Skip to comments.Rosh Hashanah and the Second Coming
Posted on 09/20/2006 10:14:32 AM PDT by Buggman
click here to read article
So, your awareness is from your related secret work or conjecture or someone you know, or what?
I'm baking the cake as we speak.
I meant to say His birthday will be on that date, and I think you know that is what I meant. So I am going to start monitoring your threads and bring up every such faux pas that I find.
What's an "authentic" crop circle?
And I fully understand that concern. The rabbis are a pretty smart bunch, but they of course have an enormous blind spot when it comes to the Messiah.
On the other hand, I could also question the exegetical value of much of Christian tradition for similar reasons.
I will stipulate it may have some valuable insights into First Century Judaism, however. To use those insights to exegete the Old Testament, however, is fallacious.
Actually, done carefully, it's not. You are familiar, of course, with the concept of a hostile witness. When a person admits something that is not to their advantage, that's often the strongest sort of testimony. For most of our history, the Christians and the Jews have worked hard at definining themselves to be as separate as possible. Therefore, when one finds a Jewish tradition that is in complete agreement with the NT, one has to take special note.
Therefore, when I see a (as far as I've been able to determine) universally-accepted tradition that the Resurrection of the dead will occur on the Feast of Trumpets, using very similar terminology to that of Yeshua and Sha'ul, I consider that an important piece of testimony from a hostile source.
The other thing we have to remember is that the Scriptures are all high-context documents: They assume that the readers share a core of culture, language, idiom, and foundational teaching, that they all already have the context necessary to understand the author. The more we learn about the culture and idioms of those to whom the Scriptures were written, the better we understand the Scriptures.
There are passages in Sha'ul's epistles which make use of Greek references: For example, his teaching of grace was built on the then well-known patron-client relationship.
Likewise Yochanan's (John's) opening chapter, in which he titles Yeshua the Word of God, was apparently not based primarily on subtleties of the word logos, but on the Aramaic Targums' use of the term Memre Dei, "the Word of God," to describe the "part" of God who met with His people (see Lightfoot's Talmudic Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 3, pardon the lack of a page number). God's Word (Heb. D'var) is not simply His logic, but that by which He takes action (cf. Isa. 55:11). Likewise, Yochanan's assertion that by the Word everything was made that has existance has parallels in the rabbinic literature, where God creates the world by means of an eternally-existant Torah.
I don't think we realize how much of the NT has its origination in first-century Jewish rabbinical thought. That's hardly surprising, since Yeshua Himself was regarded as a rabbi (despite a lack of formal training and ordination) and taught like one, even engaging the Pharisees in rabbinical debate over halakha (applying the Torah; tradition).
Trust me, I don't just take anything the rabbis wrote as gospel--any more than I do the ECF or Calvin--and I've found both sides to be equally guilty of creative exegesis under the influence of the sacrimental wine, so to speak. I regard them all as useful sources for historical background, linguistic study, and ideas, but it is ultimately the Bible to which we always return as our final authority.
And I think we're both agreed on that.
I appreciate, as always, your ability to voice a concern or objection without being contentious. God bless, and L'shana tova u-metukah.
From post #97:
One in which the nodes of the plants have been heated and often somewhat exploded by extremely brief microwaves; wherein within the circles there is a microdusting of extremely fine iron particles; and within the circles there's a significant difference in the magnatism of the soil vs outside the circle.
I think there are some other scientifically verified differences but those are the basic ones off the top of my head. This has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals, BTW.
The hoaxer's circles have none of the above.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOUUUUUU!
My next one is 60. Still hard to believe.
And you received your answer. Moving on . . .
No, Saturday is the birtday of our friend, 1000silverlings.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO HIMMMMMMMMMM!
You don't post like a day over 29. 8~)
No I received no answer. Respect for the name doesn't cut it. You're trying to communicate to people who know the Messiah as Jesus. Why not call Him Jesus? Both name refer equally to the same presence.
I'll tell what I suspect; I've seen similar tactics before. I've used them.
The obscure reference sets you apart as a closer and more knowledgeable authority. A similar technique has been used by actors in pronouncing historical names, like pronouncing the Egyptian queen's name NeferTERI instead of NeferTITI. The technique seeks to imply a greater authority to the speaker than would be ordinarily gained from standard reference.
Phrases in Latin and other foreign languages impart the same thing. I use those myself for the same reason.
The problem with this reference is that it is an attempt to gain yourself from readers, not more authority of man's knowledge, but more authority of the knowledge of God. I run into to this all the time, especially from Jews who have come to the knowledge that Jesus was the Messiah.
I don't buy it, so I call you on it. You obfuscate instead of owning up to it after have been given several chances.
I believe that God blesses humility and condemns arrogance. The scriptures bear me out. But that's your problem; I just point it out.
Point the second: Nobody else seems to be confused by my use of Yeshua instead of Jesus. Therefore, your protest that someone might misunderstand me rings a little hollow.
Point the third: Having received my explanation for my custom multiple times on this thread and others, you call me a liar. Using the Lord and His Apostles' Hebrew names is not a matter of self-elevation. Perhaps you should stop claiming to see into the hearts of those you know only through their words on a computer screen, and accept their explanations at face value.
If we're going to play this game, let's put the shoe on the other foot: I've seen tactics similar to yours before. You dislike the content of the article, but having no reply to any of the substance of the arguments contained within, you have decided to find some nit to pick about the author--in this case, myself. It's called an ad hominem ("against the man").
You have received my explanation. You understand my explanation perfectly well. You just don't like it. Sorry, but I'm not changing: Our Lord was born under the name Yeshua, a Second Temple period variant of Y'hoshua, a name which was prophesied to Him four centuries before (Zec. 6:11-13). There is nothing wrong with with transliterating His Name, as the Apostles themselves did--but neither is there anything wrong with using the Name by which He was called for the 33 years that He walked this earth in such a fashion that people know what it is.
God knows the heart. He knows the heart of a person who receives salvation in the name of Jesus, and of those like myself who are called to emphasize the Jewish roots of the faith.
Congrats to youuuuuuuuuuuuuu, then!
Hmmmmm. Welllll in my menality region . . . I still FEEL like I'm in undergrad school.
A lot of the rest of me is fairly battle worn in a list of ways, though! LOL.
Glucosamine etc. helps!
Thank you Quix, you can have some cake and eat it too, lol.
I suppose it's not much different than using Aristotle or Plato - selectively - to support Christianity. The Early Church Fathers made extensive use of those philosophers.
I appreciate, as always, your ability to voice a concern or objection without being contentious.
I appreciate that. Simple fact of the matter is that you've always been good to correspond with, and while I disagree with you, its based on ideas, not personality. Your insights have always been interesting, even if from different assumptions than mine.