Political Crossfire Forums

[John]

According the Talmud, some interesting events happened from around 30 AD until the destruction of the Temple. Let's take a look at what it says....

Quote:
"Most people know how Titus and the 10th Legion of the Roman Army surrounded the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD, burned the Temple to the ground and took the temple treasures back to Rome. Also he took many of the Jewish people captive that were in the city. Yet most believers today are unaware of the supernatural signs that preceded these historical events.

According to the Jewish Talmud (a book of commentary and discussions by Rabbis), in Yoma 39, there is mention of a number of events or unusual signs that had taken place before but that ceased and never again happened after 30 AD. Before 30 AD, during a 40-year period when a Rabbi by the name of Simeon the Righteous was serving as high priest there were a number of unusual miraculous signs that took place during his ministry as the high priest, that all ceased in the year 30AD. Jewish history tells us that for this 40 year period when Simeon the Righteous was the high priest, prior to 30 AD, these positive supernatural signs took place, then ceased.

What were the signs.

* (1) The drawing of Lots. On the day of atonement, the high priest reached his hand into a box called the lottery and would pull out what some say was a stone, there being a white stone which had written upon it, ‘for the L-d’ and a black stone which said, ‘for azazel’. Then the high priest offered a goat upon the alter as a sacrifice unto the Lord and he laid his hands upon the second goat, called the scapegoat and spoke the sins of the people, which would then be sent into the Judean Wilderness, where it would die, being shoved off a cliff. For centuries, when the high priest reached into that lottery box, it always fell on ‘for the L-d’, which was the stone removed from the lottery box, until 30AD, when for the first time it fell on ‘for azazel.’ That continued to happen for the next 40 years. The Jews believed this positive sign to mean that G-d’s blessing was upon them and that He had accepted their sacrifice, but then when ‘for azazel’ came up in the high priests right hand and kept coming up year after year, they took this to mean
G-d’s displeasure upon the priesthood and Israel.

* (2) The second sign was concerning a crimson strap. A red thread was placed around the neck of one of the goats and a red thread around the horns of the other goat. A third red thread or strap was attached to the door of the temple. When the scapegoat was shoved off the hill of the scapegoat in the Judean Wilderness, the red thread on the temple door supernaturally turned white. Isaiah 1:18 says, “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the L-D: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” According to Jewish history that red thread on the temple door turned white consistently, every year, until 30AD, after which it never turned white again from 30 to 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed.

* (3) The third unusual sign was concerning the Candlestick or Menorah in the Temple. Every morning, the wick had to be changed, fresh oil placed in the Menorah and it had to be lit. During the time of Simeon the Righteous, they always lit the Menorah from the western end of it and then from it they would light the other six branches. What happened beginning in 30 AD, was the western branch went out and they were not able to light the other branches from it.

* (4) The Alter of Sacrifice. During the time of Simeon the Righteous, only two logs were used for the entire sacrifice, they lasted all day during the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement. They needed no other logs for the sacrifices. In 30 AD that miracle ceased and they had to keep putting more logs on the fire to enable them to complete the sacrifices.

* (5) The priest would eat a small amount of bread from the table of shewbread. History tells us that the priest was satisfied by eating a piece of bread the size of an olive. That also changed in 30 AD and the priest was no longer satisfied with that small amount of bread.

* (6) There were doors to the Temple that opened and closed by themselves. In Yoma 39, a commentary on Zechariah 11:1, it teaches that the doors of the temple opened and closed by themselves. The scripture says, “Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.”

All these positive supernatural signs took place until 30 AD, when they ceased and did not happen again for the next 40 years before the destruction of the Temple.

Why?


Here's one link of interest.
http://www.yashanet.com/library/temple/yoma39.htm


Any thoughts?

[Duchifas]

Quote: Any thoughts?

That's a pretty general question....any thoughts. On what? Just in general on the subject? Ok......some things stopped happening in the Temple...ummm, uhhh.....ok, cool, so?

That's all I can come up with. Did you have something specific in mind? ;)



But I do wonder about something, as a sidenote, mostly. Do you accept the Talmud as an authoritative source, in general?

:-D

[John]

Quote: That's a pretty general question....any thoughts. On what? Just in general on the subject? Ok......some things stopped happening in the Temple...ummm, uhhh.....ok, cool, so?

That's all I can come up with. Did you have something specific in mind?

So, do you believe this is all coincidence?

There's some pretty amazing stuff recorded here.

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Quote: That's a pretty general question....any thoughts. On what? Just in general on the subject? Ok......some things stopped happening in the Temple...ummm, uhhh.....ok, cool, so?

That's all I can come up with. Did you have something specific in mind?

So, do you believe this is all coincidence?

Coincidence with what? So far you just mentioned what the Talmud says. What is it supposed to coincide with?

Quote: There's some pretty amazing stuff recorded here.

Well, like I said (and for some reason you ignored) -- do you take the Talmud for a solid authoritative source? If yes, then we can proceed. If not -- then what do we care what the Talmud says?

[John]

Quote: Well, like I said (and for some reason you ignored) -- do you take the Talmud for a solid authoritative source? If yes, then we can proceed. If not -- then what do we care what the Talmud says?

I don't think it's the word of God if that's what you mean.. I find it to be about as authoritative as Flavius Josephus and the like. I would say that it can be trusted in the historical events that happened in the Temple from 30 - 70 AD. But I'm not so sure it can be trusted in its interpretation of scripture. I accept it as the authority on what those men thought.

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Quote: Well, like I said (and for some reason you ignored) -- do you take the Talmud for a solid authoritative source? If yes, then we can proceed. If not -- then what do we care what the Talmud says?

I don't think it's the word of God if that's what you mean.. I find it to be about as authoritative as Flavius Josephus and the like. I would say that it can be trusted in the historical events that happened in the Temple from 30 - 70 AD.

Wait, how come we can trust it on this and not on other things? How do you know that those very same rabbis, who in your view, cannot be truste for other stuff (including what they say about J elsewhere), suddenly get your trust here?

What's the big distinction between this and other places?

Quote: But I'm not so sure it can be trusted in its interpretation of scripture. I accept it as the authority on what those men thought.

Well, in that case why trust them here?

[John]

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Quote: Well, like I said (and for some reason you ignored) -- do you take the Talmud for a solid authoritative source? If yes, then we can proceed. If not -- then what do we care what the Talmud says?

I don't think it's the word of God if that's what you mean.. I find it to be about as authoritative as Flavius Josephus and the like. I would say that it can be trusted in the historical events that happened in the Temple from 30 - 70 AD.

Wait, how come we can trust it on this and not on other things? How do you know that those very same rabbis, who in your view, cannot be truste for other stuff (including what they say about J elsewhere), suddenly get your trust here?

What's the big distinction between this and other places?

Quote: But I'm not so sure it can be trusted in its interpretation of scripture. I accept it as the authority on what those men thought.

Well, in that case why trust them here?

It really doesn't matter how much "trust" I have in it......what matters is how much YOU do.

I personally find it interesting because it lines up perfectly with what I DO accept as truth. I also find it to be extra informative due to the fact that it doesn't seem like something the rabbinical Jews would make up. Especially due to the fact that it lines up so well with a major event in history that they wouldn't try and provide evidence for.

[Duchifas]

Quote:
It really doesn't matter how much "trust" I have in it......what matters is how much YOU do.

Well, after a year of dissing the Talmud, I find it a bit.....ironic that you quote from it to support whatever propositions you are going to advance.

Quote: I personally find it interesting because it lines up perfectly with what I DO accept as truth.

That's a funny way of looking at the world --> I accept X as true, therefore, if Y matches X, Y is good, but if Z doesn't, let's forget about it.

As opposed to -- to figure out of X is true, let's evaluate X and Y.

Same type of approach that the evolutionists use actually. Anything that lines up with their sketchy theories is great, and let's just ignore the stuff that cleaely dispel those theories.

Very ironic, IMHO.

Quote: I also find it to be extra informative due to the fact that it doesn't seem like something the rabbinical Jews would make up. Especially due to the fact that it lines up so well with a major event in history that they wouldn't try and provide evidence for.

Again, you still didn't mention it, what "major" event are we talking about here? :)

[John]

Duchifas wrote: Well, after a year of dissing the Talmud, I find it a bit.....ironic that you quote from it to support whatever propositions you are going to advance.

Well most of the Talmud doesn't cover the historical events of the Temple from 30 AD to 70 AD.

A year of dissing the Talmud? Come on dude. You know me better than that.



Quote: Again, you still didn't mention it, what "major" event are we talking about here?

Well history tells us that a Jewish man named Yeshua ben Yosef declared himself to be the Messiah a week before Passover, and was rejected by his people and crucified on Passover around 30 AD. After this event happened things went haywire in the Temple up until it was destroyed in 70 AD according to the Talmud.

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Duchifas wrote: Well, after a year of dissing the Talmud, I find it a bit.....ironic that you quote from it to support whatever propositions you are going to advance.

Well most of the Talmud doesn't cover the historical events of the Temple from 30 AD to 70 AD.

A year of dissing the Talmud? Come on dude. You know me better than that.

Yes, I do know you quite well, actually. Here are two examples:

John wrote: That's why I believe that the Talmud hinders people from seeing the truth. That's its purpose.

John wrote: The Talmud is Idolatry.

It's the worship of man's intellect or putting reason or logic before faith.


http://politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18278&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=talmud&start=20


So, John, are you into idolatry an intellect before faith and obscuring the truth these days? :lol:

Or is your attitude/approach that a source is credible when you need it, but when it goes against your claims it is idolatry? Yup, that's intellectual honesty -- can't argue with that. :lol:


Quote: Quote: Again, you still didn't mention it, what "major" event are we talking about here?

Well history tells us that a Jewish man named Yeshua ben Yosef declared himself to be the Messiah a week before Passover, and was rejected by his people and crucified on Passover around 30 AD. After this event happened things went haywire in the Temple up until it was destroyed in 70 AD according to the Talmud.

That's a major event? We have had plenty men declare themselves messiahs, what's the big deal about this one?

I am out for a few days. Have fun here.

[John]

Duchifas wrote: That's a major event? We have had plenty men declare themselves messiahs, what's the big deal about this one?



Pretty major, Duchifas.

There's prolly not a recorded event that has effected the world more.


Anyways, what do you think about these?

* (1) The drawing of Lots. On the day of atonement, the high priest reached his hand into a box called the lottery and would pull out what some say was a stone, there being a white stone which had written upon it, ‘for the L-d’ and a black stone which said, ‘for azazel’. Then the high priest offered a goat upon the alter as a sacrifice unto the Lord and he laid his hands upon the second goat, called the scapegoat and spoke the sins of the people, which would then be sent into the Judean Wilderness, where it would die, being shoved off a cliff. For centuries, when the high priest reached into that lottery box, it always fell on ‘for the L-d’, which was the stone removed from the lottery box, until 30AD, when for the first time it fell on ‘for azazel.’ That continued to happen for the next 40 years. The Jews believed this positive sign to mean that G-d’s blessing was upon them and that He had accepted their sacrifice, but then when ‘for azazel’ came up in the high priests right hand and kept coming up year after year, they took this to mean
G-d’s displeasure upon the priesthood and Israel.

* (2) The second sign was concerning a crimson strap. A red thread was placed around the neck of one of the goats and a red thread around the horns of the other goat. A third red thread or strap was attached to the door of the temple. When the scapegoat was shoved off the hill of the scapegoat in the Judean Wilderness, the red thread on the temple door supernaturally turned white. Isaiah 1:18 says, “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the L-D: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” According to Jewish history that red thread on the temple door turned white consistently, every year, until 30AD, after which it never turned white again from 30 to 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed.

* (3) The third unusual sign was concerning the Candlestick or Menorah in the Temple. Every morning, the wick had to be changed, fresh oil placed in the Menorah and it had to be lit. During the time of Simeon the Righteous, they always lit the Menorah from the western end of it and then from it they would light the other six branches. What happened beginning in 30 AD, was the western branch went out and they were not able to light the other branches from it.

* (4) The Alter of Sacrifice. During the time of Simeon the Righteous, only two logs were used for the entire sacrifice, they lasted all day during the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement. They needed no other logs for the sacrifices. In 30 AD that miracle ceased and they had to keep putting more logs on the fire to enable them to complete the sacrifices.

* (5) The priest would eat a small amount of bread from the table of shewbread. History tells us that the priest was satisfied by eating a piece of bread the size of an olive. That also changed in 30 AD and the priest was no longer satisfied with that small amount of bread.

* (6) There were doors to the Temple that opened and closed by themselves. In Yoma 39, a commentary on Zechariah 11:1, it teaches that the doors of the temple opened and closed by themselves. The scripture says, “Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.”

[Duchifas]

All right, seemingly pretty major, although not to me. But I can see why you are excited about it.

Now, why do you suddenly start relying on the truth hindering idolatry? It's not idolatry anymore?

[John]

Duchifas wrote: All right, seemingly pretty major, although not to me. But I can see why you are excited about it.

Now, why do you suddenly start relying on the truth hindering idolatry? It's not idolatry anymore?

I'm not relying on anything. I just think its neat.

I could have gone my whole life and never heard anything about this and I'd still believe the same thing. It's just a little extra detail that adds a little bit to the whole.

You gotta admit that it's pretty trippy.

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Duchifas wrote: All right, seemingly pretty major, although not to me. But I can see why you are excited about it.

Now, why do you suddenly start relying on the truth hindering idolatry? It's not idolatry anymore?

I'm not relying on anything. I just think its neat.

I could have gone my whole life and never heard anything about this and I'd still believe the same thing. It's just a little extra detail that adds a little bit to the whole.

You gotta admit that it's pretty trippy.

Ok, then, if neat is all it is -- it's neat. Nice thread. See ya.

[Free Thinkr]

Duchifas wrote: Same type of approach that the evolutionists use actually. Anything that lines up with their sketchy theories is great, and let's just ignore the stuff that cleaely dispel those theories.
:lol:

If there really is a god, you and John will be handcuffed together in hell. :wink:

:rotf:

[Duchifas]

Free Thinkr wrote: Duchifas wrote: Same type of approach that the evolutionists use actually. Anything that lines up with their sketchy theories is great, and let's just ignore the stuff that cleaely dispel those theories.
:lol:

If there really is a god, you and John will be handcuffed together in hell. :wink:

:rotf:

Good to see you too, FT. :hi:

[Free Thinkr]

Duchifas wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Duchifas wrote: Same type of approach that the evolutionists use actually. Anything that lines up with their sketchy theories is great, and let's just ignore the stuff that cleaely dispel those theories.
:lol:

If there really is a god, you and John will be handcuffed together in hell. :wink:

:rotf:

Good to see you too, FT. :hi:
'Sbeen a while! You're too confined to this (sub)forum. Still, if that's gotta be the case, I must admit: watching you two argue subjective interpretations is certainly entertaining.

Y'all are my Yin and Yang.

[John]

Free Thinkr wrote: Duchifas wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Duchifas wrote: Same type of approach that the evolutionists use actually. Anything that lines up with their sketchy theories is great, and let's just ignore the stuff that cleaely dispel those theories.
:lol:

If there really is a god, you and John will be handcuffed together in hell. :wink:

:rotf:

Good to see you too, FT. :hi:
'Sbeen a while! You're too confined to this (sub)forum. Still, if that's gotta be the case, I must admit: watching you two argue subjective interpretations is certainly entertaining.

Y'all are my Yin and Yang.

Nah. Duchifas and I are more alike than you think. Psholtz is my opposite.

[Free Thinkr]

John wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Duchifas wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Duchifas wrote: Same type of approach that the evolutionists use actually. Anything that lines up with their sketchy theories is great, and let's just ignore the stuff that cleaely dispel those theories.
:lol:

If there really is a god, you and John will be handcuffed together in hell. :wink:

:rotf:

Good to see you too, FT. :hi:
'Sbeen a while! You're too confined to this (sub)forum. Still, if that's gotta be the case, I must admit: watching you two argue subjective interpretations is certainly entertaining.

Y'all are my Yin and Yang.

Nah. Duchifas and I are more alike than you think. Psholtz is my opposite.
You two represent the opposite of a single entity, IMO; two sides of a coin. I find it fascinating, and somewhat humorous, how similar you two are, yet how vehemently you disagree with one another. Subjective truth rears its head once more.

[Duchifas]

Free Thinkr wrote: Duchifas wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Duchifas wrote: Same type of approach that the evolutionists use actually. Anything that lines up with their sketchy theories is great, and let's just ignore the stuff that cleaely dispel those theories.
:lol:

If there really is a god, you and John will be handcuffed together in hell. :wink:

:rotf:

Good to see you too, FT. :hi:
'Sbeen a while! You're too confined to this (sub)forum.

Yeah, I think I've learned as much as I wanted to learn about the other stuff, so now it's back to the real stuff.

Quote: Still, if that's gotta be the case, I must admit: watching you two argue subjective interpretations is certainly entertaining.

Y'all are my Yin and Yang.

All the entertainment for free? That's just wrong. I'll be expectin a check or money order.