rosends

This is a function of how you interpret, not Judaism. In the Jewish understanding, the verses speak of the body after suffering but not death, or the soul after death. There is no mention of resurrection. Can you show me that idea within the Jewish system or is it just an idea that you think is the only explanation so you assume it must be from the Jewish system? 

Those references are not to anyone who has been resurrected. If you wish to create an interpretation that innovates this idea then recognize that it is not an understanding that has any place in (as this thread's title states) the Jewish system. 

But I know that my Redeemer lives, and the last on earth, He will endure.
 
And after my skin, they have cut into this, and from my flesh I see judgment.
 
That I see for myself, and my eyes have seen and not a stranger; my kidneys are consumed within me.

Nope, you cannot deny the evidence of Scripture without harming the text that speaks of an individual, not national Israel. You are the one who reads Israel into the text.

You say this when you have already admitted that you don’t understand the text in the way it is written. You have made claims about singular vs plural and gender and have been shown that the language of the text supports my point explicitly and via literary/grammatical precedent but you want to keep inserting your fiction into the text blindly.
 
Nope. I'm speaking of Jews who were practicing Judaism who believe in the Messiah Y'shua/Jesus. Thus, they have a wealth of experience in Judaism and recognize what the Scriptures teach.
 …
No, I am not. I am speaking of renown Jewish scholars, such as Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides/Rambam). Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Jesus was a Jew, p15-25, lists and documents via quotes several rabbis from early times forward:
 
See, this is called moving the goal posts. Your claim was about Jews who believe in Jesus as the messiah but when you try to cite a list, it seems that the list is of people who might have accepted that Jesus, if he existed, was Jewish. Those are two different claims. If you want to claim that, for example, Elazar Hakallir believed that Jesus was the messiah, please show me the evidence because I claim that none exists. And Rabbi Nahman? Do you mean the Breslover? Or someone else? I would guess that you have no idea who he is and that anyone would claim that he accepted Jesus as a messianic figure is laughable. Show, don’t tell. Or are you happy letting some other guy make your claims and do your thinking for you?
 
Thus, the tradition Jewish view of earlier days views Isaiah 52-53 as speaking of the Messiah (Mashiach ben Yosef), not national Israel.

The various rabbis who found a way to apply the text to a singular messianic figure did it not with the intent that it was the actual reading, but in a way to connect other teachings they had to the passage in question.
 
Again, the flat earth is a different subject entirely. You are trying to use an analogy that does not fit.

No, the flat earth belief is supported by “evidence” according to its adherents. They have plenty of “experts” to justify the belief. The analogy is the same but you are offended that it lumps your conspiracy theory with theirs.
 
Nope. I have shown that Malchizedek is a priest recorded in the OT, the Jewish Scriptures, not a Catholic priest of which I see very little Scriptural relevance to the Bible.

The underlying problem is in the definition of a miracle. What counts? Is it the timely suspension of natural law, or is it the law, itself?

Judaism teaches that there are different kinds of miracles and some still happen.

Sure there is.
 
No, there isn’t but it makes sense that you would claim that there is. It just signals a few more things that you don’t understand. I did pick one of those “biographies” at random to read and found it laughable. It had the kinds of errors that a 5 year old who actually knew anything about Judaism would not make. But hey, you believe what you want to believe. I look forward to your list of Muslim popes next.
 
Nope. I'm speaking of Jews who were practicing Judaism who believe in the Messiah Y'shua/Jesus. Thus, they have a wealth of experience in Judaism and recognize what the Scriptures teach.
 
No, you are speaking of people who have little real knowledge of Judaism but you believe their claims because you know even less.
 
It is how he describes himself as pointed out in the article.
 
Yes, and this is exactly my point. He is describing himself as someone who does not have any real or deep understanding of traditional Judaism and follows a group that rejects most of what traditional Judaism teaches and you trot him out as a Jewish expert because, as I said, you know even less.
 
Again, I recognize this is based on your prejudice.
 
As your statement is based on yours. The difference is, I am being explicit in my label and you are trying to be generic.
 
And there is sufficient evidence for the belief.

Which is what a Flat-Earther would say. Fine.
 
And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God.

That's a fine question which isn't mine to answer. I can point out issues for others to wrestle with. I'll just stay me.

What I'm getting it at is that you haven't cited a "biblical contradiction" but a "translational contradiction" so the question should be limited to those who rely on the translation to build a theology around.

But the non-English speaker translated it, and stopped the phrase after "no law" so he concludes it means something else.  Maybe it would be better to study it in the English.

That is your understanding. It is not a one normative within many religious communities. If you are going to stay within your particular view then, yes, you will end up with your particular conclusions. But then to ask for other opinions won't be helpful to your understanding because they require a different outlook.

The text was given in a combination of a few languages but yes, mostly Hebrew. So the laws were understood by and applied to the group whose language it was. This is what I am saying, yes. But to that group, what you cite as a contradiction wouldn't have been one.

Christians? Who cares about them? The laws are Jewish laws and the language is the national language of Judaism (if we view "Jew" as a tag of nationality, but that's a semantic sidepoint).

Very true! Convert to Judaism, and you get to follow Jewish laws.

They are only binding in Jesus Christ, the eternal Savior, who met everyone of them on behalf of those who believe. The Torah finds fulfillment in Jesus Christ. With the change of covenant comes a change in law. The Law is fully met in Jesus Christ.
 
Statement of belief, not of fact. Next?
 
Then you are not living up to it, as stipulated and agreed upon, nor can you.
 
You mean in the limited and incomplete way that you understand it. Got it. But who cares about your wrong view?
 
My belief is all unfulfilled prophecy applies to the 1st-century and the span up to AD 70.
 
OK, great. That’s another statement of your belief. It has two problems and is predicated on a flawed definitional premise but that’s ok. Stick with your beliefs.
 
That would logically mean that God would be incapable of speaking or communicating to anyone other than those willing to learn Hebrew.
 
Actually, it wouldn’t mean that. It WOULD mean that God’s words when put into the human language of Hebrew require a knowledge of Hebrew to understand. Do you think God spoke to Bil’am in Hebrew?
 
Again, overall you do not recognize this truth that it points to one Person in the people, places, and events contained. Pity.
 
Again, you show ignorance of the text which points to a number of people and you betray sore need in justifying your own beliefs when you insist that a discussion of many must be talking about one.
 
I realize that. You are mostly playing games.

And you are losing. This is fun!
 
You seldom exegete a verse of Scripture.
 
I have quoted and referred to exegesis while you only eisegete. Go figure.
 
Of God's mercy and grace?

It begs why your interpretation is true.

You suggest your oral traditions are on par with the written Word

Getting closer! Good for you – those Google lessons are really paying off. How about “I am claiming that elements of the Oral law are divine and Mosaic in source, origin, authority and value.” While you are suggesting that the gospels are on par with what you call “Old Testament” texts.
 
And do you think that your reasoning, centuries removed, understands the culture of those times and the meanings of the text?

No – I think that my understanding is not centuries removed. You need to claim it is to distance it. That’s your choice I guess.
 
Do you think tradition built up by rabbis trumps God's word?

In certain cases, it appears to the uninformed that that is the case. That’s not actually what is happening, but I’ll let you stick with this delusion.
 
And your premise is misleading, for it assumes that every word of an author like Shakespeare can be understood by others if they understand the English of his times, rather than the author's intention --> that would be Shakespeare meaning, which even some during his time failed to grasp.

No, I’m saying that Shakespeare’s meaning can be better gleaned by those who spoke the language (and accent…I saw an interesting presentation about the accent at the time of Shakespeare and how it changed what we might understand about the text). And if Shakespeare also provided a key to understanding to one group, I would rely on that group for explanation.
 
Then you make another assumption that Jesus/Y'shua, a Jew, is not capable of interpreting Scripture for the very reason that you deny who He claims to be.

The exact same can be said of you regarding the Gospels, written mostly by Jews, claiming inspiration from God.

It is what you seem to be conveying

Yet for those who could, where is it offered today???

If you recall the tower of babel story, God specifically introduced into the world the kinds of divisions caused by distinct languages. I bet there are people who don't speak English who think that the US Constitution makes no sense because it has a phrase like "Congress shall make no law". I mean, who sets up a government and says that congress can't make any laws?

God didn't confuse US with the languages. He confused the languages to separate us from others. The laws that he gave, he gave in one particular language because those laws weren't meant for others. Is it a problem that the US laws are in English? Wait, says a Ukrainian, living in the Ukraine, I think that the laws, translated into Ukrainian, have problems -- how am I supposed to follow them? Answer -- you aren't. They aren't your laws.

But, continues the Ukrainian, what if I want to follow the elements of your laws that make sense to apply to other people besides you? Well then, the American says, trust an American-native-English-speaker-lawyer to explain it to.

And Ben Shapiro would endorse what I said.

If I have laws to give to my kids, I use the language they know and which most accurately represents what I want them to understand about the laws. No one from the group that received the laws would have recognized the words you cited in Translation as a contradiction. 

In the Hebrew, the word in your first quote (which your translation has as "foreigner") is different from the word in verse 3 of the second quote which is also translated as "foreigner."

This is a problem with using translations -- the Hebrew is more precise in the choice of words to avoid exactly this misunderstanding. Of course, there is much more to it (because the word in the first quote is qualified by a specific Hebrew phrase so it means something different from the same word when used without that phrase) but just as a start, please understand the essential flaw which led to the specific example you presented.

By the way, I think that the picture you use as your avatar is Ben Shapiro. Is that correct?

As I pointed out in my last  post, the Septuagint allegedly had a panel of 72 Hebrews from the twelve tribes who would understand what words to use in translating. I also pointed out the problems you have with your Hebrew texts.
 
Yes, allegedly. Jewish tradition teaches that it wasn’t 72 (among other differences in understanding the story) https://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-words/septuagint-1.8035 and it was only the 5 books of Moses. Greek translations of anything after that were not part of the story. For more, read here https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/34220/1362
 
Judaism is not the Hebrew Scriptures. From your posts I gather your opinion is that if a person doesn't speak Hebrew they can't understand the Scriptures, and you modern Jews are the only ones who understand what God has said, and to that you can find hundreds of different opinions by rabbis down through the years and ages.
 
Judaism is a religion. Scriptures are not a religion so I don’t see the real innovation in your first claim. Next, you can gather what you want. The texts were given to the Jews in a language of the Jews and in a socio-religious context inhabited by the Jews. Shakespeare scholars analyze Shakespeare and have a better understanding of it than optometrists who are not Shakespeare scholars. Go figure.
 
Many messianic rabbis
 
No such thing.
 
a leading expert in Messianic Judaic theology
 
You mean “an expert in Christianity.” Call it what it is.
 
Their founder, a once Reform Jew, Moishe (Martin) Rosen had such a conviction that he rejected Judaism for Christianity.       

A reform Jew? If only you knew what you just bragged about. Sigh.
 
The Gospels are Scripture
 
No, at best they are Christian scripture. At their worst they are also Christian scripture.
 
Again, many others (including Jews) think as I do, so it is not just me.
 
Many people think the world is flat, Elvis is alive and tomatoes are vegetables (and some of them have gardens!). So? Groups can be wrong.
 
Jesus, as a priest in the order of Melchizedek
 
No such thing in Judaism.

As a type of the OT sacrifice and offering, He was scourged and a crown of thorns was placed on His head. Nails were driven through His hands and feet, and a spear was driven through His body

Invalid as a sacrifice by his being human, and by being blemished in the way you just described. You are working against your own point. Sad really.
Then, you try to set up “shadows” by making whatever connection you need to. That’s also sad. I mean, I can point out how Harry Potter laid down his life so that others could live and I could probably connect him to all sorts of biblical statements and call them shadows. That’s what reverse engineering is all about. And when the text is constructed in an effort to invoke these “shadows” you will more likely find those shadows (as they are intentionally included). A Torah text says “_____” and so gospel writers, in order to validate themselves include “_____” to show how connected they must be to the earlier text.
 
Flour was a provision by God for those who were too poor to offer a blood offering,
 
So blood was not necessary. Check.

 and on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, an animal sacrifice was necessary to cleanse the alter and to atone for the sins of the people.
 
Not actually – the day, itself provided atonement. That’s an essential belief in Judaism and has been for a really long time.
 
What the Law of Moses stipulated, was required by God, and the people agreed to cannot be followed after AD 70.
 
What you think of as “the law of Moses” is not what Jews then and throughout history have considered to be the law of Moses. I have tried to tell you this, but you insist that you know better. Very sad.
 
Jews bypass the Scriptures with their traditions
 
There you go again insisting that anything Jews accept that goes against what you believe is de facto invention. Your position is repeatedly to deny entirely what constitutes Judaism because you don’t agree with it and it disagrees with what you claim about Judaism.
 
What do you not understand about this???
 
You have just made two huge errors. One is that you quoted a section which (if you had continued one more verse) serves to explain why Jews don’t eat blood. These are laws of food. Next, you quote a section which says that no offering can be made outside the temple of meeting. Jesus was not offered at the temple of meeting, so he could not have been a valid offering. What don’t you understand about this?

Yes, it was. It met its fulfillment in Jesus Christ

No, it wasn’t despite your assertion. And laws aren’t fulfilled. They are obeyed.
 
the Gospel's are Scripture

No, they aren’t. They are Christian scripture. And that you then quote from them to try and convince me of anything continues to be laughable. See? You are viewing this as a game! How else could you explain doing something so ridiculous?
 
It is the word we translate as phylacteries, basically a little black box with four compartments reminding Jews of God's presence during the Exodus, and containing a scroll or short section of the law within each compartment.
 
Wait, what? How do YOU translate that? How do you get from the Hebrew to a word meaning “amulet” from a root meaning “guard” and then from that to a box? And where in that definition do you see “scroll”? The translation you chose just has the word “sign” and mentions nothing else by way of definition. Then you quote translations which pick that mysterious word “phylactery” which, as stated, means an amulet. Somehow you have decided on a shape and contents.
 No, you don’t translate it. You rely on Jewish understanding and sourcework based on scripture which you don’t accept as valid. Fascinating.
 

In reference to what?

That name which you keep mispronouncing, even to the point of quoting an outside source that has it wrong, but because you can’t read it, you can’t tell a tzeirei from a shva.
 
I know the Jewish texts as translated into English via the Greek by scholars
 
So what you read is a third level translation by agendized scholars. Got it.
 
which I might add was reconstructed in 1914 after centuries of disuse

Are you now confusing Ben Yehudah’s work on the modern conversational Hebrew with the earlier iterations that were in daily use over the last 3000 years? That’s HILARIOUS!
 
The Jewish Scriptures are Genesis to Malachi in our Bibles, in yours, the Law, the Prophets and the Writings --> the Tanakh.
 
Ooh, so close. But still, not.
 
You don't seem to realize how many different interpretations of passages by your own rabbis throughout the centuries.

I don’t? So you have studied the texts in which these differences are discussed? I have. Why do you assume I don’t know about them? Because I understand their use and place within the scriptural system better than you.
 
The two messiahs recognized by some of your own rabbis of old were Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David, both applying to Jesus,
 
If you truly understood the functions of these two potential personages, you would realize how silly your claim is. The Ben Yosef, for example, (if he comes, and that is not a sure thing, nor a necessary thing according to those rabbis you cite) is a warrior who leads in actual battle and is killed after a violent battle. Nothing symbolic. Violent. Bloody. Armageddon like. Then he is replaced immediately by a very different kind of leader who is universally accepted and, later, becomes a messiah. So, no, not your Jesus.

And interchangeably with the singular pronouns so you cannot make the argument that the use of the singular means it cannot refer to the nation.

Well, I'm dealing with the Hebrew text but, I see that you are happy to go back to the argument that the Jewish texts are wrong and Jews changed the texts so your translations have to be right (and you don't have to learn Hebrew grammar).

If that's your argument, thus invalidating any statement anyone makes using the Hebrew text, then so be it. I deny your texts and you deny mine. The difference is, I don't need yours and you keep using mine and in error (you know, like ignoring that the text refers to a nation in the singular in first, second and third person). Have fun with that.

OK - so you might want to ask Uri about that claim. It isn't one that I made, just one from his article that you don't agree with. 

It is nice, though, that you can concede

You realize, I hope, that the "you" in Hebrew...

is in the singular.

And you just conceded the use of the singular for the nation, a grammatical point which you had trouble with earlier.

If you want to work with translations, you might as well be using "As many shall be amazed at thee, so shall thy face be without glory from men, and thy glory shall not be honoured by the sons of men."

He is as fictional as any of the characters you cite and his text is as fictional as your gospels. So your claim that citing him is parallel to my claim about the text you cite.

No, it isn't and Jesus wouldn't have said so either. Just because you don't understand doesn't change anything. And saying you don't read Hebrew should remind you that you shouldn't then be making arguments about a Hebrew text that you can't read.

You say this and quote from the text called "Hebrews" which is unrelated to Judaism? Thanks for the laugh. Do you accept the Book of Mormon? It was written by a Christian claiming to speak from God.

Having enough money made anyone eligible to buy a mammal. Having less limited someone to buying a bird. Having less led to ground flour. All were the best for the sin offering that the individual could afford. So, point one, this shows that blood is not necessary to effect atonement. Next, as I have stated, any sacrifice requires certain environmental variables be met and when they aren't, the text provides alternate means, even for the very limited number and type of sins that sacrifice can atone for.

So if his "son" was human, then he wanted and accepted human sacrifice. If his son wasn't human then it was no sacrifice at all. Also, his son was not of any of the types of animals (or flour!) that is listed as acceptable for a sin sacrifice. And, of course, this meant that any sacrifices offered right then and there in the desert when God gave the commandments were not good enough and God set the people in the desert up for failure. That's not a Jewish view of God and his relationship with the people.

It offers no proof for those who don't.

And yet you are of those who insist on things even when they can't read and understand that which they are denying. That text says explicitly that there is no one who saves people other than God. I had said, " I don’t need a “savior” except for God who will save me from the current exile."

You asked

so I answered by citing a text. Deal with it. Oh, and by the way, I find this all incredibly amusing.

as you have offered none to me. You don't read the texts I read and don't understand them but you claim to represent their ideas. If I were to give them to you in a translation, they would lose much of their meaning (and open them up to someone's misstatements). So why should I translate them? If you would prefer Aramaic, I am prepared to give 2 or three Aramaic versions, but each one includes interpretation, as any translation would. If anyone wants explanation, then I would be happy to explain to someone who is actually open to learning, and isn't operating with the agenda of disproving my entire religion.

No, still grammatically wrong.

Do you have any proof of that? I don't see it in the text. Abraham was rewarded for what he did, not for what his great grandson will do.

He was not looking for a country. He was led to a land, a physical place (Gen 12:1).

I haven't checked all of Uri's claims -- I can get you his email if you would like and you can ask him. I did do a quick look see about Isaiah and pretty quickly found the NASB's text "Just as many were appalled at you, My people, So His appearance was marred beyond that of a man, And His form beyond the sons of mankind."

So there are certainly examples.

If you are going to rely on the claims of a Christian about Judaism (call him a "messianic" anything if it makes you happy. He clearly knows very little of Judaism and Jewish scholarship) then you have to decide if you are buying in to his sources. Jewish sources teach that there may or may not be a "son of Joseph" messiah, but that if there is, he is shot by an arrow and dies but his death is immediately followed by the appearance of the son of David messiah. So since there was no "immediately followed by" then the application fails. Jesus, by the way, fails in a role as a messiah for independent reasons. You needn't search here to find something which doesn't work.

Actually, the book explicitly identifies the servant with the nation of Israel repeatedly, starting in 41:8 "But, you Israel, are My servant; Jacob, whom I have chosen; seed of Abraham, My friend." That the nation is called by more than one name is textually precedented all over the place.

That's true. Jesus is indeed, NOT named.

Do you know the central statement in Judaism of God's monotheistic uniqueness? It is called the Sh'ma. You might want to see what number the second person imperative verb is in when it addresses the nation. Also, maybe look at the pronoun in Isaiah 41:8 and check the number there. Yeah...calling the nation by the singular is sort of a common thing in the bible.

No, not at all. You should go back to 51 and 52 and figure out who is actually speaking the words of 53 so you can see who the first person references are about.

Yes, and to a son (Ex 4:22) so clearly your concern over gender is a matter of poetic writing choice, not a literal signifier of gender.

Why do you not read the section as a whole, and ignore what the text explicitly says, and instead insist on inserting something not at all in the text?

Where did I say that the Torah laws were binding forever. I've never hung my argument on what you claim. You are putting words in my mouth, just making it up.

You never did – the Torah, itself did. That’s the point! If you want to rely on the words of the “scripture” then you shouldn’t be denying the claim the text makes about being eternal.
 
With the change of priesthood comes a change in laws. Thus, here is a question for you. Do you believe that the covenant God made with Moses is still in effect?

the old covenant or Mosaic covenant system can no longer be followed as stipulated or required and agreed to.

What? So, any prophecy about the future means nothing?

As if yours is unlimited and authoritative. You pretend to speak as if what you say is binding. I'm not impressed. Instead, I continually bring you to God's Word. What does it say?

I have brought you God’s word repeatedly. You keep saying “I don’t know Hebrew” and yet you ask for God’s word? My understanding is neither unlimited nor authoritative, but Judaism’s views of its own texts should be authoritative.
 
Your Scripture speaks of a specific person.

Is this just a game to you?

Is that your purpose in life, or on this thread, to make the important issues a game?

Are you intentionally trying to make a fool of me.

do you care about truth and conveying it?

 If so, present why what you believe is God's teachings from Scripture on the issues we are discussing.

Do you not think Gentiles are worthy?

So you say, without anything other than your assertion.

Why do you think that an addition to the Mishnah or the Talmud itself is on par with God's Word?

If you ask that, then you don’t understand what Jews believe about text. Thanks for cementing that fact. Just looking up a word in Google doesn’t tell you anything about context I guess.
 
Yes, I don't know Hebrew, so you think that bars me from knowing God. You seem to think that what God said cannot be known by anyone other than those who speak Hebrew and are Jews. It is kind of like Muslims saying that only those who speak Arabic can understand the Qur'an and what it means. You seem to think that God cannot make Himself clear to anyone but a stiff-necked people who continually ignored or misinterpreted His message by adding to it a number of traditions.
 
Have you ever read Shakespeare in any language other than English? I have. Do you think someone who only reads Shakespeare in another language (or even an updated English version) really “gets” everything that Shakespeare put in there? I can assure you, he doesn’t.
 
What you do is put words there that either come from your mind or some other rabbis mind, without Scriptural reference or proof of interpretation other than by the Talmud or Mishnah. So you continually bring forth what seems to me as your idea of a greater authority than God's word itself.

See, again – if you don’t like it or understand it, you decide that it is something external. If that’s your method then so be it.
 
Finally, you seem to think that there is nothing equivalent to the Hebrew words, so that anyone who is not Jewish and cannot speak Hebrew cannot know God.

are you saying that the Hebrew words below do not correspond to the English translation so that we Gentiles cannot know what is being said? 

That’s certainly true by the way (though it isn’t about “Gentiles” – a Jew who can’t study text in Hebrew is missing out also; this is why we teach it).
 
You seem to think that God, who made humanity in His image and likeness, has no compassion for the Gentiles at all, ever. But what do those verses above say?

That’s your interpretation I guess. Judaism teaches the exact opposite.
 
What about Jeremiah 31? Will He not establish a new covenant with the house of Jacob and Israel that includes the nations of the earth?

You misunderstand and quote the verse incompletely. Do you know what the content of that renewed covenant will be? Do you know the part of the verse which explains how it will be different and how the same?
 
So, could you afford a bull, goat, or lamb, according to your position, such as that of a ruler, or rabbi, the latter being an anointed class?

Please provide a translation. I provided your texts, both the English and Hebraic sides of them for your benefit. I already told you, I do not speak or read Hebrew.

And yet you want to make arguments that require an understanding of Hebrew.
 
You continually refer to the Talmud and Mishnah, plus the oral law. We, as Christians, go on what is written in the Hebrew Bible. If you want to prove something to me then show/convince me via those Scriptures.

That’s great – you have just admitted that what you think of as “Jewish scriptures” and what Jews think of as “Jewish scriptures” are 2 different things, so any argument you make about Judaism which is based in YOUR version of what scriptures are is going to be wrong according to Judaism. But instead of saying “Judaism is operating under a completely different understanding of its own scripture so my assumptions about it might be wrong” you stick with “my assumptions are right and Judaism is wrong in what it says and understands and I can prove it by sticking with MY texts which Judaism rejects.”
 
 The Mishnah and Talmud were written centuries after the fall of Jerusalem.

yet I distrust your understanding of the Scriptures based on all the external sources you bring to the table. You do not live under the OT system as mandated by Scripture any more.
 
There’s your problem again. You distrust a Jew’s understanding of Jewish scripture and you insist that you know what was mandated by scripture when you are using a different conception of what scripture is.

it is not a different religious construct from your Scriptures, I believe you just don't recognize it because of all the addition stuff you being to Scripture

I see your Scripture as CLEAR on meaning

I have a notion of a perfect sacrifice based on ... the sacrifice was to be without blemish or spot.

The sin offering was a life taken in place of the sinner. Do you understand that?

why should I believe Judaism over the Scriptures?

You use Judaism to justify the Scriptures rather than the Scriptures to justify Judaism.

You do not recognize what the Jews did to meet the Law of Moses is works based. It is based on what you as the individual and Levite do, not solely on what God does.

The fact is they did until that system was abolished by God.

Judaism adds a lot to Scripture

Exactly what are you referring to? What do you classify as the all?

Well, it remains to be seem which one of us is ignorant as to the truth.

It would be fine if you just stuck to the texts of the law and Jewish texts but you import all kinds of rabbinic interpretation to them.

Since you don’t know the Jewish texts, how can you claim anything about the nature of what I bring up?
And why do you keep bringing up the Qur'an? I already told you I do not accept it as valid, although I do your Jewish Scriptural texts, the Torah and Tanakh.

you claim my Messianic notion is flawed while I claim that you, as a Jew, fail to recognize your own Messiah because of your religious bias and indoctrination.

Because the text names many messiahs and explains their job and yet you claim something totally non-textual about what the messiah is and does. And then, oh look…to support your assertion you quote from another of your books of fiction.
 

for a little more information about the "Pharisees" et al, start here https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/111485/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-tradition-of-the-pharisees-and-rabbinic-jud/121018#121018

“Yes, absolutely.  It makes total sense. “

“Good to hear that.  I imagine that there are even more implications that they have not discovered either. Unless you consider them omniscient. “

“Modern Judaism does what it wants and that is fine. Please do  not think that I take the view that modern Jewishness is the same as Ancient Jewishness.  “

“That is an interesting distinction. Yet,  you are the first and indeed the only person I have ever heard that says this. “

“[a]  The Hebrew Scriptures teach that as I pointed out with numerous verses that call them stiff-necked or disobedient. “

“[b]  I don't follow your point. The words of the prophets are the words of those who spoke the message of God, the message about what was to come.     “

Only sometimes. Sometimes they spoke of what was important to impart, or what already came and what might or might not come. The essential aspect of prophecy in Judaism is the source of the insight, not the future focus of it.
 
“The shoe fits the other way too, as evidenced by your very Hebrew Scriptures. So, it is not a question of me telling you but your very Scriptures telling you.”

 Just your limited view of text.
 
“I have been arguing just that - the Jews did not understand the text or whom their Messiah was, or is. “

So there you have it. Jews got texts and had a relationship with God for a whole bunch of years, built 2 temples and thrived, but you say that Jews didn’t understand a central idea of Judaism. You realize, I hope, that there were many “messiahs” before Jesus was even born, right? And somehow, Jews recognized them just fine.
 
“Again, stop playing games and just list what you want to say. “

But this is so much more fun. You keep insisting stuff about Judaism but aren’t even familiar with a central verse that defines much of Jewish practice. This proves my point, again and again, that you speak from ignorance but instead of admitting you don’t know, you forge ahead.
 
 
“The whole point of the Messiah was that Israel could never live up to the "rules" laid down in the Law.”

“The Messiah was the deliverer of Israel, appointed and anointed by God. “

“Not the sin offering. It was different from the burnt offering, peace offering, trespass offering, or meal offering. It was a bull, goat, or lamb, depending on who sinned.”

“Yes, I'm sure you can, and I invite you to do so, according to the way you understand Isaiah 53 as the nation of Israel. I will then show you why your interpretation does not work. I'm letting you know - go ahead.”

“Go ahead.   If you don't want to do it here, create a thread.  None of the NT means anything without the resurrection, per the Apostle Paul. He said if it did not happen, our faith was in vain. Jesus was the sacrifice that God resurrected from death. Israel of God is not a physical nation but those who do the will of God. His will is to believe in His Son who has met His righteous requirement. The New Israel of God worships God as He requires, in spirit and in truth.  “

“Opinions are nothing but assertions without proof. You are backing nothing up, just asserting it, over and over.”

“The eternal covenant has met fulfillment on behalf of believers in Jesus. The Old Covenant does not exist as Israel of old agreed to it.”

“All along I have been saying that you cannot meet God righteous requirements in the Law of Moses for sin, AS PRESCRIBED. Thus, you cannot justify yourself before God according to His laws.”

“He does not want YOUR human sacrifices”

“Which laws and texts?”

“The Suffering Servant is consistently presented as an individual and not as a plurality or collective noun,”

“Not the law, those who try and keep it. They never worshiped as required by law. The law is righteous but the very fact is that Israel could never, never, never live up to the Law.”

“Those OT Jews who had faith in God were justified by the sacrifice that was to be given later.”

People are not justified and one cannot get the benefit of something that hasn’t happened.
 

“that is a claim you make, but you have no documented genealogies to prove this. Your new priesthood do not follow the mandates of the Hebrew Bible in many respects.”

“Do you really think you can meet the righteous standards of God on your own merit? Is your faith satisfactory to God outside your acceptance of His perfect offering for your sins?”

“The difference between the Hebrew Scriptures and the NT is the 1st is a covenant of works in which you try and meet God's holy and righteous stand on your own merit. The 2nd is a covenant of grace, not by works, so that no one can boast before God of what they have done but instead rely on a perfect righteousness that is obtained by His grace and mercy to us.”

“What makes you think you have the original autographs? You don't. They were destroyed with the destruction of Jerusalem for they were kept in the Holy Place - the temple. Why do you think you have something other than the traditions of men with these oral traditions? And, what makes you think your copies are from the autographs when the Septuagint as well as the Hebrew texts, sometimes quoted by Jesus, show acceptance by Jesus. Jesus accepted the Septuagint as a reliable translation as shown by His quoting from it, and as I pointed out, it can be traced back further than any of your texts, except for a brief quote.”

“Sure, go ahead, but why should I believe you or your Rabbis in the areas they do not agree with Scripture?”

“I documented that it is accepted, and that it is a name. I never professed to be an authority on reading or speaking Hebrew. I go on what others have documented.”

“And I showcase that my assertions are justified by the Jewish Scriptures themselves.”

“You fail to recognize the authority. They have an authority that one day you will answer to. As for the Qur'an, it contradicts the teaching of the Jewish Scriptures and Christian Scriptures. The NT does not. What the NT does is provides the fulfillment of the OT or Hebrew Scriptures. You just don't recognize that because you do not recognize your Messiah and you heap a load of interpretations onto the text of Scripture, per Jesus.”

Throughout the OT, starting in Genesis 4, there are sacrificial animals offered to God,
None is a rule or a truth. All are voluntary actions. So, no "principle".
 
it also become the means of cleansing the Levites and the people of sin.
No, it became A means of doing all this cleansing. Not “the” means.
 
I have shown through your own testament, the Old Covenant, quite the contrary to what you assert without backup or evidence.
You have quoted isolated verses. I know of others, and of a lot more in terms of the texts that make up the covenant. You keep quoting your gospels as ways of understanding the text. As that is an invalid lens, you have given me nothing with which to back up your assertions.

Again, I have done so by listing many OT or Hebrew Scriptures as well as reiterating via the NT.
But if you cherry pick verses and then present them through an invalid lens, you have done nothing.
If you want, you can start with כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים — מִזְבֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְעַכְשָׁיו, שֻׁלְחָנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְכַפֵּר עָלָיו
It should help you understand a little.
 
The animal paid the price/covered for the sins of the human being. I never said humans were to be used for sacrifice. I was very specific in that the Hebrew Scriptures required an animal sacrifice.
You said they were substitutions for the people, as if there is any value to a human sacrifice. And, no, they don’t substitute. Does flour substitute? It is, textually, an acceptable sacrifice for certain sins.
 
Prove to me that Jesus was not sinless instead of just asserting it.
Well, he did teach his followers to break the sabbath when eating, and he did curse a fruit tree. These are sins. There are others he did, of course, but this is just a temporary argument until Jesus comes and provides a permanent argument.
 
Please read my words again. What I said was " a sinless human to restore righteousness."
Oh, so you ARE saying that humans are used for sacrifices. Got it.
 
It should have been us that took our own punishment for our sins, but Jesus/Y'shua voluntarily sacrificed His life for our own, taking our punishment upon Himself,
So he took being killed, a punishment which was ours, meaning that we were to be sacrificed. Human sacrifice. Thanks.
 
Ask yourself who is the "he" spoken of? 
Wow…you did include the Hebrew, but you don’t understand it or else you wouldn’t have asked that question. Here, since you are so proud of having quoted the Hebrew, וַיֹּ֥אמֶר לִ֖י עַבְדִּי־אָ֑תָּה יִשְׂרָאֵ֕ל אֲשֶׁר־בְּךָ֖ אֶתְפָּאָֽר
That should answer your question.
 
After that time, Jews were no longer obedient to the covenant they made with God, nor could they be because God was displeased with that covenant yet used it for a purpose to demonstrate.
So God was displeased with the covenant he made. Talk about a moody God…
 
The Hebrew texts state as much. Israel was a rebellious people for the most part.
Well, that makes sense since God sent a deficient covenant! Right?
 
I have shown you contrary from the Hebrew Scriptures. It is you who are asserting my lack of understanding, where it is I who has used Scripture to reiterate and support my position.
No…again, you are picking isolated verses and laying them out through a Christian lens. Useless.
 
That shows their inability to live up to the covenant because their sin was too great an obstacle. What I have said is logically deduced and at time explicitly demonstrated.
People’s not living up to a set of laws demonstrates the failings of people, not of the law. The text in Deuteronomy explicitly says that the laws is not too far away from us
כִּ֚י הַמִּצְוָ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּ֑וֹם לֹא־נִפְלֵ֥את הִוא֙ מִמְּךָ֔ וְלֹ֥א רְחֹקָ֖ה הִֽוא׃
לֹ֥א בַשָּׁמַ֖יִם הִ֑וא לֵאמֹ֗ר מִ֣י יַעֲלֶה־לָּ֤נוּ הַשָּׁמַ֙יְמָה֙ וְיִקָּחֶ֣הָ לָּ֔נוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵ֥נוּ אֹתָ֖הּ וְנַעֲשֶֽׂנָּה׃
וְלֹא־מֵעֵ֥בֶר לַיָּ֖ם הִ֑וא לֵאמֹ֗ר מִ֣י יַעֲבׇר־לָ֜נוּ אֶל־עֵ֤בֶר הַיָּם֙ וְיִקָּחֶ֣הָ לָּ֔נוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵ֥נוּ אֹתָ֖הּ וְנַעֲשֶֽׂנָּה׃
כִּֽי־קָר֥וֹב אֵלֶ֛יךָ הַדָּבָ֖ר מְאֹ֑ד בְּפִ֥יךָ וּבִֽלְבָבְךָ֖ לַעֲשֹׂתֽוֹ׃
 
So you keep saying without explanation. You are the one who continually asserts, sad to say.
Was my assertion wrong? Do you know Hebrew (or are you going to run to Google translate and then hope you figure everything out based on your computer?) The Hebrew in Genesis indicating the fate because of eating the apple is כִּ֗י בְּי֛וֹם אֲכׇלְךָ֥ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ מ֥וֹת תָּמֽוּת which is a very technical statement that you have mistranslated.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Please go ahead with those verses.
Well, I could quote Jesus' saying to follow the Pharisees in what they teach, or I could point out Romans 11. But that’s not the point of this thread.
 
Again, just another assertion. They is nothing to go on about. You did not refute anything. You make no points, just give your opinion to date.
Well, actually, I’m giving you the opinion of Jewish law. Are you an expert in Jewish law? I’d love to show you lots of sources.
 
We are speaking of the Old Covenant. Jews no longer live under the Old Covenant for they cannot find forgiveness for their sins without meeting the requirements of God.
Yes, Jews live under the existing and eternal covenant but we understand it better than you do.
 
Besides this, God never condoned immoral behavior and especially not with zero punishment. He would not be just if He did so.
Never said he did. That’s another strawman.
 
He set up a covering for sin until the better offering could be made, a human life offered freely without blemish or spot, completely righteous and holy before God.
God doesn’t want human sacrifice. If that’s what you are hanging your hat on then good luck…
 
My works or merit will not meet God's righteous standards. What makes you think yours will?
Jewish law and texts tell me so. So I don’t need a “savior” except for God who will save me from the current exile.
 
Now, the problem with sacrifices is that they had to be continually offered for every new sin.
No…remember, most sins are not covered by sacrifices. That’s textual.
 
 (as I laid out in Isaiah 53).
So you really DO need a primer on Isaiah 53 I guess. Here is one resource. I have lots of others https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/topics/isaiah-53/

Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement covered Israel's sins for the entire year
Sin exists. In the future, even in messianic times, sin will exist, as will sacrifices and atonement processes. Sin is atoned for. Trying to create a distinction between “covered” and “removed” or something like that is totally alien to Judaism.
 
Your OT system of worship is weak in that it does not meet God's righteous requirement for it does not do away with sin or unrighteousness.
Ah, I see. God gave a deficient and incomplete system and then demanded people live by it. That’s your idea of God, I guess. Sneaky of him.

 The purpose of the Law of Moses was one of a school teacher to lead us to the Messiah.
And doom all people who lived until Jesus’ birth to eternal punishment for following the incomplete legal system that was demanded of them. Interesting.
 
Note that passage - "ALMOST ALL THINGS ARE CLEANSED WITH BLOOD, ACCORDING TO THE LAW."
Note that that passage comes from the gospels and is not anything with any value in Judaism. Did you want to quote from the Mahabharata also?

Well, the Old Covenant people had a bad record of understanding their God. Your God called them stiff-necked people and the Hebrew testimony is one of them always going astray. The track record is not good.
 
So, two points: the first is that, again, you keep going back to “people to whom the text was given and about whom it was written and who know the language in which it was written don’t understand it as well as outsiders”. You know who is an expert on medical textbooks? Kindergarten teachers.
The second is that you are relying on many of the words of prophets which just proves the point I made about understanding what prophecy is. Thanks for the confirmation.
 
The shoe fits the other way too, as evidenced by your very Hebrew Scriptures. So, it is not a question of me telling you but your very Scriptures telling you.
 
The texts confirm that the Jews don’t understand the texts? And please try not to mix metaphors.
 

Again, you assert it but supply no evidence. 

Not as mandated by God.
 Show me where.
 
In most any neighborhood where there are Jews. The Levitical priesthood (the “kohanic” system) still exists and there are a variety of laws mandated by God that we follow because of it, especially related to life cycle events (birth, marriage, death). You didn’t know this? You thought that the Levitical system was defined by and limited to sacrifices?
 
Jesus accepted the Septuagint as Scripture. Every translation from Hebrew finds word equivalents. Even your own Hebrew language (the one you probably speak) was reconstructed from ancient texts. What are the dated earliest known Scriptures you have in written form (plus you have no autographs from the original writers)?  
 
So your argument about my understanding the text is that I don’t because all I have is the written Torah scrolls that are the same in most every Jewish community, and the oral law which has been transmitted faithfully for thousands of years. If the extent of your argument is “you don’t even have the original, so nothing you say is authoritative” then have fun. You have even less than I have (and if you think that Jesus relied on a Greek translation and not the Hebrew, then you think very little of him).
 
Again, nice assertion back up without one scintilla of evidence.

Evidence that laws are not fulfilled? That’s a matter of English. Laws are obeyed.
Evidence that there are laws for righteousness in Jewish law? I can cite codes of Jewish law to show that Jesus’ behavior wouldn’t qualify as righteous. Would you like that? It is pretty straightforward.
Evidence that the gospels hold no authority for me (or for Jews)? What kind of evidence would you like? A signed declaration from a rabbi stating this? Because I’ll write one up and sign it. And, yes, I’m a rabbi.
 
Yeshua or Y'shua (ישוע‎ with vowel pointing יֵשׁוּעַ‎ – Yēšūaʿ in Hebrew)
 
That’s hilarious. If you read Hebrew, you would know that the English pronunciation doesn’t even match up to the Hebrew that is listed there. The nickname you listed is pronounced “yay-shu-a” with the stress on the first syllable. If you are going to use a nickname, at least pronounce it correctly.
 
My contention is they applied it to the rightful Person and you cannot dispute it with anything other than assertion to my knowledge.
 
Because your assertion that it was applied to the rightful person is based on your theological belief and nothing more. The Torah says X about God and a gospel writer applies X to Jesus. Since you believe in Jesus you say “hey, great job.” Anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus says “um…no.” And when someone comes along and applies X to anyone else, believers say “hey, great job” and you say “um…no.”
 
I contend there is quite the difference between Jewish traditions and Scripture.

 Jesus was very fast to critique those who held to tradition above God's word.

But who cares? These quotes are from books that have no authority. If the Quran has quotes that show that Christians are wrong, does that mean anything to you?
 

Are you speaking of the oral law? Please be specific.
 
Well, that also.
 
And that is what the text of the NT teaches, a text that I would hazard you know very little of and yet speak from a point of authority on.
 
Oh, I don’t speak with any authority on the gospels, even though I have read a bunch of it. I certainly don’t quote it here to make any points. In fact, I have stated that it is useless because it has no authority. If I wanted to, I could certainly post verses that I have studied that would raise serious theological questions for you, but that’s not the goal.
 
I understand that an animal sacrifice was needed for sin, per the Law of Moses,

No, not really, but keep going. This is fun.
 
the idea of a substitutionary payment for sin. The animal was acting in place of the sinner and it was a costly sacrifice, even so, yet it preserved the life of the sinner.

No, not at all. By that logic, there should be no capital punishment, just animal sacrifice replacing the human life. Or the sacrifice should be for sins that would otherwise require human death. But that’s not the case. Keep going…
 
 I understand that from the beginning of Genesis there was a principle of sacrifice, and Abel's sacrifice was considered more noble than Cain's.

There was no “principle”. There was an idea of ceding to God something of value.
 
An animal sacrifice was always only a temporary sacrifice for sin until God could give the sacrifice which would atone for sin forever.

then you only understand Christianity and not Judaism because that idea has nothing to do with Judaism or the Jewish bible.
 
 Hebrews 9 explains this in great detail for anyone who wants to understand the OT system of sacrifice better.

See how to prove your point you have to quote form a non-Jewish text? QED.
 
They act as a substitute until God would make a sufficient sacrifice, a sinless human to restore righteousness.

Yeah, um…yuck. Humans aren’t fit for sacrifice under biblical law. In fact, human sacrifice is frowned upon. Also, humans are not sinless with rare exceptions and Jesus wasn’t one of those exceptions. And sins don’t “restore righteousness.”
 
After that time, Jews were no longer obedient to the covenant they made with God, nor could they be because God was displeased with that covenant yet used it for a purpose to demonstrate.

That is your assertion. It is meaningless, but there you go.
 
Where is that practiced in our day by the Jewish people? That was required by God until He established the New Covenant in His Son.
 
A wrong assertion, full of problems. It reflects a lack of understanding of the bible, of Jewish law and of logic.
 
The idea that you have the ability to live without sin before a holy God on your own merit is not what your OT Scriptures teach by its examples.

nor is it what anyone claims. That makes this a strawman.
 
yet the day he ate of the tree of knowledge he was barred from the intimate presence of God, and that very day he died spiritually to God.

if you knew Hebrew you would see why this is a mistake. But you don’t. So you don’t.
 

Prophecy is a big topic.

yes, and very different from what you understand. The biblical notion of prophecy and prophet is not centered around “predictions”
 
Maybe it is you who does not recognize some Messianic prophecy?

ah, more of the “Jews don’t understand texts aimed at and given to Jews”. Thanks. Do the Russians often tell the Americans “you don’t understand the American constitution”? And quoting from “Corinthians”? Do you think that means anything to me?
 
Other elements, but what about the atonement for sin?

yes, that is covered as well.
 
Do you offer burnt offerings in the prescribed manner?
How about meal offerings, sin offerings, trespass offerings, or peace offerings?

Yes, I am trying to explain from a Christian perspective and opening up to you the consideration that you do not recognize your Messiah, just like 1st century Israel did not (for the most part).
 
And I am trying to explain from a Jewish perspective and opening up to you the consideration that you are completely wrong and should reject Christianity as Jews did (for the most part).
 
There are way too many prophecies that you cannot explain away for them to be fantasies, rather fulfillment.

There are way too many things that you think of as messianic prophecies that are not and too many prophecies that you think of as having been “fulfilled” that are not what you understand.
 
Can you, today, apply the sacrificial system as mandated by the Law of Moses as prescribed in the Torah? If not I have made my point.

 actually, yes. Since there is a lot more to the Law of Moses than you have read, I can apply other elements of it that you are not familiar with.
 
Yes, a replacement that I believe you failed to identify. The NT concerns the replacement and goes into great detail over it.
 
No, a replacement that was textually identified many years before Jesus was around, and was understood already.
 
I think the punishment was fulfilled in AD 70.

That’s nice. You can think all sorts of things if you try hard enough.
 
How are you following the laws as prescribed in the Torah? I do not see animal sacrifices as prescribed for atonement.

What happened to the Levitical priesthood?

So what happened to the Old Covenant? You say you are still following it yet I see no indication that you are, as prescribed by the Law.

As a Christian I believe Jesus has met every righteous aspect of the Law, thus fulfilling it. The NT goes into depth regard this point.

No name Yeshua?

Take one example of what is applied to God in the OT as being applied to Jesus in the NT:

Nope. None of those listed are persuasive or conclusive as to the deity of Jesus. Only the OT and NT are because I recognize both as Holy Scripture.

and that’s how I feel about your gospels. Chuck in the same pile as the ones you reject.
 

It may be a little stretched yet I have not looked into it and the NT reveals that the whole OT speaks (especially the reference in Luke 24:32) of Jesus/Yeshua

John 1:11
He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him.
 
They, His people, Israel, for the most part, did not recognize Him as their Messiah.
so you are trying to explain something to me by citing a book which I don’t see as authoritative or useful? Got it.
 
I would not say "allusions" but the greater reality that many Jews missed. They failed to see the spiritual significance that Yeshua spoke of, the types and shadows pointed to by the lesser Old Covenant (Mosaic covenant) physical reality.
and instead of “allusions” I might say “fantasies” as others invented and innovated things that were no where in the original.
 
All the prophecies that pointed to the Jewish Messiah, how are they fulfilled after AD 70 when the covenant can no longer be met as stipulated by the Law?
Just because you don’t understand the nature of the covenant doesn’t mean that your assessment of its applicability is correct. In fact, it means the exact opposite.
 
The Mosaic Law that the covenant was built around, how can it be fulfilled after AD 70?

Was not God displeased with His people? Did He not bring judgment (the curses) upon them, per Deuteronomy 28, in the form of the destruction of their city and temple as promised by the prophets and the Law?
yes, we are being punished, but we still follow the laws. We don’t throw them out and claim that they are somehow “fulfilled.” They say they are eternal.
 
Did He not say He would create a new covenant with Israel?
in nature, yes. In content and parties, no.
 
Did He not promise the Messiah to this old covenant people before the covenant was replaced?
the covenant was not replaced. It was established through a different medium. Same content.

When was eternal righteousness established? It was brought by Yeshua, who fulfilled every jot of the Law of Moses.
wrong on at least 3 levels. Jesus wasn’t righteous. There is no name “Yeshua” and laws aren’t fulfilled. I can find more levels if you really want.
 
Now I realize most Jews have a slightly different take on this, for they mistakenly include all the prophets sent, per the commentary:
ah, so Jews don’t understand the text given to Jews which makes reference to the exact prophet that you already quoted from in your original message. Got it.
 
On a side-note, what is applied to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT.
that is certainly your fantastical belief

You came to the conclusion that the statement of evening and morning constituting the day can be understood to say that " it is an inbuilt design by God to the Jewish people that resurrection is his plan for his people."

That’s a fanciful conclusion to draw – not that Judaism doesn’t have an idea of resurrection in it, but I haven’t heard any Jewish thinkers tying it to this construction of the day. The phraseology of evening and morning established the structure of a day which has practical implications in how we fulfil certain commandments. But it isn’t tied to resurrection.
 
Judaism DOES have an idea that sleep is a mini-version of death (the oral law speaks of sleep as “one sixtieth of death”) and this has additional implications in terms of ritual impurity and the morning’s need for hand washing.
 
It is perfectly fine for you to speak of Christianity’s seeing these and other biblical events as symbolic or allusions (“shadows” is often a word I hear used) but that’s not how they work in Judaism.
 
The same can be said of your representation of the division between Sadducees and Pharisees (we would call them Tzedukim and Prushim). Jewish history records important differences of opinion, but not, if I recall correctly, about the idea of resurrection. That is a Christian version of things.
 

I think you make an interesting point about the focus and underlying positivity of the Matthew presentation. I think that a similar logical point can be made about religions that rely on a slightly different wording.

Leviticus 19 gives a short list of behaviors that one should not inflict on others, but culminates in "Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD" in verse 18.

The Matthew version (7:12) reads something along the lines of "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (ESV). This has 2 shifts from the Leviticus version:

1. It focuses on actions and not attitude. The talk is of "doing" whereas the Leviticus passage is about feeling a certain way towards and about another.

2. It gives its reason as based in "law and Prophets." The Levitical teaching sources it directly to the acknowledgment of God's existence. It needn't be spoken by a prophet or codified in a book, because it is an expression of faith in God to feel a certain way towards others.

Could the argument be made that religions which adhere to the Matthew version get too hung up on "doing" and the law instead of trying to hold to loving and pure faith as justification? I think so.

Because it is fantastical.

And with others of similar geographical origin if you go back far enough. Intermarriage between groups and fluid group memberships will make DNA a useful but not exhaustively thorough resource.

Yes, and one can find plenty of studies that try to show lineage and group affiliation in Judaism as attested by DNA; you can find studies that cite evidence to prove the opposite. Both , of course, ignore conversion and rape, but the studies exist.

We actually have really good and reliable records -- marriage documents in each generation require checking the generation before and many texts have family trees recorded. Since Jewish identity hinges on the Jewish status of the mother, if each generation keeps track of itself and the generation before it, Jewish identity is maintained. This who convert also keep records (names of officiating rabbis etc). My family traces back (through my dad's mom, for example) to a rabbi in the turn of the century New York (he came from Hungary) and he has record of his family tracing back to R. Horowitz (the Sh"LaH) who traces himself to Rashi (12th century).

I have always wondered if he is related to https://forums.craigslist.org/?act=su&handle=Mr_D__Thomas

For a little clarification

I prefer Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience - prophetic works and long winded stories of Albion never connected with me.

Koestler's Khazar theory? No thanks. I'll stick with something a bit more grounded on earth.

The state of being Jewish is a bit more complex than any/all of this.

I'm a "pseudo-christian"?

I had no idea...

 
- Do you know anything about Fiqh?
 
Nope. The application of Islamic law isn't anything I know about.
  
- Equivocation. & you're contradicting yourself. 
 
No, I’m citing a truth in law. If you don’t have a background in law, let me know and I’ll explain further.
 
- Yes, obviously. Hence, the aforementioned analogy.
 
So then you just contradicted yourself. You said that rulings aren’t law. I said they are, and you agreed with me.
 
- False. I established the fact that it is a false claim.
 
No, you simply asserted it was false. You have presented no provable fact to such. That seems to be your approach and it isn’t fruitful.
 
- Ad hominem. Your opinions =/= facts.
 
Not only isn’t it an ad hominem to point out that you lack information, I didn’t present opinion – I gave a truth evident in Judaism. If you don’t know the facts, that doesn’t make them an opinion.
 
- More claims. Care to prove any of them? 
 
You want me to cite the various halachot which show an awareness of either changing time/societal norms or textual understandings? Well, I eat turkey, but not kitniyot (but I do eat gebrochts), so there’s some. Matrilineal descent (in certain denominations) is another. If you aren’t fluent with the various threads of Judaism and the halachic process (and the laws, themselves) then citing things will only confuse you. Take a look at Mas Shekalim (page 20ish) for an entire discussion in which the law changes based on the locale and the community.
 
- Don't tell me about their claims. If you believe they don't reject scriptural ideals & practices in favor of secular ones, *show* me proof.
 
Wait, what? You are still stuck on “scriptural ideals” as if they exist alone in terms of authority. But I have already shown you that this is wrong. Oh wait. That was in the article you won’t read. Then you insist that religious ideals are, by definition, exclusive of secular ideas? That’s still wrong so the opposition you demand doesn’t exist (“reject in favor of”). You are making more assertions that aren’t the case anywhere but in your head. Not useful.
    
- If we didn't have a common base of knowledge we wouldn't be talking about this. 
 
Untrue. We would be (and are) talking, just at cross purposes. An ignorant person can talk about anything with an expert if he doesn’t care about being wrong.
 
- The stage is yours, show me the proof, since you know what it is.
 
I did show you the proof – it is in an article easily available online. You want me to read it and summarize it for you when it takes pages and pages and is full of citations and proofs? Sorry, but thinking requires work on your part, not spoonfeeding.
 
- You believe in the truth of their claim right?
 
Nope.
 
- If you disagree, refute my arguments & address my objections. All you doing is bare assertions on top of bare assertions.
 
When you make a statement about Judaism that is wrong, and I say it is wrong, you label my statement a “bare assertion” but somehow, your initial claim isn’t? Laughable.
     
- Again with the post-modernist nonsense. There is such a thing as superior & inferior understanding, there is such a thing as 'better' & 'worse', 'true' & 'false", 'right' & wrong', 'authoritative' & 'non-authoritative'...etc.
 
I don’t think you understand post-modernism. Or if you do, you are misapplying it. You want to say that there is such a thing as “superior” and “inferior” but don’t seem to be able to quantify how one determines it in the example I gave. So you sidestep and try to apply a label so you can dismiss the entire line of thinking. Not fruitful.
 
I could say "Islam is not an Abrahamic faith" and you would answer "because the Quran..." which demands an a priori acceptance of the authority of the Quran which is innate in Islam. Self-serving, using the  questioned claim's source authority to establish the claim.

- First of all, your premise rests on a definition, thus any conclusion from that is deductively derived.
 
Yes. Premises depend on definition. You define “religion” to exclude “reform Judaism” and then make your argument predicated on that definition of religion. This is a flawed premise based on a flawed definition.
 
- Second of all, your impersonating answer, while have nothing to do with the premise, it also conflates an appeal to authority: "authority says, therefore it's true", with defeasable reasoning: "authority says, therefore it's authoritative/binding".
 
The mistake you make here is in considering an appeal to authority as, automatically, a logical flaw. But that wasn't even the point of what I wrote. My argument was simply mirroring yours in structure – that an in-group has its authority and that authority exists because the in-group subscribes to it.
 
- if I claim my 'ultimate authority' is the Quran, then proceed to prioritize secular values over Quranic values, then I'm blatantly lying.
 
Unless you cite something from the Quran that shows that prioritizing secular values is, itself, a demand of the Quran or a demand, based on Quranic understanding presented by the human authorities acceptable within the religious structure.
 
- Are you gunna keep that knowledge to yourself, or are you gunna share it to support your claims. 
 
Gee, over 40 years of formal and informal education all “shared” in a web discussion? No, I don’t think that that is feasible. How about I share some by citing my own sources, inviting you to experience the same process of learning. I’ll share with you an article about the topic that you can…um…read…for…um…
 
- No, it was obviously rhetorical.
 
Again, in your mind.
 
- Why would sarcastically ask about the reformists' opinion on homosexuality right after I state that they don't really follow the scriptures?! To prove a point, which it did.
 
What indication was there that it was sarcastic? You made an assertion that a group doesn’t follow scriptures and I disproved that by answering your question. Did you not want an answer because it would do exactly this? Now, THAT was rhetorical because I know the answer.
  
- The scriptures prohibit homosexuality.
 
That’s debatable even on its face but that would depend on your understanding of the scriptures. And, if the authority of the scriptures is (as it is in Judaism across the board) complemented by human authority in interpreting and applying the scriptures, then the conclusion you draw about a certain behavior may not be in line with a religious set of laws that come from an accepted authority. The fact that other behaviors have NOT been permitted under that structure actually strengthen the point that reform rabbinic authority is still limited by scripture.
 
- That's the claim. I doubt you're a true orthodox jew as you say, I've never seen an orthodox jew say things like this before...
 
OK, you haven’t. You must not hang around with all the orthodox Jews I hang around with. Also, by the way, I’m not just an Orthodox Jew. I’m an ordained orthodox rabbi. True fact. Of course, you can claim this is just an unproven assertion but that won’t change the way people address my mail.
  
- There is the article, where is *your* argument. "Here is an article, therefore I'm right" is not an argument. You have yet to address any of my objections or refute any of my arguments.
 
It isn’t my job to refute your arguments when they are wrong based on your ignorance. It is your responsibility, when confronted with resources, to inform yourself. Your refusal to do so is sad. If I made a comment and someone said “that’s not true, as proven by this article” I would look at the article instead of repeatedly saying “SPOONFEED ME”.
 
 
 
 

- I was more asking about your own position on the matter. I know there is difference of opinion among the Ashkenazis regarding the wig, what position do you adhere to?
 
It is more than a “difference of opinion” – it is a set of different resolutions of law which often contradict, creating more than one set of rules, all being an expression of religion, all being valid, and all not being “feelings.” That is exactly what happens in the foundation of reform as well.
 
- Rulings =/= Law (with capital 'L'). 
 
Actually, the rulings which establish the meaning and parameters of normative behavior ARE law. Case law and the precedent system are part of the overall construct of law in the US, and in religion.
    
- You can't have your cake & eat it too. This post-modernist attitude is nonsense. Not all claims are equal. This is a BS claim. You chose to side with their claim, rather than that of the orthodox jews. The very reason we have orthodoxy is because of reformation. 
 
In truth, I can have my cake and eat it too. I can't eat it and have it, though. I didn’t mention anything about post modernism. Your decision that something is a “BS claim” is just you projecting your feelings and expecting that to create reality.
  
- Let us assess the claim. Either their ultimate authority is the scriptures or it isn't.
 
But for almost no current Jew, the scriptures are the ultimate authority. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand Judaism. And here I thought you only didn't understand reform Judaism.
 
- In case it isn't, then that perfectly explains the secular nature of their ideals & practices.
 
Now you have established a false binary, setting “scripture” and “secular” as two poles, but that isn’t the case. Judaism sees the two as distinct but often reconcilable. Reform just understands its mandate of coalescing the two as more scripturally pervasive than other branches.
 
- they effectively reject scriptural ideals & practices in favor of secular ones.
 
Also not true. They understand religious authority as valuing other things (as supported by scriptural interpretation) besides traditional rite and practice.
   
- Support your claims with your own words, not with links. Make an argument. 
 
That’s a silly response. I cited an article as background for understanding. If you don’t share a common base of knowledge, no argument will be useful. I have already said “reformation is, according to them, biblical” and the proof is in the article. You deny the claim because you refuse to read the article.
   
- As I said, this is personal faith, not religion.
 
Just like all your counter-factual statements. Got it.
    
- So do all reform movements. You're begging the question. Why are you ascertaining the questioned claim with a response assuming that very claim?!
 
You asked a question and I answered it. If a group can cite precedent and then you ask “is this based on precedent” then that group would say “yes.” If I deny the validity of that precedent then I would say “no” but why is my understanding inferior or superior to theirs? I could say "Islam is not an Abrahamic faith" and you would answer "because the Quran..." which demands an a priori acceptance of the authority of the Quran which is innate in Islam. Self-serving, using the  questioned claim's source authority to establish the claim.
  
- You're making me doubt your knowledge on the subject. 
 
Well, I'm not making you do anything. You are free to doubt my knowledge if you want, but I have plenty, mostly informed by outside and background study and reading which you refuse to do.
  
- My question was obviously rhetorical.
 
No, it was not obviously rhetorical. You can say it was because the answer disproved your thesis, but it was only rhetorical in your mind. That doesn;t make reality for anyone else.
 
- But thanks for the detailed answer.  Which proves my point yet again.
 
Exactly how? It proves that reform Judaism uses an authority structure and a process which parallels that of other branches of Judaism to see the scriptural and human authority as defining a code of behavior.
 
- What nonsense is this. Not all claims are equal. A true claim is that which corresponds to reality.
 
And the reality is that the reform movement uses a system which is foundationally identical to other denominations of Judaism.
 
- don't bring up more feelings.
 
I have yet to bring up feelings. I did cite an article rife with facts and explanation, but you don’t want to read it so instead you keep shouting from your emotional, safe space.
 

- You can use the (") button on the tool box to quote the text by selecting the intended text first & clicking the button.
 
When I write in Word and copy it over, the “ function only highlights the entire piece. I can’t break it up.
 
- What position do you adopt in terms of modesty?
 
I’m in favor of it, as it is determined by certain authorities. I don’t adhere to it as it is codified by others.
   
- Last time I checked, there is one Jewish scripture & one Jewish Law.
 
Then you don’t understand Jewish law. The simplest example I can give is the difference between the Shulchan Aruch’s rulings, the Rambam’s rulings and the Ramo’s rulings. Each is binding and yet no one follows all of them.
  
- Are you saying, the reformist movement aimed to censor the German (or American) secular ideals & practices in favor of traditional ideals & practices!? I think the Orthodox Jews would strongly disagree.
 
No, I’m saying that the reform movement aimed to understand a process of evolution and development in Jewish law which led to a very different canon of rulings still under the heading of “Jewish law as driven by ancient authority.”
 
- Which is?
 
Based in the understandings of man, through the lens of the time period and the knowledge base of the
 
- This is a red herring. It does not answer the question, which confirms what I stated. & how is it you affirm reformist authority & then talk about individual feelings?
 
It isn’t a red herring to say that your question requires a much more complex understanding than you have about a topic and defies a simplistic or conflated answer. And, no, I am not talking about feelings when I point out claims and religious authority, no matter how many times you say it is about feelings.
 
- How much do reformist Jews resemble the Biblical Moses (pbuh) in their spiritual, moral & rational life?
 
They would say that that isn’t the goal of existence, to mirror a man who lived thousands of years ago even though the world has changed. They would say that they mirror him more in their understanding of law’s interaction with the world around it. Again, that was covered in the article I referenced which you called a red herring.
  
-These claim are patently fraudulent, because they did NOT originate in those times. Simply put, there was no Salafism in the early generation, nor was there reformists in biblical times.
 
That would be how you feel about it. If you had read the material I presented, you would have seen the proof presented and would be more reluctant to make some absolute statement in the face of contrary facts. You call something fraudulent, but that doesn't make it so, any more than someone saying your understanding is fraudulent creates reality.
  
- I'm not arguing Jewish concepts of authority, that is irrelevant to me & none of my business. I'm arguing from a very simple premise, what is their ultimate authority? Is is the religion or is it else?
 
Their ultimate authority is the scripture and their leaders who develop meaning from the text, same as any other group of Jews’ premise.
 
- I think I mentioned, when I say 'authority' I do mean 'ultimate authority'.
 
And the “ultimate authority” for reform Jews is the same idea as any other Jews’. The specific object (the particular voices) and what those voices say are different.
 

- So you do adhere to the Halakha?
 
One version of it, yes.
  
- A more pertinent analogy would be to say, a US citizen does not recognize the authority of US Constitution & US Law.
 
This analogy fails as there is only one “law of the land” in the US whereas there are different versions and understandings of Jewish law.
 
- Reformist Jews are a product of Emancipation, a dilution of Jewish traditions (rites & laws) to conform to the wishes of the secular state. The same way a reformist Muslim is a product of Colonialism. 
 
That is a statement which would be denied by anyone familiar with the history of reform Judaism and its roots.
   
- When I speak of authority I mean "ultimate authority".
 
And a reform Jew might have a different understanding of the “ultimate authority.”
 
- So let me ask you, is the reformist Jew's ultimate authority God & the scripture or something else?
 
It is tough to answer this because individuals within the movement have individual ideas but the movement’s platform has the understanding that God gave the authority to people to adapt and modify, understanding text in the light of current society. Precedent for this is well over a thousand years old. You should review “AUTHORITY IN JUDAISM” by Samuel S. Cohon for a fuller discussion of the development of authority in Judaism.
 
- Yeah, no. We would be talking about personal faith, NOT religion. There is a difference. Judaism is the religion of Prophet Moses (pbuh) & the prophets (pbut) as brought to us by their disciples.
 
And the reform movement says the exact same thing, seeing its iteration as a religion crafted through the disciples that they deem as authoritative. Your decision about what is or isn’t a religion isn’t very persuasive.
 
- I fundamentally disagree.
 
With what? The historical facts of the roots or Reform Judaism? The precedents for the reform movement trace back (according to reform understanding) to biblical times.
 
 - Do you recognize the authority of Jewish scriptures?
 
I’m not sure you and I would agree on what those scriptures are or say. Do you cede authority about Jewish concepts to experts in Judaism, or will you insist that you know better?
 
- That's exactly what denial of authority is,
 
Except, as stated, this isn’t a denial of authority, but an assertion of different authority and a different understanding of the source texts.
 

- What do you adhere to in terms of modest dressing in Judaism?
 
A set of guidelines that falls within the norms established by particular post-biblical voices which I see as authoritative, setting behavioral standards.
 
- Yeah, no "feelings" allowed. We don't see any of them 'feel' not bound by American law, no do we? 
 
It isn’t about not “feeling” bound. It is about recognizing authority. In the same way that I, as a Jew, don’t recognize the authority of the gospels to say anything, or of an Imam to tell me how to live, a reform Jew doesn’t recognize the authority of an orthodox person to tell him what Judaism is and demands.
  
- Without authority, there is no meaning to any law. I believe it's called Judaism not WhateverIwantism. This also applies for Muslims & Christians. Regardless, the topic is about the religious foundation for the practice, not about the feelings adherents hold about the practice.
 
Which is why reform Jews have respect for reform authority. Not accepting the authority of group A doesn’t mean lacking acknowledgement of any authority.
  
- We are not talking about religion anymore here. 
 
Actually, that’s exactly what we are talking about.
 
- Indeed it is about feelings. When the personal whims & feelings become the criterion for religious morality, instead of the divine commandment. If the Enlightenment aimed to put human Reason as the ultimate authority, Post-Modernism denies it & instead put personal feelings as the new criterion. Why is it that for thousands of years Jews have behaved a certain way, & now under secular states they suddenly feel otherwise? The power of the materialist world order today is virtually total, & has succeeded in making religious law virtually cede its authority to secular law.
 
To believe what you say about Judaism is to demonstrate an ignorance of Jewish history. The reform movement is a codification (19th century) of beliefs and sentiments that have much deeper roots. If you are rejecting the entire notion that reform Judaism sees itself as, foundationally, being a valid Abrahamic religion, just following a different authority, then there is nothing more to say. This, coupled with the overstatement you made about the applicability and purpose of modest clothing (especially as it relates to the hair), makes it difficult to have a meaningful conversation.
 

 - Exactly, self-claims = feelings.
 
No, claims of a member of a group are not feelings. Claims that the established authority of that group is binding is the same as the claim of binding authority from any other denomination unless you get to decide what counts and what doesn’t. And how can you make a claim about religious authority and law and expect this not to be a discussion about the various authorities involved?