Post Reply
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
Switch to Forum Live View ANOTHER VIEW OF THE HOLOCAUST
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 8:12AM #41
ffb
Posts: 2,259

Apr 4, 2012 -- 7:36PM, Bunsinspace wrote:

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.  


I don't see it. Even for a sabra who is fervently religious. Even for a bnai akivnik. To create some category of "messianic figure" and say that herzl was (and then who wasn't? Ben Gurion? Meir? Dayan? Goldsmid? Nordau? Gaster? Rothschild?) especially when Herzl's vision of a political state was that it would NOT be a religious one, is to allow one to create a category of "biblical book" and insert Der Judenstaat. Herzl was a visionary. Herzl helped set the groundwork for the modern state of Israel which, according to many, is reishit tzmichat ge'ulateinu (and not some accident, btw). But to consider him in the slightest a member of that fictional group "messianic figure" is to cheapen the entire process and conflate disparate words and notions. I have no doubt that if you ask a religious Israeli is Herzl is a messianic figure, he'd look at you and wonder what in world that grouping is supposed to mean as it has no value within Judaism.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 12:41PM #42
Ben Masada
Posts: 2,808

Apr 4, 2012 -- 2:33PM, ffb wrote:

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.





If you can't respect my research, use the Scriptures to prove that I am wrong. I am all ears. 


Ben

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 12:51PM #43
Ben Masada
Posts: 2,808

Apr 4, 2012 -- 7:36PM, Bunsinspace wrote:


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




IMHO, the real Jewish Messiah is depicted by the Jewish People themselves. If the way of the Scriptures is not the one of your preference on this issue, Logic is also another option. Logic dictates that the individual is born, lives his span of life, and eventually dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain, according to Jeremiah 31:35-37, as a People before the Lord forever, as the symbol of salvation for all Mankind. Jesus himself declared in John 4:22 that salvation comes to the world from the Jews. "From the Jews" he said, and not from one among the Jews.


Ben




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 4:49PM #44
ffb
Posts: 2,259

Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:41PM, Ben Masada wrote:

Apr 4, 2012 -- 2:33PM, ffb wrote:

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.





If you can't respect my research, use the Scriptures to prove that I am wrong. I am all ears. 


Ben


sure. there is no scripture which calls herzl a messiah or a "messianic figure" and the scriptural elements required for him to be independently called a messiah are absent. done and done.


do you have scripture that calls herzl a "messiah" in any sense? I don't recall reading his name scripturally. I'm all ears. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 12:53AM #45
Bunsinspace
Posts: 5,931

Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:51PM, Ben Masada wrote:


...Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? ....




BS"D


Yes we do.  It is in our prayers.  Every generation has an opportunity to merit Moshiach.  It is the people or the office that is eternal, not the person.  Every generation can potentially have a different person.  I would be happy with one in our generation and a few afterwards.  Currently we have bupkiss.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 2:29PM #46
Ben Masada
Posts: 2,808

Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:49PM, ffb wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:41PM, Ben Masada wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 2:33PM, ffb wrote:

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.





If you can't respect my research, use the Scriptures to prove that I am wrong. I am all ears. 


Ben




sure. there is no scripture which calls herzl a messiah or a "messianic figure" and the scriptural elements required for him to be independently called a messiah are absent. done and done.


do you have scripture that calls herzl a "messiah" in any sense? I don't recall reading his name scripturally. I'm all ears. 




Can you, at least, produce here the post where a refer to Herzl as the Messiah or a messiah? I am equally all ears. This is simply pathetic. You can't even see yourself putting your own words into my mouth which were never in my mind.


Ben

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 2:34PM #47
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,790

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:53AM, Bunsinspace wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:51PM, Ben Masada wrote:


...Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? ....




BS"D


Yes we do.  It is in our prayers.  Every generation has an opportunity to merit Moshiach.  It is the people or the office that is eternal, not the person.  Every generation can potentially have a different person.  I would be happy with one in our generation and a few afterwards.  Currently we have bupkiss.




Thank you Buns, That in interesting. :)

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 2:36PM #48
Ben Masada
Posts: 2,808

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:53AM, Bunsinspace wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:51PM, Ben Masada wrote:


...Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? ....




BS"D


Yes we do.  It is in our prayers.  Every generation has an opportunity to merit Moshiach.  It is the people or the office that is eternal, not the person.  Every generation can potentially have a different person.  I would be happy with one in our generation and a few afterwards.  Currently we have bupkiss.




  THE COLLECTIVE MESSIAH - ISAIAH 53
 


We all know that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. So, no argument about it. But then who did Isaiah have in mind when he wrote chapter 53? In fact, who was in his mind when he wrote the whole book? That's in Isaiah 1:1: "A vision about Judah and Jerusalem." That's the theme of the book of Isaiah: Judah. Or the House of Jacob called by the the name of Israel from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1)


Now, how about the Suffering Servant? Isaiah mentions him by name, which is Israel according to Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21. Now, we have extablished a syllogism. If the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, and the Suffering Servant is Israel, the resultant premise will obviously be, that Israel (the Jewish People) is the Messiah. Rashi thought so too, and a few other thinkers of weight.


Now, if the Messiah must also bring the epitet of son of God, there is no problem. We can have it from Exodus 4:22,23. Here's what it says in there: "Israel is My son; so, let My son go, that he may serve Me," says the Lord. That's why Hosea said that "When Israel was a child, God said, out of Egypt I called My son." (Hosea 11:1)


Last but not least, Jesus no doubt was part of the Messiah but not on an individual basis. The Messiah is collective. What we need from time to time, especially in exile, is of a Messianic leader to lead or inspire the Messiah to return home. Moses was one for bringing the Messiah back to Canaan. Cyrus was another for proclaiming the return of the Messiah to rebuild the Temple, which, BTW, he contributed heavily finacially; and in our modern times, we had Theodor Herzl who was also one for inspiring the Messiah with love for Zion.


How about Jesus, what do we have to classify him as at least a Messianic leader? Well, when he was born Israel was at home, although suffering under the foreign power of the Romans. As he grew up that suffering only got worse. When he left, the collective Messiah was expelled into another exile of about 2000 years. Even as a Messianic leader he could not classify. Let alone as the Messiah himself.


Now, I would appreciate to share your comments about the above.


Ben




Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 3:25PM #49
ffb
Posts: 2,259

Apr 6, 2012 -- 2:29PM, Ben Masada wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:49PM, ffb wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:41PM, Ben Masada wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 2:33PM, ffb wrote:

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.





If you can't respect my research, use the Scriptures to prove that I am wrong. I am all ears. 


Ben




sure. there is no scripture which calls herzl a messiah or a "messianic figure" and the scriptural elements required for him to be independently called a messiah are absent. done and done.


do you have scripture that calls herzl a "messiah" in any sense? I don't recall reading his name scripturally. I'm all ears. 




Can you, at least, produce here the post where a refer to Herzl as the Messiah or a messiah? I am equally all ears. This is simply pathetic. You can't even see yourself putting your own words into my mouth which were never in my mind.


Ben


ok, here are some recent quotes. do you want me to scour through the entire thread?


"Herzl was not an anointed messianic leader to you. I respect that. To me, he was"


"Herzl was our modern messianic figure of that kind."


"In 1895, our modern Messianic leader Theodor Herzl rose to proclaim to the Jewish People in Europe of the approaching end of the exile"


"And Hertz was a messianic leader in the sense that he struggled to death to induce love in the Jewish People for Zion so that they could return to the Land of Israel"

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 11:31PM #50
Bunsinspace
Posts: 5,931

Apr 6, 2012 -- 2:36PM, Ben Masada wrote:


...


Now, I would appreciate to share your comments about the above.


Ben





BS"D


All good and I agree.  Just add 2 more facts for a more complete representation of the notion IMHO:


1.  "I firmly believe in the coming of the Messiah; and although He may tarry, I daily hope for His coming."   - 12th Article of RaMBaM's 13 Articles of faith.


2.  "By the End of Days He will send our Mashiach, to redeem those longing for His final salvation. G-d will revive the dead in His abundant kindness - Blessed forever is His praised Name." -  Ending of Yigdal in Amidah.


 

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

    Beliefnet On Facebook