tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post6259243548538460719..comments2024-02-05T00:22:41.291-08:00Comments on Orthodox Messianic Judaism: Messiah as Divine MetaphorUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-64634188311485017082015-02-25T06:44:31.605-08:002015-02-25T06:44:31.605-08:00Well then Peter...What is your criteria for determ...Well then Peter...What is your criteria for determining whether or not a passage refers to the specific individual of the Messiah or not?<br /><br />Based off of what I have heard from you so far, you have no standard for this other than your confirmation bias of your jesus in the NT...<br /><br />I gave you an exegetical heuristic that can be used to determine whether or not a passages refers to the Messiah son of David. So far, you have basically been painting the target around the arrow! You have shot an arrow into a tree, painted concentric circles around it, and have shouted "BULLS EYE!"<br /><br />That's not impressive...That's what we call confirmation bias...<br /><br />You start with the assumption that your jesus is the Messiah, and then abuse scripture in order to confirm what you think is already true. You ignore the true criteria that the Tanach gives for the true Messiah in order to falsely champion your jesus as the Messiah by abusing the context of the Tanach.<br /><br />It's time you give up the charade, Peter. Your jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophesies of the Tanach! <br /><br />So until you can give me any sort of standard for determining what passages refer to the specific individual of the Messiah son of David in the Tanach, your flippant eisegetical approach to scripture on this matter is downright insulting...<br /><br />ShalomUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589988406653934350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-55681425890112363052015-02-25T04:45:56.000-08:002015-02-25T04:45:56.000-08:00Unknown,
Yeah, you've told us you think these...Unknown,<br /><br />Yeah, you've told us you think these passages apply to ANOTHER Messiah, that they CANNOT apply to Moshiach ben David. You have foolishly and arrogantly told HaShem, "I will not accept a Messianic prophecy unless it provides information on MY terms, providing in every instance the lineage of the Messiah."<br /><br />Arrogance! Foolishness!<br /><br />Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742087402667360623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-52846875898454061912015-02-24T20:24:52.111-08:002015-02-24T20:24:52.111-08:00Yehuda YIsrael, so this is where you have been han...Yehuda YIsrael, so this is where you have been hanging out!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-69011289616860065162015-02-24T20:17:25.386-08:002015-02-24T20:17:25.386-08:00Dan, why don't you drop the charade and admit ...Dan, why don't you drop the charade and admit that your faith has been shaken to its core?<br /><br />The reason why you are so frustrated with my arguments is that they are specifically designed to refute the pitiful christian argument that you are using that I have colloquially dubbed "the great angel hunt."<br /><br />Basically, it's when christians like you attempt to evade the fact that jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophesies in the Tanach by using a strawman argument about anonymous angels in the Tanach being "god".<br /><br />The big elephant in the room is that the only reason why you are doing this is to justify your worship of jesus. You erroneously assert that every time an anonymous angel speaks on behalf of G-d, this makes that angel synonymous with Hashem... <br /><br />But this is ridiculous, as prophets and angels speak on behalf of G-d many times in the Tanach. Isaiah 7:3-13 has Isaiah speaking on behalf of G-d, sometimes not differentiating between Isaiah's words and G-d's words...Why? Because Isaiah's words are essentially G-d's words. That is the function of a prophet: To speak the word of G-d! <br /><br />But does Isaiah speaking on behalf of G-d make Isaiah synonymous with G-d?!<br /><br />OF COURSE NOT!<br /><br />Likewise, in 8:16-17, the angel Gabriel speaks on behalf of G-d.<br /><br />But does Gabriel's speaking on behalf of G-d make Gabriel synonymous with G-d?!<br /><br />OF COURSE NOT!<br /><br />Likewise, when ANGELS speak on behalf of G-d in Genesis 18 to Abraham, Genesis 32 to Jacob, and all the other passages that you christians abuse concerning angels speaking on behalf of G-d in the Tanach, these angels are not Hashem! They are serving a similar role to a prophet, as they are angelic messengers of G-d. The are not to be worshipped or acknowledged as our Creator. <br /><br />Deuteronomy 4:9-19 ends all argumentation on this issue. G-d explicitly commands Israel not to worship Him in ANY FORM. That includes angels, humans, pillars of fire, etc.<br /><br />And the other big elephant in the room that none of you christians have addressed is that your jesus never even claimed to be a "pre-incarnate angel" who spoke to people in the Tanach as these aforementioned angels...<br /><br />So even if you could prove that these angels are to be worshipped (you cannot,) then you would still have no case for jesus being these angels, even according to the words of jesus!<br /><br />So your argument for jesus having anything to do with any of these angels fails on all counts! Moreover, your argument that these angels are synonymous with G-d fails on all counts as well.<br /><br />It's a lose lose situation for you "jesus angel hunters." You might as well hunt for bigfoot because you're not even being consistent with your own false NT!<br /><br />Face it Dan Benzvi...Your jesus is not the Messiah and he is not Hashem. Your faith has been shaken...Now swallow your pride and drop jesus and follow Hashem!<br /><br />ShalomUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589988406653934350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-91127681576456871752015-02-24T19:46:35.026-08:002015-02-24T19:46:35.026-08:00You know something, you are even qualify to be an ...You know something, you are even qualify to be an anti-missionary...What a novice...You are wasting my time.Dan Benzvihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05411063743206730041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-64095726716825178232015-02-24T17:57:02.011-08:002015-02-24T17:57:02.011-08:00I already told you that the Messiah is a part of I...I already told you that the Messiah is a part of Israel, and the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is Israel, Messiah included.<br /><br />Are you going to admit this fact is supported by the Tanach and Chazal?<br /><br />And no, Zechariah 12:10 gives us no reason to apply it to Moshiach ben David as I've explained to you countless times. The House of David looks upon the "pierced" one...Not the other way around!<br /><br />ShalomUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589988406653934350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-60100546189710084472015-02-24T17:49:42.979-08:002015-02-24T17:49:42.979-08:00Unknown,
Are you going to admit that Isaiah 53 an...Unknown,<br /><br />Are you going to admit that Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12:10 can apply to Moshiach ben David? Yes or no?!<br /><br />It's a simple question!Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742087402667360623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-88716755158852812472015-02-24T17:12:12.943-08:002015-02-24T17:12:12.943-08:00Dan Benzvi,
The I guess the angel Gabriel must be...Dan Benzvi,<br /><br />The I guess the angel Gabriel must be another of your "jesus angels" then...<br /><br />He does not introduce himself saying "thus said the Lord" when he speaks to Daniel.<br /><br />Daniel 8:16 And I heard the voice of a man in the midst of the Ulai, and he called and said, "Gabriel, enable this one to understand the vision."<br /><br />Daniel 8:17 And he came beside the palace where I was standing, and when he came, I became frightened, and I fell upon my face. Then he said to me, "Understand, son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end."<br /><br />I guess the angel Gabriel must be "god" too according to you?<br /><br />Is this another one of your "jesus angels"?<br /><br />Or is this the "fourth person of the quadrinity godhead"?<br /><br />Apparently, you worship Gabriel...That's pure idolatry through and through...<br /><br />Even christians agree!<br /><br />So maybe try again, Dan?<br /><br />Shalom<br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589988406653934350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-60617031757811118412015-02-24T17:03:49.538-08:002015-02-24T17:03:49.538-08:00I never denied that Isaiah 53 has application to t...I never denied that Isaiah 53 has application to the Messiah. However, it does not exclusively apply to the Messiah, as the suffering servant is referred to as collective Israel throughout the entirety of the servant songs and never a "king" or "David." This lends credibility to the fact that the passage does not simply refer to one individual, but rather a collective group, since the servant is referred to as Israel/Jacob/Jeshrun multiple times throughout the entirety of the servant songs.<br /><br />Zechariah 12:10 makes no sense to apply to the Messiah son of David simply because it says that the House of David will be looking upon the "pierced person in question." It does not say that this "pierced" individual is of the House of David...Rather, it says the House of David will look on this "pierced individual."<br /><br />Likewise, Chazal do not apply this passage to Moshiach ben David for this very reason...<br /><br />I suggest you follow their wisdom...<br /><br />ShalomUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589988406653934350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-79532363429057838352015-02-24T16:25:34.144-08:002015-02-24T16:25:34.144-08:00Unknown,
RE: "Peter, I am not saying that. ...Unknown,<br /><br />RE: "Peter, I am not saying that. "<br /><br />Then stop saying it! Stop saying that these passages cannot refer to Moshiach ben David!<br /><br />Admit! Admit that these passages can refer to Moshiach ben David! Say it!<br /><br />Let's hear it. I'm waiting...Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742087402667360623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-47508628959956136062015-02-24T14:04:40.810-08:002015-02-24T14:04:40.810-08:00Peter, I am not saying that. However, it is intere...Peter, I am not saying that. However, it is interesting that the vast majority of all the Messianic prophesies that Jews AND christians both agree refer to the SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL of Moshiach ben David AND NO ONE ELSE all happen to mention the Davidic dynasty in some fashion.<br /><br />When you take passages like Zechariah 12:10 and Isaiah 53, it is interesting to note that this is an area of division concerning christians and Jews. <br /><br />Why is this?<br /><br />Why are we able to agree that passages like Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 37:24-28, Hosea 3:5, and Isaiah 11 all refer to the specific individual of the Messiah, but when it comes to passages like Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12:10, we come to completely different conclusions?<br /><br />It seems rather obvious to me that part of the reason lies in the fact that Zechariah 12:10 and Isaiah 53 neglect to mention the Davidic dynasty concerning the "killed" individuals in their respective passages. This makes these passages more ambiguous concerning who these "killed" individuals are. There are no Davidic or kingly titles given to the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 or the slain individual in Zechariah 12:10...So it's no wonder why Jews do not see these passages as being specific to the Messiah son of David!<br /><br />So for the record, I'm not saying that it is a hard fast "rule" that when a passage refers to the Messiah it MUST say "David/Jesse." However, the majority of the passages that do refer to the specific individual of the Messiah son of David do use a "Davidic qualifier." So using exegetical consistency between these passages, any passage that does not give a Davidic qualifier that is said to be "messianic" should be subject to a higher degree of scrutiny.<br /><br />And that is precisely what I am doing. And concerning Zechariah 12:10, it makes no sense to assume that the "pierced" individual must be Moshiach ben David, especially since it is the House of David who are looking upon the "one who was pierced." Not the other way around, as you are hopelessly trying to argue!<br /><br />ShalomUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589988406653934350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-14358136421845617142015-02-24T11:10:01.595-08:002015-02-24T11:10:01.595-08:00Unknown,
So let me get this straight: you are giv...Unknown,<br /><br />So let me get this straight: you are giving HaShem a rule that He is not allowed to talk about the Moshiach ben David unless He references the Moshiach's Davidic ancestry? <br /><br />Do you have any idea how foolish that sounds?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742087402667360623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-84047194446319202132015-02-24T10:15:09.923-08:002015-02-24T10:15:09.923-08:00"It doesn't matter if an angel speaks on ..."It doesn't matter if an angel speaks on behalf of G-d."<br /><br />Where in the Tanach does it state that an angel speak on behalf of God? When a prophet speaks on behalf of God He says so "thus said the Lord..." Where do you see and angel do that? This is a pure invention of the Rabbis....Dan Benzvihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05411063743206730041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-61534729335552699132015-02-24T06:38:58.788-08:002015-02-24T06:38:58.788-08:00Peter, what is more fascinating is how the rabbis ...Peter, what is more fascinating is how the rabbis appear to agree with the fact that Zechariah 12:10 does not imply that the individual killed must come from the tribe of Judah as you eisegetically insist.<br /><br />For people familiar with Messianic prophesy in the Tanach, this is hardly surprising!<br />Concerning Zechariah 12:10, Jews and Christians can agree on other passages referring exclusively to the Messiah SON OF DAVID! Here are a few:<br /><br />Isaiah 11:1. And a shoot shall spring forth from the **STEM OF JESSE,** and a twig shall sprout from his roots.<br /><br />Ezekiel 37:24. And **MY SERVANT DAVID** shall be king over them, and one shepherd shall be for them all, and they shall walk in My ordinances and observe My statutes and perform them.<br /><br />Hosea 3:5. Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God and **DAVID THEIR KING,** and they shall come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness at the end of days.<br /><br />Jeremiah 30:9. And they shall serve the Lord their God and **DAVID THEIR KING,** whom I will set up for them.<br /><br />There is one thing all of these verses have in common: They all use a “Davidic qualifier,” meaning that they all exclusively refer to the Davidic dynasty in some fashion. (David/Jesse) This is why Jews and Christians can all understand that these future prophesies refer to one person: Moshiach ben David.<br /><br />However, Zechariah 12:10 makes no mention of this "pierced" individual having any exclusive association with the kingdom of David.<br /><br />And so, you have no reason to assume that this prophesy applies to the Messiah son of David, especially since the passage says that the House of David pierced this individual...Not the other way around as you want it to say...<br /><br />Maybe you should take the Rabbis opinions more seriously, Mr. "orthodox messy antic Jew" <br /><br />:-) Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589988406653934350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-3338119067535749762015-02-24T05:10:35.886-08:002015-02-24T05:10:35.886-08:00Unknown,
Because the rabbis would never in a mill...Unknown,<br /><br />Because the rabbis would never in a million years suggest that the Messiah will be pierced and killed, right? Oh, wait that's EXACTLY what they say in Sukkah 52a!!<br /><br />Fascinating!<br /><br />But hey it couldn't refer to Moschiach ben David, right? Because then that would sound too much like Yeshua. : )<br /><br /> Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742087402667360623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-40902372212211632072015-02-24T05:01:18.624-08:002015-02-24T05:01:18.624-08:00Pete,
I love it. That's a whole different le...Pete,<br /><br />I love it. That's a whole different level of metaphor. The story of Yeshua haMoshiach is so powerful and central to existence that we see it echoed in not only Biblical stories like you've mentioned but we see it in the very structure of heroic stories themselves throughout different cultures ancient and modern, the story of a hero who chooses to set off on a quest to bring healing to his land, becomes initiated as the hero, faces a road of trials, eventually descends into the netherworld where he overcomes a great enemy, and finally returns to his land with a Divine gift that brings healing to the land.<br /><br />G-d loves His Son so much that He gave these stories to the entire world that even a little child might understand the salvation offered through Yeshua.<br /><br />It's amazing that anyone could fail to identify Yeshua given the great pains HaShem took in foreshadowing the Messianic story! <br /><br />Ah, well...Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742087402667360623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-57536128403897214392015-02-23T18:54:38.537-08:002015-02-23T18:54:38.537-08:00Ultimately what it comes down to is this:
Deutero...Ultimately what it comes down to is this:<br /><br />Deuteronomy 4:9-19 explicitly states that we are not to worship G-d in ANY FORM. <br /><br />So if you assume otherwise, you are essentially calling G-d a liar. <br /><br />It doesn't matter if an angel speaks on behalf of G-d. That does not make that angel synonymous with G-d any more than Isaiah speaking on behalf of G-d would make him synonymous with G-d. (Chas V'Shalom!)<br /><br />You can abuse the text all you want, isolating verses in Genesis 18 and Genesis 32 and erroneously argue that G-d assumed the form of these men and that we are to worship them.<br /><br />But Deut 4:9-19, an explicit command from Hashem for Israel not to worship Him in any form, says otherwise!<br /><br />And as for Pete Rambo...He can keep "Rambo-ling" on about his make believe jesus angels who jesus never claimed to be in the NT...<br /><br />That's right Peter Rambo...Did you know that your jesus never claimed to be "the angel of the Lord" in your NT?<br /><br />So why in the world would you assume that your jesus is "the angel of the Lord" when he never even claimed to be such?!<br /><br />Your jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophesies of the Tanach. I would be glad to demonstrate in more detail for you, Pete...If you would like to carry on the discussion in that direction, I'd be delighted to participate!<br /><br />ShalomUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589988406653934350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-47140685210807381322015-02-23T17:54:16.536-08:002015-02-23T17:54:16.536-08:00Peter Rambo, since you are so keen on metaphors, h...Peter Rambo, since you are so keen on metaphors, how about the ancient Rabbinic interpretation of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 referring to the nation Israel?!<br /><br />Fascinating indeed!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589988406653934350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-46040553377844600572015-02-23T17:19:26.303-08:002015-02-23T17:19:26.303-08:00Peter,
The discussion is really good, but going b...Peter,<br /><br />The discussion is really good, but going back to the root of the post, I think some valuable info got skipped over.<br /><br />How many times in the Tanach are we given metaphor that very specifically sets up the Divine Metaphor?<br /><br />I'm thinking of the life of Yosef and how it perfectly pictures Yeshua in a hundred plus points from favored son, prophet, sold for silver, rejection, 'death,' burial, 'resurrection from the pit,' sent to the Gentiles, Gentile name and appearance, savior of the world, second in power and authority, Judah and his brothers not recognizing him, bowing to him in the latter days, etc... Then, him revealing himself and they mourn for having put him through it all...<br /><br />Or, the Akida... the only favored son on the altar, to be sacrificed by the father, yet it was prophesied before going up the mount that they would be back... Then, 'the Lord will provide himself a lamb...' a veiled prophecy of He being the atonement.... And, it was the Angel of the Lord speaking...<br /><br />Story after story after story, picture after picture that are metaphors setting up the Messiah, who then is the culmination of the metaphors.... Essentially, just as you post indicates Solomon did, building the thought process one step at a time, yet mysteriously keeping parts hidden.<br /><br />Metaphors. Fascinating!<br /><br />Or, Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05913635482646399485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-84671737075685935422015-02-23T16:19:54.109-08:002015-02-23T16:19:54.109-08:00Also Psalm 8:5 translates elohim as "angels.&...Also Psalm 8:5 translates elohim as "angels."<br /><br />Interesting that you insist that since it says that Jacob "saw "elohim" this must mean that he "saw G-d."<br /><br />Considering the fact that the word "elohim" can refer to angels and even Moses himself, your argument is laughable!<br /><br />Oh and elohim is also used for FALSE gods in Exodus 20:3!<br /><br />So if you want to insist that Jacob must have seen "god in the flesh" because it says he saw "elohim face to face," then I'd say you're ignoring plenty of other possibilities.<br /><br />But instead of entertaining that Jacob saw an angel, you'd rather say that the Tanach "contradicts itself."<br /><br />Well that's a shame for you, because Hosea 12:5 recounts Jacob's encounter with the "elohim" in question...And guess what it says!<br /><br />Hosea 12:5 He strove with **AN ANGEL** (malach) and prevailed; he wept and beseeched him; In Bethel he shall find Him, and there He shall speak with us.<br /><br />The Hebrew word used here is "malach" for angel...<br /><br />So yes, Jacob wrestled with an angel, not with your pagan man god...<br /><br />ShalomUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589988406653934350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-46946768862770859142015-02-23T16:06:30.279-08:002015-02-23T16:06:30.279-08:00Here's the issue with your interpretation. You...Here's the issue with your interpretation. You do not distinguish between COMMANDS which G-d gives to His people Israel, and personal revelations/accounts DESCRIBED by G-d through Moses. (Gen 18 with the 3 angels, Gen 32 with Jacob and the angel etc.) None of the personal revelations/accounts described in these passages include COMMANDS FROM G-D concerning Israel. <br /><br />However, passages like Deut 4:9-19, do indeed, speak of COMMANDS concerning Israel. It is important to make this distinction because I'm sure you would agree with me that explicit COMMANDS FROM G-D HIMSELF take precedence over our personal interpretations of personal revelations/accounts described concerning individuals such as Abraham, Jacob, etc. in terms of how we are to understand what G-d expects us to do for Him. When read of out context of these explicit commands from G-d, these personal revelations/accounts can be used to distort G-d's word, as these personal revelation passages, when isolated alone, do not paint the full picture.<br /><br />And the word Hebrew used for "god" in "seeing god face to face" is "elohim." <br /><br />The word "elohim" is not exclusive to Hashem. In fact, Moses is called "elohim" in Exodus 7:1!<br /><br />Exodus 7:1 The Lord said to Moses, "See! I have made you a lord (elohim) over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker.<br /><br />So I guess according to your logic, Moses must be the same "god" that Jacob saw! After all, Jacob saw "elohim face to face" and Moses is called "elohim!"<br /><br />So I guess Moses is another "person" for you to add to your idolatrous trinity!<br /><br />Stop the nonsense Dan...You're making yourself look even more ignorant...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589988406653934350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-87475806206461777262015-02-23T15:56:21.585-08:002015-02-23T15:56:21.585-08:00It is you and Peter who keep bringing up Zechariah...It is you and Peter who keep bringing up Zechariah 12:10...I didn't bring it up.<br /><br />But you are telling me that you do not believe that the "one who was pierced" refers to Moshiach ben David?<br /><br />It appears that this is what you are saying Dan...<br /><br />Are you?<br /><br />If so, then we can agree on something!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589988406653934350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-37010435010689997592015-02-23T15:55:25.011-08:002015-02-23T15:55:25.011-08:00"My answer to you is Deut 4:9-19, where G-d e..."My answer to you is Deut 4:9-19, where G-d explicitly promises Israel that He will never appear in ANY FORM for Israel to worship."<br /><br />So the Tanach contradicts itself. Let's throw it out....in many places God appears as man. I did not recall reading the Angel contradicts Jacob when he said: " I have seen God face to face..." Or maybe you own a different Tanach?Dan Benzvihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05411063743206730041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-63676244999310640882015-02-23T15:53:07.596-08:002015-02-23T15:53:07.596-08:00Do you do not believe that Zechariah 12:10 refers ...Do you do not believe that Zechariah 12:10 refers to Moshiach ben David, Dan?<br /><br />If so, then we are in agreement!<br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589988406653934350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-19347627298544904982015-02-23T15:50:47.367-08:002015-02-23T15:50:47.367-08:00"You don't have to agree with that opinio..."You don't have to agree with that opinion, Dan...It isn't something that is theologically binding..."<br /><br />Nothing the Rabbis say is theologically binding....OOOPS....<br /> it makes more sense than referring to this individual as Moshiach ben David because the verse states that the House of David will be looking upon the "one who was pierced.""<br /><br />And this is the bone that is stuck in your throat, no? God can be Pierced, what a Shandah.....But you of course believe the Hocus Focus of the Rabbis.....And then you have the chutzpah to talk about Eisegetically...? OY....<br /><br />"But for you to assert that the death of this individual refers exclusively to Moshiach ben David? That goes against the context of the text.."<br /><br />I assert? You are the one who brought messiah ben David to the discussion, not me.....Get a hold of yourself!<br />"Dan Benzvihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05411063743206730041noreply@blogger.com