Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would it have been "the nation of Israel in the hearts of the people", when a large majority of Jewish people were living in other parts of the world - despite having the freedom to move to Judea whenever they pleased? One of the core aspects of Judaism, at this time, was that their "homeland" was not the core-asepct of their faith, and neither was the Temple.
One of the ideological differences between the Pharisees and the Saduccees was the importance of the Temple for worship: the former had long ago realized that a continuing relationship with God would have to exist outside of the Temple, while the latter felt that the Temple was still the only proper place to worship God, along with the strict observance of the Torah. AS the historical events I listed above should show, the Temple had been destroyed by the Neo-Babylonians and the Israelites had to transform their religion: prayer (as an acceptable means of worship) became more important, obeying the dictates of Jeremiah to stay where they were and pray for the welfare of the city in which they lived became a staple practice (the prayer is still recited), and Judaism was spawned.
Notice the core word used in Judaism - is it Israelitism? Is it centered in the absolute sanctity of their former land? No. How could it be, when the Temple had been destroyed? The later rebuilding of the Temple was merely temporary, for the Romans destroyed it in the famous Jewish Revolt circa 67 BC. Even after the initial rebuilding of the 1st Temple (ushering in what's known as 2nd Temple Judaism) did not usher in a period of Jews returning to their "homeland" - many Jews chose to remain where they had been, especially in Babylon and Alexandria, Egypt. It was the Babylonian Jews who later produced the very influential Babylonian Talmud - a key component of later Judaism. This Babylonian Talmud was more influential and "authoritative" (if one can claim that) than the Talmud produced by those Jews living in Jerusalem! The Egyptian community, as well, produced the Septuagint - the Greek translation of the Jewish books that had been produce up until that time, and the very same translation from which the New Testament authors quote and base their theology on.
I think you're confusing the modern ideological secular movement of Zioinism - the movement that pushed for a homeland for the Jews once again - with some sort of idea that all Jews shared this goal, even in Greco-Roman times. But even this has not produced some mass Exodus to the area, just like the Persian decree to allow the Jews to return to their conquered land did not produce the same results. Many Jews hold a special place in their heart for the city of Jerusalem, and many biblical prophecies specifically have to do with Jerusalem and it's foreseen importance. What is not consistently important to the late biblical authors is the importance of the "land of Israel" or "Palestine".
So - once again, I encourage you to take a broader look at the history of the "Promised Land". You will find that many of your preconceptions, based on some sort of weird biblical view that was not unanimous among the biblcial authors, is mistaken. Any reputable book on the history of Palestine will help you approach the subject well-armed with facts, and not misconceptions you seem to be deriving from modern ideas.
And what Walter says is correct, as well - the "Bible" should be qualified when you speak of it. There are many "Bibles" out there, each with it's own number of books which they consider sacred: different canons for different people. The extremely conservative view of certain Christianits that labeled the Hebrew Bible as the "Old Testament" is merely an interpretational view of the importance they placed on those documents - not some conclusive truth that the Christian Bible was delievered to mankind by God, complete and finished. Almost as if it dropped from the sky, or that one day God said "Okay, fellas - it's done! That's a wrap!"
I notice you quote someone - it would be nice if you gave credit where it's due. Where's your quote from?
The top two promises to the Jewish people were A People and A Land.
The top two promises to the Jewish people were A People and A Land.
The promises were not unconditional (well, not all of them), as can be seen from Exodus 20:12. As Michael D. Coogan writes, in The Old Testament: A Very Short Introduction, " This covenant, then, is conditional: continued possession of the land and prosperity in it depend upon observance of the terms of the agreement." (p. 63) This point was cogently driven home by some of the prophets claims that Yahweh was punishing them (by using the Assyrins, the Babylonians and then the Persians as his divine instruments) to interrupt this "continued possession" of the land. The prophets constantly warned the peopleto repent before it was too late, for they had been transgressing the terms. Of course, most scholars feel that much of the covenantal languge was later inserted to help explain the disasters.
According to some of these biblical authors the Israelites had broken their part of the covenantal agreement. The important question that was being asked was: were all bets off now? Was the Covenant irrevocably broken? As usual, the Bible presents us with differing opinions.
Yes, the Jewish people are know better, but God chose them, and he called them his chosen people. That does not mean that he loves them better than another race or group. I think that God at the time chose a people for himself to reveal himself, so he could set them apart from other nations. I also think that he wanted a people for himself to live Holy for the example for other people. I am not Jewish, but I see the work that God was doing through them, for us. God will take care of his people, and I mean the people that are his. The people that love him, that worship him, and live for him, not just jewish people but all races that he has called unto himself. If someone has a problem with that, than take it up with YHWH.
The promises were not unconditional (well, not all of them), as can be seen from Exodus 20:12. As Michael D. Coogan writes, in The Old Testament: A Very Short Introduction, " This covenant, then, is conditional: continued possession of the land and prosperity in it depend upon observance of the terms of the agreement." (p. 63) This point was cogently driven home by some of the prophets claims that Yahweh was punishing them (by using the Assyrins, the Babylonians and then the Persians as his divine instruments) to interrupt this "continued possession" of the land. The prophets constantly warned the peopleto repent before it was too late, for they had been transgressing the terms. Of course, most scholars feel that much of the covenantal languge was later inserted to help explain the disasters.
According to some of these biblical authors the Israelites had broken their part of the covenantal agreement. The important question that was being asked was: were all bets off now? Was the Covenant irrevocably broken? As usual, the Bible presents us with differing opinions.
The promise of Heaven certainly isn't unconditional
The gospel message is clearly stated in the Torah, however I think most Jews have missed it.
The Torah is the first five books of the Bible (Old Testament): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy .
These are so many references to Jesus in the Torah, but I think this one below is the most amazing to me:
Genesis 5:1 (Start at verse 1 and read the NAMES of each person)
Names to the Jewish people back then were very important, people didn’t just name a child anything they wanted. People were were given specific names for a reason.
Meaning of each Name:
Adam – Means: Man
Seth – Means: Appointed (or set)
Enosh – Means: Mortal
Kenan - Means: Sorrow (or Sadness)
Mahalalel – Means: Blessed God (or the one worthy to be praised)
Jared – Means: Shall come down (or will be sent, or descending)
Enoch – Means: Vowed (or dedicated, or teaching)
Methuselah – Means: His death shall bring (or with his death will come, or with his death it will be sent)
Lamech – Means: the despairing
Noah – rest (or comfort)
Put it all together and you the gospel message about Jesus:
"Man appointed mortal sorrow, but the Blessed God shall come down vowing, (or teaching, or dedicated) that His death shall bring the despairing comfort (or rest)"
Now how exactly do you explain that? And that is just one of MANY examples in the Torah.
The bible clearly states that the Jews don’t believe so that the gospel message could be taken to the non-Jews (the Gentiles). God had a plan. He knew the Jews would be disobedient and therefore when that happened he took the Gospel message to the Gentiles, so that ALL who would believe would be saved. The Jews will one day believe. God promises it.
Romans 11:25 (start reading at verse 25 and on):
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you.
Yeah I'm sure that's it, a simple mistake that thousands of Jewish scholars throughout the ages just skipped over
Well that is not exactly an explaination. How exactly do you explain the meaning of those names then?
Or how even do you explain Isaiah 53:5:
"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
Or how even do you explain Isaiah 53:5:
"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
53:5 "But he was wounded from (NOTE: not for) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not for) our iniquities."
Whereas the nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant's sufferings stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout our Jewish Scriptures - see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the Messiah "shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth" (Isa. 42:4).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
