Interfaith forums - View Single Post

bananabrain · 12-21-2005, 11:36 AM

ICA -

the short answer to your question is this: judaism does not accept that *anything* - repeat, *anything* in the Tana"kh (what you call the "old testament) refers to, prophesies or symbolises jesus in any way, shape or form whatsoever. he is *not* part of our worldview, canon or religious structure. the messiah *is*, but he is not jesus and jesus is not him. he is a man not a Divine being or incarnation of G!D or the "holy spirit" or whatever - such ideas are alien to judaism.

to be precise; the verses that you quote from isaiah and daniel refer to the fate of the jewish people. the jewish people (in fact, if you look in isaiah 44:1-2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20 and 49:5-6 it's explicit that jacob/israel are being referred to) are the "suffering servant", not jesus. the "foundation stone" refers to the stone on which the Temple altar was constructed, which is also the rock that is the centrepiece of the dome of the rock mosque and, also, according to tradition, the rock on which the "binding of isaac" took place. this too refers to the jewish people and, more specifically the Torah, our Law, the "foundation stone" of monotheism. the "day of HaShem" and the "day of vengeance" refer to the messianic period when persecution will cease and peace will reign on earth. we explain the idea that the "day of vengeance" coming after the Moshiach as being the fact that this messianic era will not be ushered in without objections or, indeed, probably war. in fact, according to the "two messiahs" theory, the Moshiach ben yosef will be killed in these "wars of gog and magog" and the Moshiach that reigns afterward will be the Moshiach ben david - as i explained above if you read it.

what is more, what the gospels and john of patmos have to say about such subjects are of absolutely zero relevance to my opinions. as non-canonical, non-jewish writings, they have as much standing for me as the writings of karl marx.

also, would you mind making your formatting clearer, smaller and less blaring in future? it's completely unnecessary and, in fact it feels like you're shouting.

i hope this clears things up for you.

b'shalom

bananabrain

12-21-2005, 11:36 AM	#2 (permalink)
bananabrain Super Moderator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah Posts: 1,609	Re: Question on Isaiah 28 and 61. ICA - the short answer to your question is this: judaism does not accept that anything - repeat, anything in the Tana"kh (what you call the "old testament) refers to, prophesies or symbolises jesus in any way, shape or form whatsoever. he is not part of our worldview, canon or religious structure. the messiah is, but he is not jesus and jesus is not him. he is a man not a Divine being or incarnation of G!D or the "holy spirit" or whatever - such ideas are alien to judaism. to be precise; the verses that you quote from isaiah and daniel refer to the fate of the jewish people. the jewish people (in fact, if you look in isaiah 44:1-2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20 and 49:5-6 it's explicit that jacob/israel are being referred to) are the "suffering servant", not jesus. the "foundation stone" refers to the stone on which the Temple altar was constructed, which is also the rock that is the centrepiece of the dome of the rock mosque and, also, according to tradition, the rock on which the "binding of isaac" took place. this too refers to the jewish people and, more specifically the Torah, our Law, the "foundation stone" of monotheism. the "day of HaShem" and the "day of vengeance" refer to the messianic period when persecution will cease and peace will reign on earth. we explain the idea that the "day of vengeance" coming after the Moshiach as being the fact that this messianic era will not be ushered in without objections or, indeed, probably war. in fact, according to the "two messiahs" theory, the Moshiach ben yosef will be killed in these "wars of gog and magog" and the Moshiach that reigns afterward will be the Moshiach ben david - as i explained above if you read it. what is more, what the gospels and john of patmos have to say about such subjects are of absolutely zero relevance to my opinions. as non-canonical, non-jewish writings, they have as much standing for me as the writings of karl marx. also, would you mind making your formatting clearer, smaller and less blaring in future? it's completely unnecessary and, in fact it feels like you're shouting. i hope this clears things up for you. b'shalom bananabrain