How do you view Arnold Fruchtenbaumb'shem Yah'shuaI'm currently doing his studies on
Posted on 09/20/2006 10:14:32 AM PDT by Buggman
without being arbitrary
oh
Yes. And I'll go ahead and give you part of the answer: You have to understand that Biblical prophecy is about pattern, not just prediction. And the pattern in this case is the whole first year of the Exodus.
I'll explain what I mean by that in my next article. I'm not going to debate it further now because I don't want to give in piecemail what needs to be presented as a unified argument.
Among the rabbis, the shofar is often associated with the Coming of the Messiah and the Resurrection of the Dead as well.
= = = =
In quite a number of Charismatic/Pentecostal services where folks have taken to blowing a Shofar in worship . . .
There have begun to be increasing reports and observations of rather clear healings and no small amount of deliverances.
However, there will also be a third group, who neither had believed in the Messiah until they saw Him Coming on the clouds but who also had not taken the mark of the Beast. Many of these will be Jews, who will mourn at His coming and so have a fount of forgiveness opened to them (Rev. 1:7, Zec. 12:10-13:2)—most prominently, the 144,000 of Rev. 7 and 14. Others will be Gentiles who will be shown mercy because they showed mercy to the children of God (Mat. 25:31ff). These are given the opportunity to repent during the period between the fulfillment of the Feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonment, called the Days of Awe—a reference, I believe, to the Day of the Lord.
= = = =
Works for me.
We shall see.
How do you view Arnold Fruchtenbaumb'shem Yah'shuaI'm currently doing his studies on
Well, not exactly. The only infallible record we have of Jesus's name is of the Greek Iesous. In fact no one knows for sure if His Hebrew/Aramaic name was Yehoshua or Yeshua or something else.
This being the case there is no reason to believe that, for example, the apostle Paul -- a fluent Greek-speaker -- felt is necessary to transliterate the name of Jesus to Aramaic for his Greek-speaking audience and disciples. Even many of the Jews of Jesus' day called Him Iesous in their native tongue since a large number of them were Jews born and raised in a Greek-speaking culture (cf. Acts 6:1; John 7:35; 1 Peter 1:1).
But allowing for the disputed theory that a small portion of the NT was originally penned in Aramaic/Hebrew, the majority was authentically written in Greek by folks like Paul to a Greek audience who used the name Iesous to refer to Our Savior.
Obviously Paul and the other NT writers were not as hung up on the Hebrew name as folks in the modern day "Jewish roots" movement. They are just trying to be "more Jewish" than Paul. Or is it "Saul"?
Bookmarked for later study, thanks for posting, rabbi.
Just don't ignore the actual texts, like what we find in the book of Hebrews, which actually explains the typology of the old covenant and applies it to Christ.
Patterns aside, I assume an examination of the NT will be the majority of your analysis since it authoritively intreprets all the OT.
Vague references to patterns aren't nearly as convincing as actual, careful exegesis of the text. That is the way the rabbis got into trouble, and why they have a Talmud to go along with their Bible.
"And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:27)
There's absolutely NOTHING in the NEW TESTAMENT
which prevents a BOTH/AND interpretation.
To ARBITRARILY DECLARE that Contrarian Replacementarian theology is the only viable conclusion is . . .
well . . .
exceedingly ARBITRARY.
M
It's true that there is some debate about the pronunciation of Yeshua's Name, as the Greek Iesous can be used for either of two names. It is now generally accepted that Y'hoshua (Yoshua or Yehoshua, usually rendered Joshua in English) was the early Biblical pronunciation, but that the late Biblical name Yeshua (Jeshua) had come to replace it. Why? Simply because it was in the late Biblical period that the practice arose of not pronouncing the Tetragrammaton or even its shortened version Yah. Since pronouncing the name Y'hoshua classically (Yah-ho-shu-ah) would require pronouncing the Ineffible, Yeshua was the variant in common use during the Second Temple period.
In addition, the existant Aramaic NTs that we have, the Old Syriac and Peshitta, use the equivalent Aramaic letters of yod-shin-vav-ayin, not yod-heh-vav-shin-ayin as we would expect if Yeshua's Name were commonly rendered Y'hoshua.
Mind you, if someone wants to use the older form of the name, I certainly have no objection. Yeshua was always understood to be exactly equivalent to Y'hoshua anyway. But that's why I believe that "Yeshua" is indeed the correct pronunciation.
Wikipedia has a nice series of articles on the issue. Start here and then hit all the links to get all sides of the debate.
This being the case there is no reason to believe that, for example, the apostle Paul -- a fluent Greek-speaker -- felt is necessary to transliterate the name of Jesus to Aramaic for his Greek-speaking audience and disciples.
Partially true, though there is some evidence that even many Greek believers insisted on pronouncing it correctly. (I'll have to see if I can dig up the article for you sometime.) But in any case, that's why I don't object to anyone saying Jesus or get caught up in the Sacred Name nonsense--if the Apostles had no problem with transliterating Yeshua's name to keep it from sounding like a girl's name to their Greek audience (by ending in an "ah" instead of a male "us"), then why should I object to my fellow believers doing the same?
But by the same time, why should my fellow believers get their undies in a wad that I deliberately choose to use Yeshua's original name out of respect and emphasis of His Jewishness as a matter of personal custom?
Obviously Paul and the other NT writers were not as hung up on the Hebrew name as folks in the modern day "Jewish roots" movement. They are just trying to be "more Jewish" than Paul. Or is it "Saul"?
They were also dealing with an entirely different set of circumstances than we are: They didn't have to deal with people mistaking Jewish men for Calvinists.
You assume incorrectly. The New Testament is only 20% or so of Scripture--why then should it be the majority of any exegesis?
The error you make, TC, is in misapplying the rule, "Interpret the OT in the light of the New." You start in the NT, come to your conclusions, and then either ignore vast swaths of the Tanakh or twist them in order to fit the conclusions you've come to based on less than 20% of the available data.
The approach I take is two sided: "Interpret the Tanakh in the light of the New Covenant/Interpret the New Covenant in the light of the Tanakh." When Sha'ul, for example, quotes Malachi 1:1-3, I don't just assume that God hated Esau the individual, I go look up the quote--and lo and behold, it turns out that neither the prophet nor the apostle is dealing with the subject of an individual's salvation at all, but with the question of Israel's national election.
Likewise, when one gets to Hebrews, if one simply assumes (and one has to go beyond the actual text to do so) that Hebrews says that sacrifice and offering are done away with and must not be offered, that puts Hebrews in conflict with the Torah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the very actions of the Apostles themselves (e.g., Acts 21:20ff). That being the case, we would have to reject this annonymous book as being canonical at all, not disregard the words and deeds of four other Biblical sources!
But as it turns out, when one reads Scripture both ways, seeking to reconcile both sides instead of coming to a conclusion based on a handful of verses in a single book and disregarding all other sources, we find that Hebrews, while certainly explaining the typology behind much of the Torah most certainly does not do away with it. In like vein, it explains Yeshua's fulfillment of the typeology of the Yom Kippur sacrifices, but does not do so in a way that precludes a future fulfillment--and as I will show when I actually post the article on Yom Kippur, there are several elements of that Appointed Time which are expressly not fulfilled in the First Coming.
Now stop whining about my "vague references." They are vague because I'm not going to go into detail until I'm ready to present that argument in full.
So why don't you leave aside discussion of Yom Kippur for when I do, and discuss with us the topic of this thread instead?
And to you and yours, my brother.
1. 2/3 the population believes that "psychic powers" exist; 2. half the population believes in demons and ghosts; 3. 40% of people believe that "magnetic energy" in bracelets promotes good health; 4. 75% of pre-6-year olds believe in Santa Clause; 5. 90% of Christians believe that their faith guarantees they will go to heaven.
The amusing thing is that reality always trumps belief.
Is that the same Joel Rosenburg who wrote The Guardians of the Flame series of novels? I loved those when I was a kid.
It is interesting that in this table only 2 are listed as from the United States. It was in the news that just last month a third was added, Martha and Rev. Waitstill Sharp, a Unitarian couple from Wellesley, MA. In fact, all the USA recipients were Unitarians.
It is strange that no American Catholics or Protestants have received this honor.
Thank you for your in depth article. It was enjoyable to read.....and I learned much. Also enjoyed the later link to "Yeshua" at Wikipedia.
THANKS FOR THE STATISTICS. QUITE INTERESTING.
JM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.