Post Reply
Page 4 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View ANOTHER VIEW OF THE HOLOCAUST
3 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2012 - 4:52PM #31
ffb
Posts: 2,218

 


 Ben: Good! Now, you are ready for the next question. Was Cyrus anointed with oil for Isaiah to refer to him as the  anointed one in Isaiah 45:1? Obviously not, as he was not. Therefore, back to my assertion that Herzl did not have to be anointed with oil to be our modern messianic leader who gave his life to save Israel from its around-the-corner Holocaust. Just one more, if you don't mind. Was Jesus anointed with oil for Christians to refer to him as the Messiah? No, he was not. Nevertheless, they do. Does it make sense now?


---------------


You miss many points but I'll throw you a bone because I pity you. If you want to equate Cyrus with a messiah figure even though he was not anointed, then you'd have to say "the text names him explicitly as a messiah figure." as the text doesn't name herzl, he isn't a messianic figure since he wasn't anointed. Jesus was not anointed, nor was he a messianic figure. The problem you raise is one for christians, not me. The text never names him a messiah without oil so the Cyrus exclusion cannot be invoked. Get it? Good.


 


Ben: You did understand my question, but you seem to be frustrated by something to affirm that we are supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation. Try to figure how many generations are there in a span of 2000 years. Let us assume about 40 generations since Jesus was around. Have we had that number of Messiahs since then? Please, have mercy on yourself!


-----------


I understood the question just fine; it was just wrong. I explained what Judaism actually says -- that there is a potential messiah in each generation and that we await the messiah every day. Not that each generation has its own messiah. That would be ridiculous. Stop inventing what other people say and then knocking it down.


 


Ben: Who has ever said here that he was the Messiah? I consider him to have been a Messianic leader. Perhaps you believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Are you aware that he has been dead for about 2000 years? The individual dies, my friend. It is the People who remains forever before the Lord, according to Jeremiah 31:35-37.  I hope you have got the message by now.


---------------------------


You consider him whatever you want. I can consider him a three toed sloth. But when you judge him against what the requirements are to be a three toed sloth, he doesn't match up. Same with a messianic figure. You want to create a new category of messianic figure without being anointed, named, or fulfilling any messianic role? That's great. I can then name 100 people whom you could twist to fit your invented category. Is that useful? No. I hope you have figured this out now.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 3:03PM #32
Ben Masada
Posts: 2,808

Mar 30, 2012 -- 4:06PM, Bunsinspace wrote:


Mar 30, 2012 -- 3:38PM, Ben Masada wrote:


Bunsinspace, I am with you on this one. I am also a Zionist. That's why I have become an Israeli citizen since 1991. And for the so called "evil" done in its name, I consider a necessary "evil" if done in self defense. If you read what the Jewish People went through when they returned from exile in Babylon, the chances for survival increased only after we had to go into necessary "evils" to defend ourselves to get a place under the sun in our own Land of Israel.


It is still part of the covenant of other peoples in this part of the world, to trow the Jews into the sea or to erase Israel from the map. It is us or them. Rather them than us. According to the Talmud, if one comes to kill us, we are allowed to kill him first, and not just stay there sitting duck.


Ben 




BS"D


I do NOT include what you term "necessary evils" in my brief summary of true evils done in the name of poltical zionism in the past, present or future.  However I would make one amendment to your Talmudic reference - it is Torah m'Sinai that we are COMMANDED to kill one who comes to kill us.  To do otherwise is to clearly violate Torah.


There is no permissable ideology for killing a human being as all humans are defined by Torah as being created in the divine image.  So any murder is akin to deicide.  But halakha is very clear on what forms of violence merit death.  And the assasination of the PM of Israel in the past is an example of religious fanaticism VIOLATING Torah in order to accommodate political expediency (a politically perceived threat from a point of near-absolute ignorance.)


I refuse to play the "Poor Oppressed Palestinian" card.  It is sufficient for me to point out that there is as much inequity and injustice among Israel's own citizens as in any non-Jewish Western nation.  And that alone is a violation of Torah in the primary sense "not to behave like other nations" (in the sense of doing evil.)  Yet there is a real movement - in response to Moslem terror tactics - in Israel to clamp down on evildoers and evryone assumed to be associated with them with the brutality and merciless inhumanity that is the standard practice in most Moslem states (ummah.)  That is an even WORSE violation of that same mitzvo.  I hope it never comes to that.   Ironically my cynical critique is born of my inherent unassailable optimism concerning the Jewish people.




If I understand you well, I stand for what I have said. I do not agree with passive self-defense. Among barbarians, only force is understood. It is very easy, even for Jews, to look from outside at the predicament we have been through for months with missiles being shot at our civilians and children in their own schools. We have been forced for months to close our schools just because they claim that Jews have no place in the Middle East.


Our neighbors do not understand dipromacy; only force. If to survive as a nation, force must be used, let it be. The other day I asked an "Palestinian" what he meant by Palestine. He prontly answered and said, the whole of what the Jews call the Land of Israel. There is, definitely, no option but to live in a state of war. Were not for the self interest of our politicians to preserve the scapegoat attitude the world expects of us to perform, we could solve this question here in a day or two by transferring all the hostile elements who just can't quit the violence.


Ben

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 3:20PM #33
Ben Masada
Posts: 2,808

Mar 30, 2012 -- 4:16PM, Bunsinspace wrote:


Mar 30, 2012 -- 3:48PM, Ben Masada wrote:


And what would happen to the Law if the individual Messiah were the right view to adopt? The Law is here to stay. No community can survive as a community without the Law. Then, there is no logic in the opinion that the Messiah could be an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and then dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever, according to Jeremiah 31:35-37.


Ben





BS"D


There is no "right view."  The messiah is and always will be both the designated individual (potential in EVERY generation if it is meritted) and the entirety of klal yisroel depending upon the context.


Jews do not decide halakha by prophecy.  Prophecy illustrates the mitzvos, not determines them.


Messiah is hardly ever an issue in Judaism.  Jews know messiah when they see him and likewise know who messiah is NOT.  And it is impossible for the Jewish messiah to be defined by non-Jewish peoples.  Other peoples have their own Savior/Mahdi/Avatars/etc.  They don't need a Jewish messiah.  Such a position serves no good purpose for them and makes no sense.




So, "Jews know messiah when they see him." In that case, these Jews are blind, because I see the Messiah in the Jew as a People. I see them every day. I see ourselves as the Messiah. And so did Isaiah. It is a consensus that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, and I do adopt that consensus. Well, Isaiah identifies that Servant as Israel by name if you read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21. Rashi believed in the collective Messiah as Israel. And so did Maimonides, whose 12th principle of faith was about the messianic era. And so all Reform Judaism to one has adopted that consensus. 


Ben

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 3:35PM #34
Ben Masada
Posts: 2,808

Mar 30, 2012 -- 4:52PM, ffb wrote:


You miss many points but I'll throw you a bone because I pity you. If you want to equate Cyrus with a messiah figure even though he was not anointed, then you'd have to say "the text names him explicitly as a messiah figure." as the text doesn't name herzl, he isn't a messianic figure since he wasn't anointed. Jesus was not anointed, nor was he a messianic figure. The problem you raise is one for christians, not me. The text never names him a messiah without oil so the Cyrus exclusion cannot be invoked. Get it? Good.




"Thus says the Lord to His anointed, Cyrus..." If Cyrus was not God's anointed, as Isaiah claimed in a vision of his, Isaiah was either a false prophet or he was out of his mind. Since Cyrus was not literally anointed, Herzl was our modern messianic figure of that kind.


Sorry. I do owe you an apology for confusing you with being a Christian. My bad.


Ben




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 6:16PM #35
Bunsinspace
Posts: 5,929

Mar 31, 2012 -- 3:03PM, Ben Masada wrote:


...There is, definitely, no option but to live in a state of war. Were not for the self interest of our politicians to preserve the scapegoat attitude the world expects of us to perform, we could solve this question here in a day or two by transferring all the hostile elements who just can't quit the violence.


Ben





BS"D


I know of only two solutions to war:


1. Make peace (This was the solution implemented by King Solomon.)


2. Completely destroy your enemy - to the last man, woman and child. (This is the agenda chosen by Hamas.)


These two solutions are sanctioned in Torah.  I do not see how using an anti-Torah attitude of transferring one's enemies someplace else is any kind of solution but I do see how the delay caused by such a process can cause the enemy to grow much stronger.


Meanwhile, I am in agreement with what you have posted in that message.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 10:58PM #36
ffb
Posts: 2,218

Mar 31, 2012 -- 3:35PM, Ben Masada wrote:

Mar 30, 2012 -- 4:52PM, ffb wrote:


You miss many points but I'll throw you a bone because I pity you. If you want to equate Cyrus with a messiah figure even though he was not anointed, then you'd have to say "the text names him explicitly as a messiah figure." as the text doesn't name herzl, he isn't a messianic figure since he wasn't anointed. Jesus was not anointed, nor was he a messianic figure. The problem you raise is one for christians, not me. The text never names him a messiah without oil so the Cyrus exclusion cannot be invoked. Get it? Good.




"Thus says the Lord to His anointed, Cyrus..." If Cyrus was not God's anointed, as Isaiah claimed in a vision of his, Isaiah was either a false prophet or he was out of his mind. Since Cyrus was not literally anointed, Herzl was our modern messianic figure of that kind.


Sorry. I do owe you an apology for confusing you with being a Christian. My bad.


Ben




 


Yes, as stated, there is a Cyrus Exception -- he is explicitly called a messiah (in that he was a king performing god's will in heading up the rebuilding fo the religious focal point, the temple).


Which, of course, reflects the messianic hope of the people after the destruction fo the first temple so you could call Cyrus not just a messiah/king but god's messiah leading the people to religious unity. Herzl did not build a temple, usher in a time of religious unity or do anything else in that regard. He was neither actually anointed, nor named by god, textually, as a messiah. He was not a king (the role that falls within the bounds of the title "messiah").


So what you have left is your invented category of "messianic figure" and can put anyone in that category because it has no bounds or parameters.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 2:10PM #37
Ben Masada
Posts: 2,808

Mar 31, 2012 -- 6:16PM, Bunsinspace wrote:


Mar 31, 2012 -- 3:03PM, Ben Masada wrote:


...There is, definitely, no option but to live in a state of war. Were not for the self interest of our politicians to preserve the scapegoat attitude the world expects of us to perform, we could solve this question here in a day or two by transferring all the hostile elements who just can't quit the violence.


Ben





BS"D


I know of only two solutions to war:


1. Make peace (This was the solution implemented by King Solomon.)


2. Completely destroy your enemy - to the last man, woman and child. (This is the agenda chosen by Hamas.)


These two solutions are sanctioned in Torah.  I do not see how using an anti-Torah attitude of transferring one's enemies someplace else is any kind of solution but I do see how the delay caused by such a process can cause the enemy to grow much stronger.


Meanwhile, I am in agreement with what you have posted in that message.





What would be a better solution in terms of modern morality, to transfer a people to another land,  the land of their own brethrens or to slaugher them all to the last? The Torah solution, albeit more efficient, has been outdated as an apparent barbaric method. I agree with you that's the method Hamas wish they could use if they were stronger than we are, hass vahalilla!


Regarding the first option, to make peace, we have tried. They accept only if we all leave the Middle East. They offer us no solution but war. And I wonder how long it will take for our leaders to ignore the world antagonism to the Jewish nation and implement their transfer to the expansion of their brethrens' territory and carve their own country among them. Mind you that most of the Arabic countries need Arabs to enhance their population. Jordan, for instance, is already made up of 75% Palestinians.


Last but not least, IMO, America and the rich arabic countries should buy Baha California from Mexico, that would welcome such a money, and transfer all Palestinians to it.


Ben

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 2:29PM #38
Ben Masada
Posts: 2,808

Mar 31, 2012 -- 10:58PM, ffb wrote:

Mar 31, 2012 -- 3:35PM, Ben Masada wrote:


Mar 30, 2012 -- 4:52PM, ffb wrote:


You miss many points but I'll throw you a bone because I pity you. If you want to equate Cyrus with a messiah figure even though he was not anointed, then you'd have to say "the text names him explicitly as a messiah figure." as the text doesn't name herzl, he isn't a messianic figure since he wasn't anointed. Jesus was not anointed, nor was he a messianic figure. The problem you raise is one for christians, not me. The text never names him a messiah without oil so the Cyrus exclusion cannot be invoked. Get it? Good.




"Thus says the Lord to His anointed, Cyrus..." If Cyrus was not God's anointed, as Isaiah claimed in a vision of his, Isaiah was either a false prophet or he was out of his mind. Since Cyrus was not literally anointed, Herzl was our modern messianic figure of that kind.


Sorry. I do owe you an apology for confusing you with being a Christian. My bad.


Ben




 




Yes, as stated, there is a Cyrus Exception -- he is explicitly called a messiah (in that he was a king performing god's will in heading up the rebuilding fo the religious focal point, the temple).


Which, of course, reflects the messianic hope of the people after the destruction fo the first temple so you could call Cyrus not just a messiah/king but god's messiah leading the people to religious unity. Herzl did not build a temple, usher in a time of religious unity or do anything else in that regard. He was neither actually anointed, nor named by god, textually, as a messiah. He was not a king (the role that falls within the bounds of the title "messiah").


So what you have left is your invented category of "messianic figure" and can put anyone in that category because it has no bounds or parameters.




Cyrus was in no way, "explicitly called a messiah." His being called an anointed was not of the kind of being a messiah; but in terms of the role he was anointed to perform as a messianic leader by proxy on behalf of Ezra and Nehemiah. Regarding the Temple, he only financied it; but even to send his people, the Persians, to rebuild it or to help in the rebuilding of it, was not of his doing.


What time had Herzl to rebuild the Temple? He became a rejected messianic leader by the Jews who had got so accustomed to the Diaspora as to become so rich that they would not want to be bothered with the struggle to start all over again from scratch. They had climbed to such a climax of comfort that only a catastrophe of the size of the Holocaust would wake them up.


"My invented category of messianic figure" right? Listen my friend. You have all the right in the world to be entitled to your own opinion. But so do I. Herzl was not an anointed messianic leader to you. I respect that. To me, he was; and I hope you respect that too. Thank you.


Ben

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 2:33PM #39
ffb
Posts: 2,218

Apr 4, 2012 -- 2:29PM, Ben Masada wrote:

Mar 31, 2012 -- 10:58PM, ffb wrote:

Mar 31, 2012 -- 3:35PM, Ben Masada wrote:


Mar 30, 2012 -- 4:52PM, ffb wrote:


You miss many points but I'll throw you a bone because I pity you. If you want to equate Cyrus with a messiah figure even though he was not anointed, then you'd have to say "the text names him explicitly as a messiah figure." as the text doesn't name herzl, he isn't a messianic figure since he wasn't anointed. Jesus was not anointed, nor was he a messianic figure. The problem you raise is one for christians, not me. The text never names him a messiah without oil so the Cyrus exclusion cannot be invoked. Get it? Good.




"Thus says the Lord to His anointed, Cyrus..." If Cyrus was not God's anointed, as Isaiah claimed in a vision of his, Isaiah was either a false prophet or he was out of his mind. Since Cyrus was not literally anointed, Herzl was our modern messianic figure of that kind.


Sorry. I do owe you an apology for confusing you with being a Christian. My bad.


Ben




 




Yes, as stated, there is a Cyrus Exception -- he is explicitly called a messiah (in that he was a king performing god's will in heading up the rebuilding fo the religious focal point, the temple).


Which, of course, reflects the messianic hope of the people after the destruction fo the first temple so you could call Cyrus not just a messiah/king but god's messiah leading the people to religious unity. Herzl did not build a temple, usher in a time of religious unity or do anything else in that regard. He was neither actually anointed, nor named by god, textually, as a messiah. He was not a king (the role that falls within the bounds of the title "messiah").


So what you have left is your invented category of "messianic figure" and can put anyone in that category because it has no bounds or parameters.




Cyrus was in no way, "explicitly called a messiah." His being called an anointed was not of the kind of being a messiah; but in terms of the role he was anointed to perform as a messianic leader by proxy on behalf of Ezra and Nehemiah. Regarding the Temple, he only financied it; but even to send his people, the Persians, to rebuild it or to help in the rebuilding of it, was not of his doing.


What time had Herzl to rebuild the Temple? He became a rejected messianic leader by the Jews who had got so accustomed to the Diaspora as to become so rich that they would not want to be bothered with the struggle to start all over again from scratch. They had climbed to such a climax of comfort that only a catastrophe of the size of the Holocaust would wake them up.


"My invented category of messianic figure" right? Listen my friend. You have all the right in the world to be entitled to your own opinion. But so do I. Herzl was not an anointed messianic leader to you. I respect that. To me, he was; and I hope you respect that too. Thank you.


Ben


I must respect that you invent a category which taps into a biblical mythos and the theology which surrounds it even though your category is devoid of any justification and creates a misleading connection?


No, I musn't respect that at all.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 7:36PM #40
Bunsinspace
Posts: 5,929

BS"D


I also see it.  For one whose Jewish identity and Israeli identity are one and the same Herzl is indeed a messianic figure.  In the Diaspora, however, such an equation is impossible because Torah is only part of Medinas yisroel by an accident of history - NOT by design and NOT by intent.  Had Uganda been the chosen site for Medinas yisroel, or any of the other choices considered by the WZO, there would be no justification at all to claim political zionism as a legitimate part of Judaism IMHO and there would be less confusion among  Jews and non-Jews about what a real Jewish Messiah is or is not.


One thing should be obvious to everybody - the leader of a people who persecutes the Jewish people is automatically disqualified.  Tongue Out

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook