J
JustaServant
Guest
Very well then.
How is (whatever word you want to use) “in the picture”?
- Status
Very well then.
How is (whatever word you want to use) “in the picture”?
Y
YKohen
Guest
There’s nothing to document. We believe in G-d and His promises. This is nothing new.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides#The_13_principles_of_faith
What IS new is that they are unfolding in front of everyone’s eyes now. It poses a theological problem for many- but not for us.
Y
YKohen
Guest
The words I use are G-d’s promises to the nation of Israel. Do I have to spell it out for you? Do you want verses cited? What?
J
JustaServant
Guest
You made THIS claim:
So, yeah, you are required to document an historical claim.
So please provide documentation of your claim.
J
JustaServant
Guest
You’re quite the dancer.
You said:
"Natural Israel" is very much in the picture; as you see.
So ah…yeah. I want you to explain what you mean, and document historically how the Jews have always held this view.
Y
YKohen
Guest
Ezekiel is a prophet. The book of Ezekiel is in the Jewish Bible. We believe- and always did, in the prophets. If we didn’t, then Ezekiel wouldn’t be part of the Jewish Bible.
Why? You think otherwise?
Y
YKohen
Guest
No dancing. Staight up. The term was used before me- as I proved to you. I realize that you scrolling up is too difficult.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides#The_13_principles_of_faith
PS Since it seems to be difficult for you, see #6
J
JustaServant
Guest
I’m still waiting for you to provide HISTORICAL documentation that
Which you have not.
And apparently, can not.
Y
YKohen
Guest
A. I gave it to you in a link, but you apparently don’t know how to use links.
B.I explained it to you logically- that Ezekiel is a prophet and the Book of Ezekiel is in the Jewish Bible- ONLY because we believe in prophesy and that Ezekiel was a prophet.
Again, do you claim otherwise?
M
mercytruth
Guest
I can not speak for YKohen, but I can speak for those of the Messianic congregation that I was associated with. So regarding Ezekiel 37, one could take a literal concurrent timeline for the return of the people of Israel to the land of Israel when the Moschiach comes, or one can take a progressive timeline for the return prior to the coming of the Moschiach.
Maimonides took a literal concurrent timeline, and Ezekiel 37 was just one of his references.
orthodox-jews.com/moshiach.html#axzz2BSx9OtzT
As far as the ‘natural Israel’, I did not know what other term to use since the church has taken over the term ‘Israel’ to represent herself. So, from the NT and the writings of the apostle Paul on this subject, I refer to the church as ‘spiritual Israel’, (otherwise known as the wild olive branches) and I refer to the ‘natural olive branches’ as ‘natural Israel’.
God’s peace be with you
micah
Maimonides took a literal concurrent timeline, and Ezekiel 37 was just one of his references.
orthodox-jews.com/moshiach.html#axzz2BSx9OtzT
As far as the ‘natural Israel’, I did not know what other term to use since the church has taken over the term ‘Israel’ to represent herself. So, from the NT and the writings of the apostle Paul on this subject, I refer to the church as ‘spiritual Israel’, (otherwise known as the wild olive branches) and I refer to the ‘natural olive branches’ as ‘natural Israel’.
God’s peace be with you
micah
J
JustaServant
Guest
Wikipedia is not a source.
Even if it was, it still does not answer the question.
IOW, you cannot document what you are saying.
Y
YKohen
Guest
In Wikipedia, it is just restating Maimonides’ “13 principles of faith”. Maimonides took them from various Talmudic sources.
Want to see the full version? Here:
daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/rambam/hakdamat-2.htm#6
And feel free to use Google Translate if your Hebrew isn’t good enough. His English wasn’t quite up to par.
And yet again, Ezekiel is a prophet and the Book of Ezekiel is in the Jewish Bible- ONLY because we believe in prophesy and that Ezekiel was a prophet.
And yet again, do you claim that we don’t believe in the prophets?
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
JustaServant—
Of course Jews have never had a Dispensationalist view! Dispensationalism is something Christians came up with.
If a person is Jewish, they will understand from the Bible that God made some unconditional promises to the people of Israel.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Pulling out an obscure Rabbi from the past is not documentation.
As far as the Bible, people have been claiming it says certain things for years, TV evangelists are very good at it.
You cannot connect what Jews have believed historically with a Dispensationalist philosophy which only arrived on the scene in the 20th century. Dispys themselves use obscure Catholic writings to claim the Catholic Church believed in their view as well.
There is NO PROOF whatsoever that the modern state of Israel has anything to do with what was written in the Bible thousands of years ago.
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
Read the Bible.
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
There is no connection between Christian Dispensationalism and what Jews have believed from their Bible for thousands of years.
Calling Maimonides obscure is like calling St. Augustine and St. Aquinas obscure.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Please observe the forum rules on posting with charity.
Thank you.
Thank you.
M
mercytruth
Guest
I really appreciate Eric and his post #153.
Why? Because 153 reminds me of the 153 fish that the disciples caught as related in John 21. Because the Passover, (haPesach) has a numerical value in Hebrew of 153.
So, let us remember that it is haPesach which unites Jews and Gentiles. Whether or not we know it now, we for sure will know it some day.
God’s peace
micah
Why? Because 153 reminds me of the 153 fish that the disciples caught as related in John 21. Because the Passover, (haPesach) has a numerical value in Hebrew of 153.
So, let us remember that it is haPesach which unites Jews and Gentiles. Whether or not we know it now, we for sure will know it some day.
God’s peace
micah
Y
YKohen
Guest
LOL! Maimonides was anything but an “obscure rabbi”.
You will definitely be pleased to learn that Maimonides had a huge influence on Thomas Aquinas. There are explicit references to Maimonides in several of Aquinas’s works, including the Commentary on the Sentences.
See, for instance:
- Brian Evan Anthony Davies OP (a Dominican and a professor from Fordham University) Aquinas: An Introduction, p. 2
- Mercedes Rubio’s Aquinas and Maimonides on the Possibility of the Knowledge of God
Maimonides’ legal and philosophical writings are THE basis of all Jewish studies. There is no yeshiva that doesn’t study his works in depth, no rabbi that hasn’t spent thousands of hours studying him.
The leader of the Jewish community in Egypt- as well as the sultan’s personal physician, he was consulted by rabbis everywhere, who asked his advice on legal and philosophical matters.
It’s no coincidence that there is:
- Maimonides School, the Orthodox Jewish day school in Brookline, Massachusetts
- Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York
- Universidad Maimónides, Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Maimonides Foundation
People can claim whatever they want. I couldn’t care less.
As I pointed out, Dispensationalism is a Christian thing; not a Jewish one. Dispensationalism only arrived in the 20th century,but G-d’s promises to the nation of Israel are THOUSANDS of years old.
Sure.
Maybe it’s all merely a “coincidence”, right? I mean- there have been numerous other examples in history of a nation being exiled from their land for nearly 2000 years- to the 4 corners of the earth- and not only did they not disappear, not assimilate, but actually returned to their land as was promised in their holy books- right?
Name a few.
Can’t? OK, then name just one (besides the nation of Israel).
Then you can start trying to figure out how all of those prophesies that we see unfolding now are something else.
J
JustaServant
Guest
I figured you would go for Maimonides, A few observations:
- All you can find to back up your claim is ONE Jewish Rabbi. That is what I meant by “obscure”.
- I actually know quite a bit about Maimonides (remember I used to teach this stuff), and there is no evidence he believed in the Zionist view of Israel since he lived in the 13th century. In fact he was quite liberal in his views.
- You have provided NOT ONE bit of evidence Maimonides believed in your interpretation of Ezekiel 36-37, which if you remember, was my original question.
- Not to get into politics, but your claim about the modern state of Israel is based on your opinion alone. An opinion not shared by many Jews themselves.
- Status