How does a Jew begin to believe in a triune God?

[fremen]

Agreed, you know very little of the Orthodox world it seems.

Au contrair, my friend. I know Orthodox Judaism quite well. Hardly any Reform or Conservative groups where I grew up.

Most of them were willing to sacrifice any logical thinking or well established historical fact if the sages provided another view, no matter how absurd that view is. Examples? Believing that the LXX was miraculously twisted by God. Believing that "K'tav Ashuri" was the original writing rather than "K'tav Ivri" - even if you follow the name given to such writings it sounds rather stupid. Rivkah married at the age of 3-4? Right... These are just to name a few...


Why?


Because it's a Jewish source that doesn't look only into what Orthodox Judaism has to say.


You seem to misunderstand. Being non-sectarian, does not prohibit you from adhereing to a school of thought.


I don't misunderstand, I simply see the obvious. Most of the Jewish world would go to the closest synagogue to their homes, or follow the teachings of the group most popular where they lived. Most of them would have no problem visiting other groups. That is exactly my case: I go to a Chabad Center because it's the closest shul to my place. Simple as that.

Today, most of the Jewish world is not Orthodox and would happily attend any synagogue that best fits their liturgical and social expectations, be it Reform, Conservative or Orthodox. It has always been that way. It is only the Orthodox who refuse to see it, in order to reinforce their exclusivity claims over the Jewish people. B"H this is coming to an end soon, as the secular governemnt of Israel is putting an end to that nonsense.


The population of Karaites has never risen above 10% of the total Jewish population. It's peak was at the 10/11 Centuaries and has never risen that high since. A fine work on the matter is Fred Astren's work on Karaites....
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1570035180/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

So saying that at one time, 50% of the Jewish population was Karaite and then latter describing that as absolute fact, is well......

As always, statistics depend on whom you consider to be Jewish. But that's fine. No need to take their word. Let's work with 10%, then. Still, today it's much less. Still what I have been saying stands. Especially because my point has never been how many karaites there are/were, but that Jewish demographs have change considerably over time, and will continue to in any forseen future.

Kol tov,
Fremen

[fremen]

Orthodox Judaism has been shrinking consistently, and as a matter of fact, today represents only a fraction of the much larger Jewish world. Should I then, by following your own train of thought, consider this as God throwing off the heretics? ;)

kivi says: Judaism throws heresies off like sparks from a 4th of July candle. Still, all of these heresies fall with a narrow range of arguements over the authenticity of the Oral Torah and assimulation and accomodation to the larger gentile society. 'Normative' [you should know I hate that word] Judiasm is pretty identifiable, historically. It is what remains. Judaism, as a religion and a culture is pretty pragmatic. The promise from G-d is that He will allow to continue what is on-track and He will destroy and eliminate what is not on-track. What has remained is a continued dedication to the Oral Tradition; a refusal to assimulate; and an on-going troubled effort to accomodate to the greater gentile society.

[fremen]

Could one, then, by applying the same train of thought, come to the conclusion that the purpose of the Talmud is also to badly define other Jewish sects and then say they will all boil in hot excrement, while the Pharisees will be welcomed in the pearly gates?

Not very nice when someone applies to us the same strictness and judgementalism that we frequently apply to other religious groups, now is it? ;)

kivi says: Of course, they do. The purpose of the Gospels and Paul's epistles is to define Judaism, badly, and then using a comparison and contrast system, show how Christianity is so much better than Judaism.

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by kivi http://img.christianforums.com/style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48255078#post48255078) kivi says: Of course, they do. The purpose of the Gospels and Paul's epistles is to define Judaism, badly, and then using a comparison and contrast system, show how Christianity is so much better than Judaism.Shalom kivi. The Epistles mainly describe the OC Ordinances of the OC Hebrew Israelites under Moses in the Old Testament.

Did you notice some Christians want the Jews to hurry up and breed a red heifer so as to hasten the supposedely 2nd coming of JESUS?
Here is a thread that might interest both OJs and MJs. Thoughts?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7268904

quote poster: "There are more problems than just the Dome of the Rock. They need to spread the ashes of a red heifer where the Temple will be, but the breeders have not been able to get the heifer the right color and just three white hairs would disqualify the heifer from being used. They also need to find a Levite boy in order to perform a ceremony where the Temple will be. But they have never been able to find a Levite because all of the lineage records are destroyed and even if they did find a Levite, there are certain things that would disqualify him i.e. if he is ceremonially unclean."

Response LLOJ: "Greetings. The Jews will not know the significance of the Red Heifer unless they read the Christ-ian NT/NC. Here is an very good commentary on it and Hebrews 9:13 is the only place this word is used in the NT/NC. Thoughts?"

Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of he-goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer/damalewV <1151> sprinkling the ones being commoned/contaminated, is hallowing toward the of the flesh, purity..........

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/ashes/ashes1.htm (http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/ashes/ashes1.htm)
ASHES OF THE RED HEIFER

...............Numbers 19 is a most unusual chapter in the Old Testament. All the offerings in the Bible are bullocks and rams, but here there is an exception - a heifer, a female cow whose never given birth. All the offerings in the Old Testament are slaughtered and offered to God, but this offering of the red heifer, though killed and burned, is very different from the rest.

While all others are offered to God to meet current claims - that is, the sin-offering, the burnt offering, or the peace offering according to the need of the day - the red heifer alone was not for the present need. It was offered to meet future needs. The ordinance of the red heifer stands alone. While other sacrifices are often brought before us, this recorded in no other part of Israel's history...........

http://www.nsbible.org/sits_ts/v0s7.htm
"THE ASHES OF A HEIFER"

......ONE feature of the ceremonial law of Israel, related in `Numbers 19`, required the killing of a red heifer (cow)--one without blemish and which had never been under the yoke of service. It was not one of the sin-offerings of the Day of Atonement, nor was it one of the offerings of the people subsequent to the Day of Atonement--indeed, it was no "offering" at all, for no part of it was offered on the Lord's altar or eaten by the priests. It was sacrificed, but not in the same sense, nor in the same place, as these offerings--in the Court. It was not even killed by one of the priests, nor was its blood taken into the Holy and Most Holy. The Red Heifer was taken outside the camp of Israel, and was there killed and burned to ashes--flesh, fat, hide, blood, etc.--except a little of the blood taken by the priest and sprinkled seven times toward the front of the Tabernacle (Revised Version and Leeser).

The ashes of the heifer were not brought into the Holy place, but were left outside the Camp, gathered together in a heap, and apparently accessible to any of the people who had use for them. Under the prescription of the Law, a portion of the ashes was to be mixed with water in a vessel, and a bunch of hyssop dipped into this mixture was to be used in sprinkling the person, clothing, tent, etc., of the legally unclean, for their purification...................

[kivi]

Could one, then, by applying the same train of thought, come to the conclusion that the purpose of the Talmud is also to badly define other Jewish sects and then say they will all boil in hot excrement, while the Pharisees will be welcomed in the pearly gates?

Not very nice when someone applies to us the same strictness and judgementalism that we frequently apply to other religious groups, now is it? ;)
kivi says: I won't be suprised. Some how you think that a frum Jew has to also be stupid. Of course, the Talmud was writen to support the Talmud. Dah:confused: And nice has nothing to do with it. We are talking about what is the party line, nothing more and nothing less. Christianity is the one that confuses nice with right. Not Judaism. We are much more hard headed. So, what is your point?

[fremen]

I don't think a frum Jew has to be stupid. I think fundamentalist fanaticism is stupid, no matter what religious context you may apply it to.

My point is: Judaism is just as guilty of the hatred and misrepresentation of other sects as you claim Christianity to be.

Just for a quick example: Talmud says the Sadducees cracked their skulls and smashed their brains because they would wear tefillin quite literally between their eyes, and would hit their heads on the wall. Aside from the utterly idiotic nature of such accusation, it is also historically innacurate. Sadducees never wore tefillin. This is something that originated within the Pharisee sect.

But don't feel so bad, Kivi. All religious systems have their flaws and their issues they need to work on. Because one thing they have in common, if not anything else: even if they have the divine inspiration they claim to have (and I believe Judaism does have that), they also have fallible men who add their own mistakes into the mixture. You don't have to be blind to such things in order to be at peace with your own faith. Having that in mind makes us less arrogant, more loving and sensitive towards other people's belief systems.

Kol tov,
Fremen



kivi says: I won't be suprised. Some how you think that a frum Jew has to also be stupid. Of course, the Talmud was writen to support the Talmud. Dah:confused: And nice has nothing to do with it. We are talking about what is the party line, nothing more and nothing less. Christianity is the one that confuses nice with right. Not Judaism. We are much more hard headed. So, what is your point?

[kivi]

Polycarp_fan (http://christianforums.com/member.php?u=226814)



Originally Posted by kivi http://img.christianforums.com/style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48255078#post48255078)
kivi says: Of course, they do. The purpose of the Gospels and Paul's epistles is to define Judaism, badly, and then using a comparison and contrast system, show how Christianity is so much better than Judaism.
PCF: Or rather, how a segment, a group of Israelite/Hebrew/Jews, needed to be challenged on their unique beliefs about "Judaism." Or rather, "Judaism" before Judaism.
kivi says: This "Judaism" before Judaism mis-information is a common attempt to de-legitimize Judaism. Got any facts to support your claim?

For example: Are "Reform Jews" actually Jewish?
kivi says: Yes, if they were born to a Jewish mother or converted according to Halachah.

Are Atheist Jews removed from Israel? Etc., etc..
kivi says: There is no Bas Din that can stop a Jew, no matter what they may have believed, temporarily, from doing tzuevah.

Their ideas about Torah and Prophetic utterings seem rather suspect. A false Kohen is a false Kohen. They still exist today.
kivi says: I have no idea what you are referring to. Your point is?
kivi: All of the false complaints against the Pharisees, the slander about not allowing healing on the Shabbas; of the boys stealing and eating grains on Shabbas; the falsehoods about the numerous and onerous duties the Rabbis forced on the common people but did not follow themselves; comparing the Rabbis to the spawn of the Devil; the entire capture, trial and execution of Jesus Christ; all of these are efforts [and there are more] to negatively define Judaism in the Gospels.
PCF: Or rather, define what a group of Jewish people really did and really believed.
kivi says: Anybody can make a charge, the question is if they can back it up. You haven't. These charges made by the New Testament are about Pharisaic Judaism. We have extensive records about what Pharisaic Judaism believed and practiced. None of these New Testament charges match the reality.

PFC: There are bad people everywhere.

kivi says: None of the charges in the New Testament identify any groups smaller than the scribes, the Sadducess and the Pharisees. There is no identification of a group of 'bad people' or a 'bad person' within the Pharisaic Community. They are charges that encompass all of Judaism, as a system. So your excuse just does not cut it.


PCF: Of course, the Disciples were all "Jewish" people, and the NT doesn't regard them as so bad.
kivi says: That is to be expected, after all the New Testament is a testimonial for the founders of Christianity. Moreover, their Jewish-ness is quickly disguised by the early Chruch Fathers and denied for most of Chirstian history.


PCF: And Yeshua mentions righteous people as well, that were ceratinly not disciples. The opinions and record in the New Testament are about very decent "Jews." There are, and have been bad Jewish people.
kivi says: Your point is?
kivi: Paul's most successful attempts were to claim that the Law kills, that God set up the Law to trick the Jews and to prove that the Law doesn't work and his detailed presentation of Replacement theology.

PCF: Paul seems very firm on the fact that he "is a Jew," and that he believes in Torah. Odd for an anti-Jewish anyone.
kivi says: Well, Paul was an odd fish. Personally, I think that Paul was trying to pass. That he both hated Jews and envied them and want be part of them and thought he didn't have what it took, all at the same time, a very common cluster of emotions.

kivi:Later attempts include the blood libels; the conspiracy theories like the Protocals of the Elders of Zion; the witch hunts; the ghetto-ization and expulsions; the rational that Jews should be persecuted because they deserved it as Christ killers, and the beat goes on and on and on.

PCF: The beat goes on and on and broke the very Gospel truth proclaimed by all of those Jewish believers in Yeshau as Messiah.

Complain about "European" influence on Yeshua. You have history on your side there. Every Apostles agrees with your point here. And of course the Messiah Himself, Yeshua.

"Christians" did not start the process. Jews did. Jewish believers in Yeshua as Messiah were called "Jews" before they were called Christians. What Europeans did with the Gospel was to ignore it and violate it. The words of Yeshua condmemn the actions perpetrated against "Jews."
kivi says: You have a very common defense; that Christianity went horribly off-track, that pretty much after the 1st hundred or so years, Christinity was hi-jacked by some other non-Chirstian group, in your case, the European's. And it all their fault. Welcome to Conspirosy Theory 101.
My answer is simple. If Christianity is such a great system, if Jesus Christ is such a great guy or even, a god, himself, then how did that god let his religion be hi-jacked? The answer is, to my mind, that there was no hi-jack. Christianity has developed, in part, as a result of its own origins. It is playing-out, in effect, its origional mandate. It is exactly what it was meant to be.
kivi: Christian culture constantly attempts to define Judaism, from the yellow stars to the term 'ultra-orthodox' and Hagee's Israel Day celebrations.

PCF: Christian "culture" is exclusively Jewish derived. The Europeans did all that you accuse them of. Studying their historic past, and you can see why they did what they did and why the believe the way they do. Don't blame that on the Jewish Messiah and His Apostles and Disciples. Even Judaism has its bad eggs.
kivi says: You don't have some 'bad eggs', you have a whole religion in Christianity and if the religion was so great in the beginning, it could not have gone so wrong, so early on.

PCF: The sages and rabbi's have been incredibly hard at work trying to define "Judaism" to this very day and to this very moment. I'm betting the most problematic and irritating words ever uttered that they have ever had to deal with are:

"It is finished."
kivi says: When Moshiach Comes, then the next great adventure.

PCF: I became a "Christian" when I realized that "Jews" still existed. Once I realized that fact, it wasn't difficult to decide what to do and how to do it.
kivi says: Whatever.

Once you touch a miracle, and especialy, when one touches you, there is no turning back from it easily.

Referring to your above facts about how many times and how many people have tried to eliminate "Israel," the decision making process went the only way it could for me.

The annhilation of Yeshua didn't work either. No man can destroy God or His people.

Notice that Paul had non-Jews grafted "on to" the Jewish tree?

Paul's "theology" is strictly Jewish.
kivi says: Oh, to the contrary. the second you have 'grafting', you are out of Judaism. Judaism already said, long before Paul ever shows up: "All of B'nai Israel and the Righteous of the Nations have a portion in Olam Habah." So, with grafting, Paul is inventing a process for which there is no need. That is further proof of his lack of understanding of how Judaism works.

[LittleLambofJesus]

My sources are
1/The Midrash Says, 5 vols, Benei Yakov Publications, by R' Moshe Weissman;

2/ The History of the Jewish People, 2 vols, ArtScroll, R's Nossan Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz;

3/ Rabbi's Berel Wein multi-vol History of the Jewish People, ArtScroll;

4/ The Stone Edition of the ArtScroll Chumash and Tanach;

5/ Jewish Literacy, R' Joseph Teluskin, Wm Morrow and Co;

6/ Crash Course in Jewish History, R' K. Spiro, http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/ (http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/) ;

7/ Jewish History SourceBook
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jewishsbook.html#The% (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jewishsbook.html#The%)
20Emergence%20of%20Judaism ;

8/ The Jewish Virtual Library
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/)

I pick and use these sources because they are in English so everybody can read them;they are current, using the best sources available; they are affordable [I own them all]; they present a good and accurate Orthodox understanding of Jewish history.
Greetings. I would like to know if the word "Judean" is not more appropriate for how it is used in the NT/NC.
Notice Galilee of the Nations is mentioned. Would that be both the Nation of Israel and Gentiles with the Judeans mainly in Judea?
I am just now studying on this. Thoughts?

Matthew 4:15 Land of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, way-of sea, across the Jordan, Galilee/galilaia <1056> of-the Nations/eqnwn <1484>: [Isaiah 9:1]

John 7:1 And was walking, the Jesus, after these in the Galilee for not He willed in the Judea to be walking, that the Judeans sought Him to kill.

Acts 13:46 Being bold yet the Paul and the Baranbas say "to ye was it necessary first to be spoken the Word of the God, since ye are thrusting away him and not worthy ye are judging selves of the age-abiding Life, behold! we are turning into the Nations/eqnh <1484>.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jew.htm

The Etymology of the Word "Jew"

In his classic Facts are Facts (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/facts.htm/lJew), Jewish historian, researcher and scholar Benjamin Freedman writes:

Jesus is referred as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jew" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer doubt.

[kivi]

Orthodox Judaism has been shrinking consistently, and as a matter of fact, today represents only a fraction of the much larger Jewish world. Should I then, by following your own train of thought, consider this as God throwing off the heretics? ;)

kivi says: The census numbers do not support your claim. IN fact, assimulation and interfaith marriages have devastated the non-Orthodox community while Orthodoxy, as it has done, over and over again in the past, is re-populating Judaism with an exceptionally high birth rate and a growing Bal Tsuevah movement. There have been numerous occasions in the past when the Orthodox/Torah True Community was in the minority [the Karite dispute is a perfect example] and rallied to win the day. It will happen in this latest bout with modernity. There is a promise from G-d that Observance will survive, that those who follow G-d's Torah to the best of their abilities will be the mainstream of Jewish existance.

[kivi]

I don't think a frum Jew has to be stupid. I think fundamentalist fanaticism is stupid, no matter what religious context you may apply it to.

My point is: Judaism is just as guilty of the hatred and misrepresentation of other sects as you claim Christianity to be.

Just for a quick example: Talmud says the Sadducees cracked their skulls and smashed their brains because they would wear tefillin quite literally between their eyes, and would hit their heads on the wall. Aside from the utterly idiotic nature of such accusation, it is also historically innacurate. Sadducees never wore tefillin. This is something that originated within the Pharisee sect.
kivi says: I have no idea where you got that mis-information from, care to share?

But don't feel so bad, Kivi. All religious systems have their flaws and their issues they need to work on. Because one thing they have in common, if not anything else: even if they have the divine inspiration they claim to have (and I believe Judaism does have that), they also have fallible men who add their own mistakes into the mixture. You don't have to be blind to such things in order to be at peace with your own faith. Having that in mind makes us less arrogant, more loving and sensitive towards other people's belief systems.

Kol tov,
Fremen
kivi says: Thank you for your condensation. I don't feel bad about being a loyal Jew. I feel proud that I can take a small part in the defense of Judaism against proselytizers and missionaries.

[ContraMundum]

kivi says: Of course, they do. The purpose of the Gospels and Paul's epistles is to define Judaism, badly, and then using a comparison and contrast system, show how Christianity is so much better than Judaism.

Not really- although there are small portions of the NT that contrast certain idea of the time that some Jews believed with what the Messiah has taught. But, the purpose of the NT is not to define Judaism, or even critique it (because it was very diverse then, as now, anyway), but each book has a particular purpose or purposes. The Gospels don't define Judaism, they are either synopsis of events or a theological discourse on events. Most of the Epistles are written to correct errors in the Christian Church, therefore they define not Judaism but Christianity. I don't think it's a fair thing to say that the NT is an attempt to define Judaism. It's not, and I think you would be hard pressed to find Christian teachers agreeing with you.

All of the false complaints against the Pharisees, the slander about not allowing healing on the Shabbas; of the boys stealing and eating grains on Shabbas; the falsehoods about the numerous and onerous duties the Rabbis forced on the common people but did not follow themselves; comparing the Rabbis to the spawn of the Devil; the entire catpure, trial and execution of Jesus Christ; all of these are efforts [and there are more] to negatively define Judaism in the Gospels.


I think that is a pretty bad take on the events mentioned. In reality, it appears that those things mentioned were errors of the time, not "true" practices but abuses in an era that even the Talmud mentions was rather difficult. In other words, it mentions the errors, not the truth, of Judaism as being corrected. This is why anti-missionaries get so confused about this. They think the NT is meant to portray a form of Judaism they themselves would never believe- the Church agrees with them. The NT does not correct orthodoxy, but error.

Paul's most successful attempts were to claim that the Law kills, that God set up the Law to trick the Jews and to prove that the Law doesn't work and his detailed presentation of Replacement theology.

Actually, a few points here that should be mentioned. First of all, the context of Paul's comments are that the Law demonstrates to us sin. He is not saying that the whole of the Torah "kills", for example, he is not saying that donning tzitzis or having payess kills, but that man stands condemned when he breaks the moral laws, like adultery or murder etc. Certainly, the Torah is life giving, and Paul teaches that man is freed from sin and forgiven of his sins that the law morally condemns him for when he repents and has faith etc. This frees him to keep the law properly with a clean heart before God. So, when you read Paul, try to grasp his context. The English is often difficult to read, but the Greek helps a lot. If you ever get confused about this, ask.

Nowhere in the NT does it say that God set up the law to trick the Jews. I think we can lay that one to rest, ok?

Also- Paul certainly does not teach Replacement Theology. That is an early Medieval/Dark Ages idea mainly propogated by only a few in the church. Today, many denominations move against such a teaching, holding Paul's contentions in Rom. 9-11 as indicative of God's perpetual place for Israel, unto the last day. Actually, you will not find a single mainstream Christian denominaiton that holds to replacement theology. Some have written against it (eg. the RCC) recently to clarify it. I have met only one individual who believed it, and by the end of our conversation, he didn't.

Later attempts include the blood libels; the conspiracy theories like the Protocals of the Elders of Zion; the witch hunts; the ghetto-ization and expulsions; the rational that Jews should be persecuted because they deserved it as Christ killers, and the beat goes on and on and on.
Christian culture constantly attempts to define Judaism, from the yellow stars to the term 'ultra-orthodox' and Hagee's Israel Day celebrations.

None of those things are taught in the NT. It's just life. Sometimes it sucks.

BTW- I think people like Hagee may just perhaps be the best friend of the Jew in the long run. I don't know much about him, but anyone supporting Jews is a friend of mine, even if he doesn't "get" us.

[ContraMundum]

Answer me honestly, do you think the moral of that story is don't listen to G-d but listen to a Rabbi? Do you think Orthodox Jews take this as a literal event that happened and that HaShem was bested by mere men?

I don't know- you tell me. I think the plain language would certainly lead to that conclusion. I've read sentiments from the sgaes that would concur with that too.

I thought it was pretty clear. It was a parable that was used to reinforce a point that HaShem does not interfere with judicial rulings and not to be taken as a literal event.

But, in the story, God certainly does get involved, doesn't He?

Also, isn't saying that God doesn't get involved in the judicial rulings of the Rabbis merely affirming my point?

I merely mention them, becuase such a topic is tricky and is not one sided.

Very true.

I have a personal opinion that it should be future, but I understand the merit to of the present tense and would allow the text to be presented as such. I think the matter is trivial.

OK...good enough for me.

Well, Grammar can be a set of flexable rules that govern linguistics that is flexable, prone to rapid change and can be as much an art as a science. Theology, is a rational discourse about G-d that is not limited by dead grammar.

When we approach Biblical texts, we try to use Biblical rules of grammar (eg. ones contemporary to the time the text was written and according to the language used), and we try to not be influenced by later changing grammatical occurences.

However, I don't think God is limited to dead grammar, but He certainly bid His people to write it down, and writing uses rules of grammar. It is wiithin those grammatical rules that we approach the text to understand the author's intended meaning, as best we can this side of glory.

Do you believe in a anthropomorphic G-d with physical hands and feet?

You mean via a hypostatic union like Jesus, or like the Mormon God?

Like Isaiah 7:14?

We can discuss the grammar/parsing of that text if you like. I would say that the grammar should dictate the theology.

There are many areas of Theology that simply cannot be restrained by text. You could not, for example, offer a very good explanation to the Problem of Evil.

I agree 100%.

Icannot help but feel this is a backhanded comment at Midrash here.

It's not intended to be. Christianity uses Midrashic approaches too- it got it from the Hebrew root.

Can you read Classical Hebrew? I'm just curious and I don't think your ability to read it reflects on your argument here, but have you taken a text in Classical Hebrew and tried to translate into English? Bad fit, now try and fit in who the author is, what he knows and what he assumes his audience knows. Factor in cultrual and historical climate and this becomes real tricky buisness.

I get by in Classical Hebrew, but the reason I only posted the text in Hebrew was to avoid this very valid concern of yours.

Anything we say about this text, is an interpetation unless we switch over and converse in Classical Hebrew...

I don't think Classical Hebrew is impossible to understand in English. English is very precise language. In fact, would we even have confusion over the parsing of this text if it were written in English, Latin or Greek?

Outside of prayer,acts of charity and Yom Kippur, the only place Korban Oleh VeYored, Ataat and Asham can be done is in the Temple.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[kivi]

Not really- although there are small portions of the NT that contrast certain idea of the time that some Jews believed with what the Messiah has taught. But, the purpose of the NT is not to define Judaism, or even critique it (because it was very diverse then, as now, anyway), but each book has a particular purpose or purposes. The Gospels don't define Judaism, they are either synopsis of events or a theological discourse on events. Most of the Epistles are written to correct errors in the Christian Church, therefore they define not Judaism but Christianity. I don't think it's a fair thing to say that the NT is an attempt to define Judaism. It's not, and I think you would be hard pressed to find Christian teachers agreeing with you.
kivi says: Come on, CM, of course Christian teachers won't agree, DAH:idea:, but they are not my audience, and they are most definnitely not any primary authority I would refer to. I don't care what Christians think as long as they leave us alone. I am talking to Jews and Jews will see my point: That the Gospels and the Epistles play a careful game of trashing Judaism just enough so that it is no longer seen as a legitimate spiritual sytem but not so much that Christianity can't use it as its legitimizing foundation. That is why the mis information about healing on Shabbas, that is why the mis information about the Rabbis creating onerous requirements for the laity but not applying those requirements to themselves, that is why the mis information about the apostles stealing grain on Shabbas, that is why the numerous references to the spawns of the Devil and other slanders, that is why the entire fictional story about the arrest, trial and execution of the supposed Jesus Christ.

CM: I think that is a pretty bad take on the events mentioned. In reality, it appears that those things mentioned were errors of the time, not "true" practices but abuses in an era that even the Talmud mentions was rather difficult. In other words, it mentions the errors, not the truth, of Judaism as being corrected. This is why anti-missionaries get so confused about this. They think the NT is meant to portray a form of Judaism they themselves would never believe- the Church agrees with them. The NT does not correct orthodoxy, but error.
kivi says: None of the examples I have given have anything to do with Jewish errors of the time, they are all about Chirstian mis information. I am hardly confused. The Talmud says nothing about the Pharisaic 'error' of healing on Shabbas or the Pharisaic 'error' of stealing grain or the Pharisaic 'error' of creating onerous mitzvahs or the Pharisaic 'error' concerning the fictional story of the arrest, trial and execution of Jesus Christ or the Pharisaic 'error' of the spawns of the Devil or any of the other cases of mis information about Judaism found in the New Testament. The New Testament says nothing about the errors of the heretical groups like the Sadducees [except when it ignorantly lumps the Pharisees and the Sadducees together] or the Essenes or the Zealots. It directs its accusations at the Pharisees and every one of the accusations it makes is wrong.

CM: Actually, a few points here that should be mentioned. First of all, the context of Paul's comments are that the Law demonstrates to us sin. He is not saying that the whole of the Torah "kills", for example, he is not saying that donning tzitzis or having payess kills, but that man stands condemned when he breaks the moral laws, like adultery or murder etc. Certainly, the Torah is life giving, and Paul teaches that man is freed from sin and forgiven of his sins that the law morally condemns him for when he repents and has faith etc. This frees him to keep the law properly with a clean heart before God. So, when you read Paul, try to grasp his context. The English is often difficult to read, but the Greek helps a lot. If you ever get confused about this, ask.
kivi says: Then put your education hat on for the Christian, not us. They are the ones who get it wrong. It really doesn't concern us except as part of the message that the missionaries try to use to convert us. And if the Torah is so 'life giving', why do the Jews need Jesus Christ? What's wrong with the Torah System? This is Paul's greatest feat: trash Judaism just enough to de-legitimize it as an aqcceptable spritual system but keep it around just enough so that it can legitimize Christianity. Paul's great at the smoke and mirrors.

CM: Nowhere in the NT does it say that God set up the law to trick the Jews. I think we can lay that one to rest, ok?
kivi says: No.

CM: Also- Paul certainly does not teach Replacement Theology. That is an early Medieval/Dark Ages idea mainly propogated by only a few in the church. Today, many denominations move against such a teaching, holding Paul's contentions in Rom. 9-11 as indicative of God's perpetual place for Israel, unto the last day. Actually, you will not find a single mainstream Christian denominaiton that holds to replacement theology. Some have written against it (eg. the RCC) recently to clarify it. I have met only one individual who believed it, and by the end of our conversation, he didn't.
kivi says: Well, then you have found your calling, correcting the errors of Christian in relation to Judaism. Welcome abroad.:thumbsup:



CM: None of those things are taught in the NT. It's just life. Sometimes it sucks.
kivi says: The need to and ideology for demonize Jews is found in the New Testament, as we have just been discussing. The actions of the Church> Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant <is the fruit of the original wrong. 'Just life' is a horrible cop-out to evade responsiblity.

CM: BTW- I think people like Hagee may just perhaps be the best friend of the Jew in the long run. I don't know much about him, but anyone supporting Jews is a friend of mine, even if he doesn't "get" us.
kivi says: I think it is wise to fear those who would kill us with a kiss even more that those who would kill us with a sword. Of course, Hagee's anti Catholism is so bad that even McCain declined his endorsement.

[LittleLambofJesus]

kivi says: I think it is wise to fear those who would kill us with a kiss even more that those who would kill us with a sword. Of course, Hagee's anti Catholism is so bad that even McCain declined his endorsement.Shalom kivi. I would hope the future Messiah the Jews are waiting on will bring the Peace that Jesus was supposed to have brought to them. What the heck happened as there is so much division in the Abrahamic Religions today? :confused:

Luke 12:51 Ye are supposing that Peace I came to give in the land? Nay I am saying to ye, but rather Division:

Matthew 10:34"No you should be supposing that I came to be casting Peace upon the land. Not I came to be casting Peace, but a Sword

Jeremiah 4:10 And I am saying, `Alas, my Lord YHWH, surely to beguile you beguiled to people, this, and to Y@ruwshalaim to say of 'Peace shall come to ye' and a sword touches unto the soul. 11 In that time it shall be said to this people and to Y@ruwshalaim a wind of glazing of ridges in wilderness way of Daughter of My people not to winnow of and not to purify of. 12 A wind shall come from these for Me, now even I, I shall speak judgments with them.

[kivi]

Shalom kivi. I would hope the future Messiah the Jews are waiting on will bring the Peace that Jesus was supposed to have brought to them. What the heck happened as there is so much division in the Abrahamic Religions today? :confused:

Luke 12:51 Ye are supposing that Peace I came to give in the land? Nay I am saying to ye, but rather Division:

Matthew 10:34"No you should be supposing that I came to be casting Peace upon the land. Not I came to be casting Peace, but a Sword

Jeremiah 4:10 And I am saying, `Alas, my Lord YHWH, surely to beguile you beguiled to people, this, and to Y@ruwshalaim to say of 'Peace shall come to ye' and a sword touches unto the soul. 11 In that time it shall be said to this people and to Y@ruwshalaim a wind of glazing of ridges in wilderness way of Daughter of My people not to winnow of and not to purify of. 12 A wind shall come from these for Me, now even I, I shall speak judgments with them.

kivi says: Messiah-ship is a performance based job. If the person does not do the job, like Bar Kockba or Sabbarti or Jesus Christ, then they are not the Messiah. Its really pretty cut and dried. Get it right the 1st time or you 'get the hook'. You can see how people get so invested in a particular guy who seems to be 'doing well' with the job description and resume thingee that when he does fail, they can't handle it. The Lubavitchers have run into that problem with the death of the Rebbe. I think it is a great recent example of what may have happened with the early followers of Jesus Christ. Be that as it may, Messiah is to come with peace. No peace, no Messiah.

[ContraMundum]

kivi says: Come on, CM, of course Christian teachers won't agree, DAH:idea:, but they are not my audience,

Them and their disciples are your audience here.

kivi says: None of the examples I have given have anything to do with Jewish errors of the time, they are all about Chirstian mis information. I am hardly confused. The Talmud says nothing about the Pharisaic 'error' of healing on Shabbas or the Pharisaic 'error' of stealing grain or the Pharisaic 'error' of creating onerous mitzvahs or the Pharisaic 'error' concerning the fictional story of the arrest, trial and execution of Jesus Christ or the Pharisaic 'error' of the spawns of the Devil or any of the other cases of mis information about Judaism found in the New Testament. The New Testament says nothing about the errors of the heretical groups like the Sadducees [except when it ignorantly lumps the Pharisees and the Sadducees together] or the Essenes or the Zealots. It directs its accusations at the Pharisees and every one of the accusations it makes is wrong.Who wrote the Talmud? Was it the Essenes? No. Was it the Sadducees? No. Was it the Zealots? No. Oh, that's right, it was the Pharisees. No wonder it goes lightly on that group, eh?

(And yes, the NT does correct the errors of the Sadducees, Zealots and Essenes. Better brush up on that)


kivi says: Then put your education hat on for the Christian, not us. They are the ones who get it wrong. It really doesn't concern us except as part of the message that the missionaries try to use to convert us. And if the Torah is so 'life giving', why do the Jews need Jesus Christ? What's wrong with the Torah System? This is Paul's greatest feat: trash Judaism just enough to de-legitimize it as an aqcceptable spritual system but keep it around just enough so that it can legitimize Christianity. Paul's great at the smoke and mirrors.....all interpretations based on your own bias. I don't think you're going to win many ears here.

kivi says: The need to and ideology for demonize Jews is found in the New Testament, as we have just been discussing. The actions of the Church> Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant <is the fruit of the original wrong. 'Just life' is a horrible cop-out to evade responsiblity.No kivi, it's just life. Why? Every religion has it's awful, sinful representatives- even yours. I recently watched a documentary where a man attempted to ask Haredi Jews a sincere, non-provocative question (that he had asked other Jews as well) and they shoved him, called him awful names and yelled at him like animals- even before he asked his question (that no other Jew seemed to mind answering!). They embrassed me, and themselves. I'm glad, even elated, that I have nothing to do with them.

kivi says: I think it is wise to fear those who would kill us with a kiss even more that those who would kill us with a sword. Of course, Hagee's anti Catholism is so bad that even McCain declined his endorsement.Oh well- that's life!


Kivi- do you not have enough faith in God to accept things when they go wrong? Is He not sovereign over all, even the Christian Church? Was He not sovereign over the Romans when they destroyed the Temple? So, when bad things happen, can you just not say "God's will be done"?

[RebYosef]

As always, statistics depend on whom you consider to be Jewish. But that's fine. No need to take their word. Let's work with 10%, then. Still, today it's much less. Still what I have been saying stands. Especially because my point has never been how many karaites there are/were, but that Jewish demographs have change considerably over time, and will continue to in any forseen future.


What this tells me is that you will say anything to prove a point regardless if it is accurate or not. Your comment on "statistics depend on whom you consider to be Jewish" stunned me. The source is a secular Historian who extensivly used Karaite materials for his generous estimetes (and those of their Muslim rulers). There is no cherry picking on " who is a jew".

I suggest better methods before claiming something is "Absolute Fact", when you are not even in the ballpark. It's why I didn't bother with the rest of your post with any corrections, you simply wish to opine on your distaste with Orthodox Judaism.

[RebYosef]

I don't know- you tell me. I think the plain language would certainly lead to that conclusion. I've read sentiments from the sgaes that would concur with that too.

But, in the story, God certainly does get involved, doesn't He?

Also, isn't saying that God doesn't get involved in the judicial rulings of the Rabbis merely affirming my point?


I was under the impression that you had stated that Rabbis can overule G-d? I don't think the parable goes anywhere near that, but affirms our belief that HaShem doesn't get involved in judicial rulings. The cultrual backdrop to this, is the local pagan religions had methods of determining decesions by interpetation of omens that this was a kinda polemic against such a practice.

I'm always hesitant of anyone reading the Talmud for purposes other then academic, because it's a text thats difficult, the word plays don't pan out well in English and it's adressed to a very specific audience. It's very easy for someone to misunderstand and draw the wrong conclusions.




When we approach Biblical texts, we try to use Biblical rules of grammar (eg. ones contemporary to the time the text was written and according to the language used), and we try to not be influenced by later changing grammatical occurences.

However, I don't think God is limited to dead grammar, but He certainly bid His people to write it down, and writing uses rules of grammar. It is wiithin those grammatical rules that we approach the text to understand the author's intended meaning, as best we can this side of glory.


Agreed.


You mean via a hypostatic union like Jesus, or like the Mormon God?

I think the latter rather then the former. I'm not well versed in how exactly you or the Mormons strictly define their godheads.




We can discuss the grammar/parsing of that text if you like. I would say that the grammar should dictate the theology.


I think the Hebrew texts go against the Christian tradition on this and I think is a case where Christians go with tradition over grammar in this case. I'm sure you would disagree...

If we move to this topic, I suggest we start a new thread for it, becuase it is so far out of bounds of this thread (as if we are not already!)




I get by in Classical Hebrew, but the reason I only posted the text in Hebrew was to avoid this very valid concern of yours.

I don't think Classical Hebrew is impossible to understand in English. English is very precise language. In fact, would we even have confusion over the parsing of this text if it were written in English, Latin or Greek?


I think English is a very blunt tool, but I have a romantic heart when it comes to Hebrew. I think one can understand the Tanakh very well with a good English translation, but the devil is in the details.

[kivi]

kivi says: Hi there, LLJ, what I am going to give is my own personal opinion. You will notice that I seldom give my personal opinion since I try very hard to be a authentic and reasonable voice of the Torah True Tradition and I don't want my personal opinions messing up with that mission. But I am going to make an expection in this case. OK?:blush:

I don't think that there are Abrahamic Religions. I think there is only one Abrahamic Religion that that is Torah True Judaism, the Noviim, Pharasic, Rabbinimc Tradition starting with Moshe Rabbeneu until today. I think all of the other spiritual systems that have tried to use Judaism as a starting point like Essenes or Sadducees or Christian or Muslim or Sabbarti or Reform or any other spiritual system that attempts to use Judaism as authenticating source are intrinisically defected and each are defective in the same direction. They have no boundaries. The Torah Mitzvhs are all about boundaries, limitiations on human and G-dly behavior. All of the other spiritual systmes that reject limitations reject the Mitzvahs/Rabbinic processes of Judaims because the Mitzvahs/Rabbinic system limits behavior, set boundareis, is very detailed in what we can and can not do.

G-d makes certain promises to limit His actions in relation to humans, like He is not a man and He does not accept human sacrifice and He is merciful, He does not conveive human childern, etc. In no case are these promises based on His power, He can do anything He wants to, they are based solely on His Word and His integrity. He does not lie and He does not change His mind.

These Mitzvahs are also, even more so, all about limiting human behavior: don't eat this, don't eat that, don't work on Shabbas, don't mix milk and meat, not make human sacrifices, don't opress the widow, the poor and the orphan, don't take the eggs from a nesting bird, don't bring korban anywhere or any way you want to, bring a shovel when you go to war, wear tefillin and tzitzi, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc, for 613 Mitazvhs and their 1000s and 1000s of applications. This includes don't proselytize, don't force people to become Jewish, don't force to them to even listen about becoming Jewish, and resist them if they do want to become Jewish until it is undeniable about their integrity; it also includes obey the laws of the Nations you are exiled to and don't try to convince or force them to adopt Jewish laws. It is obvious to me that these types of limitations are absent in the other spiritual systems trying to use Judaism as the legitimizing tradition. The one that is the closest to Judaism, strange as it may seem, is Islam. The furthest are the more evangelic Christian sects, though the field in that grouping is very un-even. So I am hardly 'putting down' all of evangelic Protestantism.
So, in answer to your question, in a kind of slogan manner: there is one way to do it right, there are lots of ways to do it wrong.



Shalom kivi. I would hope the future Messiah the Jews are waiting on will bring the Peace that Jesus was supposed to have brought to them. What the heck happened as there is so much division in the Abrahamic Religions today? :confused:

Luke 12:51 Ye are supposing that Peace I came to give in the land? Nay I am saying to ye, but rather Division:

Matthew 10:34"No you should be supposing that I came to be casting Peace upon the land. Not I came to be casting Peace, but a Sword

Jeremiah 4:10 And I am saying, `Alas, my Lord YHWH, surely to beguile you beguiled to people, this, and to Y@ruwshalaim to say of 'Peace shall come to ye' and a sword touches unto the soul. 11 In that time it shall be said to this people and to Y@ruwshalaim a wind of glazing of ridges in wilderness way of Daughter of My people not to winnow of and not to purify of. 12 A wind shall come from these for Me, now even I, I shall speak judgments with them.

[kivi]

Them and their disciples are your audience here.
kivi says: Not really, they may be who I am speaking to in the open, but who I am most aware of are the lurkers, and it is to them I really address my comments. Also, if the Christian teachers are my audience, what am I trying to convince them of? Not to become Jewish. That is the last thing that I am allowed to have on my mind according to my spiritual tradition. Not to like Judaism or Jews, though it would be nice and I figure if they really knew the truth about Judaism, they might. What I try to do is be an honest spokesperson for the Torah Tradition because emes is sufficient, in and of itself, and those who are sensitive to emes will respond of their own accord.

Who wrote the Talmud? Was it the Essenes? No. Was it the Sadducees? No. Was it the Zealots? No. Oh, that's right, it was the Pharisees. No wonder it goes lightly on that group, eh?
kivi says: That is your prejudice, I think that they were telling the truth. Of course, if the Rabbis were telling the truth, then what you have followed for most of your adult life would have been in error. You are set up by what you have invested in your life, up to now, to deny the validiity of Torah Judaism. So, I guess you are willing to let off Christianity lightly and to bare down heavily on the Rabbis.


CM:Yes, the NT does correct the errors of the Sadducees, Zealots and Essenes. Better brush up on that)
kivi says: I can't find any incident or story or passage that specifically points out the Sadducees or the Zealots or the Essenes; care to point me in the 'right' direction? What I find, over and over again, is the Greek Chorus of "the Scribes, the Sadducees and the Pharisees", all lumped together, without distinction or individualization.


CM:....all interpretations based on your own bias. I don't think you're going to win many ears here.
kivi says: If one Chirstian decides not to send money to a Missionary organization directed at Jews, if one Christian stands up to the peer pressure in his/her church, if one Christian says no to spupporting proselylization, then I will have been successful. But if none do, I am still successful because I spoke emes and that is reward enough.

No kivi, it's just life.
kivi says: If there is a G-d, then there is no such thing as 'it's just life'.

Why? Every religion has it's awful, sinful representatives- even yours. I recently watched a documentary where a man attempted to ask Haredi Jews a sincere, non-provocative question (that he had asked other Jews as well) and they shoved him, called him awful names and yelled at him like animals- even before he asked his question (that no other Jew seemed to mind answering!). They embrassed me, and themselves. I'm glad, even elated, that I have nothing to do with them.
kivi says: If the New Testament had identified individuals that had committed averiahs, if the New Testament presented truthful commentary on Torah Mitzvahs rather than the mis-information it spreads, if the New Testament did not encourage the proselytization of Jews, then you might have a point. But it does not. What it does is condemn an entire religious spiritual system. IN effect, if the New Testament were written today, it would lump the Hartedi Jews, the ones you seem so upset with, together with Young Israel Jews, modern Orthodox Jews, Sephard Jews and Chassidic Jews and Reform Jews and Conservative Jews and non-affliated Jews and mix them all together without any distinction or definitions in one huge stew and then throw all of it out the window. Not individuals, not specific failings, not even specific sects within Judaism, but the entire Jewish religion is condemned by the New Testament, the early Chruch Fathers and the Councils.

[quot] CM: Oh well- that's life![/quote]
kivi says: Again, if there is a G-d, then the phrase 'that's life' is a denial of G-d. There is never 'just life', there is always and only the Will of G-d.


CM: Kivi- do you not have enough faith in God to accept things when they go wrong? Is He not sovereign over all, even the Christian Church? Was He not sovereign over the Romans when they destroyed the Temple? So, when bad things happen, can you just not say "God's will be done"?
kivi says: "Accept" does not mean that I have to like it, "accept" does not mean that it is moral, "accept" does not mean that I should not try to change it', all ''accept'' means is that I am obligated to recognize reality for what it is and not pretend that it is something else. When I do that, then I have the leverage to change it. "Accept" in the case of Galus, for example, means that I "accept" that the Jewish people committed such averiahs that can only be corrected through Galus. That does not mean I don't pray every day that we are taken out of Galus or work my tush off so Moshiach can Come and take us out of Galus, just that I acknowledge that we got into Galus through our own actions and we remain in Galus and not by some accident or opposing will of a devil or the unsuccessful effort by some false prophet. I don't think that Christianity is against the Will of G-d>>>see Psalm 90, as if it were the desire of a devil. I think that Chirstianity is a perfectly ''acceptable'' part of Galus. G-d does not make mistakes. G-d gets what He wants.

On the other hand, I don't think that Christianity in its past or present state is necessary exacty what G-d is striving for, as the end product: there is an opportunity for growth in the case of Chirstianity. It is the refusal to grow that is the bad thing, not necesarilly Christianity, in total, as 'bad'. An opportunity for that growth is the rejection of proselytization. An opportunity for growth is tolerance, the type of tolerance that rejects trying to convince another that they are 'wrong', even if you [that is the generic 'you'] think so, and allows them the right to be themselves, without interference or interjection. Tolerance that does not force another to be 'right' based on your [generic] expectations and allows them to be wrong, without comment: a tolerance based on keeping your [generic] mouth shut. Let's see if Christianity can achieve such spiritual growth in the future.

[ContraMundum]

kivi says: I can't find any incident or story or passage that specifically points out the Sadducees or the Zealots or the Essenes; care to point me in the 'right' direction? What I find, over and over again, is the Greek Chorus of "the Scribes, the Sadducees and the Pharisees", all lumped together, without distinction or individualization.

Well, you've partially answered your own request.

I don't have much time or inclination to get involved really.

kivi says: If there is a G-d, then there is no such thing as 'it's just life'.

That was my point. It's just life- but God's in charge, so don't let it get you down.

kivi says: "Accept" does not mean that I have to like it, "accept" does not mean that it is moral, "accept" does not mean that I should not try to change it', all ''accept'' means is that I am obligated to recognize reality for what it is and not pretend that it is something else.

That's correct. But, on the other hand, you have to accept that God is in charge, and nothing happens apart from His sovereign will- even the stuff you don't like has a purpose.

On the other hand, I don't think that Christianity in its past or present state is necessary exacty what G-d is striving for, as the end product: there is an opportunity for growth in the case of Chirstianity.

That's exactly what Christians believe.

It is the refusal to grow that is the bad thing, not necesarilly Christianity, in total, as 'bad'.

There you go...you almost got it right, but you had to blow it with another hack at your Christian boogeyman.

[ContraMundum]

I was under the impression that you had stated that Rabbis can overule G-d? I don't think the parable goes anywhere near that, but affirms our belief that HaShem doesn't get involved in judicial rulings. The cultrual backdrop to this, is the local pagan religions had methods of determining decesions by interpetation of omens that this was a kinda polemic against such a practice.

Sadly, the idea that the interpretation of omens is a pagan one only is perhaps a little self-incriminating. After all, didn't Gideon throw out a fleece? The pagan religions often did the same- "do this and the gods will respond in such-and-such a way to show us their will". There's more examples, I'm sure. Not to mention that the Torah could be seen to mention divination as a valid path (see Joseph) before it basically outlaws it. It's an interesting topic, but I digress.

Anyway, the way I read the story mentioned is that God does get involved in the judicial rulings (attested by the miracles He gave to show who He thought was making the correct ruling on halacha), but that majority rules over His witness. I don't think the interpretation of yours really fits the events, but I do know that the Talmud is also overruled by the Rabbis (when it gets embarrasingly bizzare), so I accept that the Jewish tradition interprets it the way you have described. I just don't like double-speak. I don't particularly think there is a lot of honesty involved in re-defining the re-definitions, esp. when they overthrow the plain language. But that's another topic.

I'm always hesitant of anyone reading the Talmud for purposes other then academic, because it's a text thats difficult, the word plays don't pan out well in English and it's adressed to a very specific audience. It's very easy for someone to misunderstand and draw the wrong conclusions.I don't buy into the gnostic idea of textual interpretation that some Jewish groups are so fond of- it's a licence to bend and twist.

Yes, the Talmud says some seemingly outrageous things- obviously wrong, and without any truth whatsoever in them (no doubt you're familiar with Gittin 69's strange prescriptions, for example), but I accept that the book is merely an interpretive commentary on an interpretive commentary, which in itself is interpreted in many diverse ways. In other words, there is no end to it. Just like pilpul.

On the other hand, much in the Talmud is very good.

I think the Hebrew texts go against the Christian tradition on this and I think is a case where Christians go with tradition over grammar in this case. I'm sure you would disagree...The problem we have is that the Christian foundational texts used are older than the Masoretic compilation- you can't compare them. The Masoretic text is too late, and the LXX and DSS not accepted by your side, for whatever reasons the dark age sages deemed. There's not much point.

I think English is a very blunt tool, but I have a romantic heart when it comes to Hebrew. I think one can understand the Tanakh very well with a good English translation, but the devil is in the details.I tend to agree.

[fremen]

estimetes (and those of their Muslim rulers). There is no cherry picking on " who is a jew".

It does depend on who is a Jew. You do realize Karaite Jews only consider (and correctly so, by historical standards) to be Jewish those born of a Jewish father, which is exactly the opposite of what the frum camp considers. This, obviously, affects statistics a lot.


I suggest better methods before claiming something is "Absolute Fact", when you are not even in the ballpark. It's why I didn't bother with the rest of your post with any corrections, you simply wish to opine on your distaste with Orthodox Judaism.

Actually, you didn't "bother" because you knew they were facts. The only possible flaw you could find was that one (which, as I said, depends on POV.) This is why you clang to it, in a way to avoid the rest of the argument.

But, honestly, who cares? YOU simply wish to opine on your distaste with Christianity. The difference between you and I? I respect the place I'm at. I would not post my views on a frum forum. Obviously, you don't care about the fact that this is CHRISTIAN forums. We, Jews, are here as guests - and you are giving us a bad rap by being an awful one.

Kol tov,
Fremen

[RebYosef]

It does depend on who is a Jew. You do realize Karaite Jews only consider (and correctly so, by historical standards) to be Jewish those born of a Jewish father, which is exactly the opposite of what the frum camp considers. This, obviously, affects statistics a lot.

That is a belief only head in Karaites who heed Sevel HaYerushah. Nor are you correct about the Historical methods used to ascertain Karaite populations (The Karaite themselves and the Muslims who taxed them).





Actually, you didn't "bother" because you knew they were facts.

The only facts you had about the Orthodox community were anecdotal. I'm sorry you had such negative experinces, but they really don't need to be adressed.

The only possible flaw you could find was that one (which, as I said, depends on POV.) This is why you clang to it, in a way to avoid the rest of the argument.

The number of Karaites does not depened on a Point of Veiw, if they have all been considered and it's the only point I bring up, becuase there is not a reason to go into any others. If you are completetly wrong on a subject, yet simply refuse to acknowledge such, I know doing so on 4 or 5 different points is going to be fruitless.

See my posts with Contra to see how people correct each other and disagree.


But, honestly, who cares? YOU simply wish to opine on your distaste with Christianity. The difference between you and I? I respect the place I'm at. I would not post my views on a frum forum. Obviously, you don't care about the fact that this is CHRISTIAN forums. We, Jews, are here as guests - and you are giving us a bad rap by being an awful one.


You are obviously not familiar with my posts.

[RebYosef]

Sadly, the idea that the interpretation of omens is a pagan one only is perhaps a little self-incriminating. After all, didn't Gideon throw out a fleece? The pagan religions often did the same- "do this and the gods will respond in such-and-such a way to show us their will". There's more examples, I'm sure. Not to mention that the Torah could be seen to mention divination as a valid path (see Joseph) before it basically outlaws it. It's an interesting topic, but I digress.

Excellent observations. While there is a lot I could say here, I'll be breif. There is an ideal I share with Modern Orthodoxy here, in that I feel that HaShem is trying to "ween" Israel out of ancient practices. Certian things becomes regulated and then their focus becomes less and less (such as sacrafices) until the better message is absorbed.

Anyway, the way I read the story mentioned is that God does get involved in the judicial rulings (attested by the miracles He gave to show who He thought was making the correct ruling on halacha), but that majority rules over His witness. I don't think the interpretation of yours really fits the events

Why would someone believe that tho? Isn't in painfully clear the logical problems one comes into if G-d can be overruled by a majority? I would hope that this has some how managed to escape scrutiny all these years.

, but I do know that the Talmud is also overruled by the Rabbis (when it gets embarrasingly bizzare),

Yes, I would not accept it's medical advice.

so I accept that the Jewish tradition interprets it the way you have described. I just don't like double-speak. I don't particularly think there is a lot of honesty involved in re-defining the re-definitions, esp. when they overthrow the plain language. But that's another topic.

fair enough.

I don't buy into the gnostic idea of textual interpretation that some Jewish groups are so fond of- it's a licence to bend and twist.

Agreed. I'm sure you are aware of my rejection of the Zohar and other writings, so I know we share a lot of common ground here.


but I accept that the book is merely an interpretive commentary on an interpretive commentary, which in itself is interpreted in many diverse ways. In other words, there is no end to it. Just like pilpul.

On the other hand, much in the Talmud is very good.


I can live with that. ( I can't live with pilpul tho! I think Vilna Gaon went very far in discrediting that)


The problem we have is that the Christian foundational texts used are older than the Masoretic compilation- you can't compare them. The Masoretic text is too late, and the LXX and DSS not accepted by your side, for whatever reasons the dark age sages deemed. There's not much point.

Such a disscusion would not be a disscusion if the DSS Isaiah fragments and LXX were discussed! My poistion would be this briefly...

The Masoret and DSS are in agreeance with the LXX being different. The broader context of the passage is clumsly to fit in a secret fufillment 700 years after Ahaz, which does nothing to save him from 2 armies at his gates.

I would be skeptical of the LXX in this instance because we don't know who translated the Isaiah portion or when exactly. Whats exciting ( well for me ) is that the LXX also agrees with the DSS but not the Masoret in some places as well, which convinces me that the LXX is yet another textual variance seprate from those inheritated from the Masorets and the sect as the Dead Sea.

I wanted to do my Master's Thesis on Philo (Who used the LXX), but to do any justice I would have had to learn and master Greek, something that I didn't want to do at the time ( Alas, I wish I had! )

[ContraMundum]

Excellent observations. While there is a lot I could say here, I'll be breif. There is an ideal I share with Modern Orthodoxy here, in that I feel that HaShem is trying to "ween" Israel out of ancient practices. Certian things becomes regulated and then their focus becomes less and less (such as sacrafices) until the better message is absorbed.

Interesting.

Why would someone believe that tho? Isn't in painfully clear the logical problems one comes into if G-d can be overruled by a majority? I would hope that this has some how managed to escape scrutiny all these years.

I wonder.

Yes, I would not accept it's medical advice.

Yes indeed!

Agreed. I'm sure you are aware of my rejection of the Zohar and other writings, so I know we share a lot of common ground here.

I glad about that. How do you think your position on the Zohar sits with other Jews? I know in the circles I've been around, that the Zohar (and indeed all chasidus) is seen as the next "level" (and they love that word) or spirituality- for the serious Jew. How would that compare with your group?

I can live with that. ( I can't live with pilpul tho! I think Vilna Gaon went very far in discrediting that)

I'd be interested in your observations about that in regards Vilna Gaon.

Such a disscusion would not be a disscusion if the DSS Isaiah fragments and LXX were discussed! My poistion would be this briefly...

The Masoret and DSS are in agreeance with the LXX being different. The broader context of the passage is clumsly to fit in a secret fufillment 700 years after Ahaz, which does nothing to save him from 2 armies at his gates.

I would be skeptical of the LXX in this instance because we don't know who translated the Isaiah portion or when exactly. Whats exciting ( well for me ) is that the LXX also agrees with the DSS but not the Masoret in some places as well, which convinces me that the LXX is yet another textual variance seprate from those inheritated from the Masorets and the sect as the Dead Sea.

I wanted to do my Master's Thesis on Philo (Who used the LXX), but to do any justice I would have had to learn and master Greek, something that I didn't want to do at the time ( Alas, I wish I had! )

I'm one of those guys that thinks that the LXX is a reasonably faithful translation of a family (or families) of very early texts that we don't have too much remnant of these days, but that we know was widely popular all the same. I don't think any translation is a "stand alone" document, but I think the LXX and the DSS do help us fill in the blanks left in the family of texts used by the Masoretes (such as the missing "nun" verse in Ps 145. for example). For this reason, I don't idolise the Masoretic text like a lot of people do- nor do I demonise it like others. It's just a compilation for me- and it compares in authority (for me) to the Textus Receptus- it could be likened to an "authorized" compilation, but all the same it's not perfect. But, I do think the LXX is perhaps the earliest witness of Jewish texts surviving, even though it is not in Hebrew. It shows to my mind that strict uniformity was not as embedded in the Jewish religion as later assertions of certain groups claim it to have been in that period.

And yeah, it would have been good to have had a crack at Greek when you could. It's a very good discipline to have. So much source material, such a precise and powerful language.

[kivi]

Well, you've partially answered your own request.

I don't have much time or inclination to get involved really.
kivi says: It seems to me that you retreat into this 'I don't want to get involved' every time you are losing. You have done it several times before, since I have been a member of CF, but the next cycle of posts, there are you are, back in the frey.



CM: That was my point. It's just life- but God's in charge, so don't let it get you down.
kivi says: Hardly down, just celebrated my 62nd birthday. Feel energized and excited about each day: that's what keeps me coming back here.:cool:



CM: That's correct. But, on the other hand, you have to accept that God is in charge, and nothing happens apart from His sovereign will- even the stuff you don't like has a purpose.
kivi says: The Rambam says that Christianty and Islam are there to spread the belief in monotheisim. If that is true, Mankind has paid an incredibly high price for that service. I sure as heck wish there could have been an easier and osfter way.



CM: That's exactly what Christians believe.



There you go...you almost got it right, but you had to blow it with another hack at your Christian boogeyman.
kivi says: I am involved in the whole thing because Protestant Chrstianity is still stuck in an aggressive and hostile effort to proselytizing Jews. Catholism and Orthodoxy have seen the error of their ways, have renounced such behavior and, as of now, are acting in a loving and tolerant manner with Jews. I wonder why you aren't out there, doing your part to change 'your neck of the woods' so that the Anglican Communion is not engaged in such hostile behavior.
I am a volunteer at the local rape crisis hot line. The reality of rape is that it is not a female problem, it is a male problem because 99% of the rapes are committed by men, its just that the women are the ones who suffer the effects of the male problem of rape. But the rape of women will not go away because of what women do, it will only go away when men change their behavior. So it is with prselytization. As a Jew, there is little I can do except comfort those Jews who have been effected by proselytization. The problem will not go away unitl Christians change their behavior. The Catholcis and the Orthodox have, what about the Prostestants????

[kivi]

It does depend on who is a Jew. You do realize Karaite Jews only consider (and correctly so, by historical standards) to be Jewish those born of a Jewish father, which is exactly the opposite of what the frum camp considers. This, obviously, affects statistics a lot.
kivi says: Lets be clear about Judaism in relation to Karaism. Karaties are not more or less Jewish than Christians. Karaites require the same care if they try to convert to Judaism as do Christians. They are just another heresy that has been seperated for so long for B'nai Israel that they are no longer considered part of B'nai Israel.



freman: Actually, you didn't "bother" because you knew they were facts. The only possible flaw you could find was that one (which, as I said, depends on POV.) This is why you clang to it, in a way to avoid the rest of the argument.
kivi says: I am not quite sure how this will go to the end, I probably will have to see how you work it a while longer, freman, but it is interesting that you are trying to form an alliance with the Christian in CF by engraciating yourself to the Christians. I had asked in a previous post why you were here. It is becoming clearer.

But, honestly, who cares? YOU simply wish to opine on your distaste with Christianity. The difference between you and I? I respect the place I'm at. I would not post my views on a frum forum. Obviously, you don't care about the fact that this is CHRISTIAN forums. We, Jews, are here as guests - and you are giving us a bad rap by being an awful one.
kivi says: Well, that is a very well put effort to engraciate yourself to the Christians in this sub forum. And to be honest, please, we are not part of your sub-grouping. Any more than a gentile Messianic, a gentile Karaite is not a Jew. So, if you are a Karaite, please do not include us in your heresy. Thank you.

Kol tov,
Fremen

[RebYosef]

Contra,

I depart for England for a few weeks to visit my brother at Oxford. I don't have the time I'd like to give you a thoughtful reply until I return. Thanks for the conversation in the mean time tho, it was refreshing.

As for everyone else

SHALOM :wave:

[ContraMundum]

kivi says: It seems to me that you retreat into this 'I don't want to get involved' every time you are losing. You have done it several times before, since I have been a member of CF, but the next cycle of posts, there are you are, back in the frey.

No kivi, I'm not "losing", I'm just not interested in responding to you. As I said already, you lost this audience. You'll notice that since I said that I haven't spent time even reading your posts, as I am doing with this one- you're just too extreme to talk to. One paragraph is all you'll get. I have no interest in spending my short time on this forum arguing with someone who clearly is not interested in anything but making outlandish statements, who doesn't listen and who has so many erroneous ideas about Christianity that they need serious instruction before we could even start.

Had you have been able to maintain an audience, you might claim some kind of success- as it is- you'll be talking to the wall before long.

[ContraMundum]

Contra,

I depart for England for a few weeks to visit my brother at Oxford. I don't have the time I'd like to give you a thoughtful reply until I return. Thanks for the conversation in the mean time tho, it was refreshing.

As for everyone else

SHALOM :wave:

Thanks- enjoy your time in England. I too am under some time restrictions at present. We will talk again hopefully when you return. It was a good conversation, I agree.

Shalom! :cool:

[GerTzedek]

This is a drive by post. That means it is my one and ONLY reply. I don't care what anyone says in response. I'm mainly a LURKER these days.


Contra: first, you took offense, basically for no other reason than someone had a different point of view than you. Your very act of taking offense so ostentatiously for no other reason than that was itself offensive.

Moving on, there is a major flaw in reasoning that undermines everything you have said since on the very first page. You stated in post #10 of the thread:

It's part of being born again. The scriptures make sense to you by the Holy Spirit and you see the Divinity of Jesus throughout the whole counsel of God- even in Rabbinic tradition if you know it.

Sheesh Louise! B does not follow A! I was "born again" for 47 years, and I guarantee you I do NOT beleive in the Trinity. The real reason why MOST people believe in the Trinity is NOT because they "see it in scripture" but one of two reasons:
1. They accept with simple faith what they are taught
2. They reason by process of elimination that it must be true given a list of alternatives, all of which they find worse. THEN, and only THEN, do they go BACK to scripture for SUPPORT of their conclusion.

You know very well that the Arians reasoned from scripture as well. It was Athanasius I believe (you can correct me if I am remembering the wrong church father) who remarked of his surprise that former Arians made such wonderful Trinitarians after being forcefully converted. Well DUH! Their hearts hadn't changed. The Holy Spirit hadn't changed. The only thing that had changed was what ideas were being shoved down their throats. All they had to do was look to scripture to find support that their new belief set was correct.

I'd like to say a good deal more about Trinitarianism and Avodah Zera, but I'd get kicked so far off this board that donating a million dollars couldn't get me back on. But there are STILL few things that I CAN say that I think are within the TOS.

Before I go on, I want to acknowledge that I do not agree with the popular opionion of most of the Jews here, and I think that's okay and I think most people here think that's okay. My opinion is what I have been taught by other Jews, and is held by the the two Torah scholars at my Chabad House with whom I've spoken regarding this. Anyone who wishes to engage with THEM, I can try to arrange that. But please don't stoop to insulting me by inferring I'm a xian or that my views are not orthodox; I do not have a heart of stone. Let's just disagree agreeably.

Contra: there are many things that are perfectly fine for gentiles that are not fine for Jews. They can eat pork, you cannot. They can drive on shabbat, you cannot. The following is what I have been taught about gentiles and monotheism:

If gentiles need an intermediary as a focus, but remain monotheistic, they still qualify as Bnai Noach. So for example, the Egyptians under Akhenaten who observed monotheism, even though the Sun to them represented Divinity, would NOT be considered idolatrous, because the sun functioned rather as the intermediary through which they could worship the One G-d, and was not part of a system of idols. In the same respect, while Jews do NOT believe that JC is G-d, he would function for gentiles in the same manner, as an intermediary or focus through whom they could worship G-d. I will give you a concrete example.

This is what I did to help my son understand, and I later relayed this story to the rabbi who interview me for my conversion. I wrote the word 'jesus' on a piece of paper and held the paper up in front of a directed light, so that the light shone through the paper. I said to my son, "This is how things were before. When I looked at G-d, the light, I looked through Jesus. I kind of had to. It's what I was taught. Now this has happened." And I let the paper fall down onto the couch. "Where is G-d?" And my son pointed to the light. And I said, "G-d is where G-d always was, I just don't need to look through jesus anymore to see G-d. The light has always been there, but paper was NEVER the light, boy am I embarrassed! But that's all past, and now there is nothing between me and the light, nothing between me... and G-d."

Contra, do you see how I am saying that JC can be useful for a gentile? I sooooo do not want to be insulting, please don't take this the wrong way. But I think a disembodied formless G-d that can't be sensed is just so hard for so many people. A person not raised from a very, very young age to understand this may not be able to handle it. Think of a photographer working with a young child, trying to get their attention. He NEEDS them to look at the camera, but can't do that, so he gets them to look at a squeaking toy instead. He can start the toy near their face, and move the toy over to the camera, and then, FLASH! Mission accomplished. He got their gaze where it was needed. I may not want to have anything more to do with JC personally, but I'm so not interested in converting gentile chrstians away from their faith.

But you, Contra, are not a gentile. There are things they can do that you cannot. And this is one of them. And deeeeep down in your Jewish heart, you know it. That's the reason your anger flares up in when issues like the Trinity come up.

Shalom

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

It does depend on who is a Jew. You do realize Karaite Jews only consider (and correctly so, by historical standards) to be Jewish those born of a Jewish father, which is exactly the opposite of what the frum camp considers. This, obviously, affects statistics a lot.
I could be wrong, but I think the issue of who is a Jew by Mother of Father only became an issue after Christ. I believe that before that historical time it was commonly accepted that a Jew was a convert to Judaism.

[kivi]

I could be wrong, but I think the issue of who is a Jew by Mother of Father only became an issue after Christ. I believe that before that historical time it was commonly accepted that a Jew was a convert to Judaism.

kivi says: There is no historic evidence for your unique belief.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

kivi says: There is no historic evidence for your unique belief. The New Testament is a historic book, and that is what is implied. Jesus is the Son of God by decree of Yahwah.

[ContraMundum]

This is a drive by post. That means it is my one and ONLY reply. I don't care what anyone says in response. I'm mainly a LURKER these days.

Then don't post. Seriously, don't do "hit and run" unless you intend to be held accountable for your own words, which requires a commitment from you to the conversation. If you don't want to make that commitment, don't expect your post to be received as worthy of attention. I'm not trying to be harsh, but really, the topic requires commitment, not just emotive remarks.

I didn't read the rest....this was enough for me to want to just avoid conversation. I can't stand people taking me out of context. It's not worthy of my time- or yours.

[kivi]

The New Testament is a historic book, and that is what is implied. Jesus is the Son of God by decree of Yahwah.

kivi says: The New Testament has so many errors about the reality of how Judaism actually operated in the 1st Century CE as to be useless as an historic source. The only reason that it is even referenced today is that a significant number of humans think it is divinely inspired. Since they have this unsupported prejudice concerning the New Testament, they included it in their historic arguements. But looked at with un-prejudice eyes, it is obvious that the New Testament is only good to examin later Christian in-fighting as the various heresies in Christianity duked it out in the first 3 centuries of the Common Era.

[ContraMundum]

kivi says: The New Testament has so many errors about the reality of how Judaism actually operated in the 1st Century CE as to be useless as an historic source.

Go ahead and be the first to prove that. Many, many have tried. None have succeeded yet- except to themselves. However, making points to prove your own convictions is a waste of our time.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

kivi says: The New Testament has so many errors about the reality of how Judaism actually operated in the 1st Century CE as to be useless as an historic source. The only reason that it is even referenced today is that a significant number of humans think it is divinely inspired. Since they have this unsupported prejudice concerning the New Testament, they included it in their historic arguements. But looked at with un-prejudice eyes, it is obvious that the New Testament is only good to examin later Christian in-fighting as the various heresies in Christianity duked it out in the first 3 centuries of the Common Era. Kivi, that is also what people have said about the Old Testament also. You should give some thought to your prejudices. Even when people tell the truth, they don't necessarily get it 100% correct.

[ContraMundum]

Kivi, that is also what people have said about the Old Testament also. You should give some thought to your prejudices. Even when people tell the truth, they don't necessarily get it 100% correct.

Exactly. Critics love to put a blow torch test to the books they disagree with, but rarely do they apply the very same standard of test to their own book. God detests that kind of double standards.

Prov. 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. (JPS)

[kivi]

Kivi, that is also what people have said about the Old Testament also. You should give some thought to your prejudices. Even when people tell the truth, they don't necessarily get it 100% correct.

kivi says: the New Testament specifically says that the Phraisees forbad healing on the Shabbas. That claim is false. In fact, the Pharisaic Tradition requires the tending of the sick and their potential healing irregardless of whether it is Shabbas or not. The test verse is: "The Torah is for life, not for death."

One of the sections of the New Testament used in furtherance of this Christian error is:
John 9

1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth.
2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.
4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work.
5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
6Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. \
7"Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing. 8His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, "Isn't this the same man who used to sit and beg?"
9Some claimed that he was.
Others said, "No, he only looks like him."
But he himself insisted, "I am the man."

10"How then were your eyes opened?" they demanded.
11He replied, "The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see."
12"Where is this man?" they asked him.
"I don't know," he said. 13They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind.
14Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man's eyes was a Sabbath.
15Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. "He put mud on my eyes," the man replied, "and I washed, and now I see."

16Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath."
But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided.
17Finally they turned again to the blind man, "What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened."
The man replied, "He is a prophet."
18The Jews still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man's parents.
19"Is this your son?" they asked. "Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?"

20"We know he is our son," the parents answered, "and we know he was born blind.
21But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don't know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself."
22His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue.
23That was why his parents said, "He is of age; ask him."
24A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. "Give glory to God," they said. "We know this man is a sinner."
25He replied, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"
26Then they asked him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?"
27He answered, "I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?"
28Then they hurled insults at him and said, "You are this fellow's disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don't even know where he comes from."
30The man answered, "Now that is remarkable! You don't know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes.
31We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will.
32Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind.
33If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."
34To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out. 35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

36"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him."
37Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."
38Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
39Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."
40Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" 41Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

[GerTzedek]

Kivi: was there a difference between bet Hillel and bet Shammai regarding healing on Shabbat?

Added later:
You will recall I have been heavily influenced by the book, "Jesus the Pharisee." I double checked. To support his thesis of Jesus as a follower of Hillel, Orthodox Rabbi Harvey Falk lists socializing with gentile sinners and healing on shabbat as examples of SHAMMAITE criticism of Jesus, showing how these exchanges reflected the debate between the two respective schools.

Just a thought. I personally do not know what Shammai taught regarding healing on shabbat. It is my inclination to trust Falk. If Falk is correct, then this would be a case of "You are both right," since historically the arguments could have happened, but Shammai's positions certainly do not represent Judaism. 'Both these and these are the words of the living God but the law is in accordance with the rulings of the House of Hillel.'

I hope this was helpful. If not, I'm sorry for butting in.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

kivi says: the New Testament specifically says that the Phraisees forbad healing on the Shabbas. That claim is false. In fact, the Pharisaic Tradition requires the tending of the sick and their potential healing irregardless of whether it is Shabbas or not. The test verse is: "The Torah is for life, not for death."
In regards to the bible verse, I think that it was true of the Pharisees during that time frame only. Some where in the Old Testament is a verse where Gods says that the priest would make laws that could not be kept and that were not good. There is also another verse were Yahshua ask the priest if it was permissible to heal on the Sabbath, and the priest would not answer him.

[ProScribe]

kivi says: the New Testament specifically says that the Phraisees forbad healing on the Shabbas. That claim is false. In fact, the Pharisaic Tradition requires the tending of the sick and their potential healing irregardless of whether it is Shabbas or not. The test verse is: "The Torah is for life, not for death."

proscribe says:Rabbi Jesus is the probably the only one who actually kept the Torah and Mosaic Law.

. . .

[kivi]

Kivi: was there a difference between bet Hillel and bet Shammai regarding healing on Shabbat?

Added later:
You will recall I have been heavily influenced by the book, "Jesus the Pharisee." I double checked. To support his thesis of Jesus as a follower of Hillel, Orthodox Rabbi Harvey Falk lists socializing with gentile sinners and healing on shabbat as examples of SHAMMAITE criticism of Jesus, showing how these exchanges reflected the debate between the two respective schools.

Just a thought. I personally do not know what Shammai taught regarding healing on shabbat. It is my inclination to trust Falk. If Falk is correct, then this would be a case of "You are both right," since historically the arguments could have happened, but Shammai's positions certainly do not represent Judaism. 'Both these and these are the words of the living God but the law is in accordance with the rulings of the House of Hillel.'

I hope this was helpful. If not, I'm sorry for butting in.

kivi says: Thank you for you input. I have not read the book you refer to, so I'll stay out of 'its' discussion. Just a few notes. Hillel and Shammai were both part of the Pharisee 'party'. In fact, they were the 'twin' heads of the Pharisee 'party', one was called the Nasi (the president), the other was called the Av Beit Din (the head of the Sanhedrin), before the supposed period of Jesus Christ. Between Hillel and Shammai, themselves, there is no record of them being in dispute. Both of them are perfectly correct and legitimate expressons of the Torah True Tradition. Whatever disputes occured were between their disciples. And the disputes were resolved in the period after the destruction of the 2nd Temple with 'Hillel's' position being authoritive in This World and 'Shammai's' in the World to Come.

http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_32_-_Hillel_and_Shammai.asp

There is no dispute between the students of Hillel and Shammai on the matter of 'healing on the Shabbas'.

To the best of my knowledge, the only position that the New Testament through the character of Jesus Christ took was on the matter of divorce. And in that position, Christ's position was even more restrictive than Shammai [who was more restrictive than Hillel], forbidding divorce in any case. The standard Pharisaic/Orthodox position is much more liberal, allowing divorce for no more reason than that one party does not like the other. However, considering the circumstances of the supposed birth of Jesus Christ, I would think that the character Jesus Christ is refering to a much more personal problem, the fact that he is a mumsar. Not the more scholarly discussion involving the students of Shammai and Hillel.

[kivi]

In regards to the bible verse, I think that it was true of the Pharisees during that time frame only. Some where in the Old Testament is a verse where Gods says that the priest would make laws that could not be kept and that were not good. There is also another verse were Yahshua ask the priest if it was permissible to heal on the Sabbath, and the priest would not answer him.

kivi says: "Somewhere in the Old Testament......." is not a source, it is just your personal opinion. Yahshua is not found in the Old Testament, only in the New Testament.

[kivi]

proscribe says:Rabbi Jesus is the probably the only one who actually kept the Torah and Mosaic Law.

. . .

kivi says: That is a claim of Christianity. Personally, I don't think it is credible. I also don't think it is credible that the character of Jesus Christ as any historic authenticity.

[GerTzedek]

proscribe says:Rabbi Jesus is the probably the only one who actually kept the Torah and Mosaic Law.

. . .
I would like to ask for two clarifications.
1. You have listed Torah and Mosaic Law in such a way that you imply they are not one in the same. Is this what you actually meant? If so, could you please explain what it is you think each is, and where the difference lies?

2. You have stated that JC is the only one in your opinion who has fully kept Torah. Could you please, then, give me your take on Job, who was "blameless," having no sin he could justly be punished for.

[GerTzedek]

The New Testament is a historic book, and that is what is implied. Where in the New Testament does it address the issue of Jewish status during the time period before JC? As Kivi said, there is no historical evidence at all to give foundation to your claim that before JC Jewish status wasn't determined by birth.

Michael, always has the Jewish people been a people -- meaning that there are those born into Israel, and those adopted into Israel (belief, obedience, and acceptance by the People are all necessary componants of that adoption). There has never been a time when both of these was not the case.

Michael, I can't be sure, but I can't help but suspect that this is all for you some way of trying to work things out in such a way that you can see yourself as Jewish, or a "true Jew" or whatever term it is that goes through your head. I suspect you would like to believe that if you follow Torah and observe the Mosaic covenant between G-d and Israel, that this will make you a Jew. However, Michael, even if your understanding of Torah were correct, and your obedience complete, you would still lack the necessary acceptance by Jewish community. You are not a Jew in any way, shape, size or form.

I wish you didn't have such an inferiority complex about being a gentile. There is nothing at all wrong with being a gentile. A righteous gentile is far more pleasing to G-d than a disobedient Jew.

[ProScribe]

I would like to ask for two clarifications.
1. You have listed Torah and Mosaic Law in such a way that you imply they are not one in the same. Is this what you actually meant? If so, could you please explain what it is you think each is, and where the difference lies?

The Mosaic Law can be the laws and regulations of the Israelite camp in the OT. For example a Leviticus verse:

(Leviticus 26.2)Ye shall keep My Sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary: I am the LORD.

The Torah is separate and is not part of the OT of the Christian Bible.


2. You have stated that JC is the only one in your opinion who has fully kept Torah. Could you please, then, give me your take on Job, who was "blameless," having no sin he could justly be punished for.

There is the concept of keeping the Law that all of us human beings fall short. Most are not able, or do not keep the Law as would a Pharisee. We as human beings fall short of keeping the Law. Jesus Christ is to have kept all of the Law and met all of its requirements to a degree of utmost perfection. As Savior he redeems and intercedes for those to fall short of keeping the Law.

[ProScribe]

kivi says: That is a claim of Christianity. Personally, I don't think it is credible. I also don't think it is credible that the character of Jesus Christ as any historic authenticity.

proscribe says:this response is very similar to atheism.

[kivi]

proscribe says:this response is very similar to atheism.

kivi says: I will have to assume that your comment is meant as an insult rather than a legitimate response to my post, considering that I am a Orthodox Jew. I cannot imagine that you would believe that a person who with good reason based on historic evidence [or lack thereof] thinks the character of Jesus Christ as protrayed in the New Testament is fictional would be an atheist.

[kivi]

The Mosaic Law can be the laws and regulations of the Israelite camp in the OT. For example a Leviticus verse:

(Leviticus 26.2)Ye shall keep My Sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary: I am the LORD.



The Torah is separate and is not part of the OT of the Christian Bible.

kivi sys: According to Judaism, the Mosaic Law is part of the Torah. The Old Testament is not part of the Torah. The Old Testament is a erroneous Christian translation of some of the texts of the Torah, but done so badly, either through stupidity or design, as to be invalid.



There is the concept of keeping the Law that all of us human beings fall short. Most are not able, or do not keep the Law as would a Pharisee.
kivi says: Speak to your own personal failures, if you would please. Do not speak to something you have not tried or done. The Torah tells us that the Laws and Regulations of Torah are sweet to the soul, available to all Jews and fully within our ability to perform, with the help and support of G-d and the Jewish Community. The idea that the Torah is such a high mark as to be an automatic failure is a falsehood.



We as human beings fall short of keeping the Law. Jesus Christ is to have kept all of the Law and met all of its requirements to a degree of utmost perfection. As Savior he redeems and intercedes for those to fall short of keeping the Law.
kivi says: Of course, that is also a falsehood. He never kept the mitzvahs concerning the King; he never kept any of the mitzvahs concerning the Kohans, he never kept any of the mitzvahs concerning women, he never kept any of the mitzvahs concerning land ownership or tithes or torts, he never kept any of the mitzvahs concerning marriage, in fact, if you add it up, there are less than 100 mitzvahs [out of 613] specifically commanded by the Torah that he might of tried to keep. Whether he did or not is open to debate. Whether he actually existed is open to debate. But the unsupported and untrue claim that he kept the Laws of Torah perfectly is absurd.

[ProScribe]

kivi sys: According to Judaism, the Mosaic Law is part of the Torah. The Old Testament is not part of the Torah. The Old Testament is a erroneous Christian translation of some of the texts of the Torah, but done so badly, either through stupidity or design, as to be invalid.

proscribe says:I don't see how you can invalidate the Old Testament since it speaks of the same God.



kivi says: Speak to your own personal failures, if you would please. Do not speak to something you have not tried or done. The Torah tells us that the Laws and Regulations of Torah are sweet to the soul, available to all Jews and fully within our ability to perform, with the help and support of G-d and the Jewish Community. The idea that the Torah is such a high mark as to be an automatic failure is a falsehood.

proscribe says:keeping the Law is the practice of a legalistic Pharisee.



kivi says: Of course, that is also a falsehood. He never kept the mitzvahs concerning the King; he never kept any of the mitzvahs concerning the Kohans, he never kept any of the mitzvahs concerning women, he never kept any of the mitzvahs concerning land ownership or tithes or torts, he never kept any of the mitzvahs concerning marriage, in fact, if you add it up, there are less than 100 mitzvahs [out of 613] specifically commanded by the Torah that he might of tried to keep. Whether he did or not is open to debate. Whethere he actually existed is open to debate. But the unsupported and untrue claim that he kept the Laws of Torah perfectly is absurd.

proscribe says:A Jew is capable of keeping the Law same as Yeshua?

[visionary]

The idea that the Torah is such a high mark as to be an automatic failure is a falsehood. Amen.
God never required what is impossible.. all things are possible through God who strengthens us to do His Will.

[ProScribe]

proscribe says: how is it possible for anyone to keep the Law perfectly?


. . .:scratch:

[ProScribe]

[<.>]

[kivi]

proscribe says:I don't see how you can invalidate the Old Testament since it speaks of the same God.
kivi says: That is an arguable question, that the G-d of the Torah is the same god as that of the New Testament. I know that Christianity needs the two to be equivilant since Christianity needs Judaism to legitimize it. But Judaism does not need Christianity to valid it. Obviously with the fundamental polytheism intrinsic in the New Testament god, it would require a stretch to make that possible. But my personal opinion does not count in this matter. However, there is a lot of discussion within Torah Judaism over it.




proscribe says:keeping the Law is the practice of a legalistic Pharisee.
kivi says: Based on my long relation with Christianity, I know that the term 'legalistic Pharisee' is meant as an insult. I do not take it as such. G-d gave B'nai Israel its Code of Law/the Torah: constitutional, criminal, civil & personal for the benefit of B'nai Israel, so that B'nai Israel could perform its job as the Priesthood to All of Mankind. We fully believe that G-d would never have sent us out on such a task without full instructions. The Torah are those instructions. That Christianity does not have such instructions seems to us to be a lack on the part of Christianity.




proscribe says:A Jew is capable of keeping the Law same as Yeshua?
kivi says: Since Jesus Christ never existed as an historic figure, but only as a fictional figure, of course he never kept the Mitzvahs of Torah. And, as noted before, since the Torah is the totall Law for all of the citizens of the Nation: men and women, Preists and lay people, government officials including kings and the rest, militiary and civilians, it is impossible and NEVER TO BE EXPECTED that any one person could keep all of the Laws of Torah.

[kivi]

proscribe says: how is it possible for anyone to keep the Law perfectly?


. . .:scratch:

kivi says: "Keep the Law perfectly" is an absurd idea invented by Christianity. The concept has no place within Judaism.

[GerTzedek]

Warning: Loooong post.
1. What is legalism and are Jews legalistic?
2. Avoiding semantical confusion.
3. Message to the chrstians on this from Matthew.

In my past upbringing, I was very carefully taught that legalism is when you obey the letter of the law while violating the intent, either the direct intent of that specific law, or the overall intent of Torah toward kindness and basic human decency, justice, truth, etc. IOW, when someone hurts another person in the name of "obedience to G-d," this is legalism. Driving by someone in distress because you might end up late for Mass is legalism. Throwing eggs at school girls who are celebrating the anniversary of Israel's rebirth because your own interpretation is opposed to the secular state would be an example of legalism.

As a convert, I have found that oral law and rabbinical teachings work very hard to make sure that the applications of Torah fall within these same boundaries of kindness. The rabbinical Judaism which has developed based upon the school of Hillel has made it a POINT that the whole of Torah is "what is hateful to you, do not do to others."

My conclusions are exactly what Kivi stated. Chrstianity has created a myth regarding Judaism being legalistic. It is so obvious, that even a cursory study of Judaism, if done honestly, will reveal this. This is my first point.

Second Point: some Chrstians misuse the term "legalistic," and those who dialogue with them need to be aware of their alternative ideosyncratic usages.


Hypocrisy: Hypocrisy means you preach one thing but live differently. It is a bad thing. But it is NOT the same as legalism. Note: there is an area of overlap--keeping small things while ignoring overaching principals of kindess etc. and claiming to be righteous because of one's circumspection would be an example of an instance both hypocritical and legalistic.
Salvation by works: Some thinkers in Reform Churches (and all their spin-offs including non-denominational churches) have basically taken the term legalism and wrongly applied it to their pet peeve. It's sort of "This is what we hate most, and legalism is the worst word we can think of, so let's call it that."
Law Abiding: This is actually a good thing, but many Chrstians have mistakenly concluded or have been wrongly taught that to feel obligated to obey G-d is "legalism" when in fact obedience is a sign of love for G-d. Indeed, these less educated Chrstians are completely unaware of the historical declaration of their own church that this is a heresy, "Anti-nomianism," or spirit of lawlessness. I would invite all the believers in JC here to google this word if you have not heard it before.
When talking Chrstians, a person needs to discern what definition they are using in order to avoid semantical misunderstanding. It is also important to remember that language evolves, and the "correct" meaning of legalism today may not be the correct meaning in 20 years. It is probably not a good idea to argue over what is correct or incorrect, but simply keep all of this in mind as PRACTICAL information in order to avoid misunderstandings.

Part the third: Now I'm going to speak to the Christians again.


Matthew 23 is where you need to read for your own faith-tradition's discussion of this matter.

Verses 1-3, JC explains to his followers (uh, that would be you) that they are to do all the Pharisees teach, and not get distracted by their hypocricy, becuase the Pharisees have teaching authority.
Most of the chapter rips into examples of hypocricy (this is not to say that all or even most pharisees were hypocrites, but even when only a few become bad apples, it creates a demoralizing atmosphere).
The heart of the chapter is verse 23: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Verse 23 is an example of both hypocricy and legalism on the part of some of these pharisees. But what was the solution? For them to stop keeping the spice tax (the specifics were oral law)???? NO NO NO. His advice was to get the overarching principals down AND keep the letter of the law (including oral law). It was do BOTH.

Clearly, CLEARLY one can see that JC is in favor of lawfullness, of keeping obligations, even the detail, e