jewish messiah

[dauer]

your opinion (be honest or don't answer)

I was being honest. You only have to look the book up to see that.

exactly!

but if i say it, you ad the ad hominen as you state here....

In my previous post when I said that Judaism is a religion of interpretation you objected and said that is my opinion.

when i shared the talmut as 'adjudication' of law, didn't that share to you not only has it been observed, but that i also comprehended what it is, personally? (no one else's opinion)

No, you had previously rejected my statement that Judaism is a religion of interpretation as my personal opinion and shown that you have no interest in most Jewish texts on the messiah, despite the fact that they represent Jewish perspectives on the messiah, therefore I responded by pointing out how your response minimizes the importance and centrality of the talmud.

again, i use the term 'sect' and rather than just say, they are 'different demonimations'.... you say 'incorrect' as if you are authority. it is your opinion and you have no problem with pushing as if what you think is what the world thinks and i am just a trouble maker

I don't think you're skillful enough to be much a troublemaker, just an ignorant nuisance, and if you actually read authorities on Judaism, you'll find that the word sect is quite regularly rejected as it's not terribly descriptive of Judaism as it is. If you're not willing to accept the authority of Jews to tell you what Judaism is, why bother coming to us at all?

So in my words versus yours, the sects are divided by interpretation of moses laws.

The word sects only applies to some ultra-orthodox groups, but if those are the only groups you'd like to discuss I can say that your statement "interpretation of moses law" isn't quite right. They don't disagree on mitzvah at all, only minhag, and the minhagim they disagree on are acknowledged customs e.g. wearing one type of hat instead of another.

and i opened this thread asking for more literature on messiah, within the original forms prior to opinion. (consistantly)

And when I provided the most comprehensive English compilation of Jewish primary sources on the messiah you rejected it as you've clearly demonstrated you've no interest in Jewish perspectives on the messiah, only in asserting your own perspectives.

then what business do you have claiming you can define judaism, when there is a precept:

"Whoever does not believe in him, or does not await his coming, denies not only [the statements of] the other prophets, but also [those of] the Torah and of Moshe, our teacher, for the Torah attests to his coming, stating: [Devarim 30:3-5]"

that is not my opinion, it was from the site you pointed me to

As I said, Judaism is a religion of interpretation. That is one interpretation of Judaism. I also provided you with a second link that had more perspectives on the messiah, including those that reject a personal messiah entirely. I provided you with Maimonides' perspective because he is an important and influential thinker, and as I said before, Judaism's not monolithic. It's a religion of interpretation. There's isn't just one perspective on the messiah or what one should believe. Nor does what you've stated above present any reason why I can't tell you what Judaism is. R' Meir studied with Elisha ben Abuyah even after he cut the shoots.

that (per your judaism) tells me, that you are no authority

No, not per my Judaism. My Judaism is a religion of interpretation where multiple perspectives can exist happily alongside one another.

Daur, no more telling ME what i think. I know who i am, and capable of standing by what i say.

I don't need to tell you what you think. You show me, and everyone else on this forum, your ignorance every time you post here.

All you just did was show your lack of comprehending the very material you represent.

No, not at all. All I did is reaffirm, through my actions that "I'm more interested in explaining Judaism than my own individual perspective unless someone asks me about my personal views." I don't have any issues sharing Jewish POV's that I disagree with to those who ask. You're looking for an absolute Jewish perspective on the messiah that just isn't there.

-- Dauer

edit:

so instead of interpretations, the oldest texts and MY OWN interpretations are what I wish to pursue.

Then go do that. It's got nothing to do with Judaism. You can find whatever texts you deem worthy enough of your own interpretations on your own and you'll probably find fewer people telling you that you're wrong about their religion that way.

 

[Bishadi]

In my previous post when I said that Judaism is a religion of interpretation you objected and said that is my opinion.

the religion does not profess each practitioner to 'self interpret' the laws............ it is bound to the laws and over time, interpretations were written. (evolved)

No, you had previously rejected my statement that Judaism is a religion of interpretation

the sect(s) are based on the variety of interpretations.... but the 'religion' is based on moses laws (God's laws, per se)

I don't think you're skillful enough to be much a troublemaker, just an ignorant nuisance,

a direct insult

but no mind, a gentile is always a gentile don't care what you call yourself Dauer.

The word sects only applies to some ultra-orthodox groups, but if those are the only groups you'd like to discuss I can say that your statement "interpretation of moses law" isn't quite right. They don't disagree on mitzvah at all, only minhag, and the minhagim they disagree on are acknowledged customs e.g. wearing one type of hat instead of another.

perhaps you would like to read a little more on judaism to comprehend judaism Jewish religious movements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or perhaps from the jewish perspective My Jewish Learning: Emergence of Modern Denominationalism I

No, not per my Judaism. My Judaism is a religion of interpretation where multiple perspectives can exist happily alongside one another.

that not what the Rabbi said....

i guess your judaism is different than the rest of the world's....

but no problem, i deal with diversity every day

You're looking for an absolute Jewish perspective on the messiah that just isn't there.

especially, from a guy like you who doesn't believe in a messiah

Asking you about messiah has been like asking a Hindu about the differences of Isaac and his older brother.

Then go do that. It's got nothing to do with Judaism. You can find whatever texts you deem worthy enough of your own interpretations on your own and you'll probably find fewer people telling you that you're wrong about their religion that way.

now you see why i asked for the material

all this circle jerking, just so you can tell me what you think of me

why not just PM me rather than reveal how weak you are

for example, not a once did i share anything other than i don't like the 'opinions' of the scriptures that i wanted to see the core foundations to the prophecies of messiah

the secular addition are just interpretation by the various perspectives and you try and tell me that judaism is bound to interpretations over gods works from moses.

seems you are not bound to the core of judaism but to the sect of your choice.

fine.... but lose the insults, guilt don't work on me!

 

[dauer]

the religion does not profess each practitioner to 'self interpret' the laws............ it is bound to the laws and over time, interpretations were written. (evolved)

The process of interpretation is bound to the religion itself. In the language of traditional myth, that is the oral Torah which gives way to interpretation in Divinely revealed ways such that the interpretation is also Torah and disagreements can be l'shem shamayim. Or to put it differently, "It's not in heaven..." You are no doubt aware of the famous aggadic passage which cites that verse given your familiarity with Judaism.

a direct insult

Observed fact. You are a nuisance, you are ignorant, and you're not skillful enough to be much trouble. If you were you'd gain familiarity with a religion first and then make observations about it.

but no mind, a gentile is always a gentile don't care what you call yourself Dauer.

That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard firstly because a Jew is defined as someone born to a Jewish mother and secondly because I'm quite religiously and spiritually engaged in Judaism. Your statement only further reveals your ignorance of Judaism. I suppose you'd see the great majority of Jews today as not-Jewish for rejecting one thing or another. One of Rambam's big things was trying to come up with a list of what Jews must believe. It was controversial in his day and after. There are great rabbis who have disagreed with items on his 13 articles of faith who lived both before and after him, and that's if we simplify the 13 articles down to their formulation in Ani Ma'amin.

perhaps you would like to read a little more on judaism to comprehend judaism

Are you bothering to read the sources you cite at all? Look at the heading "terminology" in that wikipedia article and you'll see it's quite in line with what I stated. You used the word sect and so I referred to the only sub-section of the Jewish population to which it's somewhat regularly applied, the ultra-orthodox.

that not what the Rabbi said....

i guess your judaism is different than the rest of the world's....

but no problem, i deal with diversity every day

Again, there's no single voice of authority in Judaism. BB told you as much and he's much further to the right than I am. Did you even bother to read the second page I presented? I sent you both of them so you'd see a full range of Jewish perspectives on the messiah. You're trying to take a round peg (Judaism) and fit it into a square hole (your ignorant views on Judaism.)

especially, from a guy like you who doesn't believe in a messiah

Asking you about messiah has been like asking a Hindu about the differences of Isaac and his older brother.

You don't have to take my word for it. I presented you with two links that provided multiple contrary Jewish perspectives on the messiah, including that there is no individual messiah, something that quite possibly the majority of Jews believe in modern times.

now you see why i asked for the material

You asked for Jewish sources. I provided them.

the secular addition are just interpretation by the various perspectives and you try and tell me that judaism is bound to interpretations over gods works from moses.

This statement alone reveals your ignorance. I guess you're not familiar with the passage I referenced after all. If you were you'd stop barking up the wrong tree.

 

[dauer]

You're trying to view Judaism according to what I have often observed is a very Christian perspective of religion, that is, that religion must include some central list of dogma about which everyone is strongly in agreement. Judaism just doesn't work that way. Even in Orthodoxy where the 13 articles of faith have, in more recent times, become accepted as central, that is only in their simplified form and only when a very large amount of flexibility is given to their interpretation such that one person's personal way of relating to the 13 articles of faith could very easily disagree with Rambam.

 

[Bishadi]

The process of interpretation is bound to the religion itself. In the language of traditional myth, that is the oral Torah which gives way to interpretation in Divinely revealed ways such that the interpretation is also Torah and disagreements can be l'shem shamayim. Or to put it differently, "It's not in heaven..." You are no doubt aware of the famous aggadic passage which cites that verse given your familiarity with Judaism.

Nope, not familiar with that. But perhaps we can change this conversation to what you want.

Observed fact. You are a nuisance, you are ignorant, and you're not skillful enough to be much trouble.

But you make a fine example.

If you were you'd gain familiarity with a religion first and then make observations about it.

Which sect are you wishing to discuss?

That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard firstly because a Jew is defined as someone born to a Jewish mother and secondly because I'm quite religiously and spiritually engaged in Judaism.

Still 'less than' jewish just by your own admission of not believing is messiah. It was you that asked for me to become familiar with the judaic interpretations. I learned from what you suggested. I read within the religious interpretations you provided and they say you are not jewish.

Must be gentile.

Your statement only further reveals your ignorance of Judaism. I suppose you'd see the great majority of Jews today as not-Jewish for rejecting one thing or another.

Nope.. you said it is of religious interpretations and i saw "Whoever does not believe in him, or does not await his coming, denies not only [the statements of] the other prophets, but also [those of] the Torah and of Moshe, our teacher, for the Torah attests to his coming, stating: [Devarim 30:3-5]"

that and then looked up the passage.

I disagree with the interpretation but you have made this whole thread about 'interpretations' so i used your suggested reading material to try and talk with you at your level.

Again, there's no single voice of authority in Judaism.

then why have you been telling me what to believe? You've even gone so far as to tell me what i think.

Did you even bother to read the second page I presented?

Yep.......... and a whole bunch more.

I sent you both of them so you'd see a full range of Jewish perspectives on the messiah. You're trying to take a round peg (Judaism) and fit it into a square hole (your ignorant views on Judaism.)

been reading the various perspectives

but not a once have we discussed anything regarding the thread title.

you've been ranting

You don't have to take my word for it. I presented you with two links that provided multiple contrary Jewish perspectives on the messiah, including that there is no individual messiah, something that quite possibly the majority of Jews believe in modern times.

that don't make sense, as the intent of rebuilding the temple on the mount is all over the various news and TV shows on religion. Apparently, the rebuilding of the temple is important for the messiah.

Maybe that idea is new? You tell me.

This statement alone reveals your ignorance.

So then, since you know what judaism has to say about messiah, and that i am ignorant......... perhaps you can just be the saint dauer of interfaith and tell me what messiah means to all of them.

 

[dauer]

Nope, not familiar with that. But perhaps we can change this conversation to what you want.

It's not a change of conversation. It's explaining to you the way Judaism works. According to the talmud, disagreements that persist can be l'shem shamayim, for the sake of heaven. Additionally, "It's not in heaven..." The Torah was given to man, along with the tools to interpret and apply it. In that aggadah various supernatural miracles happen in the support of one rabbi, and yet those miracles are not valid in supporting a halachic argument.

Still 'less than' jewish just by your own admission of not believing is messiah. It was you that asked for me to become familiar with the judaic interpretations. I learned from what you suggested. I read within the religious interpretations you provided and they say you are not jewish.

You are not understanding Judaism. You're still trying to view one individidual as the authoritative voice. I presented him as one perspective along with quite a few others. He's a good introduction tof rationalist Jewish perspectives on the messiah and is therefore a good starting point, as I said from the beginning. I never said he's the alpha and omega. BB says pretty much the same thing when he discusses aggadah.

[I disagree with the interpretation but you have made this whole thread about 'interpretations' so i used your suggested reading material to try and talk with you at your level

No you're confusing your level for mine. Religion of interpretation means many interpretations, many voices, not all agreeing with one another, and co-existing in the same religion despite that. That is why I said if you had even minimal familiarity with the nature of the Talmud you'd understand.

then why have you been telling me what to believe? You've even gone so far as to tell me what i think.

I didn't tell you what to believe. I told you how Judaism operates.

een reading the various perspectives

but not a once have we discussed anything regarding the thread title.

You asked for sources on Jewish messianism. I provided you with them. You said some weren't good enough for you. I pointed out why your statement was ignorant on a Jewish board. If you don't undertstand Judaism you can't understand Jewish texts on the messiah and what qualifies as a Jewish text on the messiah.

that don't make sense, as the intent of rebuilding the temple on the mount is all over the various news and TV shows on religion. Apparently, the rebuilding of the temple is important for the messiah.

There is a small group of Jewish extremists who want to rebuild the temple. Look into the Temple Institute for more on them. Even for those who believe in a personal messiah (already a minority in Judaism if we go by the number of members in different denominations) they generally go for passive messianism along the lines of the talmudic teaching that if you have a sapling in your hand and someone tells you the messiah has come, first plant the sapling, then greet the messiah. Rebuilding the temple is certainly something that plays into the beliefs of those who hold the idea of a personal messiah, but that has little relevance to the point you're trying to challenge.

So then, since you know what judaism has to say about messiah, and that i am ignorant......... perhaps you can just be the saint dauer of interfaith and tell me what messiah means to all of them.

I've no idea what you're talking about. You asked for Jewish perspectives on the messiah and I provided some. You then said some of those weren't good enough for you. Those are Jewish perspectives on the messiah. If you're interested in something else you've come to the wrong place. You are ignorant about Judaism, extremely ignorant. And although your first question made it seem like you were sincere about remedying that situation, you've made it clear you have little interest in doing so.

-- Dauer

 

[Bishadi]

It's not a change of conversation. It's explaining to you the way Judaism works. According to the talmud,

Is that what the thread was on?

The Torah was given to man, along with the tools to interpret and apply it.

Tools?

Perhaps, the question of what 'other' literature is there on messiah wasn't clear?

You are not understanding Judaism.

Here we go again...........

No you're confusing your level for mine.

be nice to be eye level with you but you have an inferiority complex.

perhaps you are nervous about something?

I didn't tell you what to believe. I told you how Judaism operates.

per your opinion (as we know now judaism, 'its a religion of interpretations"

let me guess......... since i wrote it, that is 'now' ignorant too?

You asked for sources on Jewish messianism. I provided you with them. You said some weren't good enough for you. I pointed out why your statement was ignorant on a Jewish board.

When dealing with someone on a jewish board regarding the messiah, you would think a jewish person would answer.

If you don't undertstand Judaism you can't understand Jewish texts on the messiah and what qualifies as a Jewish text on the messiah.

Again, how are you to state anything on messiah if you have no belief in messiah? How do you know what is good or not, you don't believe either opinion whether it be torah or the opinions?

and then when i read what you ask me too, it talks bad about guys like you.

There is a small group of Jewish extremists who want to rebuild the temple.

Small group?

I just read that it is a requisite of the religion to be awaiting messiah, as well it seems the majority of the news now-a-days is on the conflicts over the land in which the temple is supposed to be built in.

seems much of the world issues is wrapped around this messiah plan and judaism is center stage.

Look into the Temple Institute for more on them.

maybe later, right now in the middle of the doctrine on messiah

Even for those who believe in a personal messiah (already a minority in Judaism

Strange, as to read what you suggest and everything so far in cross referencing, it seems you the minority, that is unless the term 'personal' means something new. I can't wait for you to talk about my ignorance on that to.

they generally go for passive messianism along the lines of the talmudic teaching that if you have a sapling in your hand and someone tells you the messiah has come, first plant the sapling, then greet the messiah.

says nothing about the messiah except 'wait'

what's that mean to you? Did you suggest that is what 'passive messianism' means?

Rebuilding the temple is certainly something that plays into the beliefs of those who hold the idea of a personal messiah, but that has little relevance to the point you're trying to challenge.

Never put up a challenge except that i wanted clearer definitions than opinions.

it seems you put up the challenges as well incapable of focusing on the subject matter in stead of my good looks

Excuse me but you played out your hand;

are there any folk who know (observe) judaism who can assist?

just want information, no need to debate

 

[Ahanu]

Bishadi, I do not observe Judaism, but I do have a quote that you may find interesting on the subject. You said you were interested in the origins of the idea a few posts back, I believe. You must be talking about the Messiah with a big "M".

I was just reading from Karen Armstrong's book "The Bible: A Autobiography." Well, here is a quote which you can disregard or look further into. . .

"Before the first century CE, there was no widespread expectation that a messiah, an 'annointed one', would arrive to put the world to rights. Despite occasional references to such a figure, this was still a peripheral, undeveloped idea. The apocalyptic scenarios of the Late Second Temple period usually imagined God establishing the new order, without human assistance. There were a few sporadic references to concepts that would later become crucial. There was mention of a Davidic king who would inaugurate the 'kingdom of God' and 'sit forever over the goyim in judgement' (Psalms of Solomon 17:3). Another text spoke of a ruler who would 'be called son of God and. . .son of the most high and bring peace to the world'--clearly a nostalgic harking back to Isaiah's prophecy of Immanu-EL. But these isolated notions did not yet form a coherent vision" (45-46).

 

[bananabrain]

dauer, you're wasting your time. this guy barely understands how to put an english sentence together. that combined with muddy thinking and a dogmatic insistence that he's understood everything far better than everyone else is not going to result in any genuine dialogue.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, I do not observe Judaism, but I do have a quote that you may find interesting on the subject. You said you were interested in the origins of the idea a few posts back, I believe. You must be talking about the Messiah with a big "M".

I was just reading from Karen Armstrong's book "The Bible: A Autobiography." Well, here is a quote which you can disregard or look further into. . .

Thanks Ahanu, that was a short an concise representation.

Makes lot's of sense too. I guess when the christian movement began the air was perhaps alive with the messianism thinking.

That is where I enjoy to seek; the old literature written prior to this period. As i see it, the idea came from somewhere

Here is what i found regardin reading

The Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi - Classic Texts

that offers a bunch

then this one offers the whole list of books as well
Polyglot Bible Index

which if you really like fun, this one offers the text in 4 language variations so people can cross reference the individual words and symbols

Polyglot Bible: Isaiah: Isaiah 7

i read a bunch so when i pursue, i like lots of references

to me learning is a blast, and in the case of doing good, loving life and trying to be of quality mind and comprehension; it makes sense to trust yourself over many of the various 'interpretations' by the people of the 'faith' itself.

as anyone can see, if you don't agree with 'them', sometimes the secular are not very nice

i could imagine a young child being told over and over, 'your ignorant' by this type....

kind of sad

Thanks again Ahanu.

 

[bananabrain]

it makes sense to trust yourself over many of the various 'interpretations' by the people of the 'faith' itself.

yes, why on earth would you want to actually ask some of its adherents if you wanted to what a faith was about? far more sensible to take your own opinion - i mean, who are these people anyway? after all, if you want a medical opinion, you should trust your own opinion rather than that of a doctor. he's only been to medical school, it's not like he knows anything.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Bishadi]

yes, why on earth would you want to actually ask some of its adherents if you wanted to what a faith was about?

Not sure, because common sense and experience shares, many are biased or even conflict each other. This thread is a good example of the inconsistancies within the practitioners of the various sects themselves.

it is why it seems best to often leave the 'interpretations' on the shelf and read the material individually. Most reading is comprehensible if the time is taken and honesty stands up over beliefs.

far more sensible to take your own opinion - i mean, who are these people anyway?

i know, can't trust many because they often resort to ad hominen attacked perhaps because their own convictions are often put to question. In psychology they have many chapters on how to address these types of insecurities but i have learned there is not much that can be done with self serving minds

after all, if you want a medical opinion, you should trust your own opinion rather than that of a doctor.

It seems the class is different. Many of beliefs are bound to magic and capable of representing a interpretation as fact, with no intent of being honest but to maintain the belief. Kind of self defeating in which the precept of the belief says, don't fib, but they have too, in order to be accepted within their peers.

In contrast; the medical field is bound to truth, actual observations and data in order to make an honest call. They know a person's life may depend on the material they represent. In which a practicing believer may often have little care for the person or what their words can do to another.

 

[bananabrain]

It seems the class is different. Many of beliefs are bound to magic and capable of representing a interpretation as fact, with no intent of being honest but to maintain the belief. Kind of self defeating in which the precept of the belief says, don't fib, but they have too, in order to be accepted within their peers.

so you're saying that i'm being intellectually dishonest in order not to accept the truth? which you, presumably, are in possession of? them's fighting words.

In contrast; the medical field is bound to truth, actual observations and data in order to make an honest call. They know a person's life may depend on the material they represent. In which a practicing believer may often have little care for the person or what their words can do to another.

if you want to know the Divine Will, it is necessary to use interpretation on some level. so, in this medical analogy, because it appears i have to spell it out to you, the "medical case" is a religious behavioural challenge, or conundrum. the "doctor", or if you prefer rabbi, analyses the facts of the case and suggests a "remedy", or action, based upon his experience (or hers if you like), knowledge of the patient and knowledge of medical practice. the person's spiritual (or indeed other) well-being may well depend on their being correct and prescribing the best "medicine", or course of action. you assume that the practicing believer cares not at all for the "person" and in this you are, as usual 100% mistaken.

i'm finding this discussion both tiresome and pointless. you're not prepared to consider that you might not be in possession of all the knowledge you need, you're very rude, arrogant and smug and frankly, your syntax makes my eyes hurt, so i'm closing this thread.

b'shalom

bananabrain