home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!scicom!paranet!p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bill.Carlson
- From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
- Newsgroups: alt.messianic
- Subject: What Did Judas Betray?
- Message-ID: <141573.2B37FC0B@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
- Date: 23 Dec 92 00:27:06 GMT
- Sender: ufgate@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.26)
- Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO
- Lines: 67
-
- To: hem@col400.col400.att.com
-
- HEM> Date: 17 Dec 92 23:03:15 GMT
- HEM> Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
- HEM> Message-ID: <HEM.92Dec17180315@col400.col400.att.com>
- HEM> Newsgroups: alt.messianic
-
- HEM> HEM> In article <141385.2B22E59E@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
- HEM> HEM> Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
- HEM> writes: HEM> To: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com >
-
- HEM> The point was that trying to say that Rashi in a different place
- HEM> may say that the context is betulot does not mean that he says it
- HEM> in yeshaya (which is the original argument). In fact Rashi
- HEM> specifically says that the woman in yeshaya is not a betulah but
- HEM> is yeshaya's wife (tho others disagree).
-
- This is true, (of Rashi's opinion); however, it does demonstrate
- that the understanding, (at least in the one place [SofS 1:3]),
- of the Rabbis, (at least of Rashi), was that 'almaot and b'tulot
- were interchangable in understanding - at least to where Rashi
- is making the point that this is a reff. to women who were never
- engaged in sexual-intercourse. Therefore Stern's application,
- (it would seem to me), would be to show that this aspect of the
- interchange in the meanings of one word to another, are not
- "totally" outside of Rabbinic thought, (as some would have us to
- believe).
-
- BC> Well, I wouldn't make an appeal in using "ha" before
- BC> almah as too much in Biblical Hebrew there. After
- BC> all, it is often written: "Ha"Mashiach, & surely that
- BC> is spoken of in the future tense in Tanakh :-)
-
- HEM> The point is that ha-almah is a specific young woman just as
- HEM> ha-mashiach (THE mashiach) is a specific person whose identity
-
- Well sure it is! :-) What kind of a "sign" would "A" almah
- having a baby be :-) But THE-almot that was to be a "sign", was
- the virgin Miryam - we as Messianic's believe. And when he says
- "THE-virgin" we believe & we hold that the Tanakh declares that
- the house of Israel was to know this sign. {some did, some
- didn't}. Now I'm not going to get into a lengthy dicussion in
- defending Stern's stance; but the idea of the singular & plural
- "you" had escaped me until I noticed it in his commentary. And
- I have to conclude that the explanation of the one statement
- being for king Ahaz, and the second for all the House of Israel,
- makes perfect sense to me. Be that as it may, this has been
- discussed back and forth for centuries. I prefer to conclude
- that this was a super-natural "sign" given from HaShem, and
- that the "almah" was a virgin in the understanding of a maiden
- above reproach in Torah needs be. It is obvious that there is
- "some" Rabbinic support for this conclusion, (and quite a bit
- more than Stern brought out in his commentary). But that is the
- peshitta that we {MJ's} hold for this particular verse; and I
- consider it valid, whether you are in contention with our under-
- standing or not :-)
-
- Thus seeing THE sign - it was to be known; just as those
- who see THE-Messiah shall known who He is.
-
- Baruch haba b'Shem Ad*nai! - Speedily and soon, and say - Amaine!
-
- ... 012 they heard the Voice of HaShem El*him walking in the garden...210
- --
- Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
- UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
- INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
-