Total posts: 905
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So you are saying that you don't believe The Word of God? I thought you said you were Jewish? Or am I mistaken in assuming that you are a Jew who believes in God?
I believe that you and I have different understandings of the "Word of God". Thinking that I don't believe in something because I don't accept your understanding of it is a fallacious conflation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Who says anyone needs to care? While I am fascinated by the various notions and presentations of polytheism I don't expect a polytheist to care about whether I approve or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You asked how Judaism views Jesus (#81). I answered how various Jews view Jesus (#82). You then summed up my answer and gave your own (#83):
"In other words, you see Jesus as simply a man at best.
Well, we Orthodox Christians do not see Jesus as being a man, but The Word of God."
I didn't disagree. That's how you see Jesus. That's your belief (#85). You then chose to continue by telling me that I am not "looking at the same thing." (#86). I, again, didn't disagree, because you have your view and I have mine (#87).
Your next point (#89) was that I am "mistaken" ("Well, it doesn't really matter how people who are mistaken believe,") and that I refuse to be "corrected." You seem to say that your belief is, what you call, the "True Religion." If this is not an attempt at persuasion then it is a ham fisted offering of information. My only response was that your understanding of anything doesn't really interest me. Your summary of that is that I am "hardening my heart" and rejecting God (#94).
Then, in #96 you state "I am simply saying that the Jesus you acknowledge is not the same Jesus I believe in. It isn't the Jesus that Orthodoxy accepts either. You are effectively accusing us of worshipping a man as God, which we both know is a terrible superstition."
Let me try to be crystal clear. I do not acknowledge the Jesus you believe in, nor am in interested ("curious") about the Jesus you believe in. I grant it is different from what I believe. That's all. Next, I'm not accusing you of anything. I am stating that within my belief system, your beliefs have problems. If you don't care how my belief system sees you, and I don't care how your belief sees me then that's all there is.
If you DO care how my belief sees you then you need to work on that for yourself. If your resolution is, therefore, that my belief system is wrong then, great. Remember, I don't care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Please understand that by rejecting your position, I am obeying God. If you do not understand this, it is because you are mistaken in your notion of what God wants. If you harden your heart and insist on embracing an erroneous position, you are making God sad.
See how easy it is to take that dogmatic position and insist that anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong? It isn't meaningful or useful.
A useful discussion of religion informs and educates but does not attempt to persuade. If the information is not enough to convince, then coupling it with "and you are wrong" certainly won't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Exactly and exactly my point - so when Mopac makes a statement about some "True Religion" or one of the other posters speaks of something supposedly persuasive, each might keep in mind that just as he/they wouldn't be affected by a statement by a Muslim, a Jew easily discounts their statements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
For the same reason that a Christian would affect the belief of a Jew.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And this is a core of your faith/belief system. It drives your understanding and that's wonderful for you. It is very different from how others view the concept of Jesus (and, all the more so, the actuality).The Jesus Christ that we recognize in Orthodoxy is The Word of God, which obviously existed before a historical figure could walk the Earth.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Anything beats getting a real job unless that job is "lottery winner." I have applied for that one but haven't gotten it yet.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Very true (and there's loads more). Those of us who start with the belief that the text has to be right become contortionists to maintain that belief. It's an occupational hazard.
Created:
Here are some resources on the commentaries regarding the identity of Reu'el, Yitro (and some other names)
Loads more but I'm inm a rush right now.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It isn't so much a band wagon as a response to your claim "Moses is actually said to be Egyptian! " The text never says he was Egyptian -- only women from another country who would have seen how he was dressed called him Egyptian.
As to the question of Reu'el's being Jethro, that is a matter of interpretation. IIRC correctly there is a verse which indicates that one was the father and one the son which is why I put the word "grand" in brackets.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
That was Reu'el's (Jethro's) [grand] daughters reporting back in Midian. They would not have known any better because the man was an absolute stranger dressed as an Egyptian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Understood absolutely. And Muslims see him as a human prophet. And each belief system has a combination of its own texts and those of earlier days to support its position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Judaism presents a range of possibilities, from "he never existed" to "a political rabble rouser" to a religious reformer to a practitioner of magic to "no one who matters" to a false messianic claimant. The historicity of the Christian Bible can't be presumed so wondering about its details is not a major priority in Judaism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
That citing the sept as some sort of phantom authoritative and unquestioned text is problematic and just as susceptible to doubt as any other text.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Okay. Or the Talmud copies Him.
And there we have it. If I can show texts that Judaism has beenstudying since before Jesus was born, you simply say “you don’t have signed anddated copies, so the entirety of Jewish law is copying Jesus.”
That’s the core of your faith and it can’t be argued. I showthat Jesus quoted earlier texts so you say that the texts aren’t earlier. Sowhen Jesus says to listen to the Pharisees, and their central difference wasthat they accepted a codified oral law, you say that the oral law didn’t exist.Fine. I can’t argue with that logic.
“ Did you notice how He amended the Law? Jesus cites it,then amends it. "But I say to you..."
Wow! Major difference! He said “I say” and then said the samething. That totally proves that he said it! I have plenty of students who wouldlove to use this method to support the contention that they “amended” earlierstatements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
“I do not doubt your Bible for it is my Bible also. Idoubt whether your interpretation is correct. I doubt whether the claims thatwe altered it is true. Jesus cited the Septuagint. Why would He quote somethingHe knew was not true?
First you have to start by assuming that the Christian textaccounts are accurate and that Jesus actually said what was attributed to him.Then you can wonder what version (based on your translation) he meant. Then youcan decide that if anything doesn’t connect with the Jewish version of texts,all of Judaism must be one major cover up. Have fun with that.
“What I point to is that besides the Dead Sea Scrolls yourearliest manuscript that you can produce a copy of dates to around900-1000 CE. Our earliest dates back much earlier. The number of copies is morenumerous too. The inaccuracies come from the NT scribes not copying thetext with the same degree of care that was instructed of the Hebrew Bible. Iwill try to establish some of these claims.
I don’t see why you would. There are very few changesthroughout the historical record of the Jewish texts but if you want to crowabout Christian texts feel free. Sadly, over history, non-Jewish forces workedhard to burn or otherwise destroy Jewish texts so there are fewer to rely on.One wonders why they insisted on destroying the record of Jewish thought. Whatthreat did it pose? Oh yeah…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
“Everything in the Law and Hebrew Bible points towardsJesus Christ! You just don't realize this. Your eyes are closed to this.
That is your (arrogant, IMHO) belief. Supporting it withself-serving Christian text does nothing to advance your claim.
The funniest part to me is that Jesus, in endorsing thePharisaic teachings, would have known that the era of prophecy ended 300 yearsbefore he was born so he could not have been considered a prophet.
“So, just as you have Moses and the 1st Exodus taking thepeople from the land of bondage to the Promised Land, so you have Jesus - theSecond Moses - taking His people from bondage and slavery in the land to thegreater Promised Land, the heavenly country. Just like you listen to Moses, Godcommands you listen to Jesus. I could point of similarity after similaritybetween the physical Hebrew Bible and the spiritual significance of theteaching.
“ Blood represents life. Without blood, there is notlife.
“God provides the idea of substitutionary atonementthroughout the Hebrew Bible.
“ Abraham was going to sacrifice his Son of the promise,yet God provided a substitute.
True, but it wasn’t a sin sacrifice.
“ God had instructed Abraham to take his son
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
“Before I respond, please can you tell me why the text is socorrupted every time I open your posts? I keep finding words running togetherthat I have to correct to make sense of what is being said.
I have no idea.
“ Who sinned - the man or the animal? If it is the man thenthe man must pay the penalty. His life is required for sin, yet God haspermitted in his place a bull or goat to be offered.
OK, here are the mistakes. First, the sacrifice is only forunintentional sins. Second, it isn’t for ones which would require the sinner’slife. Third, it isn’t a repayment – that is still required as separate anddepending on the nature of the sin. So, in sum, the killing of an animal doesnot replace or substitute for the killing of the person.
“ What does that tell you? What does placing his hands on thehead of the bull or goat tell you? It tells me he recognizes the price for sin,a life is required.
Interesting that it tells you that. It tells me something verydifferent because it applies in cases where the sinner would not have to die. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicha_in_sacrificesCheck out Lev 3:2. Hands are laid where there is no sin.
“Do you think God allows sin to go unpunished? He did not in the Garden. Whatis the price for sin? It is a death.
Actually not. Different sins have different punishments. Some involvedeath and no sacrifice avoids that. Some require financial payments.
“ God told Adam that if he was disobedient he would surelydie that very day. Do you acknowledge that happened?
Your translation is wrong. The Hebrew doesn’t say he would die “thatvery day”. Only that on that day he would incur a death penalty. Before that,man was intended to be immortal.
“ Did God say ON THE DAY you eat of it you shall die?
No.
“ So sin brought death.
Yes. And people are still dying.
“Do they not deserve death?
Not in most cases. And trying to quote meaningless Christiantexts won’t change that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Here is some information om the number of letters and words (remember that what is ascribed to Moses goes beyond the text of the 5 books)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
“Or yours perhaps?
My limited understanding of Jewish law, its evolution andexpansiveness? I think the odds are that you know less about Jewish law than Ido,
“ Do you think you will be justified by following the Law? Youhave stated you don't always follow it. What about those times?
I don’t know what you mean by “justified”. Sometimes, I amwrong. Sometimes I sin. I work on that and on repentance.
“Why did God allow the destruction of the city by theBabylonians? Was that not a judgment? Daniel seemed to think so. Daniel 9:1-26seems to signify as much. Daniel 9:24-27 also spoke of once again a judgment onthe city and temple, per the curses of disobedience. Did that not happen?
There have been plenty of judgments and destructions. In fact,we are still in exile. You ask about the 70 weeks thing? That has been explainedin a number of ways by all sorts of sources to refer to the second temple. Ifyou would like a website which breaks it down, here is one opinion -- https://www.drazin.com/index6773.html?7._The_L-RD%27S_Anointed just scroll down. I can give you other opinions if you would like, none ofwhich require any Christian thinking.
“You have admitted you try to live by the law but you are notliving according to the stipulations for atoning for your sins that the Lawrequired - animal sacrifice, presented by a Levitical priest.
Well, no. What I said is that there are systems in place forwhen we have no sacrifices and that even sacrifice was never the end all and beall of atonement (it didn’t even cover all sorts of sins). So saying that I don’tlive according to the stipulations, when you don’t know all the stipulations isproblematic at best.
“ You no longer have a physical temple. Why is that? That iswhere Israel met before the presence of God. Now, where do they meet? Thesynagog, right?
The temple in Jerusalem has been destroyed. https://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-words/mikdash-me-at-1.15658 http://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation-5769-terumah-a-portable-home/
“How does the Law make provisions for you?
“No animal sacrifices? So you are no living according to thecovenant as stipulated. It required animal sacrifices for the atonement of thenation and also sin offerings for individual sins, depending on what theperson could afford.
And if a person could offer only flour, flour sufficed. Noanimal sacrifice was necessary. And even those sacrifices only covered certainsins.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
“I also attribute it to one of our two religions corrupting thetext, of which I point to yours as being the case.
That’s fine but can you point to specifics that were corrupted?Do you have any proof of corruption other than the message not being consistentwith the conclusions that you start with?
“ I see Judaism as failing to recognize and accept their Messiahand the time of His coming.
But that’s because you see the concept of messiah verydifferently from how Jews now and then understood it. And as it was a conceptgiven to Judaism, it seems strange to tell Jews they don’t know their ownideas.
“I am saying that there are around 300 Messianic prophecies thatwe as Christians recognize as relating to Jesus. Many of these you do not. Youhave a clearer understanding of your Hebrew Bible texts than I do, on wherethey differ from the OT texts. So I ask you, how many references do you have tothe Messiah. I used one source that identified only a handful.
The problem is threefold:
1. We understand that text has multiple meanings (between 4 and70 levels of meaning) so to ask what has messianic relevance would require theanswer of “most of it” and “none of it”
2. We understand that the word “messiah” means something differentfrom how you use it. As such, references to a messianic concept may refer tosomething totally different from what you mean
3. We have complementary texts which, as a function of faith,provide explanation for the written text with equal authority so how weunderstand the words is informed by much more than a literal reading.
Here is some background http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
1. We understand that text has multiple meanings (between 4 and70 levels of meaning) so to ask what has messianic relevance would require theanswer of “most of it” and “none of it”
2. We understand that the word “messiah” means something differentfrom how you use it. As such, references to a messianic concept may refer tosomething totally different from what you mean
3. We have complementary texts which, as a function of faith,provide explanation for the written text with equal authority so how weunderstand the words is informed by much more than a literal reading.
Here is some background http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
“It exists for some Jews, such as Jews for Jesus.
“And how successful have you been in keeping the law? In onesense you recognize how holy and pure G-D is, yet in another, you fail to liveup to His purity. How does that justify you before God? Will your good deedsoutweigh your bad, and what happens if they don't?
I hope I have been successful. There are many laws and I work,everyday, at every moment to follow them. If I have failed then I hope that inthe next world, I will learn how to be better.
“ And what does "the system holds so the aspects of thesystem hold" mean?
If the text provides a recourse, a system by which authority canbe established, and that system still exists as sanctioned by God (in thatverse) then the people given authority by that sanctioned system are the dulydeputized and sanctioned priests/judges.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Sorry for the fractured replies -- I am still uncomfortable with this interface:
What exactly are you referring to as Pharisitical in Matthew 5 & 6? Jesus was citing the Law of Moses.
Actually, he cites the Talmud, so if you want to call that the law of Moses, you just verified the oral law. Thanks!
Here are a couple
Talmud, Kallah, Chapter 1
He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he had already had relations with her.
Matthew 5:28
But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he had already had relations with her.
Matthew 5:28
But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Talmud, Gittin 90a
The school of Shammai said: "A man should not divorce his wife unless he finds her guilty of an unseemly thing."
Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress....
Talmud, Baba Bathra 9b
Rabbi Eleazar said: "A man who gives charity in secret is greater..."
Matthew 6:3-4
But when you give charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your charity may be in secret....
The school of Shammai said: "A man should not divorce his wife unless he finds her guilty of an unseemly thing."
Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress....
Rabbi Eleazar said: "A man who gives charity in secret is greater..."
Matthew 6:3-4
But when you give charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your charity may be in secret....
But hey...it's all part of the grand Jewish conspiracy to invent a religion after the fact, right?
More light reading if you would like...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
If you can't produce any then I contend that the codification of the Scriptures as contained in the Christian Bible is more reliable than yours and that it was not us but your Rabbinical scholars who altered the wording.
So, yes, the heart of your argument is the claim that all of Judaism is wrong because you claim that your work of fiction can be more authoritative because you have copies of it. Copies of old fiction suddenly become real. It IS a miracle.
I note, again, that you can't actually point to any altered text and haven't argued any actual content. This delights me no end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
“The OT or Hebrew Bible contains various references to thesacrifice as representing them by their laying of hands on the animal. Theanimal was used to atone for their sins, thus it was a substitution. It was nottheir blood that was shed yet it provided the atonement for THEIR sins.
Except that manty sacrifices were not for sins that wouldrequire the shedding of blood otherwise, so the death of an animal could notsubstitute for anything. Nothing in any of the text you provide says “substitute”– they say “atonement”. Instead of inserting what you believe, read the text.If I commit a sin, I owe something to repay for that act. My loss of somethingand my dedication of something are the sacrifice. When the text demands blood,it doesn’t allow animals to replace it (that’s why there is a death penalty –if animal substitution worked, then killing an animal would substitute forkilling a criminal. But it doesn’t)
“So the offering and the shed blood was a substitute. Itwas not their blood.
But their blood wasn’t demanded. Their repentance and sacrifice were.
“I think your charge is misrepresentative of the plain languagepresented.
I think it is duplicitous for you to define “substitution”but cite text which never uses that term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So, wait, let me get this straight. Is your argument that all of Judaism is a vast conspiracy because Wikipedia tells you so?
Are you arguing that particular points which I support with text must be wrong because I can't reassure you that the text exists? I note you haven't countered with any real argument about the points I presented, just more questions steeped in ignorance.
If you wish to do some light reading, start with these
Or don't. Either way works for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
“ And that is just it. You are a smart guy, but you are in areligious box, IMO.
Absolutely true and I’m ok if people want to stay in their ownboxes. All I chafe at is people telling me I don’t understand my own box.
“This again is your assumption, yet you do nothing but assertwhat is and is not without a shred of reasonable evidence in most of yourresponses.
So are you saying that you have a clear understanding of thedifference between “messiah” and “messianic concept”? If so, why quote versesabout the latter and then ask about the former? Are you saying that youunderstand the Jewish concept of what makes any messiah (there were many)? Great -- then you won't ask what you asked.
“In the sense that it was a covenant of grace, not works. Do youknow what separates Christianity from every other religion? It is a covenant ofgrace in which God accomplishes what we could not do.
Perfect. So what separates you is a covenant which does not existin the Jewish understanding. That’s fine.
“The Jews demonstrate repeatedly through the OT that they cannotlive by the covenant they agreed to with God. The Mosaic Covenant is just sucha covenant of works. It is what the human does that puts them right with God.The NT of grace is what God did in Jesus Christ that the Jew nor Gentile couldever do - that is live a perfectly righteous life before God.
The Jews demonstrate that the covenant we have, one of laws andways of living, is a current and constant relationship which we work towards,hoping to get to the point when living by it will become automatic and not astruggle against any evil inclination.
“Again, you are speaking Hebrew to me; in other words, you arespeaking above my head with language that is technical to a gentile.
I am answering your question with a precise answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_priestly_descent
“Therefore, the priesthoodtoday may not be sanctioned by God. You don't know.
What we do know is that the legal system which establishes thepriests IS sanctioned by God 9 (Deut 17:9). The system holds so the aspects of the systemhold.
“The fact that I asked was to hear it from you, not because Idon't understand this but to prove the point from you that your people are notfollowing the law as they agreed to follow it.
No, you just don’t know the law so you suppose that we areto follow it based on your limited understanding.
“Thus, they are not living by the covenant. Theycontinually broke it. Thus God brought the curses/judgments of the Lawupon them.
Only according to your version of the covenant. It just sohappens, it was never the same as our understanding of the covenant so we aren’tbound by your lack of knowledge.
“ So, again it is a covenant of works. You do what you can,somewhat unsuccessfully by the sounds of it, because you are bound by theworks of the Law, living according to the letter of the Law, yet you can'tfollow the sacrificial system as prescribed in the OT.
You have 2 different statements here. The first is that I amtrying to live by the law. Sure, not completely successfully, but I try, andthe law makes provisions for how I can improve. The second, about sacrifices,just exemplifies what you don’t understand. Sacrifices were never the end alland be all of Jewish worship, nor were they always necessary. In fact, theywere allowed to be made only at very specific times and with myriad other conditions.We had other systems already in place to supplement and even replace sacrificeswhen the conditions didn’t allow for them.
Here is some light reading https://outreachjudaism.org/god-divorce-israel/
Created:
-->
@disgusted
If you start with that then you end with that. I start elsewhere so I end elsewhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I can read the OT. I understand the substitutionary nature ofthe atonement. I understand the five Levitical offerings and how theyapply - the burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering, the sinoffering, and the trespass offering. I understand the seven feast dayofferings as they relate to the NT. Everything that Moses told the Israelitesto construct was a pattern of a greater truth, a spiritual truth.
No, everything Moses instructed was a set of laws to live by,and we do. And that you think of a sacrifice as substitutionary simply meansthat you are reading your belief into the text.
“ I can read the OT just like you can.
See, here’s your problem. First, that you think I read the “OT”which I don’t. Next, that you think that that “OT” text somehow encompasseswhat Judaism is and your literal reading in English gives you insights thatpeople within Judaism don’t get.
“I also understand the spiritual significance of that patternwhich the Jews have missed. In every OT writing, there is a picture, a shadow,a type of the Mashiach!
That is certainly your (arrogant) opinion. We do just finereading it and understanding it without inserting your wishful thinking intoit.
“What are the earliest historical records you have of theseJewish writings? How accurately do you believe they have been kept? What isyour proof?
We have the Mishna which dates to well before the common era. Thediscussions explicating it developed before the common era and continued untilthe text of the Talmud was fixed a couple of hundred years later. You must befamiliar with the Oral law – it was the teachings of the Pharisees which Jesussaid the people should follow, and it was the Talmud which he referenced (atleast 6 different tractates are referenced in Matthew 5 and 6).
“1,000 years? That does not date back to the 1st-century whenGod judged the nation of Israel with the destruction of its temple and citywith the Roman armies.
I never said it did. I’m just referencing a writtencommentary which answered your question 1000 years ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Have you considered maybe it is your evidence that you think ofas reasonable that is self-serving?
Sure, and I can understand why anyone outside my system mightthink that. This makes it as persuasive to you as your “evidence” does to me.
“How many passages of the OT can you identify as a reference tothe Messiah?
“The following passages in the Jewishscriptures are the ones that Jewsconsider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These arethe ones that we rely upon in developing our messianic concept:
Oh boy. You really need to read a bit more carefully. The jewfaqlist specifically says that it is of verses that Jews “consider to be messianicin nature” or which relate to the end of days. You asked about verses that are “areference to the Messiah.” Those verses do relate to a messianic concept, as domany, many others, but that doesn’t clarify anything because you still don’tunderstand the terms and how the Jewish vision of a messiah works.
“While this is partly true, in that He would instill the lawdirectly into the hearts of His people, He also promised a new covenant.
Yes, but in what sense was it “new”? Only in the way it isformed with the people, not in its content. So the Torah and all of its lawsand expectations stay the same. So we expect in the future a “new” covenant asone that makes the Torah and all of Judaism inscribed on our hearts. You seemto advocate a totally new-content covenant which the text doesn’t point to.
“How do you know the priestly line is unbroken from Aaron?
We don’t. We have a chezkas kahuna. The claim was that we don’thave priests. We do.
“So are you still sacrifices animals on an altar? For instance,do you still follow Leviticus 5:6 (ESV)
“Do you still sacrifice animals on the Day of Atonement?
Of course not. The fact that you ask means that you don’tunderstand Jewish law and are imposing what you think it should be onto it. Youjust happen to be wrong.
“Are you still following the Covenant in all the Lord God hasspoken?
I’m trying, every day. I’m following the laws that I am bound byvia the Torah (which is the content of the covenant).
Created:
-->
@Castin
absolutely. The many laws in Judaism regarding speech still apply, as do other laws about writing.So do you think it's possible to commit sin in online posts?
Created:
-->
@Castin
A good question. I think I do try to stay pretty darned close to my religion's rules, regardless of the mode of communication.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So from memory, I wasn't far off
If you think that omitting half the equation isn't far off, then you should be very comfortable with your position. You said "unless." That means you discounted all conversion. The law includes maternal line and conversion. It would be simpler if you could simply accept that your memory (however accurate to your experience) was in error and you have learned something. Instead you are letting your ego drive the discourse, refusing to accept that you might not know everything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Sure there is a need to respond. You are ignoring what the LOR says.
Your claim was "I think I remember reading once that one isn't a " real" Jew unless born of a Jewish thoroughbred mother."
In a sense, your claim was 100% right -- you think you remembered hearing something and no one can take your thought away from you.
But what you heard was completely wrong: you include the word "unless" which means to the exclusion of all other factors. And yet, the LOR clearly gives 2 options, not the singular one which you remember as hearing to be the only method. [...or someone who has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion]
It isn't semantics to point out how your claim that only 1 method is acceptable is contradicted by the LOR which gives 2 methods.
You don't need to respond to this post. You should, however, be careful about posting vague memories that don't comport with facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The Israeli LOR is pretty clear -- maternal link or proper conversion makes one a Jew. The initial claim was "I think I remember reading once that one isn't a " real" Jew unless born of a Jewish thoroughbred mother." The LOR proves that to be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Well ya not a Real jew if you have a foreskin are you.
A man or a woman? A man is a real Jew regardless of the presence of a foreskin. A woman with a foreskin is a totally separate conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I think I remember reading once that one isn't a " real" Jew unless born of a Jewish thoroughbred mother.
I'm not sure where you read that (unless you happen to read Syrian). Under Jewish law, people can convert to Judaism and be as much a "real" Jew (whatever that is) as any other Jew. In fact, a number of Egyptians left Egypt with the Children of Israel and adopted the identity as one of the children of Israel during the Exodus (even without a formal conversion).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It is verified in many ways with reasonable evidence.
Well, evidence that you, self-servingly, think of as reasonable. Not exactly a paradigm of intellectual integrity but whatever.
How many passages of the OT can you identify as a reference to the Messiah?
You really don't understand Judaism, right? Some day, after you have had a very basic course in Judaism and Jewish texts, we can continue this. You have yet to define terms you throw around.
Did God promise a new covenant in Jeremiah?
Well, no, not exactly. God promised that the same old content would be instilled directly into the hearts of the Jews in a mode which made traditional "teaching" unnecessary. This renewed covenant is the topic.
Where are the animal sacrifices? Where are the Levitical priests? The NT explains the transition and what happened confirms its writings. This can be logically and reasonably confirmed.
The priests are all around. Go to any Jewish community and ask. The sacrifices? they are in the early parts of each day's prayers. Just check a prayer book and you will see. Judaism already knows what happened. Your texts are unnecessary but thanks.
Does it follow the Torah? If so, please document how.
First, you need to take a course on biblical atonement and exactly which sins any sacrifice could expiate. Then you'd need to learn about what was acceptable as even that limited sacrifice. You can also study the other methods, judicial and interpersonal, the text details as methods of atonement. And finally, you should study up on what the corpus of Jewish law is composed of.
I go, in large, on the knowledge of those who were 1st-century Jews that are recorded in the NT. I go on the evidence of the revelation of Jesus Christ, Yeshua the Messiah. I go on the fact that the OT prophecies cannot be fulfilled after AD 70. They address an OT people who are in covenant relationship with God. The means they are charged with atoning for sin are no longer available after AD 70.
Oh. That's cute. I go by the knowledge of those who were Jews from 500 years before to 400 years after. I ignore the fallacious texts which present stories which people confuse with "evidence."
How do you figure that? It is not the same kingdom or empire. The four kingdoms would affect the Jewish people and they did.
I don't figure that -- that has been the standard Jewish understanding for over 1000 years
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The teachings of the NT are based on those of the OT (or your holy writings). Your holy writings are also our holy writings. What was promised in your holy writings Christians claim met their fulfillment in the NT times.
Yes, that is the claim.
The OT is a constant revelation of a disobedient people, a people who failed to live according to the teachings of the book or covenant (Exodus 24:3,7). God continually sent prophets and teachers to your people who continually rejected them and pursued foreign gods and things that by nature are not God. God continually warned them that if they continued this way they would receive judgment. Your ancestors did not listen. Thus, in AD 70 God brought the curses of the covenant (Deuteronomy 28:15 onwards) against His chosen people. He brought divorce to Judah as He had previously brought divorce on Israel.
And this is also the claim. There have certainly been judgments over time, but not one which invalidates the relationship between God and the Jewish people.
In AD 70 God selected a new bride with a new covenant, the people Jesus was betrothed to.
Again, that is what you claim, and that's very nice. It is just irrelevant to Jewish people.
After AD 70 there is no more Levitical priesthood (that God had sanctioned as the mediator between Israel and Himself).
So you believe.
There is no more animal sacrifice to bring the offer of atonement on the Day of Atonement. There are no more feast day sacrifices required under the Law of Moses.
Fortunately, Jewish law had already taken this into account.
Thus, you cannot worship God as He required you to under the Mosaic Covenant. It no longer exists. If it did you would still be bringing your sacrifices to God via it and through the Levitical priesthood.
And you say this because you don't understand what the full Mosaic Covenant is. That's OK. But because you have limited knowledge and have decided on a required series of events predicated on that limited knowledge, you come to erroneous conclusions.
Daniel 2:44 predicted God setting up His eternal kingdom during the time of the fourth kingdom or empire. Which kingdom do you identify this to be?
The remnants of what is called the Roman exile -- what we are still in now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church actually sees itself as a continuation of this. The Christian race is now God's chosen people.It is written in Acts...
That's nice that you see it that way, but if your support is a text that Jews reject, why should it be at all a valid position to take? If I cite the Koran to prove that Islam sees itself as replacing Christians, would that be useful?
The Orthodox Church has priests still, contemporary Judaism does not.
Really? Do you mean that Judaism lacks clergy members who perform many of the same functions as those you call priests in Christianity? Those exist. Or do you mean those of a priestly caste, bound by a separate set of rules and performing separate functions as the priestly caste? Judaism has that, also.
The temple worship that is practiced by Orthodox today is modeled a great deal after ancient Judaic temple worship. It is different, but similar. It is a continuation.
The practices of Judaism are modeled directly on temple service. They are the continuation, following the laws which govern temple practice and its continuation. Jewish law which drove Judaic practice 2000 years ago, and does so today.
So it isn't that the new covenant now includes Christians. Orthodox Christianity is the fulfillment and continuation of ancient Israel.
Only once you invent some notion of "fulfillment".
The people that call themselves Jews today are descendant of pharisaical Judaism.
Yes, the ones whose teaching Jesus said to follow. This is the mode of Judaism that was around then, and is around now. The competing strains of Judaism (be it Essene, Tzeduki, Karaite) really never quite took off.
People talk about the "6 million Jews" killed in the holocaust(which was horrible, and we Orthodox were helping them escape) but over 20 million Orthodox Christians were martyred in the last century.
When people talk about the Holocaust, they often talk about the 11 million killed in the camps and the accompanying ethnic cleansing of Europe during the years of 1936 (ish) and 1945. That almost 6 million were Jews, singled out as non-Aryan and named as undesirable by the third Reich is a matter of history. If you want to expand the years then we can talk about the Jews killed over the centuries going back to, say, the crusades, the Inquisitions, the pogroms etc. We can expand the scope to the entire world and discuss violence against Jews in many different places. No one (as far as I have seen) was even discussing the deaths of Jews in the Holocaust, so to bring them up so you can establish yourself as a greater victim seems insensitive at best. But I guess it is acceptable to try and prove that Jews are second best in dying, also.
The Orthodox Church compiled scripture, it is our book. It isn't for you to interpret.
That's how Jews feel when Christians try to use the Jewish bible to explain stuff in a Christian way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
the bible can be understood to acknowledge the existence of other actual gods. It can also be understood to not acknowledge them but to acknowledge that people have invented some. We generally work back from the conclusions we need to find and interpret scripture to justify those conclusions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You have a misunderstanding of a particular Hebrew word. The word is "shem." The word can be translated as a variety of things including "name" like a personal name. But it also means "title" and "rank" and other stuff. So when the English uses "name" that comes across to a native English speaker as synonymous with the personal name concept. But in Judaism we see that word differently so come to different conclusions and have different rules and expectations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That gets back to the root of the miscommunication. In Judaism, God doesn't have a personal name so calling Him "unnamed" doesn't make any sense as there is no expectation of "name" so there is no lack of "name."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That is fine. It is also interesting. So can we safely assume that Josephs god was the same god as his fathers? In your honest opinion.
Well, I can, yes. He uses the same language to refer to God and the text supports that the God figure was the same, so if nothing else, the writer of the text thought they were the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What title/s does Joseph use?
Gen 39:9, 40:8, 41:16, 41:25, 41:28, 41:51, 42:18, 43:29, 45:5, 45:7, 45:8 and more places, Elo-him
The same "Elo-him" that, for example, Jacob says will be with him (48:21).
This is therefore connected to 39:21 (one example) where it says that the 4 letter name was with Joseph.
Are you positing that the two labels identify two separate entities?
Sounds close to me.
the present tense and the future tense are close?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The Christians have a name for their god it seems they have just inserted vowels into the non Christian word "YHWH" for it to become Jehovah
However, they have inserted the vowels as listed by the Jewish Masoretes who were specifically and intentionally using vowels which were not the correct ones -- they were importing the ones used with the consonants to create a separate word (ado-nai) so that we would remember that we AREN'T saying the proper four letter name. Interestingly, certain current bible printings within the Jewish community have deleted all the vowel points on the 4 letter name in order to make the same argument.
But it is beginning to look like that no one seems to know the name Josephs' god.
This is, assuming that there is a "name" that one can assign that goes beyond the titles that both Jacob and Joseph use.
YHWH by most accounts simply means " I am" as revealed to Moses.
Well, not all accounts. Within Judaism it is seen as a mash-up of the "to be" verb in 3 tenses, a made up combination to stress the eternal nature and identity of God (past, present and future). In the Hebrew, there is no "I am who I am" but there is "I will be that which I will be" (eh'yeh asher eh'yeh).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The Hebrew word Elo-him is used as a singular and a plural in different contexts (depending on the verb in the sentence) but both the 4 letter name and the word Elo-him are used to refer to the object of worship of Jacob and Joseph. In Judaism, God doesn't have a personal "name" but has titles by which we refer to Him. If you are stuck using translations then it will be difficult to show you the presence of identical words in the original.
Created:
Posted in:
do you have reason to think the Joseph's idea of God was any different from his father's?
Clearly, verses like Gen 39:5 attest to the connection with the entity of the 4 letters whom Jacob was aligned to (Gen 32:10) and Gen 41:16 shows Joseph's claim to be connected to "Elo-him" which was the same word used to label the God-figure connected to Jacob/Israel in Gen 35:11.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You are correct in your assessment that I will never grant the gospels any measure of authenticity or authority so let's put that aside so I can ask a simple question (not because I doubt you but because I know my own limits and that I am still learning):
Is there any other instance in the "OT" in which a writer, at the end of his book, makes the same injunction against anyone's adding or taking away from his book? It would be a fascinating analysis for me to do if this happens throughout the text. Please let me know where I can find this "echo" throughout the "OT".
Thanks in advance!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If you are asking about the two verses from Revelation, I can't explain them nor establish their parameters. I think the whole thing was an attempt to copy the Deut. verse.
Created: