Biblical Hebrew Forum

[sujata <shevaroys AT yahoo.com>]

"3. I do have justification for opposing people putting Christian 
doctrine into Tanach, where it doesn't exist - it is OUR Bible, and 
our Bible does not teach Christianity. I would never tell a 
Christian what their New Testament means, I would never inject Jewish 
doctrine into it."
   
  On a similar vein, I could ask  you  to refrain from  injecting Rabbinic 
doctrine into OUR scripture  since the  Tanach is part  and parcel of OUR  
(Christian) scripture which includes both the Old and New Testaments.  But I 
understand that this list is not the place  for such discussions.
   
   
  Best,
  Sujata
   
  Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net> wrote:
  Dear Yigal:

1. I don't assume anything, I am drawing on others far wiser than me

2. Please cite to me Jewish interpretations that "DO understand 
these verses as referring to the Messiah."

3. I do have justification for opposing people putting Christian 
doctrine into Tanach, where it doesn't exist - it is OUR Bible, and 
our Bible does not teach Christianity. I would never tell a 
Christian what their New Testament means, I would never inject Jewish 
doctrine into it.

4. "Come on" - to where? I didn't make that up, I cited the Stone 
Tanach, tell THEM they are wrong.

5. The answer to your last question is that Judaism does NOT 
consider Daniel to be a prophet, even though his writings include 
visions of the future, which we believe to be true, he was not 
considered one of the 55 prophets, BECAUSE

a. Daniel never spoke directly to God. According to the Torah, 
prophets speak to God, not to intermediaries like angels. Daniel saw 
angels and never spoke to God. This is the primary reason Daniel is 
not considered a prophet.

b. His mission was not that of a prophet. In Judaism a prophet speaks 
to his or her generation, not to future generations. The Prophets in 
the Jewish Tanach (e.g., Isaiah, Ezekiel) spoke primarily to their 
generation, but their message was also pertinent to the future. 
Daniel's visions of the future were never intended to be proclaimed 
to the people; they were designed to be written down for future 
generations. Thus, they are Writings, not Prophecies, and are 
classified accordingly.

The Men of the Great Assembly (Sanhedrin) who codified the Jewish 
Bible (Tanach) argued about including Daniel in the Bible and placed 
him in Writings, not Prophets. They are our authority, not the 
Christian canon, which obviously has a different understanding than 
we do.

Shoshanna





Dear Shoshanna,

Daniel is obviously not a "Christian" book, since it was written many years
before there was such a thing as Christianity. That's not the issue. Both
you and John B. Senterfitt seem to assume that the book contains prophecies
about the future. John quoted a common Christian understanding of Daniel as
foretelling the coming (and return) of Jesus. You quote a Jewish
understanding of it foretelling events in later Jewish history - and there
are Jewish interpretations that DO understand these verses as referring to
the Messiah. Both interpretations are equally legitimate in their own
religious contexts. What you forget and John may not know, is that this list
is neither a Jewish list or a Christian one - you have no justification for
opposing "foreign doctrine into OUR (meaning Jewish) scripture", just as
John has no justification for assuming that the Christian interpretation is
the only one that is legitimate.

Besides, "Rome will be able to conquer the countries surrounding the Land of
Israel without fear of Hashmonean Intervention" - come on!

And now a serious question: if "the rabbis" (of the "great assembly")
considered Daniel to be prophetic, why was it not included in the Nevi'im
(as it is in the Christian canon - that is, together with the "prophetic
books")?

Yigal


----- Original Message -----
From: "Shoshanna Walker" 
To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:07 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Daniel 11:22


> NONE of these verses refer to any "anti-christ" - which is a foreign
> concept after all, if this were a Christian book, the rabbis would
> not have included it in our Tanach.
>
>
> Verse 22 refers to the covenant that the Jews made with the Romans -
> ie; they will also be crushed by them - this does not refer to
> Mashiach.
>
> Verse 21 refers to the Roman Empire, not to an "anti- christ"
> ("contemptible one" = Roman empire)
>
> Verse 20: The Hashmonean Dynasty will succeed Antiochus in
> Jerusalem, but it will eventually fall as a result of a battle of
> succession between the two brothers, Aristobulos and Hyrcanus.
>
> Verse 23: By signing a "holy covenant" of friendship (see verses 28,
> 30) with the Hashmoneans, Rome will be able to conquer the countries
> surrounding the Land of Israel without fear of Hashmonean
> Intervention.
>
>
> PLEASE don't put foreign doctrine into our scripture, where it does not
> exist.
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Shoshanna
>
>
>
>
> Seeing as how I am quite new to this endeavor I would appreciate it
> if I am not acting according to b-hebrew protocol, that you let me
> know.
>
> And so, assuming I am ok, I will go ahead and ask my question.
>
> Is there any conceivable way that Daniel 11:22 and the last statement
> "also prince of covenant" could be in reference to Messiah?
>
> I know the verses before and after are obviously referring to the
> antichrist but could it be that verse 22 is a nugget so easily
> overlooked?
> John B. Senterfitt
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew