Total posts: 905
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Wow...another swing and a miss. Every time I think you have hit intellectual rock bottom, you produce a shovel and start digging.
Created:
Posted in:
Sigh
"וְאָמַרְתָּ֖ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כֹּ֚ה אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּנִ֥י בְכֹרִ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃"
If one understands that then one knows the error in the claim. Seriously poor trolling. Like level 1 stuff. Sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The sad part is that the quality of trolling is so low. Cut and paste, inaccurately summarize, make basic grammatical and logical mistakes...I guess I expected more from the troll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sometimes the value of ritual is intrinsic to the ritual and sometimes the value is in the adherence and demonstration of subsuming the self.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
So your definition of complex discussion is a room full of unwashed Jews disagreeing on how to stay clean where a smell test is optional and redundant.So Jews do agree on some things like complex atmospherics in all things Jewish.
No, that isn't my definition. Your inferential skills are lacking. Is there anything you ARE actually good at?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I guess so. I'm just killing time toying with the troll. I'll probably get bored before the troll does because I actually have a life ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Are you saying what the Jews are doing to Palestinians are not logical but rather factual?
No, I didn't say that. But if I had, my grammar would be correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
So Jews are still existing in Exile!! Was that from 70AD when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jews after the Old Covenant was destroyed.There is a New Covenant Theology that no longer requires circumcision.
It is actually from a little after 70, but generally that's accurate. Nice work! Of course, your claim about the covenant being destroyed is wrong, but at least you know that Christianity doesn't require circumcision. You ARE capable of learning. Good work!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
So Jews distinguish between asking for land as prayer and taking it from the Palestinian as political blessings.
Moving into non sequiturs? Bold move. Nonsensical, but bold. Want to try again when you actually have something logical to say?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
So now we have to apply the smell test when we are with Jews because Jews even disagree of how to stay clean.
You don't have to take any test you don't want to. Just walk away because complex discussions are well beyond you and that's what we are all about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Jews treating Satan as an ordinary adversary instead of the prince of darkness competing with God has weakened the Jewish covenant and diluted their position with God. Any wonder Judaism is a minority religion compared to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. etc.
Wow -- back to muddled thoughts. So sad. I'll type slow.
We don't "treat" the soton as anything. The soton simply IS something, and was before Christianity took the idea and played its games with it. What this has to do with diluting anything is "absolutely nothing."
Our covenant with God is as in force as it ever was. In fact, that we are in exile and yet still exist is proof that the covenant is wonderfully strong. Thanks for helping prove my point. Yer awesum!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
So even among Jews they cannot agree on how to stay clean. Some do! Others don’t.
Finally you are starting to say something that approaches a relationship to reality! A breakthrough!
Among Jews there is often disagreement about everything, yes. I'm also glad that you have mastered bolding a section as if your pointing it out is somehow an exposé of some sort.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Is that how the Jews justify taking Palestinian land and turning them into Jewish settlements? They just asked each other then prayed for the blessing.
Jeepers! Who taught you how to troll because you aren't very good at it.
The moment you move from religion into politics you endorse the idea that anti-Zionism is actually anti-Semitism and you make all the other anti-Semites whi try to separate the two ideas look foolish. Poor form, indeed.
And, of course, since your premises are erroneous, your conclusion is fallacious. I'll wait while you look up the big words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You clearly have been misinformed. Only during the nine days do some Jews refrain from showering, bathing and swimming for pleasure. For the sake of cleanliness, bathing is allowed (except on the fast of the ninth of Av, itself, but even then, some washing for cleanliness and ritual purposes is allowed.
Also, the prohibition for clothing has to do with "freshly laundered" clothes. So they get laundered before the 9 days starts and shaken out, laid on the floor briefly or worn quickly and taken off so they aren't "freshly laundered" but are still clean.
You really have a lot to learn. I'm glad I am here to help you!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Jews giving Satan a free pass has not worked too well for them. Look at Jewish history of exiles and anti-Semitism.
someday, maybe you'll say something that makes sense. Clearly, today is not that day. "Giv[e] Satan a free pass"? What does that even mean? And what does any of that have to do with exile and anti-Semitism?
Slow down, finish chewing your food, and try to compose an informed and coherent thought. Good luck!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
What do the jews have to be thankful to God for?
Many things, including being alive. Unless they're not. But I know that I, for one, am, which is a relief.
The Jews were driven out of their homeland four times.
We are also thankful that we don't see the need to copy and paste the same stuff in a variety of places but instead we thank God that we can think and assess and speak our thoughts without having to regurgitate what we find on wikipedia as if it is revelatory. Maybe some day you can reach that lofty level of internet interaction
Why would the Jews pray to God to ask for anything?
Because, as all comes from God, we hope to get stuff. I guess you never asked anyone for anything and the ice cream magically appeared on the hot summer's day without your having to ask. We believe in asking if there is something like ice cream to be had. Maybe you just don't like ice cream. That would be sad though. Can you please clarify your position on ice cream? Mine is usually sitting.
The Old Testament is the history of the Jewish people and their struggles with their Jewish God.From the story of creation followed by Noah’s flood to the destruction of the Holy Temple in 70AD to the Holocaust. No other race has been punished by God more than the Jewish people.
Good thing Jews don't care for the "Old Testament". We have something a bit different which catalogues all sorts of aspects of a complex relationship with God.
Even Jesus a Jewish Messiah accuse God for forsaking him.
Yow -- "Jewish messiah"? Not so much. And quoting from gospels to try and convince a Jew of something? Swing and a miss.
If you don't know stuff, you should ask and try to learn. Oh yeah...you aren't into asking for things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Satan is the prince of evil spirits and adversary of God in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Satan is traditionally understood as an angel who rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven with other “fallen” angels before the creation of humankind
This is inaccurate as it relates to Judaism in 2 separate ways. The soton is the adversary of man, not God, and the soton did not rebel against God etc.
If you have questions about Judaism, you should ask instead of posting things that are wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The dirtiest? No, why?
I feel I was substantially dirtier when I spent the afternoon playing tackle football with friends, right after the rain ended.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Jews were driven out of their homeland four times.Four exiles of the Jewish people by the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Medians, the Greeks, and recently under Western rule (Holocaust).Expecting a messiah to change Jewish history is not on the minds of Jewish people. Accepting Jesus as a messiah is even less rational. Punishing past players is highly unlikely. So the best option is to rewrite Jewish history in a more favourable light.See The Invention of the Jewish People. shlomo Sand.“Shlomo Sand argues that most Jews actually descend from converts, whose native lands were scattered far across the Middle East and Eastern Europe. The formation of a Jewish people and then a Jewish nation out of these disparate groups could only take place under the sway of a new historiography, developing in response to the rise of nationalism throughout Europe. Beneath the biblical back fill of the nineteenth-century historians, and the twentieth-century intellectuals who replaced rabbis as the architects of Jewish identity, The Invention of the Jewish People uncovers a new narrative of Israel’s formation, and proposes a bold analysis of nationalism that accounts for the old myths.”
Expecting the messiah to change history isn't on anyone's mind -- history happened. The messiah will change the NOW. But yes, acceptiong Jesus as a messiah IS less rational.
As to the exiles, Jews are well aware of the various exiles. You can talk to the Jews who live in Israel about how they don't have a homeland.
If you are hanging your understanding of Judaism and Israel on Sand (and, by extension, the Khazar foolishness) then there is nothing more to say to you because you are hitching your wagon to a horse that won't run.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
It’s fulfillment. There are over 2 billion Christians and 1.9 billion Muslims. Judaism is not only becoming irrelevant. The jews themselves are being threatened with extinction.
thank you for the laugh. We have been threatened with all sorts of things since before your supposed messiah was born and we are still here. You really think we are worried about your particular take on things? Other than your bizarre views regarding numbers and your ignorance of history, do you have anything of substance to contribute?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
What is irrelevant is your response. Judaism was around before Christianity and will be around after it. Maybe try composing an argument based on content and facts, or are they irrelevant also?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Jesus never existed. Joseph Atwill, who is the author of a book entitled 'Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus', asserts that Christianity did not begin as a religion, but was actually a sophisticated government propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire.
There are many different ideas about whether or not a person (singular identity) existed or whether the literary character was a combination of other actual people, or a reflection of mythic figures from other belief systems. There are also different theories about exactly what Christianity was or why it became something. Honestly, I don't know. I just know the text that Jesus would have learned and, if he was half as intelligent as people make him out to be, he would have known that a lot of stuff being claimed in his name is pure bunkum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Old Testament ended with Malachi 430 years before Jesus’s birth.But the Old Testament contained prophesies about the coming Messiah promised to the Jews.
It contains all sorts of stuff but nothing about Jesus. Finding things and calling them messianic prophecies doesn't make them so, and then saying that Jesus "fulfilled" them is an empty argument. If you want to discuss the content of the Jewish canon then you should listen to someone who has studied it as a Jew, not in your translation and not with an agenda of pulling out bits to find what justifies your theology. Christians can "consider" whatever they want. Jews know otherwise.
You must be new at this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Jesus was a Jew and followed Judaism. Jesus made his mission very clear from the start. He was not sent to create a new religion.
If Jesus existed I guess he might have been a Jew and so were other people. He was on no particular mission according to Judaism and quoting from texts that Judaism doesn't see as valid isn't very persuasive.
So, um...yeah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That lacks any detail so it does nothing to substantiate your claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm just curious. How, exactly, did we subvert the church?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Understood. I could try and defend or contextualize but that would not be fruitful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
There are 3 ways. The first is that I have a Hebrew keyboard installed on my computer and my phone. The second is that there are sites like https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/hebrew.htm which allow you to click on the letter (or type the English analog as per the chart) and then cut and paste what you type. The third is the method I used (for logistical reason) -- and that is to go to a site like sefaria.org and go to a text that I know has the word I want, and cut and paste it.
Interesting (to me) side note that I just learned recently -- the skull cap that many religious Jewish males wear is called a "Yarmulke" which is apparently a portmanteau of 2 words, yoreh (fear) and malka (king). We wear it to show subservience to God, the king.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, but I'm just trying to help out for accuracy's sake. The Hebrew is מֶֽלֶךְ. Melech.
In Aramaic the word is מַלְכָּא malka.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
"melech" is the Hebrew word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
There is an idea in Judaism that in each generation there is someone who could be the messiah, but if he doesn't fulfill the expectations then we know he was never the messiah. The messiah is called this because he will be (note the tense) anointed with a particular oil (the word "messiah" is an Anglicizing of the Hebrew Mashiach which means "anointed" usually referring to the application of the Shemen Hamishchah, the oil of anointing) and lead the theocratic Jewish government in Israel, based in the temple. Therefore, the anointing cannot happen until AFTER the temple is built, the Jews are gathered from our current exile and there is peace with the whole world accepting this theocracy as having been established.
Sadly, Jewish history is replete with people who were prematurely called "messiah" or who called themselves the messiah, and things didn't work out well. There is an idea of someone who is (I guess you could say) "in the running" but that doesn't mean he is "it" until all is said and done.
If you want to read a quick summary, you can go here https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1121893/jewish/Who-Is-Moshiach-the-Jewish-Messiah.htm or go into the source which is Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, chapters 11 and 12 of the section on kings and wars https://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html
If you would rather it in the Hebrew, and with lots of the commentary which helps explain, try here https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Kings_and_Wars.11?lang=bi
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
We can start with the 4 classic ones which have to be fulfilled in order for us to know that the person is, indeed, the promised king messiah (he doesn't get that title before these are fulfilled).
-He must build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)
-He must gather all the Jews back to the Land of Israel (Is. 43:5-6)
- He must usher in an era of world peace and bring an end to hatred, oppression, suffering and disease (Is. 2:4)
- He must spread the knowledge of the G-d of Israel, uniting the entire world as one (Zechariah 14:9)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
these would only be useful if each (or any) of them was a messianic prophecy. But if they aren't then they aren't fulfilled by anyone or anything. Jesus was (if he existed and the stories are to be believed) a Jew, and one who endorsed the Pharisaic understanding of the religion. I can list four prophecies that the Pharisaic system sees as clearly messianic if you would like (though, now that I think of it, I could show you 5) and none of them was fulfilled in, by or through Jesus. This list is just a series of verses chosen because they can be applied to the stories of Jesus. That doesn't make them messianic prophecies, just retconned verses.
Created:
Posted in:
There is actually a series of stories that describe how Judaism created Christianity and it isn't exactly how your source describes it. In a nutshell, according to these stories, the first people to follow Jesus were Jews and seemed exactly like all the other Jews except for the stuff stemming from Jesus belief. The actual Jews were concerned about this because the Jesus followers would trick Jews into worshipping with them and would convince the real Jews that it is ok to follow Jesus. So the Jews got together and one guy volunteered to go undercover and get all the Jesus followers to adhere to a different set of rules. There is a lot more, but that's a good start.
Created:
Posted in:
The fast of the 17th of Tammuz is observed this year on this coming Sunday (though the date is actually Saturday, we push it off so that we do not fast on the Sabbath).
This begins a 3 weeks period of mourning and introspection culminating in the fast of the 9th of the month of Av (also, pushed to a Sunday).
The first fast is a "dawn til nightfall" fast on which only eating and drinking are forbidden. The 9th of Av is a 25 hour fast which has additional limitations on behavior.
This is a reversal of the month of mourning after the loss of a family member. In that time of personal mourning, our sadness lessens slightly over a month so the restrictions get less and less. In this communal mourning (over the lass of the temples in Jerusalem and a host of other tragedies) the limitations increase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You asked about names of religions that predate Judaism. I happen to see a post elsewhere that mentioned Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, but I'm no expert on the matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Just to clarify the Jewish understanding via Jewish law:
1. The messiah must be, on his father's side, from the tribe of Judah and the Davidic line. Jewish law does not consider the mother's line for tribal identity (which is different from tribal inheritance, which can consider the mother in rare cases)
2. Judaism has no laws of adoption. It just isn't a thing in Jewish law. A convert has no tribe. A secularly adopted child does not change his tribal identity.
3. There is no precedent for God arbitrarily saying, "hey you...you are now from the tribe of X"
So if J existed and was God's son and not Joseph's then he had no tribal identity (nor Davidic lineage). He could not have been "adopted" tribally by Joseph. He would therefore not have had the qualification in terms of his ancestry. If he was the son of two humans (and one was Joseph, not a Roman soldier who raped Mary) then he would have tribal lineage and his inability to be considered the messianic leader the Jews were looking for would have been accounted for by other reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The question of J's existence is a valid one. And if he existed, there is, indeed, the problem of parentage, lineage and heritage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
If Jesus existed and if the stories in teh gospels are to be believed then, sure, it appears that he was Jewish. But so were a lot of other people and, like him (in the stories) some stuck with accepted ritual and practice and some rejected ritual and practice in whole or in part. It is important to remember this as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It's too bad that there are no Jewish documents from the time of Jesus whereas there are many Christian ones.
Judaism doesn't agree. The talmud was written down (using material transmitted orally from well before) in the time right after Jesus' death so there is material documenting Jewish belief and practice from both before and right after the turn of the era. Some of it draws stark contrasts between Jewish practice and non-Jewish practice. As to whether the first Christians were Jews, that is a matter of historical debate ranging from "the first Christians were just a sect of Jews" to "the Christians were ones who abandoned Judaism or were from the gentiles to whom the theology was preached". There is one view within Judaism that has the entirety of the Christian written canon as a Jewish subterfuge.
It is a little bit like the fact that woman are the first witnesses of the resurrection despite the fact that no one would ever use a Jewish woman to corroborate a story in those times.
But that, in and of itself, is an error. A woman might not be able to present certain testimony in a court setting but that doesn't mean that a woman couldn't corroborate a story. And none of the material presented was established as being in a proper and formal court setting. Entire concepts such as Jesus' supposed crime, the process and method of the court, the timing and other aspects are all inaccurate. But instead of saying that a preponderance of errors indicates a flawed retelling, people would rather assume that the entirety of the religious and social hierarchy was not following its own laws. If you start based on a misstatement of Jewish law then that might lead you to draw certain conclusions.
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Is there any place where the Sept is considered not accurate prior to Jesus? I am not asking whether it was inspired - since I would think that it would need to be either Jewish or Aramaic for that to be the case for Jews. I might be wrong about that. Just saying that in the 21st century Jews would not consider it to be inspired does not necessarily mean that they thought it was in error back in the day. It was widespread even in the Jewish community in the 1st century. Why would any Gentile for instance want a copy of a Jewish bible - even in Greek? The only people who would have needed it or required it were the Greek speaking Jews wherever they were. The fact that it appears so widespread surely shows a real demand for it.
The Sept of the prophets did not, according to Jewish understanding, even exist prior to Jesus, so asking about its accuracy in that period is a non-starter. As to what languages are considered inspired, the answer is "the original Hebrew/Aramaic" and "by some, one particular later Aramaic interpretation." That one was allowed to translate into Greek and have the text retain much of its meaning/religious value does not confer any inspiration on any particular Greek translation. We have English translations now and there are many people, Jewish and not, who want copies. This doesn't mean that they are fully accurate or perfect (even the ones put out by religious Jews). In fact, even within the Jewish community there is great argument over the utility and accuracy of various English versions.
Many Jews all over the world were wanting the Hebrew text of the Scriptures in their own tongue - which may well have been - and probably was Greek at that time.
While many spoke Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew were still being used as the languages of Jews.
Why then would Jews only want the Talmud in Greek and not the rest of the OT?
The Jews didn't want the Talmud in Greek (it is in Hebrew and Aramaic -- if people really wanted Greek, then it would be logical to assume that the language of the corpus of Jewish law would be in Greek -- the fact that it wasn't is rather telling). In fact, the Jews didn't want the first 5 books in Greek either. The translation was not at the people's behest.
And just for the record - can you confirm whether the first five books - the Torah was seen as inspired or not - despite it being in Greek?
(Religious) Jews saw and see the first five books as divinely written, not just inspired. The prophets and writings are "inspired" in different ways.
Did they ever complain that - it was in error or not worth reading? Yes, they might have agreed it was not inspired - but in error? If you are able to link back to that time - sources who were complaining about the Greek text then that would be helpful.
The translation of the first five books, according to the talmud, was under duress and the translators made a series of changes in the Greek (which rendered their version significantly different from the Hebrew, intentionally). Later discussions about material in the prophets show signs of Christian changes which Jews rejected https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/S/septuagint-talmudic-notices-concerning-the.html
some other discussions https://deba.wordpress.com/2007/06/16/limmudoz-presenting-on-the-bible-in-greek/
(and the site https://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2007/06/the_high_valuat.html which makes reference to the wordpress blog)
also of interest would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint (scroll down to "Jewish use")
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
And from a Christian perspective, there are no errors. The trial by Sanhedrin at night is evidence by the Christians that the Jewish leaders knew they were doing the wrong thing. Why we consider it was a kangaroo court. Christians recognize that they would not ordinarily meet at night. So the fact that they did - going against their own law, demonstrated how concerned they were about Jesus. Paul was not one to lie. And I am not suggesting that Jews ordinarily lied either. I just think that in that particular time - that the Jewish leaders were not going about God's business so much as their own one. And possibly not even all of them - just a few powerful ones. I would suggest that even you don't think that every Jewish leader in every time was without corruption.
This brings up an interesting rhetorical moment. When confronted with a telling of an historical moment which doesn't conform with other documentation, one has the choice -- either to say that the retelling is in error or that the retelling is accurate and it bespeaks something about the people in the story that they didn't follow their own rules. The problem I have is that the entire narrative is so out of sync with Jewish law that one would have to assume a huge conspiracy of willful and intentional transgression by an entire community instead of saying that the retelling is not authoritative. I see the retelling as the problem here instead of casting aspersions on the entire Jewish community. As to the question about the possible corruption of the leaders, it certainly would seem that way by the retelling (but according to Jewish law and lore, the entire basis for the story is flawed and the Sanhedrin being discussed isn't even the Pharisaic sanhedrin) but that seems rather self-serving.
So are you saying that the Sept has no value whatsoever in religious discussions?
That is a bit of an overstatement. Historically, it is very useful but I think that its value is compromised, by the fact that it is a translation, and one created (in the Jewish opinion) without a divine inspiration and following an agenda which is evidenced by the errors in word choice and in factual errors.
The word ish has other meanings apart from tree. It doesn't exclude certain words so your point has some merit. Yet the word for maiden - is distinguished from that argument in that it has been translated by some people - dodgy or not - as virgin. And this was accepted for many years without question - UNTIL the Christians used it to support Jesus' amazing birth. Then the critics came out and questioned it.
The word "ish" doesn't mean "tree" at all and never does. But following your logic, I can claim it does because no where is there a lexicon that lists all the things it doesn't mean, and since, in at least one case, I can insist that it DOES mean that, it must mean that.
but there is no evidence - unless you can point it out to us - that between the time it was allegedly wrongly translated and the Christian claim that it was considered an error.
I have no idea about the Christian claim about error. I can only look at the Hebrew and speak from a position as informed by the Jewish scriptures. The Jewish view was never that it was an accurate translation. If you state that the Sept was either by or for the Jewish community and they didn't complain then you need to recognize that the text we have of the Sept version of texts after the 5 books of Moses was not by nor for the Jewish community.
The talmud recounts a version of the story of the translation of the Hebrew text to Greek but is only speaking of the 5 books. There is no reason to think that the LXX that we have of any text after those 5 was EVER accepted by the Jewish community. Once that is the groundwork, then wondering whether anyone when the LXX was assembled and revised saw parthenos as virgin (and not maiden, for example) is speculation. Not until the Greek switches to English (another level of translation mediation) and is fixed as virgin can we be sure that the error was codified. So if you discuss the LXX, then you should stick with the Greek and not a later English retranslation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I am not suggesting you ought to take it as authoritative. Yet there is no reason for me not take it so. I disagree that the gospels contain factual errors. Remember that the Judaism practiced in the NT and the OT for that matter is not the same as it is practiced today. And just because things in the NT are different from how Judaism is practiced today does not ergo demonstrate a so called error in the gospels.
Understood but from the Jewish perspective there are absolute errors. The one people like to talk about is that the Sanhedrin could not meet at night. It is simple to say "well, things were different then" except it is the version of Judaism that the Pharisees taught which states explicitly that trials can't be at night. So saying Paul was a Pharisee just confirms that he would have pointed out that this trial could not have been at night. Was Judaism "different"? Sure, but it was different within parameters that we have written down. How can anyone brag that any of the characters in the gospels studied with Gamliel and yet discount the existence of the laws which Gamliel and his colleagues taught? If stuff is recorded that is not in accordance with the Judaism taught by the Pharisees (which we still use as our canon of law today) then it must be in error. If you are looking for early records of how things in synagogues operated, you should use the same oral law that the Pharisees did.
Circular reasoning is axiomatic reasoning. How do you know the Torah is correct? I don't think it therefore reduces the probative value.
I know the Torah is correct because of faith, and that's it. So I don't use it to prove things outside the text to people who don't understand or accept the text because the simplest response would be "but I don't have faith that it is correct." But if someone tries to invoke the Torah and yet not accept that the Torah is authoritative then that seems hypocritical.
You have said that the Sept contains errors. You have not said the Sept only has errors.
Well, Jerusalem existed, so the textual claim that it existed is not an error. London exists but that doesn't make the "Harry Potter" books an authority on much else.
Would you also agree that the Torah has errors?
Nope.
I also said my highest argument for its use - as virgin is not the Sept, but rather the inspiration of God. Yes, that doesn't help you. Yet, it does mean a different matter for me - it means I can't simply reject it because someone else says the text is invalid.
But that's an important step -- you can acknowledge that you accept the use of virgin because you have faith in the translation in this case, not because there is any textual support elsewhere -- such support would not be necessary by you because you have faith in this particular translational moment. You believe it because it is there and you believe the text in which it is positioned.
My point was always that the word itself does not exclude virgin from its meaning.
But then you accept that "ish" means tree if anyone claims it simply because it isn't explicitly excluded. The fact is, by looking at other uses and non-uses of the word, it is clear that "virgin" IS excluded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
"Torah" is a term that is used in different ways in Judaism. Sometimes it refers to the first 5 books, sometimes to the entire written corpus (5 books, prophets and writings, also called the Tanach) sometimes it refers to the oral law, or the entire combination of written and oral law. Sometimes it is a local word pointing to a particular group of laws. But even just in the text of the 5 books there are discussions of both reward and punishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Paul was a Pharisee and trained by very eminent scholars such as Gamaliel. Paul clearly used it. and Paul was a leader in the Jewish religion for a significant time before he converted. Surely you would not seriously suggest otherwise?
Certainly I would, but not from silence -- your argument is based in, and requires, accepting the authority of a text I claim is not authoritative. The gospels include factual errors (things not in accordance with Judaism) and don't have a verifiable provenance that makes me accept their statements. So making some sort of claim about Paul being someone or studying with someone is not really useful because it is not corroborated by any text I would look at as an authority.
It seems like you are arguing from silence. There are notoriously few therefore we can't rely upon it as a valid source.
No, the fact that there are few simply means that there are few, and since the only one that might support your contention is the one that is subject to a circular argument of belief (your theology teaches you that the text is true and because it is true you accept your theology) it is of little probative value to anyone else.
Also, it isn't silence as much as a failure of the voice that is out there. I can't rely on something as a valid source if it is an invalid source.
The "Sept uses "virgin" and the Sept, even if full of errors, reflects a correct understanding, then "virgin" even though the text has errors is true". Since there is silence outside of this unreliable source (and on its face, the source conflicts with the earlier material) the conclusion fails.
Even you mentioned above that the young lady probably was a virgin even though it is not necessarily implied within it.
I was speaking of a different young lady, one whom the text explicitly says is a virgin. But in the case of the Isaiah quote, with no other text to qualify the word, there is no reason to impute virginity to it. If I say that the girl probably had dark hair, that doesn't make "brunette" a valid translation or interpretation of the word almah.
If there were appropriate and legitimate sources which can categorically say it could never mean virgin then I would concede the argument.
Isn't that waiting for someone to prove a negative, what a word does NOT mean? Instead, why not look at what the word means and how it is used and translated elsewhere to create context -- build meaning instead of assuming meaning and only considering changing if something comes to destroy the preconceived notion.
If I show you a Hebrew dictionary which doesn't include "virgin" as a meaning, will you say "therefore it CAN'T" or will you say "that doesn't say it CAN'T explicitly"? Dictionaries don't list all the things a word cannot mean.
and "maiden" as a noun (the way it is used in the verse) isn't about sexuality either. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maiden
the word possibly might mean virgin and that no one can categorically rule out virgin, then I think I am on reasonably safe ground.
But you haven't shown that it "might mean" virgin, only that the translation has it as "virgin" in one case. You are starting with the translation instead of with the Hebrew word. Similarly, I can claim to you that the Hebrew word "ish" 'might mean' tree. I can then pick one instance of "ish" and translate it as "tree" to prove that it can mean that, even though it never means tree and the verse I cite has nothing to do with trees. But you can't show me that it can be ruled out because that's not how language works -- we learn what words mean, not what they can't be claimed to mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
In Judaism, there is a very extensive concept known as s'char va'onesh (reward and punishment). There are punishments both on this world and in the world after death (same with rewards). Some are explicitly listed in the text as consequences of behavior, some are intuited. Punishments might be imposed by a human court (lashes, fines, exiles, death) by a human community (excision -- communal excommunication) and some by God (spiritual consequences).
resources
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well, you can always ask. Whether or not that asking is considered acceptable as an approach to religious expression is a complex discussion and none of it is related to the presence or lack of humility.
In terms of reward and punishment, Judaism has that in spades, plus healthy measures of awe, fear and adoration. So far, so good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I'm not sure that you can take any claim that the Pharisees accepted the Septuagint at all seriously. Some say that the original Sept was put into a proto Greek that would have been understood by the people and which would have been seen as having a level of sanctity within Judaism but the question is whether that claim is from a reputable source (of which there are notoriously few). This concern has to be coupled with the knowledge that by the time the prophets were translated, Greek was not that language that was an acceptable alternative.
Regardless, the Sept (or whatever we want to call that particular translation) chose (for that particular use of the Hebrew word almah) "virgin." But so what? An unreliable translation, or an agendized translation shouldn't be seen as an authority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Your inability to read Hebrew, your lack of knowledge about Judaism and your difficulty with basic reading comprehension all pale compared to this statement you just made, "YOUR DESPICABLE FAITH OF JUDAISM".
Since you start with that, we're clearly done here. You can go on being an anti-Semite. I'll sit back and laugh at you and devote my energies to people who have something relevant and informed to say.
Created:
Posted in:
A couple of points:
the "Septuagint" refers to the translation by 72 scholars in the 2nd or 3rd century BCE. It was only of the 5 books of Moses, not the prophets. The larger text often referred to as the LXX has unknown authorship and is not an accurate translation. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/messiahtruth/viewtopic.php?p=86541#p86541 for more info
the word in 7:14 means young woman. I don't think there is any place where it can be translated as virgin. In Gen 24:43, παρθένος is not found, though the same hebrew word as is used in Isaiah is used. Same with Ex 2:8 as far as I can tell.
The wiki page refers to 9 uses of the word in the Jewish texts. In two cases, the Greek chooses the word which you translate into English as "virgin" (though the wiki page indicates that it might not mean that, in terms of sexual identity, the woman has never been with a man). In the other case, the woman in question (Rebecca) is specifically called a betulah earlier in Gen 24 (by the divine narrator), and the text explains that she had never slept with a man. But when the story is retold by Eliezer, he uses the word Almah because there is no way that he could know her sexual history. So while the almah was, in fact, a virgin, that can't be derived from the retelling of someone who didn't know this and who chose a generic word instead of the one the text had recently used to give her sexual history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
just to fill in a piece of info, the structured prayer services have two bases in the biblical text. The first is to reflect prayers that the 3 forefathers (Abe, Isaac and Jake) recited (and there are verses for each one to show that each prayed at a particular time of day) and the second is that we see structured prayer services as echoing the daily (and holiday) sacrifices so the timing parallels that.
Created: