Zone1 Explaining Jesus to a Jew

[rosends]

As I pointed out there are various levels of meaning to scripture and even your own rabbis recognize that.

But when you base your purported meaning on errors, you end up with a mistaken conclusion.

We believe the suffering servant who is suffering unjustly and redeems the world through his suffering is Jesus the Messiah. Christianity isn't just a belief or opinion, it's the power of God to salvation.

Take a look at those 2 sentences. The first says "we believe" and the second says "it isn't just a belief." You seem confused.

Yes, there is a belief that the suffering of the righteous can motivate sinners to repentance. But anyone who reads what the RAMCHAL wrote, can see for themselves, that's not what he's referring to. It's more than just "motivating people to repent". I know that you will assert otherwise, but Christians can just read what the RAMCHAL said for themselves. My expectation or concern here is not to convince you of anything, it's to help Christians, not fall prey to disingenuous, deceptive Jewish anti-missionary arguments.

If someone were to pick up a calculus book and try to understand it without knowing other math, one might come up with all sorts of misunderstandings. It is strange that you think that it is important for anyone, and especially anyone who has no background in either ther language or the ideas, to take an advanced and highly technical text and twist it so it goes along with your beliefs.

What you call "magic" is simply spiritual or a divine work. There's certainly a vicarious component to what the RAMCHAL is saying.

Only because you don't understand the Ramchal. I can get you material to help you out if you want.

He said much more than that. You can pretend otherwise, but you're not fooling anyone who reads it.

He did say a lot more, but said it in a particular way which requires that you have studied earlier works, which you haven't. So your knee jerk reaction to a literal read of a section posted on a website is a bad idea.

Your reductionist interpretation isn't very convincing. Christians will see right through it and thank God for that. That's my only concern.

Your ignorance of the text and the tradition into which it was written is sad and a poor attempt to convince people that a Jewish writer said something that supports your twisted theology. Clearly you didn't read Messilat Yesharim, or even learn the D"H in order from the beginning so you would understand any of it. Sad.

Time and time again, we hear Jewish anti-missionaries characterizing our Christian faith as alien to the faith of the ancient Israelites.

Because it is. Good point.

Supposedly, the suffering of the righteous, can't redeem others. It's supposedly a "pagan belief", to believe that the Messiah would redeem the world through His suffering. Well, the more mystical you rabbinic Jewish people get, the more Christian you sound. The RAMCHAL is clearly stating that the suffering of the righteous has an ontological, cosmic, redemptive, and purifying effect on creation. You disparagingly dismiss that as "magic", but that's exactly what the RAMCHAL is saying.

Only if you misunderstand what the Ramchal is saying. The more you try to prove your belief by latching on to your mistaken ideas about the Ramchal, the sadder you sound. You need the anchor in Jewish thought because without it your entire theology floats away. Strange that through all the years, Jewish thinkers and sages haven't read the Ramchal and then accepted what you are saying. But I guess you know better than any and every Jewish person who has ever studied the Ramchal because a website has a snippet in English and you think you understand it.

You pretend that the "sequence of events", is just people feeling sorry for the righteous who are suffering, so they repent and become righteous themselves. Can the suffering of the righteous, lead people to repentance? Of course, that's part of it, but you reduce it to just that, because if it's something more it's supposedly "magic" and in your mind most likely, despite you denying it, it's "too Christian". That's why you call it "magic", to discredit the obvious.

No, I refer to the exact thing the Ramchal wrote about starting a process, a sequence of events, and tie it to an entire corpus of Jewish writing which discusses this idea. You try to pull this one idea out and read it in a vacuum so you can support what you want it to mean. It doesn't work like that.

Typo. I'm sure if I go through your posts I will find plenty. You missed my point and reduce it to a typo.

Typo? Misspelling in Hebrew and mis-transliteration in English? Not a type. You just don't know the word you are copying and pasting.

It's not a rabbinic Jewish concept. But reality itself undermines your rabbinic-Talmudic Jewish beliefs.

Reality dictates "fallen angels"? What color is the sky in your world?

The point is that all of the false gods or idols are demons or fallen spirits.

According to your brand of Christianity I guess.

The human being in the vision represents the saints or tzadikim,

According to whom?

In my Artscroll Tenach commentary, the Son of Man, or the man in the vision, is also the Mashiach.

The Artscroll says "also"? So the artscroll says that it refers to saints first and the messiah "also"? Can you scan in that commentary?

The Son of Man as the Saints or the Remnant of Israel: This interpretation reads the "one like a son of man" as a symbol for the people of Israel themselves, particularly the faithful "remnant" who remain true to God amidst persecution. In this view, the figure's triumph over the beasts (interpreted as oppressive foreign empires) is a symbolic promise of Israel's eventual vindication and restoration. This interpretation is suggested in Daniel 7:18, where it says, "But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever and ever." Here, the "holy ones" are often understood to represent the faithful saints/tzadikim.

That's great and I love to learn new things -- where is this interpretation from? You refer to 7:18 which names a different group to invoke the idea of the holy people, no reference to the messiah, and not the same word as the one used earlier to refer to the messiah. Verse 13 says "like a son of man" (k'var enosh) and 7:18 then talks about קַדִּישֵׁ֖י עֶלְיוֹנִ֑ין a plural and different group. Deciding that the two refer to the same thing is what I'm looking for a source for. Do you have one?

 

[rosends]

I haven't ignored anything you've said, I've addressed all of your disingenuous arguments. The "deep meaning" that you are dismissing is used by your own rabbis. They admit that the Hebrew Bible has multiple levels of meaning. You haven't shown so far how any of my arguments are "flawed".

You have ignored much of what I have posted and have inserted unsupported "meanings" which are just your theology superimposed on Jewish texts. You have started with misunderstandings and a false agenda. I'm just trying to point this out to any Jewish readers who shouldn't be misled by your errors.

 

[rosends]

What is the Jewish understanding of the messiah?

If you are looking into this, I would suggest starting with a basic primer

Mashiach: The Messiah - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)

Traditional Jewish concept of the messiah (mashiach): what he will be like, what he will do, what the messianic age will be like, and why Jews do not believe Jesus was the messiah.

www.jewfaq.org

 

[irosie91]

Not true.

Mr Nutz DENIES 2000 years of history-----first, second and third Reichs

 

[hobelim]

No, in kosher law, the flesh represents the animals and the teaching of the animals represents the teaching of the animals. Any "human archetype" you want to introduce here isn't part of the law.

Damn. In every language of every nation, people, or tribe, worldwide people have been comparing other people to every sort of creature to either praise or insult ever since people could talk. True?

In the beginning, according to your own Holy book, a talking serpent is introduced with specific despicable human qualities, the Nachash, who was condemned by God as the lowest of all, lower than cattle and all the wild beasts of the field, and to "crawl on its belly" and eat dust. True?

In Kashrut it is forbidden to eat the flesh of anything that "crawls on its belly". True?

It doesn't take a genius to take that astonishing leap of intelligence and make a connection between the two that reveals that the subject of kashrut is about teaching not food, that is aside from the fact that what you put into your mouth you flush down the toilet but what you allow to take root and grow in your mind can potentially defile and contaminate your thoughts perceptions and consequently your actions for the rest of your life injuring yourself and the people you love.

No one knows this better than you. True?

So if you had to make a choice between the two, and you do now that it has been made known to you, whether the subject of Kosher law and what defiles and contaminates, is about the teaching of people who live like unclean creatures or about food from butchered farm animals as if you life depended on it (because it does) which would you choose to believe reveals the wisdom of God?

Take your time.....

 

[Woodznutz]

Mr Nutz DENIES 2000 years of history-----first, second and third Reichs

You said Constantine, not Hitler. Anyway, regarding the persecution of the Jews I'll refer you to God's curse on ya'll. Still in effect.

 

[rosends]

Damn. In every language of every nation, people, or tribe, worldwide people have been comparing other people to every sort of creature to either praise or insult ever since people could talk. True?

I have no idea. Not only wasn't I there, but I don't speak every language.

In the beginning, according to your own Holy book, a talking serpent is introduced with specific despicable human qualities, the Nachash, who was condemned by God as the lowest of all, lower than cattle and all the wild beasts of the field, and to "crawl on its belly" and eat dust. True?

The serpent is introduced as being crafty. That's it. Afterwards, the snake is punished by being condemned to being cursed more than other animals, to crawl on its belly and eat dust (not literally).

In Kashrut it is forbidden to eat the flesh of anything that "crawls on its belly". True?

Not exactly. The term for the movement of the snake is "עַל־גְּחֹנְךָ֣ תֵלֵ֔ךְ" but the term for things that crawl and are not kosher is "הַהֹלֵ֖ךְ עַל־אַרְבַּ֑ע" (that goes on four). There is no mention of crawling on any bellies by kosher laws. That snakes can't be eaten is because they lack any of the signs of any kosher animal.

It doesn't take a genius to make that astonishing leap of intelligence to make a connection between the two that reveals that the subject of kashrut is about teaching not food, that is aside from the fact that what you put into your mouth you flush down the toilet but what you allow to take root and grow in your mind can potentially defile and contaminate your thoughts perceptions and consequently your actions for the rest of your life injuring yourself and the people you love.

It takes a huge creative writing leap. If that's the direction you want to go in, have fun with it. Kashrut teaches about food.

So if you had to make a choice between the two, and you do now that it has been made known to you, whether the subject of Kosher law and what defiles and contaminates, is about the teaching of people who live like wild beasts or about food from butchered farm animals as if you life depended on it (because it does) which would you choose to believe reveals the wisdom of God?

The food one. Because that's what it is about.

 

[Red Front]

That's what Jesus Christ is going to do.

He's the only one that can truly do it. The followers of rabbinic Judaism think they're going to somehow convince billions of Gentiles to worship YHWH and serve them (the Jews), by a political process or some other worldly scheme. They don't even believe the Messiah will perform miracles, he will be like a Jewish Anthony Robbins, with a talk show, who will somehow convince the world that the Jewish people are the "chosen people" who should be served as "the special people" and their God is the actual God. Everybody better fall in line with the Jewish Anthony Robbins "or else". YHWH is smarter than that.

That's not the way to redeem creation or humanity. What does humanity need? What's the priority? Getting rid of sin, and corruption. Cleansing the heart of man. Becoming a new creation, that can truly love YHWH and establish an intimate relationship with Him. The sin and death problem has to be resolved. When YHWH told Adam, that when he eats from the tree of knowledge and good and evil, he would die, that death was originally spiritual. He was disconnected from YHWH, and cast out of the Garden of Eden. It took centuries for Adam and Eve to die physically.

The first death was spiritual. What Rosen identifies as "magic". The death of the human spirit due to being severed from YHWH, led to physical death, not just for Adam and Eve, but for all of creation. None of this can be resolved carnally, in a worldly scheme. The first utopia must take place in the heart before it manifests socially or in the world. Redemption occurs inside spiritually before it happens outside.

YHWH sent His Son, the Second Adam, to keep His divine instructions, perfectly, without sinning. Mashiach is PERFECT. He then suffers, taking upon Himself, the condemnation that we were facing, due to our sins. We could not pay that price through our own righteousness or "good works", hence we were consigned to destruction. Eternal death. Mashiach saved us by laying down His life for us, as the Second Adam.

Through the Jewish Messiah, the world is redeemed:

Joh 4:21-24 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. (22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. (23) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. (24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Joh 14:6-7 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (7) If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Joh 3:16-21 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (19) And this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. (20) For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. (21) But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

1Jn 2:22-23 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (23) Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

There are no carnal or political solutions that can resolve the human dilemma. It needs a spiritual solution, free of human corruption, hubris, egotism, xenophobia, ethnocentricism..etc. None of that can redeem anyone. YHWH unites the world, He doesn't create a theocratic tyranny based on pedigree and privilege. That doesn't transform or restore the human heart or condition. Nobody cares about your Jewish messiah or religion, apart from Jesus Christ/Yehoshua Ha'Mashiach.

​

 

[hobelim]

As a Jew, if you have any questions about what Red Front is saying, just let me know. Red Front ignores what I have said, admits to introducing phantom "deep meanings" and does not know Hebrew, or much about Judaism. Don't be fooled by his flawed arguments in favor of Christianity.

If you could give a name to this strange dude who is trying to convince you to set aside Divine Law to worship a Jewish man by using the name of any creature in nature what would you call him?

A talking serpent? The Nachash?

Is his teaching clean or unclean?

 

[rosends]

If you could give a name to this strange dude who is trying to convince you to set aside Divine Law to worship a Jewish man by using the name of any creature in nature what would you call him?

A talking serpent? The Nachash?

Is his teaching clean or unclean?

I wouldn't call this person a nachash. Why would I? I might call him a proselytizer. You are asking how I, if I were writing poetically and metaphorically, symbolize this person? I'm thinking a dodo bird. Why?

 

[irosie91]

You said Constantine, not Hitler. Anyway, regarding the persecution of the Jews I'll refer you to God's curse on ya'll. Still in effect.

I got news-----Saint Constantine and his minions which include SAINT ADOLF----
ain't "GOD"

 

[hobelim]

I wouldn't call this person a nachash. Why would I? I might call him a proselytizer. You are asking how I, if I were writing poetically and metaphorically, symbolize this person? I'm thinking a dodo bird. Why?

Is the flesh of dodo birds, if flesh represents their teaching, clean or unclean?

 

[irosie91]

- in your delusional dreams. placate your dark heart elsewhere than where it does not belong.

you harbor an unprepared mind. Not your fault----one does not learn about HILLEL
in Jelly bean school----HOWEVER anyone with even the slightest familiarity with the
writings of Hillel who reads the NT (which may not be a whole lot of people---I IS
UNIQUE) will recognize the FACT that "JESUS" quotes him incessantly.

 

[hobelim]

I have no idea. Not only wasn't I there, but I don't speak every language.

The serpent is introduced as being crafty. That's it. Afterwards, the snake is punished by being condemned to being cursed more than other animals, to crawl on its belly and eat dust (not literally).

Not exactly. The term for the movement of the snake is "עַל־גְּחֹנְךָ֣ תֵלֵ֔ךְ" but the term for things that crawl and are not kosher is "הַהֹלֵ֖ךְ עַל־אַרְבַּ֑ע" (that goes on four). There is no mention of crawling on any bellies by kosher laws. That snakes can't be eaten is because they lack any of the signs of any kosher animal.

It takes a huge creative writing leap. If that's the direction you want to go in, have fun with it. Kashrut teaches about food.

The food one. Because that's what it is about.

Alrighty then. Continue to avoid pork roasts, ham, and bacon if it makes you happy to imagine that you are fulfilling the Law by doing so, but you will never be able to deny that I have alerted you to the fact that flesh and blood of swine that do not RUMINATE is dripping from your unclean lips.

My hands have been washed clean.

 

[rosends]

Is the flesh of dodo birds, if flesh represents their teaching, clean or unclean?

In the discussion of the status of birds in terms of food, there is no language of "clean" or "unclean" -- Lev 11 says that eating certain birds is not allowed because these birds are described as "sheketz" (despicable). The Torah provides a list of unacceptable birds by name. Because we don't know the exact translations of the forbidden birds, we have strong traditions dictating what birds may or may not be eaten. As there is no tradition that a dodo is acceptable, it would not be eaten, but the term "unclean" wouldn't really apply.

And someone who tries to proselytize in the anonymity of the internet and who dodges challenges and runs away from salient points would be a chicken. And therefore, edible.

 

[rosends]

Alrighty then. Continue to avoid pork roasts, ham, and bacon if it makes you happy to imagine that you are fulfilling the Law by doing so, but you will never be able to deny that I have alerted you to the fact that flesh and blood of swine that do not RUMINATE is dripping from your unclean lips.

And you continue to draw weird connections even though I have alerted you to the fact that the text does not support your understanding.

My hands have been washed clean.

Great, just like Pontius Pilate!

 

[irosie91]

Is the flesh of dodo birds, if flesh represents their teaching, clean or unclean?

 

[Woodznutz]

I got news-----Saint Constantine and his minions which include SAINT ADOLF----
ain't "GOD"

They are the "rod of God's anger".

5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.

6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

 

[hobelim]

You're saying I'm a liar and fraud, but you can't explain why you believe that? Your charge against me is based on what? What am I lying about? Why do you believe I'm a "fraud"? If you refuse to answer that simple question with a rational, well-supported answer, then you have nothing but empty accusations. You're a slanderer.

Don't get your panties all in a bunch. I had better things to do yesterday.

You profess to believe in a trinity. You claim that Jesus performed supernatural demonstrations of divine power over reality. This shows that you understand neither scripture nor the power of God.

I don't have to prove that you are a liar, your own words are the proof.

 

[hobelim]

In the discussion of the status of birds in terms of food, there is no language of "clean" or "unclean" -- Lev 11 says that eating certain birds is not allowed because these birds are described as "sheketz" (despicable).

Well thank you for clearing that up, which only confirms what I have been telling you.

Vultures in nature are not despicable in any way but human vultures are in every way. True?