Paul, the Cuckoo Bird

[Ben Masada]

Jesus rejected the Talmud which put him at odds with the Pharisees who believed in the Talmud and its binding authority. Like Jesus, the Koran confirmed the Torah but attacked many aspects of the Talmud.

That's a lie and a false accusation of Jesus. To prove what I am saying, why don't you go right ahead and quote to me where Jesus rejected the Talmud. You don't know because you expect me to take your word for it. To accuse any personage in the NT, you must use the NT to prove your assertion.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

Since the main idea of this post of yours above is about Jesus being miraculously born of a virgin, needless to ask, you are referring to the prophecy of Isaiah about the virgin that would bear a child in Isaiah 7:14.

That wasn't the main idea of my post. For that matter, and heeding Nietzsche's advice in this case, I wouldn't presume to even try to understand someone as recondite, ambiguous, ambiguating, unclear and obscure as prophet Isaiah. But thanks, in any case, for the exposition of his prophecy. As far as I am concerned, rather than Christianity being, as the Talmudists call it, a religion of Esau and Edom, I sometimes think it is (esoteric) Egypt's answer to Israel.

Speaking of "replacement" theology, given that Talmudists consider Christianity a religion of Esau/Edom, isn't Judaism, as the presumptive religion of Esau's younger brother, Jacob, sort of the replacer and Esau, the firstborn, the replaced in this case?

Maybe, given that this thread has looped a bit, you will permit me to quote myself:

Anyway, I don’t understand why you find the idea of “Replacement Theology” so irksome. As I read it, the idea of replacement, of the rights of the first-born being transferred, often through subterfuge and deceit, to the second-born is practically a leitmotif of your scriptures. It starts with Ishmael and Isaac (and perhaps before, with Cain and Abel, for that matter), continues, mutatis mutandis, through Jacob and Esau, and ends only Rashi and R. Johanan know where. St. Paul, by “rightly )) dividing the word of truth,” was simply applying, or, arguably, misapplying, the concept: he wasn’t inventing it.

If I may ask, which troubles you more: the idea of replacement, or the idea that you have been replaced?

Serv

 

[showme]

Nu! I was anxious for the comment you gave me the impression you would add about Daniel 9:24. Would you like to tell me what it means? I am all ears.
Ben

It was your original quote about Daniel 9:24. I will let age go before beauty. Please feel free to give me an interpretation of the context surrounding your quote. I am interested in your interpretation of the whole context around Daniel 9:24, and how your conclusion from it makes any sense. I have no doubt that from your question answering a question, that you are reluctant to clarify your position. But you are the one with a position to keep. , I am simply a sojouner, passing through. You indicated that "prophecy" is sealed up. Prove it. If you know what Daniel 9:24 means, then you should know what Daniel:24-27 means.

 

[bananabrain]

all accept Halakha, which is Jewish law.

reform jews do not accept the binding nature of halakhah or the personal obligation model, so it's a bit more complicated than that.

I do too, as long as it walks hand-in-hand with the Tanach as it does.

yes, but you don't accept anyone's interpretation other than your own of what constitutes "walking hand-in-hand"; this itself is a fairly reform (indeed karaite) position, as i've said before.

And why Sadducees, that they did not believe in bodily resurrection? Who among the Jews believed in bodily resurrection, the Pharisees? Nonsense!

i think you'll find that it's a bit more complicated than that and i already think that your position on resurrection is somewhat odd; however, this is aggadah and you can take whatever position is reasonable, although flying in the face of the 13 principles is also somewhat odd, as i've said elsewhere.

There was no contradiction between the teaching of Beit Hillel and that of Jesus.

i find this an extraordinary statement, considering how little detail we actually have of either.

Really! What sense of morality had the Greeks?

one that was quite different from the jewish sense of it. different things were important to them; that is not the same as having "no" sense of it; we might well think that they were fundamentally mistaken on a number of things, but you appear as usual to be generalising.

For them homosexuality was the most common and natural thing to be practiced.

another huge generalisation. there is a large difference between what was expected in, for example, the theban sacred band and what was expected in, for example, athenian philosophical circles or ephesian high society. there are greeks and greeks and greeks.

What sense of morality was that?

are you seriously suggesting that homosexuality is inherently immoral in this day and age? i am not saying we don't have our issues with any kind of sexual behaviour, but it is very much more complicated than what you present.

There was nothing Jewish about Christianity.

oh, hogwash, ben. you are sounding increasingly strident and shrill about this. of course there are major, important, fundamental differences, but there are also some very strong similarities and common values.

The Christian is rather the final consequence of Hellenism.

now you're sounding like a sort of mad counterpart of nietzsche!

Mine is not a "Paul-bashing" attitude; unless you call bashing to say the truth.

oh, pull the other one.

to Nietzsche and some of his later disciples, Paul was the ultimate Jew.

i am sure this was not meant as a compliment.

Nietzsche, to drive the point home, used the metaphor of a vampire, sucking blood. Lovely, isn't it?

actually, after reading some of this stuff, i feel like i need a bath. i imagine that feminists feel rather similar when encountering his misogyny.

As Germany, in the words of Ludendorff's interviewer, Pierre van Paassen, became systematically "dechristianized," the existential threat to German Jewry increased.

one might say that if christians had acted in a more christian manner, the existential threat to german jewry might never have materialised, although of course it was largely christian antisemitism (of the most unchristian sort!) that made it possible... read amos elon's "the pity of it all" - it's a jolly fine book.

I might suggest that if St. Paul did concentrate more upon Jews than upon gentiles, it may well have been because the children of Israel, Jews included in this case as a subset, can (reportedly) be a notoriously stiff-necked lot, at times, and may, in some cases, require much attention. I mean, after all, it took them 40 years to travel a little stretch of desert ...

hah! we have a saying: "two jews, three opinions", to which i generally append "and four committees"; you can picture the conversation:

"the promised land is that way!"
"what, north?"
"yes, north!"
"what are you on about, it's across that river there!"
"what, the one with the massive scary canaanites waiting for us?"
"that's the bunny!"
"you're off your rocker - i'm off to refidim."
"refidim? we were there last year. nothing but sand and palm trees?"
"palm trees? sez you!"
"yeah!"
"yeah?"
"yeah!"
*smack*
"MOSES!!!!"

you will find, in fact, that the most accurate portrayal of jews in the ancient world is still probably in "life of brian".

Secondly, the gospels are not official Pharisaical sources. The Talmud is. Jesus is called a bastard in the Talmud.

in fact, as i never tire of saying, it's rather more complicated than that. it is by no means clear *who* is called *what* in the talmud and if so, what precisely that implies. :

Jesus In The Talmud

talmudic analysis is an extremely complex field of lifelong learning and, if i may say so, i do not feel that nietzsche, gen. ludendorff, or wilhelm marr qualify as knowing their arses from their elbows in this respect.

Speaking of "replacement" theology, given that Talmudists consider Christianity a religion of Esau/Edom, isn't Judaism, as the presumptive religion of Esau's younger brother, Jacob, sort of the replacer and Esau, the firstborn, the replaced in this case?

ooh, hark at mr cheeky. although i think you have displayed more humour and tact than i would have done in your place.

Like Jesus, the Koran confirmed the Torah but attacked many aspects of the Talmud.

oh dear, it's the islamic karaite. i don't see any evidence of any of this; references to jewish thought in the qur'an can nearly all be traced to one or more of the extant contemporary midrashic text like the tanchuma.

It seems you see what you want to see.

ahem - well, quite!

If you know what Daniel 9:24 means, then you should know what Daniel:24-27 means.

i'm no expert on interpreting that particular book, but i believe it is generally understood in traditional circles to prophesy referring to the events around the maccabean rebellion when antiochus epiphanes, the seleucid monarch, desecrated the Temple with idols and pigsties - the so-called "abomination of desolation". the "king messiah", then, is referring to judah maccabee - note the phrase is not "melekh ha-mashiah", which would normally be what referred to a king, but "mashiah ha-naghidh", which is an unusual title. however, the root of the word naghidh is nun-gimel-dalet, which implies "opposition" - as judah maccabee was a rebel leader, i think that's rather appropriate. the hasmonean family which he headed was also not of the tribe of judah, so they weren't eligible for the kingship in any case.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[radarmark]

bananabrain, I like your interpretation of the prophecy of Daniel. It reminds me of the all-too-prosaic Armenian interpretation of Revelation. A historical prophecy that was fulfilled.

 

[showme]

reform jews do not accept the binding nature of halakhah or the personal obligation model, so it's a bit more complicated than that.


i'm no expert on interpreting that particular book, but i believe it is generally understood in traditional circles to prophesy referring to the events around the maccabean rebellion when antiochus epiphanes, the seleucid monarch, desecrated the Temple with idols and pigsties - the so-called "abomination of desolation". the "king messiah", then, is referring to judah maccabee - note the phrase is not "melekh ha-mashiah", which would normally be what referred to a king, but "mashiah ha-naghidh", which is an unusual title. however, the root of the word naghidh is nun-gimel-dalet, which implies "opposition" - as judah maccabee was a rebel leader, i think that's rather appropriate. the hasmonean family which he headed was also not of the tribe of judah, so they weren't eligible for the kingship in any case.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I was looking for the part where Ben said Dan 9:24 was the end of prophecy, and there are no more prophets. My problem is that I only see 69 1/2 of the weeks being fulfilled with respect to the prophecy itself. There seems to be another 3 1/2 days left, which was not addressed in the prophecy itself. I was looking more at the time line than the interpretation. I was thinking that Ben's interpretation would tie down the time line, exposing any flaws, but you showed me that one can generalize to a point where time isn't even mentioned. There is too much controversy about the actual interpretation for me to want to jump in on the actual interpretation at this time. But if you would like to put dates and years to your interpretation, that would be helpful.
Date 1: Who issued the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, and what was the date? (Dan 9:25)
Date 2: What happened after 62 weeks and seven weeks, and why break down the the timeline into 62 weeks and seven weeks?
Date 3: Who and what date did "he" make a firm covenant with "the many" for one week, and in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering"?
Do these weeks have to be contiguous?

 

[Servetus]

I wondered how long it would be before the great, swirling whirlpool that was started by Ben Masada would catch bananabrain into the action.

… to Nietzsche and some of his later disciples, Paul was the ultimate Jew.

i am sure this was not meant as a compliment.

I am sure that you are correct.

Nietzsche, to drive the point home, used the metaphor of a vampire, sucking blood. Lovely, isn't it?

actually, after reading some of this stuff, i feel like i need a bath. i imagine that feminists feel rather similar when encountering his misogyny.

I actually withheld, out of a sense of propriety, some of Nietzsche’s more offensive statements. He is an apostle of anti-Christianity and, as you know, has a wide readership. He adds to his hyperborean spawn daily.

As Germany, in the words of Ludendorff's interviewer, Pierre van Paassen, became systematically "dechristianized," the existential threat to German Jewry increased.

one might say that if christians had acted in a more christian manner, the existential threat to german jewry might never have materialised, although of course it was largely christian antisemitism (of the most unchristian sort!) that made it possible... read amos elon's "the pity of it all" - it's a jolly fine book.

I have read it and consider it among the best books of its type in print. It was cinematic and brilliantly done. In fact, while I was watching the in my opinion too whimsical recent Woody Allen film, Midnight in Paris, I kept thinking that he ought to do something beneficial and put Mr. Elon’s book to film. Now that would be worth relinquishing some quid to see.

The situation in Germany was complex. I always appreciate -and return to- the nuanced approach taken by Heinrich Heine, an insider within (pre-Nazi) Germany and a character who plays a role in Elon’s book. In his writings to the French (correction, the despised French to hardcore German Nationalists, with whom Heine and other “cosmopolitan” Jews, following Napoleon’s stampede through Prussia, were considered rather too intimate) trying to explain Germans, he wrote this astoundingly prescient and oft-quoted paragraph. In fact, I first read the paragraph and then went in search of the essay and found it here. (Please keep General Ludendorff in mind while reading.)

Heinrich Heine:

"Christianity - and that is its greatest merit - has somewhat mitigated that brutal Germanic love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. This talisman is fragile, and the day will come when it will collapse miserably. Then the ancient stony gods will rise from the forgotten debris and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and finally Thor with his giant hammer will jump up and smash the Gothic cathedrals …”

In what I think is related, three occultists of the last century, HP Blavatsky, Israel Regardie and Aleister Crowley, wrote of a link -tantamount to an identical link- between Thor’s hammer and the swastika. Furthermore, Sigmund Freud, in his Moses and Monotheism, also said that the trouble in the Germany of his era was caused by Germans who were never wholly converted to Christianity except by the sword -they may have been those whom Nietzsche, earlier, had called "three quarter" Christians. I am drawing upon memory for most of this and will provide references if anyone requests.

Secondly, the gospels are not official Pharisaical sources. The Talmud is. Jesus is called a bastard in the Talmud.

in fact, as i never tire of saying, it's rather more complicated than that. it is by no means clear *who* is called *what* in the talmud and if so, what precisely that implies. :

Jesus In The Talmud

talmudic analysis is an extremely complex field of lifelong learning …

I think you might be over complicating things. I am still waiting for my copy, but please read this book description, or editor's statement. Once I’ve read the book, I will correct myself if I think the Talmud has not referred to Jesus as a bastard.

and, if i may say so, i do not feel that nietzsche, gen. ludendorff, or wilhelm marr qualify as knowing their arses from their elbows in this respect.

Well, I only almost made General Ludendorff a Talmudist (he was quoting it, after all, and approvingly at that). With that said, you certainly may say so (and, if you did, I would agree with you)!

Speaking of "replacement" theology, given that Talmudists consider Christianity a religion of Esau/Edom, isn't Judaism, as the presumptive religion of Esau's younger brother, Jacob, sort of the replacer and Esau, the firstborn, the replaced in this case?

ooh, hark at mr cheeky. although i think you have displayed more humour and tact than i would have done in your place.

Cheers, bananabrain. I wrote that with a smile. But the cheeky thought did occur to me, after I had read and contemplated the implications of Maimonides’ description of Christianity as stemming from Esau, and I am now thinking about taking my grudge, as the displaced first-born, to the Hague for settlement.

Best regards,


Serv

 

[bananabrain]

I was looking for the part where Ben said Dan 9:24 was the end of prophecy, and there are no more prophets.

well, ben and i don't see eye to eye on a lot of these interpretation particularly of Na"Kh, as he doesn't seem give much credibility to normative rabbinic discourse unless it suits him.

My problem is that I only see 69 1/2 of the weeks being fulfilled with respect to the prophecy itself. There seems to be another 3 1/2 days left, which was not addressed in the prophecy itself. I was looking more at the time line than the interpretation. I was thinking that Ben's interpretation would tie down the time line, exposing any flaws, but you showed me that one can generalize to a point where time isn't even mentioned.

time in TaNa"Kh is extremely malleable; weeks can refer to cycles of varying length, outdated calendars or counting systems (daniel is writing in babylon for jews) or may be there to indicate more esoteric levels of the text. i mean, this is prophecy after all. you wouldn't expect it to be exact; furthermore, there is a long-standing principle that one may not calculate the time of the arrival of the Mashiah, as such practice leads to dogmatic assertions and apocalyptic behaviour.

There is too much controversy about the actual interpretation for me to want to jump in on the actual interpretation at this time.

well, by the sounds of it, you probably reckon it all points to jesus, but obviously neither i nor ben would consider that feasible. you have to remember that the title of "mashiah" means different things at different times. even in later eschatology, there is more than one of the buggers and one's qualification for the title is dependent not upon one's intrinsic qualities but on one's achievements. hence daniel himself referring to cyrus as "mashiah" or rabbi aqiba coming out for shimon bar koziba until it was apparent that he was doing more harm than good. anointing, jewishly, is a sign of leadership, but for kingship you have to be a member of the davidic line - which is, incidentally, why the NT takes so much trouble to establish his (highly spurious - how is he descended from david if the "holy spirit", not joseph is his father?) genealogy. the trouble is, of course, even if you accept his descent, by the required criteria, jesus doesn't even remotely qualify for kingship, let alone messianic status.

But if you would like to put dates and years to your interpretation, that would be helpful.
Date 1: Who issued the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, and what was the date? (Dan 9:25)
Date 2: What happened after 62 weeks and seven weeks, and why break down the the timeline into 62 weeks and seven weeks?
Date 3: Who and what date did "he" make a firm covenant with "the many" for one week, and in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering"?
Do these weeks have to be contiguous?

have a look here: The Chronology of the Postexilic Period.
this appears to lay out in some detail the chronology of the end of the babylonian exile and the rebuilding of jerusalem; you will see that there were several decrees by various rulers. by the sound of it, this passage appears to cover the changes of rulership between the rebuilding of the Temple and the establishment of the hasmoneans, but it's all a bit hazy if you ask me.

In fact, while I was watching the in my opinion too whimsical recent Woody Allen film, Midnight in Paris, I kept thinking that he ought to do something beneficial and put Mr. Elon’s book to film. Now that would be worth relinquishing some quid to see.

ach, i think woody allen is long past his sell-by date. when was the last time he did anything even remotely as good as "sleeper", "annie hall", "love & death", "zelig" or "shadows & fog"? i mean, "vicky cristina barcelona"? poo-ur gosh chiz as molesworth 1 the goriler of 3b would sa.

the rabbis of the Talmud read, understood, and used the New Testament Jesus narrative

good gracious. as a daily student of Talmud myself, i am utterly astonished at this assertion. generally speaking, the sages looked with disfavour on contemporary philosophy, referring to it as "greek wisdom", as a gateway to heretical - by the time the islamic world rediscovered aristotle, of course, this attitude began to lapse, reaching its nadir in the golden age of spain. "external books" are mentioned in a number of places, where it's not entirely clear whether we are talking about things that didn't make it into the jewish apocrypha, like the book of ben sirah, or gnostic or mystical texts or whatever, but the idea that the talmudic sages actually studied the new testament i find difficult to reconcile with what i know of their interests, priorities and positions, multifarious though these undoubtedly were. i will be interested in what you discover from this book; feel free to challenge me with stuff, so i can go and check it out.

Well, I only almost made General Ludendorff a Talmudist

there is rather more to being a "talmudist" (not a phrase that makes sense to us) than quoting it second-hand, as i'm sure you realise; talmud is not something you read. it is something you immerse yourself in; it is also a superlatively hypertextual document (one is inescapably led to feel that the sages would have appreciated the functionality of hyperlinks). even if you studied a page a day, even with just the basic rashi and tosafot commentaries, it takes something like seven years to go through the complete lot; i have only completed a small number of tractates. the more one knows about it, the less one is able to make categorical statements about what "the talmud says". i'm not saying this to put you off, btw. if you are interested in a good intro to this system of thought, i recommend the following two books as essential to understanding the approach, content and worldview:

Amazon.com: The Essential Talmud (9780465082735): Adin Steinsaltz: Books

Amazon.com: Everyman's Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages (9789562914352): Abraham Cohen: Books

of course, it is its very depth and inaccessibility that makes it easy to misrepresent, as it is systematically done by everyone from neo-nazis to islamists. this book of yours is a different matter though; sounds jolly interesting!

I am now thinking about taking my grudge, as the displaced first-born, to the Hague for settlement.

you'll have to get in line behind mojobadshah and his IP lawsuit against anyone who isn't zoroastrian.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

ach, i think woody allen is long past his sell-by date. when was the last time he did anything even remotely as good as "sleeper", "annie hall", "love & death", "zelig" or "shadows & fog"?

Right, then. Woody Allen came to mind because of the "time travel" aspect of his recent film. Amos Elon, far more expertly, it turns out, also takes one time travelling. From his opening scene with the destitute but, as readers know, potentially great Moses Mendelssohn entering Berlin through the gate reserved exclusively for livestock and Jews, to the ending scene, in which the reincarnation (so to speak) of Rahel Varnhagen, Hannah Arendt, narrowly escapes by train, leaving her lover and professor, Martin Heidegger, behind, the reader is absolutely entranced. This is picturesque; this is literary cinema.

Woody Allen also came to mind and I thought he should consider making Amos Elon's book into film as compensation for the idiotic and unfortunately memorable scene of the dominatrix, in the "What's My Perversion?" segment of his film, "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex," flogging the rabbi. Woody Allen should do something beneficial and useful.

With that said, who do you think could best put that book to film? Terence Malick springs to mind, but someone with a keener Jewish sensibility, maybe an independent filmmaker, might be better.

good gracious. as a daily student of Talmud myself, i am utterly astonished at this assertion ...

I understand. It is clearly a controversial book. But it seems one is in good academic hands with the author, Peter Schafer, and the contentious Alan Dershowitz, as far as I know, has not yet made him lose his tenure at Princeton University for having published .

generally speaking, the sages looked with disfavour on contemporary philosophy, referring to it as "greek wisdom", as a gateway to heretical ...

I understand. Spinoza, for instance, broke with tradition (and the ghetto) by learning Latin, thus coming into contact with western science. Moses Mendelssohn, as Amos Elon describes, is another example of one who learned modern languages and thus (egads!) assimilated.

... i will be interested in what you discover from this book; feel free to challenge me with stuff, so i can go and check it out.

Thank you. I will, with your permission, also come to you for clarification on issues and to hear your opinion. Most of my discussions, if one could call them that, have been with people with a bias -bordering phobia- against the Talmud.

... talmud is not something you read. it is something you immerse yourself in; it is also a superlatively hypertextual document (one is inescapably led to feel that the sages would have appreciated the functionality of hyperlinks).

It's funny you should mention that. I visited my mother last weekend who is not only reading but also recommending (of all things for a shiksha!) Jonathan Rosen's The Talmud and the Internet. I told her I might get 'round to it, but I have a stack of books THIS high ...

... the more one knows about it, the less one is able to make categorical statements about what "the talmud says". i'm not saying this to put you off, btw. if you are interested in a good intro to this system of thought, i recommend the following two books as essential to understanding the approach, content and worldview:

Amazon.com: The Essential Talmud (9780465082735): Adin Steinsaltz: Books

Amazon.com: Everyman's Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages (9789562914352): Abraham Cohen: Books

of course, it is its very depth and inaccessibility that makes it easy to misrepresent, as it is systematically done by everyone from neo-nazis to islamists. this book of yours is a different matter though; sounds jolly interesting!

You aren't putting me off, by any means. If anything, you are encouraging me to study these matters in more detail and I appreciate your helpful suggestions and links.

you'll have to get in line behind mojobadshah and his IP lawsuit against anyone who isn't zoroastrian.

I think, from my time on this board, Ben Masada thus far has the most complaints in the legal docket but he also keeps things lively with these thought-provoking, polemical but ultimately good-hearted threads of his.


Best regards,

Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

Speaking of "replacement" theology, given that Talmudists consider Christianity a religion of Esau/Edom, isn't Judaism, as the presumptive religion of Esau's younger brother, Jacob, sort of the replacer and Esau, the firstborn, the replaced in this case?

Maybe, given that this thread has looped a bit, you will permit me to quote myself:

Serv

We have not been replaced. It is still a wish-thinking of Christianity. It has been the Christian struggle throughout the History of the world, originally through violence and today by scholastic means. Very often, I tune my TV into a TV evangelistic program and see that no preacher is able to open his or her mouth without promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. I wish many more of my people rose with the mission to fight against this endless method to vandalize Judaism by using a Jewish bait to hook Jews.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

It was your original quote about Daniel 9:24. I will let age go before beauty. Please feel free to give me an interpretation of the context surrounding your quote. I am interested in your interpretation of the whole context around Daniel 9:24, and how your conclusion from it makes any sense. I have no doubt that from your question answering a question, that you are reluctant to clarify your position. But you are the one with a position to keep. , I am simply a sojouner, passing through. You indicated that "prophecy" is sealed up. Prove it. If you know what Daniel 9:24 means, then you should know what Daniel:24-27 means.

For this time, I will show you about Daniel 9:24. Then, for the next time what the whole prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27) is about.

"Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and for your holy city." As we all know, Jews and Christians, the Jewish exile in Babylon lasted 70 years. Therefore, 70 weeks is to be taken as 70 years. Each week to mean one year. Then, everything will stop:

1 - The punishment for the transgression. And mind you, without a single animal sacrifice, since we had no Temple. It means the reason for animal sacrifices was not for the forgiveness of sins but to point, prophetically, to the archetype in the scapegoat. But never mind that for now.

2 - The sin will end. This is about the sin that caused the exile to Babylon.
The sin which was punished collectively, according to previous covenants.
With the New Covenant, the responsibility would be individual.

3 - The guilt will be expiated. How? With the exile itself through suffering, which, according to Dostoevsky, is the most effective means to make expiation for one's transgression of the Law.

4 - To fill up the empty places for those items above, Everlasting Righteousness would be brought back after Ezra prepared the way for the Lord by purifying the People and the place with the cleasing of the People
who had mixed married out.

5 - And to seal up the vision and prophecy. To seal up means to finish, to close, to stop, etc. When we enclose a letter into an envelop it means that we have finished it.

6 - And to anoint the Most Holy. This is a reference to the Holy of holies and the Hight Priest with the rebuilding of the Temple.

But with regards to the 5th item above, one of the roles of the Prophets
was to teach the people how to know the Lord through teaching and interceeding between God and man. According to the New Covenant established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah soon after the return of the Jewish People from Babylon, that prophetic occupation would no longer be necessary.

According to Jeremiah 31:34, "No longer will they have need to teach how to know the Lord. All from least to greatest shall know Me, says the Lord." That's Jeremiah confirming Daniel 9:24 with regards to the ceasing of the prophetic system. From then on, as a result of the enlightenment reached to in Babylon by means of the learned Jews, especiall Ezra and Nehemiah, the Tanach (God's Word) had been made available to all.

It was no longer mysterious and remote from the people. It was not in the sky that they should say, 'who will go up in the sky to get it for us and tell us of it that we may carry it out?' Nor was it accross the sea that they should say, 'who will cross the sea to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?' No, it had become something very near to them already in their own mouths and in their hearts; they had only to carry it out. (Deut. 30:11-14)
Ben

 

[showme]

For this time, I will show you about Daniel 9:24. Then, for the next time what the whole prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27) is about.

"Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and for your holy city." As we all know, Jews and Christians, the Jewish exile in Babylon lasted 70 years. Therefore, 70 weeks is to be taken as 70 years. Each week to mean one year. Then, everything will stop:

1 - The punishment for the transgression. And mind you, without a single animal sacrifice, since we had no Temple. It means the reason for animal sacrifices was not for the forgiveness of sins but to point, prophetically, to the archetype in the scapegoat. But never mind that for now.

2 - The sin will end. This is about the sin that caused the exile to Babylon.
The sin which was punished collectively, according to previous covenants.
With the New Covenant, the responsibility would be individual.

3 - The guilt will be expiated. How? With the exile itself through suffering, which, according to Dostoevsky, is the most effective means to make expiation for one's transgression of the Law.

4 - To fill up the empty places for those items above, Everlasting Righteousness would be brought back after Ezra prepared the way for the Lord by purifying the People and the place with the cleasing of the People
who had mixed married out.

5 - And to seal up the vision and prophecy. To seal up means to finish, to close, to stop, etc. When we enclose a letter into an envelop it means that we have finished it.

6 - And to anoint the Most Holy. This is a reference to the Holy of holies and the Hight Priest with the rebuilding of the Temple.

But with regards to the 5th item above, one of the roles of the Prophets
was to teach the people how to know the Lord through teaching and interceeding between God and man. According to the New Covenant established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah soon after the return of the Jewish People from Babylon, that prophetic occupation would no longer be necessary.

According to Jeremiah 31:34, "No longer will they have need to teach how to know the Lord. All from least to greatest shall know Me, says the Lord." That's Jeremiah confirming Daniel 9:24 with regards to the ceasing of the prophetic system. From then on, as a result of the enlightenment reached to in Babylon by means of the learned Jews, especiall Ezra and Nehemiah, the Tanach (God's Word) had been made available to all.

It was no longer mysterious and remote from the people. It was not in the sky that they should say, 'who will go up in the sky to get it for us and tell us of it that we may carry it out?' Nor was it accross the sea that they should say, 'who will cross the sea to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?' No, it had become something very near to them already in their own mouths and in their hearts; they had only to carry it out. (Deut. 30:11-14)
Ben

That seem somewhat of a sloppy interpretation. 70 years does not come close to equaling 70 weeks. If you use 1 years as one day, then you would have 490 years.

As for your Jeremiah 31:34, what is the need for Rabbis if the least to the greatest already know the "Lord"? Jer 31:33, "I will put my law within them, and on their heart I will write it;..."

I was also interested in your take on the timing of Daniel 9, whereas the 70 weeks was divided into 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and one week, which is interupted in the middle of the week. And what is the "complete destruction"? (Daniel 9:27) Who is the prince to come after 62 weeks who is to destroy the city and the sanctuary?

As for the return of Israel in Jeremiah 16:15, the people were returned from the land of the north, not the east, as in Babylon, and returned to their "own land", but apparently not until after they were to doubly repaid for their inquity, and "the nations come from the ends of the earth and say, 'Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood' ". The nations of the earth, the Gentiles, have yet to make that confession, and although that confession may be imminent, it is in the future.

I do not see prophecy being finished after the Babylon exile. That exile was for Judah, whereas the northern tribes of Israel remained exiled in the northern and other countries as stated in Jeremiah 16:15, and will need fishermen and hunters to hunt them down. (Jer 16:16) That prophecy is not finished, unless you have heard of the Gentiles confessing to God that they have inherited nothing but falsehood. (Jer 16:19)

The prophets role was not to teach to know the Lord. They were busy enough calling for repentance and setting in judgement.

As for individual responsibility for sin, that is partially correct, but I think the prophecy of Zechariah 14:1-3 has yet to be fulfilled, and it is directed not at indivduals, but towards Jerusalem. And apparently 1/2 of the population does not perish from the city, but those who fought the city, Zech 14:12, "their flesh shall waste away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall melt away in their sockets,...." This matches an excerpt from the book, "Hiroshima" by John Hersey. "their eye sockets were hollow, the fluid from their melted eyes, had run down their cheeks."

After this happens, you will find that nations making their confession and keeping the feast of booths. (Ze 14:18) None of this prophecy has happened as yet. Sin has not been completely atoned for, nor has prophecy been completed.

There remains 1/2 week of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 to be finished. During this 1/2 week, you will see the complete destruction described in Daniel 9:27. And Jerusalem will be center stage, as well as the U.S. which supports the nation of Israel.

Your Cuckoo bird, Paul, is simply part of the falsehoods of Jeremiah 16:19 held by the nations.

 

[Servetus]

{tongue-in-cheek mode on}

Speaking of "replacement" theology, given that Talmudists consider Christianity a religion of Esau/Edom, isn't Judaism, as the presumptive religion of Esau's younger brother, Jacob, sort of the replacer and Esau, the firstborn, the replaced in this case?

We have not been replaced.

And neither have we, the offspring of Esau. At any rate, we have not been replaced pending a decision on the matter by the Hague when once our ancient grievances are presented for legal settlement.

It is still a wish-thinking of Christianity.

One feels pity for Isaac. It’s too bad that his scheming though favorite wife, Rebecca, and second son, Jacob, took such advantage of his blindness and switched the birthright from Esau. What a remarkably dodgy way to obtain a blessing. It is no wonder that the blessing, so called, has caused so many problems through the centuries.

It has been the Christian struggle throughout the History of the world, originally through violence and today by scholastic means.

It has been the sum total of the Jewish struggle throughout the centuries to wriggle and retain the birthright from Ishmael , the first-born son of Abraham, and to wrest and retain it from Esau, the first-born son of Isaac. In this effort, no means have been too low, including, when necessary, a rewrite (or redaction) of the scriptures, to make God seem a willing accomplice and participant in the act.

Very often, I tune my TV into a TV evangelistic program and see that no preacher is able to open his or her mouth without promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

Wow! Even though I never tune in, I haven't heard any of them dare to read that seemingly tabooed and touchy portion of Galatians for quite some time: at least since the late Jerry Falwell, in his now defunct but then appropriately named newsletter, The Liberty Flame, dubbed John Hagee a heretic for the latter's "two equally legitimate and concurrent covenants" theory. Far more often, I hear (and unfortunately see) the preachers who are bumping and grinding in g-strings for Israel and selectively breeding the perfect red heifer to give to Rabbi Boteach. That lot, constituting, as it does, a strange ecumenicism, for the most part disgusts me too.

I wish many more of my people rose with the mission to fight against this endless method to vandalize Judaism by using a Jewish bait to hook Jews.

"Ben, Ben, why kickest thou against the cactus, or, as the King James Version puts it, the pricks?" Although I am not meaning to echo that other late-model disciple of Nietzsche, Aleister Crowley, do what you will: there is always room on the planet for another apostle of anti-Christianity and you, dear Ben, might be it.

{tongue-in-cheek mode off}


Serv

 

[bananabrain]

But it seems one is in good academic hands with the author, Peter Schafer, and the contentious Alan Dershowitz, as far as I know, has not yet made him lose his tenure at Princeton University for having published

well, from what i can conclude from this review:

Review-a-Day - Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schafer, reviewed by The New Republic Online - Powell's Books

it looks (at least without having read the book) as if schafer is a quite different case from the likes of walt, mearsheimer and finkelstein, to whom you are presumably alluding. personally, i don't care for many of dershowitz's positions and his lawyerly tactics i find counterproductive to say the least, but he certainly isn't afraid to fight his corner and it's a corner i often find myself pushed into these days, unfortunately; nonetheless, i think i get your point:

Schafer's very original scholarship in the area of Jewish-Christian relations might have the effect of ending at last the "guilt trip" that some Jews have laid on Christians, according to which theological contempt and religious intolerance is a uniquely Christian problem.

Spinoza, for instance, broke with tradition (and the ghetto) by learning Latin, thus coming into contact with western science.

i think i have already mentioned my view that he was unable to adapt to life as an observant jew having grown up with expectations formed by a crypto-jewish background. i am not sure it was latin that was the problem as much as philosophy.

Moses Mendelssohn, as Amos Elon describes, is another example of one who learned modern languages and thus (egads!) assimilated.

i'll have to check back on that, but there were particular ideas about german as "the language of culture" that were somewhat problematic. the thing is, as you mention, anything that ultimately leads to assimilation can hardly be construed as a blueprint for a sustainable culture.

Thank you. I will, with your permission, also come to you for clarification on issues and to hear your opinion. Most of my discussions, if one could call them that, have been with people with a bias -bordering phobia- against the Talmud.

you're welcome - i would have some serious questions about anyone who displayed that kind of bias considering its usual provenance.

I visited my mother last weekend who is not only reading but also recommending (of all things for a shiksha!)

this is not a word i would recommend you continue using. it is right up there with the "n-word" for me and its use by my co-religionists (it is extremely rare in the uk) usually leads to an invitation to repeat it if they want a punch in the nose. i blame the likes of woody allen for the tendency for americans to use it.

There remains 1/2 week of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 to be finished. During this 1/2 week, you will see the complete destruction described in Daniel 9:27. And Jerusalem will be center stage, as well as the U.S. which supports the nation of Israel.

SQUAWK! latter-day prophet alert!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Ben Masada]

That seem somewhat of a sloppy interpretation. 70 years does not come close to equaling 70 weeks. If you use 1 years as one day, then you would have 490 years.

"If you use..." You are making the fulfilling of the prophecy according to the reader, no matter his or her preconceived notions. "If you use one year as one day." Yes, but here you cannot use one year as one day. It has to be according to the prophet who used one year as one week.
Evidence of the fact is that the Jewish People did spend 490 years in captivity but exactly 70 years. Hence 70 weeks. The method to equate a small part of the time to a year was an abstract assimilation by the prophet, according to the Logic or the event and not that it had to be a mathematically pre-determined.

 

[Ben Masada]

That seem somewhat of a sloppy interpretation. 70 years does not come close to equaling 70 weeks. If you use 1 years as one day, then you would have 490 years.

As for your Jeremiah 31:34, what is the need for Rabbis if the least to the greatest already know the "Lord"? Jer 31:33, "I will put my law within them, and on their heart I will write it;..."

I was also interested in your take on the timing of Daniel 9, whereas the 70 weeks was divided into 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and one week, which is interupted in the middle of the week. And what is the "complete destruction"? (Daniel 9:27) Who is the prince to come after 62 weeks who is to destroy the city and the sanctuary?

As for the return of Israel in Jeremiah 16:15, the people were returned from the land of the north, not the east, as in Babylon, and returned to their "own land", but apparently not until after they were to doubly repaid for their inquity, and "the nations come from the ends of the earth and say, 'Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood' ". The nations of the earth, the Gentiles, have yet to make that confession, and although that confession may be imminent, it is in the future.

I do not see prophecy being finished after the Babylon exile. That exile was for Judah, whereas the northern tribes of Israel remained exiled in the northern and other countries as stated in Jeremiah 16:15, and will need fishermen and hunters to hunt them down. (Jer 16:16) That prophecy is not finished, unless you have heard of the Gentiles confessing to God that they have inherited nothing but falsehood. (Jer 16:19)

The prophets role was not to teach to know the Lord. They were busy enough calling for repentance and setting in judgement.

As for individual responsibility for sin, that is partially correct, but I think the prophecy of Zechariah 14:1-3 has yet to be fulfilled, and it is directed not at indivduals, but towards Jerusalem. And apparently 1/2 of the population does not perish from the city, but those who fought the city, Zech 14:12, "their flesh shall waste away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall melt away in their sockets,...." This matches an excerpt from the book, "Hiroshima" by John Hersey. "their eye sockets were hollow, the fluid from their melted eyes, had run down their cheeks."

After this happens, you will find that nations making their confession and keeping the feast of booths. (Ze 14:18) None of this prophecy has happened as yet. Sin has not been completely atoned for, nor has prophecy been completed.

There remains 1/2 week of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 to be finished. During this 1/2 week, you will see the complete destruction described in Daniel 9:27. And Jerusalem will be center stage, as well as the U.S. which supports the nation of Israel.

Your Cuckoo bird, Paul, is simply part of the falsehoods of Jeremiah 16:19 held by the nations.

Showme, I have posted a thread about the whole prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27, as I perceive here, that you insist on having the whole thing. It is under the Title, "The 70 Week/Years of Daniel 9:24-27." Enjoy it if you can understand it. You will find the answers to most of your questions in this post of yours above.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

{tongue-in-cheek mode on}

Wow! Even though I never tune in, I haven't heard any of them dare to read that seemingly tabooed and touchy portion of Galatians for quite some time: at least since the late Jerry Falwell, in his now defunct but then appropriately named newsletter, The Liberty Flame, dubbed John Hagee a heretic for the latter's "two equally legitimate and concurrent covenants" theory. Far more often, I hear (and unfortunately see) the preachers who are bumping and grinding in g-strings for Israel and selectively breeding the perfect red heifer to give to Rabbi Boteach. That lot, constituting, as it does, a strange ecumenicism, for the most part disgusts me too.

Serv

This paragraph of yours above from your long post, only tells me that you do not understand what Replacement Theology is all about. When I said that no Christian preacher can open his or her mouth from the pulpit without promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology, I did not have in mind only Galatians 4:21-31. Any Christian message about the individual in Jesus instead of the collective in the People of Israel, is Replacement Theology.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

well, from what i can conclude from this review:
Review-a-Day - Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schafer, reviewed by The New Republic Online - Powell's Books
it looks (at least without having read the book) as if schafer is a quite different case from the likes of walt, mearsheimer and finkelstein, to whom you are presumably alluding.

Yes. I had Finkelstein primarily in mind. Schafer’s subject, although controversial in its own right, is clearly different from the doctrinal divide, the nuked hot potato, being passed between the two schools of thought in American foreign policy, “neo-Conservatism” and “Realism.” That war in academia has spilled into the electorate and the world at large.

personally, i don't care for many of dershowitz's positions and his lawyerly tactics i find counterproductive to say the least, but he certainly isn't afraid to fight his corner and it's a corner i often find myself pushed into these days, unfortunately; nonetheless, i think i get your point:

Although he lost the first round, I wouldn’t exactly call Norman Finkelstein a shrinking violet. Sometimes, these boxing matches are, if nothing else, entertaining, but I don’t have any money riding on the contestants.

Schafer's very original scholarship in the area of Jewish-Christian relations might have the effect of ending at last the "guilt trip" that some Jews have laid on Christians, according to which theological contempt and religious intolerance is a uniquely Christian problem.

One can in this case hope.

i'll have to check back on that, but there were particular ideas about german as "the language of culture" that were somewhat problematic. the thing is, as you mention, anything that ultimately leads to assimilation can hardly be construed as a blueprint for a sustainable culture.

I was operating from a potentially faulty memory. I seem to recall Elon describing Moses’s children and grand-children, including Felix, as essentially assimilated (but will be happily corrected). At any rate, Moses grew up away from the ghetto and taught himself the “Greek” knowledge (which the Germans had elaborated) against which, as I understood you to point out, the Talmudists had so painstakingly built an absolute fire-wall. If assimilation is a faulty blueprint for sustainable culture, so, too, it seems to me, is its antithesis: too insular nationalism and endogamy. Spinoza and Mendelssohn, for having broken out of that latter mould, come to mind.

you're welcome - i would have some serious questions about anyone who displayed that kind of bias considering its usual provenance.

Despite my (vestigial) Christian proclivities, I am as cautious when reading anti-Talmudists as I am when reading apostles of anti-Christianity. Both, however, when they are at their foaming and frothing best, can be quite amusing (to me, who is easily amused).

this is not a word i would recommend you continue using.

Thank you. I will accept your recommendation. For your information, though, I didn’t learn the word from Woody Allen. I was, in my youth, endearingly (I assume!) called a shagitz by my friend’s mother, a speaker of Yiddish, who also taught me shiksha and made me the absolute best cheese blintzes. I will consider the term best left as a private term of endearment, lest it be misunderstood, and will not use it publicly.

it is right up there with the "n-word" for me and its use by my co-religionists (it is extremely rare in the uk) usually leads to an invitation to repeat it if they want a punch in the nose. i blame the likes of woody allen for the tendency for americans to use it.

Cheers. And thank you for the defense. But, in this case, be assured that there is no need for blame.

Best regards,


Serv

 

[Servetus]

This paragraph of yours above from your long post, only tells me that you do not understand what Replacement Theology is all about. When I said that no Christian preacher can open his or her mouth from the pulpit without promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology, I did not have in mind only Galatians 4:21-31. Any Christian message about the individual in Jesus instead of the collective in the People of Israel, is Replacement Theology.

Then, even if I don't get passing grades from Ben Masada for properly understanding it, long live replacement theology!

By the way, are you still trying to convince me that you, Bernie Madoff, (Russian Mafia boss) Semion Mogilevich and the amazing Itzhak Perlman are all, because each of you passed through the womb of a Jewess on your way to planet Earth, some sort of "collective" messiah? As apparent absurdities go, I would rather replacement theology than that!


Serv

 

[Servetus]

One can in this case hope.

It was an oversight on my part to not add that I also hope that Schafer's book serves as a palliative in the opposite direction as well and that it reaches Christians (and others) of good will.