✪ "The Zohar, thought to have been written either by Simon bar Yochai in the second century or by a Spanish rabbi in the thirteenth century, makes certain statements which have obvious references to the Isaiah passage: There is in the garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the sons of sickness: this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for transgressions of the law: and this is that which is written, ‘Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.’" Ref-0011, p. 124.
✪ "(Independence Day), the annual commemoration of the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 [May 15]" Ref-0010, p. 18.
✪ "[The Jews] are commanded to offer up a day of atonement sacrifice. But they are not obeying that commandment today. The Rabbis teach that fasting is equal to offering up a scarficie. The logic is: the fat and blood of the animal belong to God alone and by fasting you reduce the fat in your blood. Therefore, you are fulfilling the command. . . they interpret [the commandments] in such a way so they can claim to have kept a commandment when in reality they were breaking it." Ref-0067, Fall 2001. Concerning the myth of a rope tied around the ankle of the high priest, see 20131603.htm. "Hebrews is talking about sacrifices that were made “year by year.” The sacrifices made once a year for sin were made on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur. This, then, is the sacrifice to which the author of Hebrews refers as being “once for all,” never to occur again. " Ref-1383, p. 147.
✪ "The Day of Atonement was especially significant in the Jubilee Year, for the trumpet sounding the jubilee was blown on that day, the tenth day of the month Tishri, in contrast to other years when it was blown on the first of Tishri (Rosh Hashanah - the New Year). Therefore, the same day that physical land and liberty was restored, the high priest also offered a sacrifice to free the nation from its spiritual debt." Ref-0010, p. 115.
✪ "However, as noted earlier, the second-person plural may be employed of those who are not contemporaries. Illustrations of this are found in the immediate context. In Matthew 23:35 the Lord Jesus, referring to the death of Zechariah, used the words “whom you murdered.” Obviously Zechariah was killed centuries before Christ. And Jesus said, “You will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’” (v. 39). This speaks of a future generation of Israel that will yet make that grand profession. The pronoun “you” may look backward or forward." Stanley D. Toussaint, "A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse," Ref-0200, Vol. 161 No. 644, October-December 2004, 469-490 p. 488. In Deuteronomy 1:26, Moses uses the pronoun “you” to speak to the children of those who died in the wilderness as if they were the ones who died. "Another argument for the preterist view is that “you” in many texts must refer to the immediate first century audience (7). They cite Matthew 23:35 as proof: “On you may come all the blood shed on the earth . . . .” Ironically, that very verse proves the contrary since a “you” is used in it of the people who slew Zechariah in the Old Testament who was long dead. So, “you” can be used historically to refer to “your ancestors” just as it can be used proleptically of “your descendants.” For example, “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you” (Mt. 5:11) in the Sermon on the Mount is not limited to Jesus’ immediate audience but also for future generations." Norman L. Geisler, Review of Hank Hanegraff's The Apocalypse Code, [http://www.ses.edu/NormGeisler/ReviewApocalypseCode.html, accessed 20070920]. In the first chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses addresses the descendants of those who died in the wilderness (Deu. 2:14), yet when referring to their ancestors calls them “you.” "This distinction is characteristically illustrated in the literature by the expressions “morning start” and “evening star.” For our purposes we will use the term “sense” roughly to indicate the term’s meaning, and we will use the term “referent” to indicate that to which the term refers. The expressions “morning start” and “evening star” have different senses or meanings, but they have the same referent. The sense of the expression “morning star” is a bright, shining object in the sky that can be seen from certain points on the earth in the early morning hours. The sense of the expression “evening star” is a bright, shining object in the sky that can be seen from certain points on the earth in the early evening hours. So, these two expression have different sense or meanings, but they both refer to Venus [the same referent]. The importance of this distinction can be seen in the debate concerning the use of the word “generation” in Mat. 24:34 . . . in his arguments against Futurists’ interpretation of this verse, John Noē asserts, “a simple word study of the seventeen other New Testament uses of the identical word construction reveals that ‘this generation’ always means the generation then living.” But Noē has confused meaning with referent. Although the word “generation” in Mat. 24:34 has the same meaning as the other uses in Matthew’s Gospel, it is possible that it has a different referent, that is, that it is referring to a different group. There is precedent for understanding Jesus’ use here as having the same meaning but a different referent. In Mat. 23:35 . . . Jesus accuses the scribes and Pharisees to whom He is talking of murdering Zechariah between the temple and the altar. . . . even though Jesus is using the second person form of the verb “you murdered,” He is not claiming that the scribes and Pharisees to whom He is speaking actually murdered Zechariah, but that they were just as guilty as those who did. But the “you” both does and does not refer to the scribes and Pharisees to whom Jesus is speaking. It does refer to them in the sense that they are the one’s Jesus is directly condemning, but it does not refer to them in the sense that they were not the ones who actually murdered Zechariah. So, even though the meaning of the second person is the same throughout this passage, the referent is different in this verse. What this shows is that a word can have the same meaning, but a different referent. . . . The question is not a question of meaning but of referent. . . . a word can have the same meaning but a different referent, and the referent of the same term in other contexts is no determiner of the referent in any other context. The referent of a term must be discovered by the context in which the term occurs not by its other uses in other contexts. . . . [Concerning] Jesus’ statement in John 2:19 . . . the difference between the Jews’ understanding and John’s comment is not a case of literal verse spiritual meaning. Rather, it is a difference of the reference of the term “temple.” The Jews understood Jesus to be literally referring to the Temple, whereas Jesus was literally referring to His body. The distinction between sense and reference is an important distinction that an interpreter needs constantly to keep before him whenever he is interpreting the text." Ref-1308, pp. 3-5.