Proving the Messiahship of Yeshua
Following on the heels of Boaz’s comments (http://www.diggingwithdarren.com/blog/index.php?p=154#comment-423), I thought we could move the discussion over to this post and keep it focused. If you have sources that you believe to prove the Messiahship of Yeshua, then please post them here.
Jay – I know you will enjoy playing devil’s advocate here. Feel free to post your prooftexts of why you feel that he is not.
Everyone – please keep your comments focused to the topic, and keep personalities out of the way. This is a great exercise for being able to actually back up what we believe, as Peter encourages us to do
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
1 Peter 3:15,16
Lastly, Mr. Benzvi – I appreciate your concern. However, I believe you would do well to heed the words of Peter, also.
I look forward to a healthy discussion on a vital topic.
Shalom,
-Darren
Similar Posts:
- Posting Comments
- Evangelism from a Torah Perspective
- Torah for the Masses
- Becoming A Disciple of Yeshua
- Opportunity Knocks…And I Need Your Help!
I will be the first to take at it, Today at the seminar “to whom shall we go?” my friend Toby Janicki had a great session in which he examined a book written by a karaite to defame the Master, one reason being that the texts in the gospels are take the prophesies out of contex and he is right they are! But that is ok because the writers of the gospels are using classic rabbinic style midrash of the text, and why that is so cool is because rabbinic’s do not care about context, but rather they pull things out of the context to make a greater point, for example the passage in Matthew that says “out of Egypt I called my son” has absolutely nothing to do with messiah. But it fits with classic rabbinic Midrash and it fits the story. All this to say that if you take the karaite approach to these texts they will fail you, no doubt, but if you take the rabbinic approach to the texts they will serve you well. Maybe that’s why Jay rejects him as Messiah because he is coming from the karaite approach to these texts were as we are taking the rabbinic Midrash style.
Hope that is a good start.
Peace, Jeremiah
[Reply]
Jeremiah,
I agree with you 100 percent on this. Much of the gospel of Matthew for sure is not to be taken as Peshat. As a person who was taking a karaite approach (while I was never really a karaite) to the text, I had serious problems with it. But, the verse ‘out of Egypt I have called my son’ really means Israel being called out of Mitsrayim in context….and if Yeshua is the Messiah, and he is the man who is the ultimate example of Torah being lived out, then he is the best example of what Israel is supposed to be. He is also Israel, since he is a Jew from the tribe of David.
So, there is no contradiction nor does this type of quoting really change the meaning of the verse.
Much of the ‘Faith Strengthened’ arguments are this type, however, there are some others that are harder to answer for sure.
Andrew
[Reply]
Another thing along these lines…if we understand the Gospel uses of the text to be midrashic, then what does that do for the belief in the literal virgin birth and usage of the text of Isaiah to prove it? Obviously, in context of the Isaiah passages, it is not talking about Yeshua at all. Is this just telling us it was a miraculous birth, like the birth and protection of so many other important servants of HaShem in the TaNaKh? I am thinking about Isaac, Moshe, etc.
Andrew
[Reply]
B”H
Shalom all:
Andrew, I think I had problems opening the site you posted on GFJ, could you take a look at it and make sure it’s written right and then please repost it here (if this is the same Andrew)? It was regarding the Deity/Virgin Birth issue and you had a site you thought would be useful. I’m currently doing tons of research on the virgin birth topic and am looking for sources wherever I can get them.
So do you suppose that the Isaiah prophecy is used in Mattityahu’s account as a midrashic approach to His birth being special, yet not necessarily being a “virgin” one? I agree a “unique” birth would fit the mold of important Tanakh leaders, but a virgin one brings up a lot of other issues.
I think Yirmeyahu brings up a good point to start this off, the midrashic approach vs. literal in dealing with Biblical prophecy. It’s a huge contradiction used by Rabbinic Jews when discussing Yeshua too. They say look at the context of the prophecy (it’s not about Him!), but then they teach in Talmud to do so is to limit one’s understanding of the Torah. Very interesting and well spoken point. Boker tov.
[Reply]
Boaz,
Check out that link again. The site was down but is now up. It should work. The main webpage is: http://www.betemunah.org
They guy who does the main writing on it is a Messianic Jew (Orthodox) who lives in Texas.
Andrew
[Reply]
Another good thing to have of the top of your head is the three points some of the chabadnics who view Shnerson as the messiah bring up.
1. Revelation.
2. Concealment.
3. Full revelation
Peace, Jeremiah
[Reply]
B”H
Thanks, Andrew. Could you please answer my other question posted above when you get a chance? ;) My mentor is a Jewish believer in Yeshua as HaMashiach who lives Orthodox halachah as well. It is amazing the insight into the Apostolic Talmud one can get having some Rabbinic training under the belt.
Yirme, could you elaborate on the three points for me please? That’s the first I’ve heard of them even though I have Chabadnik acquaintences. Thanks so much, gentlemen. Shalom uv’racha.
[Reply]
Brother Boaz,
I, too, am looking at the idea of the ‘virgin birth’ and must say that I have tried every reasonable way around the teaching in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke and can only come up with either sexual deviance on the part of Miriam and/or Yosef, or the rejection of one or both narratives. These options don’t seem reasonable to me.
I have thought about this and I think I know where this got off track. Because of the fuel of pagan legends concerning the virgin births of several gods, gentiles thought that such a thing indicated a sort of ‘godhood.’ Now, those who are trying to determine what the truth is are mistakenly seeing it as a choice between A. The Virgin Birth = Jesus is God = Pagan, or B. No Virgin Birth = Jesus is not God = Truth. This, however, would be a false dichotomy constructed on the false premise that such a view as C. Virgin Birth = Jesus is not God = Truth could never exist. This is the view espoused by the Nazarenes/Ebionite concerning it. Granted, there were others who believed that Yosef was the Rebbe’s natural father, but normally these had to corrupt the known corpus of Matthew (i.e. the Infancy narrative) in order to support their views.
It seems that for the early believers, the virgin birth was not confusing or pagan, but simply had differing implications and expectations on Jesus.
What do you think? I’m interested in your take on this.
Also, I think we should talk via personal email. Would you be willing to do that?
Shalom and Regards,
Brian J. Tebbitt, GFJ
[Reply]
Brian,
I think its possible that the narratives we have concerning the virgin birth were added later. Look at the Gospel of Mark or other manuscripts that have been found without these narratives for example.
The biggest issue I have concerning this…is that the Messiah has to be a descendant of David and the Apostolic writings confirm this truth from TaNaKh. Obviously, Paul (as well as others) considered Yeshua to be a literal descendant of David. This cannot come from the Mother. Tribal inheritance comes from the Father.
I can’t see how the virgin birth idea can be valid on a literal level because of this. Maybe you can help me understand.
Andrew
[Reply]
Boaz,
I have read sources that seem to teach that ‘virgin’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘has never had sexual relations’ but can mean a woman who hasn’t been able to have children for a certain period of time or maybe some other possibilities. I think the link I gave you will have these ideas in the teaching.
It seems to me it is very possible that men added the virgin birth story later to an already existing story which may have included a miraculous birth. I am not sure…but like I said to Brian..I really can’t see how this can be literal and Yeshua still be a literal descendant of David.
Andrew
[Reply]
You all may find this online book interesting regarding virgin birth issues. Take it or leave it…its just something I’ve read along the way.
http://onhigh.org/VirginBirth1.htm
Andrew
[Reply]
B”H
Shalom, all:
I can totally see where both Brian and Andrew are coming from–trust me! The amount and variance of research materials I’ve gathered just in an attempt to formulate a scholarly dissection of this is staggering and I’m sure it’s just a drop in the ocean.
As far as the Gospel account is concerned, most of my research has shown Andrew’s point, however. That the Ebionite and Nazarene Gospels were among the first Gospel accounts committed to writing, and as more non-Jews joined the fold (and eventually usurped the faith) they brought their Mithraic/pagan expectations of what a savior/hero should be like with them–and added that to their Gospel account. Other clues include Markan priority with no mention of the virgin birth in Mark, and the fact that the entire scene surrounding the virgin birth in Luke is written in a “different styled Greek” than the rest of the Gospel which may point to redactor tampering. There’s tons of “pro” proofs too though which makes it all the more interesting. To me a big question when you look at it “Hebraicly”, which emphasizes function over form, is why? Why would it be necessary? If you believe in His dual nature or Augustine’s original sin I can see why…but if you don’t…what purpose would it serve? Isn’t it more miraculous that a man (albeit with the Torah as His personality–which we too are supposed to receive when we believe and walk it out) born of a earthly father and mother just like the rest of us, came to show us how to do it…and He can be that example, because He was just like us? HaShem knows for sure!
I plan on sharing the result of my studies on this topic on my blog within a month in a multi-part series, but until then I would be glad to chat via personal e-mail (ha_yesod@yahoo.com) or publicly, if Darren doesn’t mind, with anyone on this topic that can provide more sources, or provide more pro or con arguments to add to the mix. Many blessings, gentlemen. Boker tov.
[Reply]
B”H
P.S. Andrew I think the betemunah.org one is still down…but the other link opened with no problems. Thanks!
[Reply]
Boaz,
I am certainly looking forward to these posts as I am interested how you will approach the subject of original sin and how Yeshua did not have a sinless nature if Yosef was his blood father. I am also interested in how you will exegete the texts in Romans specifically chapters 3 through 8. With much anticipation, shalom.
[Reply]
B”H
Shalom, Jamie!
I didn’t plan on going too deep into Romans but I was going to give a quick blurb on the theologies of “Original Sin” and the implications for a virgin birth regarding them. I don’t think you believe in Augustine’s version though (either did R. Sha’ul), you didn’t come from the infant baptizing background if I remember correctly. ;) Boker tov.
[Reply]
Bamidbar Chapter 1 shows us that tribal inheritance, etc…is passed through the Father no? Does everyone agree to this idea here? If not, can you please help me understand your position?
Now, look at how many times in the Gospels Yeshua was called the son of David. I won’t list them here, but do a search and you’ll see. It is obvious that nobody questioned this. If he was adopted by Yosef, and Yosef wasn’t his literal Father, would they not have brought this up?
Also, look at the wording Paul uses here:
concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
Romans 1:3
I do not know Greek, but I looked up the word for ‘seed’ and saw it was ‘sperma’ How can this be understood as anything other than a literal descendant? How does an adopted kid become ‘sperma’ ?
It seems to me that Paul thought Yeshua was a literal descendant of David…not adopted.
Also interesting is that we only have two witnesses with the virgin birth story..and both are different in their narratives, and in their geneologies. Two witnesses that don’t agree. How is this valid for truth according to Torah standards?
We have no other reference to a virgin birth by anyone else in the NT. Why not? It seems crazy that they wouldn’t mention it.
Here is another verse that has made me think a lot. When Yeshua was a young man and was left/forgotten back in Yerushalayim, he said something to Miriam and Yosef and the narrative on it is very strange…see here:
When they saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us this way? Behold, your father and I were anxiously looking for you.” He said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?” They didn’t understand the saying which he spoke to them.
Luke 2:48-50
After the miraculous birth, the angelic visitations, all that…and they didn’t understand his statement here? Why not? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Andrew
[Reply]
B”H
Shalom, gentlemen:
I agree, Andrew that the evidence against the virgin birth tends to outweigh the evidence for it in my mind. Just even discussing it is a leap forward since it seems to be such an unquestionable part of the “Christian faith” that the truth is often taken for granted. There are other implications to consider if it indeed did not occur.
If anything it shouldn’t be taught as doctrine, but as a possible scenario. Would you mind contacting me personally to give more input on this topic that you’ve discovered? Here is my e-mail address: ha_yesod@yahoo.com Thanks.
[Reply]
Boaz,
No, I did not come from an infant baptism background, but I did come from the background that, “All have sinned and have come short of the glory of God” and have been taught that one of the reasons for the virgin birth of Jesus is that by not having Yosef’s genetics that he was not born with a sin nature and was able to be the spotless Lamb of God. In fact today on my way to getting a haircut (odd coincidence) I was listening to the local Christian radio station (I do that sometimes just to see how much it stings, when I know that in times past I was in perfect agreement) and heard a preacher talking about the virgin birth and that it is a cornerstone in the Christian faith. I do understand that Judaism does not believe that we are born in sin, but are given pure souls, so that’s why I was anticipating your comments on this subject, that if there was no virgin birth then how is this all reconciled with Romans and Yeshua not being born in sin. Make sense. I still have a book on Christian systematic theology on the subject if you want me to email you with clearer scriptural references of what I was taught, but that’s up to you, you probably get what I am saying.
[Reply]
B”H
Shalom, Jamie:
I know what you’re referring to but you may not realize there are several versions of the “original” or “ancestral” sin theology (even just within Protestantism), one of which you’re referring to. I think R. Sha’ul’s comments still fit within the framework of Rabbinic Judaism’s take on the subject–especially in Romans because he spends several chapters explaining the whole “Two Masters” i.e. Two Yetzerim topic which is totally Jewish. A lot of this ties into the “Dual Nature” of Yeshua theory as well which I only briefly skim in my presentation.
Also, I think the assumption that we only receive this “original sin” from our biological father (and not our mother) because of the “sins of the fathers” thing is a teaching derived from a misunderstanding of the Tanakh verses dealing with it. The Catholic (and I think maybe Orthodox Christian) Churches get around this by teaching HaShem removed Miriam’s sin before the Ruach impregnated her and therefore she had no sin to pass on to her Son. An interesting theory, but at least they recognize the mom could pass sin on also, if anything because she too is human.
I address these things in my presentation as well–I’m still probably at least a month out from posting anything though, so don’t hold your breath. ;) I need a haircut too. Boker tov.
[Reply]
Brothers,
As far as tribal inheritance: you are correct, it comes through the father. However, I believe that the Tanakh indcates that such inheritance could be passed from an adoptive father. The greatest example of this is Shmuel HaNavi. Shmuel was of the tribe of Ephraim, and not Levi, let alone of the house of Aharon. However, because Eli adopted him, he became the Kohen Gadol and judge over Israel. I.e., he inherited this rights through paternal adoption.
I must admit that your understanding is very attractive and I definitely would love the paternal thing to be easy in regard to the Rebbe being a son of David, but by your logic, the narratives of Shmuel’s childhood and induction into the preisthood would have to have been added by later Catholics who wanted to show proof of their ability to usurp the Aaronic priesthood…do you know what I mean?
Also, although I am not throwing out altogether the possibilties raised by your redaction ciriticism of the infancy narratives of the Gospels, it seems that you have glossed over a couple of key points of information in your understanding of the early Ebionites and Nazarenes. The two most informative summations of these groups’ respective beliefs are given by Eusebius and Epiphanius. Eusebius speaks (in his work Ecclesiastical History) of two kinds of Ebionites. The first group denies the virgin birth, the deity of ‘Jesus’ and the validity of Paul’s Letters, but the second group affirms the virgin birth, but denies the deity of ‘Jesus’ and the validity of the Pauline Corpus. In the fifth century, Epiphanius writes (in his work Panarion) of a group of Nazarenes who affirm the virgin birth, but still observe all things as are written in the law of Moses and as taught by the Jews. So then, we see that it is an inaccurate statement to say that all of the Jewish disciples of the Rebbe denied the idea of a virgin birth.
It is made very clear by early church witnesses that the Nazarenes and Ebionites were still in the Orthodox synagogues, even while disciples of the Rebbe. If bonafide Orthodox Jews, learned in the Torah, affirmed a virgin birth and an inhertance of the royal line through Yosef’s adoption of the Rebbe, then can we really throw it out altogether as pagan? Would such Jews affirm something which was so blatantly pagan in their world? I don’t think we can be so radical in our stances wihout incredible support for it.
In my opinion, it is ‘too easy’ to merely extricate the portions of the text that don’t agree with our personal comfort level of belief. I think that being balanced and honest, seeing all the facts and considering all sides of the argument is the only way of handling this and other such issues. The virgin birth has from early times been a subject of debate between the church and Judaism because the church has always insisted that it proves his deity, which it certainly does not. The early Ebionites and Nazarenes also did not see the logic in this connection. The church has also always seen Jesus’ miracles as ‘proof’ of his being deity, are we now going to say that the texts that speak of his miracles were ‘added later’ since we know from pagan mythology that miraculous ability often characterized the gods and the titans? Of course not.
The foundation of this argument is the mire of polemics…we must free ourselves from this. Truth is not decided by antithesis with any particular group or set of beiefs. Truth is disocvered through fact, reality and documented history.
I hope this helps the discussion.
Shalom,
Brian J. Tebbitt, GFJ
[Reply]
Brother Andrew,
I recognize theform and substance of your arguments against this and other plomical issues…they come from classical anti-missionary sources. If you do not already know this, the standard anti-missionary text is a 15th century karaite text called Chizzuk Emunah, written by the eminent karaite teacher, Yitchak Troki. Even rabbincal organizations use this text.
I think we need to be careful of such texts, as they are ruthlessly literal and really are only Sadducean vestiges anyway.
Shalom,
Brian J. Tebbitt, GFJ
[Reply]
B”H
Gut Shabbos, everyone!
Shalom, Brian:
As I said before, there is plenty of “pro-virgin birth” evidence too–but as I see it there is just more that weighs into the “con” category. For example, nothing you just typed definitely proves it happened either, although it is great info to consider.
As for His adoption, this is never mentioned (or even hinted at) in the Apostolic Talmud although I agree it would be a legit solution per Sh’mu’el’s example, as well as Efrayim and Manasseh’s.
As for the example that pagans use miracles performed by their heroes in their beliefs and so does the Apostolic Talmud, but since we don’t rule out those miracles as being pagan, neither can we rule out the virgin birth as such (solely on this premise). The only problem I have with this logic is this: For example, if there was a pagan tradition that one of their gods only had 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish to work with–but then produced enough food from that to feed a “multitude” and the Gospels also record this same miracle in regards to Yeshua HaMashiach, that would be suspect. Because of the pagan traditions of the sun god’s son or hero being born as a demigod from the result of a physical union between the god and a virgin (or sometimes non-virgin but no sexual contact was involved) human woman, and the same being recorded in the canonical writings of a religion formed by “previous” sun worshippers (and even these writings are textually suspect)–this makes the truth of the virgin birth very suspect and logically sound to do so.
I think Andrew’s point regarding the witness of the virgin birth is a very strong one. That the virgin birth is mentioned only in two Gospel accounts, these two also happen to be written later, not by eye witnesses, and also their account conflicts on this topic–renders them invalid as witnesses per Torah standard. Mark’s Gospel which was more than likely written earlier, and Yochanan’s (who was an eye witness) don’t mention it. If we were in a trial or Sanhedrin setting, the virgin birth wouldn’t stand on two conflicting witnesses, witnesses who’s reputation is already questionable due to redactor tampering in other areas. Despite this fact, it is still taught as doctrine and as absolute truth in the One Torah movement.
My point regarding all of this being, we can’t completely prove it one way or the other, so we should stop teaching it as doctrine or absolute truth because of this fact, and offer up both scenarios as possible for the One Torah community. Just my thoughts. Shabbat shalom.
[Reply]
Shalom Brian,
I have read Troki’s text and other anti-missionary texts. I have learned some of my questions from these sources, but some have been from other sources or from my own thoughts. What I have presented here are questions that I have yet to see any good answers to.
Your point about adoption is interesting. I will need to study this more. Do you believe Luke has Miriam’s geneology? What would be the point for this?
It seems to me that both Matthew and Luke are about Josephs geneology. They just don’t agree with each other. But, I could be wrong.
Please understand I am not dogmatic one way or another about this. I am skeptical because I have questions. That is all. This isn’t something that I break fellowship over at all..especially since I don’t know exactly what to believe or not believe about it.
Can you answer why Paul chose to use the word ‘sperma’ referring to Yeshua being a descendant of David?
I also wonder why some rejected the virgin birth idea and some accepted it. Why would there be reason to reject it if this was a solid doctrine, based upon TaNaKh, and taught by the Apostles?
Thanks for the discussion.
Shabbat Shalom,
Andrew
[Reply]
Shalom Brothers,
This Shabbat I spent some time studying about Samuel and his ‘adoption’ as it has been stated here. I found some information that shows me that Samuel was indeed a descendant of Levi and not an Ephraimite, except that his descendants were living in that area for some reason. He was actually a descendant of Korah, which is very ironic.
Artscroll Chumash page 1186
In the commentary on the Haftarah for Korach, it says this:
“Ironically, it was Korah’s descendant Samuel who, some four centuries later, championed Moses’ understanding of the national leader’s function.’
Look closely at the Hebrew in 1 Samuel chapter 1. It doesn’t say ben Ephraim at the end of the sentence. It says ‘ven tsuf ef’rahti’ which is translated by Artscroll as ‘son of Zuf, a distinguished person.’
Here are some other translations, since Artscroll isn’t very literal.
Now there was a certain man of Ramatayim-Tzofim, of the hill country of Efrayim, and his name was Elkana, the son of Yerocham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tochu, the son of Tzuf, an Efratite:
1 Samuel 1:1
HNV
There was a man from Ramatayim-Tzofim, in the hills of Efrayim, whose name was Elkanah the son of Yerocham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tochu, the son of Tzuf, from Efrat.
1 Samuel 1:1
CJB
There was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephrathite.
1 Samuel 1:1
ESV
Now, here is the proof (unless I am really missing something):
These are the men whom David put in charge of the service of song in the house of the LORD, after the ark rested there. They ministered with song before the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, until Solomon had built the house of the LORD in Jerusalem; and they performed their service in due order. These are the men who served and their sons. Of the sons of the Ko’hathites: Heman the singer the son of Jo’el, son of Samuel, son of Elka’nah, son of Jero’ham, son of Eli’el, son of To’ah, son of Zuph, son of Elka’nah, son of Mahath, son of Ama’sai, son of Elka’nah, son of Jo’el, son of Azari’ah, son of Zephani’ah, son of Tahath, son of Assir, son of Ebi’asaph, son of Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, son of Israel; and his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand, namely, Asaph the son of Berechi’ah, son of Shim’e-a, son of Michael, son of Ba-ase’iah, son of Malchi’jah, son of Ethni, son of Zerah, son of Adai’ah, son of Ethan, son of Zimmah, son of Shim’e-i, son of Jahath, son of Gershom, son of Levi.
1 Chronicles 6:31-43
We can see that indeed Samuel was a descendant of Levi, but not a descendant of Aaron. This means he could serve in the Tabernacle right, but wouldn’t be offering the sacrifices. Am I correct? There is nothing I have found yet to say Samuel offered sacrifices in the Tabernacle. I know he built an altar in another location as we read here:
Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life. And he went on a circuit year by year to Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah; and he judged Israel in all these places. Then he would come back to Ramah, for his home was there, and there also he administered justice to Israel. And he built there an altar to the LORD.
1 Samuel 7:15-17
I haven’t seen any verses that call Samuel a Kohen at all. He is called a Judge and a Prophet. He was also a Nazarite, which may explain why he was able to do certain things under Eli, that others may not be able to do.
Nowhere does it say he was now adopted and a son of Aaron. His sons did not receive the Priesthood either.
What we do see, is Eli’s great grandson as a functioning Kohen later in the text.
and Ahi’jah the son of Ahi’tub, Ich’abod’s brother, son of Phin’ehas, son of Eli, the priest of the LORD in Shiloh, wearing an ephod. And the people did not know that Jonathan had gone.
1 Samuel 14:3
If this argument, about Samuel being adopted and turned into a Kohen, is the best argument for the adoption theory, then I have to say I am really not convinced.
I am open to learning and maybe I am wrong about Samuel, but when I looked into it, I found that I wasn’t the only one who traced back his lineage to Levi.
I also read in my new book “How to Run a Traditional Jewish Houshold’ which Brian recommended to me…in regards to adoption on page 250:
“As it should be, an adopted child is given the name of its adoptive parent (for example Aharon ben Moshe for an aliyah or Aharon ben Rivkah for a me’sheh’bay’rach). However, levitical or priestly descent is not passed on to an adopted child.”
I look forward to the responses. Thanks for your time brothers.
shavua tov,
Andrew
[Reply]
here is another verse that does show Samuel offering sacrifices, but at another place besides the tabernacle, and in an emergency type situation when calling on HaShem:
Now when the Philistines heard that the people of Israel had gathered at Mizpah, the lords of the Philistines went up against Israel. And when the people of Israel heard of it they were afraid of the Philistines. And the people of Israel said to Samuel, “Do not cease to cry to the LORD our God for us, that he may save us from the hand of the Philistines.” So Samuel took a sucking lamb and offered it as a whole burnt offering to the LORD; and Samuel cried to the LORD for Israel, and the LORD answered him. As Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to attack Israel; but the LORD thundered with a mighty voice that day against the Philistines and threw them into confusion; and they were routed before Israel.
1 Samuel 7:7-10
At first I thought this verse referred to Samuel, but now I think it refers to Zadok:
And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind; and I will build him a sure house, and he shall go in and out before my anointed for ever.
1 Samuel 2:35
All the commentaries I read on this verse said its talking about Zadok.
Andrew
[Reply]
Boaz,
The Betemunah site is now up again:
http://www.betemunah.org/virgin.html
Andrew
[Reply]
Andrew,
Out of curiousity what congregation do you attend? Your views peak my interest & I would like to know where you attend. Thanks!
[Reply]
Shalom James,
I do not attend any congregation currently. We have some brothers and sisters in faith in our area and we do get together for the Moedim, but we have no regular service nor leadership, I am sad to say. My wife and I are looking for a good solid community currently. We will probably stay around here for at least a year or so, since she is pregnant and due in April..but we are seriously looking into moving..mainly for fellowship.
Where do you attend?
Andrew
[Reply]