Why Do the Rabbis Defame Daniel the Prophet? (Page 5)

Apokalupto
Apokalupto: DNM-"That second messiah would be "יִכָּרֵ֥ת / yikkarét / he will be cut off and will exist no longer;" The Hebrew here is כרת‎ -- kareit and it is a spiritual punishment because it is carried out by G-d"

יִכָּרֵ֥ת does not mean he will exist no longer.


I gave a list of examples of different variations of this word "כרת‎"

every time I show the translation of כרת‎ in English, it was right after the word make or made. I never translated כרת‎ for the word covenant because that's not what the word means. only presented one exception which I will show below. but covenant means covenant and to cut down or cut off means to cut down or cut off.

This word is used with cutting a covenant, it's used in "reference to" making a covenant.

I said that Daniel 9:26 literally says he was cut off

here's what I used.

Brown driver Briggs Hebrew lexicon יכרת to cut off, to cut down
Hebrew lexicon cut off
Strong's Hebrew to cut, to destroy, to consume, to covenant
Weingreen Hebrew he cut


here is the last example I gave:

"Jeremiah 31:31 .....לאלֹ֣א **כַבְּרִ֗ית** אֲשֶׁ֚ר **כָּרַ֙תִּי֙** אֶת־אֲבוֹתָ֔ם בְּיוֹם֙
KJV verse 32 Not according to the **covenant** that I **made** with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; "

the English says covenant and I highlighted this word in the Hebrew **כַבְּרִ֗ית** and that word is not the same word as כָּרַ֙תִּי֙. so after reviewing all four dictionaries and lexicons maybe I was wrong to highlight covenant, but the fact remains that if I thought that there was a similarity so will others. This draws out my point, that these words have similarities in spelling, and it would indeed remind the reader of a covenant when they read the word to cut down whether you like it or not.

here is my source.

https://meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/oath-and-ordeal-signs-part-1/

this quote from the link above perhaps explains it better than I can.

"Moreover, the meaning of circumcision as symbol of the oath-curse is actually expressed in so many words in verse 14 . There the threat of the curse sanction sounds against the one who breaks the covenant by not obeying the command of circumcision: “(he) shall be cut off”. The use of the verb kārat in this specific description of the curse clearly echoes the idiom of cutting a covenant (kārat bÿrît) and it is an unmistakable allusion to the nature of the rite of circumcision. So in this, the primary passage for the interpretation of circumcision, the general and specific considerations unitedly point to the conclusion that circumcision was the sign of the oath-curse of the covenant ratification. In the cutting off of the foreskin the judgment of excision from the covenant relationship was symbolized."
(Edited by Apokalupto)
3 years ago Report
1
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist:

https://meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/oath-and-ordeal-signs-part-1/

Meredith Kline
A CHRISTIAN SOURCE!

Brown driver Briggs Hebrew lexicon:
The chief editor was Francis Brown, with the co-operation of Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus Briggs, hence the name Brown–Driver–Briggs.
NOT ONE A JEW. NOT ONE.

A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OLD TESTAMENT
"OLD TESTAMENT" Not the Tanach. Not a Jewish source!

Jeremiah 31:31 .....לאלֹ֣א **כַבְּרִ֗ית** אֲשֶׁ֚ר **כָּרַ֙תִּי֙** אֶת־אֲבוֹתָ֔ם בְּיוֹם֙ - KJV
(KING JAMES VERSION) CHRISTIAN SOURCE!

Strong's Concordance
ANOTHER CHRISTIAN SOURCE!

No Jewish sources. No reliable Hebrew sources. How do you expect to be taken serious?







3 years ago Report
1
Apokalupto
Apokalupto: yes, the Messiah is associated with the covenant. Jeremiah 31 says that God will make a new covenant not according to the covenant that he made with them when they came out of Egypt which covenant they broke... but the covenant will be in their hearts and minds. the Messiah is the one who will institute the covenant.

Daniel 9 provides the context of the anointed.

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

this has already been discussed and you have given me no answers but complaints that I am preaching. lol. I presented my case using psalm 80:1 too as part of my interpretation to understand what the holy of holies anointed is. feel free to gloss over it like you did before.

it is biblically unprecedented to call an evil oppressive Roman ruler Messiah. I already made the point that Cyrus was called the Lord's anointed because he let the Jews go from the captivity, he was fulfilling God's will.





EDIT: YEP, HE GLOSSED OVER IT. LOL
no real answers to anything I said either........

.
(Edited by Apokalupto)
3 years ago Report
1
Apokalupto
Apokalupto: Christian sources are the best : D
3 years ago Report
1
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist:

You present faulty Hebrew translations that do nothing for your scant credibility. Let this go already. You're obsessed!

3 years ago Report
1
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist:

"Christian sources are the best : D "

For christians. Go preach to them.

3 years ago Report
1
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist:

A perfect epic failure on your part to end this miserable thread. I'm out.

3 years ago Report
1
Apokalupto
Apokalupto: I will tell you what is a Jewish source though, my profile picture, so who's the hypocrite now? the poor baby is upset that I'm using a Jewish source but then the poor baby is upset when I don't use one. awwwww!
(Edited by Apokalupto)
3 years ago Report
0
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist:

Who's the hypocrite? YOU! You bash the Talmud yet use a screen shot of it as a profile pic. What?

HYPOCRISY. SMH!

3 years ago Report
1
Apokalupto
Apokalupto: LOOOL!!!
3 years ago Report
0
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist:

You've lost it. Seek therapy.



3 years ago Report
0
Apokalupto
Apokalupto: posting pictures doesnt make one a hypocrite! but demanding Jewish sources then disregarding them and turning around and calling them a hypocrite for using them is indeed hypocritical. that's you.

so to summarize, the whiny baby obviously isn't looking for an honest discussion because no matter what you do you're doing something wrong. present a boatload of dictionaries that are not Jewish sources, but it's not good enough, present a Jewish source about something else and your hypocrite. LOL. who cares what you believe.

I presented how Jesus fulfilled Daniel 9 prophecy and it's disregarded.
I presented other scriptures for my interpretation, psalm 80, it was ignored.
I gave a list of examples of how the word cut off is used and also reference to making a covenant, I presented my source of how covenant and cut off use similar letters and would no doubt bring to mind to the reader a covenant, but it was ignored.
I presented four dictionaries/lexicons but no answers were given only attempts to instill doubt.

enough of your charades. if you can't stand the fact that Jesus is the Messiah get used to it because it's not changing. if you have no evidence to present against mine but useless whiny squabbling, you need to run along already because you're wasting my time.

Jesus Christ is the only true Messiah according to the scriptures. Jesus is LORD!

see you around bubba!
(Edited by Apokalupto)
3 years ago Report
1
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist:

You scour the internet touting CHRISTIAN sources to make HEBREW scripture about jesus. You bash the Talmud as man-made corruption but use it to prove some unknown point as a profile pic that frankly nobody cares about.

Two different things.

Last post. Getting the last word does not make you victorious. What a bore.

3 years ago Report
0
Apokalupto
Apokalupto: you forgot to give yourself a thumbs up and pat yourself on the back like the rest of your comments.
3 years ago Report
0
Apokalupto
Apokalupto: Meredith George Kline was an American theologian and Old Testament scholar. He also had degrees in Assyriology and Egyptology. https://meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/oath-and-ordeal-signs-part-1

oops he's not a Jew.. and nobody cares.

more evidence of how "cut off" is used and understood in the Old testament. it goes straight toward my point and this comes from the word that's been in question and used in reference with to cut a covenant.

The oath whose curse sanction circumcision symbolized was an oath of allegiance. It was an avowal of Yahweh as covenant Lord, a commitment in loyalty to him. As the symbolized curse which sealed this pledge of allegiance, circumcision partook of the import of the oath. It was, therefore, a sign of consecration. Hence Israel is commanded: “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord” (Jer. 4:4).

Circumcision’s consecratory import appears in the figurative use made of the idea in the law of the fruit trees in Leviticus 19:23–25 . For the first three years the fruit was regarded as “uncircumcised” and might not be eaten. The fruit of the fourth year was to be consecrated in joyful praise to the Lord and then Israel might eat of the fruit of the fifth year. 13 According to this pattern it was the act of consecrating the tree in its firstfruit to the Lord that terminated the state of uncircumcision and so constituted the circumcision of the tree.

For Abraham the consecratory purpose of circumcision was brought home in another cutting ritual he was afterwards called to perform. When Isaac the son of promise was born, Abraham had circumcised him on the eighth day as God had commanded (Gen. 21:4). But later God summoned Abraham to take up the knife again and to perfect Isaac’s circumcision by cutting him off altogether from among the living (Gen. 22:1 ff.). The identification of this cutting off of Isaac as “a burnt offering” (v. 2), the form of sacrifice expressive of total consecration, illuminates the meaning of these knife rituals. Circumcision, whether partial or complete, was an act of consecration.

With this demand laid upon Abraham to perfect the circumcision of his son, he was confronted with the dilemma of circumcision-consecration. The son of Adam who would consecrate himself to God in the obedience of covenant service can do so only by passing through the judgment curse which circumcision symbolizes. Isaac must be cut off in death at the altar of God. In the circumcision of the foreskin on the eighth day he had passed under the judgment knife of God apart from God’s altar in a merely symbolic, token act of conditional malediction. But this cutting off of the whole body of Isaac’s flesh to be consumed in the fire of the altar of God was a falling under the actual judgment curse. This was an infliction in reality of that curse which was but symbolized by the ordinary circumcision made with hands. How then can there be a realization of the proper purpose of the redemptive covenant administered to Abraham? How can Isaac be consecrated to living service in the favor of God if he must be consecrated in death as an object of divine condemnation? And how can there be a fulfillment of the decree of election if the whole redemptive program aborts here and now in the damnation of Isaac?

The answer to this dilemma began to unfold in an earlier knife rite, or circumcision, in which Abraham had participated. Genesis 15 tells us of a covenant cutting and a theophany which Abraham witnessed amid darkness and horror — the only proper setting for this Old Testament Golgotha. There in the passage of God, in the divided theophanic symbol of smoking furnace and flaming torch between the dismembered creatures, the mystery of the abandonment of the Son of God emerged beforehand. For what Abraham witnessed was the strange self-malediction of the Lord of the covenant who would himself undergo the covenant’s curse of cutting asunder rather than fail to lead his servant into the promised fulness of beatitude.

From this knife ceremony Abraham might later elicit the meaning of the cutting rite which God appointed to him as the sign of the covenant in his flesh. And remembering this same divine oath-curse of dismembering, Abraham on the mount of Moriah might more fully comprehend what it meant that God had stayed the knife of judgment in his hand and had showed him Isaac’s substitute caught by its horns in the thicket. When the hour of darkness should come, it was the Lord who would himself be Isaac’s sacrificial ram. What God had before declared himself ready to do in order to fulfill the covenant promise to Abraham, he now by the ram intimates that he will do — he will himself come under the judgment knife and suffer the curse as a substitute for sinners.

Read together in the light of fulfillment, the three cutting rituals of Genesis 15, 17, and 22 proclaim the mystery of a divine circumcision — the circumcision of God in the crucifixion of his only-begotten. Paul called it “the circumcision of Christ” (Colossians 2:11). The circumcision of the infant Jesus in obedience to Genesis 17 , that partial and symbolic cutting off, corresponded to the ritual of Genesis 15 as a passing of one who was divine under the curse threat of the covenant oath. That was the moment, prophetically chosen, to name him “Jesus”. But it was the circumcision of Christ in crucifixion that answered to the burnt-offering of Genesis 22 as a perfecting of circumcision, a “putting off” not merely of a token part but “of the (whole) body of the flesh” (Col. 2:11), not simply a symbolic oath-cursing but a cutting off of “the body of his flesh through death” (Col. 1:22) in accursed darkness and dereliction.



(Edited by Apokalupto)
3 years ago Report
1
JX Amaro
JX Amaro:
So, DNC has decided to go “Full Masada” on Daniel. LOL. He would be more wise to defer to the wisdom of the “dark sages” of the Talmud and avoid the subject altogether – Daniel 9 is the Death Knoll for Judaism. Cue here for Metallica's “For Whom the Bells Toll”:

(What a great song.)

I'll leave debating over words to XP and DNC, though I think XP makes a compelling point and I would further add that as the teleological END is messianic prophecy, the hermeneutic MEANS must logically follow. Such is the case with XP's point, not DNC's.

I'll also ignore the “Amalek” bit – though I find it complimentary coming from a toxic anti-Christian. Finally, I'll ignore the “boyfriend” bit, though I find it telling that while DNC tirelessly whines about “antisemitism,” he nonetheless nosedives into the kind of cheap homophobia typical of vulgar bigots – which is what he is. Thanks for proving the point, dude.

No, I will concentrate on what he says about Rashi.

First, DNC takes my use of Rashi out of context (this type of intellectual dishonesty has become so typical of DNC that I don't even think I need to point it out). I cited Rashi on DNC's “Not a Messianic Prophecy” thread to demonstrate that not just Christians view Psalm 22 as messianic. As I cited and sourced my claim, I annihilated DNC's counter-factual position in one shot. Bammmmm!!!

Now, DNC brings up Rashi in regard to Daniel 9. Oh, this is interesting. Let's point out that according to Rashi's commentary on verse 24, it's about the “King Messiah” who comes before “Titus” and the destruction of the Temple to bring about an end to “sins” etc. In verse 27 Rashi comments that all this will come to pass “in the days of the King Messiah.” Here's a source so you can read Rashi's commentary for yourself (make sure to hit the “Show” button at the top part of the page):
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16492/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-9.htm

Of course, Rashi is a theological Jew and therefore the “King Messiah” can't be Jesus. DNC is correct that Rashi tries to link it to tyrant Agrippa. Left unsaid is just how this makes any sense whatsoever! Tyrant Agrippa is the “King Messiah” who brings about salvation??? Apparently Rashi hoped no one would spend too much time thinking about this, as it is self-evidently contradictory and absurd. Baaaaaammm!!!

As I've said before, Christianity is the ONLY way to make sense of Daniel 9. You can debate the little things, but not the BIG THINGS. The Christian interpretation fits. The Jewish interpretation does not. Judaism – as anything but a heretical cult – dies on Daniel 9.

For whom the bell tolls, indeed...
3 years ago Report
1