Total posts: 905
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
In Judaism there is a concept of an unknowing sin which is not punished. There are actually different types of unkown sin:
1. Not knowing that the action was a sin
2. Not knowing that the time when the otherwise permissible action was done made the action a sin
3. Never having learned about sin
4. Not intending to do the action.
While there are differing levels of culpability and therefore different responses by the individual, none has the effect of an intentional behavior.
This all, though, begs a more complex discussion of what it means to affect someone's afterlife/soul status.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The talmud (tractate Kiddushin, in the mid 70's I think) discusses the families of Israel and beyond. We have rules in place for this an dmuch has to do with knowing who your father is.1. After the destruction of the temple, how did the priesthood trace its lineage?
2. You have already admitted the priesthood could not follow the covenant as stated in the Torah (i.e., below).
Actually, no. You just think that the "Torah" is limited to the written text so you don't understand how one follows the covenant properly.
3. Did they still follow the feast day sacrifices as required in the Torah?
Not without a temple, no. Of course, what was required was to bring the sacrifices to the temple.
Not like in AD 70. He sent the nation into captivity. Their whole world revolved around temple worship that was destroyed.
OK, not like in 70, but it still happens.
For instance, can Israel still follow this command from Exodus 27:20:20 And you shall command the children of Israel, and they shall take to you pure olive oil, crushed for lighting, to kindle the lamps continually.
Without a temple? No. The laws require that this be done in the temple. So the law is followed -- when you don't have a temple, don't do this.
How about the priestly garments? Are they still used?
Can the priests be consecrated in the same manner as required in Exodus 29 as a perpetual offering before the LORD?
Not without the proper oil, so it is a good thing that they don't have to enter the Tent of Meeting or the altar.
Is Leviticus 4 still followed in the required manner? You say no.
I said that we don't have sacrifices. But since the laws of sacrifice require a proper altar and temple, which we don't have, by NOT doing them, we are actually following the demands of the law. We are doing what God demanded by NOT having sacrifices. And by following the requirements of the law, we are being obedient. Thank you for proving my point.
Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.
Yes, we established that this happened and that the temple was destroyed and rebuilt.
Well, I contend that the everlasting covenant God promised for both Jews and Gentiles (Jerimiah 31:30-32) has arrived with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It was veiled to many during the 1st-century and it is veiled to many today because they deny Jeshua/Jesus.
That's nice. So what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not sure what you think you are presenting as a different understanding. The text describes his service to God and is a model for such service and for the later giving of a tithe to temple priests. This is nothing new or different.
As to your second post, the original statement was about the existence of priests. I'm not arguing that the temple no longer exists, so questioning that half of the sentence and ignoring the rest is not especially useful. As to your next questions:
"Did God bring judgment to Israel in AD 70?"
Yes, as he does every day.
"Do you still practice the animal sacrifice for the atonement of the sins of the nation?"
No -- without a temple we do not offer sacrifices (though there has been a lot of text written about the issues and whether any sacrifices can be offered today, especially the Passover offering) but this has no effect on the existence of priests. There are other ways to effect atonement for the small group of sins that sacrifice atoned for during temple times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
"you certainly have been wrong about things we believe before."
Have I? I don't recall making any statements about any particular branch of Christianity.
"From what I have been told, Temple Judaism does not exist anymore, and so the priesthood is not really a thing"
You have been told wrong. The role is different but it certainly exists and is a part of practice every single day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
2 references which point out that he worshipped God. That's not much, but it is enough to establish a template for service. That's about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Understood -- but then you shouldn't try to make unequivocal statements about Judaism. Ask if you don't know something. If you are wrong about this, you might wonder what else you might be wrong about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You wrote, "The Rabbinic Judaism that by the way, is not temple Judaism, does not even have a priesthood."
Why do you think that? It happens to be very wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If he isn't of the Aaronic priesthood then all claims to that become metaphorical and impossible to either confirm nor deny. One could also say that his being "king" is completely symbolic and not real. Or that his being a messiah, or "God" is likewise not to be taken literally. Even any claim that he is a leader can be written off as a literary device.
Separate from that is the idea that in Judaism (the mantle he seemed initially to claim), there is a human king, and a human high priest (and many human priests). Interestingly, while there are textual references to God as a king, I don't recall one which ever calls God a priest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Psalm 110 proves my point. From David will come the kings, but God will also call his descendants "kohanim" in the same way that Malkitzedek was called a kohen, not in the aaronic-priestly sense. Notice that the verse doesn't say "you will be a priest like Aaron" -- it specifically cites a type of "kohen" which was not a proper Jewish priest. Cf II Sam 8:18 which calls David's sons "kohanim" but this is understood by everyone from the Aramaic translation on down to mean "prominent leader". Also, look at what the text calls Yitro, the Midianite father-in-law of Moses. He is called a "kohen" also. Clearly, the word has different uses. By contextualizing it as Malkitzedek, the text is attesting to the non-priestly understanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Malki-tzedek might have been some sort of king and some sort of "kohen" but he wasn't in the Jewish tradition. The fact that his mode of worship was admirable in that he served God doesn't mean he was operating under rules that were to be given to a particular group hundreds of years later. It might have created an archetype for the writer, but its use creates a theological problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The gospel genealogies present their own problems under Jewish law (and this is assuming that one can trace through Joseph who, in terms of the story, is not the biological father). The term in Hebrew for "priest" is "kohen" but that same word is used for a communal leader or even a spiritual leader of a non-Jewish group. Since the word is a generic term, it is imported to apply to Jesus in that generic sense which then is expanded upon erroneously. There are additional laws defining the "kohen" role within Judaism. For this role, a familial link to Aaron is required.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Side note --
Under Jewish law, the roles of priest and king are very distinct (in fact, the Hashmonean rule after the Channukah story was heavily criticized as trying to be both). One cannot be a "priest-king" in Judaism. One component must be from the tribe of Levi, and the family of Aaron while the other must be from the tribe of Judah, from the Davidic line.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I leave out your concept of "the eternal word of God." I have my own understanding of it, and it isn't equated with a particular figure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
you wrote, "It is The Word of God that gave you your form, and The Holy Spirit breathed into you that gives you your life. These being united in essence with the Holy unoriginate Father, who is blessed now and forever and unto ages of ages amen."
That is a statement of your belief. I don't share that belief. I could say to you "It is God who gave you your form, and breathed life into you. Amen" Would that affect your beliefs? I hope and expect not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You wrote, "Jediism is not the body of Obi Wan Kenobi."
I have no idea what this means. He died as a sacrifice to help others. He taught tenets of being one with an all powerful force that runs through us all. He came back to life and appeared in visions to guide his followers. Same with Annakin and Yoda, so there is a trinity of holy spirits.
You wrote "But even if you all have been physically effected by Obi Wan Kenobi, it would be silly to say that you haven't been more effected by Jesus Christ."
Does the amount of effect really matter when you are simply making a point about existence? In my daily experience, there is very little if any effect of Jesus. The 5 minutes I spend here, and if I have to write the year (and you want to think that Jesus was born in year 0 or 1 or whatever). But the use of the calendar also means I am affected by Norse mythology and Roman mythology, and I more often remember that today is Wodin's Day that it is 2019.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You wrote "I would go so far to say that the church itself is physical evidence of Jesus."
I would ask about extending this logically --
Would the existence of Jediism be physical evidence of Obi Wan Kenobi?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If "physical effects" are measured by the presence of a conversation, then is Harry Potter just as real as people have conversations because of the writing about him? On the daily, I have more conversations about Harry than about Jesus. By the way, to my understanding, effects are not the same as evidence. Physical evidence requires the tangible to be presented, not the effects considered. Effects allow for inference and can be used to establish circumstantial evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Just a note --
you wrote
the grand-daddy of the Abahamic faiths - Judaism - had no notion of posthumous existence. The most familiar expression of that is in Matthew 22:23 "The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection..."
First, using the gospels to make any argument about Judaism is problematic, but second, you cite the gospels which refer to the Sadducees (Tzeduki) position. But the Pharisees (Prushim) who were around at the same time had a very strong belief in a posthumous existence. So any general statement about a singular "Judaism" as establishing a certain position would be flawed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
If someone asks me "what do you want to be when you grow up" and I answer "a watermelon" that's still an answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Fantasies often don't provide proof. They provide answers, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I offered nbo evidence. I simply am reporting the discussion about the question from 2000 years ago.
The answer is faith based. If you don't share the faith, you won't accept the answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
But then that answer from within the fantasy would be the answer. You don't like it or agree with it but that doesn't make it any less of an answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I reported that the talmud's argument is between what was called Ashuri and what was called Ivri. That site explains what each term refers to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Probably. Or maybe it was in a very complex morse code. What I gave you was the understanding from within a belief system. If you don't share that system then the polite thing to do is to say "thank you for the information and the opinion" and move along.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Just because you don't understand he answer doesn't mean it isn't there. I said that this is the Jewish understanding. According to it, the entire Torah was given at Sinai with the ten statements engraved by God at the same time. So when it says that the Torah was written in a certain way, that's precisely what it is referring to. It is ok if you don't know. But feel free to ask in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
If you are interested in the Jewish religion's opinion, here is something which cites the Talmudic discussion of exactly this question
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That's ok. We are taught to love you even though you rape our women, destroy our villages and steal our cows whenever we come to your caves.That all said, we are taught to love you Jews, even if you spit on us whenever we walk through your neighborhoods, and refuse to take money from us directly when we go to your shops.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The claim that Mopac "knows" something is questionable. The claim was "We Orthodox know that the primary reason Rabbinic Judaism split from The Church of Christ which is truly Israel". The proof for this "knowledge" was "witnessed in our gospels". A flawed conclusion drawn from flawed sources.
It would seem safer to make a faith based claim by prefacing it with a faith based context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
At the time of Jesus and the apostles, Jews were certainly not allowed to spread their religion to non-Jews. In return, there were certain privileges granted to the Jews. This has to do with Roman law, not religious law.
That's then an issue that you have with Romans. Jewish law accepted converts. Any claim that rabbinic Judaism split from something because of a Roman law would have to be an artifact claim from the gospels which Judaism flatly rejects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That only reflects the limit of your understanding, relying only on the text and not on the full tradition in which it exists. There is plenty of commentary which complements the written text and explains the full conversation. Claiming this to be an error of the written text is not persuasive.Yet in first Samuel(what in the septuigant is 1st Kingdoms), there are strange abberations in the masoretic text that make it appear like Saul met David twice.
As to the variant text of Psalm 145 with the letter nun, there is much discussion over this. You can start with
https://www.torahmusings.com/2004/11/missing-nun-in-psalm-145/ and https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/7084/nun-in-ashrei-psalm-145
As for Esther, you might want to read Bickerman's article from 1951 on the matter. (Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research
Vol. 20 (1951), pp. 101-133) -- the bottom line is that just because something exists in the Greek does not invariably signal a deficiency in the Hebrew.
Jews were always allowed to convert others into Judaism. We were then and we still are. We were at the time of the turn of the millennium If you start with an error, you end up with more errors.
Created:
Posted in:
A few quick notes.
There are a few iterations of Hebrew. There is a modern (conversational) Hebrew, and if you want to learn that (and yet, not move to Israel) then take a local Ulpan class. It is an immersion program. If that doesn't work, I'm sure that there are duolingo or rosetta stone courses, or possinly a private tutoring session or a class at a local college.
There is also biblical Hebrew which is related but not identical to modern Hebrew. The grammars differ. There is something called Mishnaic Hebrew but I wouldn't worry about that right now. For biblical Hebrew, there are courses, books and probably websites. The problem is, biblical Hebrew doesn't exist in a linguistic vacuum. Because it stems from the torah text which is infused with the secondary meanings and divine intent, it means more than a dictionary would list. It is hard to learn outside of the biblical text because there is a lack of other, contemporary texts which to study.
As to the language of the Torah text, tradition holds that while the shape of the letters is not certain, the language was Hebrew and that the Masoretic text is a result of a solid tradition of precision copying of written text superior to texts translated to other languages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But a patriarchy sourced at the very beginning of time has that much more weight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I wonder if its intent wasn't about placing "blame" on woman, but about establishing relationships and archetypal behavior patterns.
Created:
Posted in:
Here's a thought -- the snake is the externalized concept of temptation and the story introduces the idea that man, in his rawest form truly was a tabula rasa and had no particular inclination to break rules -- that this urge had to be introduced from the outside. This absolves man on some level because it lays the blame on some outside agent, at least initially. Then, the urge becomes internalized through the eating so subsequent people have this same desire built in. The moral of the story is "recognize that you now have this wish to break rules, but look at the consequences last time..."
Or, maybe the story is saying that man cannot exist in his pristine state and will, inevitably, fall victim to any environmental temptation. The snake then represents a very natural source for desire, earthly, not divine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
An interesting list, taking one vision of the first 4 of the 10 statements. As to the underlying feeling that all 4 have to do with "blasphemy", I would say that in the Jewish conception, the first 5 (though the 4 aren't exactly the same as the 4 you list) are, in a sense about offenses against God, though I don;t know if I would use the word "blasphemy".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Already in the time of Saul, there was an idea of a spirit of Samuel that could be consulted, so there was something afterwards. But, regardless, according to current Jewish authorities, the language of the Torah text is understood to point to a life after this one -- that, though, requires accepting these authorities and accepting the idea of a divine authorship of the text.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I understand your statements and that they come from a certain approach to text. I happen to espouse a different approach so I see the text (its authorship, intent and utility) as quite different from how you do.
One quick question (without trying to hijack the thread): you write, "A significant spect is that the first 4 commandments are concerned with blasphemy."
What "first 4" do you mean? There are at least 3 different ways to understand "first 4" so I want to know where you are coming from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Yes, it is. What do you suggest is quote mining? I pointed to an accurate statement said in another message. Did I misrepresent that statement? Did I misquote it? Is there a context which I missed which makes the meaning of what I quoted different from what it seems to say outside of that context? You present the first half of the quote which I presented. Does that change anything in what I said or any conclusion that I drew? Do you have any actual content to present to support your claims?
I think that simply making accusations and not engaging when presented with evidence and support is a weak rhetorical strategy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I expect you meant post 31, not 131. If you meant 131, please explain.
Post 31 closes with an accurate statement:
"yhwh's relationship with Hebrews/Jews and with Gentiles in the OT was not the same."
But that's not the question at hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Conversion to Judaism exists and has for a long time - it is difficult because Jews only want the most sincere and committed people, but also because Judaism does not see the need to convert in order to be connected to God. Judaism teaches that non-Jews who follow certain universal laws merit heaven and reward and whatever else we see as the advantage of connecting to God. The notion of a Noachide movement is proof positive that Judaism views God as a God of all, not just Jews.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The text refers to God as many things including the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I hope you don't think that that means that he was the exclusive God of those 3 characters and no one else.
The text distinguishes God from all sorts of other conceptions of God. The Egyptians had their own idea of God so when Moses speaks on God's behalf to Par'oh (Ex 5:1), Moses talks about the "God of the Israelites" not because there is more than one, but in order to endorse the distinct idea of God worshiped by the slaves to be set free.
So unless you are saying that there are many Gods (which you can say if you want), the label identifying a monotheistic God concept with one group can't be an exclusive label. How, if there is only one, can there be a different one for anyone else?
Deut 4:19 explains that God apportioned the sun. moon and stars to all the nations (so he isn't just setting things up for the Israeliets).
Isaiah 25:6 indicates that God will set up a future party for ALL people as soon as they recognize his rulership.
Isaiah 56:7 reports that the temple in Jerusalem is for sacrifices and prayers for people of ALL nations
I Kings 8:41-43 says that prayer to God by non-Jews is a good thing. If God was only the God of Israel, this wouldn't be true.
The claim was made, "The God of Israel is The God of All."
Your responses was "Get a Jew and a Hindu to support you."
I have covered the Jew part. Consider the claim supported.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The question of resurrection in Judaism is complex because there are different understandings of it and when it written about in later times, ideas are cast back and "found" in earlier texts. The idea of a future (messianic) bodily resurrection vs. that of a "next world" for a soul is hotly debated and the idea of re-incarnation/revivification and of bringing someone back to life are discussed in various sources. Would a contemporary of Moses's say that there is such a thing as resurrection? According to some, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
According to Judaism, there is one God. Therefore, that God is the God of all. Within this worldview, God created everything and made rules for various groups, Jew and non-Jew alike. While non-Jews might not recognize or accept this idea of God, that (according to Judaism) has no effect on the underlying fact that God is the God of all.
Created:
Posted in:
Just putting 1 Sam 28 out there -- indication that there is a soul that is still around, resting, after death.
Created:
-->
@Castin
How can we glean an accurate or precise understanding of these passages from such ambiguity?
That isn't the Jewish SOP -- we embrace and remember a variety of meanings, even contradictory ones.
Wait, scratch that -- I'm wrong.
Not exactly.If you look up the link to the book of Enoch, you will see that its contents (and canonicity) are not accepted in Jewish tradition so its stories can be said to reflect the Christian, not Jewish tradition.
Created:
-->
@Castin
The commentators have a few different approaches:
1. They are those who were giants (Anakim) either in physical stature or in bravery/might
2. They are those who caused others to fall (n-f-l is a root for falling) through their misdeeds
3. They are those whose size and strength made others cower/fall
4. They are those who, themselves, fell, because they were led by their lusts and were lesser than generations before
The Malbim is very clear, though, that the entire notion of "fallen from heaven" (as another commentator puts it "semidei") is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
One traditional answer is "so that man might improve himself and glorify God."
Because these are speculative and cannot be absolutely proven or disproven, the sages can cite a variety of sources and argue for the intellectual and philosophical thrill.
http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48929907.html?mobile=yes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Why did God make anything?
This is actually another fascinating question with an incredible variety of answers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't recall saying that you or anyone was trying to trap me. If you want to move into the more esoteric aspects of understanding the nature of God, you might want to think about why God, an infinite and infinitely powerful being needed to say "Be" for things to come into existence.
Created: