Political Crossfire Forums

[Duchifas]

Quote: But let's remember. You are complaining about a capital "L" here, which is translated in the same manner in the Nedarim 32b of the Talmud.

My only comment is this:

I urge you to open up Nedarim 32b. If you care, that is.


PS The holiday is coming, so I won't be around for a while.

EDIT:

Better yet, John, you can also look up Sanhedrin 108b, which is the other Talmudic passage that your erasmus cites to.

[psholtz]

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: You're substituting apples for oranges. Saying that this passage really means this instead of that is a little different that remembering the literal translation of the text.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ337.HTM

You are becoming like psholtz. He argues with ease that one day, all of a sudden, some people came up with all these scriptures out of nowhere and everyone somehow accepted them as historically true, without them being such. That's the Bible criticism theory in one sentence.
:lol:

I guess that's a compliment.. :-D

For the record, as I've pointed out on the other thread, the land of Canaan was firmly under Imperial Egyptian control throughout the entire duration of when the Hebrew "exodus" is alleged to have happened:



It's inconceivable that the Hebrews would have fled from one part of Egypt, only to settle in one of Egypt's prize colonies (Canaan), much less that they would have been successful in wrestling control of Canaan from the Egyptians who at the time ruled it w/ an iron fist.

There are many, many, many other sundry proofs that Exodus did not occur as depicted in the Torah, but this is as good a place as any to begin your search.. :wink:

Quote: You are doing much the same. For a thousand years the Jews explained the passage one way, then suddenly, they veered way off track, without anyone noticing that after calling X the tradition for a thousand years, everyone suddenly started calling Y the tradition.
For the record, I agree w/ you on this one! :tu:

imho, it makes sense that Psalm 110 refers to Abraham.. after all, was not Abraham ordained into the Priesthood of Melchizedek as described in Genesis 14:18, and is this not what Psalm 110 is in reference to?

Quote: When something radically changes, there usually is a big and very noticeable split. For example, when Christianity came out of Judaism, nobody in their right mind would say that Christianity is really the traditional Judaism, and the real Jews veered off into what is now known as Judaism.
Christianity grew out of the Egyptian Mysteries.. it did not come from Judaism..

Quote: And when Martin Luther split off from Rome, nobody said that it was the Vatican that changed something.
This I agree w/..

[John]

Duchifas wrote: Quote: But let's remember. You are complaining about a capital "L" here, which is translated in the same manner in the Nedarim 32b of the Talmud.

My only comment is this:

I urge you to open up Nedarim 32b. If you care, that is.


PS The holiday is coming, so I won't be around for a while.

Fair enough. :-D


"The Lord said unto my Lord"
http://www.come-and-hear.com/nedarim/nedarim_32.html

[John]

It also seems evident to me that the Jews that lived around the time of Jesus all accepted Psalms 110 as being Messianic. It is referenced as such in three out of the four Gospels and the book of Acts.

[Duchifas]

Great. Now, if you don't mind, I will paste the entire paragraph and bold the pertinent parts:

Quote: R. Zechariah said on R. Ishmael's authority: The Holy One, blessed be He, intended to bring forth the priesthood from Shem, as it is written, And he [sc. Melchizedek] was the priest of the most high God.8 But because he gave precedence in his blessing to Abraham over God, He brought it forth from Abraham; as it is written, And he blessed him and said. Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be the most high God.9 Said Abraham to him, 'Is the blessing of a servant to be given precedence over that of his master?' Straightway it [the priesthood] was given to Abraham, as it is written, The Lord said unto my Lord,10 Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool;11 which is followed by, The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,'12 meaning, 'because of the words of Melchizedek.'13 Hence it is written, And he was a priest of the most High God, [implying that] he was a priest, but not his seed.14

http://www.come-and-hear.com/nedarim/nedarim_32.html#PARTb

[John]

Duchifas wrote: Great. Now, if you don't mind, I will paste the entire paragraph and bold the pertinent parts:

Quote: R. Zechariah said on R. Ishmael's authority: The Holy One, blessed be He, intended to bring forth the priesthood from Shem, as it is written, And he [sc. Melchizedek] was the priest of the most high God.8 But because he gave precedence in his blessing to Abraham over God, He brought it forth from Abraham; as it is written, And he blessed him and said. Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be the most high God.9 Said Abraham to him, 'Is the blessing of a servant to be given precedence over that of his master?' Straightway it [the priesthood] was given to Abraham, as it is written, The Lord said unto my Lord,10 Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool;11 which is followed by, The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,'12 meaning, 'because of the words of Melchizedek.'13 Hence it is written, And he was a priest of the most High God, [implying that] he was a priest, but not his seed.14

http://www.come-and-hear.com/nedarim/nedarim_32.html#PARTb

Nobody is disputing that the Talmud takes the stance that the passage is about Abraham. All I'm saying is that it's inconsistent for you to accuse the NASB as a bad translation because it uses a capital "L" when your Talmud translates it the exact same way. With a capital “L” that is….as in “Lord”.

[Mailech]

JimT wrote: Perhaps you know Tzafun bracha, when the following blessing is said: "Lesjem jichoed Kodsha Barich hu we shinteyh al yadei Hahu tamir we neelam basjem kol Yisrael."

Btw: Yes, I'm a Christian and I believe that "tamir we neelam" refers to Jesus. But if you disagree, then who is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah? An angel?



Tim J

Wow, I haven't posted here in a while, but sometimes temptation is too much.

This is a really stupid obsevation.
The final text of the passover seder was established by the Geonim (Rav Hai Gaon, I think specifically). These group of rabbis lived at about 700 - 1000 C.E. i.e. after Jesus did his thing. So why in the world would they include a text in the passover seder that had to do with Jesus? They most assuredly did not believe in him.

Even more so this is a kabbalistic idea that probably was not incorporated until the great kabbalistic period in Israel in the 1500's. So it is highly unlikely that they too believed in Jesus and would therefore incorporate a prayer that refers to him.

If you want to know what the kabbalistic idea behind this statement is, (that by the way I don't agree with) PM me and I'll tell you.

[Secondary Oak]

Mailech wrote:
Dost my eyes deceive me?

Welcome back, man :)

[John]

Mailech wrote: JimT wrote: Perhaps you know Tzafun bracha, when the following blessing is said: "Lesjem jichoed Kodsha Barich hu we shinteyh al yadei Hahu tamir we neelam basjem kol Yisrael."

Btw: Yes, I'm a Christian and I believe that "tamir we neelam" refers to Jesus. But if you disagree, then who is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah? An angel?



Tim J

Wow, I haven't posted here in a while, but sometimes temptation is too much.

This is a really stupid obsevation.
The final text of the passover seder was established by the Geonim (Rav Hai Gaon, I think specifically). These group of rabbis lived at about 700 - 1000 C.E. i.e. after Jesus did his thing. So why in the world would they include a text in the passover seder that had to do with Jesus? They most assuredly did not believe in him.

Even more so this is a kabbalistic idea that probably was not incorporated until the great kabbalistic period in Israel in the 1500's. So it is highly unlikely that they too believed in Jesus and would therefore incorporate a prayer that refers to him.

If you want to know what the kabbalistic idea behind this statement is, (that by the way I don't agree with) PM me and I'll tell you.

Don't you think these guys got the idea somehow from Torah?

[Mailech]

Secondary Oak wrote: Mailech wrote:
Dost my eyes deceive me?

Welcome back, man :)

Thanks Oak.

[Duchifas]

Mailech wrote: Wow, I haven't posted here in a while, but sometimes temptation is too much.

Happy to see you. :hi:

Finally, someone comes along with a clue as to my three-times-repeated question:

Duchifas wrote: Thirdly, and I am a little tired of repeating myself, so I won't do it again -- care to guess the source of the verse in question?

Mailech wrote: Even more so this is a kabbalistic idea that probably was not incorporated until the great kabbalistic period in Israel in the 1500's.

:)

[Mailech]

John wrote: Mailech wrote: JimT wrote: Perhaps you know Tzafun bracha, when the following blessing is said: "Lesjem jichoed Kodsha Barich hu we shinteyh al yadei Hahu tamir we neelam basjem kol Yisrael."

Btw: Yes, I'm a Christian and I believe that "tamir we neelam" refers to Jesus. But if you disagree, then who is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah? An angel?



Tim J

Wow, I haven't posted here in a while, but sometimes temptation is too much.

This is a really stupid obsevation.
The final text of the passover seder was established by the Geonim (Rav Hai Gaon, I think specifically). These group of rabbis lived at about 700 - 1000 C.E. i.e. after Jesus did his thing. So why in the world would they include a text in the passover seder that had to do with Jesus? They most assuredly did not believe in him.

Even more so this is a kabbalistic idea that probably was not incorporated until the great kabbalistic period in Israel in the 1500's. So it is highly unlikely that they too believed in Jesus and would therefore incorporate a prayer that refers to him.

If you want to know what the kabbalistic idea behind this statement is, (that by the way I don't agree with) PM me and I'll tell you.

Don't you think these guys got the idea somehow from Torah?

John you are missing the point. It is a concept gleaned from Torah and Kabbalah, these words are no where in the Torah. Therefore for them to perpetuate this concept if it refered to Jesus would mean that they were believers which clearly they where not.

[John]

Mailech wrote: John wrote: Mailech wrote: JimT wrote: Perhaps you know Tzafun bracha, when the following blessing is said: "Lesjem jichoed Kodsha Barich hu we shinteyh al yadei Hahu tamir we neelam basjem kol Yisrael."

Btw: Yes, I'm a Christian and I believe that "tamir we neelam" refers to Jesus. But if you disagree, then who is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah? An angel?



Tim J

Wow, I haven't posted here in a while, but sometimes temptation is too much.

This is a really stupid obsevation.
The final text of the passover seder was established by the Geonim (Rav Hai Gaon, I think specifically). These group of rabbis lived at about 700 - 1000 C.E. i.e. after Jesus did his thing. So why in the world would they include a text in the passover seder that had to do with Jesus? They most assuredly did not believe in him.

Even more so this is a kabbalistic idea that probably was not incorporated until the great kabbalistic period in Israel in the 1500's. So it is highly unlikely that they too believed in Jesus and would therefore incorporate a prayer that refers to him.

If you want to know what the kabbalistic idea behind this statement is, (that by the way I don't agree with) PM me and I'll tell you.

Don't you think these guys got the idea somehow from Torah?

John you are missing the point. It is a concept gleaned from Torah and Kabbalah, these words are no where in the Torah. Therefore for them to perpetuate this concept if it refered to Jesus would mean that they were believers which clearly they where not.

I'm not missing the point. I don't think these guys believed in Jesus. But what they gleaned from the Torah, looks, tastes and smells like Jesus. The fact that they were not biased in their belief in Jesus causes it to be even a better case. For them to perpetuate this concept either means that they were really Chrisitans trying to plant these ideas OR that they really gleaned this from the Torah and there really exist this concept of the Tzafun bracha..who.. shinteyh al yadei Hahu tamir we neelam basjem kol Yisrael..

[Mailech]

John wrote: I'm not missing the point. I don't think these guys believed in Jesus. But what they gleaned from the Torah, looks, tastes and smells like Jesus. The fact that they were not biased in their belief in Jesus causes it to be even a better case. For them to perpetuate this concept either means that they were really Chrisitans trying to plant these ideas OR that they really gleaned this from the Torah and there really exist this concept of the Tzafun bracha..who.. shinteyh al yadei Hahu tamir we neelam basjem kol Yisrael..

And then there is this third possibility that you are destroying my Torah and ripping it up, and grasping a straws to desperately try to show that Jesus is really part of the Jewish liturgy. It is preposterous.

[John]

Mailech wrote: John wrote: I'm not missing the point. I don't think these guys believed in Jesus. But what they gleaned from the Torah, looks, tastes and smells like Jesus. The fact that they were not biased in their belief in Jesus causes it to be even a better case. For them to perpetuate this concept either means that they were really Chrisitans trying to plant these ideas OR that they really gleaned this from the Torah and there really exist this concept of the Tzafun bracha..who.. shinteyh al yadei Hahu tamir we neelam basjem kol Yisrael..

And then there is this third possibility that you are destroying my Torah and ripping it up, and grasping a straws to desperately try to show that Jesus is really part of the Jewish liturgy. It is preposterous.

It's just a question...nobody has the power to destroy Torah. It is what it is.

But do you have an answer? Who is the Tzafun bracha?

[Mailech]

John wrote: But do you have an answer? Who is the Tzafun bracha?

It is not a who it is a what. It is a kabbalistic idea that I do not fully understand and do not agree with and so I do not say it. Not where it appears by tzaphun, not where it apears in any over the over many times in the Jewish liturgy.

And since I do not fully understand it I will not attempt to explain it in this public forum.

[Duchifas]

Quote: It's just a question...nobody has the power to destroy Torah. It is what it is.

Destroy in the sense of subvert and misrepresent....I think he meant.

[John]

Mailech wrote: John wrote: But do you have an answer? Who is the Tzafun bracha?

It is not a who it is a what. It is a kabbalistic idea that I do not fully understand and do not agree with and so I do not say it. Not where it appears by tzaphun, not where it apears in any over the over many times in the Jewish liturgy.

And since I do not fully understand it I will not attempt to explain it in this public forum.

But don't you believe God is a "what" and not really a "who" too? This is kinda new to me...I thought that Jews believed in a personal God like Christians do...but Duchifas corrected me on this and when I looked into it...he was right...that Jews see God as kinda like the force from Star Wars.

[John]

Duchifas wrote: Quote: It's just a question...nobody has the power to destroy Torah. It is what it is.

Destroy in the sense of subvert and misrepresent....I think he meant.

Just asking an honest question man. This whole Tzafun bracha thing is new information to me...

[Mailech]

John wrote: Mailech wrote: John wrote: But do you have an answer? Who is the Tzafun bracha?

It is not a who it is a what. It is a kabbalistic idea that I do not fully understand and do not agree with and so I do not say it. Not where it appears by tzaphun, not where it apears in any over the over many times in the Jewish liturgy.

And since I do not fully understand it I will not attempt to explain it in this public forum.

But don't you believe God is a "what" and not really a "who" too? This is kinda new to me...I thought that Jews believed in a personal God like Christians do...but Duchifas corrected me on this and when I looked into it...he was right...that Jews see God as kinda like the force from Star Wars.

It is a what. The action of performing mitzvot. That is the uniting force. A concept that I will not discuss in public, because of my ignorance.
G-d is personal G-d. what do you think I am a deist, the force? That was Abraham's tremendous insite, G-d is not a G-d that requires emmisaries, I can have a relationship with Him. He gets close to me as I get close to Him.