I'm surprised to find your article is somewhat on point and I wasn't aware some Chabad Jews had found that many sources to patch together a tentative eschatology. Most Jews have stopped popularizing their former tradition of Mashiach ben Yosef because they didn't want anyone to get the impression that a particular ben Yosef (4 BC - 33 AD) had done all the work of Mashiach. If they won't believe Moses, they won't believe even if someone rises from the dead.
There's nothing about soul transfer in the text, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's been theorized.
However, ben Yosef is absolutely halakhically Jewish and will not be Trump.
Nor is any of this more than one eschatological theory among many in Judaism as the article concludes, citing Saadia Gaon (emphasis original): "It follows, then, that all the above is not an essential or unavoidable part of the Messianic redemption that we await. Indeed, it ... may occur (or may have occured already!) in modified fashion." Isn't it interesting that Christians can say all the above has occurred already in modified fashion in both Messianic roles being the same person, the one who died and the one who resurrected the one who died?
In the churches I've been in we have people of both positions accepting each other and sharing details. I've looked into those details but I find that they primarily come from difficulty understanding the Bible's wide use of inclusive counting, and difficulty understanding the Bible's use of the first day of the week as a Mosaic type. Then the whole interpretation is constructed around those difficulties as if it doesn't create more problems.
Some samples, just picking from your chart: (1) No blood moon in 31, but there was one in 33 via lunar eclipse (Acts 2:16-21); (2) No typological 10 Nisan entry represented by the inspection of the lamb because 10 Nisan would be on Sabbath, not a journeying day (Ex. 12:3); (3) No evidence that "preparation" was a term for a day before an annual rest day, because there was no food prep on such days but only before Sabbath (Ex. 16:5); (4) The holy convocation of 15 Nisan is not called "Sabbath" or "Sabbatical" anywhere, only "miqra" (assembly, Lev. 23:7); (5) Modern translations select the past rather than the perfect to translate the aorist in Mark 16:1, while KJV uses perfect tense to indicate the reading compatible with the 6th-day crucifixion and all other verses: "When the sabbath was past, [they] had bought sweet spices", i.e., at the end of Sabbath they had already bought them.
That brings us to the many lines of argument that "three days and three nights" is not to be taken as it reads in literal English. First, in literal English it is incompatible with the more-frequent phrase "on the third day"; the position ignores all these and their similarities. Second, David also uses "on the third day" interchangeably with "three days agone" and "three days and three nights", 1 Sam. 30:1, 12-13. Third, several narratives demonstrate that a three-day cycle was a common narrative framing and "third day" was synonymous with what we call "day after tomorrow". Fourth, this agrees with every other evidence of inclusive counting demonstrated in the Bible and Near East literature generically. I have several more points in the files.
So if one is willing to respect all the texts I believe one is gradually weaned of the Wednesday theory. I took time to consider it and on occasions favored it a bit, but I realized it introduces far more inconsistencies than it resolves. Thanks for listening!
I've pointed out I roam the southeast US and am publicly tied to the identity of SwampRangers.com. Our being anons is not the argument.
The argument is that there's no evidence you're getting persecuted, or will be for what you say here. Fren.
Say what the Epstein elites deserve, as I asked. To jog your memory, here are some specific names as sorted by public file occurrences:
-
Jeffrey Epstein
-
Lesley Groff
-
Richard Kahn
-
Deutsche Bank
-
Karyna Shuliak
-
Larry Visoski
-
God
-
Bella Klein
-
Darren Indyke
-
J.P. Morgan
-
Ghislaine Maxwell
-
Kathy Ruemmler
-
Leon Black
-
Jes Staley
-
Woody Allen
-
Larry Summers
-
Peter Mandelson
Simon bar Kochba fl. 132-135 AD. Two different uprisings but both resulted in equally destructive dissipation.
You started great and this is mostly dead-on. Not "Sebastion Levi" but Shabbatai Zevi.
Menachem Schneersohn could not speak after 1992 due to stroke, so I doubt he ordered the 1995 Srebrenica genocide of Bosniaks.
The Rabbis have been teaching that Gentiles are just smart animals created by God to serve them. They claim when the Messiah arrives, they will give each Jew 3000 Gentile Slaves and elevate them to God status.
The actual teachings are not much different from teachings in Christianity. Some rabbis do detract from the humanity of outsiders in the same way some Christians do; but most such quotes are merely taken in the same way that Jesus called various people dogs, sheep, wolves, or vipers. The 2,800 "slaves" are an interpretation of a verse that Christians claim as well, Zech. 8:23; in context it's not different from having a company with 2,800 employees. Christians also believe in theosis (divinization), what Peter calls participating in divine nature, but the details differ. So when investigated for what they actually mean and compared to what some Christians teach, there is no theological problem.
Yes, we can encourage Jews not to fall for an anti-Messiah but to accept the only Jewish Messiah they need, Jesus of Nazareth, and to do so it's essential to have our information accurate. If we want unity of peoples we need to be open to having our facts correct so that the unity of truth shines out.
Glad I could witness the convo before it gets modded. Cute but unworthy of retention in this forum, fren.
Oh, you're probably u/Neo1, or else someone parodying him, the guy that asked for these weekly roundtables and documentaries in the first place. Gotcha. That would explain the behavior. When you have something positive to contribute, we're here.
Because six or seven names were proposed by community members and admin selected from among them. Several community votes were held but there was more nonparticipation than participation. Anyone can post relevant vote questions at any time, but since she was modded not a soul has proposed a new one. Would you like to try yet another community vote on a simple binary question to see if another option has more traction? You can do that right now. But for the sake of making it a round table discussion, I voted you up anyway, even though the answer appears in the first sentence. Perhaps you want to clarify more specifically exactly what you think there is to discuss.
Very sneaky of you
No, it's what Paul does, because tribe is as genetic as gender.
God created all nations and he chose the jews for His covenant, just like He did with Noah and Abraham before them. He chose them to fulfil His plan for the salvation of man. They have done their part, just like Noah and Abraham before them, and then the torch was passed to the Apostles and the Church which will see the end of times and the second advent.
Nice narrative, it's almost covenantal. I guess I'll try to spell it out again. The spiritual covenant for whomever will did indeed pass through Noah, Abraham, many Jews often a majority, and the apostles and all professing, believing Christians. There are also national covenants for many nations (and in fact covenantal male-female roles too), and Israel's national covenant includes things like its restoration in this day and its hope (like many nations) that it will become a majority Christian nation thus completing its original Jewish covenant. Some nations are guaranteed to be destroyed by the end; some nations are guaranteed to be preserved through the end; nations are given various blessings and cursings often in combination. Since both types of covenant flow together they can be distinguished (even though for 1500 years they mostly related to the same people). As long as you don't see the national covenants like other national covenants but spiritualize them away, you act like the part of physical Israel is done. Should I say that all the nations being destroyed that were prophesied to be, and all the nations remaining today that were prophesied to be, are all just flukes and all such texts are to be read only spiritually? No, the Church routinely takes those prophecies literally, but denies them as to Israel. Ezekiel 36 (cf. 37) is particularly important here, because it promises that Israel will return to the land in unbelief before its heart is awakened to God. You don't spiritualize that away into some application to the Church, do you? The first half literally happened to Israel.
Masonry is heavily influenced by Talmudic Judaism and Kabbalism.
And by Jesuitry and by Islam. They work together is my point.
I already told you that what was appropriate in the OT (categorizing people as jews and gentiles in relation to God) is no longer appropriate after Christ
Then that would apply to male-female and you're no longer a man. But the fact is that this Scripture doesn't preclude people from still having social roles as men, women, Jews, Americans, etc.
Obviously Epstein uses "goy" differently, which is why I point him to the correct meaning from his own professed religion. We'd agree the religion shouldn't be countenancing definition change and can be criticized when it does.
Again you're tempting discussion to go into a number of other matters, and I respect you enough not to rehash those between us when we don't have good agreement on definitions as shown by the main issue I commented on, i.e. Masonry is a judgment upon Jew and Gentile alike, as the verse suggests. If you think Masonry benefits Jews above Gentiles in some endemic way rather than benefiting satanism above any racial class, that's what I was going after and you haven't "gotten that" yet.
If you were referring to American diaspora it'd make sense but you said "Europe will receive millions". Pew has European Jews shrinking from 9.5 million to 1.4 million, 1939-2010. I wouldn't have a problem saying the trend might reverse but I don't see 2 million new immigrant Jews in Europe anytime soon, i.e. coming from Israel and America to Europe. So we can agree "Europe will receive millions" is a bit inaccurate and more accurately stated by your adjusted text e.g. "the West may receive another million"?
if I say what the Epstein elites deserve, I shall be persecuted
You're an anon, is anything that happens in this virtual reality a "persecution"? Speak, fren, and enter.
Europe will receive millions of also incompatible Jews
You mean at least 30% of the Jewish population of Israel of 7 million? Sounds exaggerated, unlike you.
If there are no Jews or Gentiles, then from the perspective in Christ it's not a "goy" because it's not "Israel" either. From the perspective outside of Christ it's still both.
You say you're familiar so I'll only allude to the fact that Israel has two applications, national Israel gets national blessings and responsibilities, and spiritual Israel gets spiritual blessings and responsibilities.
As to Sabbath I'll let my words and others' suffice for now.
No, I'm saying Israel is among the Nations rather than apart from the Nations, and Torah proves it (there are other such passages). I'm also not dispensational; the word translated "dispensation" in the Bible refers only to two eras, which Jesus calls the present age and the coming age, which is not a uniquely dispensational system. HTH.
I don't see new categories as you do, but new blessings. As a covenantalist I see one people throughout history. Jacob gave that people a national aspiration and Christ gave it an organic foundation and a new spiritual unity; at other times the same people has made other quantum leaps into new blessings. The fact that we give semantic terms like "Israelite" and "Petrine" to these experiences, and argue over when the term fully begins to apply, is tangential. As an Orthodox you may see more in the organic foundation event "thou art Peter" than I do, but I trust you won't see something that isn't there.
Was going to say no, but it occurred to me that Zech. 14:12-14 indicates that you're right, even if Israel nukes other cities they will still "fight at Jerusalem" and not be out of the woods even with short-term victories. Zech. 14 and Rev. 6 are the clearest nuclear passages we have. This may precede retaliation by Iran supplied by Russia, ravaging the land of Israel Ezek. 38:19-20.
I fully ejected "Christmas" and "Easter" from my life. Of course I retained Mosaic Firstfruits and also celebrated it as Resurrection Day (which is an internal question among 7th-day resters). Funny thing, 25 years later, I discovered there's enough evidence that the Christian tradition of Julian December 25 might well point to a confused echo that Jesus's annunciation, conception, "epiphany", genesis, and "nativity" might have occurred on 25 Dec of 5 BC, corresponding to his birth on the first of Tabernacles (6 Oct) in 4 BC. One intriguing line is that Haggai 2 prophesies this date as 24 Kislev and Simeon makes about ten references to Haggai 2 suggesting he could've recognized and approved the date.
Therefore one thing we need to do in getting along with those rampant 1st-day resters is to be open to a couple hints in the text that there may be good symbologic significance to some things they day even as they are overcome by evil symbologic significance that has infiltrated their practice unconsciously. There is a way by which everything is pure to the pure. Celebrating Mosaic Firstfruits and a 25 Dec conception nativity can be done without sin. (Technical note: for Gregorian-Julian alignment of 2 days the celebration should begin the evening of 23 Dec, making 25 Dec more of a diaspora date; but getting off work the evening of 23 Dec is what people do nowadays anyway.)
Great points! Was going to say "100%", but you slipped in one overcompensation that 7th-day resters often fall prey to, namely the "Wednesday crucifixion". I looked seriously at it for some time, but there is actually "strong scriptural evidence" that Jesus did in fact die on the sixth day and rose on the eighth day, and that the other timetable is special pleading. What happened was that the 7th-day folks didn't think they had enough ammo as is (but they do), and so they cast about for more, and they came up with the idea that Jesus must have risen on the 7th day even though it's against the plain reading of the text, and then combined that with the idea that the ancients didn't count inclusively just because we generally don't. Then everything else was patched in to support the Wednesday story.
I won't lay out all the lines right now, but suffice that at the same time Moses gave us Sabbath he also set aside a special purpose for "the day after Sabbath". Namely, twice a year it is the beginning of a work season at Firstfruits and at Weeks (Pentecost). For 1500 years Israel celebrated the first day twice a year alongside Sabbath, and these are exactly the two occasions in 33 AD that testify of Jesus rising and the Spirit coming (now called Resurrection Day, or "Easter", and Pentecost). So it'd be a bit silly for Jesus to rise on Saturday when the whole point of Firstfruits in Lev. 23 is that it begins the week and also points to a greater beginning of a week 50 days later, which the Spirit also kept.
I have never seen a 7th-day rester deny that Christian Pentecost fell on the 1st day; they just tend to ignore that, and that's because in the 19th century they found it convenient to continue a church distinction between the Ten Words and all other laws. It's been their bit ever since, and a very good one, to call out the rest of the church for keeping all the Ten Words except the Sabbath. All they need is to take this to its logical extension, and some of the 7th-day people discovered this and rightly called them to greater holiness, like Andrew Dugger. So the witness of the 7th day is only improved by admitting 1st-day Pentecost, and that logically removes the necessity of leaning on a crutch of Wednesday crucifixion.
Not exactly. Unless you remember that Israel is a goy too (Gen. 25:23).
Nice job.
The "three mysterious letters" from right to left are just "yuh yee ya". Probably a code I've seen before, if it comes to mind I'll let you know.
"Bind" from "bhendh-" unity in bend, band, bond, bund.
What of binding without sides or conflict?
What of treating God as present?
Of course I don't use this card with you or real anti-Semites here, Skil, because you have a pattern of getting your facts and sources mostly right. I picked on you once for facts and sources as to extinction, and again as to young earth, and you responded very rationally. The trump card is reserved for people who refuse to listen to reason; when that happens I find that their unreason is totally blown apart by my accusing them of being Jews larping against themselves. Read again: there are "insane anti-Semites" and sane ones.
Irrational "anti-Semite" accounts always in my experience refuse to deal with the fact that they harm anti-Semitism. Irrational "monotheist" accounts always in my experience refuse to confirm or deny being Muslim, because I believe it's impossible for a Muslim to deny being Muslim in good conscience. OTOH, once I realized that I was getting accused myself, I told people I'm going to stop denying being Jewish and instead (being all things to all men) agree to suffer alongside the Jews, as Jesus did. (And that card also always works, because people can't make hay out of my identification because it proves that they're acting on no evidence and that it wouldn't matter to them if I were Jewish or not.) So the refusal to deal with an identity question is 100% a tell of larping, while at the same time I discovered that if I lean into dealing with the identity question by identifying with the accused class that is the best evidence I can give for being sincere and transparent.
My post history proves you wrong.
In this comment you make a couple generic swipes against "Jews" but decline to cite specifics such as saying Brooklyn rabbis like Yechiel Brauner and Yoel Malik "rape children institutionally"; but it takes 30 seconds to construct such a sentence. You also decline to note my regular statement that I worship exactly one Jew because you dismiss Jesus from being King of the Jews, IIRC (nor the recognition that the Angel of the LORD calls himself a satan, which is necessary context to statements about it). So while you do occasionally call out individuals, your post history trends toward the generic that doesn't build the case.
Yeah, we do that literally every single day. Citations and sources. Direct quotes. You have nothing.
In my experience 85%-90% of Talmud references here are not on its own terms but are failures of interpretation. I've contextualized those. When people get it right I often say nothing. I don't recall you being outside this trend.
The things I always call out when I see them, you mean?
I don't know what you mean by that. I meant the person who is listed repeatedly in the most recent position here. Nothing to do with you or your style. If you were unwilling to listen to the reason of this statement, you might indicate a desire to trend toward that, though.
We have a lot of folks still who haven't learned to step up. 5-7 days before a topic is decided IMHO. (I stepped up when the first request was made but this month I haven't felt the community wants to hear my suggestions; but now that it's not too curious about proposing its own I might join in.)
If people thought it would be worthwhile for someone to summarize the views of the roundtable when discussion quiets, I might volunteer.