You mean how you ignore grammar, and misunderstand who is speaking in Isaiah 52-53? Those are a couple of your errors.
Yes, we believe and it's not just that, it's more. It's an experience, it's miracles in the Name of Jesus Christ, it's scripture..etc. It's more than just a conviction or belief.
No, it is experience seen through the lens of belief. Just own it already. It is your belief. There's no shame in that.
Anyone can read it and see for themselves that the RAMCHAL wasn't saying that people would just witness the righteous suffering and would repent, and that's it.
See, that's the problem. You see the Ramchal's text as a random book anyone can pick up and understand. But Jewish texts aren't built for that. When people who are untrained pick up the text, they think they understand without any foundation and they come to wrong conclusions. Anyone can pick up a calculus textbook and say all sorts of things are in it. But the problem is that the reader doesn't actually understand the book.
Beyond that, the merit and power of these tzaddikim is also increased because of such suffering, and this gives them even greater ability to rectify the damage of others. They can therefore not only rectify their own generation, but can also correct all of the spiritual damage done from the beginning, from the time of the very first sinners."
That's actually a reference to a specific line from teh talmud but it doesn't actually reflect what RashBi said in the talmud. he used a technical word (p-t-r) to say that suffering can help exempt others from being held accountable for certain behaviors (nothing about "rectify"). In talmudic language, that word does not exonerate or pardon anyone, but it indicates that a person can avoid being judged in a heavenly court at a certain level. If you knew what RashBi was referring to (just check out the Gilyon Hashas on Masechet Sukkah 45b) you would see that this has to do with helping people not be stuck in Gehennom by balancing out evil with good (a power that sages have as explained at the end of tractate Chagigah). In Judaic texts there is an incredible amount of intextuality and references have to be traced. When you see the text in a vacuum, you misunderstand it. You want to encourage people to read superficially and think they understand. That is sad. Real learning requires investigation and study but that is beyond you.
The so called "sequence of events" that you continually appeal to isn't just people repenting of their sins and earning their place in the world to come through their own good works and merits. You're imposing that
upon the text.
No, that's actually a consistent message in Judaic texts and in the theological construct into which the Ramchal writes.
Your copout argument that it's just the sinners feeling guilty for their sins when they witness the suffering of the righteous, and hence through the sinner's own repentance and good works, they rectify themselves, free of any vicarious elements or power of the suffering of the righteous, exposes your inability or unwillingness to properly interpret the text. The suffering of the perfect has a spiritual, cosmic effect on YHWH's creation and all of mankind, beyond just inspiring people to repent. In Christianity, we believe that Messiah's suffering, indeed leads us to repentance, but it's more than just us repenting and performing good works.
That's a great belief. It isn't what the Ramchal writes about, but you can go with it if you want. The power a sage has to lead and to show others what suffering looks like and to help others avoid it is similar to many other things that can bring about repentance and which Judaic texts give power to. The standing temple, the clothes of the high priest and others. Each of these "effects atonement" but not vicariously -- only by inspiring others. Mix in the Ramchals invoking the talmudic idea that the good deeds of the sages can shield the popluace from Gehennom by balancing out good for evil and that one can give a part of his portion of the world to come to another, and you start to understand the complexity of the process. Or stay in your vacuum and let a translation of a section on a website do the thinking for you.
I invite Christians to read what the RAMCHAL wrote and don't fall prey to Jewish counter-missionary arguments.
I invite Christians to read all the various texts that the Ramchal was referencing, and the other work of the Ramchal FIRST so that things actually make sense in a context. Otherwise, you will just look foolish, trying to quote page 100 before you know the references to the content of pages 1-99.
It was indeed a typo. Koloom or Qlum, means "nothing" in Hebrew,
So you think that "koloom" and "qlum" sound the same? Wow.
and I copy and pasted the wrong word from my AI because I failed to verify it.
So not a type, just sloppiness on your part. I can accept that.
That doesn't render my point wrong. A person doesn't need to be a Hebrew scholar to expose the errors of rabbinic Judaism or understand the Bible.
You expose errors by making errors? Interesting technique.
Your religion doesn't recognize the existence of demons?
I don't recall saying that. You are arguing with things that aren't said. I questioned "fallen angels." Judaism has an idea of demons (though it is a very esoteric idea). Demons are not related to angels though.
Your own Jewish anti-missionary buddies wrote this:
"We see that in both Daniel 7:13-14 and 7:27 the terms “one like a son of man” and “the people of the holy ones of the Most High” refer collectively to the people of Israel who will receive worldwide authority and obedience. Rabbinical exegesis applied the term “one like a son of man” to the Messiah...."
Source:
(Daniel 7:13-14, 27) Christians often cite Daniel 7:13-14 as proof that the Messiah is to be a divine being. - One like the son of man
jewsforjudaism.org
They recognize that the human being in the vision is both Mashiach and the saints. Both.
You really should read more carefully. First, your claim was that the term referred to "saints". No saints are mentioned here. Next, that same website says that the understanding that the term "son of man" refers to a messianic figure specifically excludes Jesus ("but not as a divine or semi-divine being. There is nothing in Daniel’s visionary experience to indicate that “one like a son of man’ is a divine being.") Finally, you seem to take the words of someone online as "gospel" but he also doesn't give any sourcwes so i would ask him the same thing I'm asking you. Just because he says, "We see" doesn't mean that his claim is any more supported than yours is. What is HIS source? Do you lack the intellectual curiosity and critical thinking skills to wonder about his source? Is a random page on the internet that persuasive to you? Just because a Jew wrote it online doesn't mean it represents Judaism. Lucky for you, I did some digging. The talmud (Sanhedrin 96 and 98) says that "son of man" is a reference to the messiah. The medrash says the same, as do the commentators. Only people who write websites seem to make the connection between the son of man phrase and any larger group, but when they do, they connect it to the entirety of the nation, not a subset of sages and saints as you did. Even the site you just quoted has "the people of Israel" and no smaller subset of that.
You aren't using your sources very well.
