could say about this...



The grammar of that passage is irrevelant to this discussion. Most respectable Christian commentaries and commentators will readily agree with your tackling of the text. It is not making an impact on the discussion at all.

As I said before, it's what one does afterward that matters.


Yes, you can reverse engineer and attempt to harmonize. However, my initial remark about grammar was directed towards the original post and it’s author, not you.

[Melchizedek]

You don't deal with the grammatical implications Devarim 18 at all. I suggest reading Lulav's thread ( I cannot link yet ) and comment, before the rest of your post can be adressed.

What grammatical implications are you referring to?

[RebYosef]

What grammatical implications are you referring to?

This....

My question: if it is written "no one like Moses," (Deut 34:10) then who is it then that will be a "prophet like you from among your brothers" (Deut 18:18) who HaShem will raise up for us, and who we must listen to?

Devarim 18 is not speaking of a specific person, nor are they to be compared to Moshe as equals or greater.

[Melchizedek]

Devarim 18 is not speaking of a specific person, nor are they to be compared to Moshe as equals or greater.

If Israel, how much more so Moshiach.

If a prophet, then a prophet like Moses.

Who then is a prophet like Moses? The Messiah. As it is also written concerning the King, "He must be from among your own brothers." Deuteronomy 17:15 - just one chapter before 18. The Torah teaches clearly that the King is described by every other verse related to the phrase "from your own brothers." This includes him being a prophet like Moses who is also "from among your brothers." So although grammar is speaking of "a" prophet in Deut 18, the Torah, by means of a drash, teaches that it also refers to "the King" in chapter 17.

That this instruction of "a prophet" in chapter 18, is in context of chapter 17 "the king," means this understanding that the King is a prophet like Moses, is also derived very obviously from the peshat.

What is interesting is that "among brothers" first shows up in Leviticus 21:10 when it says "the high priest, the one among his brothers who has the anointing oil poured on his head..." clearly references the fact that the Moshiach serves first in his function as High Priest (Lev 21:10), then is counted as a poor man who we are not to be hardhearted towards (Deut 15:7) before he appointed the King (Deut 17:15), who then is described as "among their brothers; the LORD" (Deut 18:2), after which he is counted as a prophet like Moses, who commands everything HaShem tells him (Deut 18:15,18), and is truly recognized as "him who dwelt in the burning bush. Let all these rest on the head of Joseph, on the brow of the prince among his brothers." (Deut 33:16). Wow, I love Torah. It just proved that the Messiah is the High Priest, who is a poor man among us who we must not be hardhearted against, is the King, is HaShem among us, and is a Prophet like Moses, counted as the prince of his brothers, and is the very one who dwelt in the burning bush of who it written "I have come down to rescue them" (Ex 3:8).

So now do you believe what Moses wrote? If not, repent! Believe Moses, and believe Yeshua who Moses wrote about, for all Yeshua teaches and does is what Moses taught and did! Be immersed in the Messiah and all that he is, and you as an orthodox, learned of the Torah, Jew, will be like one who brings out from your storehouse new treasures as well as old. Repent and believe the good news - that Yeshua, the Messiah, is coming to redeem us all and bring us into the Olam Haba and establish his kingdom forever!

[LittleLambofJesus]

My question: if it is written "no one like Moses," (Deut 34:10) then who is it then that will be a "prophet like you from among your brothers" (Deut 18:18) who HaShem will raise up for us, and who we must listen to?

Who then is more righteous than Moses? Only One who is perfect.That depends on whether one believes the book of Acts is inspired. :wave:

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Deut 18:18 A Prophet I will raise to them from within/07130 qereb brothers of them as thee.
And I give My words in His mouth, and He speaks to them all which I shall instruct Him.
19 And becomes the man who not is listening to My words which He shall speak in My name, I shall require from with him. [Acts 3:22/Acts 7:37]

Acts 3:22 For Moses indeed [toward the fathers] saying: 'That a prophet to ye shall be raising up, Lord the God of ye, out of the brothers of ye as Me. Of Him ye shall be hearing/akousesqe according to all as much as ever He should be speaking toward ye. [Deut 18:18,19]

[RebYosef]

If Israel, how much more so Moshiach.

If a prophet, then a prophet like Moses.


And with using words like Ka’moni and Ka’mocha, we see that the generic non-special prophet will be similar to Moshe but not of the same calibar. That was my point, since Devarim 18 points to someone of lesser stature of Moshe', you are running into problems. If Moshe was not good enough for vicarious atonement, how could someone lesser be?

Wow, I love Torah. It just proved that the Messiah is the High Priest, who is a poor man among us who we must not be hardhearted against, is the King, is HaShem among us, and is a Prophet like Moses, counted as the prince of his brothers, and is the very one who dwelt in the burning bush of who it written "I have come down to rescue them" (Ex 3:8).

You did no such thing. In fact, you once again did not cite where you are getting this "drash" from, nor do you explain your methods for linking various passages together.

It reminds me of the messianic rooster E-mail that floated around.

[RebYosef]

That depends on whether one believes the book of Acts is inspired. :wave:

I point I made.






But I might add, I was accused of calling Christians stupid, for bringing it up. You seemed to escape such a charge :)

[LittleLambofJesus]

I point I made.

But I might add, I was accused of calling Christians stupid, for bringing it up. You seemed to escape such a charge :):) I just looked at that greek word in the GNT and I am supposing the transliterated word is where the word "moron" comes from.

I can honestly say I am not the "sharpest" needle in the haystack. :D

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Matt 7:26 And all the one hearing of Me the words, these, and no doing them shall be likened to a man, stupid/foolish/mwrw <3474>, whoany builds of him the house upon the sand. 27 And descended the rains and the streams and blow the winds and they toward-strike the house, that, and she falls and was the fall of her Great.

Reve 14:8 And another messenger, second-one, follows saying "she falls, she falls, Babylon the Great...[Jeremiah 51:8]

3474. moros mo-ros' probably from the base of 3466; dull or stupid (as if shut up), i.e. heedless, (morally) blockhead, (apparently) absurd:--fool(-ish, X -ishness).

[muffler dragon]

A couple salient points regarding personal vicarious atonement:

Deuteronomy 24
16. Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons, nor shall sons be put to death because of fathers; each man shall be put to death for his own transgression.

Ezekiel 18
4. Behold, all souls are Mine. Like the soul of the father, like the soul of the son they are Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die.

Ezekiel 18
27. And when a wicked man repents of his wickedness that he has done, and does justice and righteousness, he will keep his soul alive.
28. He will see and repent of all his transgressions that he has committed-he shall surely live; he shall not die.

Psalms 49
8. -a brother cannot redeem a man, he cannot give his ransom to God.

The Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim are consistent. Personal vicarious atonement is not needed nor accepted.

[ContraMundum]

The Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim are consistent. Personal vicarious atonement is not needed nor accepted.


Better tear Isaiah 53 out of your Bible then. Let's forget the Christian understanding of that text for the time being. Even a Jewish interpretation of the text clearly shows that someone may suffer for others. The idea that this single man spoken of in Isaiah is in fact the nation of Israel still serves the idea of vicarious atonement quite well. So, even the Jewish spin on the text works quite well for our understanding.

Here's a Jewish translation of the text:

Isa 53:1 'Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed?
Isa 53:2 For he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that we should delight in him.
Isa 53:3 He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.
Isa 53:9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.'
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:
Isa 53:11 Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (JPS)

We can also talk about about the idea of tikkun olam in Chasidus (and even in other forms of RJism), and how the mitzvot of one can help others in the world. Either way, your proposition seems to be at odds with the greater teachings of Judaism. One can suffer for another, and one's good deeds can help the greater world- two definitions of vicarious atonement.

[Melchizedek]

And with using words like Ka’moni and Ka’mocha, we see that the generic non-special prophet will be similar to Moshe but not of the same calibar. That was my point, since Devarim 18 points to someone of lesser stature of Moshe', you are running into problems. If Moshe was not good enough for vicarious atonement, how could someone lesser be?

The context refers to the King of Israel. Who then is the King of Israel? HaShem. Are you saying Moses is greater than HaShem?

How "among...brothers" links various passages in the Torah to the King, the High Priest, and the Prophet, is easily understood from a drash interpretive hermeneutic of scripture wherein phrases used in one passage are related to other passages that use the same phrase. I assume you are familiar with PaRDeS?

[Melchizedek]

The Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim are consistent. Personal vicarious atonement is not needed nor accepted.

Then you have not read the Torah where it says:

Exodus 28:38 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=28&verse=38&version=31&context=verse)
It will be on Aaron's forehead, and he will bear the guilt involved in the sacred gifts the Israelites consecrate, whatever their gifts may be.

Numbers 18:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=18&verse=23&version=31&context=verse)
It is the Levites who are to do the work at the Tent of Meeting and bear the responsibility for offenses against it. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.

Deuteronomy 1:37 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=1&verse=37&version=31&context=verse)
Because of you the LORD became angry with me also and said, "You shall not enter it, either.

Deuteronomy 3:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=3&verse=26&version=31&context=verse)
But because of you the LORD was angry with me and would not listen to me. "That is enough," the LORD said. "Do not speak to me anymore about this matter.

Deuteronomy 4:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=4&verse=21&version=31&context=verse)
The LORD was angry with me because of you, and he solemnly swore that I would not cross the Jordan and enter the good land the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance.


Shall I go on into the Neviim and Ketuvim which only confirms what the Torah teaches here?

[RebYosef]

The context refers to the King of Israel. Who then is the King of Israel? HaShem. Are you saying Moses is greater than HaShem?

How "among...brothers" links various passages in the Torah to the King, the High Priest, and the Prophet, is easily understood from a drash interpretive hermeneutic of scripture wherein phrases used in one passage are related to other passages that use the same phrase. I assume you are familiar with PaRDeS?

I'll cut to the chase.

You don't own many (or any) Rabbincal works. Those that you do, must be translated for you by a 3rd party. It is also clear that you don't posses the language skills needed to tackle these works either. You are also woefully ignorant of the methodology of Non-aggadic Midrash, if you were, you would see ther are other criteria to be met,besides commonality of a specific word.

You don't cite that author of this drash, I don't know if this is becuase you don't want me tracking down the parent text (we've done that before, haven't we?) or if it's something of your own work.

[muffler dragon]

Better tear Isaiah 53 out of your Bible then.

Note the usage of the word, "personal"; not national.

[muffler dragon]

Then you have not read the Torah where it says:

Exodus 28:38 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=28&verse=38&version=31&context=verse)
It will be on Aaron's forehead, and he will bear the guilt involved in the sacred gifts the Israelites consecrate, whatever their gifts may be.

Numbers 18:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=18&verse=23&version=31&context=verse)
It is the Levites who are to do the work at the Tent of Meeting and bear the responsibility for offenses against it. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.

Deuteronomy 1:37 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=1&verse=37&version=31&context=verse)
Because of you the LORD became angry with me also and said, "You shall not enter it, either.

Deuteronomy 3:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=3&verse=26&version=31&context=verse)
But because of you the LORD was angry with me and would not listen to me. "That is enough," the LORD said. "Do not speak to me anymore about this matter.

Deuteronomy 4:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=4&verse=21&version=31&context=verse)
The LORD was angry with me because of you, and he solemnly swore that I would not cross the Jordan and enter the good land the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance.


Shall I go on into the Neviim and Ketuvim which only confirms what the Torah teaches here?

My response is the same as that to CM. I stated "personal"; not national.

[Melchizedek]

I'll cut to the chase.

You don't own many (or any) Rabbincal works. Those that you do, must be translated for you by a 3rd party.

Wrong.

It is also clear that you don't posses the language skills needed to tackle these works either. You are also woefully ignorant of the methodology of Non-aggadic Midrash, if you were, you would see ther are other criteria to be met,besides commonality of a specific word.

There is most certainly other criteria. Care to list which one contradicts the drash I presented?

You don't cite that author of this drash, I don't know if this is becuase you don't want me tracking down the parent text (we've done that before, haven't we?) or if it's something of your own work.

How can I when the drash is my own?

[Melchizedek]

My response is the same as that to CM. I stated "personal"; not national.

If Israel was only one person...

[muffler dragon]

If Israel was only one person...

I'm talking about Joe Gentile and the world outside of corporate Israel. National atonement is much different from personal atonement in the Tanakh. G-d does not accept nor has G-d established the pattern of personal vicarious atonement. There is simply no need for a mediator. The sinner has a direct line to G-d for forgiveness. The three manners in which forgiveness can be achieved are through the signature I have below, and not one of them deals with another individual. Personal accountability is HUGE in the Tanakh, and vicarious atonement is an afront to that ideal.

[Melchizedek]

I'm talking about Joe Gentile and the world outside of corporate Israel. National atonement is much different from personal atonement in the Tanakh. G-d does not accept nor has G-d established the pattern of personal vicarious atonement. There is simply no need for a mediator. The sinner has a direct line to G-d for forgiveness. The three manners in which forgiveness can be achieved are through the signature I have below, and not one of them deals with another individual. Personal accountability is HUGE in the Tanakh, and vicarious atonement is an afront to that ideal.

Why did God make skins for Adam and Eve?

[muffler dragon]

Why did God make skins for Adam and Eve?

Because fur was just coming into style.

I should note that Original Sin gets no play with me, and I should also mention that I'm not one to take Genesis 1-3 as completely literal.

[LittleLambofJesus]

If Israel was only one person...He was just a person just as Abraham was a person.
Btw. Anyone interested in continuing this thread on Isaiah 53 started by muffler dragon? :wave:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5858522&page=13
Isaiah 53: A Contextual Discussion 7th August 2007, 01:04 PM

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Y@sha`yah 53:7 He is hard pressed. And he one being humbled, and not he is opening his mouth.
As flockling to slaughter he is being fetched. And as ewe to faces of ones shearing of her she is mute. And not he is opening his mouth. [Acts 8:32]

Acts 8:32 The yet contexts of the Writing which he read was this: `As a flockling onto slaughter he was led; and as a-Lamb/amnoV <286> before of the one shearing Him, soundless, thus not he is opening the mouth of Him'; [Isaiah 53:7]

[muffler dragon]

Btw. Anyone interested in continuing this thread on Isaiah 53 started by muffler dragon?

I'm not. LOL!

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'm not. LOL!Yeah it is tough when ya have other Christians coming in and giving the translation/interpretation of it.
Btw, what do you think of this Interlinear? You can click on a Hebrew/Koinegreek word and it will show where the EXACT form of that word is used in other places. Best to download it to use the advanced features of it. I read the Bible a lot with it. Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

[muffler dragon]

Yeah it is tough when ya have other Christians coming in and giving the translation/interpretation of it.
Btw, what do you think of this Interlinear? You can click on a Hebrew/Koinegreek word and it will show where the EXACT form of that word is used in other places. Best to download it to use the advanced features of it. I read the Bible a lot with it. Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/


I'll have to get back to you on that one. My time is scant for internet bliss; let alone evaluating an interlinear. :D

[Melchizedek]

Because fur was just coming into style.

I should note that Original Sin gets no play with me, and I should also mention that I'm not one to take Genesis 1-3 as completely literal.


One who doesn't take Genesis 1-3 as literal is one who truly doesn't believe the Torah which assumes nothing less. You have more serious issues that need correcting, than a spat over keeping kosher. Your whole foundation is messed up if you don't accept Gen 1-3 as for what it says "In the beginning God..." etc.

[muffler dragon]

One who doesn't take Genesis 1-3 as literal is one who truly doesn't believe the Torah which assumes nothing less.

AYFKM? This just keeps getting better.

You have more serious issues that need correct, than a spat over keeping kosher. Your whole foundation is messed up if you don't accept Gen 1-3 as for what it says "In the beginning God..." etc.

1) I don't keep kosher.
2) I take it you're YEC. Considering the heaps of evidence to the contrary, I believe YOU'RE the one who might want to look into correction.

FTR, taking Genesis 1-3 or any other part of the Torah as non-literal does not detract from the value of the text nor the validity. This approach is taken by those who evaluate things in a multi-dimensional way.

Edit: I just noticed that you're talking about Kosher in YOUR messianic thread. Might want to keep items together.

[LittleLambofJesus]

One who doesn't take Genesis 1-3 as literal is one who truly doesn't believe the Torah which assumes nothing less. You have more serious issues that need correcting, than a spat over keeping kosher. Your whole foundation is messed up if you don't accept Gen 1-3 as for what it says "In the beginning God..." etc.Greetings. I take Genesis about as literal as I do the "valley of the bones" in Ezekiel 37. How about you?

Ezekiel 37:10 And I prophecy as He commanded me and the spirit is coming in them, and they are living and are standing on their feet, an army/host, great, exceedingly-exceedingly.
11 And He is saying to me "Son of adam, the bones, these all of house of Israel. They behold! ones saying 'they are dry bones of us, and and hope of us perishes, we are severed to us. [Luke 2:34/Reve 11:11]

Luke 2:34 and Simeon blesses them and said toward Miriam the mother of Him, "Behold, this-one is setting into a fall and resurrection of many in the Israel, and into a sign spoken-against-- [Ezekiel 37:10, 11]

[Melchizedek]

Greetings. I take Genesis about as literal as I do the "valley of the bones" in Ezekiel 37. How about you?

I do too. Ezekiel 37 is literally something seen "by the Spirit of the Lord", as the text clearly states. Gen 1-3 is literally "In the beginning God..." as the text states.

[muffler dragon]

Melchizedek:

Did I completely deflate your interest in establishing G-d's acceptance of personal vicarious atonement (PVA) when Genesis 3 was removed from the picture?

Truth be told, I would think that IF PVA was a part of the road to forgiveness; then there would be numerous examples within the Tanakh. What's with the absence?

[Melchizedek]

Melchizedek:

Did I completely deflate your interest in establishing G-d's acceptance of personal vicarious atonement (PVA) when Genesis 3 was removed from the picture?

Truth be told, I would think that IF PVA was a part of the road to forgiveness; then there would be numerous examples within the Tanakh. What's with the absence?

When you remove the first three chapters from your bible from saying what it means, you might as well be looking at another bible.

[muffler dragon]

When you remove the first three chapters from your bible from saying what it means, you might as well be looking at another bible.

So be it.

I definitely don't view the Tanakh through Christian eyes. Peace.

[Melchizedek]

So be it.

I definitely don't view the Tanakh through Christian eyes. Peace.

If you hope for a place in the World to Come, then you must not see the Tanakh in anyone's eyes except that of the Messiah, Yeshua ben Yosef shel Netzaret, he is risen indeed. Shalom - may you come to know Him.

[LittleLambofJesus]

If you hope for a place in the World to Come, then you must not see the Tanakh in anyone's eyes except that of the Messiah, Yeshua ben Yosef shel Netzaret, he is risen indeed. Shalom - may you come to know Him.:bow:

Hosea 13:14 "From hand of sh@'owl I shall release/rescue/06299 padah them; from Death I shall Redeem/01350 ga'al them. Where plagues of you Death?. Where sting of you sh@'owl? Regret shall be hidden from My eyes." [1 Corin 15:55/Reve 1:18]

Reve 1:18 and the living One! And I became dead, and behold, I am living into the Ages of the Ages, and I am having the Keys of the Hades and of the Death

[muffler dragon]

If you hope for a place in the World to Come, then you must not see the Tanakh

I don't care about the WTC.

in anyone's eyes except that of the Messiah, Yeshua ben Yosef shel Netzaret, he is risen indeed. Shalom - may you come to know Him.

I KNOW (yes, present tense) all about Jesus. I was a Christian for over 20 years. I don't need a mediator. It's fine if you do. I'm fine with how my life is, and what I expect of the future. Trust me, my rejection of Jesus has ZERO impact on my present life or the future.

[RebYosef]

Wrong.

And you never thought to consult R. Ishmael? Google ברייתא דרבי ישמאל

And thats the just the various basic foundations.


There is most certainly other criteria. Care to list which one contradicts the drash I presented?

It's not a matter of contradictions. It's a matter of method. Aggadah are based off of what R.Akiva and R.Ishmael first layed down, you start there. Since you claim to be Hasidic, you'd move on to the RAMCHAL and his famous discourse on the subject. Or perhaps the Perush al Kamma Aggadot for the hows and whys.




How can I when the drash is my own?


Exactly my point. What makes you qualfied to write it? Anyone who writes accepted modern Aggadah, must first master the legalistic side ( which is about 90% of all midrash ) and then moves on. You know who does that? Rosh Yeshivas, Grand Rebbes, Maggidim, etc, etc.

[Melchizedek]

What makes you qualfied to write it? Anyone who writes accepted modern Aggadah, must first master the legalistic side ( which is about 90% of all midrash ) and then moves on. You know who does that? Rosh Yeshivas, Grand Rebbes, Maggidim, etc, etc.

Jeremiah 8:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=30&chapter=8&verse=9&version=31&context=verse)
The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the Word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?

When I look for the Word of the LORD in the Torah, I find him everywhere. As such you attack my credentials (which I claim to have none if any at all), without addressing the content of the points I bring up. This is classic bait and switch. If you desire to discount the drash I posted, do so, but don't do it attacking my credentials - for truth is truth no matter how credentialed the one is who writes it. Let the truth stand on its own merit. Everyone on the side of truth listens to the Word of the LORD, so will you listen?

I know enough to know what I am talking about.

Let's talk content, not credentials. When you finally win the credential contest, what good does it do if you reject the truth in the process?

[RebYosef]

Let's talk content, not credentials. When you finally win the credential contest, what good does it do if you reject the truth in the process?

Melchizedek,

You make my points all to clear. If you were familiar with Rabbinical works as you were oft to claim, you would have caught on to my phrase...

It's not a matter of contradictions. It's a matter of method.

Thats actually an idiom out of the introduction to the Sifra. Do you know why? Aggadah are supposed to to be hidden meanings only the wise and well learned could grasp. When they organized the Aggadah they decided what to keep and what to omit based on methods of structure and content of message.

If you wrote this Aggadah, what you call a drash, you are telling me that you gleaned this message or "truth" in such a way, that the only way you can express it, is by linking non-random passages togther and that I have to discover this profound and fundamental truth on my own (You can find this in the preface to the 11th chapter of Perek Chelek).

You don't refute an Aggadah. You compare the teaching to that of previous Sages and you take into account who wrote it and when and then choose to accept it or not. You don't cite a personal drash in a discourse and to do so displays how ignorant you are of Jewish Theology.

And furthermore, Aggadah does not create a dichtomy between "Truth" and "Non-Truth", so NO, you do not know what you are talking about. Thats painfully clear.

[LittleLambofJesus]

Shalom. I would like to ask the Orthodox Jews about the meaning of this Hebrew word in Isaiah 28:18.

In almost all occurances in the OT, it is used as "atone/cover-over", and how did the OC Hebrew Israelites atone for sin under the Law of Moses? Thoughts? :wave:

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Isaiah 28:18 And-shall-be-atoned/03722 kaphar, Covenant-of-you with Death, and-seer with Sh@'owl,

Hosea 13:14 "From hand of sh@'owl I shall release/rescue/06299 padah them; from Death I shall Redeem/01350 ga'al them. Where plagues of you Death?. Where sting of you sh@'owl? Regret shall be hidden from My eyes." [1 Corin 15:55]

03722 kaphar {kaw-far'} a primitive root; TWOT - 1023,1024,1025,1026; v
AV - atonement 71, purge 7, reconciliation 4, reconcile 3, forgive 3,

[Melchizedek]

Melchizedek,

You make my points all to clear. If you were familiar with Rabbinical works as you were oft to claim, you would have caught on to my phrase...



Thats actually an idiom out of the introduction to the Sifra. Do you know why? Aggadah are supposed to to be hidden meanings only the wise and well learned could grasp. When they organized the Aggadah they decided what to keep and what to omit based on methods of structure and content of message.

If you wrote this Aggadah, what you call a drash, you are telling me that you gleaned this message or "truth" in such a way, that the only way you can express it, is by linking non-random passages togther and that I have to discover this profound and fundamental truth on my own (You can find this in the preface to the 11th chapter of Perek Chelek).

You don't refute an Aggadah. You compare the teaching to that of previous Sages and you take into account who wrote it and when and then choose to accept it or not. You don't cite a personal drash in a discourse and to do so displays how ignorant you are of Jewish Theology.

And furthermore, Aggadah does not create a dichtomy between "Truth" and "Non-Truth", so NO, you do not know what you are talking about. Thats painfully clear.

Do you continue to refuse to discuss the points I made? Can you name a single argument that I posted, which is wrong? If so, can you prove which method of structure or content of message that contradicts the conclusions that I wrote? You have participated in six pages of responses concerning credentials, without disputing the content of the the arguments raised.



Please point out what part of this post is argumentatively flawed:

If no one like Moses, Who then is the Messiah Who provides Redemption?
Exodus 32

32 But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."

Moses offered himself up for the redemption of Israel. But Moses was not the Messiah, thus:

33 The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book.

HaShem rejected Moses's offer to redeem Israel on his merit, and thus was proven to not be the Messiah, the Redeemer of Israel, because Moses was not righteous enough - even though Moses, on his own righteousness, spoke with HaShem face to face - a relationship with HaShem unlike anyone else! Yet he was rejected as the Redeemer of Israel! This standard then also eliminates anyone who is not like Moses, such as Isaac, though he was offered, was instead the one in place of the one "seen" - HaShem. This also eliminates King David, Abraham, and Jacob, who all also offered themselves up to redeem Israel on the merit of their own righteousness, and who too were rejected as the Messiah, falling short, seeing as how they too were not like Moses - whose own righteousness was also not enough to effect redemption and thus forgiveness for those who sinned and whose names will be blotted out of God's book, either!

My question: if it is written "no one like Moses," (Deut 34:10) then who is it then that will be a "prophet like you from among your brothers" (Deut 18:18) who HaShem will raise up for us, and who we must listen to?

Who then is more righteous than Moses? Only One who is perfect.

Who is Israel's Redeemer, Who is the Messiah, Who is like Moses, but instead of rejecting him, God accepts as the Redeemer of Israel? If no one is like Moses, Who is it then whose merit, whose righteousness exceeds that of Moses and thus can redeem Israel? Whose death can make atonement and redemption for Israel and thus effect forgiveness so that that one may not be blotted out of God's book? Only One Who is perfect!

Who then is Israel's Messiah, Savior, King, Who also is Israel's Redeemer, One like Moses, and is even the only One who dies the death of the righteous and makes atonement and redemption for all Israel so that they are not blotted out because of their sin? Who is it whose righteousness exceeds that of Moses, who is thus perfect, whose righteousness exceeds that of Moses that God accepts as the Redeemer of Israel? HaShem!

As it is written, "HaShem my Rock and my Redeemer." (Psalm 19:4)

HaShem is Israel's Redeemer.


and please tell me what is flawed here:

The context refers to the King of Israel. Who then is the King of Israel? HaShem. Are you saying Moses is greater than HaShem?

How "among...brothers" links various passages in the Torah to the King, the High Priest, and the Prophet, is easily understood from a drash interpretive hermeneutic of scripture wherein phrases used in one passage are related to other passages that use the same phrase. I assume you are familiar with PaRDeS?

[RebYosef]

Do you continue to refuse to discuss the points I made?

There is no refusal. You simply don't like my answers.

Can you name a single argument that I posted, which is wrong?

Most of it.

If so, can you prove which method of structure or content of message that contradicts the conclusions that I wrote?

Yes and I cited the works specifically.

or content of message that contradicts the conclusions that I wrote?

You extrapolate off of a single phrase found in non-related passages. This type of Aggadah is dealt with specificaly in those Rabbinical works I cited. You could try looking them up.

You have participated in six pages of responses concerning credentials

Actually, I started with the grammar in Deut 18, which clealy shows that no specific person is to be expected, and that the prophets foretold of, are of lesser caliber then Moshe'.

You ignored that, and linked Chapter 17 and a few other passages all togther with a single phrase irrelevent of context or p'[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]. If you had read the citations I gave you ( Those Rabbinical works you claim to know and read ) you'd have understood my point about your work. It can only be done from a position of authority, which you don't have. What you are doing is akin to me writing dogma for the Roman Catholic Church.

without disputing the content of the the arguments raised.

If you were familiar with PaDReS as you claim, then you know why. In the citations I gave, we are shown the methods of judgement, which are based off of, who the writer is and what is the content of his message? Your non-literal interpetations that "spring forth" cannot be presented like a simple meaning or Halachic ruling. Your method is supposed to be deep and learned wisdom.

Like I said, no one brings their own Aggadah to a disputation and presents it as evidence. Would I come to an argument and say, " I had a dream from HaShem that told me, the passages must be read as such! " No, there is no axiom to begin with and move on from. Such is the case here.

And thats the real irony here. You self style an Aggadah that uses no methods of internal exegesis, but one that comes from pure enlightenment and then demand it to be proved wrong. Thats silly. So when I use use the actual methods laid down by the Sages as to how they rejected or accepted Aggadah, you claim I'm not dealing with your message. But facts are facts, you are a proverbial no one in Judaism, no education in Jewish theology and your message contradicts previous and greater Sages.

[Melchizedek]

No, there is no axiom to begin with and move on from. Such is the case here.

As I've stated time and again, the axiom is the Messiah in the Torah - that the Torah is about Him.

It is very clearly founded on the very first word of the Torah itself: B'reisheit - In the firstfruit; the house + firstfruit. We are therefore taught by the Torah itself that the Torah itself is about the Firstfruit contained within it - all of the Torah! The Torah is about the house, the firstfruit. From which all other clues as to Who this is are written into every letter, word, phrase, nuance, teaching, commandment, ruling, decree, laws, stories, parasha, and book. That is the axiom.

Without looking for the Messiah in the Torah, you remove the central foundation to understanding the Torah, and the foundation to truly making teshuvah.

[muffler dragon]

Actually Israel supercedes the Messiah in Torah, and this is rather evident from the overtly stated text.

[RebYosef]

Actually Israel supercedes the Messiah in Torah, and this is rather evident from the overtly stated text.

It's not even worth going down those rabbit trails. The Non sequitur reply is a blatant indication we are just being preached at.

[muffler dragon]

It's not even worth going down those rabbit trails. The Non sequitur reply is a blatant indication we are just being preached at.

Advice heeded, Reb. :thumbsup:

[Melchizedek]

My response was in his charge that I am not using any internal exegesis. I just gave it.

[Melchizedek]

My response was in his charge that I am not using any internal exegesis. I just gave it.