A Book Worth Checking Out

[Burning one]

You are totally mistaken. I said that's against the Scriptures that an individual should die for another. A father dying for his son is an individual dying for another. It is forbidden by Torah. Jesus was an individual. He could not die for another. My quote, therefore, has everything to do with the issue at hand.

Ben, I'm not falling for your evasive manuever. If you're going to address a point of Scripture you MUST address it in its context. I clarified the context of the passages you pulled out to support your view, showing the issue that the Torah speaks of is about UNJUSTLY making someone else pay for another's crime by taking their life. THAT is context, THAT is what Scripture speaks to. nowhere does it say a person cannot give their life for another. Don't make a commmandment of men equal to the commandments of Yah, and don't make them up as you go along. RESPECT what the text says, or go elsewhere. It is as simple as that. Deal with the Scriptures honestly in their context, or don't bother answering my posts.

That's not an individual dying for another.

Ben, i don't know what your definition of an individual is, but to me, it is any one thing of something. but the point I was making is showing that substitutionary sacrifice is essential, even before the Torah itself was established.

Is Exodus 4:22,23 speaking about an individual or the whole of Israel? Israel. Thank you. So, "he" in Isaiah 53 is Israel, the Suffering Servant.

Context, Ben. Don't take things out of context. Of course the whole of Israel is referred to in Sh'moth. But that is in another context, of which you are full aware. Tell me HOW Israel DIES for Israel in Isaiah 53. Tell me HOW Israel bore the sins of Israel. Tell me HOW Israelwas a guilt offering for Israel. Answer according to the text, or else take a pass. I'm not interested in your opinion, I'm interested in meaty textual discussion where the integrity of the text is upheld. Just answer according to the text. It is not a difficult request. Furthermore, why do your refuse to answer my questions about how you can be a BAAL TESHUVAH yet OUTRIGHT REJECT the position of the ancient rabbonim concerning the understanding that this text speaks about a singular MAN who they understood to be the Messiah? Are you ashamed of opposing the weight of understandings of the avot? Are you willing to say that they were flat wrong, because if you continue to hold your current position on Isaiah 53, that is the reality of the matter.

Please, do not include Jesus in my speaking against. Jesus was a loyal Jewish man who lived according to his Faith, which was Judaism. I rather deffend him from the Christian charges of having been a demigod.

I will respect your position on this, since I can't hold you to the integrity of the text of the NT. I don't agree with you, but I will respect this and stick to the text that we both hold of value.

I think I have brought here substantious food for thought. The problem is that it is too solid for your digestion. You still need baby food which is found only in the chit-chatting of common beliefs. Burning one, there is no learning in the discussion of common beliefs. All the learning is found in controversy. And please, don't get too nervous. It is so easy not to pick up my posts for a reply. That's all you have to do. Ignore my posts.

Think what you want about the substance of your arguments. All that I've asked repeatedly is that you deal with the texts in context. That is not asking too much, I would surmise. Think what you want about my needing baby food, but I enjoy debate when it is productive, that is, when the texts are approached with integrity. I've not seen that from your responses, I can honestly say. I don't mind debating someone and going away when finished still differing, as long as we've both been faithful to the texts we've approached. You're not being faithful to them, however, because the context is as clear as a bell, but you're ignoring it. Ignoring context might be acceptable when approaching a matter in the RDS of PRDS, but we're dealing with the PESHAT here, and so I'm not backing down in my demands. If you don't want to deal with what the text actually says in context, that is your perogative, but I would highly suggest that you ignore my posts. Otherwise, we're wasting each other's time, which gets us nowhere.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy