Interesting but to many of us nothing new here. This was presented quite well and understandable but it begs the question as to what can be done to change the trend ? According to the clip the demographics today are irreversible/ That said how is it any concern for we Jews? One can’t make a convincing argument that the Christian world has been better and more tolerant than the Muslims towards the Jews?
We Jews have an amazing Prophesy that states: The Moslems “making troubles” to Jews in the Land of Israel, but - more important - that the Moslems will ignite a war which will bring most of the Christian nations to fight them, as we see the beginning of the process right before our eyes with the Sep. 11 attack and the war in Afghanistan. We know as a fact that bin Laden wanted to start a war with Christianity, because Islam believes that the last war will be made between “believers” (in Islam) and “Romans” (Christians).
The outstanding thing is, that the Zohar was written about 2000 years ago, when Christianity was only in the beginning and Mohammed wasn’t even born yet…
The demographic trends in the world tend to reinforce this position. Christian Nations will war against Muslim Nations or maybe just Muslims.
The war in Afghanistan is very relevant for us Jews. Here is why:
There’s almost nothing in the world that doesn’t have a Jewish connection… Here also, in the war that’s going on in Afghanistan there is a Jewish connection.
As remembered, before the destruction of the first Temple, the people of Israel was divided to 2 parts: Israel Kindgdom (in the north, with 10 tribes), and Judea Kingdom (with Jerusalem within its territory). The northern Israeli kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians, and the ten tribes were exiled to distant places. Since then they are “the lost tribes”. HaShem (G-d) promises in the prophecies (see for example Ezekiel 37, 15-28) that eventually they will return to the land of Israel and unite with their Jewish relatives. But in the meantime it is hard to know who they are.
One of the researches which was made some years ago, and was also introduces a few times on TV (Israeli TV and PBS), had reached Afghanistan, where it found - probably - remains of the ten tribes.
One subject of the Lost Tribes which has generally been ignored which I found to be personally fascinating are the tribe of the Pathans.
The Pathans are about 15 million people living mainly in Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as in Persia and India. They have a tradition of being of the Lost Tribes and have Israeli customs.
The Pathans have custom of circumcision on the 8th day. This is a known Jewish custom, and is the oldest Jewish tradition. Muslims have custom of circumcision but it is not on the 8th day, and usually at the age of 12.
The Pathans have a sort of small Tallit called Kafan. This is a 4 cornered garment which they tie strings similar to the fringes (Jews call them Tzitzit) and is one of the oldest Jewish traditions going back to the Torah and it is a sign of their Israeli origin. They also have bigger Tallit which they call Joy-Namaz. It is a garment 2-3 meters sq., and it is made to cover the head and part of the shoulders, and is used for prayer by spreading on the ground in the Muslim fashion. It has no fringes.
The Pathans have custom of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is considered a day of rest and they do not labor, cook or bake. The Pathans prepare 12 Hallot (traditional Jewish bread, Leviticus 24:5) in honor of the Sabbath as was done in the ancient temple. One of the significant indicators proving the Israeli origins of the Pathans is the lighting of the candle to honor the Sabbath. After lighting, the candle is covered usually by a large basket. The candle is lit by a woman past her menopause.
Pathans Live in Customs of Israelites
Pathans have custom of Kosher, dietary laws same as Jews. Pathans do not eat horse or camel meat, which is most common in their area but of course forbidden to Jews. There is some evidence to their not eating meat and milk together which is also an ancient Israeli tradition. And they have a tradition regarding differentiating between pure and impure birds which means permitted and not permitted birds similar to the Torah.
Some still wear a small box which Jews call Tefillin (phylactery) containing a verse of the Bible. This box resemble Japanese Tokin of Yamabushi’s forehead, too. This is an ancient custom of Israel. In the Jewish box there is the verse of Shema Israel, that is, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4) This custom of Tefillin came from a verse of the Scriptures, “You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8).
It is interesting to note that the Pathans retain family names of the Lost Tribes such as Asher, Gad, Naphtali, Reuben and Manasseh and Ephraim. Among them there are people who are called by these names, which are of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. There are also people who are called Israel, Samuel, and so on, which are never found among the Muslims. There are also many areas as locations, neighborhoods and villages with names of places that are similar to names in the land of Israel.
The region has archeological finds testifying to a Hebrew past, and they also resemble Jews of the area and their language Pashtu surprisingly has many Hebrew words. The Pathans are also called Afghans, or sons of the Pashtu which is their language, were mostly called “Bani-Israel” meaning children of Israel even though they live today as devout Muslims.
The external appearance of the Pathans resemble the Jews of the area. Together with their ancient customs and other data there is a definite connection that can be made to the Tribes of Israel.
The Pathans number 6 to 7 million in Afghanistan and 7 to 8 million in Pakistan. They live in the border area between these two countries and about 2 million live as nomads. These Pathans desire for their independence, which is supported by Afghanistan and is a cause of constant tension in Pakistan which does not desire their independence.
Pathans’ Law Resembles the Torah
Afghanistan is one of the least developed countries of Asia and the majority of the population is illiterate. They work primarily in farming and sheep-raising and other domesticated animals.
Most people still live in villages and some even live as nomads. It is a country that is ruled by Islamic religious law and more than 90 % of the population are Sunni Muslims. But whatever modernization has taken place, it has not reached the mountainous border areas. Here the Pathans continue their centuries old tribal life.
The legal system which is known as Pashtunwali, the law of the Pashtu, is very similar to the Torah, which is the holiest Jewish book and the book of ancient Jewish way of life. There are pages and even complete books among the pathans and they honor greatly what is called Tavrad El Sharif (the Torah of Moses), and they rise at the mention of the name of Moses even though it is not important in Islam.
The Pathans are very healthy, tall, and have strong light-skinned appearance. They are warriors and carry arms from a young age, they are hardworking, wise, truthful and extremely loyal and they also have a worldwide reputation for exemplary hospitality.
The ethnic origin of these Pathans has puzzled people for some time because they are different both externally and in the character traits from the other groups around them such as the Turks, the Mongolians, the Persians, or the Indo-Iranians. It is also difficult to trace their past history in a region in which tens of nations and major tribes of various origins have come and gone.
The personal identification of the Pathan Tribes with their Israelite origin is expressed in various ways. Besides the oral tradition related by the elders of the tribe, there are also interesting testimonies of keeping of scrolls of genealogy among the tribes, reaching back to the Fathers of the Jewish nation.
These scrolls are well preserved and some are written in gold on the skins of a doe. No less interesting and significant are the names of the tribes which bear close resemblance to the Tribes of Israel. The Rabbani Tribe is really Reuben, the Shinware Tribe is Shimon, the Lewani Tribe is Levi, The Daftani Tribe is Naphtali, and the Jaji Tribe is Gad, and the Ashuri Tribe is Asher, The Yusefsai Tribe is sons of Joseph, and the Afridi Tribe is really Ephraim. These are the names of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.
The Pathans themselves point out the differences between the original names of the tribes and their present names are because of the different dialects of the languages so that, for instance, Jaji was actually called Gaji for the tribe of Gad.
There are some Jews of Afghanistan today who count the Tribe of Israel among the Pathans. The physical similarity between the Pathans and other Jews is exemplified by the British ruled Afghanistan for a great length of time and called the Pathans Jews. When not wearing their traditional clothing Pathans are indistinguishable from other Jews of the area. Among the 21 nations of Afghanistan only the Pathans and the Jews have Semitic features, their faces are longer and lighter, and some even have blue eyes. Like the Jews of the area, Pathans grow beards and sidelocks which further serve to make them indistinguishable from Jews.
Israeli Features of the Pathans
The Pathans have many other features as descendants of Israelites.
Their wedding is like Jewish. Wedding ceremony with the Pathans includes a marriage canopy and rings similar to the Jewish custom.
Women of the Pathans keep laws similar to the Jewish laws regarding menstruation. During this time and for 7 days after, no contact is allowed with the husband. After this period, the woman immerses in a river or spring or in a bathhouse if a natural spring is not available. This is exactly the same as the Israeli tradition going back to the days of the Bible.
Pathans have custom of levirate marriage, which is the custom when a husband dies without children, his brother marries the widow to keep the name of the house. This custom no longer exists today, but was an ancient Israeli custom mentioned in the Bible (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).
The commandment to honor one’s parent is kept in exemplary manner in these tribes. The son must obey the parents in all matters. When the father enters the room all stand and bow their heads in his honor. This was a Israeli tradition as well.
Pathans have custom of Yom Kippur. We know of some of the members of the Lewani Tribe who came to the Jewish synagogue on Yom Kippur each year in Afghanistan. He would stay there until sundown without uttering even one word. He spoke of the tradition of the Temple on this day and of the high priest and his work there.
One year he erred in his calendar and did not come, he wept bitterly for one week for missing the observance of this day.
The Pathans have custom of scapegoat. In ancient Israel there was the custom to put sins of the nation onto a goat and send the goat away to desert. This custom of scapegoat was done to atone the sins of the nation (Leviticus chapter 16). Similar custom is found even today among the Pathans.
The Pathans usually pray in mosque. However some pray towards Jerusalem which is most unusual. There are some very old synagogues in their area and Pathans come to these synagogues on special days in times of great stress or tragedies or for special prayers. The individual who seeks help comes there to touch the lock and to pray. There are those who say that these places once contained scrolls of the Torah. This is interesting because today they are actually devout Muslims.
At the time of plague the Pathans slaughter a sheep and sprinkle its blood on the doorpost of their homes. This is what the Israelites did in ancient Egypt during the plagues that occurred there.
An interesting testimony relates to the placing of a wrapped book of Psalms of the Bible under the pillow of the ill in order to heal that person.
There are those who have said that there are Amulets written in Hebrew. Some contain the phrase “Shema Israel” and it is secretly written by the head of the tribe and it is forbidden to open it.
And the symbol of Shield of David (Star of David) is found in almost every Pathan house. The wealthy make it out of expensive metals and the poor out of simple wood. It can be seen in towers, in schools and also in tools, bracelets, and jewelry. I saw it at least 20 times in a variety of places. In Minerajan, the center of Afghanistan, there are even schools that have the Shield of David on the door or in the stone above the door.
Israeli Tradition in Afghan Royal Family
Not only the Pathans, but also the Afghan Royal Family has a very well known tradition placing its origin in ancient Israel, they came from the Tribe of Benjamin.
This tradition was first published in 1635 in a book called Mahsan-I-Afghani and has often been mentioned in the research literature. According to this tradition, King Saul had a son called Jeremiah who had a son called Afghana. Jeremiah died at about the time of King Saul’s death and Afghana was raised by King David and remained in the royal court during King Solomon’s reign.
About 400 years later in the time of disorder of Israel, the Afghana family fled to a land called Gur which is in central Afghanistan. They settled and traded with the people of the area and in the year 662, with the arrival of Islam, the sons of Israel in Gur converted to the prophet with 7 representatives of the Afghan. The leader of the sons of Israel was Kish like the name of Saul’s father.
According to this tradition Muhammed rewarded them and Kish’s Hebrew name was changed to Arab-A-Rashid by Muhammad and was given the task of spreading Islam among his people. This is the roots of Afghan Royal Family.
So Afghan Royal Family has the tradition of ancient Israel - Benjamin Tribe of the Southern Kingdom of Judah.
This is a well known documentary in 10 parts that should at least give some room for thought on an historical narrative that many Jews Christians and Muslims believe is taking place before our own eyes with Jews being the central actor in the narrative.
The final parts of the documentary reflect the position I laid out in comment #1
The last 4 parts of the documentary con”t from #2 are mostly about Afghan Israelites the Pathan (Taliban) today but also Israelites. They provide possibly that link between Israel today Jews and the conflict between Islam and the mostly Christian West. I think there is a Historical drama being played out and we all in some way are its participants. To what end, if true?
yamit: thanks, i watched the doc on the lost tribes. very interesting. what do you make of the population shift in europe and other areas going towards muslim majority? is is probable or possible that this is a final shift from idolatry of xnity towards a kind of monotheism of islam that precedes moshiach? kind of like a purifying of 2000 years of xn idolatry before moshiach.
“The Eternal Jew” contains scenes of scurrying rats, which the Nazis then compare to Jews. I am sure we could remix this particular scene to refer to militant “Muslims” who “breed like rats” to overrun the societies they infest like parasites.
8.1 children per family? I wonder how the militant “Muslims” support that many–probably welfare. Yes, they DO breed like rats (or cancer cells), and probably by design.
Jack Chick’s leaflets DO have their uses, and I hope he can provide Arabic translations.
There are several prophetic and historical keys to take note.
With regards to Israel: There is no justification for a return to Zion except Judaism. The secular Jews have more or less expended their positive contribution and it is now time for the observant to complete the process of the return to Zion and the redemption of Clal Yisrael. This process will become a reality within the next 20-30 years. The majority of the worlds Jews now live in Israel. Those Jews who do not come willingly will shortly either be forced to come or perish at least as Jews.
G-d has decided to bring the Jews home and the historical process is unfolding before our eyes. The end of the 2000 year exile is coming to an end and we are in those times leading up to the prophesied time before the appearance of he Messiah Ben Yoseph. I look to the Pathans as a vital key in G-d’s eventual plan. The restoration of the whole house of Israel. I believe the Muslims and the Christians will war against each other and we should as much as possible stay out of it. It’s not our fight unless threatened directly. I have said before and will again while I despise Islam I hate Christianity (not individual Christians). Islam may be a threat to us physically but they are largely in tune with Judaism and are not idolatrous.
[...] posted here: Israpundit » Blog Archive » Muslim Demographics This entry is filed under Muslim, Object. You can follow any responses to this entry through the [...]
Levinson your diatribe against the Muslims still does not address the shrinking negative demographics of all Western societies, that contain the seeds of self destruction.
check out Genesis 1:28
28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth.
yamit, thanks.
as you know, rambam postulated that a reason H’ allowed for the development and massive spread of xnity and islam was to prepare the world for the Oneness of Gd, moshiach etc. it therefore makes sense to me that islam will supplant xnity. i am not, though, comfortable with this given the violent and totalitarian tendencies of most muslim expansion.
you mentioned about the xn-islam war and if we, israel, could be left out of it.
uh, i think that’s a problem. we seem to be at the center of it simply because our sacred land, particularly jerusalem sits on the holiest place in the universe: the temple mount. islam knows this and their desire for total power is why they won’t leave.
it’s true what H’ said about the descendants of ishmael, of course: they’d be wild asses and against everyone. and they were blessed to be very numerous. there you go.
also, as you know, ishmael, at the end of his life did teshuva/repentance; however, his descendants did not.
what do you make of this?: although rambam said that islam was not idolatrous… and we must respect him; i can’t help but wonder about the whole moon-god thing and the way they act in the world.
it’s some weird blend of what they stole from judaism plus tribal idolatries, i guess.
of course, i cannot debate rambam, he was a great one. this is my own personal difficulty.
Stop giving the parasites welfare, and they won’t enter our countries. Remember, rats and other pests arrive when you leave food out for them. If you put all your garbage in the dumpster, they will go elsewhere.
Laura , you are a true Jew almost as pissed off as me! Islam is a fucking horrible,”religion.” I will fight them to my death! All the governments of either your country(US) or mine Canada have taken a soft approach to these vermin! They have 22 countries, plus ripped-off any good trait of ours.The US gov’t is pathetic! They always favoured the Saudi’s who were definately responsible for more than 3000 deaths!Georgr W bush has much blood on his hands!
The Rambam lived in a different time and many of his ideas and thinking was colored by those realities. It is a mistake to accept carte blanche everything he said, wrote and thought as Torah mSinai. He was fought and rejected by most Torah authorities during his own lifetime. For us Islam and Christianity are nevela & trefa. We are living in the messianic age. According to Mishnah Sanhedrin, “There is no difference between this world and the messianic era, except for subjugation to kingdoms.” Rambam also supported that commonsensical view: a messiah is the man who delivers Israel from the Exile: “Do not imagine that the messianic king needs to give signs, perform miracles,… or resurrect the dead…. Rabbi Akiva and the wise men did not ask the King Ben Koziba for a sign or a miracle.” Some sages endowed the messiah with supernatural features, but arguably they did so to discourage the Jews who long for delivery from running after every self-proclaimed messiah, endangering Jews as the whole. Rambam, too, imagined some almost supernatural consequences of the messiah, such as the lasting peace and honest religiosity, but for the most part, a messiah for him was characterized by gathering Israel in the Promised Land and attempting to rebuild the Temple.
Gathering is the critical part. Jews have attempted rebuilding our state during the 1,900 years of the Exile, but only the recent attempt successfully gathered the Jews from the Diaspora communities. The 2,500-year-old Jewish communities in Babylon and Syria, Libya and Egypt are no more. Only in the late twentieth century the Gentile dominance over the Jews has ended. Only in the 1947 was a Jewish country created in conformance with the Talmud, by the UN decision, without the Jews rioting against the nations.
The messiah will fight Esau. The suggestion is rather strange, as he was never a significant enemy of Jews. Today, our major enemies are the Arabs, our cousins, the children of Esau.
Enigmatically, the messiah “will smite the head of all the descendants of Seth” (Numbers 24:17). The problem is that the entire humanity has descended from Seth through Noah, including the Jews. So there is an interpretation that the messiah will fight the entire world. That’s something Israel might be eventually forced to do, but perhaps a simpler explanation is that the prophet Balaam meant the Egyptian deity Seth. Modern Israel does have considerable problems with Egypt.
Israel reached the proportions of Zechariah 9:10: “from (Red) sea to (Mediterranean) sea, and from (Jordan) river to the land’s end (Mediterranean shore).”
The Exodus took place. Jews have left Europe and Arab countries for Israel. Those who refused to rise and go immediately, perished in the Holocaust. Like in the first Exodus, in the second one almost the entire generation perished, unable to reach the Promised Land; they died in Europe rather in the Sinai.
The renegade Jews perished: the Samaritans number mere hundreds, and Reform Jews assimilate quickly. Scores of blind leaders - abominable Jewish community bosses and atheist rabbis – arose to lead the blind into the pit of assimilation. The scale of devastation of the Diaspora Jewry in America, Canada, West and East Europe, comparable only to Holocaust in the silence of its victims and disregard of its Judenrat leaders, leaves no doubt about the divine plan.
Jewish influence is at the top worldwide. About 40% of American billionaires are Jewish. The influence has peaked, as Jewish moguls increasingly dissociate from Jewishness. God never does clear-cut miracles. The Reed Sea parting evidently left a good number of Jews unconvinced, as they soon complained of the lack of food and water. Indeed, that miracle looked anything but a miracle: the eastward wind, blowing all night, pushed shallow waters from the reed swamp and made it crossable on foot, while still impassible for the Egyptian heavy chariots, which, the Torah says, were stuck in the mud and lost their wheels. The Purim miracles were even more sublime: of his entire harem, the Persian despot became madly attracted to his old Jewish wife who surely looked sorrowful after a three-day fast, and followed her whims. Israeli victories in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 can be logically explained by peculiar military circumstances. After all, even a coin thrown up into the air can land on its edge. But after Yitzhak Shamir agreed to the Madrid Conference, the beginning of the giveaway of Judea to Arabs, 39 SCUD missiles hit Israel, the maximum number of lashes under the Torah law. Like under lashes, no one has died from the Iraqi missiles.
The Torah tells us to exterminate Amalek, but to evict the Canaanite nations – not kill them. God even promised to plant terror in their hearts so that they would flee from us. In 1948, 400,000 Palestinian Arabs took off from their land and fled the country for no rational reason.
God offered 40-day grace period to Nineveh, and 40-year – to Judea after Israel was destroyed. Nineveh repented and survived, but Judea didn’t and perished. In the current Israel, Jews first rebelled against the divine will in 1967 when we failed to annex the land of Judea which God gave in our hands miraculously. God slapped us with the Yom Kippur war, and saved in it. Then we sinned irreparably by giving away Sinai, the Promised Land. Did 1978 start a forty-year countdown?
There is a place in Esther 9 where, extremely unusually, four Hebrew letters are of non-standard size. The sages have long maintained that’s a prophecy. The four letters make the number 5-707, which is a Hebrew equivalent to the Gregorian year 1946-1947. That year, ten Nazis were hanged in Nuremberg, and transvestite Goring committed suicide. In Esther, Haman’s ten sons are hanged, and his daughter committed suicide, according to a midrash. To drive the point home to Jews, one of the Nazis, whose name is not deserved to be mentioned, screamed “The Purim 1946” at the gallows. In Esther 3, eleven months passed from the king’s decree on extermination of Jews to the salvation; 11 years passed from the 1935 Nuremberg laws to the 1946 Nuremberg trials. In 1953, Stalin died during or just before the Purim, days before the planned date of wiping out all Soviet Jews by transferring them to the coldest place in Siberia.
There are other strange correlations, including the number of Jews killed fighting for Jerusalem in 1967, the number of years between independence and capturing the Temple Mount (same as for King Jehoiakim), etc. Every such oddity can be explained rationally - it is a matter of Jewish belief that God performs miracles without violating the laws of nature – but there are just too many coincidences.
Jews didn’t long for statehood. Look at the modern Jews mumbling, “Next year, in Jerusalem!” but staying in New York. Ancient Diaspora Jews lacked Jeremiah’s nostalgia for their land, and comfortably settled in Rome and Babylon. They kept sending their half-shekel contribution to the Temple just like the modern American Jews buy Israeli bonds. Dhimmi status in tolerant Muslim societies allowed Jews excellent autonomy, good relations with non-Jewish neighbors, low taxes, and absence of conscription. That’s very much what the modern Jews enjoy in America.
Nor are the trials that befell us too unusual. Europeans reduced their Jewish communities to almost nil several times in the recorded history. Treacherous leaders are as common now as they were in the fifteenth century. We tend to idealize the then rabbis but perhaps a millennium from now Jews would admire Ovadia Yosef.
Source Halakha 12:
Talmud Bavli, Ketuvot, 110b, Our Rabbis taught: One should always live in the Land of Israel, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are idolaters, but let no one live outside the Land, in a town most of whose inhabitants are Israelites; for whoever lives in the Land of Israel may be considered to have a G-d, but whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who has no G-d. For it is said in Scripture, To give you the Land of Canaan, to be your G-d. [Vayikra 25:38] Has he, then, who does not live in the Land, have no G-d? But [this is what the text intended] to tell you, that whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who worships idols. Similarly it was said in Scripture in [the story of] David, For they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of the L-rd, saying: Go, serve other gods. [Shmuel I 26:9] Now, whoever said to David, ‘Serve other gods’? But [the text intended] to tell you that whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who worships idols. [Tosafot,'Avoda Zara, 5]
The Jew living outside the Land, constitutes the worshipping of idols because doing so denies the foundations of the Torah, i.e., the enactment of the Torah, and the living by the statutes of the Law. The project of enacting the Torah can only be legally accomplished in the Land as defined by the Law. The goal of Jewish practice is a single idea that can be dissected into three interrelated and independent subsections. The single idea is to know G-d, that is, to love G-d since the limits of human knowledge subject man’s knowing of G-d to the loving of Him. Subsection one of the idea deals with individual development; subsection two, with national development; and subsection three impacts upon universal development of mankind. Each subsection is dependent on the precepts of the Law, for it is the Law that elucidates these subsections and places definitional perimeters of their understanding. Development of self begins with adherence to all commandments which, in turn, lead to the national responsibility and finally its universal ramifications. Again, it is the participation in the project and what that participation says about the belief in the endeavor itself that is so central. There is such a notion in Jewish law because the foundation of Jewish practice is founded upon the creation of an autonomous Jewish political entity in the Land of Israel.
All of the PROPHETIC signs are visible before our eyes. We are now living in the Messianic time. All you Jews have some free choice to do what the commandments dictate which of course primarily to leave the exile ASAP. That is the trigger for the final redemption. May it be in our time.
We Jews don’t need ourselves, but it seems that God really needs us.
The voluntary devastation of the Jewish population is not historically unique. Most Jews refused to leave Egypt during the Exodus, Babylonia with Ezra, or America – for Israel. In Nehemiah’s time, Jews intermarried prodigiously. Today, too, we see some positive trends: many conservative Jews reject the reform’s leanings and embrace Orthodoxy; religious Jewish populations in Israel and the West are growing. But the proportions today are totally different.
For all the exaggerations of ancient historians, Jews constituted a respectable percentage of the civilized world then. Jewish presence was considerable in Europe just seventy years ago. A century ago, the number of Jews and Arabs in the world was about equal, around twenty million each. Today, the Arabs at 300 million are twenty times the number of Jews. Such disparities are not realistically recoverable. Moreover, globalization, mobility, and open societies threaten the Jewish survival. In the earlier times, assimilation was slow: some Jews baptized, some gentiles married into the Jewish people. The trends were slow, giving the Jews enough time to adapt and react, to re-group and restructure our Jewishness. Today, we cannot keep pace with assimilation: the entire American Jewry perished in two generations only; the intermarriage rate among the young atheists hits 90%.
So the divine plan for Jews is either to perish as a people, or to be left only in Israel. The messianic scenario involves substantially all Jews moving to the Land of Israel. The Bible recognizes King Cyrus a messiah even though most Jews refused returning to Israel; messiah need not return everyone. There are two ways to assure that almost all Jews return: make everyone return, or make those who don’t return, perish. Jews refused the first option, so we may be witnessing the second one unfolding.
All of the PROPHETIC signs are visible before our eyes. We are now living in the Messianic time. All you Jews have some free choice to do what the commandments dictate which of course primarily to leave the exile ASAP. That is the trigger for the final redemption. May it be in our time.
There seems to be a miscommunication between Hashem and his chosen. Apparently the approximate 20,000 Israelis who have applied to make Alyiah to Germany this year have totally confused the biblical dictate-It is Israel, not Germany that is the homeland for the Jewish people. And they are just following the pattern of well over 1 million other Israelis who have left Israel for America, Europe, Canada and other economically more attractive locations.
my understanding is that geulah shleimah, the final redemption, includes everyone.
Only those who are worthy. Like Pinchas and those who return to Zion and rebuild the Temple. Religiosity of rituals has little merit outside of the Land of Israel. The very fact of choosing the exile is like a slave who refuses freedom and by Halacha is punished for it. The voluntary opting for galut is denial of the most basic tenants of Torah. Just like we refusing to rebuild the Temple and annex all of Yehudah and Shomron. We cannot have geulah until we execute acts that bring shleimot. We must emulate Pinchas and obey the Torah otherwise we push away the geulah.
At the conclusion of Parshas Balak, we learn that following the episode with Balak and Bilaam, the Bnei Yisrael began to sin with the daughters of Moav. A nesi bait av committed his sinful act with a daughter of the leader of Midyan before Moshe and all of the Bnei Yisrael.
The entire nation stood around weeping, at a complete loss. Hashem was about to send a plague as punishment for the crime when Pinchas arose from the crowd.
He was the sole individual who was not confounded by the unprecedented outrage - the only one who remembered the halacha and knew what had to be done. Even as cynics mocked him and he himself was unsure of the outcome his act would produce, Pinchas ignored the scoffers and sprang forward, plunging a spear into the bodies of Zimri and his partner.
He thus stopped the already devastating plague and brought a swift end to yet another inglorious chapter in our people’s history.
Parshas Pinchas opens with Hashem telling Moshe Rabbeinu, “Pinchas the son of Elazar the son of Aharon the Kohen turned back G-d’s wrath from the Bnei Yisrael with his act of kana’ut, and He did not destroy the Bnei Yisrael in His anger. Therefore, say [the following]: Hashem is bestowing upon Pinchas his covenant of peace. He and his children who follow him shall be privileged with the covenant of kehunah forever.”
By following the dictates he had been taught by Moshe Rabbeinu and intervening in a machlokes, Pinchas merited the blessing of eternal peace. The man of peace is not necessarily the one who sits back passively and does nothing. The one who sits on the sidelines weeping as evil rears its ugly head and seems to triumph is not promoting peace; he is encouraging evil.
Pinchas is deemed worthy to bear the torch of kehunah and carry on the tradition of Aharon Hakohen, to be an oheiv shalom verodef shalom, because he put his own ambitions aside and rose to the challenge. Pinchas was given the eternal blessing of peace because he made peace possible in Yisrael by exterminating evil.
Pinchas halted the plague which had already killed 24,000 Jews because he had the moral courage and clarity to act when others were confounded and immobilized.
He didn’t let popular opinion deter him from slaying those who brazenly defied the Torah’s authority. He knew that an oheiv shalom verodef shalom sometimes has to act courageously, even if his actions invite misunderstanding and recrimination.
Pinchas knew that the cause of peace is advanced through fidelity to halacha. Shalom is achieved by pursuing shleimut, even if that involves sacrificing sacred cows and jeopardizing a career.
Shalom is rooted in shleimut; when everything is proper, when everything is complete and whole, then it is possible to also have shalom. If you are lacking in shleimut, if the state is not absolutely intact, then you cannot have shalom. Torah is the absolute truth. With it the world was created, and it serves as the ultimate yardstick in defining our behavior. If we stay true to it, then we will consequently be blessed with peace.
Pinchas passed this test and he was therefore singled out as being worthy of following in the footsteps of Aharon Hakohen, who exemplified the pursuit of shalom through the service of G-d.
With all of the countless misfortunes besieging our people as yechidim and as a klal, it seems at times as if we are living through a period of mageifah.
Perhaps what we need are more people like Pinchas in order to stop the plague in its tracks. We need people whose loyalty to Torah compels them to arise from the mourners who sit weeping and demonstrate by action what needs to be done.
There seems to be a miscommunication between Hashem and his chosen. Apparently the approximate 20,000 Israelis who have applied to make Alyiah to Germany this year have totally confused the biblical dictate-It is Israel, not Germany that is the homeland for the Jewish people. And they are just following the pattern of well over 1 million other Israelis who have left Israel for America, Europe, Canada and other economically more attractive locations.
Peskin I fail to see your point here although I am sure you have one besides being supercilious.
Peskin this is the second time you throw that statistic at me and I haven’t seen it in print so send me a link and I will reply directly to it. On a much broader level keeping to your point I would generally reply like this: There are probably around 2 million ex pat Israelis scattered around the world and are usually included in the Jewish population stats of the respective countries of residence. Many eventually return or their children or grand children so I haven’t written any off completely except those like you.(Good Riddance) You know full well we have imported some 4-5 hundred thousand non Jewish Slavs that should never have been allowed in and I assume many are included in your 20,000 applicants to Germany where many more like Slavs using Israeli passports have gained entrance to various countries and Germany is certainly a popular destination among them.
My best friend spends half of ea. year in Mexico and there are several millions of Americans like him in Mexico. What does that mean. That America is a less desirous place to live? Israel is different because Jews are different and we have a specific purpose and that purpose is connected to the Land of Israel. As I said on other posts Peskin you and your clones are Toast and are not included in the redemptive end game plan. Of that I am sure.
The video was alarmist, not my cup of tea. Colin McEvedy’s “The Penguin Atlas of Modern History”, speaking about the world situation in 1483, said,
At this stage an impartial observer would surely have put his money on Islam rather than Christndom. Islam had held the Newar East for nearly 800 years, Christian minorities there had become too weak to support any revanche, and anyhow, for military effieciency, no Christian state could match the Ottoman (modern Turkey). Stretching from Morocco to Kazan, a solid wall of Islamic countries stood between Christendom and the rest of the known world. Such Christian enclaves as Georgia and Abyssinia were dwindluing, while Islam’s steady expansion continued east and south. The Negroes of the Niger and of the east coast of Afric, the oasis-dwellers on the silk road in Turkestan and the Indonesean islanders along the spice route were all adopting Islam in increasing numbers. The only card in Europe’s hand was its increasing literacy…
Things obviously did not turn out as it seemed they would.
Islam may be a threat to us physically but they are largely in tune with Judaism and are not idolatrous.
Are you quite sure about that, Yamit?
While the word “Islam” translates as “submission,” the question arises: Whom do Muslims want the world to ’submit’ to? Yes, yes, they will say, “to Allah,” of course. [What would you expect them to say?] But even if they have persuaded themselves that that is what they believe, the inescapable fact remains that the viciousness of both their conduct and their pronouncements suggests that they seek the world’s submission not to God but to MUSLIMS. And that goes for the “quiet” ones as well as the jihadi mushuganehs.
I suggest to you, with all due respect, that, although Islam may pride itself on its opposition to idolatry, that it is in fact the ultimate idolatry.
Islam, like Christianity, accepts the Jewish Bible and is based largely upon Jewish ideas and traditions. The philosophical underpinnings of Islam, however, are more closely aligned with those of Judaism. Whereas Christianity incorporates the idea of the “trinity,” Islam believes in one all-powerful, infinite God.
Mohammed, the founder of Islam, based many of his beliefs on the practices of local Jewish population in his native Mecca. For example, the Moslem practices of not eating pig, circumcision, daily prayer and fasting during the first month of the year were all culled directly from Judaism.
Since Islam was so similar to Judaism, Mohammed assumed the Jews would immediately accept this new religion. When the Jews did not live up to his expectations, he turned violently against them and many Jews died by the sword. (We are still suffering from this today;)
The real difference between the two religions, however, lies in their basis for belief. Judaism is based on the unique historical event of a divine revelation experienced by the entire nation. Whereas Islam is based on the prophetic claims of a single individual who subsequently convinced others to follow his ways.
Talmudic tradition says that while Abraham’s son Isaac became the forefather of the Jewish people, the Islamic line is descended from Abraham’s other son Ishmael. dweller, this is what I meant.
Maimonides states that the popularity of Christianity and Islam are part of God’s plan to spread the ideals of Torah throughout the world. This moves society closer to a perfected state of morality and toward a greater understanding of God. All of this is in preparation for the Messianic age. I personally reject this postulate. Both Christianity and Islam should be viewed based on their dissimilarities with Judaism rather than what they may have in common. While mutations sometimes can be beneficial in the process of natural selection as often as not they are more harmful especially when we consider what we hold as theological truths.
Too early to claim that the present swine flu will become a Pandemic or even a very lethal one, but it would be very symbolic and even timely were it to happen. Swine flu? The name is for we Jews is symbolically prodigious.
8. And it shall come to pass throughout all the land, says the Lord, two parts of it shall be cut off. They shall perish, and the third shall remain therein.9. And I will bring the third in fire; and I will refine them as one refines silver, and I will test them as one tests gold. He shall call in My name, and I will respond to him. I said, “He is My people”; and he shall say, “The Lord is my God.”
12. And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the nations who besieged Jerusalem; his flesh will waste away while he still stands on his feet; his eyes will waste away in their sockets, and his tongue shall waste away in his mouth.
13. And it will come to pass on that day that there will be great consternation, sent by the Lord upon them; each one shall seize the hand of the other, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of the other.
14. Yea, even Judah will fight against Jerusalem! And the wealth of all the nations round about-gold and silver and apparel-will be gathered in very great abundance.
15. And so will be the plague of the horses, the mules, the camels, the donkeys, and all the animals that are in those camps, similar to this plague.
On Passover we chanted this prayer from the traditional Haggadah:
“Pour forth Your wrath upon the nations that do not recognize You and upon the kingdoms that do not invoke Your name. For they have devoured Jacob and destroyed his habitation. Pour forth Your fury upon them and let Your burning wrath overtake them. Pursue them with anger and destroy them from beneath the heavens of the L-rd.”
Is it now coming to be? Are the prayers of millions of Jews beginning to be fulfilled? Who knows, but one can speculate.
Since Islam was so similar to Judaism, Mohammed assumed the Jews would immediately accept this new religion. When the Jews did not live up to his expectations, he turned violently against them and many Jews died by the sword. (We are still suffering from this today
Islam is based on the prophetic claims of a single individual who subsequently convinced others to follow his ways
To me, these are clearcut evidences simple human egotism — the breeding grounds (if not the direct basis) of ALL idolatry.
Christianity incorporates the idea of the “trinity.”
While it is true that the proposition of a divine trinity [as well as the very notion that a man, any man, even Mashiakh himself, could be God] is inescapably idolatrous, I would suggest to you, Yamit, that these concepts have not always been integral to what has come to be known as ‘Christianity.’ Before the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the adherents of Yeshua HaNitzri ["Jesus"] regarded him as Mashiakh, but not as God.
While it is true that the proposition of a divine trinity [as well as the very notion that a man, any man, even Mashiakh himself, could be God] is inescapably idolatrous, I would suggest to you, Yamit, that these concepts have not always been integral to what has come to be known as ‘Christianity.’ Before the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the adherents of Yeshua HaNitzri ["Jesus"] .
“regarded him as Mashiakh, but not as God” Even the Josephus brief mention is now considered a forgery by the Church as it only appeared in later translations not the original.
A- There is no historical evidence that this Jesus ever existed. He is most likely a composite mythological figure. Some say an invention of the Romans.
B-Over 1,000 years before the attributed birth of the historical Jesus, it was recorded in the Tanach:
Numbers 23:19: God is not a man, that He should be deceitful, nor the son of man, that He should repent. Would He say and not do, or speak and not confirm?
Psalms 146:3: Do not rely on princes nor in the son of man, for he holds no salvation.
Even the New Testament concurs that Jesus, in fact, is not the Messiah:
Matthew 20:28: Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.
C- The noun moshiach (translated as messiah) annotatively means “annointed one;” it does not, however, imply “savior.” The notion of an innocent, semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought or scripture. In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah. Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, the only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered high priest. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha, and Apocrypha never mention the Messiah.
The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks God into three separate beings: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).
Contrast this to the Shema, the basis of Jewish belief: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE” (Deut. 6:4). Jews declare the Shema every day, while writing it on doorposts (Mezuzah), and binding it to the hand and head (Tefillin). This statement of God’s One-ness is the first words a Jewish child is taught to say, and the last words uttered before a Jew dies.
In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry—one of the three cardinal sins that a Jew should rather give up his life than transgress. This explains why during the Inquisitions and throughout history, Jews gave up their lives rather than convert
Your claim is in complete contradiction to the new testatement. What historical documents do you base your claim on?
I agree that my “claim” contradicts the established, and dominant, ‘Christian’ reading of the New Testament. Whether it contradicts the scripture itself is another matter. Consider, for example, Mark 13:32, in the Olivet Discourse, where the matter of the time of the “Second Coming” is raised:
13:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
13:5 And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:…
13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but [only] the Father. [emphasis mine]
By any assessment, omniscience is a fundamental property of divinity: God knows everything. Yet here, this Christ character effectively acknowledges himself to not be omniscient — while [at the same time] noting that God indeed is all-knowing. There are some things that God knows, and that the “Son” of God doesn’t know. The Son of God is, thus, not “God the Son.” Fancy that.
In John’s gospel, when Christ stops at a well in Sh’khem [then called "Sychar"] and asks a Samaritan woman there for a drink of water, at one point in the discussion, he tells her that it’s less important whether she worships God on Mt. Gerizim or on Mt. Zion [i.e.,in Jerusalem] than that she understand that God isn’t limited to one place or another — because God is a Spirit [Jn 4:24]: He isn’t a place or a person and cannot be confined to anything physical.
4:22 …salvation is of the Jews.
4:23 .. the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him.
4:24 God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.” [emphases mine]
Those Jews were not “Christians” and, in fact, “Christianity” was not concocted yet at that point.
Well, yes, that’s just the point — or my point anyway.
Look, until the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the Judean adherents of Jesus [as
distinguished from those in the Greek cities, the Greek Islands, Asia Minor, etc] were almost entirely Jewish. There’s no way that Jews would have swallowed the notion that a man could be ‘God.’ Jews had far too much history of rejecting that shmeggegge. The Jews were the only people of the ancient world for whom the proposition was utter anathema.
Every other people [including Judea's nearest neighbors] had a cultural or religious provision for viewing the King or the Emperor — or his horse or his cat or his weasel, or whatever, etc. — as a god. Not the Jews. And everybody else knew it. It’s inconceivable that Jews would have gone for a Messiah (or anybody else) who told them [or who let it be said about him] that he was ‘God.’ And no would-be Moshiakh — real or bogus or far-blonjit — would have been stupid enough to try.
The Bar Kokhba Revolt changed all that — or a helluva lot of it.
Any Jews who survived the Hadrianic Genocide — and who didn’t flee east to Parthia, and who weren’t exiled to the Galilee, or taken into slavery, or impressed into Rome’s increasingly popular, gladiatorial & man-v-beast, “to-the-death,” public divertissements in the Colosseum [whose construction was financed by the Flavians w/ proceeds of the sale of booty from the looted Beit HaMiqdahsh, incidentally] — were barred, on pain of death,
from the municipality-and-district of Jerusalem [i.e., from everywhere within eyeshot of the City].
That banishment extended to ALL Jews — even Jewish adherents of Jesus [which, at the time, as I've pointed out, would have amounted to most of his Judean followers]: Whatever you believed or disbelieved, if you were ‘mutilated’ [the hellenistic Hadrian had a problem with circumcision], then Jerusalem [re-named "Colonia Aelia Capitolina"] was off-limits to you.
What this meant, among other things, was that, in Judea, from that time forward [i.e., after CE 135], the spreading community of adherents of Yeshua HaNitzri would have consisted of anybody but Jews. So, within Judea [now re-named "Syria-Palaestina"], only gentiles would have had their hands on the defining concepts of the faith. Can you see where I’m going with this?
It was only after this point that all that stuff about Christ as ‘God,’ the “Trinity” and Churchianity — and the rest of the can of beans was able to acquire a foothold: because now the only people who would have been guaranteed to have known better [i.e., the Jews] were completely out of the loop.
Hey, I’m not interested in changing anybody’s mind — about anything. All I do is plant my seeds; sometimes they take root, sometimes not. When they do grow, I say mazal tov, but I know that, even then, it’s not me that makes them grow; it’s the person’s own searching mind. When the seeds don’t grow — or don’t take root right away – that’s ok too.
I would suggest to anybody who has a problem with what they’ve been told Yeshua HaNitzri is about, that they simply pick up the Book and read it for themselves [It really won't burn your fingers, trust me] — and leave aside the cultural overlay that’s been permitted [or encouraged] to smother the reality.
By highlighting some of the most elementary contradictions in NT verses, you only confirm further the flimsiness of the entire Jesus movement, starting from day 1 through current times.
So, Dweller, after showing us what a historical and spiritual farce Jesus was and a most failed messiah, what are you hinting at by calling this dead Am Ha’Aretz/Apikores Jew on a stick “Yeshua HaNitzri”? Are you a one of these? Is that you, Paqid Yirmiyahu?
So, Dweller, after showing us what a historical and spiritual farce Jesus was and a most failed messiah, what are you hinting at by calling this dead Am Ha’Aretz/Apikores Jew on a stick “Yeshua HaNitzri”? Are you a one of these? Is that you, Paqid Yirmiyahu?
Paqid Yirmeyahu
Israeli Orthodox Jew
Advancing Logic as Halakhic Authority
Welcoming Jews & non-Jews http://www.netzarim.co.il
Here I gave you a plug!
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, Then it seems like a safe bet that we have our Christian Cultist: Of All the different kinds of proselytizing, this one is really different. I know the Jews can’t be their targets as one has to be really stupid to buy into their crap. They must be seeking out fellow deviants and Pagans (Gullible Christians).
The 16th N?tzâr•im? Pâqid, Pâqid Yirm?yâhu, ha-Tza•diq? (Bën-Dâ•wid? ), is patterned faithfully after these first 15. Pâqid Yirm?yâhu, ha-Tza•diq? is fully-documented, by Orthodox rabbis, as an Orthodox Jew and recognized by the Israeli rabbinate, the Chief Rabbis (with a letter of blessing) and the State of Israel. Pâ•qid? Yi•r?m?yâh? u is also a member in good standing on the board of the Orthodox Beit-ha-K?nësët ha-Teimâni, Beit-ha-K?nësët Morëshët Âvot—Yad Nâ·âmi, in Ra·ananâ(h), Israel, where he and his family pray regularly and participate fully in its functions and Orthodox Jewish social life.
No one outside of these N?tzâr•im? , anywhere in the world, who professes to follow Rib? i Y?ho•shu? a, by whatever name, has these legitimate credentials. None other are legitimate. N?tzâr•im? live and function within the Orthodox community and Israel, interfaced with Orthodox Bat•ei? -Din in the real, rational, world exactly as they always did before 135 C.E. Any other professing to follow Y?ho•shu? a, by whatever name, is false and part of the Displacement Theology that defines Christianity and the “synagogue of Sâ•tân? .”
It defies reason to follow the idolatrous Hellenist-Roman counterfeit, a man-god-idol prophesied in Dân•i•eil? as the “Beast” who would change the times and seasons—which is obviously, and widely recognized in the Judaic community as Hellenist Rome and Christianity.
Whether you are a Christian Jew or a Christian gentile, learn how you can become like Rib? i Y?ho•shu? a—a legitimate part of legitimate Israel and the legitimate Jewish community. But it means turning away from his arch-antithesis, the contra-historical Jesus.
This merely scratches the surface. For much more in-depth information, the N?tzâr•im? invite you to get started in our free, on-line Khav•rut? â.
Paquid Yirmeyahu.
Actually I prefer the Karites but we can’t go around sacrificing sheep all over the place now, can we?
He [i.e., "Jesus of Nazareth"] is most likely a composite mythological figure. Some say an invention of the Romans.
If Yeshua HaNitzri is purely a ‘Roman’ invention, then, judging from the gospel narrative, I’d have to say that they [the Romans] managed to distill the essence of the prior twenty centuries to create the jewel-in-the-Crown that is Jewish civilization. Because that’s what it would’ve taken to ‘invent’ Christ. But to say that would be to give the Mistress-on-the-Tiber infinitely more credit than she has coming. Rome certainly got a few things right, but only a few — and Rabbi Yehoshua is hardly one of them.
Rome — at no point (even the Roman Republic) — would have had the wit, the intellect, the wisdom, the compassion, the resilience — even the strength (especially the strength) — to produce a Jesus of Nazareth: even if she had the patience and the discernment to study two millennia of then-existing Jewish history to do it.
To appropriate him unto herself, yes. Why not — since, after his earthly mission was completed, he wasn’t around to speak for himself and shatter the illusions and conceits of the appropriators (and a ‘dead’ man is so much easier to re-cast in one’s own image)? To appropriate him would’ve been about as complicated and problematic as falling off a log, and a no-brainer from Day One. But to produce him? No sale. Not by a hair on my chinny chin chin. I say Yeshua HaNitzri is stamped with “Made in Am Yisrael” all over him. He is surely in some ways utterly unique; no getting around that.
But he is also the quintessential Jew.
The notion of an innocent, semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought or scripture.
“Innocent,” yes. “Semi-divine” (whatever “semi” in such a context means), no. As I’ve already said, he isn’t/wasn’t divine, did not claim to be, and would not have wanted anybody to believe that he was.
“To save us from the consequences of our own sins” is, I grant you, a frankly dumb concept as interpreted by the historic ‘Christian’ Church; you won’t get an argument from me on that one. However, I contend that the accepted rendering is a thorough distortion of its actual metaphysical meaning — a meaning which is not at-all unJewish.
[There's a lot more to be said about this stuff, and I'm more than happy to explore it with you if you're interested. My problem is that I use the computers at the public library, and they limit you to an hour per day; so I'm constantly having to curtail some of my remarks till future sessions. If you want to take that as an evasion, I can't stop you.]
The idea, per se, of one man dying for others is not what is unJewish. (Undeniably, the history of the Jewish People is full of such things (again, a subject for another drohsh, another time). What is unJewish is the silly (and really offensive, I agree) fantasy that the Master of the Universe ‘requires’ such a substitution to propitiate His own foul temper – and, more, that He can be appeased by such a gesture.
It degrades, insults and trivializes the character of the Most High — and is quite obviously the product of a goyish consciousness, which (even in this day and age) hasn’t even got the good grace to be embarrassed by the fact that it represents an anomalous remnant of an ancient world which would have seen the propitiation of a god (which ‘god’ was, in turn, invariably the projection of the local or regional monarch) as perfectly ‘normal.’
The point here, however, is that — while dying for others certainly is in the gospels ["Greater love hath no man than he that would lay down his life for his friends..." (from John's Gospel, I think)] — dying to ‘appease’ an infinitely just and all-merciful God most assuredly is not. If you can find that in there, show it to me, and I’ll have a look at it.
Re: post 30
By highlighting some of the most elementary contradictions in NT verses, you only confirm further the flimsiness of the entire Jesus movement, starting from day 1 through current times.
All I was doing was responding to your prior assertion [post 27] that “[my] claim is in complete contradiction to the new testament.” The fact that you find that ‘claim’ to reveal some (apparent) internal NT contradictions does, in any event, I think, refute the assertion that what I’ve said ‘completely contradicts’ the NT. Thank you for confirming the fact.
Are you a one of these? Is that you, Paqid Yirmiyahu?
I know nothing about this movement [if that's what it is] — and neither have nor have ever had any affiliation or other connection to any group with an ax to grind in these matters. I try to do my own thinking. Would it be excessively presumptuous of me to suggest that you do the same?
Very common Jewish name and many were rabbis some even great sages. Which one of these Rabbi Yehoshuas might you be referring to?
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I can show that the use of the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus,(Yehoshua) simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness’ own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss .
YOUR GUY Yeshua HaNitzri never exited! There is no historical proofs. Even if there were what is so special or remarkable about him that he should be venerated in any way shape or form. Even a place known to you as Nazareth is never mentioned in any Jewish source reference certainly not the Tanach or the Talmud. The Talmud: refers to Jesus? However, this Jesus, actually depicts a disciple of Yehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus aka, Yeshua HaNitzri.
If Yeshua HaNitzri is purely a ‘Roman’ invention, then, judging from the gospel narrative, I’d have to say that they [the Romans] managed to distill the essence of the prior twenty centuries to create the jewel-in-the-Crown that is Jewish civilization.
Was Jesus a roman invention? Atwill Interview: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus
First of all the Jews don’t need to be preached to. Conversion not necessary.
If that was aimed at YoursTruly, I agree, 100 percent. As I’ve already said, in post 29,
I’m not interested in changing anybody’s mind — about anything. All I do is plant my seeds; sometimes they take root, sometimes not. When they do grow, I say mazal tov, but I know that, even then, it’s not me that makes them grow; it’s the person’s own searching mind. When the seeds don’t grow — or don’t take root right away – that’s ok too.
As for the rest of your comment,
i.e..
The Jewish people have returned home to Israel with the help of G-d and are home. As Catholics, Christians or whatever your belief, we need to stand together to protect this home (Israel). There are forces out there that want to deny this. Let it be known the Jews are home for good.and will not be driven away ever again.
; again, I agree. No argument whatsoever.
re post 35:
Very common Jewish name and many were rabbis some even great sages. Which one of these Rabbi Yehoshuas might you be referring to?
I was clearly referring to Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps you’d have felt better if I’d put it in quotation marks?
Look Yamit, I could argue with you from now till Hell freezes over (and the devil skates across the ice) about the historicity of the man I call Christ, and we’d only be talking past each other. What I find fascinating, however, is that somebody who obviously makes a point of studying what’s out there has yet to take up this particular matter on its own terms. Read the NT for yourself.
I have 3-4 times cover to cove and lots in between. The sequel is never as good as the original, in most cases they are a labored attempt and always stretch the originals point to maintain interest.
Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement that began in the 1970s combining a mixture of Jewish ritual and Christianity. There are a vast and growing numbers of these groups, and they differ in how much Jewish ritual is mixed with conventional Christian belief. One end of the spectrum is represented by Jews For Jesus, who simply target Jews for conversion to Christianity using imitations of Jewish ritual solely as a ruse for attracting the potential Jewish converts. On the other end are those who don’t stress the divinity of Jesus, but present him as the “Messiah.” They incorporate distorted Jewish ritual on an ongoing basis.
The movement has received criticism from mainstream Christian leaders, for these groups claim to believe in the New Testament and yet gloss over the distinction between the two communities instituted in that work, and for the deceptive tactics used to gain Jewish converts. They are typically very pro-Israel and include an unusually high number of Jewish symbols — the Magen David, Torah, talleisim, shofars, yarmulkes, mezzuzahs, Shabbat candles, and use of Hebrew and Yiddish language — to assure prospective converts that they are not renouncing Judaism by accepting Jesus. According to Jewish law and tradition, such an acceptance is indeed a renunciation of Judaism.
Like the Christian Missionary, one of the major roles of the Messianic Jew is to proselytize others. They prey on such vulnerable individuals as the lonely, the elderly, the poor, the emotionally unstable, the naive, or those who are just untutored in Scripture. These unfortunates are lured into accepting missionary doctrines out of emotional need, not intellectual conviction. For even after a superficial reading of the missionaries’ textual “proofs” within context, one sees that their doctrines are founded solely upon misquotations and mistranslations of Hebrew Scripture.
Can you relate to any or most of the above descriptions?
JESUS NEVER EVEN HINTED THAT HIS FOLLOWERS SHOULD STOP DOING THE LAWS THAT GOD GAVE TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. IN FACT, YOU WILL SEE THAT HE GOES OUT OF HIS WAY TO SAY THE OPPOSITE. JESUS MAY HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE PRIORITIES PEOPLE WERE PUTTING ON CERTAIN LAWS, RATHER THAN ON OTHERS, BUT HE NEVER ADVOCATED DOING AWAY WITH GOD’S LAW.
MAT005:017 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
MAT005:018 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
THIS SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHAT THE PROPHET MALACHI SAID CONCERNING THE LAW, THAT THE LAW WILL BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE “END OF DAYS”. I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT JESUS MEANT BY “TILL ALL BE FULFILLED”, BUT AFTER TWO THOUSAND YEARS THE LAW HAS STILL NOT BEEN FULFILLED.
MAT005:019 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
PAUL TAUGHT PEOPLE NOT TO DO SOME OF GOD’S LAWS AND MANY OF GOD’S LAWS ARE NOT BEING TAUGHT IN CHRISTIANITY TODAY. WOULD PAUL BE CALLED “LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN”?
MAT005:020 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
HERE IT APPEARS THAT JESUS SAID THAT BEING RIGHTEOUS (FOLLOWING GOD’S LAW), IS THE ONLY WAY TO ENTER INTO HEAVEN. AS YOU WILL SEE PAUL SAID IT ONLY REQUIRES FAITH IN JESUS. (SEEMS LIKE JESUS AND PAUL DID NOT HAVE THE SAME BELIEF.)
MAT007:021 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
HERE EVEN JESUS SAID THAT FAITH IN HIM WAS NOT ENOUGH. DOING GOD’S WILL, AS MANIFESTED IN THE LAW, IS THE KEY TO ENTERING INTO HEAVEN.
MAT023:001 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
MAT023:002 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
MAT023:003 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
EVEN THOUGH THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE PORTRAYS JESUS AS BEING VERY NEGATIVE TOWARDS THE SCRIBES AND THE PHARISEES, HERE JESUS TOLD EVERYONE TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS THAT THEY TEACH. HE EVEN ADMITTED THAT THEY SAT IN MOSES’ SEAT, NOT HIM. HE KNEW THAT THE TORAH SAYS THAT ONLY THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER THE LAW (SEE DEU017:008-012).
MAT023:023 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.
MAT023:024 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
MAT023:025 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
MAT023:026 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
JESUS SEEMED TO FEEL THAT THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES WERE HYPOCRITES; THEY TAUGHT ONE THING BUT PRACTICED ANOTHER. IT SEEMS THAT HE FELT THEY WERE CONCENTRATING ON LITTLE THINGS AND MISSING THE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF GOD’S LAW. BUT PLEASE NOTE THAT JESUS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY SHOULD NOT LEAVE ANY UNDONE.
MAR010:017 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
MAR010:018 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
MAR010:019 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
JESUS DID NOT TELL THIS PERSON ALL HE NEEDED TO DO WAS TO BELIEVE IN HIM. INSTEAD HE REPEATED A FEW OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. JUST BECAUSE JESUS DID NOT REITERATE THE ENTIRE TORAH, WITH ALL 613 COMMANDMENTS, CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT IMPLY THESE ARE THE ONLY LAWS JESUS FELT WERE IMPORTANT. FEEDING THE HUNGRY AND HELPING THE POOR ARE PART OF GOD’S LAW, BUT NOT PART OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
LUK016:016 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
LUK016:017 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
EVEN THOUGH JESUS WANTED TO MAKE ADDITIONS TO GOD’S LAW, IN NO WAY DID HE GIVE ANY INDICATION THAT WITH HIM, IT WAS THE END OF THE LAW.
JESUS APPEARED TO HAVE LINKED LOVING HIM TO DOING GOD’S LAW:
JOH014:015 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
JOH014:021 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
JESUS MADE IT CLEAR THAT BEING RIGHTEOUS (FOLLOW-ING GOD’S LAW) IS WHAT WILL GET YOU INTO HEAVEN:
MAT013:041 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
MAT013:042 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
MAT013:043 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Which Jesus do you prefer Mathews Jesus or Paul’s Jesus ?
dweller:
I KNOW THAT CHRISTIANS ENJOY READING THE PROVERBS OUT OF THE JEWISH BIBLE BUT DO THEY SKIP OVER THESE TWO?
PRO028:009 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.
PRO029:018 Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
IS THERE ANY WONDER WHY THE JEWISH ELDERS, WHO WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE JEWISH BIBLE, REJECTED PAUL’S THEOLOGY? REMEMBER THE BOOK OF PROVERBS IS ATTRIBUTED TO KING SOLOMON, THE WISEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED. WHO DO YOU BELIEVE, PAUL OR KING SOLOMON?
THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IN THE BOOK OF EXODUS GOD MAKES IT CLEAR THAT HE EXPECTS HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE THAT HE MADE A COVENANT WITH, TO KEEP HIS LAWS AND TO BE A HOLY NATION. PAUL CAN NOT DO AWAY WITH GOD’S LAWS AND AT THE SAME TIME BELIEVE GOD’S COVENANT IS NOW WITH THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN JESUS, INSTEAD OF WITH THE DESCENDANTS OF JACOB.
EXO019:005 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
EXO019:006 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
IS IT ANY WONDER THAT THE JEWS COULD NOT BELIEVE WHAT PAUL WAS SAYING, CONCERNING GOD’S LAW? THEY KNEW THAT KEEPING GOD’S LAWS WAS THE “ONLY” WAY TO KEEP THEIR COVENANT WITH GOD.
ACT015:001 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
1KI003:012 Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.
ECC012:013 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
WHO DO YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE, KING SOLOMON OR PAUL?
Dear Yamit: Good questions, esp. in 40 & 41. I’ll do what I can to address them, but I have very little time left to me in today’s session in the library, so it looks like they will have to wait till next time. Sincere regrets.
Dear Shy, Rongrand, possibly some unannounced others:
I wouldn’t want it to come as a shock to you, but actually I have a personal policy of never trying to pull out of denial anybody who doesn’t (as I perceive him) want to be pulled out. So you can relax.
Of course, surface appearances aren’t always a reliable index to the underlying reality at any given moment. Sometimes, for example, a party will huff-&-puff in ways that seem to say he doesn’t want his illusions disturbed. Yet actually he may just hope to be allowed to pick apart his assumptions on his own time — and, if with assistance, then only in ways that will neither insult, nor condescend to, his intelligence. His defenses are most understandable — and I always respect and honor them: as a matter of both courtesy and personal discipline.
Other times, a guy may make noises about being “open” to wherever the truth may lead (and may even come to believe that he is so open) — but in reality he’s just fencing: sparring — dancing around, in hopes of getting a closer look, with an eye to perhaps spotting some weakness in you and using it (now or later) against you. But any open-hearted receptivity to the promptings of reality is no part of his horizon. And nothing anybody else shows him will find him ready to take a real look. As I’ve said, the surface doesn’t always betoken the fact.
That being said, the two of you can relax. In your cases specifically, you can exhale. Where I’m concerned, you’re quite safe at anchor. Your depth of denial is plainly all-too-dear for you to take the risk of coming out from it, and I have no intention of disturbing it (unless — and until — you want me to, should I come to perceive that you do).
Yamit trust me and don’t tell me he is a Catholic.
I could be wrong, but he resembles and behaves as a Jehovah Witness.
He reminds of the JW who would come knocking on your door even though you may have a statue of the Blessed Mother outside your home.
You are polite and tell them in a nice way, thanks but no thanks.
When you close the door and you look out and they are still standing there looking at the instruction book with the “What am I suppose to do now” look.
They once came to a home of a Jewish friend of mine who had the Star of David outside and when my neighbor asked them if they recognized the star they said “you forgot to take down your Christmas decoration”.
all sources derive from hearsay accounts. Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness’ own knowledge. Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss.
Come on, Yamit, if you know anything at all about accepted legal procedure, then you know perfectly well that there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule [among which are included, among others, "excited utterance"]. But the hearsay line of disputation is one of the weakest of your arguments, as I’m sure you’re aware. Let’s move on to substantive matters.
Re post 36:
All forms of Christianity are Pagan and based on pure Paganism.
Well, you are correct — partly correct — in asserting that post-Judean, historic ‘Christianity’ has a pagan origin. But it’s not solely pagan. Actually it has two roots: 1. pagan, and 2. Jewish. There is no 3rd root [there couldn't be]. What has come to be known as “Christianity” was the form — the vehicle (badly flawed, to be sure) — by which the morality, if not the faith, of the Jews was imported (however imperfectly) into the world. And while I do insist that Yeshua HaNitzri was/is an actual person, I am equally certain that it was never his intention to found a ‘new religion.’
I believe that it is in the interests of the Jewish People to encourage “Christendom” to progressively abandon more-&-more of the elements of its pagan & idolatrous overlay, and for self-professed Christians to to rediscover and explore their faith’s original Jewish roots.
What I find frankly troublesome, under the circumstances, then, Yamit, is the stridency with which — like some others who strive to be Torah-true — you (appear, anyway, to) set yourself at odds with seemingly any substantive and honorable attempt to bridge that gap. [Unless I'm simply misreading you -- in which case I'm more than happy to have you set me straight on that score.)
If your comment, in post 6, for example --
we should as much as possible stay out of it
-- represents your take (or is based on your take) on "a people that shall dwell alone, and not be reckoned among the nations" [Num 23:9], then I can only conclude, with all due respect, that you are much mistaken and seriously misguided — and for Am Yisrael, perhaps dangerously so.
I must tell you, in all candor, that it occurs to me that, had Bar Kokhba been somewhat less uncordial [the B-K Letters confirm that he was quite ruthless] toward the then-”Nazarene Jewish” sect: when he effectively converted what had begun as a War for Judea (which the Nazarenes were quite willing and eager to support — it was their fight too) into a War for ‘Moshiakh’ (which they obviously couldn’t, in good conscience, endorse: as they believed, rightly or wrongly, in a different one), he denied the resistance an important and growing alliance and resource.
Admittedly, the Nazarenes’ augmented support for the rebellion might still have been insufficient to decisively defeat the Imperial Legions in the field; yet the added troop strength they could have provided might nonetheless have been able to prolong and stiffen the already protracted [3.5 yrs] resistance sufficiently that other restive peoples throughout the Empire might well — with the added time, have taken courage from the Judean struggle, and been themselves moved to arise in revolt. Dio Cassius cites Apollodorus of Damascus: “Many outside nations, too, were joining [the Judeans] through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth, one might almost say, was being stirred up over the matter.” [How 'bout them apples?]
It’s important to bear in mind that Rome’s expenditure of blood & treasure (to say nothing of diplomatic prestige) in the War were already enormous. This was no romp for the self-important Mistress-on-the-Tiber; she was breathin’ ragged.
With brushfire wars and assorted insurgencies breaking out simultaneously or in rapid succession in a dozen different locales, the possibility seems not that far-fetched to me that Rome might have eventually undergone a bad case of “cramps” — which could well have changed the course of history. Especially Judean history. Just contemplating the possibilities of what might have been…. the mind boggles — even as the heart breaks.
My point in revisiting the matter at this time is that I would hope that we’ve learned from our mistakes.
I also think that elements of the ‘Christian’ world (not all of it, I grant you) are indeed exploring the Jewish roots of their faith, to the point of acknowledging an indebtedness to Judaism for those roots, as well as a heartfelt gratitude to the Jews for it. We should neither spurn nor revile nor ignore that phenomenon. It may still be in the early, clumsy, just-learning-to-crawl, stages — but it’s real.
from post 40:
Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement that began in the 1970s combining a mixture of Jewish ritual and Christianity. There are a vast and growing numbers of these groups, and they differ in how much Jewish ritual is mixed with conventional Christian belief. One end of the spectrum is represented by Jews For Jesus, who simply target Jews for conversion to Christianity using imitations of Jewish ritual solely as a ruse for attracting the potential Jewish converts. On the other end are those who don’t stress the divinity of Jesus, but present him as the “Messiah.” They incorporate distorted Jewish ritual on an ongoing basis.
The movement has received criticism from mainstream Christian leaders, for these groups claim to believe in the New Testament and yet gloss over the distinction between the two communities instituted in that work, and for the deceptive tactics used to gain Jewish converts. They are typically very pro-Israel and include an unusually high number of Jewish symbols — the Magen David, Torah, talleisim, shofars, yarmulkes, mezzuzahs, Shabbat candles, and use of Hebrew and Yiddish language — to assure prospective converts that they are not renouncing Judaism by accepting Jesus. According to Jewish law and tradition, such an acceptance is indeed a renunciation of Judaism.
Like the Christian Missionary, one of the major roles of the Messianic Jew is to proselytize others. They prey on such vulnerable individuals as the lonely, the elderly, the poor, the emotionally unstable, the naive, or those who are just untutored in Scripture. These unfortunates are lured into accepting missionary doctrines out of emotional need, not intellectual conviction. For even after a superficial reading of the missionaries’ textual “proofs” within context, one sees that their doctrines are founded solely upon misquotations and mistranslations of Hebrew Scripture.
Can you relate to any or most of the above descriptions?
It has long been my contention that outfits like “Jews for Jesus” are, in fact, theologically “Christian” and not Jewish. As you note, they typically dress up their stuff in the more visible trappings of Jewish observance, with bows to the festivals, prayer paraphernalia, etc. and scattered sprinklings of ceremonial language (even occasional yiddishisms), etc. But this is all clearly intended to sugar-coat the pill which they want these ungrounded Jews to swallow. No doubt, for many of the proselytizers, that’s what made it possible for the group to close-in on them personally (though, as you’ve correctly observed, they were already primed for it: they were already susceptible, being disconnected or alienated from, or had never been associated with, Jewish faith or the Jewish community).
The key factor, though, that makes them ‘Christian’ and not Jewish (from the standpint of theology, of course, not ethnicity) is that they sign-on to the proposition that Christ is ‘God incarnate.’ (That also makes them, among other things, unwitting idolaters.) No believing Jew (in fact, not even an “un-believing” Jew) would subscribe to the notion that a man, any man — even the best of men, even the most unique of men, even Mashiakh himself — could possibly be God. It would never happen; wouldn’t even occur to a Jew to think in those terms. [As I'm constantly having to point-out to self-professed Christian acquantances of mine; oh, yes, I give them as much grief -- albeit of a different species -- as I do you.]
In fact, I recall Rambam saying something similar in this regard — though it seems hardly necessary to resort to him for authority in the matter, it’s just so fundamental.
What makes such groups not Jewish, however, is not — I stress — the fact that they take Jesus for Moshiakh, but that they take him for God as well. That’s the dividing line. Even if Yeshua HaNitzri were not Moshiakh, the simple fact of following (or presuming to follow) him would not (of itself), I submit, make one non-Jewish theologically. ‘Mistaken,’ yes. “Non-Jewish,” no.
Throughout history, lots of Jews have let themselves get caught -up with false messiahs, like Shab’tzai Tzvi, Sh’lomo Molcho, David Reubeni, et al. Those deluded souls who followed them as ‘Moschiakh’ did not cease thereby to be Jews. They were simply Jews who were mistaken — sadly mistaken, but still Jews. They would have ceased to be Jews, however, had they regarded these pied pipers as ‘God’ — that’s the point at which a person goes off the deep end. (Not that even they aren’t salvageable. They might be; it happens.)
When Rebbe akiva believed, and declared, Bar Kokhba to be ‘Mashiakh,’ the Sanhedrin thought he was full-of-it (to coin a phrase). So did lots of Rabbanim. Support for the War was one thing. Support for ‘Mashiakh’ was something else again.
Rebbe Yokhanan ben Torta was reputed to have promptly said (right to R. Akiva’s face), “Akiva, grass will be growing out of your cheekbones, and the Son of David will not have come.” [Jerus. Talmud, probably]
Today, no Jew (or anybody else) seriously suggests that Bar Kokhba was in fact ‘Moshiakh.’ But would anybody presume to say that R. Akiva, by his mistaken assertion, ‘ceased’ thereby to be theologically Jewish? Get real.
What I find frankly troublesome, under the circumstances, then, Yamit, is the stridency with which — like some others who strive to be Torah-true — you (appear, anyway, to) set yourself at odds with seemingly any substantive and honorable attempt to bridge that gap.
The gap between truth and lies is unbridgable.
Unless, of course, you comprimise on the truth, converting it into a lie. So much for truth setting you free.
Today, no Jew (or anybody else) seriously suggests that Bar Kokhba was in fact ‘Moshiakh.’ But would anybody presume to say that R. Akiva, by his mistaken assertion, ‘ceased’ thereby to be theologically Jewish?
Comment by dweller — May 5, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Rabbi Akiva never claimed that Bar Kochva was god in the flesh. He claimed that Bar Kochva had the potential qualifications of a mashiach (small “m”), which indeed was a possibility at that moment, until Bar Kochva abused his position, ensuing his downfall. After that point, R’ Akiva did not suggest creating a permanent movement to worship Bar Kochva for eternity, not as a human, nor as a pagan god. R’ Akiva never advocated the abandonment of even one letter of the Torah to “comprimise” on his shattered hopes.
So, your point was what, exactly? There never was a historic comparison. Or do you wish to comprimise historic events and their meanings, too, to suit your fantasies?
You still have not countered my contention that Jesus or any of the other names he is known by was not a real historical being. When one compares all existing evidence against the lack thereof the scales are heavily weighted in favor of the latter. On a scale of 0-10, ten reflecting irrefutable concrete evidence and zero none, I go with zero. If you disagree with this show me what you got? I submit that whether your guy on a stick existed or not is core to further discussion of this topic for If your guy is myth anything subsequent is mute. Jews always give literary credit for the good guys and the bad, Philo commented on just about everything but not a word on your mythological J. Nobody seemed to mention him in any contemporary source during and just after he was supposed to have lived. We know by name of hundreds of personalities all claiming to be the messiah during the time J was supposed to have lived but not one mention of your myth. Why is that dweller? Jewish and Gentile conspiracy of silence? without modern communications yet? Good trick, how did they manage to pull it off? Josephus devoted several pages on the Essenes but only a few words deemed to be a forgery on Christians and Jesus? Why do you suppose this is? Put aside Christianity for the moment and prove beyond reasonable doubt that J existed.
and we continue; if you can’t then not much more to discuss. 1001 Arabian Night has more truth. Without truth we accept the lie in it’s place and I for one am not prepared to do so.
Refute this:There is no reference to Jesus’ death having any redeeming function; in fact, there is no mention of the crucifixion at all. John E. Remsburg’s The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:
Josephus Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phæædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Philo-Judææus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
NOT A WORD OR MENTION. Curious?
I can’t prove the Romans invented Jesus and Christianity but it is as plausible as any if not more so. What is indisputable is that Paul and the writers of all four canonical Gospels described the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, as they understood it had happened. There is a acknowledged consensus among academic Christian theologians that:
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Jesus’ disciples but by a person or persons whose names are unknown.
Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers had been an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry or death.
The Gospels record the beliefs and memories of various Christian groups as they had evolved at the time they were written.
Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:31 describe “angels” appearing to Jesus’ mother and her husband informing them of her forthcoming “immaculate conception” and “virgin birth” to the “Son of God,” the “Messiah.” When compared with the way Jesus’ family and neighbors treated him, it is absurd to believe that “angels” really visited them:
Mark 3:21: Upon hearing of it, his family went out to seize him, for they said, “He is beside himself.”
To offset the startling fact that Jesus’ family thought that he was insane, some New Testament editions replace “they” with “people,” although “they” is in the original Greek text.
John 7:5: For even his brothers did not believe in him.
Luke 4:16: And Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the Sabbath day…
There, Jesus hinted to his friends and neighbors that he was the Messiah, however:
Luke 4:28: When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up, and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.
How very strange it is, that during all the years in which Yeshu grew up with them, his brothers, friends, and neighbors did not notice that he was a “divine being.” And could it have been that his parents forgot or didn’t tell anyone what they experienced? This stretches one’s imagination.
Lastly: There are over a dozen additional prophecies which the Messiah will also achieve (there is no mention of any “second coming” in the Tanach or the New Testament). In order to avoid identifying the wrong individual as Messiah, the Code of Jewish Law dictates criteria for establishing the Messiah’s identity (Mishnah Torah Kings 11:4):
“If a king arises from the House of David who meditates on the Torah, occupies himself with the commandments as did his ancestor King David, observes the commandments of the Written and Oral Law, prevails upon all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to follow its direction, and fights the wars of God, it may be assumed that he is the Messiah.
If he does these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the Third Temple on its location, and gathers the exiled Jews, he is beyond doubt the Messiah. But if he is not fully successful, or if he is killed, he is not the Messiah.”
Over 1,000 years before the attributed birth of the historical Jesus, it was recorded in the Tanach:
Numbers 23:19: God is not a man, that He should be deceitful, nor the son of man, that He should repent. Would He say and not do, or speak and not confirm?
Psalms 146:3: Do not rely on princes nor in the son of man, for he holds no salvation.
Even the New Testament concurs that Jesus, in fact, is not the Messiah:
Matthew 20:28: Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.
Christian scholar Rt. Rev. George Arthur Butterick, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, a book written by to prove the validity of the New Testament, states:
“A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings…. It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform.”
There are 304,805 letters (approximately 79,000 words) in the Torah. In the over 3,000 years since Moses received the original Scripture from Mt. Sinai and wrote the 13 copies (twelve of which were distributed among the Tribes), spelling variants have emerged on a total of nine words — with absolutely no effect on their meaning. The Christian Bible, in comparison, has over 200,000 variants and in 400 instances, the variants change the meaning of the text; 50 of these are of great significance.
Still waiting your cogent comments on #40, 41, 42. Get thou to a library!
I did a thesis on Rabbi Akiva and I wouldn’t want to embarrass you. and is not relevant to our discussion anyway.
“Happy is the man whose deeds are greater than his learning”
I find little to disagree about in this post. In fact, so much of it seems right that I could almost wonder whether you put it there to make my case instead of your own. Yes, Jesus insisted that the people adhere to the law, and that his intention was not to supercede it. “I come not to destroy but to fulfill.” [Although I'm constantly having to remind Christian acquaintances that "fulfill," as used here, means to underscore, to amplify, to explicate, to bring to fruition, etc. -- not to abolish.]
As I’ve said before, I seriously doubt that it was it was Christ’s intention to found a ‘new religion.’ What Paul took into the broader world would, of necessity, have had to set aside those elements of the Mosaic law which pertained specifically to the Jewish People per se: ceremonial matters, ritual, etc., because the people to whom he was bringing it were not part of Am Yisrael. But I see no reason to believe that he sought to do away with anything in the Noakhic Covenant where the goyim were concerned.
Re 41:
BELIEVE GOD’S COVENANT IS NOW WITH THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN JESUS, INSTEAD OF WITH THE DESCENDANTS OF JACOB.
That is replacement theology. I don’t know where I may have given you the idea that I subscribe to it, but I don’t; never have, never would. To do so is to say that God doesn’t keep His promises, and you’ll never see or hear me say that. And if, as you say, you’ve read Romans [chaps. 7-11, as I recall], then you know that Paul didn’t subscribe to it either.
IS IT ANY WONDER THAT THE JEWS COULD NOT BELIEVE WHAT PAUL WAS SAYING, CONCERNING GOD’S LAW?
I don’t think, if you read it carefully, you’ll see Paul saying the law is valueless. He’s simply saying that a finite being cannot, of himself, make himself just, simply by going thru the motions, jotting all the i’s & crossing all the t’s, of obedience to the law — and that, if it were possible for such beings to obey each and every law flawlessly & consistently, they wouldn’t be finite; that therefore something more is needed.
“V’ohavta eyss Adonoi elohekha, v’chol l’vavkha, u’v'khol naphsh’kha, u’v'khal m’yodecha. V’hoyoo ha-d’vorim ha-eleh asher anokhi m’tzav’kha ha-yom al l’vovekha…” Something more is needed to put “the words into your heart.”
But, again, as I’ve already said, a goodly number of Jews [including elders] did in fact believe. In Judea proper, the majority of Nazarene adherents were in fact Jews. [And not "apostate" Jews; believing Jews.] After the collapse of the Bar Kokhva Revolt, all that changed.
Rabbi Akiva never claimed that Bar Kochva was god in the flesh.
I didn’t say he claimed B-K was God. [You might want to review what I actually did say {towards the end of post 47}, if it doesn't upset your stomach too badly.]
I said he proclaimed B-K to be “Moshiakh.” [He said he was "King Messiah."]
My remark was made in response to Yamit’s assertion/implication that belief in Yeshua HaNitzri as Moshiakh rendered one un-Jewish (because presumably Yeshua was a ‘false’ messiah). I used R. Akiva & B-K to illustrate how even that [belief in a false messiah] couldn’t, of itself, possibly be a sufficient criterion — since R. Akiva mistakenly declared B-K to be Moshiakh: yet he still remained Jewish, despite that. If the simple belief in the false messiah, B-K, doesn’t render one un-Jewish, then neither does the simple belief in the (purportedly) ‘false’ messiah, Yeshua, render one un-Jewish either.
On the other hand, nobody who declared B-K or Yeshua (or any other flesh-&-blood person) to be ‘God’ could be Jewish.
Re 49:
I submit that whether your guy on a stick existed or not is core to further discussion of this topic for If your guy is myth anything subsequent is mute.
Okay, but in that case, you’re going to have a fine time trying to prove a negative, since — rhetorically speaking — the burden of proof rests with the assertor, the “moving party,” if you will. Meanwhile, however, I’ll be waiting for what evidence you may adduce to establish that Avraham existed. Also Damessek Eliezer, Loht, Sarah, Rivka, Malkhi-tzedek, et al.
his brothers, friends, and neighbors did not notice that he was a “divine being.”
He never claimed to be a ‘divine’ being. That is strictly a pagan, post-Judean, overlay [maybe even an anti-Judean overlay, to deny the Jewish People their due].
there is no mention of any “second coming” in… the New Testament
Of course there is. I thought we covered that already, in post 29 [Mk 13:3-32]. Did you need to have it specifically so-labelled? You can’t eat an orange until you have a name for it?
Incidentally (for what it’s worth), Yamit, my point of entree to this thread was at post 22, specifically in response to your assertion in post 6, that “Islam is not idolatrous” [and that 'Christianity' presumably is]. I maintain that they BOTH are idolatrous, as presently practiced. The difference is that Christianity in its origins and at its essence is not at-all idolatrous; at first, it did not view Christ as God. On the other hand, Islam, at its core, and from its very beginnings has always been idolatrous.
Dweller it is not up to me to prove or disprove the historical Jesus but since you claim he existed the onus is on you not me, in any event I submit the following in favor of my contention.
look at the pervasive silence on the Gospel Jesus of Nazareth which we find in almost a hundred years of earliest Christian correspondence. Not once does Paul or any other first century epistle writer identify their divine Christ Jesus with the recent historical man known from the Gospels. Nor do they attribute the ethical teachings they put forward to such a man. Virtually every other detail in the picture of the Gospel Jesus is similarly missing. If Jesus was a “social reformer” whose teachings began the Christian movement, as today’s liberal scholars now style him, how can such a Jesus be utterly lacking in all the New Testament epistles, while only a cosmic Christ is to be found?
Virtually every element of the Gospel biography of Jesus of Nazareth is missing from the epistles, and that Paul and other early writers present us only with a divine, spiritual Christ in heaven, one revealed by God through inspiration and scripture. Their Jesus is never identified with a recent historical man. Like the savior gods of the Greek mystery cults, Paul’s Christ had performed his redeeming act in a mythical arena.
Mark is usually dated by its “Little Apocalypse” in Chapter 13, which tells of great upheavals and the destruction of the Temple, spoken as a prophecy by Jesus. This must, it is claimed, refer to the first Jewish War (66-70); thus Mark wrote in its midst or shortly after. But even Mark is presumed to have drawn on source elements, and some think this Little Apocalypse could originally have been a Jewish composition (with no reference to Jesus), one that Mark later borrowed and adapted. Or, if Chapter 13 is by Mark, it could well have grown out of a later period, for other documents, like Revelation and some Jewish apocalypses, show that vivid apocalyptic expectations persisted until at least the end of the century. In fact, 13:7 has Jesus warning his listeners not to regard the End as imminent even when the winds of war arrive. Nothing in Mark should force us to date him before the 90s.
The core of the historical Jesus precedes the Gospels and was born in the community or circles which produced the document now called “Q” (for the German “Quelle,” meaning “source”). No copy of Q has survived, but while a minority disagree, the majority of New Testament scholars today are convinced that Q did exist, and that it can be reconstructed from the common material found in Matthew and Luke which they did not get from Mark.
Q was not a narrative Gospel, but an organized collection of sayings which included moral teachings, prophetic admonitions and controversy stories, plus a few miracles and other anecdotes. It was the product of a Jewish (or Jewish imitating) sectarian movement located in Galilee which preached a coming Kingdom of God. Scholars have concluded that Q was put together over time and in distinct stages. They have identified the earliest stratum (calling it Q1) as a set of sayings on ethics and discipleship; these contained notably unconventional ideas. Many are found in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount: the Beatitudes, turn the other cheek, love your enemies. A close similarity has been noted between these maxims and those of the Greek philosophical school known as Cynicism, a counterculture movement of the time spread by wandering Cynic preachers. Perhaps the Q sect at its beginnings adopted a Greek source, with some recasting, one they saw as a suitable ethic for the kingdom they were preaching. In any case, there is no need to impute such sayings to a Jesus; they seem more the product of a school or lifestyle, formulated over time and hardly the sudden invention of a single mind.
What did Mark do? He crafted a ministry which moved from Galilee to Jerusalem, now the site of Jesus’ death. He virtually re-invented the Apostles out of early, now-legendary figures in the Christ movement; they served mostly instructional purposes. He brought into the Jesus orbit all the figures and concepts floating about in the Christian air, like Son of God, Messiah, Son of David, the apocalyptic Son of Man.
It is now recognized that the Gospels are thoroughly sectarian writings. They were a response to the “life situation” of the groups which produced them, serving their needs. They created a sacred past for the faith, one going back to divine establishment. They offered a bulwark against outside attack. They legitimated the community’s beliefs and sanctioned its practices. The burning issue, for example, of association and table fellowship, whether Jew could mix with gentile, whether the ritually pure could eat meals with the impure, was solved by having Jesus portrayed as condemning the Pharisees for their obsession over purity, as one who had consorted with outcasts and gentiles. The issue of whether the Jewish Law still applied was addressed by having Jesus make rulings on it. And so on. It is easy to see how such sectarian interests, when several different communities and times were involved, would lead to the many contradictions we find in Jesus’ actions and pronouncements between one Gospel and another.
Just as scripture had earlier provided a picture of the mythical Christ of Paul, the same writings (using passages taken out of context and with no regard to their original meaning) now supplied the setting and details of a recent earthly life of Jesus. Mark brought to a head an already fledgling process and added those “biographical” elements he found in the Q traditions. Out of such components, with the Bible open before him, he fashioned his story of Jesus’ ministry and passion.
Jesus had to have performed miracles because this was expected to happen in the days leading to the kingdom. Isaiah 35:5-6 said: “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing for joy.”
Thus, Jesus made the lame walk and the blind see. The Messiah was even expected to raise the dead. The details of many of Jesus’ miracle stories are modeled on the miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha in 1 and 2 Kings.
Both Matthew and Luke place Jesus’ birth at Bethlehem because the prophet Micah (5:2) had declared that this would be the birthplace of the future ruler of Israel. After that, the two evangelists’ Nativity stories agree on virtually nothing. Scriptural midrash can be a very haphazard thing.
The Gospel account of Jesus’ trial and death shows the heaviest dependence on scripture.
Virtually every element of Mark’s passion story, beginning with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, is based on a biblical passage. Here are a few examples:
The prophet Hosea (9:15): “For their evil deeds I will drive them from my house.” Plus Zechariah (14:21): “No trader will be seen in the house of the Lord.” Jesus drives the money changers from the Temple.
Psalm 42:5: “How deep I am sunk in misery, groaning in my distress.” Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Psalm 41:9:”Even the friend whom I trusted, who ate at my table, exults in my misfortune.” The betrayal by Judas. Conflict with the Jewish establishment would have provided strong motivation for coming up with the figure of Judas to represent all hostile and unbelieving Jewry.
Isaiah 53:12: “And he was numbered with the transgressors.” Jesus is crucified between two thieves.
Psalm 22:18: “They divided my garments among them, and for my raiments they cast lots.” The soldiers gamble for Jesus’ clothes at the foot of the cross.
Jesus’ redemptive role was a paradigm for Jewish motifs of suffering and atonement and destined exaltation, brought into a potent mix with Hellenistic Son (Logos) and savior god philosophies. Christianity emerged as a genuine synthesis of the leading religious ideas of the ancient world, and it set the course of Western faith for the next two millennia.
Yamit I would only hope others who have the enthusiasm you do for your faith.
I love it.
No matter what is written by other or handed down from generation to generation I believe G-d/God loves us for the faith we have in Him regardles of the path we take.
More important we stand together to insure a peaceful Israel safe from intruders, agitators and outside infulence.
PAUL WENT COMPLETELY AGAINST WHAT GOD SAYS ABOUT THE LAW AND DID NOT SEEM TO HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHAT JESUS SAID ABOUT THE LAW. IT IS NO WONDER WHY MANY PEOPLE THINK THAT PAUL COULD HAVE PICKED ANYONE TO BE THE DEITY OF THE RELIGION THAT HE CREATED, SINCE HE USED VERY LITTLE OF WHAT JESUS SAID.
PAUL TAUGHT THAT WITH JESUS IT MEANT THE END OF GOD’S LAW:
ROM010:004 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
HERE PAUL SEEMED TO HAVE SAID THAT THE JEWS WERE GIVEN THE LAW BECAUSE THEY WERE HORRIBLE, DISOBEDIENT, UNGODLY SINNERS:
1TI001:008 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
1TI001:009 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1TI001:010 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1TI001:011 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
GIVEN THE BLOODY HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES WOULD HAVE BENEFITED FROM THE LAW. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, HUMANS NEEDED LAWS THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO, TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO AND CERTAINLY TODAY. I CAN NOT BELIEVE THAT AFTER JESUS DIED, TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO, THAT PEOPLE BECAME MORE RIGHTEOUS AND NOT IN NEED OF LAWS.
PAUL TAUGHT THAT ONE CAN NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY GOD’S LAW BUT ONLY BY HAVING FAITH IN JESUS:
GAL002:015 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
GAL002:016 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
GAL002:017 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
GAL002:018 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
GAL002:019 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
GAL002:020 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
GAL002:021 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
ACT013:039 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
WHEN IT COMES TO GOD’S LAW, PAUL WENT AGAINST WHAT GOD SAYS AS WELL AS WHAT JESUS SAID:
GAL003:006 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
GAL003:007 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
GAL003:008 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
GAL003:009 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
GAL003:010 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
GAL003:011 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
GAL003:012 And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them.
GAL003:013 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
GAL003:014 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
GAL005:018 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
EPH002:015 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
PAUL SAID THAT YOU HAVE TO BE RIGHTEOUS TO GET INTO HEAVEN:
1CO006:009 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1CO006:010 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
CAN NOT FIGURE OUT WHAT PAUL BELIEVES, BECAUSE AT TIMES HE SAYS YOU ONLY NEED FAITH TO BE SAVED. HERE HE CLEARLY IMPLIES THAT HEAVEN WOULD BE DENIED TO THE “UNRIGHTEOUS” AND EVEN SPECIFIES SOME OF GOD’S LAWS.
HERE PAUL SAID THAT YOU CAN NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN THE LAW AND THAT SALVATION IS THROUGH FAITH NOT THROUGH WORKS (YOUR ACTIONS):
ROM003:026 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
ROM003:027 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
ROM003:028 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
ROM003:029 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
ROM003:030 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
ROM003:031 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
PAUL ALSO SAID THAT THE LAW IS NOT VOID EITHER. WHY THEN, DO CHRISTIANS SAY THEY DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW BECAUSE JESUS FULFILLED IT ON THE CROSS, EFFECTIVELY ABROGATING IT? ACCORDING TO PAUL, JESUS DID NOT CANCEL THE LAW BUT IN FACT ESTABLISHED THE LAW.
STATEMENTS LIKE THESE CAUSE CHRISTIANS TO THINK THEY ARE NO LONGER UNDER GOD’S LAW, EVEN THOUGH JESUS SAID THAT THEY WERE:
GAL005:018 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
HERE IT SEEMS THAT PAUL SAID THAT CHRISTIANS ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW BUT STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW IT:
ROM006:014 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
ROM006:015 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
MY GUESS IS, EITHER PAUL SAID DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT AUDIENCES, OR WHENEVER IT SOUNDS LIKE HE IS DISCOUNTING THE MOSAIC LAWS, HE IS DOING SO ONLY TO MAKE CLEAR THAT ONE IS NOT “JUSTIFIED” BY THE LAW. I PERSONALLY THINK PAUL MAINTAINED THAT YOU CAN ONLY BE “JUSTIFIED” (WORTHY OF HEAVEN) THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS, BUT BY INSTINCT (CIRCUMCISED HEART) YOU WILL NATURALLY DO THE MOSAIC LAWS. IT WOULD APPEAR TO ME THAT THIS CONCEPT DID NOT SEEM TO WORK, SINCE WE DO NOT EVEN SEE DEVOUT CHRISTIANS DOING MANY OF THE MOSAIC LAWS — WHICH INCLUDE A LOT MORE THAN JUST THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
HERE PAUL SEEMED TO WAVER AND SURE MADE IT SEEM LIKE FAITH WAS NOT THE ONLY CRITERIA:
GAL005:019 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
GAL005:021 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
PAUL WAVERS YET AGAIN AND SAYS:
EPH002:014 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
EPH002:015 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
SO AGAIN PAUL SAID THAT THE LAW IS ABOLISHED. I HOPE YOU CAN SEE WHY I HAVE NEVER REALLY FIGURED OUT WHAT PAUL REALLY FELT ABOUT GOD’S LAW. BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS, THE END RESULT IS THAT MANY OF GOD’S LAWS ARE IGNORED IN CHRISTIANITY.
PAUL ADMITTED TO SAYING WHATEVER IT TOOK AND BEING WHOEVER HE NEEDED TO BE TO CONVERT PEOPLE:
1CO009:020 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1CO009:021 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1CO009:022 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1CO009:023 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
IT DOES NOT SEEM VERY HONEST TO ME.
ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT CLEAR, IT APPEARS THAT PAUL BELIEVED THAT GOD’S LAW WAS NO LONGER IMPORTANT AND THAT ALL ONE NEEDED TO DO, TO GET TO HEAVEN, WAS HAVE “FAITH” IN JESUS — IT IS CALLED “GRACE”. BUT GOD SAYS THROUGH THE PROPHET HOSEA:
HOS004:006 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
DO YOU THINK GOD REJECTED PAUL? I DO! WE DO NOT KNOW IF PAUL HAD CHILDREN BUT HE HAS MANY FOLLOWERS.
I’M SURE YOU HAVE HEARD DEBATES ON LOWERING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COLLEGE ADMISSIONS, SO THAT PEOPLE WHO CAN NOT MEET THESE STANDARDS, CAN STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. I’M SURE THAT MANY CHRISTIANS, WOULD BE AGAINST LOWERING THESE REQUIREMENTS AND IN FACT SUGGEST THAT THESE PEOPLE WORK HARDER TO MEET THE STANDARDS. BUT LOOK WHAT PAUL SAID:
ROM004:015 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
ROM004:016 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;
IT SEEMS LIKE PAUL BELIEVED THAT BY DOING AWAY WITH GOD’S LAWS, PEOPLE COULD NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED SINNERS. THEREFORE THEY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE SAVED THROUGH GRACE — HAVING FAITH IN JESUS AND HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR ACTIONS. TALK ABOUT LOWERING THE STANDARDS. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A SCALE AND CAN NOT WEIGH YOURSELF, DOES THIS MEAN YOU CAN NOT GAIN WEIGHT? I WISH!
FROM THE MOMENT GOD GAVE HIS LAW TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL (1200 YEARS BEFORE THE COMMON ERA), THE BIBLE OFTEN PORTRAYS THEM AS TRANSGRESSING THESE LAWS. BUT NOT ONCE DOES ANY PROPHET EVEN HINT AT DOING AWAY WITH ANY OF THESE LAWS. IN FACT, THEY CONTINUE STRESSING THE IMPORTANCE OF GOD’S LAW.
I DO NOT BELIEVE GOD WOULD EVER LOWER HIS STANDARDS. YET I DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXPECTS PERFECTION EITHER (IT APPEARS IN THE BIBLE THAT MOSES WAS SOMEHOW INVOLVED IN THE DEATH OF AN EGYPTIAN, AARON WAS INVOLVED IN THE GOLDEN CALF INCIDENT AND KING DAVID SEEMED TO HAVE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH A MARRIED WOMAN). BUT I DO BELIEVE GOD WANTS US TO STRIVE TO MEET HIS STANDARD, BY FOLLOWING THE LAWS HE HAS GIVEN TO US.
I BELIEVE THAT PAUL WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT HIS OWN SALVATION, SINCE HE HAD DONE SO MANY HORRIBLE THINGS TO THE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS, THAT HE CONCOCTED THIS WHOLE CONCEPT OF GRACE.
King Solomon or Paul? That is the Germain question.
JAM002:023 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
JAM002:021 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
JAM002:008 If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well:
JAM002:010 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
It’s important to bear in mind that Rome’s expenditure of blood & treasure (to say nothing of diplomatic prestige) in the War were already enormous. This was no romp for the self-important Mistress-on-the-Tiber; she was breathin’ ragged.
With brushfire wars and assorted insurgencies breaking out simultaneously or in rapid succession in a dozen different locales, the possibility seems not that far-fetched to me that Rome might have eventually undergone a bad case of “cramps” — which could well have changed the course of history. Especially Judean history. Just contemplating the possibilities of what might have been…. the mind boggles — even as the heart breaks.
My point in revisiting the matter at this time is that I would hope that we’ve learned from our mistakes.
We?
I also think that elements of the ‘Christian’ world (not all of it, I grant you) are indeed exploring the Jewish roots of their faith, to the point of acknowledging an indebtedness to Judaism for those roots, as well as a heartfelt gratitude to the Jews for it. We should neither spurn nor revile nor ignore that phenomenon. It may still be in the early, clumsy, just-learning-to-crawl, stages — but it’s real.
I disagree there is virtually nothing Jewish left in Christianity that has not been corrupted out. Those Christians looking for the true path must reject Jesus and accept Noahide beliefs and practice which is totally based on Torah without the Myriad Jewish obligations.
The Jewish believers in Jesus were a fifth column who colluded with the Romans and deserved the be slain as many were. I would advocate the same today if possible. They like many others either refused to participate in the revolt or sided with Rome. Tough to fight a successful rebellion when a sizable portion of the people not only remain neutral but side with the enemy and some actively fought against the revolt . This is probably the reason Akiva proclaimed a Messiah to get the fire under the Jews to fight. No doubt that if by some miracle The revolt had ended in success that Bar-chocba would have been accepted by all the people as messiah but he wasn’t and was killed so that ended that. The revolt did seperate permanently Jews and followers of Jesus.
The point re: Akiva and his students. Akiva the penultimate Activist Rabbi rejected waiting for the Messiah and declared one. It united most of the nation and they managed for a time to defeat the greatest power of the ancient world. The example of rabbi Akiva and his students is counterproductive to the aims of the rabbis. Instead of sitting on society’s welfare, issuing senseless fatwas (oy, halachot) over minute details of Jewish life, and waiting for the messiah, Rabbi Akiva proclaimed one. Akiva wasn’t a fool, far from that. He surely knew that bar Kochba’s chances against the Romans were limited. Yet the wise rabbi did not wait for supernatural wonders or try to preserve his yeshiva, but proclaimed the war. Akiva chose dignity over life – and even over Judaism itself which he put at stake. Akiva reasoned that he should do his part and let the Almighty do his and take care of the Jews. Akiva sacrificed himself and thousands of his students in the revolt, but he established a thing more important than human lives: the will to fight for self-evident truths. Get the message?
Wrong; the sequel is rarely as good as the orignal [an important correction]. Depends on the author, really. What’s more, if it’s the same Author, then the two works are likely to shed significant light on each other.
Re post 52:
It is not up to me to prove or disprove the historical Jesus but since you claim he existed the onus is on you not me.
Not so fast, my man. I simply accept, and take for granted, the common rendering of history (albeit not perhaps the common conclusions deriving from it). The presumption of fact, Yamit, rests with the “received wisdom” till somebody proves otherwise (or provides enough positive evidence to at least reverse the presumption). You challenged that common understanding, beginning in post 28, and thus you are indeed the moving party and saddled accordingly with the burden of proof.
Furthermore, while what you offer here [in 52] in support of your challenge — much verbiage, largely speculative — is occasionally interesting, even genuinely provocative (and I appreciate that, sincerely), there is nothing in there of a probative nature. Which is not to suggest that there is no value to speculation. If I thought speculation had no value, I wouldn’t indulge it myself; and I do, quite a bit. But I know its place.
Speculation has a useful function: as a basis for contemplation, and as a spur to further inquiry; but it has no evidentiary value of any kind or degree.
Paul and other early writers present us only with a divine, spiritual Christ in heaven
I’ve already pointed out that Christ, as shown in the gospels, and as described (somewhat less vividly) in the balance of the NT, doesn’t make any claim to divinity, and your repeating the assertion of a divinity claim, as if it were established, won’t make it so — nor induce me to concede it.
In fact, for the record, let me say right now that, unless, at some point, you read words of mine explicitly conceding that specific point, you can reliably assume that my ‘failure’ to object to any future such assertion of yours (or of anybody else’s — if anybody else is still on-board with this thread by then) was purely an oversight [a not-at-all far-fetched possibilty, given the time constraints I'm working under when I'm at the terminal].
“Of myself I can do nothing; the Father in me, He doeth the works.” [Jn 5:19]
“The Son can do nothing of himself.” [Jn 5:30]
A man making claims to the Godhead would make no such assertion as those cited above. Quite the contrary, if he were ‘God,’ there would be nothing he couldn’t do “of himself.” So why would he claim otherwise? I repeat what I concluded in post 29: the Son of God is not “God the Son.”
Re post 54:
PAUL COULD HAVE PICKED ANYONE TO BE THE DEITY OF THE RELIGION THAT HE CREATED
Ah, there you go again. Yeshua didn’t claim to be any kind of ‘deity.’ What’s more, no believing Jew — let alone, a disciple of Rabban Gamaliel (which Paul was) — would, under any circumstances [before or after the Damascus Road epiphany] assert that any man (even Moshiakh) could possibly be a ‘deity.’ Wouldn’t happen. Breasts would grow on a bull first.
Remember, if you will, that Paul was at no point an apostate. He went straight from being a believing Jew to being a believing Nazarene Jew. There was no lag time in-between.
PAUL TAUGHT THAT WITH JESUS IT MEANT THE END OF GOD’S LAW:
ROM010:004 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Yes: the end of rote, strictly ritualistic relationship to the Law –because the Law would be in one’s heart: “V’hoyu ha-d’vorim ha-eleh, ah’sherr anokhih m’tzav’kha ha-yom al l’vovekha.”
He would no more speak in terms of ‘abolishing’ the Law itself than of ‘abolishing’ the Laws of Gravitation, Thermodynamics or Supply-&-Demand. They are there; they are part of the skeletal structure of the universe, and they will be what they are, whether you observe them or ignore them. The question is, how do you relate to them in such a way as to leave your conscious mind free to live a life at the same time?
PAUL SEEMED TO HAVE SAID THAT THE JEWS WERE GIVEN THE LAW BECAUSE THEY WERE HORRIBLE, DISOBEDIENT, UNGODLY SINNERS
Oh, for goodness’ sake, if that’s what he was saying, then why does he say the following (in your own next citation)? :
GAL002:015 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles
Do those sound like the remarks of a man who regarded the Jews as unusually “HORRIBLE, DISOBEDIENT, UNGODLY SINNERS”?
He knew — thru personal experience — that Jews were no more sinful (or, arguably, any less so) than most other people. When Yirm’yohu or Ahmos fulminate bitterly against the people of Israel, are they saying that Jews are ‘more ungodly or disobedient’ than anybody else? Be serious. [Are you quite sure that you aren't, even just a little bit, deliberately looking to find a scar in Paul that you would never assume existed in Yirm'yohu, et al.?]
Actually, the Law was given to the Jews specifically — because nobody else was fit to be entrusted with it. It was the highest of honors, hardly a badge of shame, let alone, a ‘punishment.’
The “justification” references will have to wait for another day’s discussion, I’m afraid. That’s a long one.
[By the way, it was not my intention to make these posts into some kind of brief or apologia on behalf of the Christian Faith, but only to illustrate the correctness of my initial assertion that Christianity at its essence is not -- and, from its origins, was not -- idolatrous {and which was my original reason for entering into this extended little drohsh}. And I do think I've largely succeded in that regard. I write as a Jew, however.
For an actual apologia on behalf of traditional Christianity, in fairness, you'd have to address your inquiries to a nominal Christian: i.e., to somebody who explicitly subscribes to the Nicene Creed. (I don't & never have. Never will.)]
GIVEN THE BLOODY HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES WOULD HAVE BENEFITED FROM THE LAW. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, HUMANS NEEDED LAWS THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO, TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO AND CERTAINLY TODAY. I CAN NOT BELIEVE THAT AFTER JESUS DIED, TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO, THAT PEOPLE BECAME MORE RIGHTEOUS AND NOT IN NEED OF LAWS.
Right. [You thought I would give you an argument over that?] I’m in full agreement. Of course, that naturally raises the question: If I rape my neighbor’s wife in the name of “freedom,” have I in fact struck a blow for FREEDOM — or merely found the handiest, sweetest-sounding jacket in which to drape my outrages?
CAN NOT FIGURE OUT WHAT PAUL BELIEVES
That’s not the same thing as saying he is ‘wrong.’ There’s lots of stuff in Paul (and other folks) that I still can’t make sense of at any given time. But I’ve seen enough in him that does make sense to me to have the confidence that when I run into a rough patch, if I leave it as an open question — if I put on the back burner, without jettisoning it — that that particular thing will eventually do begin to jell.
PAUL ALSO SAID THAT THE LAW IS NOT VOID EITHER. WHY THEN, DO CHRISTIANS SAY THEY DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW BECAUSE JESUS FULFILLED IT ON THE CROSS, EFFECTIVELY ABROGATING IT? ACCORDING TO PAUL, JESUS DID NOT CANCEL THE LAW BUT IN FACT ESTABLISHED THE LAW.
Excellent point; absolutely right. I’ve had occasion to point that out to Christian friends more times than I can count. The response tends to be a mixed bag: Most of them become very quiet & thoughtful when it’s shown to them, but there’s bound to be a couple, here & there, to whom it gives a case of serious heartburn. Still others don’t need to be told; they already know it.
I PERSONALLY THINK PAUL MAINTAINED THAT YOU CAN ONLY BE “JUSTIFIED” (WORTHY OF HEAVEN) THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS, BUT BY INSTINCT (CIRCUMCISED HEART) YOU WILL NATURALLY DO THE MOSAIC LAWS. IT WOULD APPEAR TO ME THAT THIS CONCEPT DID NOT SEEM TO WORK, SINCE WE DO NOT EVEN SEE DEVOUT CHRISTIANS DOING MANY OF THE MOSAIC LAWS — WHICH INCLUDE A LOT MORE THAN JUST THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
It’s not that it doesn’t “work,” but that their devotion is a superficial thing; sometimes an exploitative thing. They appropriate ‘Christ’ unto themselves only to avoid doing t’shuvah — even though he would be scandalized & offended by their trying to skip past repentance (and in his name, no less). Kind of like presuming to do an “end-run” around one’s conscience. [It's called having your cake and eating it too. (And I agree: it sucks -- to put it bluntly.)]
But flawed, shallow, phony, and/or self-deluded adherents do not, of themselves, constitute evidence of the ‘bogus’ faith of Christianity any more than they bear witness to the ‘falsity’ of Judaism .
PAUL ADMITTED TO SAYING WHATEVER IT TOOK AND BEING WHOEVER HE NEEDED TO BE TO CONVERT PEOPLE:
1CO009:020 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
IT DOES NOT SEEM VERY HONEST TO ME
He writes in a certain ideational shorthand, I think, that makes it easy to take him wrongly, but — as I’ve already shown — he isn’t actually proposing to do away with Law as such. In some instances, it’s a question of changing the way somebody relates to the Law.
In other instances, he’s simply saying that he tried to keep differing local cultures and customs from interfering with getting to the essential matters. Of itself, it isn’t dishonest. You’re viewing him as a cheap politician; I don’t see that as a necessary conclusion.
I see him as a Jew who — notwithstanding his mission to bring the ethics-of-the-fathers, as it were, to a pagan world — realized that he couldn’t possibly (or reasonably) expect that world to fathom (or even imagine) what it was like to be a Jew.
What’s more, if , as you note, “many of God’s laws are ignored in Christianity” — and I agree with you that they are (though we might disagree as to which ones are applicable solely to the Jewish People) — I hardly think that to be specifically Paul’s doing.
DO YOU THINK GOD REJECTED PAUL?
I don’t think God is in the rejection business. Not that it can’t happen; but I wouldn’t, for a moment, presume to second-guess Him. But to address your question directly, I see no evidence that God ‘rejected’ Paul, or that Paul believed that He had. [What an odd question, though!]
NOT ONCE DOES ANY PROPHET EVEN HINT AT DOING AWAY WITH ANY OF THESE LAWS. IN FACT, THEY CONTINUE STRESSING THE IMPORTANCE OF GOD’S LAW
Well, yes, but remember that the prophets almost never had occasion to address themselves directly to anybody but Am Yisrael. Paul had to address himself to a multitude of other cultures in addition to the Jews.
I DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXPECTS PERFECTION
You’ll be happy, then, of course [I suppose], to know that you’re in good company [as it were], since most self-styled “Christians” would say the same as you in that regard — though Christ himself said otherwise: “Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”
Wrong; the sequel is rarely as good as the orignal [an important correction]. Depends on the author, really. What’s more, if it’s the same Author, then the two works are likely to shed significant light on each other.
Bad anology, Try instead, not divinely written or inspired. Not based on anybodys historical account or record during the attributed life of one called Jesus or any other attributed Hebrew name for him. We only know of him in any form by second and third hand accounts. So it is more than just speculation. If you discount just this point it is because you do not choose to do so as then the whole house of cards and all of your subsequent postulates crumble like so must dust.
For arguments sake I will concede that a Jesus Character may have existed but is then some composite of many different attributes other than what he may have really been. That is about the most I can rationally concede unless shown conclusively otherwise. Whether Abraham or any other Biblical ( our bible) character existed or not is not relevant to Judaic core belief which is based on Torah but then here is catch 22. The Torah tells us about the life and times of Abraham and the Abrahamic Dynasty and subsequent historical and semi-historical characters. There are many , many confirmations of many of these events mentioned in the Bible but it was never meant to be a history as we might call it today but most events and historical characters have since been confirmed by historical research and archeology.
The beginnings of all ancient and modern religions have a common thread: one or two people have a revelation and persuade others to follow. Thus, for example, Buddhist writings tell us that Prince Siddhartha Gautama launched Buddhism after his solitary ascendance through the eight stages of Transic insight; Islamic texts tell us that Muhammad founded Islam following the first of many personal, prophetic experiences; Christian writings reveal that Paul first met Jesus, converted to Christianity, and spread the faith more than three decades after Jesus’ death; Joseph Smith, Jr., and his partner, Oliver Cowdery, launched the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints (the Mormon church) after the two men were visited by angels and long-dead disciples of Jesus; and Sun Myung Moon launched the Unification Church after privately receiving direct orders to do so from Jesus himself. The beginnings of Children of God, Christian Science, Eckankar, Elan Vital, I AM, and Theosophy — in fact, the beginnings of all world religions — are equally unverifiable. Never does a large, clearly identifiable group of people experience prophecy and live to tell others about it. Moreover, in a handful of cases wherein large groups of people supposedly witnessed miracles, rarely are these witnesses named or identified in any way that would allow for verification; and in the very exceptional cases involving clearly identified groups of witnesses, never more than one or two of the religion’s current adherents claim to have met or descended directly from the named witnesses. In all these cases, the religion’s credibility rests on the credibility of its one or two founders. While it is certainly possible that the beginnings claimed by any of the thousands of sects and cults included in the world’s more than three hundred major religious traditions could be true, it is easy to imagine how charismatic charlatans could have launched any of these movements.
The one known exception to this rule is Judaism. The Torah claims that every Jewish man, woman, and child alive in 1312 B.C.E. — about three million people, according to the Torah — heard God speak at Mount Sinai and survived to teach their descendants about the event. Here we have an easily identifiable group — all of Jewry — who could have verified or denied the story any time during the first two or three generations after the alleged mass prophecy transpired. It seems to me that all you have really is Pauls word for it.
The Torah is aware of its uniqueness and unabashedly offers this challenge to every Jew who has lived since Sinai:
You might inquire about times long past, going back to the time God created man on earth [exploring] one end of the heavens to the other. See if anything as great as this has ever happened, or if the like has ever been heard. Has any nation ever heard God speaking out of fire, as you have, and still survived? (Deuteronomy 4:32–33)
Crucially, the Torah’s claim about national revelation isn’t esoteric. If a religion claimed to have started when a centipede metamorphosed into a gorilla who, falling into a river, exploded in flame and disintegrated into ashes before rising in the form of a great human prophet, we would understand why such a claim might never be repeated. It is unlikely that two people would independently dream up identical stories with such intricate and nonintuitive details. Yet the Jewish claim is obvious and simple: God spoke to a group of people. This is the sort of claim that would occur to anyone.
Moreover, the claim of mass revelation was needed by other religions. Because Jews believed that millions of people — all of their ancestors — received the Torah directly from God, they were hesitant to accept just Jesus or Muhammad’s word that the Torah had been annulled. If God changed His mind, Jewry reasoned, why didn’t He let us or any other large group of people know? Furthermore, intelligent pagans might have wondered why, if God really intended to reveal an equally acceptable alternative to Judaism, He didn’t do it in front of a few million non-Jews. By hesitating to claim a mass prophecy, early Christians and Muslims thus lost an opportunity to raise their credibility, even in the gentile world.
You believe Paul and not King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived according to the Torah. Paul was never mentioned by G-d. Nor was Jesus.
I find little to disagree about in this post. In fact, so much of it seems right that I could almost wonder whether you put it there to make my case instead of your own. Yes, Jesus insisted that the people adhere to the law, and that his intention was not to supercede it. “I come not to destroy but to fulfill.” [Although I’m constantly having to remind Christian acquaintances that “fulfill,” as used here, means to underscore, to amplify, to explicate, to bring to fruition, etc. — not to abolish.
You use many words here except: “You will do them”, no ands, ifs or buts but clear concise simple Hebrew!! You betray yourself a a messianic fraud ea. time you attempt to keep to your fraudulent masquerade.
AROUND 1200 YEARS BEFORE JESUS WAS BORN, GOD TRANSMITTED HIS LAW TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, THROUGH MOSES, THE GREATEST OF ALL PROPHETS. THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES SHOW THE IMPORTANCE GOD PUTS ON HIS LAWS:
This is what G-d says, In clear language:
DEU005:029 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
LEV019:037 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the Lord.
LEV020:022 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.
LEV025:018 Wherefore ye shall do My statutes, and keep My judgments, and do them; and ye shall dwell in the land in safety.
LEV026:046 These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.
DEU004:001 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you.
DEU004:008 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
DEU005:001 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
DEU011:001 Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway.
DEU026:016 This day the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgments: thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
DEU030:016 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
He writes in a certain ideational shorthand, I think, that makes it easy to take him wrongly, but — as I’ve already shown — he isn’t actually proposing to do away with Law as such. In some instances, it’s a question of changing the way somebody relates to the Law.
Really? There are so many contradictions of what Paul said that if it is difficult for you me and others more learned than us and I can’t fathom what exactly he was saying, teaching and trying to convey to the then unlearned and largely ignorant Jews and Pagans in his own time and today as well. I think it was purposeful so as to make it mordifficult to pin down.
In other instances, he’s simply saying that he tried to keep differing local cultures and customs from interfering with getting to the essential matters. Of itself, it isn’t dishonest. You’re viewing him as a cheap politician; I don’t see that as a necessary conclusion.
Worse! A cheap antisemitic Charlatan of a politician.
I see him as a Jew who — notwithstanding his mission to bring the ethics-of-the-fathers, as it were, to a pagan world — realized that he couldn’t possibly (or reasonably) expect that world to fathom (or even imagine) what it was like to be a Jew.
Bullshit at the beginning of Christianity it’s estimated that roughly 10% of the population of the Roman Empire were Jews and I would have to assume a large part were converts who had no problem fathoming Judaism. You show your ignorance or intentional obfuscation when being an apologist for such a vile creature as Paul. It also shows your ignorance of history at least Jewish History or like most of you Messianics when you do know you just cherry pick only what serves your purposes.
What’s more, if , as you note, “many of God’s laws are ignored in Christianity” — and I agree with you that they are
(though we might disagree as to which ones are applicable solely to the Jewish People)
— I hardly think that to be sp
And what laws do you suppose we might disagree about?
Gentiles—-7 laws of Noah Universal Laws. Jews about 613. It is not damming for Gentiles not to observe Jewish laws as they are meant for the Jews but outside of Jewish law and Noahide Law there is only apostasy, heresy and Paganism
I see him as a Jew who — notwithstanding his mission to bring the ethics-of-the-fathers, as it were, to a pagan world — realized that he couldn’t possibly (or reasonably) expect that world to fathom (or even imagine) what it was like to be a Jew.
You really blew it here dweller: His mission to bring ethics of the fathers (perkei Avot) to the Gentiles(Pagans)?
Most of Perkei Avot was compiled mostly from from the Mishna and was not compiled and completed until the second century CE. Pirkei Avot is a collection of teachings from leading Jewish sages spanning a period of more than five-hundred years–from the time following the compilation of the Bible at the beginning of the second temple period (circa 360 BCE) until well into the second century. During these years, great challenges faced the Jewish people; new opposing factions arose within the Jewish community that threatened to undermine the foundations and future of Judaism; the world was shaken by radical changes due to an unsettled civilization in the transformation from Greek to Roman rule.
Judaism is not and never was about ethics. Every culture and religion has ethics. Judaism is:
Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one.
(Rashi) The Lord is our God; the Lord is one: The Lord, who is now our God and not the God of the other nations-He will be [declared] in the future “the one God,” as it is said: “For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language that all of them call in the name of the Lord” (Zeph. 3:9), and it is [also] said: “On that day will the Lord be one and His name one” (Zech. 14:9). (see Sifrei)
And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means.
And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart.
And you shall teach them to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up
And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for ornaments between your eyes.
And you shall inscribe them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates. And it will be, when the Lord, your God, brings you to the land He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you, great and good cities that you did not build,
and houses full of all good things that you did not fill, and hewn cisterns that you did not hew, vineyards and olive trees that you did not plant, and you will eat and be satisfied.
Beware, lest you forget the Lord, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Do not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples who are around you.
For the Lord, your God, is a zealous God among you, lest the wrath of the Lord, your God, be kindled against you, and destroy you off the face of the earth.You shall not try the Lord, your God, as you tried Him in Massah.
Diligently keep the commandments of the Lord, your God, and His testimonies. and His statutes, which He has commanded you.
And you shall do what is proper and good in the eyes of the Lord, in order that it may be well with you, and that you may come and possess the good land which the Lord swore to your forefathers,
Ethics?
“Intelligent people know of what they speak; fools speak of what they know.”
- Minchas Shabbos Pirkei Avos 3:18 / Ethics Of The Fathers
Well, yes, but remember that the prophets almost never had occasion to address themselves directly to anybody but Am Yisrael. Paul had to address himself to a multitude of other cultures in addition to the Jews.
Read: Jonah and Elisha. Paul turned to the Pagans after being ejected by the Jews. Pls. Explain how a lowly hated tax collector was suddenly turned into a great Torah Scholar?
You’ll be happy, then, of course [I suppose], to know that you’re in good company [as it were], since most self-styled “Christians” would say the same as you in that regard — though Christ himself said otherwise:“Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”
I take him seriously, though, even if they don’t
This last paragraph totally betrays your innate Christianity. The use of the word Christ implies by definition who and what you are.
THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES ARE VERY IMPORTANT. ISAIAH AND MICAH ARE TALKING ABOUT THE “END OF DAYS”. JEWS BELIEVE THIS IS WHEN THE MESSIAH WILL COME AND THE CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IT WILL BE THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS:
ISA002:003 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
MIC004:001 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
MIC004:002 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
ACCORDING TO THESE PASSAGES, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE LAW WILL STILL BE IN EFFECT AT THE “END OF DAYS”. GENERALLY CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY DOES NOT MAINTAIN THAT THE LAW IS IN EFFECT DURING THE “END OF DAYS”, SINCE IT IS HELD THAT JESUS FULFILLED IT. THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE ALSO STATES THAT GOD’S LAW WAS FOR THE JEWS AND NOT FOR THE GENTILES. BUT ISAIAH AND MICAH MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE OTHER NATIONS (GENTILES) WILL COME AND LEARN THE LAW FROM THE MESSIAH AND FROM THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. REMEMBER GOD REFERS TO ALL OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AS A KINGDOM OF PRIESTS:
EXO019:006 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
IF JESUS FULFILLED THE LAW, WHY WOULD GOD SAY THAT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WILL TEACH HIS LAW TO THE REMAINING GENTILE NATIONS?
THE LAST PROPHET MALACHI ALSO EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LAW OF MOSES AND HOW IT WILL STILL BE IN EFFECT DURING THE “END OF DAYS”. THIS PASSAGE ALSO TEACHES US THAT GOD IS GOING TO SEND ELIJAH AT THE “END OF DAYS”:
MAL004:004 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
MAL004:005 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:
MAL004:006 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT THE LAW STAYS IN EFFECT UNTIL THE “END OF DAYS”, WHEN ELIJAH COMES. OF COURSE IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE JESUS IMPLIES THAT JOHN THE BAPTIST WAS ELIJAH:
MAT017:012 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
MAT017:013 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
BUT GOD SAYS THROUGH MALACHI THAT ELIJAH COMES AT THE “END OF DAYS”. JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST LIVED TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO, OBVIOUSLY NOT THE “END OF DAYS”.
HERE GOD MENTIONS SOME OF HIS LAWS AND STRESSES THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING THEM. GOD ALSO EMPHASIZES THAT HE DOES NOT CHANGE:
MAL003:005 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.
MAL003:006 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
MAL003:007 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. hosts.
Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?
GOD SAID TO OBSERVE THE LAW FOR “EVERMORE”, TO ME THAT MEANS FOREVER. GOD SAID THIS WHEN THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WERE MISBEHAVING BADLY. EVEN THOUGH THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WERE IGNORING THE LAW, GOD STRONGLY MAINTAINED THAT THE LAW WAS ETERNAL.
PAUL DID TEACH THAT ONE CAN NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY GOD’S LAW BUT ONLY BY HAVING FAITH IN JESUS:
GAL002:016 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
GAL002:020 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
GAL002:021 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
ACT013:039 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Checkmate: clear concise language and intent.
Who do you believe King Solomon or Paul. The Jewish Prophets or Jesus?
The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? : Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus (Paperback)
by Earl Doherty (Author)
The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays (The Freethought Library) (Paperback)
The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did by Gerd Ludemann
The Jesus Mysteries: Was the “Original Jesus” a Pagan God? by by Timothy Freke
The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence John E. Remsberg
Judaism and Christianity: the Differences by Trude Weiss-Rosmarin
A Jewish Response to Cults by Gary Bretton-Granatoor
Christians and Jews need to form an admiration society.
Tough one. Christians owe the Jews such an historical debt, I think it’s past time and past due they start to repay some of it.
Most important issue at hand is we all need to stand together in full support of Israel.
OK I’m here, so it’s up to you guys to come to us with open hands and open arms, without any preconditions.
Ron you are a good soul and I advise you disregard anything I say or post against Christianity. It is certainly not against you personally. My comments are directed mostly for the Jews here and some few nefarious Christians who pose as friends but have less than honest and goodwill motivations. I believe you have as I seen some few of them here.
Tough one. Christians owe the Jews such an historical debt, I think it’s past time and past due they start to repay some of it.
OK I’m here, so it’s up to you guys to come to us with open hands and open arms, without any preconditions.
I am with you on this. Nothing like the present to begin.
In fact I told Caroline Glick the Vatican should return any items belonging to the Jewish people (you did tell me they had some precious articles) and they need to engage with their Jewish counterparts with open and frank discussion with respects to Pope Pius XII, there should be nothing to hide.
I agree with Caroline, all of Jerusalem and the holy site should be under Israeli sovereignity.
This is where it all needs to begin.
By the way you also told me about the children that were saved from the Germans and kept by Catholic families.
What I found alarming is they brought them up in the Catholic faith.
They had an obligation to see to it that they continued in their own Jewish beliefs. It was not up to them to made a change.
I am sure G-d was not pleased with that decision.
The names of those children should be made avaiable to the Jews.
There has been a lot of mistakes made in the name of Catholism some of which most Catholics are not even aware of.
By the way you also told me about the children that were saved from the Germans and kept by Catholic families.
What I found alarming is they brought them up in the Catholic faith.
They had an obligation to see to it that they continued in their own Jewish beliefs. It was not up to them to made a change.
Oh please!
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”
- Romans 1:16 (The Great Commission)
Ron, I don’t doubt your sincerity and you good intentions for a moment.
However, the Christians raising those lost Jews are simply complying with the most elementary of Christianity’s beliefs. After all:
“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” - John 3:18
JAM002:023 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
JAM002:021 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
JAM002:008 If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well:
JAM002:010 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Hunh?!This is supposed to ‘prove’ that Avraham existed? You effectively tell me the NT is bunkum, and then you take recourse to that very NT as an authority? — what chutzpah. Now that’s really choice! I challenged you, in 51, to use the same standard of proof — external documentary evidence — to ‘prove’ that Abraham existed, that you had demanded of me to establish that Jesus did, and you come back to me with the Letter of James?
Come one, Yamit, I’ve seen enough of your stuff to know you can do better than that. In any event, my point remains undisturbed: A paucity of available external documentation to establish the existence of Yeshua constitutes no more a ‘proof’ of his ‘non-historicity’ than does the absence of same to establish the ‘non-existence’ of Avraham, Rivka, Melkhi-tzedek, Eliyau, Moshe, et al.
The reality is that, historically speaking, arguments from silence are, by their very nature, vulnerable — since you can’t always know what the silence betokens; silence can’t ’speak’ (with any explicitness) for itself. Therefore silence is always subject to opportunistic & self-serving interpretation. The bottom line is that, of itself, silence is unreliable — and that arguments that do rely on it are, at best, weak.
But, you know, this whole line of pursuit has about it as much gravity to it as the claims which the ding-a-ling “Palestinians” and their useful-idiot, Western academic, cohorts have been pushing for a couple of decades now, to the effect that David & Solomon were ‘non-historical’ figures — no more than folk legends, at best — and that Beit Hamiqdahsh never existed, or not on the Temple Mount, anyway (though even Hajj Amin didn’t have the nerve to suggest that), etc., etc.
If those claims sound like drivel, how do you suppose the “Jesus-is-a-fairy-tale” claim sounds (even to a lot of atheists)? — like, maybe, drivel dripping on a grinding axe?
We?
Yes, “we.” When I used the word, “we,” in that context, I had explicit reference to the Jewish People. I’ve already told you: I believe that — by allowing what had begun as a War for Israel to be converted into a War for ‘Moshiakh’ — that WE: Am Yisrael — made a horrible mistake. If you have a problem with that, so be it. I stand by it — foursquare.
I disagree; there is virtually nothing Jewish left in Christianity that has not been corrupted out.
So you do acknowledge Christianity’s Jewish roots. [Can't quite shake that little foxtail loose from your ear, can you, Rover?]
Those Christians looking for the true path must reject Jesus and accept Noahide beliefs
This is a total non-sequitur to your earlier [immediately above-cited] assertion. What’s the connection? — how does the second follow from the first? Are you saying that Jesus himself is the source of Christianity’s corruption? If you are, then how to square that with your suggestion, in 28, that he is likely a “composite” ? A composite of what, if not a Jewish ‘composite?’ And if a Jewish ‘composite,’ then how a source of corruption?
I repeat what I wrote in 33: Christ, by any name [well, other than "God the Son"], is the Jewel-in-the-Crown that is Jewish Civilization. Moreover, I don’t see anything in Jesus’ teaching or presence to suggest that he represents an assault on the Noakhic Code.
But to address more directly the substance of your assertion that “there is virtually nothing Jewish left in Christianity that has not been corrupted out”: “Nothing,” even as modified & preceded by weasel words, like “virtually,” is a pretty big word — too big to be allowed to pass. Frankly, I see plenty in Christianity — even in contemporary, vanilla, white-bread, squeezed-from-the-tube, Gentile, “Churchianity” — which still retains its Jewish basis (perhaps much in spite of itself, but nonetheless, unmistakably so).
And I venture to say that if you weren’t so eaten-up with your own caustic bile and intellectual bigotry, Yamit, you’d perceive it as well.
Furthermore, occasionally I even see elements of Judaism which much (even most) of contemporary Jewry (and almost all of secular Jewry) has — to its shame and utter disgrace — jettisoned, and which only believing Christians (i.e., parts of ‘Christendom,’ anyway) have continued to uphold. And for that, the latter are to be heartily saluted and humbly thanked.
The Jewish believers in Jesus were a fifth column who colluded with the Romans… or sided with Rome… side[d] with the enemy and some actively fought against the revolt.
Proof, please: because I’m sure you would never knowingly bear (or even risk bearing) false witness against your neighbor [right, Yamit?].
Proof? hell, I’d give consideration to the slightest pinchof hard evidence; a scrap; a smidgeon.
I am aware of no evidence [if you are, then cite it] pointing to — specifically, identifiedly — Nazarene-Jews ‘colluding with,’ or defecting to, Hadrian’s legions. It was Bar Kokhva’s insistence that Judean troops swear fealty to him as “Moshiakh” that drove the Nazarenes out of the rebellion. That demand — a militarily unneccessary, as well as inexcusably insensitive and decidedly unJewish violation of conscience — effectively took them out of the action. What else could they do, given their dilemma?
Up until that point, there was no reason why they would have wanted, or needed, to stay out of the fight. They were still, and would continue to be for several generations, very much a part of the Jewish tapestry. The formal break with Judaism was nearly two full centuries away [Nicaea, 325] — and by then, the overwhelming preponderance [3:1] of Jewish to Gentile adherents of Jesus would be [more than] reversed.
My reason for mentioning R. Akiva — at the time I referenced him, in 47, had nothing whatsoever to do with the correctness or foolishness of his relationship to the Revolt; so your obnoxious bellowing on his behalf, in 56, is — at best — offpoint.
My specific reason for alluding to him at-all, in 47, was purely to illustrate a quite different matter: to wit, that (as I have already said now, twice before, but it will bear repeating) if you characterized as “unJewish” somebody who ‘wrongly’ believed Yeshua HaNitzri to be Moshiakh, then you’d have to say the same thing about R. Akiva: for wrongly (quite obviously, wrongly — and very definitely, wrongly) believing Bar Kokhva to be ‘Moshiakh.’ And conversely, that if you can’t say the latter, then you can’t say the former either.
That was my only reason at the time for even mentioning Akiva: simply to illustrate that point.
That being said, however, I should tell you that what you have told us here [56] about Akiva (or about your take on him, anyway) makes apparent that he thought to “force the hand of God.” If this is accurate, then that was itself a horrific, terrible, catastrophic error – as well as an absurdly presumptuous one:
Above and beyond the obvious blunder in choosing a false messiah, the very notion that a finite mind (regardless of how excellently polished) could presume to possess the wisdom of its own infinite Creator – that such a person could presume to have the cosmic authority to (effectively) ‘demand’ that God abandon His own timetable in favor of that of His creation – bespeaks, at best, a bizarre and delusional consciousness on the Rebbe’s part, and at worst, a most disturbing egomania.
“Ye shall not try [i.e., tempt, or test] the Lord, your God, as you tried Him at Massah (Meribah).” [Deut. 6:16 -- not to mention Mt 4:7 and Lk 4:12]
In effect, the gaon was telling the Almighty, “Show us a miracle (i.e., “show us your Presence”) — right here, right now, or else.” Talk about brass-bound gall….
My guess — and here, obviously, I’m doing the speculating — is that he was tempted, by the early Jewish victories in the War, to overplay his hand: to convert what had begun as a necessary, well-planned-&-prepared-for war “for the freedom of Jerusalem” [actual wording on coins minted by the rebel administration as late as possibly the third year of the Revolt] into a war for “Messiah”: a fatal error.
This is to take nothing away from the Sage’s legitimate, and substantial, scholarly accomplishments. His Mishnaic codification, years earlier, for example (to name just one), was a titanic achievement: which took what previously had been largely the province of mnemonics & mental gymnastics, and made it thereafter enormously more accessible to the seeker. Even if he had accomplished nothing else, Akiva’s place in history would be solidly established by that alone.
But such an acknowledgment does not mean that this same gaon, now well into his 80’s, was incapable of major errors of judgment. It is sadly true that he was all-too-susceptible to missteps in discernment. And intoxication with success stalks every great man.
[For example, how Akiva could let Bar Kokhva get away with arrogant, hubristic impieties -- such as, "Please Lord, don't help us, and spoil it for us" -- absolutely defies both reason and sensibility.]
Moreover, the blunderings of the great are more far-reaching and consequential than those of the small. This particular series of errors in judgment — whatever may have caused or occasioned them — is one from which the Jewish People (and with it, indeed, ha-olahm ha-zeh) continues to reel, nineteen centuries hence.
I repeat what I wrote in 33: Christ, by any name [well, other than "God the Son"], is the Jewel-in-the-Crown that is Jewish Civilization.
Comment by dweller — May 13, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
He is completely superfluous, as far as we Jews are concerned. To the pagan world and their descendants, like yourself, he must be the best thing since sliced bread.
Dweller you seem to have mastered the art and technique of sophistry and obsfucation, a very potent mix when you need to divert and misdirect the arguments (mine) away from my arguments to yours and in such an unesoterical manner. I postulated that your Jesus never existed but allowed only for the sake of argument some plausibility of some composite character who in fact I hold is mythical. I give no essential ground here, just enough to continue our discussion in order to see how far you are prepared to go on with your charade. I find that you answered none of my questions or challenges but sidestepped almost all and attempted to redirect the question onto peripheral issues without responding to my many questions and challenges. Nice technique.
Protagoras, Gorgias, Thrasymachus, and Hippias of Elis.Would be proud of your failed efforts. They too mostly failed with their intellectual equals and certainly with their betters.
BK was not the messiah BenDavid and not even the Messiah BenYoseph because he lost, period. Your Jesus Guy is not the messiah either because The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets—Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.
According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, nor will he possess supernatural qualities.
The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David!
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
THE BIBLE’S MESSIANIC CRITERIA ARE EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE: “Faith” is irrelevant to the Jewish concept of the Messiah ben David, because an individual either fulfills these prophetic criteria or he doesn’t. Christianity requires faith that Jesus is their “messiah” precisely because he didn’t fulfill any of the Jewish messianic criteria. Christianity’s concept of faith in Jesus is therefore a substitute for this defect. It is important to note that the fulfillment of each of the six Jewish messianic criteria is empirically verifiable and therefore no faith is required to determine the identity of the Jewish Messiah ben David. For example, the entire world will be able to observe that the Temple has been rebuilt, the Jews have returned to Israel, the entire world believes in God, and the world is at peace. Virtually none of the Christian messianic “proofs” are empirically verifiable.
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37) For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), “He does not observe Shabbat!”
St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nazianzus, wrote: “A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire,” and you seem to have lapped up a lot if not most of the Jargon!
AUTHENTIC JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION, The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others… as it says, “Face to face, God spoke with you…” The Torah also states: “God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us—who are all here alive today.” (Deut. 5:3)
Judaism is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.
Your Jesus said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). That seems pretty clear to me, simple straight forward language.
Judaism says that the Messiah will be born of human parents, and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, and will not possess supernatural qualities. In fact, an individual is alive in every generation with the capacity to step into the role of the Messiah. (see Maimonides - Laws of Kings 11:3)
SO WHAT JEW NEEDS A JESUS? In Judaism, prayer is a totally private matter, between each individual and God. As the Bible says: “God is near to all who call unto Him” (Psalms 145:18). Further, the Ten Commandments state: “You shall have no other gods BEFORE ME,” meaning that it is forbidden to set up a mediator between God and man. (see Maimonides - Laws of Idolatry ch. 1)
In short, Jews don’t retreat from life, we elevate it. SO Why would we need someone like Jesus? What can he offer that we don’t have already? He can’t be the messiah, Isn’t a Prophet and we already have a personal link to G-d? We had wiser men then what is attributed to him and more learned and pious. We have the torah which is G-ds Truth You have a conflicted Book written about a man by none who knew him in the flesh and ea. Book contradicts another. Even Paul the missionary admitted to subterfuge and lies in his own words.
Romans 3:7 If through my lies G-d’s truth abounds to His glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?
Philippians 1:18 In every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Jesus is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
The veracity of everything that Paul said and wrote is called into question by the fact that these quotes are found in the books he himself authored.Your previous response was at best unconvincing and apologetic.
Try again:
Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:31 describe “angels” appearing to Jesus’s mother and her husband informing them of her forthcoming “immaculate conception” and “virgin birth” to the “Son of G-d” the “Messiah”. When compared with the way Jesus’s family and neighbors treated him, it is absurd to believe that “angels” really visited them:
Mark 3:21 Upon hearing of it, his family went out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is beside himself’.
To offset the startling fact that J’s family thought that he was insane, some New Testament editions replace “they” with “people”, although “they” is in the original Greek text.
John 7:5 For even his brothers did not believe in him.
Luke 4:16 And Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the Sabbath day…
There Jesus hinted to his friends and neighbors that he was the Messiah, however:
Luke 4:28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up, and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.
How very strange it is, that during all the years in which J grew up with them, his brothers, friends, and neighbors did not notice that he was a “divine being”? And could it have been that his parents forgot or didn’t tell anyone what they experienced? This stretches one’s imagination.
Explain; I know you can do better than the last attempt.
You misrepresent the concept of perfection. Here is what we believe:
The Messiah is an individual who has attained such an exalted spiritual level as to be prepared to commune with G-d at any time.
As the leader and role model for all the human race, he will need to be capable of relating to and interacting with all nations, cultures, and individuals. He will be the perfect servant of G-d:
Isaiah 11:12 The Spirit of G-d shall rest on him
The spirit of wisdom and understanding
The spirit of counsel and might
The spirit of knowledge and the fear of G-d.
In the situations quoted below, determine for yourself if Jesus could have been this towering spiritual giant:
John 2:13 In the Temple, Jesus found those selling oxen, sheep and pigeons and the money changers sitting, and when he made a whip of cords, he drove them all, with their sheep and oxen, out of the Temple, and he poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
From Mark 11:16 we learn : And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the Temple.
Matthew 8:21 Another of the disciples asked him, let me first go and bury my father. But Jesus answered him ‘Follow me and leave the dead to bury their own dead.’
To those who disagreed with him, Jesus responded:
Matthew 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
The Jewish People rejected the idea that Jesus could be THE MESSIAH because he simply did not meet the criteria for one to be the Messiah, as our Prophets had taught us during the previous 1300 years.
In the situations quoted below, determine for yourself if Jesus could have been this towering spiritual giant:
John 2:13 In the Temple, Jesus found those selling oxen, sheep and pigeons and the money changers sitting, and when he made a whip of cords, he drove them all, with their sheep and oxen, out of the Temple, and he poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables
Comment by yamit82 — May 14, 2009 @ 9:15 am
While we’re quoting this verse, it’s worth mentioning that whoever penned it never witnessed any such event in Jerusalem. For any student of the Talmud today or any Jew who was living in those times 2000 years ago knew that the market for such wares was not “IN” the Temple, as stated in this fictitious verse. The marketplace was located in the streets outside and surrounding the Temple.
[T]he wise rabbi… reasoned that he should do his part and let the Almighty do his.
Translation: He thought to force the hand of the Almighty.
Bright he may have been, learned he most surely was, but “wise”? — hardly . Indeed, it is impossible to not be struck by just how astonishingly presumptuous his attitude was, and especially so in somebody who, of all persons, would reasonably have been expected to know better.
What’s more, it is the height of absurdity — to say nothing of perversity — to suggest that “his [Akiva's] part” consisted of, effectively, hijacking a legitimate and necessary War for the Independence of Judea, and squandering its initial successes on the anointing of an egotistical thug as ‘Moshiakh.’
No, I hardly think it could possibly have been “his part” to do such a thing.
Essentially Akiva played “double-or-nothing” with the capital of those early victories — he gambled for the messianic glory, and did so with the future of the Jewish People in Eretz Yisrael — and lost.
The Jewish believers in Jesus… deserved [to] be slain as many were. I would advocate the same today if possible… Get the message?
Oh, indeed I do (much to my dismay, I do): The “message” is that it’s quite clear that, as I feared, some of us have not learned from our mistakes. A pity, though hardly a surprise. You’re so predictable, Yamit.
Re post 57:
“Rome did not convert to Christianity. Christianity converted to Rome.”
Half right.
Half wrong.
Rome converted to a watered-down ‘Christianity,’ and Christianity, in turn, absorbed a hefty dose of pagan Rome. An exchange, of sorts, took place. A coffee salesman trying to peddle his product amongst milk-drinkers unaccustomed to, and uncordial toward, coffee may find himself diluting his coffee with varying proportions of milk, to make a sale.
Of course, by doing so, he risks the real possibility that he’ll end up selling coffee-flavored milk instead of coffee. I rather doubt, however, that this was the doing of the first generation of Christian adherents in Rome, because they were primarily Jewish. Christianity’s absorption of pagan elements came with succeeding generations, and especially beginning in the third century.
Note:
I will, in all probability, continue wading through these posts and responding to them pretty much in numbered order — as time, opportunity and inclination permit. However, you will not corral me, Yamit, into some sophomoric and tiresome, pissing contest over the historicity of Christ, because that was never my purpose in entering this thread, back at 22 & 26.
Nor am I here, I repeat, to provide you with an apologia for traditional Christianity; if you want somebody to argue with over that, there are plenty of church-based types who subscribe to the Nicene Creed who will be more than happy to take you on. On that score, I leave you and them to each other.
My intent in entering this thread [as I have already, once before, reminded you] was to show that, contrary to your claim in 6 — which maintains that Islam is “not idolatrous,” and (by implication) that Christianity is – the reality is in fact, at its essence, precisely the reverse.
I took up that matter because, frankly, I found your comment uncommonly engaging and provocative, and — though much mistaken — entitled to a thoughtful response.
Since your sole reply to my assertion of 22 consisted of an at-best, rote and perfunctory, and, at worst, off-point and tangential, stab at the matter [in 23], I can only conclude that, either A.: You concede the point, or B.: Despite the massive amounts of time you devote to the computer, to texts and to search engines, you have yet to find evidence to refute my denial of your claim, or C.: The question simply does not interest you, so you ignore it.
When I indicated in 26 the reasoning behind my dissatisfaction with your [un-]responsive comments of 23, instead of replying to 26 with a rebuttal, you, in effect, changed the subject: by launching [28] into an unfocused assault on the historicity of Jesus [which you have clung to for dear life ever since, like a security blanket], which attack you accompanied with a brief and pediatric discussion, at the time, of the meaning of “moshiakh” — both issues unrelated, in any direct sense, to the question per se of idolatry in Islam and Christianity.
I don’t find the assertion of Christ’s historical ‘non-existence’ as having value or substance or potency; not for myself. [It simply isn't, and never has been, interesting to me, as a matter of pursuit -- in the way that the question of Muslim and/or Christian idolatry is.] So I have no need to attempt to unearth (or construe) further evidence for or against the proposition.
If you do, then mazal tov; I wish you well with it. No problem. And if you do come to suspect that you’ve found something noteworthy — and probative — then, by all means, do show it to me & I’ll be happy to have a look at it, if I get a spare moment. But my time at the computer [a couple of clocked, separated, one-hour-long sessions per week, at most] is far more limited than yours, Yamit, and I pursue what interests me.
You see, the fact of the matter is that — contrary to Rongrand’s oblique and mistaken insinuations in 34 & 43 — I truly don’t ‘preach,’ and have no compulsion to influence, to ‘win converts’ or to otherwise change minds, etc.; not even a little bit. Never have; it’s not my style. My ego doesn’t need it.
Of course, judging from your obsession with the subject, it would appear that yours does.
ONE MORE THING, before the clock catches me and I have to close out this session. I really have to make the following observation — one that I have been putting off for some time now, because I’ve always tried to make a disciplined practice of refraining from speculating aloud if even the slightest possibility exists that such could spill over into the asserting — or inferring — of false, defamatory or purely imaginary ‘allegations.’
It is clear to me, however, that there is no longer a reason for hesitation. What I say here, therefore, is carefully and soberly considered:
Your erudition, Yamit, suggests a person who reads a lot.
And writes a lot. (Or blogs a lot, anyway.)
Maybe even teaches a lot.
But I don’t think you understand a lot.
Assuming that such is, in fact, the goal of your scholarly labors.
You probably don’t get told that a lot….
You’ve likely got credentials out the wazoo, and enough degrees to make yourself a bowl of alphabet soup.
Your top-heavy reservoir of learning, no doubt, intimidates many who might be otherwise inclined to challenge you — though, altogether candidly, I personally find little to be overawed at.
[However disagreeable my tone may be sounding at this point, I'm honestly not trying to be rude, though I realize I am being quite blunt. And I'm just getting started.]
If I patiently plod through the mounds of verbiage you routinely crank out, I will, per occasion, find here or there a living nugget that will provoke further inquiry; and I always welcome — indeed I delight over — those little insights and discoveries.
But that’s more because I’m receptive to truth (from any quarter: yes, even from those who insist on making themselves my adversaries), than it is because you’ve actually stumbled onto something lively. [As they say, even a broken clock gets the time right, twice a day, every day.]
Quite candidly, most of what I see in your writing, Yamit, as well as in your prognostications (even the non-sanctimonious ones), is dry-as-dust, long-ago-overworked, and all-too-often, tiresomely shallow.
Moreover, I can’t help reflecting that, on some (perhaps less-than-altogether-conscious) level, you relate to your massive learning as a personal possession – also as an implicit bludgeon with which to control your associates and bully potential opponents — rather than as a vehicle for discovery of truth.
I may be mistaken, Sir, but I don’t think your exclusively intellectual approach to God gives you much joy. Seems more like a compulsion for you. [If you do think I'm reading you wrong, say so; I'm listening.]
I rather strongly suspect that your knowledge — far from facilitating your understanding — actually, as often as not, stands in the way of that understanding. It’s as if your cerebral “hard drive” were packed so full of “RAM” that it left no space for interior creative ferment and the resultant seykh’l that might consequently issue forth.
IF YOU ARE genuinely as fond of Solomon as you purport to be, then might I suggest, with all due respect, that you “take a page,” as it were, from the discerning monarch himself: who, you’ll recall, had occasion to observe that “[o]f the making of books, there is no end, and much learning is a weariness of the flesh.” [Ec 12:12]
As you’ll recall, he acknowledges that, though he “sought wisdom” [here referring to intellectual more than philosophical or contemplative pursuits], it had brought him only “sorrow” and “vexation of spirit. [1:16-18]. Moreover, he explicitly counsels a man to not “make thyself over-wise” [7:16] –i.e., to go easy on strictly scholarly endeavors.
Plainly, if he were the “wisest of all men,” in our modern sense of the word “wise,” he would not have made so many mistakes — and he made a truckload of them. Some quite grievous and terribly far-reaching, as you know.
Solomon had a world-class mind with a protean intellect, which he cultivated and honed to an impressive degree; but in the end, he had to admit to its utter inadequacy: It simply couldn’t take him where he wanted to go, and the realization of that hard fact left him terribly depressed, indeed devastated.
I’d be the last person in the world to suggest that the intellect is of no value. Quite the contrary, the intellect has an entirely legitimate place and function — however, it is a self-contained faculty: incapable of taking itself outside of its own limitations, and one which, therefore, has no potential for direct perception of the Divine.
This is because the intellect by its nature is “masculine” [i.e., active], and the soul (of man or woman) is always properly “female” [i.e., receptive] in its stance before God: the Prime Mover (and All-Knower), and ultimately the only true Male. (All the rest of us are, in a sense, only symbols: made in His image. And forever tempted to play at being Him, sometimes in the name of — among other things — “activism.”)
Intellect and intuition are simply designed to complement each other. You cannot rely on just the one or just the other (any more than you can rely on only one leg, or only the other, to walk); they’re intended to operate in tandem. Until you are willing to open yourself to the leading of ha-ruakh ha-kodesh on a regular and recurrent basis, your intellectual pursuits will never take you out of the mental cul-de-sac in which you are plainly mired.
Yes, I realize this all may well be coming across to you as just so much gobbledy-gook. But I can’t help that. I plant my seeds and I pray that Av Ha-Rakhamim may see fit to make them germinate in His own good time.
What’s more, I suggest to you that those through whose personal agency the Scriptures were first committed to writing for posterity were rendered capable of being appropriate vehicles for the transmission of God’s Word, in part because they were receptive to that leading –and were willing to endure the interior humiliation that such receptiveness always brings.
It only makes sense, then, that one who — like yourself — makes a point of seeking to understand prophecy, could not but profit from a similar mien and perspective, if only to more closely align himself with the mindset and outlook of the writers; yes?
[Just a thought; take it or leave it, as you please.]
dweller thanks for your candor re: your opinion of my personal attributes which of course I will neither concede nor rebut. You are certainly welcome to your own as i am to mine.
What I did dweller is to challenge your stated positions mostly based on texts and scripture that you yourself claim belief in. So far you have taken this discussion as far away from direct rebuttal to my source based contentions and opted to instead discuss immaterial (to this discussion)subjects including personal opinions of me and generalizations about Biblical events and Characters I mentioned. Opinion you are entitled to but for rebuttal we need evidential source material even if it is second and third hand. In this you have failed, (come up short) of rebutting or refuting any of my stated contentions particularly those that may have been in direct conflict with your stated beliefs.
The Rambam states in Yad Hazaka, Sefer HaMada’ Hilkhot De’ot, (1:5) the following:
It is natural for a man’s character and actions to be influenced by his friends and associates and for him to follow the local norms of behavior. Therefore, he should associate with the righteous and be constantly in the company of the wise, so that as to learn from their deeds. Conversely, he should keep away from the wicked who walk in darkness, so as not to learn from their deeds.
Solomon said: He who walks with the wise will become wise, while one who associates with fools will suffer. [Mishle 13:20] And it is said: Happy is the man who has not followed the advice of the wicked. [Tehillim 1:1]
A person who lives in a place where the norms of behavior are evil and the inhabitants do not follow the straight path should move to a place where the people are righteous and follow the ways of the good.
If all the places with which he is familiar and of which he hears reports follow improper paths, as in our times, or if he is unable to move to a place where the patterns of behavior are proper, because of gangs of raiding troops, or for health reasons, he should remain alone in seclusion as it states: Let him sit alone and be silent. [Eikha 3:28]
If they are wicked and sinful and do not allow him to reside there unless he mingle with them and follow their evil behavior, he should go out to caves, thickets, and deserts so as not to follow the paths of sinners as it says: Who will give me a lodging place for wayfarers, in the desert. [Jeremiah 9:1]
The Jewish people have today a unique opportunity. Am Yisrael has before it the path that can either lead it to the fulfillment of the 3500 year idea, that of doing the will of G-d, or the path that leads nowhere. The path that leads nowhere is not simply a euphemism for a journey into the unknown, but rather it is a description of the road that destroys, day by day, what is, within the human context, the understanding of G-d. The definition of the desecration of G-d’s name is found on this path, the wrong path. By following the latter path the Jewish people not only creates the Hillul Hashem [desecration of G-d's name], but it exhibits disdain for the memory of each and every past generation that sought out the truth of human existence and martyred themselves for the idea of Torah. What can the Jewish people possibly know of itself other than its own purpose through revelation? We cannot escape what is our obligation. We have no right to reject that with which G-d has blessed us. It is time that Jews act as Jews by coming to grips with that which is their obligation, Torah Judaism. This of course does not include you or those like you. Never!
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, stressed:
Without Torah there is no civic order, and without civic order there is no Torah. Without wisdom there is no fear of G-d, and without fear of G-d there is no wisdom. Without knowledge there is no intelligence, and without intelligence there is no knowledge. Without food there is no Torah, and without Torah there is no food. [Mishna Avot 3:20]
Dweller in a nut shell and in summation; If a Jew is to accept one tenant of the Torah, he must, in order to be logically consistent, accept the whole of Torah. Likewise, if a person is to accept that he is Jewish then he must define this concept upon viable and authentic Jewish sources and render precise his own actions accordingly. Any other alternative to this is something other than Judaism. That is, a person may, given free-will, live according to what is right in his own eyes, however, he must be rationally forced to understand that it is of his own devise and should be so called as such. No matter to whom you were born your belief in Jesus even as a Messiah puts you beyond the pale of Judaism and based on what you have said and intimated It is probably much more than you admit here in this discussion as you have given us enough hints despite your many disclaimers.
Lastly except to state that I am wrong that Islam however abominable their beliefs is not according to Jewish Law idolatrous. You say yes it is! Show us?
I’d be the last person in the world to suggest that the intellect is of no value. Quite the contrary, the intellect has an entirely legitimate place and function — however, it is a self-contained faculty: incapable of taking itself outside of its own limitations, and one which, therefore, has no potential for direct perception of the Divine.
G-d gave each and every one of us a brain. So that we may know good and evil and to reject evil. All things learned come from that innate human Characteristic. Based on Human limitations like longevity we can never become G-ds but we have the potential to become like G-d by doing G-d’s will through his ordinances (Mitzvot) “And You Shall Be As Gods” Gen 3:5
5. For God knows that on the day that you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like angels, knowing good and evil.”
Rashi:
For God knows: Every craftsman hates his fellow craftsmen. He [God] ate of the tree and created the world (Gen. Rabbah 19:4).
and you will be like angels: Creators of worlds. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ch. 13]
7. And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves and made themselves girdles.
Rashi:
And…were opened: Scripture is referring to wisdom, and not to actual vision, and the end of the verse proves this. — [from Gen. Rabbah 19:7]
and they knew that they were naked: Even a blind man knows when he is naked! What then is the meaning of “and they knew that they were naked” ? They had one commandment in their possession, and they became denuded of it.
fig leaves: That is the tree of which they had eaten. With that which they had sinned, they were rectified, but the other trees prevented them from taking their leaves. — [from Ber. 40a, Sanh. 70b] Now why was the tree not identified? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not wish to grieve any creature, so that [others] should not put it to shame and say, “This is [the tree] because of which the world suffered.” (Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma, Vayera 14, Buber 32).
12. And more than they, my son, beware; making many books has no end, and studying much is a weariness of the flesh.
And more than they, my son, beware: more than the uprightness of the words of truth, the words written in the aforementioned books.
my son, beware: to observe the words of the Sages. Now if you ask, “If they are necessary, why were they not written down?”
making many books has no end: If we would attempt to write, we would be unable to do so.
and studying much is a weariness of the flesh: And if he comes to memorize large amounts, more than the heart can grasp, that is weariness to man, but let one not say, “Since I cannot complete the work, why should I begin?” But…
Since you quote Kohelet 12:12 try 13 and 14 as well:
13. The end of the matter, everything having been heard, fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the entire man.
The end of the matter, everything having been heard, fear God: What you can, do, and let your heart be to Heaven.
and keep His commandments, for this is the entire man: Because, for this matter, the entire man was created.
14. For every deed God will bring to judgment-for every hidden thing, whether good or bad.
For every deed: that a person performs, God will bring to judgment. Therefore, ma-asei is vowelized with a “pattah,” [meaning a “seggol”], and the cantillation sign is above, since it is not connected to the name [of God].
for every hidden thing: even for the unintentional sin.
whether good or bad: even if he stumbled in [the performance of] a commandment, such as giving charity to a poor man in public [causing him embarrassment].
The end of the matter, everything having been heard, fear God, etc.:
dweller sorry for skipping around as my brain sometimes gets stuck having to reread after delays of a day or two what you said and what I said and I am afraid by accident and neglect I did pass over some of your points but that was unintentional on my part. You are right we started this conversation with my commnents re: Islam and if it is an idolatrous beleif. I said no based on Jewish sources and you said yes based on no sources other than your own opinion. Fine you are entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong.
My intent in entering this thread [as I have already, once before, reminded you] was to show that, contrary to your claim in 6 — which maintains that Islam is “not idolatrous,” and (by implication) that Christianity is – the reality is in fact, at its essence, precisely the reverse.
Here again you state your opinion nothing more? Show us the Muslim idol worship?
Are you quite sure about that, Yamit?
While the word “Islam” translates as “submission,” the question arises: Whom do Muslims want the world to ’submit’ to? Yes, yes, they will say, “to Allah,” of course. [What would you expect them to say?] But even if they have persuaded themselves that that is what they believe, the inescapable fact remains that the viciousness of both their conduct and their pronouncements suggests that they seek the world’s submission not to God but to MUSLIMS. And that goes for the “quiet” ones as well as the jihadi mushuganehs.
I suggest to you, with all due respect, that, although Islam may pride itself on its opposition to idolatry, that it is in fact the ultimate idolatry
This is not an argument but an opinion based only on your narrow reasoning but not on Judaisms understanding of Islam. Look they don’t agree that your Jesus guy was either God the son or the messiah but they do grant him Phrophetic status which is more than we do. You should I think be more sympathetic to their beliefs than ours after all you both somehow recognize your Jesus guy as at least above the ordinary Human persona. Birds of a Feather?
Since your sole reply to my assertion of 22 consisted of an at-best, rote and perfunctory, and, at worst, off-point and tangential, stab at the matter [in 23], I can only conclude that, either A.: You concede the point, or B.: Despite the massive amounts of time you devote to the computer, to texts and to search engines, you have yet to find evidence to refute my denial of your claim, or C.: The question simply does not interest you, so you ignore it.
Actually it doesn’t interest me a whole lot but I suggest you read Spencer, he wasn’t very kind to poor Mohamed, as a matter of fact quite critical but viewing Islam as an insane belief creed and even an abomination does not mean I agree with the point of view that they are in fact idolatrous. Two different concepts here. Now I do view everything to do with the Jesus cult as not only an abomination but idolatry as well.
It wasn’t me who got started on the discussion of Jesus and Christianity dweller it was you. I only threw a few acorns your way and you gobbled them up, didn’t it seems even bury a few for winter. I find your phony usage of Christian transliterated Hebrew amusing, and have not commented on it so far but as I said I am on to you and you do relate to the J guy as a deity as well as a messiah. Either way you are trolling in an insidious manner and it won’t work here, but I can suggest where you might find a more receptive audience. I won’t though. I think I outlined why we Jews can never accept you J as either a god or a messiah, I didn’t expect rebuttal or comment on that from you as what can you say to the truth. You silence on the matter speaks volumes. Was you who said that you plant seeds was it? Well I through you acorns and what have you come back with? Pseudo Freudian descriptions of me.
You mentioned Christ several times and we both know what that means. So you have already admitted that you are a follower of Christ real or imagined. By definition that would make you a Christian. You can’t be a Christian Jew. That’s an oxymoron and a Christian invention, any more than a woman can be half pregnant. But wait Christians believe in virginal birth. You forgot to mention as well which part of the Jewish and Christian Bibles you accept and which parts you reject. You can’t have it both ways. Truth will always trounce lies.
Which one of us holds the truth and which the lies? I hope there are better advocates of J than you. By the way one of the major differences between Christianity & Judaism is Judaism is ego supportive and elevating while dour Christianity like Zen seeks to suppress the human ego. To my mind that is to dehumanize. A suggestion: Try having sex with feeling next time.
dweller sorry for typos I think faster than I type and am afraid to edit as I have been marked as spamer lately when I try to edit, so I left them this time.
[Dweller]: “Wrong; the sequel is rarely as good as the orignal [an important correction]. Depends on the author, really…”
[Yamit]: “Bad analogy…”
Blame yourself for that, Yamit — you chose the metaphor, back at the beginning of 40: “The sequel is never as good as the original” — your words. I just picked up the ball you threw at me, and ran with it.
Your discussion of the utter uniqueness of Judaism in 61 was apt, perceptive and well put. I find no quarrel with what you wrote there, other than perhaps to note that that exceptionality does not, of itself invalidate all or any of the other ‘religions.’ That is to say, if they are invalid, it is not simply because they lack the specific uniqueness of Judaism. The revelation at Sinai to the entire nation was a function of the Almighty’s intention to (quite literally) call into being an entire nation — “am zuyoh’tzarti li” [Yish 43:21] — for the accomplishing of His plan.
Yet the other world-religions might, for example, conceivably have their own unique — and divinely-ordained– purpose in being; if so, then the circumstances attendant to such a uniqueness might well require a different, even non-group-originated, paradigm of revelation. And yes, it might well be “esoteric.” [Yes, of course, I'm speculating; told you, I do lots of it.] In the main, I leave the other faiths, for the present, an open question.
I say, “in the main,” because there are some which are very obviously invalid. The “Religion of Peace,” in my (anything-but-humble) opinion, is one of them: not least because of its intrinsic paradigm of violence, conquest, gratuitous cruelty, triumphalism — and unrelenting intent (from Day One, and ever since) upon imposing itself on the world. Islam is kind of, like, ‘the original Borg’ ["You will be assimilated; resistance is futile, etc"] — but God wants volunteers, not conscripts.
Anyway [and not to be beating a dead horse], it’s good to know that you implicitly recognize that there is indeed a place for “hearsay evidence” — since that’s essentially what each succeeding generation of Jews has received from the previous one in regard to what was, in fact, actually experienced by only the one which stood at the foot of Har Sinai in the late 14th century BC.
At all events, however, I have never endorsed, implied or conceded — by assertion or by silence — the proposition that it was ever the intention of Ha-Nitzri to found a ‘new religion.’ To be sure, somebody with as penetrating an awareness of human nature as he seems to have had might well have realized that it would ultimately come to that. Still, it has always seemed to me that, cosmically speaking, his actual mission lay elsewhere [that is, that that mission was of a different nature altogether -- and that, in this respect at least, not only Jews but also self-professed "Christians" are selling him short].
Thus, your attempt to clump (what came to be called) “Christianity” with the other ‘non-Judaisms’ — while undeniably interesting as a line of discourse — is, from my perspective anyway, essentially irrelevant.
Of course, having read the NT, as you say, “3-4 times cover to cover, and lots in between” [40], you are aware that Christ himself [call him "X," if it'll keep you from wincing] never called anybody a “Christian,” a “Messianic,” etc. [He clearly isn't attributed, in the gospels, with ever having called anybody a "Christian," etc.] Those who loved him, he called his friends. [e.g., Jn 15:15]
Paul was never mentioned by G-d. Nor was Jesus.
Ooh; undt vass you dere, Sharlie?!
They certainly were never “mentioned” by God in Tanakh, as it was completed [its writing was completed] before their time. Surely, however, you would not presume to say that everything that God has ever “mentioned” to anybody about anything, or about anybody, is recorded there (or, necessarily, even recorded at all)?
For that matter, why should it be assumed that there will never be found any further record of what God has “mentioned,” that is presently hidden, lost, or available but damaged beyond the (present) sophistication of technology to restore to legibility, etc.? Surely you would not think His utterances, or anything else about Him, to be so easily confined? “The heavens are My throne, the earth is my footstool; so where is the house that you can build for Me?” [Yish 66:1]
Re post 63:
“You will do them”
The quotation marks are YOURS. Who will do what? What are you talking about? Would it be too much to ask for just a little coherence here? Give me a clue; indulge my sluggish wit.
no ands, ifs or buts but clear concise simple Hebrew!!
Again I must ask you to kindly marshal your thoughts before engaging the keyboard. What are you talking about here? Perhaps you’d care to re-read what you wrote? What about “clear, concise, simple Hebrew?”
You betray yourself as a messianic fraud ea. time you attempt to keep to your fraudulent masquerade.
Define, please, the following terms, as you use them [at least so we'll be "on the same page" while you're cussing me out]: “messianic,” “fraud,” “masquerade.”
Because honestly, Yamit, I am not aware of having hidden — or having wanted to hide, or needed to hide — anything from you, or from anybody else, in the course of these discussions. If you believe otherwise, you’re going to have to spell it out for me — since I seem to be really slow on the uptake here. Meanwhile, I repeat what I said in 33: “[I] neither have, nor have ever had, any affiliation with, or other connection to, any group with an ax to grind in these matters. I try to do my own thinking.” Do you really think I’d lie about something like that? Exactly what sort of “fraudulent masquerade” do you believe I’m perpetrating (or attempting)?
There are so many contradictions of what Paul said that if it is difficult for you, me and others more learned than us…
I have already suggested to you that something other than the purely cognitive faculties is needful here, though I’m hardly so short-sighted as to expect you to relate to the proposition purely because I raise the issue; for what it’s worth, I sympathize with your perplexity. In some ways, ironically enough, you remind me of Sha’ul [the pre-Damascus Road Paul]; that’s not a putdown — though I suppose that, given your mindset, you’ll feel constrained to take it that way.
[Paul]…[a] cheap antisemitic Charlatan of a politician…
[you are an]…apologist for such a vile creature as Paul…
So I’m an “apologist” for Paul, then, simply because I agree to answer your questions about him? [Better that I should have kept quiet altogether? After all, how better to maintain the "masquerade" than to keep silent?] I remind you that it was yourself, not me, who brought up the subject of Paul in this thread; at 40, I think. It’s hardly as if I “pushed” him (or what I understand him to be about) on you, or on anybody who’s still bothering to read our exchanges.
Evidence, please, of his “antisemitism”; also that he was a “vile creature.”
Certainly there are such things as “Jewish antisemites.” Antisemitism — Jew-hatred, Judeopathy, Judeophobia, etc. — is not an exclusive club that discriminates against Jews: anybody can join history’s great, Jew-hating fraternity. Yea, verily, even a Jew; as demonstrated by a long succession of such — from Wilhelm Marr (the half-Jew who first coined the term “antisemite”) to Lassalle to Marx, Karl Kautsky, Abram Leon, et al.
But these seem to have been primarily either apostate Jews or the children of opportunistically baptised parents. And Paul was never an apostate: having gone directly from being a believing, “conventional” Jew, to being a believing, Nazarene Jew — with no lag period in-between. I’ve yet to see evidence of Paul’s ‘paying any dues’ to the club of antisemitism; nor yet seen evidence that he was “vile” — antisemitically, or generically, or in any other way, ‘vile.’ Sorry, but if the man did have any such pathology, I have yet to see it.
…you do know you just cherry pick only what serves your purposes.
News Flash [since you apparently never got the bulletin]: Everybody cherry picks, Yamit — even those of us who don’t know themselves well enough to see that they do…. Not that there is necessarily something wrong with cherry-picking, per se. It CAN be a means of separating what is essential from what is extraneous, superficial or distracting. In any event, I’ve already told you, in 78, that I “cherry pick”: “I pursue what interests me.” And my conscience — a very active conscience, as it happens — is clean-as-a-whistle in that regard; squeaky clean.
As to what “serves [my] purposes” — I’ve already asked you (above) what you understand my “purposes” (apparently nefarious, or at least in some way, covert, no doubt) to be. I’ll be awaiting your answer to that direct question.
At the beginning of Christianity, it’s estimated that roughly 10% of the population of the Roman Empire were Jews and I would have to assume a large part were converts who had no problem fathoming Judaism.
That would be an enormous assumption you’d be making, Old Boy, unless you have reason to believe that you know, specifically and of a certainty, what the conversionary process consisted of at the time — as compared, certainly, with what it’s like now (or in any other era): not least, in view of the fact that Judaism itself was focused upon, and oriented largely around, Beit HaMiqdahsh until 70, and a lot of the records and other writings concerning sacerdotal (and other) matters would have been destroyed with the Temple itself.
“For most such converts, the precise mechanism by which they became Jewish is not known…” [Martin Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (Knopf, NY, 2007), p. 161] Emphasis, of course, on the word, “most” — as Goodman does cite the anomalous example of the Adiabene conversions of Izates & Helena, as annotated by Josephus, but Goodman also [correctly] remarks that “[Josephus'] conversion narrative itself gives no indication at all by whose authority they had become Jewish…” [emphasis added] [p. 163]
Moreover, “[s]tories of the mass conversion to Judaism of the Idumaeans in the 120’s BCE, or of the Ituraeans in the Galilee in 104-103, presuppose that the High Priest, who was responsible for the proselytization of these gentiles, had the power to turn them by fiat into Jews…” [emph. add] [Ibid.]
More significant, I would submit, in ANY case, is Goodman’s observation that, “[u]nlike Roman identity, Jewish identity was, it seems, to some extent a matter of personal self-identification. In essence, Izates was a Jew primarily because he thought of himself as a Jew…” [emph. add] [Ibid.] Add to this the fact that “Jews varied in their ways of interpreting the Bible more in the first century CE than in any other time in Jewish history until the emergence of Reform and Liberal Judaism in Europe in the nineteenth century.” [emph. add] [p. 166]
Goodman may not constitute the be-all & end-all of scholarly exploration of the subject, but he’s no slouch either. I renew my musing from an earlier post: Taking the gospel to the far reaches of the Empire would have necessitated dealing with peoples who had no clue as to what it was like to be a Jew.
And what laws do you suppose we might disagree about?
I’ll give you an EXAMPLE, not that it’s intended, by any means, to be the only one I could offer:
It’s absurd to think that someone not raised in (or otherwise familiar with) Eretz Yisrael — and specifically in the post-Exodus period — could possibly have been familiar with the imagery, let alone the significance, of “seething a kid in its mother’s milk.” This was a Canaanite practice encountered by Bnai Yisrael upon entering the Land.
What would a Laplander know about that?
How would persons unacquainted with the post-Exodus, cultural conditions of the Land and its existing populace be expected to see a connection: between the deliberate abstention from what was considered a delicacy among the surrounding Canaanite clans, and the enjoinder to the new nation created at Sinai to maintain a compassionate attitude in their dealings with their fellow man — as symbolized in their relationship toward animals, and remembered every time they partook of food or performed any task
having to do with its serving, storage or preparation?
How would a Laplander put that together (unless by sheer happenstance there existed a similarly-prepared dish in Laplander cuisine)? How would he be constantly thus reminded of the directive’s intent by forever refraining to mix milkhic with flaishic? Keeping dairy meals entirely separate from meat meals would have seemed to him only a mindless, arbitrary and unnecesssarily burdensome restriction. And the fact that keeping to such a practice also aided & facilitated in maintaining group identity and cohesion among B’nai Yisrael, as distinct from their neighbors, would have likewise meant nothing to him.
But candidly, Yamit, I think the more substantive question here is what laws you take seriously. For example, the following:
“You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.” [Sh'moht 23:1]
“Keep yourself far from a false matter.” [Sh'moht 23:7]
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” [Sh'moht 20:13 (alt. 20:16)]; [D'vorim 5:17 (alt. 5:20)]
You have made a truly vile — and unsupported — accusation in 56 against the Nazarene Jews in the Bar Kokhva Revolt. Whether or not you concede the material historicity of HaNitzri, you cannot deny the physical existence of ‘his’ Jewish adherents at the time of the insurgency — nor can you deny that you unambiguously defamed their memory viciously and intemperately in 56: by, essentially, accusing them of treason against Am S’gooloh.
Had there existed the thinnest, barest, tissue of evidence to buttress your hideous charges, Yamit, you would not have hesitated to display it instantly (even gleefully) when I challenged you on it in 60 — and you know it. You may call the Nazarene Jews of the period minim, if you like (not very convincingly, I think, but, nonetheless), without harm.
But to, in effect, characterize them as meshumaddim? — There you cross the line: from matters of personal inclination and affinity — into matters of justice and elemental fairness.
Accordingly, if you cannot document your claim with corroborating evidence, then you dishonor not only yourself but also the Jewish People — to say nothing of the Ninth Commandment itself — for as long as you fail to retract the bald and slanderous allegation. That’s the bottom line here.
Your moment-of-truth has arrived, Yamit: Let’s see what you’re made of.
To the pagan world and their descendants, like yourself
Oh, come off it, Shy. You wouldn’t recognize a ‘pagan’ if one bit you. You just use the word as a crude weapon to fend off your personal insecurities and give yourself a half-assed sense of belonging.
Look, I already told you: You’re safe where I’m concerned. You can stay Shy as long as you like, and I won’t go after you. But you’ve still gotta start growing up. These cheap shots don’t make it; they aint workin’ for you.
“The earliest Christian generation in Jerusalem consisted almost entirely of Jews. These people believed in Jesus as the Messiah, but saw themselves as true Jews. The book of Acts of the Apostles makes it clear that the first Jewish Christians went to the Temple in Jerusalem, attended synagogue services, and wanted to remain Jews. There were tensions with mainstream Jews, who looked askance at the belief that a crucified person was the Messiah. There was, however, no breaking point or even a discussion of excommunicating the Jewish Christians.
“The situation changed slowly in the second generation of Christians. This was directly related to the missionary activities of people like the Apostle Paul and his collaborators. Their vision was that ‘salvation,’ as they called it, was intended by God not only for the Jewish people but also for others. They began to preach their message to non-Jews outside the Land of Israel as well.
“These earliest missionaries wanted to facilitate the entrance of non-Jews into the growing Christian community. They therefore began to downgrade the Torah (the Pentateuch) and its commandments. Later they started to toy with the idea that, if God wanted non-Jews to be part of the community as well, the commandments of the Torah should be solely for the Jewish members. That gave rise to the first tensions between Jewish and gentile Christians.”
“Later on, as is also made quite clear in the New Testament, gentile Christians began to claim that their communities were the true Israel. They asserted that in neglecting many of the Torah’s commandments, they-and not the Jews-knew what God wanted from His people. The issues of the centrality and the remaining value and validity of the Torah were among the first reasons for tensions. Here one sees the beginnings of a split between Judaism and Christianity.
“With this came the beginning of anti-Jewish sentiments in Christianity. It was also aggravated by a second factor. In the same period, perhaps in the second and certainly in the third generation of Christians-by the end of the first century of the Common Era-they began to explicitly call Jesus God. He, as a Jew, had never done so. In the four chronologically latest books of the New Testament, Jesus is called God, though only incidentally. These documents are all from around the turn of the first to the second century: the Gospel of John, the Epistle of the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, and the so-called Epistle of Titus.
“In the Gospel of John it is clear that this is going to be a breaking point between Jews and Christians. The Gospel’s author has Jews saying about Jesus, ‘He makes himself equal to God.’ We have to interpret this to mean that it is the Christians who are equating Jesus with God.
“From a Jewish viewpoint this is terrible. Once the Christians began to declare Jesus as equal to God, the core of Jewish monotheism was in danger. The Jewish leaders decided that they could no longer live under one roof with this group, which led to the break. The Christians then claimed that the Jews said they had to throw Jesus’ followers out of the synagogue. That is not historical, because it was not said in Jesus’ time but probably later, in the time of the writer of the Gospel of John.”
“The Gospel of John is the only one to use the Greek word Aposynagogos. It means ‘thrown out of the synagogue’ and reflects the situation around the year 100 CE. Here one sees for the first time that Judaism and Christianity have split apart completely. It was probably in more or less the same period-which began after the year 70 CE-that the early rabbinical authorities inserted the additional benediction, the birkat haminim, into the Amidah [the main daily Jewish prayer].
“This birkat haminim consists of a curse of the heretics. Without doubt the Christians at this time held beliefs that contradicted Jewish religious precepts. They were heretics because they no longer lived according to the Torah and they regarded a human being as God. These two major factors caused the definitive split between Judaism and Christianity.
“There were some lesser reasons as well. One was that in the Jewish wars against the Romans in 66 and 132, the Christians did not fight against the Romans. The Jews reproached them for this.” It is my contention but with no historical proofs that the rebukes exceeded the verbal. Logic dictates that those who not only refused to fight and most probably sided with Rome against the rebelling Jews more than verbal rebukes seem to have been in order.Who the hell do you think the Sicarii killed? I offer: Jesus is reputed to have said: Render therefore unto Cesar the things which be Cesar’s; and unto God the things which be God’s. The Loyalkty of J and his followers thus were to the established Ruling authority which was Rome. Even the Hated Samaritans joined the fight but the Christians were either quite on the sidelines or actively engaged on the side of Rome. In either case they were traitors to the cause of Judaism and the Jewish people.
At the beginning of Christianity, it’s estimated that roughly 10% of the population of the Roman Empire were Jews and I would have to assume a large part were converts who had no problem fathoming Judaism.
Paul says in Rom. 3:1-2, “What advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Jewish law is still seen as an obstacle to the goals that Paul is trying to promote. And if law remains the fundamental problem for the apostle, then when he says “no longer Jew or Greek,” he must mean the eradication of Jewish law as the primary means of eradicating difference.
When Gal. 3:28 is read within its context in Galatians:
For in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.
Now you have audacity to still call a Jew?
Paul, who is already a member of Abraham’s family, is attempting to make his Gentile followers members of Abraham’s family, which essentially means they would become members of God’s family, with all the rights and privileges thereof. Notice that, while verse 28 ends with “for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” it is not the end of the story. Being “in Christ” is only the penultimate goal as Paul states it here. The purpose of being “in Christ” is that one then belongs to Abraham’s family. Christ is the means by which one becomes a member of the Abraham family.
(The end of Gal. 3:28 in P46 reads “for you are all in Christ.” I suspect that this reading of the verse could be more authentic, especially since the following verse continues with “And if you belong to Christ,” which is literally “And if you are in Christ. . .” Paul’s point is not that people are “one,” but that they are “in Christ,” which enables them to become children of Abraham)
Is this your point of view? Is this what you believe?
Some historical backround to give some context to my position:
The Temple was no more. Jerusalem had been conquered. Rome had asserted its might and crushed the Great Revolt of the Jews. Now there could be quiet.
Hardly.
Virulent anti-Semitism continued unabated in the Roman Empire, generated by the Hellenists Many of whom were early Christians or followers of J, not happy to leave well enough alone, seemed determined to pour salt onto Jewish wounds.
(This same need for overkill would be exhibited by later enemies of the Jews, who, having exterminated entire Jewish communities, and having no more Jews left to slaughter, would then go on to desecrate Jewish cemeteries and mutilate Jewish corpses.)
The level of hostility and mistreatment of the Jews escalated throughout the Roman Empire to the extent of becoming unbearable.
In response, the Jews revolted several times more. Each time thousands of their number were killed. As a result, the average Roman looked at every Jew as a person hostile to Rome. Jews were officially designated as having “enemy status”—dediticci in Latin.
When Publius Aelius Hadrianus, known to us as Hadrian, took the reigns of power in 117 CE, he inaugurated - at least at first - an atmosphere of tolerance. He even talked of allowing the Jews to rebuilt the Temple, a proposal that was met with virulent opposition from the Hellenists and early Christians.
Of course, the Jews in the Land of Israel had been crushed in the Great Revolt, and—at least, right after the destruction of the Temple—did not have the strength to fight. But we must remember that at this time, a considerable number of Jews were living outside Israel. In fact, historians estimate that there were about 5-7 million Jews living in the Roman Empire and at least 60% of that number were living outside the land of Israel. Places like Alexandria, Egypt (one of the most cosmopolitan cities of that era) alone had a Jewish population of about 250,000 and boasted the largest synagogue in the world.
Hadrian decided to spin around 180 degrees. Instead of letting the Jews rebuild, Hadrian formulated a plan to transform Jerusalem into a pagan city-state on the Greek polis model with a shrine to Jupiter on the site of the Jewish Temple.
Nothing could be worse in Jewish eyes than to take the holiest spot in the Jewish world and to put a temple to a Roman god on it. This was the ultimate affront. As bad as this was, the real cause of the revolt seems to have been Hadrian’s attempt to follow in the footsteps of the Selucid Greek Empire 300 years earlier by trying to destroy Judaism. Specifically he targeted Sabbath observance, circumcision, the laws of family purity and the teaching of Torah. An attack against such fundamental commandments of Judaism was bound to trigger a revolt-which it did.
Jewish outrage at his actions led to one of the single greatest revolts of the Roman Era. Simon Bar Kosiba led the uprising, which began in full force in 132 CE.
For many years, historians did not write very much about Simon Bar Kosiba. But then, archeologists discovered some of his letters in Nahal Hever near the Dead Sea. If you go to the Israel Museum you can see these letters and they are absolutely fascinating. Some of them pertain to religious observance, because his army was a totally religious army. But they also contain a tremendous amount of historical facts. We learn that the Jews participating in the revolt were hiding out in caves. (These caves have also been found - full of belongings of Bar Kosiba’s people. The belongings - pottery, shoes, etc. - are on display in the Israel Museum, and the caves, though bare, are open to tourists.)
From the letters and other historical data, we learn that in 132 CE, Bar Kosiba organized a large guerilla army and succeeded in actually throwing the Romans out of Jerusalem and Israel and establishing, albeit for a very brief period, an independent Jewish state. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 97b) states that he established an independent kingdom that lasted for two and half years.
Bar Kosiba’s success caused many to believe—among them Rabbi Akiva, one of the wisest and holiest of Israel’s rabbis—that he could be the Messiah. He was nicknamed “Bar Kochba” or “Son of Star,” an allusion to a verse in the Book of Numbers (24:17): “there shall come a star out of Jacob.” This star is understood to refer to the Messiah.
Bar Kochba did not turn out to be the Messiah, and later the rabbis wrote that his real name was Bar Kosiva meaning “Son of a Lie”—highlighting the fact that he was a false Messiah.
At the time, however, Bar Kochba - who was a man of tremendous leadership abilities - managed to unite the entire Jewish people around him. Jewish accounts describe him as a man of tremendous physical strength, who could uproot a tree while riding on a horse. This is probably an exaggeration, but he was a very special leader and undoubtedly had messianic potential, which is what Rabbi Akiva recognized in him.
Jewish sources list Bar Kochba’s army at 100,000 men, but even if that is an overestimate and he had half that number, it was still a huge force.
United, the Jews were a force to be reckoned with. They overran the Romans, threw them out of the land of Israel, declared independence and even minted coins. That is a pretty unique event in the history of the Roman Empire.
Bar Kochba made his final stand in the city of Betar, which is to the southwest of Jerusalem. You can go visit it today, thought ancient Betar has not been excavated. The Talmud (in Gittin 57a) relates what happened in Betar:
“They had the custom in Betar that when a baby boy was born they planted a cedar tree and for a baby girl they planted a pine tree, and when they would marry they would cut them down and make a marriage canopy of the branches. One day the daughter of Caesar was passing and the shaft of her litter broke. They cut down a cedar and brought it to her. The Jews of Betar fell upon them and beat them. They reported to Caesar that the Jews were rebelling and marched against them … they killed [Jewish] men, women and children until their blood flowed into the Mediterranean Sea … It was taught that for seven years the gentiles cultivated their vineyards with the blood of Israel without requiring manure for fertilization.”
The city fell on the saddest day in the Jewish calendar—the 9th of Av of the year 135, the same date as both the First and the Second Temple fell.
The Romans, in their fury, did not want to allow the Jewish bodies to be buried; they wanted to leave them out in the open to rot. According to tradition, the bodies lay in the open for months but did not rot. Today, when Jews say the Grace after Meals, Birkat HaMazon, they add a special blessing (ha tov u’mativ) as a way of thanking God for this act of mercy in Betar.
Exhausted, the Romans have had enough of the Jews who had caused them more manpower and material losses than any other people in the history of Empire. At the end of the Bar Kochba revolt, Hadrian decided that the way not to have another one is to cut off the Jews from connection to their beloved land.
At this point I believe is when Rome with the aid Hellenistic and Heretic Jews created the Jesus myth. They needed a peaceful compliant and obedient to Romes authority Jewish population. Especially those that remained in Judea.
No people had revolted more or caused the Romans greater manpower or material losses than the Jews. But they had done so at a great price to themselves as well.
The Roman historian Dio Cassius writes that over half a million Jews died in the fighting. Even if this figure is exaggerated, there is no doubt that hundreds of thousands of Jews did die and the country was laid low.
The Jewish challenge to Rome that had begun in 66 CE had lasted almost 70 years. How such a comparatively small group could take on the might of Rome over and over again and for so long is hard to fathom. But perhaps the answer lies in the reason behind the conflict.
It was not so much a fight over territory or property, as it was a fight over the very way of life. Monotheism and the laws of the Torah were so deeply ingrained in the Jews that any attempt to separate the people from the essence of Judaism was seen as the death of the very soul of the nation.
The Jews found reserves in themselves beyond normal human boundaries, like a mother who is capable of superhuman feats of strength to defend the life of her child.
In the end the Jews were crushed. And the Romans did everything in their power to make sure that they would stay crushed. They wanted to make sure that no Jew was ever in a position to rally his brethren again.
Their solution: separate the Jews from their land and possibly I believe the creation of a pacifistic religion within Judaism or it’s replacemenmt
Do you really believe those Jewish patriots would leave such traiterous Jews alone and Just fight Rome? Have you ever heard you are with me or agaisnt me? Clearly those early followers of J were in the Roman Camp and as such were fair game for retribution. Those Jews knew what retribution was all about not like today. Seems living under Christian Rule for 2000 years has had a strong influence on the Jews. A very dangerous one for many reasons.
I gather you accept and believe that J was The Messiah even though you ignored all of my reasons given why we believe he couldn’t be. So in a shortend form why do you think he was? This I think is the real crux of our on going and extremely long discussion which seems to be going around in circles evading this question. If you only accept this as an act of faith then we need not continue, if you have Jewish scriptural evidence and proofs that he is THE MESSIAH, then lets have it.
Accepting the gospels as they stand is an act of faith, not historical accuracy. The gospels as we have them were written perhaps three generations or so after the reputed death of Jesus. Bishop Papias, writing about 130 CE, does not know anything about the gospels of Luke and John. He does mention an account by Mark, but his description of it demonstrated that it was different from the one we have. And his description of Matthew’s account (in Aramaic, which few could understand) again seems quite different from our present version. The first mention of four gospels by name dates from the late 2nd Century BCE, and our earliest fairly complete texts come from the 4th Century BCE (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus).
We have about 55 different gospels available today, most rescued from ancient rubbish dumps. It is obvious that there were many more which did not survive, and therefore that most Christian communities had their own local gospels. The four we have today in the New Testament are the ones which proved most popular.
The first gospel is apparently the one ascribed to Mark, though we don’t know who wrote it. It did not incorporate the resurrection chapter in the 4th Century texts above: that was added later, appearing in the 11th Century Byzantine texts.
Matthew and Luke incorporated almost all of Mark into their texts, and added their own traditions which they had received from other sources. These two cannot agree on the birth story, Matthew dating it in King Herod’s time which probably means 6-7 BCE (Herod died 4 BCE), while Luke opts for Quirinius’ census of Judea in 6-7 CE to justify the Bethlehem story. Writing so long after the main participants had died, they had to collect whatever stories they could, and improvise other material from scriptual sources (eg compare Luke’s passion scene with Psalm 22 v15-16) and other historical and oral stories.
John is different - written probably by John the Elder of Ephesus, it draws on the memoirs of John the beloved disciple (different from John the Apostle) - if you read the text, it actually says that at the end. So here is different source material from the other three. All four have collected different traditions - they don’t even agree on the names of the twelve apostles.
So the four gospel accounts are late and composite. They are based on a plethora of second and third hand oral and written sources, and incorporate a central figure who is variously a king, a poor itinerant preacher, a magician and a revolutionary leader. There were several role models in contemporary Jewish stories of the first half of the 1st Century CE from which these different figures could be drawn a few generations later when the gospels as we know them were written.
As for Paul’s account, he did not know Jesus, and apart from some obvious later interpolations by another hand, regards him as a spiritual being, about whom he learnt from God (as he says in 2 Corinthians 12) in an out-of-world experience when he was lifted up to the third level of Heaven. About half of the letters ascribed to him are widely recognised as written by his successors.
I’ll give you an EXAMPLE, not that it’s intended, by any means, to be the only one I could offer:
It’s absurd to think that someone not raised in (or otherwise familiar with) Eretz Yisrael — and specifically in the post-Exodus period — could possibly have been familiar with the imagery, let alone the significance, of “seething a kid in its mother’s milk.” This was a Canaanite practice encountered by Bnai Yisrael upon entering the Land.
You are correct this was a pagan practice and I think all of the Laws of Kashrut were to separate Jewish customs from Pagan customs. That’s essentially what Judaism is about separation, in thought and deed from the gentile pagans. So we Jews could give a rats ass what Laplander might understand or not. We never sought to include them or you in our ways or our cultural and religious norms. Except for a brief flirtation of seeking converts under Hycranus that gave us later Herod; we ceased the practice lest we get more Herods in the bargain. not worth the effort I suppose. Anyway we know in the Messianic age all the gentiles left, will come to the Jews to show them the truth of the one true G-d.
Jews are not prohibited from eating pork specifically. The prohibition is a trivial consequence of the commandment, You shall not murder, which applies equally to humans and animals. Life is sacred, and murder is prohibited. Practical Judaism, however, recognizes that some killing is unavoidable. Sometimes, it is “kill or be killed,” and Judaism allows killing to save other lives. Jews can kill enemies and heinous criminals legally.
People have to eat meat. The moot issue of vegetarianism aside, people cannot live without meat. In order to save their own lives, people have to kill animals. Hence Judaism makes an exception for three or four animals from the general prohibition of murder.
It is not that some animals are prohibited for food. All animals are prohibited, but out of necessity an exception is made for three or four of them. A few other animals were included in the list of permitted animals later, and erroneously—they do not strictly satisfy the criteria about hooves and chewing. Jews don’t eat humans, just as they don’t eat horses, camels, deer, bears, pigs, and most other species.
Animals earmarked for food must be domesticated. People give them life to take it later. Judaism stipulates that animals must be killed painlessly. Murder—even of animals, even out of utter necessity—is still murder and must not be enjoyed; Judaism opposes recreational hunting.
The choice of permitted animals is not accidental. Cows, goats, sheep, and gazelles are the folklore examples of stupidity. If we have to kill some animals, at least kill the least intellectually advanced. Similarly, Judaism prohibits scaleless sea creatures. All fish have at least some scales, and even shrimp have a scale-like chitin cover. The only truly scaleless sea creatures are sea mammals. They are intellectually advanced, and humans should not kill them for food. Similarly, swarming creatures are prohibited. The swarming creatures par excellence are ants and bees, incredibly smart beings.
Similarly, creeping creatures are prohibited. Their prototype, the serpent, is the symbol of wisdom in Judaism and other cultures. Prohibition of pork has nothing to do with uncleanness. Horses are clean, but Jews do not eat them. Deer are nice, clean animals, yet prohibited for food. Jewish children can play with pigs in a zoo just as they would play with horses. Judaism prohibits murdering animals, not playing with them or using them. Drinking camel’s milk is okay for the Jews just like eating honey produced by non-kosher bees. Jews must not derive benefits from pigs murdered by others, particularly by wearing pig leather clothes. My interpretation differs from accepted rabbinical understanding. The real difference between the two religions is practicality. Judaism is practical while Christianity - idealistic. Social teaching of Judaism is based on negative reciprocity, Do not do unto your neighbor what is hateful to you. Christianity enhanced that rule just a bit, and made it impractical. Positive reciprocity, Treat your neighbor as yourself, especially when neighbor means everyone, is unworkable.
dweller re: conversion well we do have within our texts a pretty good idea:
The critical difference between us and Christians is who to consider a fellow man. Modern Christians unrealistically pronounce all people fellows, and surely fail to treat them as such. But their own parable of the Good Samaritan is instructive: even a despised Samaritan could be one’s fellow if the Samaritan helped him. Fellow is the one from whom help is expected. Such a definition surely excludes Canaanites and Palestinian Arabs from the commandment to love your fellow.
What is the love enjoined to our fellows? The context clarifies: “You shall not oppress your fellow” (19:13), “You shall not hate your brother” (19:17), and the 19:18: “You shall neither take revenge, nor restrain [yourself to take revenge later] at the children of your nation.” This, by the way, refutes the claims that human vengeance is prohibited in Judaism, but is the power of God only. Revenge is prohibited only against fellow Jews, on the double presumption of their general goodwill and efficient law enforcement. In such a society, revenge on the personal level was superfluous. But taking revenge on the enemies of Jews (even their distant offspring) is not merely a right, but an often-reiterated obligation: “a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:8).
The commandment of love concludes a list which parallels the Decalogue, and is therefore comparable to the prohibition of jealousy (Exodus 20:13).
The prescribed love to one’s fellow is the absence of hatred, vengeance, oppression, and jealousy. While gerim must not be oppressed, fellows must also not be hated. The Torah distinguishes between several circles of people: the closer is the circle, the more rights are accorded to it. Extended family, a closer circle, enjoys still more rights: one must respect his parents. One’s own family, the closest circle, awards generous rights to wives. Later on, when Hebrew society became strong and gerim were fully integrated, the commandment of love was expanded onto them (Deuteronomy 10:19); converts became treated strictly on par with native Jews.
The Torah prescribes, “The ger who resides among you in your land shall be for you like a native, and you shall love him just as you love yourself” (Leviticus 19:34). You cannot be more compassionate than that. But why the Torah, so short on words, reiterates, “in your land”? So that the ger absolutely recognizes the land as ours. And indeed the parallel Exodus 12:48: “And if a ger will reside with you, and will keep the Pesach to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised… he shall be like the native…” In order to be like a Jew, ger must be like a Jew: he must circumcise, keep Jewish customs, and to all purposes become a Jew. Then, sure enough, we must love him just as we love any Jew, including ourselves.
To summarize: In “You shall not oppress strangers” the Torah enjoins us against arbitrarily taking life or property of the submissive resident aliens who are loyal to Judaism. In “You shall love your fellow just as yourself” the Torah enjoins positive attitude toward one’s compatriots, the like-minded people only.
You really blew it here dweller: His [i.e., Paul's] mission to bring ethics of the fathers (perkei Avot) to the Gentiles(Pagans)?
Good grief, you are so thoroughly predictable, Yamit. When I wrote that phrase, I actually paused — for a full five minutes [a long time for me, given my limited computer hours] — to consider re-stating the point using different language.
It occurred to me, at the time, that it would be just like you to take the expression literally and jump at the opportunity for some lame “gotcha” judgment. But then I thought, “well, surely he would see that I hyphenated the expression, and left it uncapitalized; surely he will see that it was intended in a general sense, and not as a reference to the Pirke Ahvot.”
But just to be sure that there would be no ambiguity, I took a further step and added the phrase, “as it were” — the standard locution used to communicate that one intends that the immediately preceding phrase be taken figuratively, and not literally. [After all, I'd already USED the phrase "as it were," a few times, in earlier posts in this thread.] If you were really that hopelessly dense, then by seeing that device, you’d be certain to get the point, right?
Wrong.
Sure enough, you jumped on it like a dog on a bone, and in your unfailingly pedantic, reliably shallow way. What can I say? I should have trusted my own common sense with you, but — fool that I was — I resolved to keep an open mind where you were concerned. You are as predictable as clockwork, fella.
As to your comment that Judaism is not about “ethics” but about God’s singularity and man’s duty to love Him: It’s not “either-or” — it’s both. The two are inextricably intertwined, since man is not only God’s direct creation but also His express image; thus, what man does to (or for) man, he does likewise to God’s image, as well, in the doing.
The point I was making [that prompted your post 64] was that the problem confronting Paul was that the outer world (Greek civilization, specifically) to which he had to relate the gospel was one which (unlike that of the Jews) had, as yet, NO PREEXISTING CONCEPT of God’s oneness — the folkloric pantheon of Greek deities amounted to nothing more than a multiplicity of human projections, all characteristically flawed, invariably at odds w/ eachother, and unrelated in any way to moral behavior.
Yet Greek culture DID have a long tradition of philosophic speculation and ethical contemplation, albeit academic and unconnected with the power, wonder and purpose of the universe presided over by “the gods.”
Paul needed to introduce to such a culture the revolutionary notion that the one true God — who loves righteousness and mercy — is the very same God who shakes the mountaintops, colors the sunsets in glory and fills the human heart with tears and laughter. Since the Greek world DID have a history of ethical exploration, he used that as his point-of-entree in his quest to ACQUAINT that civilization with the God who revealed Himself to Avraham.
Explain how a lowly hated tax collector [Paul] was suddenly turned into a great Torah Scholar?
You’re obviously confusing Paul’s background with somebody else’s [possibly that of the disciple, Matthew, who HAD been a tax collector]. Paul was not a tax collector, but made his living as a tentmaker, and had a well-established reputation as a diligent and accomplished student of Rabban Gamaliel.
But you still haven’t yet responded to my challenge to you, to back up your (typically) reckless characterization of Paul as “antisemitic.” Don’t worry, though; I’m not holding my breath. I’ve already learned to know what to expect from you in response to a challenge to your vicious accusations….
[Dweller]: …I take him [Christ] seriously, though [in admonishing his disciples to "be perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect"] — even if they [self-professed "Christians"] don’t.
[Yamit]: This last paragraph totally betrays your innate Christianity. The use of the word Christ implies by definition who and what you are.
“Betrays” my innate Christianity? “Implies” who I am? You make my beliefs sound like they were a secret [and a deep, dark secret, at that] — and yourself, like a ‘Judge’ in the Inquisition.
Of course, the use of the word “Christ” indicates “who and what” I am. I should hope it would. I’ve told you time and again that I believe that HaNitzri is indeed the Messiah promised by God to the Jews, and promised likewise by the Almighty to the world: through the Jews. And “Christ” means Moshiakh.
So most definitely that makes me a “Christian” [duh!] — albeit hardly so in the conventional sense of the word, since I don’t subscribe — and never have subscribed, or ever will — to the Nicene Creed: which characterizes Christ as “God,” and which self-identified “Christendom” has used for the past 17 centuries as its ticket of admission.
But why would I ‘hide’ what I believe? I’m proud of it, blessed by it, and honored in it. It is my overwhelming delight. Why would I keep it a secret?
Of course your compulsive assumption that I’m part of some simple-minded (or sinister) “Messianic” outfit or cult invariably gets a giggle out of me (sometimes it’s more like a snort, or even a belly-laugh) each time you revisit that desperate fantasy. It really is hugely amusing — and in the most ironic of ways. I’ll tell you why:
The truth is that those folks would NEVER have anything to do with somebody like YoursTruly because I adamantly, vociferously and persistently deny the ‘divinity’ of Christ; it drives (some of) them right up the wall, because they are actually traditional, conventional Christians — albeit w/ matzot, knitted kipot, woollen taleisim, and other tchatchkes. The “Messianic” types that give you such a bad case of the willies state right up-front that they won’t even allow somebody on their blogsite, chatroom, etc., who holds such a view as to deny Jesus’ ‘deity.’
It’s ok, though. I don’t mind walking alone, if that’s where the Father leads.
I know the One who guides my steps, and who keeps His promises throughout all of time.
[Y]ou seem to have mastered the art and technique of sophistry and obsfucation
Neither, actually. There’s nothing to obfuscate. Nor have I the slightest use for sophistry. It’s not about either of those things. As I’ve told you before, it’s about INTEREST — actually disinterest, to be precise: boredom, if you will. I simply chose to communicate that fact in a gentle and courteous manner; I can’t help it if you insist on taking that for ‘obfuscation’ or ’sophistry.’ The subject you wanted me to discuss was never of interest to me, and I told you so, early-on. [Check the record; it's all there for the looking, boychik.]
You…attempted to redirect the question onto peripheral issues…
Obviously we disagree as to what is central, and what is “peripheral” (or even irrelevant), to our little exchange. You characterize my remarks as “obfuscation & sophistry” — but that’s just another way of telling us all that you have an overblown view of the significance of your own ideas.
I responded to a few of your questions in a sincere and thoughtful, though summary and perfunctory, way: purely as a courtesy to you . But I made quite clear, at the time, that I wasn’t about to let you manipulate my good will into an adolescent pissing contest. So if, as you say, you found those limited responses of mine “unconvincing” [as if your pre-primed outlook would ever permit you to be 'convinced' of anything that challenged it, anyway] — then you have only yourself to blame, Yamit.
Next time, you’d be better advised to take what you call your “acorns” and play marbles with them — either that, or leave them on the tree for the chipmunks. They may be easier for you to draw in.
I have a strong and well-grounded sense of myself, Yamit, and I never allow myself to be roped into discussions that hold no interest for me; you try to discount that with sarcasm, like, “nice technique” — but the truth is that [like some of those evangelistic types who come knocking at your door & get a little carried away with their product, and themselves] you just have a hard time taking “no” for an answer.
Of course that requires a certain kind of discipline, and I do hope that with time you’ll acquire it.
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah… For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), “He does not observe Shabbat!”
This is the best you can do with that? He responded to the charge by noting that haShabbat was made for man, not vice versa. Any one of those turkeys would have ‘violated’ haShabbat at the drop of a hat, by going after a sheep or goat that was lost or in trouble, and nobody would have bellowed, “sacrilege!” How much less ‘naughty’ would it be to heal a sick human being, or even save his life, on Shabbat! Pikuakh nefesh – the preservation of life — TRUMPS the Sabbath.
In fact, arguably, pikuakh nefesh CONFIRMS haShabbat.
BK was not the messiah BenDavid and not even the Messiah BenYoseph because he lost, period.
And that’s how you make your assessment? After the fact? — and based exclusively on pre-set, external criteria? That’s it? The ESSENCE of the proposition itself doesn’t enter into it? ‘He lost, so it couldn’t have been he’? End of discussion? C’est tout? Q.E.D.?
How curious. You think the same way the post-Nicene, ‘Christian fathers’ think: ‘God must have abandoned the Jewish People (and His eternal promises to them), since, after all, they lost their sovereignty. Q.E.D.’ — Right?
Same way that Muslims think, too: ‘The proof that Islam is the one true faith is the speed of its early spread and its continued rapid growth in numbers; obviously God looks on it with favor. Q.E.D.’ — Right?
This is all such self-serving, mush-head logic — fit most assuredly for no yiddisher kop, except perhaps one that resides eternally in the Land of Chelm…. Come to think of it, you and the Muslims and the ‘Christians’ — REMIND me of the Chelmer Khakhomim. Your thought processes follow the same pattern of far-kakh’de logic. Perhaps your brains and theirs are lodged in the same moist, warm place?
The statement that B-K wasn’t the Messiah “because he lost” is precisely 180 degrees bass-ackwards. The truth is that B-K lost because he wasn’t Moshiakh, and had no business billing himself (or letting himself be billed) as such — instead of simply fighting an otherwise legitimate war on its own terms and retaining its fullest possible base of support.
I repeat what I said in 47: It’s entirely conceivable to me that, handled differently [without the 'messianic' overlay], the B-K War could have been won. I suggest you think about that…. if you can bear to.
Your Jesus Guy is not the messiah either because The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
None of those, quite true; not yet. And if there were no persistent assertion [in both the Gospels and the Tanakh] of an anticipated return engagement, then you might have a case — since only some of the prophecies [albeit a goodly number of them] were fulfilled last time out. Given a second advent, however, your claim hangs, at best, suspended. You’re spinning your wheels, Yamit. Do you find time for physical exercise, BTW (for any muscles & ligaments apart from those in your typing fingers)?
In any case, you obviously assume that those four evidences of the Messiah [which you cite above] constitute his specific objectives. BUT THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW.
Indeed, I would submit that — though he will assuredly accomplish those things [the rebuilding of Beit HaMiqdahsh, the in-gathering of the Exiles, etc] — that they are themselves hardly his OBJECTIVES; they will merely be the most obvious EVIDENCES (among other indicators) of his work.
They will happen quite naturally as an outgrowth – a “bi-product,” if you will — of the completion of his mission.
Here is what we believe:
The Messiah is an individual who has attained such an exalted spiritual level as to be prepared to commune with G-d at any time.
As the leader and role model for all the human race, he will need to be capable of relating to and interacting with all nations, cultures, and individuals. He will be the perfect servant of G-d.
Oh, right: Moshiakh as super diplomat. Kissinger without the croak.
Except that — unlike the folks at the Tower of Bovel, who thought the same way as you — YOUR ‘messiah’ is somebody who actually will HAVE the capability to ‘pull himself up by his own bootstraps,’ and to “attain such an exalted spiritual level as to… commune w/ God.” Right, got it: Divine companionship as a function of completing an ‘Advanced Degree’ in ‘God Studies.’ Your grasp of the matter is so obviously pediatric, it’s embarrassing to behold.
The truth is that IF a finite person HAD within him the power or the authority or the understanding to “attain” such a “level,” then he would have never LOST said “level” in the first place — and wouldn’t need to “attain” it in the second. That power, authority and understanding to do the ‘attaining’ — and the “level” itself – would be WITH him from Day One of his existence, and would never leave him. Sorry, no sale. Something more is needed — and ‘attainment’ has nothing whatever to do with it. Back to Square One, Yahnkele.
As to your assertion that what you wrote immediately above constitutes “what we believe” — I will say this gently [though I am not at all certain that your chutzpadik presumptuousness MERITS gentleness]:
What you should have said was, ‘Here is what some of us believe.’
Some of us believe all of that, and that only.
Some of us believe none of that, but something else entirely.
Some of us believe some of that.
Some of us believe some or all of that, and more.
Fortunately for all of us, Jewish belief — having always been multifarious — has neither catechisms, nor magisteria (nor, indeed, any formally structured and bounded theology), nor ayatollahs, nor popes, nor a kommissariat, nor thought police to “enforce” any such.
Even the Rambam never presumed to pose as some kind of gatekeeper to Jewish belief. Even the Ahni Ma’amin was never intended as some kind of formal creed that a Jew was required to recite twenty times a day to the drooling schlemiel at the door before he’d let him inside. No Jew who knew his place before God would ever be so arrogant; and nobody understood that better than Maimonides himself.
I would submit that neither you nor anyone else may presume to speak for “what we believe.”
If you think you should be entitled to do so, then I suggest you publish a book incorporating your proposals. I’m certain that A.some of us will read it; and that B. some of us won’t. In any event, the writing project will give you good practice in organizing your thoughts.
…[A]ny student of the Talmud today or any Jew who was living in those times 2000 years ago knew that the market for such wares was not “IN” the Temple… The marketplace was located in the streets outside and surrounding the Temple. Nyuk.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 14, 2009 @ 11:20 am
This is a significant matter to you?
This is petty, Shy — and if you were doing your own thinking, you’d know it.
So much of Temple activity during those years occurred in the courtyard — i.e., inside the outer wall and on the grounds — that for someone to refer to proceedings occurring “in the Temple” was commonly understood to mean not only in the actual Temple structure itself, but ALL Temple-related matters, in- or out-of-doors, within the general enclosure. Furthermore, and in any case, if you really don’t think the buying-and-selling, at this point, had become horribly corrupt and deleterious to its original intent, then you’re less of a “student of Talmud” (or of anything else) than you make yourself out to be.
More importantly, though, let me tell you something:
A mind that goes looking for a scar
will surely find one,
or make one
for itself to find.
Don’t be TOO shy…. about letting yourself think about that. [The act -- of thinking -- after all, costs you nothing, and betrays nobody either.]
Nyuk.
Ah, yes; spoken like a true stooge. Larry, Curly, Moe… and Shy. The question is, whose stooge would you be? (Let me guess.)
…to see how far you are prepared to go on with your charade…
and post 79:
…This of course does not include you or those like you. Never!
and post 82:
I am on to you and you do relate to the [Jesus] guy as a deity… You mentioned Christ several times and we both know what that means… you are trolling in an insidious manner…
You’re truly paranoid, Yamit. I’m not being cute (or trying to be); I’m being quite literal, starkly serious. You’re losing it, Pancho.
There is something downright Kafkaesque about your whole outlook and demeanor. What’s more, this self-assigned, “keeper-of-the-flame” thing of yours, which you cultivate like a hothouse plant, would be amusing if it weren’t so plainly escapist; but it doesn’t wash. Whatever it is you actually do want, you really need to get out more, Yamit.
And if you aren’t prepared to actually see somebody for what you’ve got, then you probably shouldn’t skip your medication quite so often. Don’t get me wrong; it’s good to wean yourself off of that stuff, to be sure, but you need to be more gradual about it.
Don’t take on any more reality than you’re accustomed to handling at any one time.
G-d gave each and every one of us a brain. So that we may know good and evil and to reject evil. All things learned come from that innate human Characteristic.
If, by that, you refer to cognition — analysis, intellect, etc — that is, as I said in a previous post, only one of the brain’s MULTIPLE functions. It is a good and legitimate function, and ought to be entirely sufficient, even unto itself, for you, for example, to put together the obvious conclusion that Islam, both at its essence AND as practiced, is indeed idolatrous.
However, the truth is, only some things learned — not all, as you assert — come from that one “innate human characteristic.” There are other faculties accessible to the brain, and by which other things are learned; you overlook those other faculties. Indeed, I think [yes, my opinion, of course] that you actually fear those other faculties. Yet they are as much the gift of God as the intellect.
In fact, all major advances (the genuine ones) — in science, mathematics, economics, historical or archeological discovery, as well as the most profound and exquisite works of music, drama, literature, art, cinema, etc. — are invariably preceded by a hunch, a flash of intuition, a special awareness or insight, a sudden (or sneaking) clarity, an epiphany, an illumination: coming not by way of the intellect [though ultimately, perhaps, verifiable with the intellect's assistance, once the insight has been RECEIVED].
That particular process of perception and understanding is not cognitive, not analytical, not intellectual — but, rather, intuitive.
It is as if every so often God decided to let out a bit more of His endless procession of wonders by releasing it into the mind of a person suitably readied — by Him – to receive it. And I would submit that much (probably all) of PROPHECY is likewise revealed through the same faculty and by the same process. The kicker, however, is that — not only is that kind of illumination not subject to study, learning, etc., but also — its reception can actually be HINDERED by excessive study.
Moreover, when it does come, it’s not the sort of thing for which the ego can [whether openly or secretly] take personal credit….
“And You Shall Be As Gods… For God knows that on the day that you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like angels, knowing good and evil.”
You do recall, I suppose, who the party was that reputedly SPOKE those words you quoted above? And you regard that individual as authoritative? or otherwise worthy of your devotion?
…Try having sex with feeling next time…
Comment by yamit82 — May 17, 2009 @ 9:14 am
? Hunh?! What are you talking about? What in blazes does “having sex with feeling” [or, for that matter, with gravy & biscuits] have to do with the price of onions in Ossawatamie? You obviously have way too much time on your hands these days, Yamit.
For goodness’ sake, don’t try mixing the viagra with the tranquilizers; these fanciful experiments never pan out.
…No matter to whom you were born your belief in Jesus even as a Messiah puts you beyond the pale of Judaism…
…You can’t be a Christian Jew. That’s an oxymoron and a Christian invention any more than a woman can be half pregnant…
Horse pucky, and horse pucky. What you mean is that you wish it put me beyond the pale; that you wish that “Christian Jew” were an oxymoron. Well, dream on, dude.
Not only is it neither an ‘oxymoron’ nor an ‘invention,’ but the entire Jewish community of its originating era in Judea knew it was not an internal contradiction — notwithstanding your wishful thinking that it were, Yamit. As to your line denying that one can embrace HaNitzri and still be Jewish, “any more than a woman can be half pregnant” — I’m not “half” ANYTHING.
In fact, the very first paragraph of the long [unattributed] excerpt which you quoted [in 88] REFUTES your above statement:
“The earliest Christian generation in Jerusalem consisted almost entirely of Jews. These people believed in Jesus as the Messiah, but saw themselves as true Jews. The book of Acts of the Apostles makes it clear that the first Jewish Christians went to the Temple in Jerusalem, attended synagogue services, and wanted to remain Jews. There were tensions with mainstream Jews, who looked askance at the belief that a crucified person was the Messiah. There was, however, no breaking point or even a discussion of excommunicating the Jewish Christians…” [emphases added]
“Half-pregnant,” my arse.
I’ll have more to say about this quoted material when I get to 88, later.
Judaism is ego supportive and elevating while dour Christianity like Zen seeks to suppress the human ego.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Neither Judaism nor Christianity nor Zen seeks to elevate the ego; and none of them seeks to suppress it either. The ego, made in the image of God, is a man’s conscious self and, as such, has its proper place in the universe — and, as God’s creation, it needs no ‘elevating.’ But because it is finite at the same time that it bears God’s impress, it is regularly tempted to play at being God — so it needs to be reminded that it is NOT the Almighty.
Whenever it forgets that fact, it becomes guilty of idolatry. The unstated follow-up to “Be still, and know that I am God” — is ‘and you are not.’
The consequences of idolatry may, in some instances, tempt some persons & cultures to try to “suppress” the ego, but that addresses the problem no better than “elevating” it does. Both such responses to the ego’s finitude are flawed — they are opposite sides to the same counterfeit coin — and you are mistaken in concluding that the essence of any of the “religions” you cite is to elevate or suppress the ego. Of course, how people carry out their faith’s admonitions and dicta is another matter altogether.
I outlined why we Jews can never accept you.
It will, no doubt, come as a most frustrating discovery to you learn that the Jewish community disagrees with you as to YoursTruly; apparently their definition of “we Jews” [not to mention that of Rambam and other scholars] differs from yours. But then, what I am or am not is a matter of God’s determining, not yours (or even the community’s).
I’m quite comfortable letting the matter rest in His hands; after all, I can TRUST His intentions….
I find your phony usage of Christian transliterated Hebrew amusing, and have not commented on it so far but as I said I am on to you.
“Phony”?
What’s “phony” about my transliteration?
Define “phony” in this context [this should be good].
And when did you, Moishe Groisse, become an authority in these matters?
And what exactly does “Christian transliterated Hebrew” consist of? As distinguished from “Buddhist transliterated Hebrew’ — or “Muslim transliterated Hebrew” — or “Taoist transliterated Hebrew”?
I find that I must correct my above assessment of you, Yamit: You are NOT ONLY a paranoid boor, but also — and notwithstanding the pomposity of your claims — an ignorant and slow-witted one. For all your acknowledged erudition, you remain a monstrous, judgmental, top-heavy buffoon.
What’s more, I’m going to tell you something you should know about me, since you obviously haven’t the wit to conceive of it on your own:
The truth is that I actually use nobody’s transliteration but my own. I intentionally try, for the most part, to be as close to phonetically accurate as practically possible. If that occasionally coincides with some other system, that is sheer coincidence. There’s nothing holy about transliteration – i.e., the approximation of the spoken sounds of one language into the written characters of another.
Transliteration is merely a device, and one which has two purposes: A. It enables those who ARE familiar with the sounds and cadences of the language from which the words are taken to communicate with each other in writing by means of the characters of the adopted language — AND, B. It also aids those who are NOT familiar with the language from which the words come to at least pronounce them aloud, based on their own common understanding of the sounds of their own language.
I concern myself purely with the functionality and practical usage of transliteration, and — because I know that I may be communicating on this blog (or elsewhere, in print) with those who may not have a working, or even rudimentary, knowledge of Ivrit – I deliberately go out of my way to accommodate them, as a matter of common courtesy.
Typically, however, you choose to see something sinister in it. Again though, that paranoia reflects more on you than it does on me; my conscience (a very active one, as it happens) is squeaky clean.
In point of fact, even when I was a kid, I never liked the commonly used systems of transliteration of Ivrit into Anglit, because it often made so little allowance for the typical diphthongs, consonantal forms and syllabification as used by the broader culture and its written language, whose characters were being used for the Hebrew transliteration. Since it addressed only the first of the above-cited functions of transliteration, but never the second, it invariably caused unnecessary confusion outside the Jewish community [and even amongst some sectors within the community itself].
For example, “ch” in American-accented English is almost always pronounced like the “ch” in “chop,” occasionally like a “k” in “character” — but never like the guttural “kh” in “Bukhara.”
So, what was the point, within the American milieu, of transliterating the festival celebrated beginning on the 25th of Kislev as “Chanukah” (or even as “Hanukkah”), when “Khahnukah” made so much more sense?
But the “Messianic” groups that you try so hard to link me to have never gone so far as to think such matters through, that way. They just aren’t familiar with the more common renderings used in the Jewish community — because they’ve never been part of it, or not in any substantive way. I, on the other hand, have never NOT been part of the Jewish community [much to your chagrin, obviously, but a fact all the same]. I just don’t like the standard usages, and never have.
Still, though, if a superficial thing like transliteration is your idea of a “dead giveaway” as to where I’m at in regard to anything (let alone, as to Messianic ‘Judaism,’ specifically) — then you’re even more shallow and dull-witted than I thought you were.
I did show it to you: in the very same, earlier remark of mine, which you even blockquoted [presumably to refute the remark itself -- though it doesn't succeed in doing so]:
[Dweller:] “While the word “Islam” translates as “submission,” the question arises: Whom do Muslims want the world to ’submit’ to? Yes, yes, they will say, “to Allah,” of course. [What would you expect them to say?] But even if they have persuaded themselves that that is what they believe, the inescapable fact remains that the viciousness of both their conduct and their pronouncements suggests that they seek the world’s submission not to God but to MUSLIMS. And that goes for the “quiet” ones as well as the jihadi meshuganehs.
“I suggest to you, with all due respect, that, although Islam may pride itself on its ‘opposition’ to idolatry, that it is in fact the ultimate idolatry.”
[Yamit:] “This is not an argument but an opinion based only on your narrow reasoning but not on Judaisms understanding of Islam.”
Of course it’s an argument. So your notion of ‘Judaism’ leaves no room for reasoning now? You unwittingly tell us more about yourself here than you do about Judaism. Define “narrow” as you’ve used it here. Or is it simply the fact that my reasoning is grounded in common sense and the known facts of history that makes you call it “narrow”?
You also contradict yourself, since in 80 you note that God gave men a brain to think with. Would it be asking too much that you use the one you were given, to do that? Or would you have to find an explicit scriptural or midrashic enjoinder to do so before you could proceed?
The truth is that, in every instance, the worship of the creation (or some element of it) — in place of the Creator — is specifically what constitutes idolatry. If you think the only idolatry in this world consists of bowing down before dumb statues of wood, stone or plaster, then you have completely missed the point of the problem.
God says you can’t worship anything in His creation — and Him at the same time; it must be one or the other. (As you’ll recall, He characterizes Himself as “jealous.”) Anything in the creation may well have its legitimate place, but it is not entitled to man’s worship. By, in effect, seeking the submission of other men to themselves — albeit in the name of Allah — Muslims are clearly worshipping part of the creation: the human ego [their own].
Yes, they are most definitely, and unmistakably, idolators.
You cite no SOURCE for those ten, quoted, opening paragraphs. Am I not supposed to be able to verify the accuracy of your transmission or check the context? [Sloppy, for somebody who claims to have written a 'thesis.']
“The earliest Christian generation in Jerusalem consisted almost entirely of Jews. These people believed in Jesus as the Messiah, but saw themselves as true Jews. The book of Acts of the Apostles makes it clear that the first Jewish Christians went to the Temple in Jerusalem, attended synagogue services, and wanted to remain Jews. There were tensions with mainstream Jews, who looked askance at the belief that a crucified person was the Messiah. There was, however, no breaking point or even a discussion of excommunicating the Jewish Christians.
“…in the third generation of Christians — by the end of the first century of the Common Era — they began to explicitly call Jesus God. He, as a Jew, had never done so…”
Yes, that’s what I’ve been saying. Actually, it should read, ‘by the end of the second century, they began calling Jesus “God”‘ — because until after the B-K War [135], most of the Judean Christians were Jews. But otherwise those particular passages are correct. In fact, “Jewish believers were the leading theologians of the [Nazarene community], and the Gentiles had [at first] mostly learned their theology from Jewish tutors…”
[Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 2002), p. 223]
The point is — since you seem to keep missing it [and since you keep foisting your misleading take on it upon your readers, who hang on your every word as if anything you said were itself holy writ] — the point is that there is nothing automatically ‘unJewish’ per se about viewing Jesus as Messiah. Even if he were a ‘false’ messiah, the mere belief in him as Moshiakh would not have been, OF ITSELF, ‘unJewish’ (however dearly you would like to cast it in such a garish light).
Nor was it considered ‘unJewish,’ at the time, by other Jews of the day; weird, maybe, by some assessments — but not unJewish.
After the Bar Kokhva War, by prohibiting ALL circumcised persons from the city and district of Yerushalayim, Hadrian unknowingly took the Jewish leadership of the Nazarenes out of the movement’s home base — thus creating a Nazarene leadership vacuum in the city, which was filled by the gentile Nazarenes: since, among the movement, only they (being un-circumcised) would have had access to Yerushalayim. Whereupon they proceeded to make HaNitzri into a ‘god’ — something he never wanted.
[More from your unattributed quote, Yamit]: “…Once the Christians began to declare Jesus as equal to God, the core of Jewish monotheism was in danger…”
Right. Exactly so. But NOT UNTIL then. That’s WHY I said that belief in HaNitzri as Christ [i.e., as the Messiah] is not of itself ‘unJewish.’ It is belief in him as ‘God’ that is unJewish — indeed, a threat to the Jewish “core.” And, as I pointed out in an earlier post, Rambam concurs with this holding. [Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 2:5]
Logic dictates that those who… refused to fight… most probably sided with Rome against the rebelling Jews.
Oh, get a life! Logic ‘dictates’ nothing of the sort. But then, you’re not about logic, Yamit [notwithstanding that you tell us that God gave you a brain]. What you are about is a certain species of over-heated, demagogic emotionalism — at least in these matters — an emotionalism which, moreover, drives out reason and leaves no room for cool, clear logic.
You assume, a priori, hostility on the part of the Nazarene Jews, at the time, toward their fellow Jews, but there is no evidence to support the assumption — not even evidence of any RECIPROCAL resentment toward B-K’s “enforcers” for their hateful treatment of the Nazarenes (resentment which would have been perfectly understandable, had they harbored any such). Nobody — apart from your illustrious self — suggests anything of the sort.
You base your supposition of Nazarene Jewish hostility toward the larger Jewish community on subsequent events beginning nearly a couple of centuries later – when the Christians were composed almost entirely of gentiles, and not any longer of Jews. Because it suits your purposes, you view the matter in hindsight; you are looking backward, but that is fallacious, because history always unfolds moving FORWARD — not backward.
It’s abundantly clear to me that it isn’t just the goyim who are subject to demagoguery; they may be notorious for it, but it’s plain to see that, sometimes, even a Jew may not be immune to it…. A pity.
And a shonde.
In point of fact, what IS dictating such prejudicial and undocumented speculations as your [immediately-above] statement is very obviously nothing more than your own pre-primed bigotry, sanctimony and intellectual dishonesty — in short, the mentality of the lynch mob, clothed in the robes of serious scholarship. [There's something very scary about you, Yamit.]
Show me some evidence to the contrary, regarding your vile accusations, and I’ll consider revising the above judgment; not unless, and not until.
Who the hell do you think the Sicarii killed?
At Matzadah, mostly themselves & each other (if you accept Josephus’ account on its face). Before that, anybody who was a rival to their group’s power quest in the steaming cauldron that constituted Jerusalem in the run-up to the first revolt — and there were plenty such rival groups in that era. However, the Christian Jews were not among those rivals, as their aspirations lay in another dimension of concern altogether.
In any case, the Sicari’i had nothing to do with the B-K Revolt, but rather with the earlier war, of 66-71: an unplanned fiasco, that everybody virtually fell into, and where the lines of loyalty were a lot more “fluid.” In fact, you could probably make a lot easier case for ‘treason’ against the likes of Yokhanan ben Zakkai (to say nothing of Josephus) during that affair than against the Nazarene Jews of the B-K War. (A fool’s errand, in any event.)
I offer: Jesus is reputed to have said: Render therefore unto Cesar the things which be Cesar’s; and unto God the things which be God’s. The Loyalty of [Jesus] and his followers thus was to the established Ruling authority, which was Rome.
This is so lame. Also incredibly sloppy. That confrontation and admonition occurred during neither of the two Judean war periods. And in fact, during the B-K struggle, the “ruling authority” in Judea was essentially divided (for 2.5 yr of the 3.5-yr-long war): between Rome and the Rebel Administration in Yerushalayim. Christ was simply counseling persons to recognize the necessity of relating to both the world within AND the world without: the abiding need for civil order AND the importance to seek God’s will & leading at all times. It’s obvious that you’re just trying to pick a fight, even in an instance in which there’s nothing to fight over. Lame and sloppy — AND weird, Yamit.
But I’ll have more to say about your astonishingly sophomoric reasoning in this matter, shortly. [BTW, did your "thesis" ever get approved?]
Even the Hated Samaritans joined the fight but the Christians were either quite ["quiet"?] on the sidelines or actively engaged on the side of Rome. In either case they were traitors to the cause of Judaism and the Jewish people.
What a steaming pile of malodorous pig plop. Show me the ‘treason.’ I’ve rubbed your nose in your mess three or four times now, asking you each time to produce some evidence to support your hateful allegations — and each time you have come back with nothing but speculation grounded in what you want to believe. In this particular matter, I’m still waiting for as much as a soupçon of evidence pointing to something other than your own vicious pathology — and I’ve had a bellyful of that.
Put up or shut up.
There is no evidence or testimony portraying, or suggesting, Christians “actively engaged on the side of Rome” in the B-K Revolt. If they were ’sidelined,’ that is directly attributable to B-K’s arrogant pretensions to the messianic glory — and with Akiva’s irresponsible and presumptuous endorsement: “This is King Messiah!” [T. Yer. Ta'anit iv.68d] The obvious reality is that if B-K wanted the Nazarenes’ active engagement, then posturing as “Moshiakh” was the absolute worst possible way to go about securing it.
The messianic claim, together with its endorsement and enforcement, was — beyond question or cavil — the greatest, most fateful (and fatal), error of the War. And, arguably, the most fateful error in all of Jewish history as well.
[from Max I. Dimont, Jews, God and History (Simon & Schuster, NY, 1962), p. 108]:
“…Jews of every sect… flocked to [B-K's] standards, but not the Christian [-Jew]s, who were caught in a dilemma. [They] were suffering as much as the [other] Jews, if not more, under the Roman yoke and would under normal circumstances have joined the [non-Nazarene] Jews in the rebellion. But already having a Messiah in Jesus, they could not accept the other messiah in Bar Kochba, and thus they could not join the[ir fellow] Jews in the showdown with the Romans.”
[from Chaim Potok, Wanderings: Chaim Potok's History of the Jews (Fawcett Crest, NY, 1975), p. 301]:
“Christian-Jews who refused to [be conscripted] were treated with severity and contempt.”
Neither Dimont nor Potok nor Talmud Yerushalmi — nor any other author or source I’ve ever encountered — asserts or suggests, or even speculates on, the vile and despicable proposition that the Nazarene Judeans of the B-K era consituted a “fifth column,” or that they “colluded with,” or defected to, or “sided with,” or “were in the camp of,” or in any way sympathized with Hadrian’s legions.
Why would they? — From Hadrian’s perspective, if you were circumcised, you were trouble.
The Christian-Jews were as patriotic as any other Jews, and would have readily and gladly fought for the Nation. But how could they be expected to fight for a ‘messiah’ they did not believe in? Would you fight for a ‘messiah’ that you disbelieved in? Get real.
B-K and Akiva effectively DROVE the Nazarenes out of the fight. If you honestly can’t see that, Yamit, it’s only because you don’t want to. You can’t admit the obvious truth,
[Y]ou have audacity to still call [yourself] a Jew?
You bet your sweet, tender tushy, I do. Absolutely. [Why wouldn't I?] Bank on it, Bubbeleh.
And you, Sir — you, who can brazenly, recklessly, flagrantly and unrepentantly bear false witness against your neighbor — DO YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CALL YOURSELF A “JEW”?
Exactly what part of “self-righteous” do you not understand?
What kind of ‘Jew’ has no pang of conscience over breaking the Ninth Commandment?
To say nothing of violating the Third?
What — pray, tell — is “Torah-true” about taking the name of the Lord in vain?
You make a great show of superficial piety by not spelling out the word “God”; yet you see no problem with persistently defaming somebody’s reputation [whether you regard them as 'believing Jews' or not is irrelevant: nobody is fair game for slander], by your denouncing them as ‘traitors,’ based on nothing more than supposition (and your own wishful thinking) — and justifying it in the name of “G-d.”
This is Torah-true?
In what parallel universe?
You are, Yamit, a 24-karat fake.
In the words of an obscure and unlettered, first-century rebbe, you “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” Aptly put, don’t you think? He certainly seems to have had a problem with hypocrites of all stripes; maybe that’s what really bothers you about him (cuts a little too close for comfort, does he?). And such a way with words, hmmm?
There is nothing, Yamit, in your profferred “historical background” of the Bar Kokhva era that was unfamiliar to me, as I’ve studied the period in some detail for more years than I care to count, and written at length about it. A few of your figures are of dubious accuracy, but your account, as presented here, is, nevertheless, essentially correct as to the non-numerical facts. It’s when you launch out into speculation that you wander (or drift) into the deep end of the pool and get yourself into trouble. I’ve already said, a few times in this thread, that there’s nothing wrong with speculation PER SE. But not all speculation is by its nature legitimate — or even honest.
Speculation is ok as long as it’s not palmed off as fact, AND as long as it’s grounded in what is known.
Speculation is good for NOTHING WHATSOEVER, on the other hand, if it’s based purely on what you want to believe: Unalloyed desire makes a poor counselor — and a jaundiced judge.
Speculation that is based purely on personal desire (as yours very obviously IS, in re the Nazarenes in the B-K War) merely assures that each fact that is known (or comes to light) is invariably bent toward a predetermined conclusion. In other words, that kind of speculation — the kind grounded solely in desire — is a cul-de-sac: a dead-end. In has no potential for leading to new discoveries (or for communicating old ones).
Of course, it can do great things for a bloated ego that can’t bear to acknowledge itself to ever be wrong….
Stop giving the parasites welfare, and they won’t enter our countries. Remember, rats and other pests arrive when you leave food out for them. If you put all your garbage in the dumpster, they will go elsewhere
Holy moly, Goebbels is not dead- he has been resurrected in the guise of Bill Levinson.
Dweller:I find that I must correct my above assessment of you, Yamit: You are NOT ONLY a paranoid boor, but also — and notwithstanding the pomposity of your claims — an ignorant and slow-witted one. For all your acknowledged erudition, you remain a monstrous, judgmental, top-heavy buffoon.
Just for your information Dweller, relative to what Yamit has previously been called , this description can be described as a compliment of the highest order. Careful, you’ll be giving the Right Honorable a swelled head.
Jesus, what have I done? I have linked in common cause two totally obsessed idiots. Peskin the coward stands on the sidelines hoping some will shed the blood of another so he can as cowards do cheer them on. He would never venture to fight his own battles with zeal and conviction or for any reason. He is what as known on the street as those who always are there to pile on, when he thinks there is no risk to himself.
Now dweller, You do so pontificate and it seems have mastered adhominem and sophistry to cover what you can’t defend. Early Christians betrayed their brother Jews because they were cowardly pacifists and Roman Stooges: In the first three centuries, Christians were pacifists. Post Enlightenment Christianity often emphasizes the peaceful nature of Jesus, as opposed to the very numerous accounts of divinely sanctioned violence or warfare in the Hebrew Scriptures [Old Testament]. Proponants of the Christian pacifist position sometimes point to the early Church, the first three centuries of Christianity, and cite it as “pacifist” in arguing against Christian participation in warfare, under any circumstances. Such claims are often cited as a means of illuminating the supposedly un-Christian character of the crusades.
In Romans 13,
for example, Paul justifies the violence of the pagan emperor, for the emperor is yet a
minister of God. And Christians served in the Roman army from the second century on.
Following the conversion of the emperors, in the fourth century, the church became
more open to using violence. Church leaders, after an initial shock, began supporting the
use of force against heretics. Then Augustine formulated his theory of “just war,” but his
terms effectively mean “holy war.” Augustine and the medieval world concluded that
violence is not evil. Instead, violence is morally neutral. That makes a crusade possible.
How did medieval Christians support their idea that violence was morally neutral?
Augustine gave this example: Suppose a man has gangrene in the leg and is going to
die. The surgeon believes the only way to save him is by amputating the leg. Against
he man’s will, the surgeon straps him to a table and saws off the leg. That is an act of
extreme violence.
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except
that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted,
and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those
who do right, but for those who do wrong. Romans 13
Origen notes that should Christians ever engage in just wars, they should imitate the bees.
Origen also points to the militarism of the Hebrews when he suggests that if Christians ever came to control a country and its government, which did not happen until the reign of Constantine (long after Origen’s death), then Christians also would have an obligation to protect their lands and people.
Nor did Origen oppose war in principle as he and other Christians desired and prayed for victory for the Roman army and the destruction of its enemies. And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead
to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than
those who go into the field to fight for them. And we do take our part in public affairs, when along with
righteous prayers we join self-denying exercises and meditations, which teach us to despise pleasures, and
not to be led away by them. And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under
him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army–an army of piety–by
offering our prayers to God.
Christians interpreted the commandment don’t murder as don’t kill!
An important distinction needs to be made between the sin of murder (always condemned by early Christians) and killing (executions and warfare) which God often called for according to the Hebrew scriptures.Basil noted this distinction among the early fathers when in 374 he wrote, “Our fathers did not think killing in war was murder;” Modern scholars of Hebrew have argued that Exodus 20:13 should be translated, “Thou shalt not murder” rather than “Thou shalt not kill.” The distinction is important, as otherwise the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testement), full of divine exhortations to kill, whether in combat or by means of execution, would make no sense.
Bainton’s conclusions concerning the acceptability of military service by Christians before Constantine might be summed up as follows; the military was never embraced as a profession by Christians before Constantine, although from around 170 A.D. forward we do find varying degrees of evidence in some regions of Christian participation in the military. Christians did serve in the military and this suggests that at least some of them found the profession acceptable. Yet we must be careful in claiming too much, as this evidence in itself does not signify any sort of formal acceptance of Christian service in the military by the Church. Bainton supports such a position through reiterating the various condemnations of important theologians from the period who he claims uniformly write of military service for the Christian as taboo until the time of Constantine. The only exception some make, as Bainton notes, is for the possibility of serving in a non-combat role and only so long as the Christian will not be forced to engage in various forms of idolatry often required by those they serve. Bainton apparently continued to embrace such a view throughout his career as in 1960, fourteen years later, he wrote, “No Christian writer prior to the time of Constantine approved of Christian participation in warfare.
Boston College theologian Lisa Sowle Cahill has also weighed in on the issue with her 1994 book, Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism, and Just War Theory. Unlike Helgeland, Cahill is quite willing to argue that the writings of the early Fathers demonstrate that they were indeed “pacifists” and she unambiguously refers to them as such on several occasions. Although Cahill and Bainton both argue that the leadership of the early Church rejected the legitimacy of Christian military service, Cahill’s claims come with far fewer qualifications or exceptions than Bainton and, consequently, she makes a much more straightforward claim for the “pacifism” of the early Church. Cahill bases her argument on the idea that the New Testament “clears the ground for Christian pacifism by establishing compassion and forgiveness as part of discipleship for Jesus’ followers.” Her argument is that this understanding of discipleship effectively prohibited the use of force or violence by Christians. Cahill argues that such an understanding of Christianity is clearly demonstrated in the works of Tertullian and Origen, and it is exclusively from these two authors that she draws her evidence.
Whether the early Christians were pacifists or not they did have an aversion to war and avoided it at all costs. This seems to be true through at least the first 2 early Christian centuries. I base in part my contention that early Christians refused to join the BK rebellion because A- they were pacifists and B- Loyal to the Roman Authority.
In the words of an obscure and unlettered, first-century rebbe, you “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” Aptly put, don’t you think? He certainly seems to have had a problem with hypocrites of all stripes; maybe that’s what really bothers you about him (cuts a little too close for comfort, does he?). And such a way with words, hmmm?
The Ninth Commandment
“Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor.”
If the 9th Commandment only stated “Thou shalt not bear false witness” period, then it’s Universal and applies to all. But the word “Neighbor” refers ONLY to the tribes of Israel.
The First Commandment
“I am the Lord thy God, which have
brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.”
You dweller are no neighbor!!!! anyway you follow the NT not the Torah! This is what you believe:
Hebrews 7:12 we read, “For since the priesthood is being changed, there comes to be of necessity a change also of the law.”
Since the Mosaic Law was ‘nailed to the stake,’ along with the Christ (Colossians 2:14), then there had to be a change in the Law to which Christians are under. That law is referred to as the “Law of the Christ.”- (Galations 6:2) That is the law that Christians are under today.
Rom. 10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness.” The scripture here shows that God used Christ to bring that Law to its end. We are judged based, not on how we follow the Mosiac Law, but on faith in Christ.
Col. 2:13-16: “[God] kindly forgave us all our trespasses and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us . . . Therefore let no man judge you in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath.” If a someone were to violate the Sababath in Bible times, they were to be publically stoned to death.-( Exodus 31:14 and Numbers 15:32-35) It is a wonderful thing for us today that we are not under that law. That scripture at Colossians, that is quoted above, shows that we are not judged based on our keeping a Sabbath, which was a requirement on Acient Isreal. Please also consider also Galatians 4:9-11; Ephesians 2:13-16. Deut. 16:16, 17;
Among the laws required by the Mosiac Law, we find also the Ten Commandments. Nowhere do we find a separation of the Ten Commandments those other requirements. Jesus did not distinguish between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Mosaic Law. Matthew 5:17, 21, 23, 27, 31, 38 says: “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill.” Now, notice what Jesus included in his further comments. “You heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You must not kill ‘ . . . If, then, you are bringing your gift to the altar . . . You heard that it was said, ‘You must not commit adultery ([Ex. 20:13; the Sixth Commandment which is at Ex. 20:14 and IS the Seventh Commandment).' Moreover it was said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce .' You heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth .'" So here, Jesus used mixed references to the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Mosaic Law without making any distinctions between them. -(Deut. 16:16, 17;Deut. 24:1; Ex. 21:23-25;
On one occasion Jesus was asked, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?." He replied, "'You must love your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, 'You must love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets." (Matt. 22:35-40) If some want to adhere to the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:6-21), and state that Christinas are still obligated to them, wouldn't they be rejectiong what what Jesus said concerning which commandments are the greatest?
The priesthood was at one time exercised through the priests of the nation of Israel, but that changed when Jesus assumed that role as our High Priest when he provided the his sacrifice. A Hebrews 7:12 we read, "For since the priesthood is being changed, there comes to be of necessity a change also of the law."
Now as a follower of Jesus and base from what you write on NT scripture you must to be consistent believe in the whole of the NT, If so what you claim to profess is contradictory to that same work known as NT. Rom. 10:4: "Christ is the end of the Law,
On one occasion Jesus was asked, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?." He replied, "'You must love your G-d with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, 'You must love your neighbor as yourself.'
What neighbor should we love?
The important sense of l-h-tz root for oppression is its communal character: in the word’s common usage, one polity oppresses another. When the oppression is between individuals, it is referred to as a-sh-k, such as, “You shall not trample upon (taashok) your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:13).
Long before Christians adopted this commandment as their major tenet, Jews were told, “You shall love your fellow [man] just as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). Not to the extent that you love yourself, but the way you do. Your love to fellow man should be in the likeness (cmo) of your love to yourself. An alternative reading is that you should love a man who is like you, your fellow man.
The common translation of r-y-h as “neighbor” does not relate the word correctly. In Psalm 45:15, for example, the virgins in the king’s wife’s train are definitely not her neighbors. The translation friends also falls short, as Leviticus 19:13 won’t prohibit trampling upon one’s friend. The r-y-h sense has to do with following, going in the same direction. That sense makes for the double meaning of r-y-h: evil (to bend someone, to steer away) and friend (to bend together with someone, to have a common path unlike the others’).Thus, r-y-h is not an abstract neighbor, but someone sufficiently close that you “bend the rules” together, deviate from the others’ road. For example, the Tower of Babel builders are described as r-y-h, fellows. Rather than neighbor, the proper translation of r-y-h is compatriot (with co- relating the sense of sticking together) or fellow.
The critical difference between us and Christians is who to consider a fellow man. Modern Christians unrealistically pronounce all people fellows, and surely fail to treat them as such. But their own parable of the Good Samaritan is instructive: even a despised Samaritan could be one’s fellow if the Samaritan helped him. Fellow is the one from whom help is expected. Such a definition surely excludes Canaanites and Palestinian Arabs from the commandment to love your fellow.
What is the love enjoined to our fellows? The context clarifies: “You shall not oppress your fellow” (19:13), “You shall not hate your brother” (19:17), and the 19:18: “You shall neither take revenge, nor restrain [yourself to take revenge later] at the children of your nation.” This, by the way, refutes the claims that human vengeance is prohibited in Judaism, but is the power of God only. Revenge is prohibited only against fellow Jews, on the double presumption of their general goodwill and efficient law enforcement. In such a society, revenge on the personal level was superfluous. But taking revenge on the enemies of Jews (even their distant offspring) is not merely a right, but an often-reiterated obligation: “a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:8).
The commandment of love concludes a list which parallels the Decalogue, and is therefore comparable to the prohibition of jealousy (Exodus 20:13).
The prescribed love to one’s fellow is the absence of hatred, vengeance, oppression, and jealousy. While gerim must not be oppressed, fellows must also not be hated. The Torah distinguishes between several circles of people: the closer is the circle, the more rights are accorded to it. Extended family, a closer circle, enjoys still more rights: one must respect his parents. One’s own family, the closest circle, awards generous rights to wives. Later on, when Hebrew society became strong and gerim were fully integrated, the commandment of love was expanded onto them (Deuteronomy 10:19); converts became treated strictly on par with native Jews.
The Torah prescribes, “The ger who resides among you in your land shall be for you like a native, and you shall love him just as you love yourself” (Leviticus 19:34). You cannot be more compassionate than that. But why the Torah, so short on words, reiterates, “in your land”? So that the ger absolutely recognizes the land as ours. And indeed the parallel Exodus 12:48: “And if a ger will reside with you, and will keep the Pesach to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised… he shall be like the native…” In order to be like a Jew, ger must be like a Jew: he must circumcise, keep Jewish customs, and to all purposes become a Jew. Then, sure enough, we must love him just as we love any Jew, including ourselves.
To summarize: In “You shall not oppress strangers” the Torah enjoins us against arbitrarily taking life or property of the submissive resident aliens who are loyal to Judaism. In “You shall love your fellow just as yourself” the Torah enjoins positive attitude toward one’s compatriots, the like-minded people only. THAT WOULD SEEM TO LEAVE YOU OUT OF OUR JEWISH CIRCLE OF FELLOWS OR NEIGHBORS YOU THEN DON’T COUNT FOR US IN OUR BIBLICAL INJUNCTION!
Never preach to me about Judaism or Christianity for that matter if you were born a Jew you are an apikoros; (kefira? or kefiro) If you are just a Christian wannabe Fuck off!
Fortunately for all of us, Jewish belief — having always been multifarious — has neither catechisms, nor magisteria (nor, indeed, any formally structured and bounded theology), nor ayatollahs, nor popes, nor a kommissariat, nor thought police to “enforce” any such.
Even the Rambam never presumed to pose as some kind of gatekeeper to Jewish belief. Even the Ahni Ma’amin was never intended as some kind of formal creed that a Jew was required to recite twenty times a day to the drooling schlemiel at the door before he’d let him inside. No Jew who knew his place before God would ever be so arrogant; and nobody understood that better than Maimonides himself.
I would submit that neither you nor anyone else may presume to speak for “what we believe.”
Jewish thought rests upon the validity of the Torah being true, then the halakhic decisions derived must conform to these truths. If a Jew is to accept one tenant of the Torah, he must, in order to be logically consistent, accept the whole of Torah. Likewise, if a person is to accept that he is Jewish then he must define this concept upon viable and authentic Jewish sources and render precise his own actions accordingly. Any other alternative to this is something other than Judaism. That is, a person may, given free-will, live according to what is right in his own eyes, however, he must be rationally forced to understand that it is of his own devise and should be so called as such.
As a result [of the Judean revolts] the average Roman looked at every Jew as a person hostile to Rome. Jews were officially designated as… dediticci [enemies].
Yes, and Rome — at the time — regarded every Christian Jew as EQUALLY (or MORE) hostile to Rome: right up until shortly before 325. So that certainly was true during (and for quite some time after) the B-K insurgency [132-135].
…Bar Kokhba… managed to unite the entire Jewish people around him.
That’s just it [don't you get it ?!?!]: He DIDN’T “unite the entire Jewish people around him.” Quite the contrary, his messianic pretensions, in point of fact, ALIENATED whole segments of the Jewish community, including the Nazarene Jews. The Sanhedrin thought his messianic pretensions were full of it — and only a few rabbonim: Gershom, Akha, and Akiva — were on-board with the “King Messiah” proposition. If B-K had indeed united the entire Jewish people around him, the War could well have been won – and the whole configuration, and and future, of the ancient world, massively altered.
JEWISH SOVEREIGNTY IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL COULD HAVE REMAINED INTACT TO THIS VERY DAY. THINK ABOUT IT.
…[B-K] was a very special leader and undoubtedly had messianic potential, which is what Rabbi Akiva recognized in him…
The very fact that you [or whoever wrote those words] could characterize B-K as having “messianic potential” shows that you really haven’t a clue as to what Moshiakh was to have been about. And if what Akiva “recognized” in him was “potential,” then Akiva was as clueless as you [or as the writer of those words]. WHOEVER the Messiah is — or will be — there’s no “potential” in him: either he is or he isn’t [no "partly pregnant," a simile you (ineptly and erroneously) favored earlier in this thread].
If you go to the Israel Museum you can see these [B-K] letters and they are absolutely fascinating… [T]hey… contain a tremendous amount of historical facts…
I’ve already cited the B-K Letters of Nakhal Khever & Wadi Muraabba in earlier posts in these exchanges. The letters are indeed fascinating and fact-filled as to the history. It’s plain that B-K was a dynamic personality who was also – manifestly — a cruel, egotistical thug with a cynical attitude toward his own messianic claims of being “sent by God” — and it’s astonishing that Akiva failed to “recognize” THAT before ‘anointing’ him, and that the Rebbe (apparently) failed to even reconsider what he done after B-K’s bizarre manner had become unmistakable.
United, the Jews were a force to be reckoned with. They overran the Romans, threw them out of the land of Israel, declared independence and even minted coins.
They weren’t united; that’s the problem. They BEGAN united. But the B-K//Akiva “moshiakh” gambit LOST them that unity.
As to the rest of that passage, you are quite right. That’s why I said [in an earlier post] that, for the period of its tenure, the Rebel Administration was, in a very real sense, the “ruling authority.” Therefore your claim — that Yeshua’s admonition (”Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s & to God what is God’s”) — your claim that this somehow means that Christ would have given ‘loyalty’ to Rome as the civil authority, is dead wrong.
In fact, arguably, the Rebel Administration constituted, of ITSELF, a “Caesar,” of sorts — unless you’re suggesting that the coins they minted had Hadrian’s face on them…. Think about it. [You do that, once in a while, right?]
That is a pretty unique event in the history of the Roman Empire.
Yes. I told you that myself, multiple times in earlier posts in the thread. And that uniqueness is integral to the REASON that I believe the B-K War could have been won — if B-K and Akiva (along with R. Gershom, R. Akha, et al.) hadn’t hijacked what began as a legitimate and just War for the Nation and made it into a spurious and vainglorious War for ‘Moshiakh.’ By raising the War’s stakes that way, they cast away a substantial component of support for the struggle.
That component (the Nazarene Jews) — had they not been, through conscience, forced out of the War by the “Moshiakh” declaration and its immediate aftermath — could have helped keep the resistance afloat long enough for other restive peoples throughout the Empire to “catch fire.” Rome could not have sustained a multiplicity of simultaneous seismic strains to the imperium.
Akiva and B-K squandered what was truly a unique opportunity.
At this point I believe is when Rome with the aid Hellenistic and Heretic Jews created the Jesus myth.
More specious and sophomoric speculation. Nobody (ever) believes a myth.
A myth may conveniently encapsulate a collection of precepts and accepted understandings, but nobody believes the myth itself — not past the age where children stop believing in Santa Claus. The Jesus story is in an altogether different category. It’s not phantasmagorical. Even most people who don’t regard themselves as “Christians” don’t see the narrative as a cock-&-bull story. Among persons free of intellectual bigotry, HaNitzri is not viewed like the tooth fairy.
The story, for better or for worse, is believable.
“[The Gospel story] is not transparent to the reason: we could not have invented it ourselves. It has not the suspicious a priori lucidity of Pantheism or of Newtonian physics. It has the seemingly arbitrary and idiosyncratic character which modern science is slowly teaching us to put up with in this wilful universe…. If any message from the core of reality ever were to reach us, we should expect to find in it just that unexpectedness, that wilful, dramatic anfractuosity which we find in the Christian faith. It has the master touch — the rough, male taste of reality, not made by us, or indeed for us, but hitting us in the face…”
[C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (Collins, Fontana Books, London, 1957), p. 13]
Whatever else you may want to tell yourself about the story, it’s not the invention of a finite mind; or a committee of same.
The Roman historian Dio Cassius writes that over half a million Jews died in the fighting.
You may want to check your Dio Cassius a little more carefully. Jewish combat deaths were not as high as that, despite very few surrenders. Total Jewish deaths, however, ran higher still: to 580,000 (and quite possibly higher).
Do you really believe those Jewish patriots [in the B-K War] would leave such traiterous Jews alone and Just fight Rome?… Clearly those early followers of J were in the Roman Camp and as such were fair game for retribution.
The Nazarenes were Jewish patriots — and NOT ‘traitors.’ Nor is it at all clear that those early followers of Jesus were, as you maliciously claim, “in the Roman camp.” To this day, you have produced not a shred of evidence in support of your loathsome and self-serving charges. And, yes, I DO believe that any truly patriotic (as opposed to pathological) Jews would have left the Nazarene Jews alone and just fought Rome; you’re damned right, I do.
Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that the non-Nazarene Jews were simply assholes…. But — again, absent any testimony or other evidence to that effect — I don’t believe that they were. Do YOU?
Because if you do, then I’m sure I needn’t remind you that the Rabbonim have acknowledged that the nation was lost through sinat khinahm – groundless hatred. And that is something you , in particular, need to think about….
Those who fail to learn from history….
Have you ever heard you are with me or agaisnt me?
Have YOU ever heard of “innocent till proven guilty”?
Halacha leaves no doubt that any Jew indeed, must be executed, like anyone else who abandons any piece of land which Jews control. Sanhedrin is unnecessary for the judgment: during emergencies, community rabbis are entitled to pronounce death sentences on those who endanger the Jewish masses.
The milhemet mitzva, the obligatory war commandment: Is the authority, regardless of the Sanhedrin, kings, or rabbis every Jew has an individual obligation to go to war when the enemy wants to take away any land that we hold.
The Jews did not rebel because Akiva proclaime BK as having Messaiah Potential but they were obligated to war under Jewish Law. Those who refused violated Torah commandment and injunction.
The Two Messiahs
Our Sacred Sages had a tradition that in the beginning [of the End Times] there would arise a Messiah [i.e. Anointed Saviour] from the house of Joseph who will reign over the Ten Tribes. He will wage wars and all of Israel will be gathered together under his banner. [This will continue] until later on, a descendant of David will appear and he will reign over them….
<<A transformation will take place. The Ten Tribes and the stick of Joseph will draw themselves closer unto the stick of Judah, and this too, will be through the agency of a Prophet and by miracles.
The Commentary of “Malbim” on Ezekiel 37:15
THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME AGAIN UNTO ME, SAYING, MOREOVER, THOU SON OF MAN, TAKE THEE ONE STICK, AND WRITE UPON IT, FOR JUDAH, AND FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL HIS COMPANIONS:
THEN TAKE ANOTHER STICK, AND WRITE UPON IT, FOR JOSEPH, THE STICK OF EPHRAIM AND FOR ALL THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL HIS COMPANIONS:
AND JOIN THEM ONE TO ANOTHER INTO ONE STICK; AND THEY SHALL BECOME ONE IN THINE HAND.
AND WHEN THE CHILDREN OF THY PEOPLE SHALL SPEAK UNTO THEE, SAYING, WILT THOU NOT SHEW US WHAT THOU MEANEST BY THESE? SAY UNTO THEM, THUS SAITH THE LORD GOD;
BEHOLD, I WILL TAKE THE STICK OF JOSEPH, WHICH IS IN THE HAND OF EPHRAIM, AND THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL HIS FELLOWS, AND WILL PUT THEM WITH HIM, EVEN WITH THE STICK OF JUDAH, AND MAKE THEM ONE STICK, AND THEY SHALL BE ONE IN MINE HAND. AND THE STICKS WHEREON THOU WRITEST SHALL BE IN THINE HAND BEFORE THEIR EYES.
AND SAY UNTO THEM, THUS SAITH THE LORD GOD; BEHOLD, I WILL TAKE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL FROM AMONG THE HEATHEN, WHITHER THEY BE GONE, AND WILL GATHER THEM ON EVERY SIDE, AND BRING THEM INTO THEIR OWN LAND: AND I WILL MAKE THEM ONE NATION IN THE LAND UPON THE MOUNTAINS OF ISRAEL; AND ONE KING SHALL BE KING TO THEM ALL:
AND THEY SHALL BE NO MORE TWO NATIONS, NEITHER SHALL THEY BE DIVIDED INTO TWO KINGDOMS ANY MORE AT ALL. NEITHER SHALL THEY DEFILE THEMSELVES ANY MORE WITH THEIR IDOLS, NOR WITH THEIR DETESTABLE THINGS, NOR WITH ANY OF THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS:
BUT I WILL SAVE THEM OUT OF ALL THEIR DWELLING PLACES, WHEREIN THEY HAVE SINNED, AND WILL CLEANSE THEM: SO SHALL THEY BE MY PEOPLE, AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD. AND DAVID MY SERVANT SHALL BE KING OVER THEM; AND THEY ALL SHALL HAVE ONE SHEPHERD:
THEY SHALL ALSO WALK IN MY JUDGMENTS, AND OBSERVE MY STATUTES, AND DO THEM. AND THEY SHALL DWELL IN THE LAND THAT I HAVE GIVEN UNTO JACOB MY SERVANT, WHEREIN YOUR FATHERS HAVE DWELT; AND THEY SHALL DWELL THEREIN, EVEN THEY, AND THEIR CHILDREN, AND THEIR CHILDREN’S CHILDREN FOR EVER:
AND MY SERVANT DAVID SHALL BE THEIR PRINCE FOR EVER. MOREOVER I WILL MAKE A COVENANT OF PEACE WITH THEM; IT SHALL BE AN EVERLASTING COVENANT WITH THEM: AND I WILL PLACE THEM, AND MULTIPLY THEM, AND WILL SET MY SANCTUARY IN THE MIDST OF THEM FOR EVERMORE. MY TABERNACLE ALSO SHALL BE WITH THEM:
YEA, I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. AND THE HEATHEN SHALL KNOW THAT I THE LORD DO SANCTIFY ISRAEL, WHEN MY SANCTUARY SHALL BE IN THE MIDST OF THEM FOR EVERMORE.
[Ezekiel chapter 37: 15-28]
Ezekiel says: ~AND ALL THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL~, for unto him [unto Joseph] were joined all of Israel which belong to the Ten Tribes… Our Sacred Sages had a tradition that in the beginning (of the End Times) would arise a Messiah, [i.e. Anointed Saviour], from the house of Joseph who will reign over the Ten Tribes. He will wage wars and all of Israel will be gathered together under his banner. [This will continue] until a descendant of David later appears and he will reign over them… [over all the tribes].
Jews never had to speculate whether any claim to messiahship was true. They would see with their own eyes the empirical evidence for themselves. The real Messiah would fulfill in his lifetime what was expected of him. Then we also have the concept of Moshiach Ben Yoseph: CLAIM: The Rabbis believe in two messiahs, one exalted and one suffering. It’s not two messiahs one exalted and one suffering, but one messiah, first time suffering the second time exalted.
The MALBIM connects the Prophecy in Ezekiel 37 with that in the Book of Micah chapter 5. The fifth chapter of Micah
[Micah 5:1] NOW GATHER THYSELF IN TROOPS, O DAUGHTER OF TROOPS: HE HATH LAID SIEGE AGAINST US: THEY SHALL SMITE THE JUDGE OF ISRAEL WITH A ROD UPON THE CHEEK. [Micah 5:2] BUT THOU, BETHLEHEM EPHRATAH, THOUGH THOU BE LITTLE AMONG THE THOUSANDS OF JUDAH, YET OUT OF THEE SHALL HE COME FORTH UNTO ME THAT IS TO BE RULER IN ISRAEL; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH HAVE BEEN FROM OF OLD, FROM EVERLASTING. [Micah 5:3] THEREFORE WILL HE GIVE THEM UP, UNTIL THE TIME THAT SHE WHICH TRAVAILETH HATH BROUGHT FORTH: THEN THE REMNANT OF HIS BRETHREN SHALL RETURN UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.
The above verses speak of a King from the House of David who came out of Beth-Lehem. He shall rule over some of the exiled of Israel who will return. This is what King Josiah did. It is also what the Messiah is destined to do at first.
Micah 5:4] AND HE SHALL STAND AND FEED IN THE STRENGTH OF THE LORD, IN THE MAJESTY OF THE NAME OF THE LORD HIS GOD; AND THEY SHALL ABIDE: FOR NOW SHALL HE BE GREAT UNTO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH. [Micah 5:5] AND THIS MAN SHALL BE THE PEACE, WHEN THE ASSYRIAN SHALL COME INTO OUR LAND: AND WHEN HE SHALL TREAD IN OUR PALACES, THEN SHALL WE RAISE AGAINST HIM SEVEN SHEPHERDS, AND EIGHT PRINCIPAL MEN.
[Micah 5:6] AND THEY [i.e. the Israelites] SHALL WASTE THE LAND OF ASSYRIA WITH THE SWORD, AND THE LAND OF NIMROD IN THE ENTRANCES THEREOF: THUS SHALL HE DELIVER US FROM THE ASSYRIAN, WHEN HE COMETH INTO OUR LAND, AND WHEN HE TREADETH WITHIN OUR BORDERS.
[Micah 5:7] AND THE REMNANT OF JACOB SHALL BE IN THE MIDST OF MANY PEOPLE AS A DEW FROM THE LORD, AS THE SHOWERS UPON THE GRASS, THAT TARRIETH NOT FOR MAN, NOR WAITETH FOR THE SONS OF MEN. [Micah 5:8] AND THE REMNANT OF JACOB SHALL BE AMONG THE GENTILES IN THE MIDST OF MANY PEOPLE AS A LION AMONG THE BEASTS OF THE FOREST, AS A YOUNG LION AMONG THE FLOCKS OF SHEEP: WHO, IF HE GO THROUGH, BOTH TREADETH DOWN, AND TEARETH IN PIECES, AND NONE CAN DELIVER.
[Micah 5:9] THINE HAND SHALL BE LIFTED UP UPON THINE ADVERSARIES, AND ALL THINE ENEMIES SHALL BE CUT OFF.
The major intention of Chapter Five of The Book of Micah, was for the Messianic period.
The MALBIM in his commentary on this Fifth Chapter of Micah intended to also throw additional light on Chapter 37 in Ezekiel. The Malbim considered chapter five of Micah and Chapter 37 of Ezekiel as talking about the same events. A few extracts from the Commentary of the Malbim on chapter five of Micah helps us understand his Commentary on Chapter 37 of Ezekiel.
[Malachi 4:5] BEHOLD, I WILL SEND YOU ELIJAH THE PROPHET BEFORE THE COMING OF THE GREAT AND DREADFUL DAY OF THE LORD: [Malachi 4:6] AND HE SHALL TURN THE HEART OF THE FATHERS TO THE CHILDREN, AND THE HEART OF THE CHILDREN TO THEIR FATHERS, LEST I COME AND SMITE THE EARTH WITH A CURSE.
“Rabbi Alexandri said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi opposed two verses. One verse says, ‘with the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man came.’ In another verse it says, ‘lowly and riding on an ass.’ If they merit ‘with the clouds of heaven’ if not ‘lowly and riding on an ass.’” Frydland makes the association of this passage to Moshiach ben Yosef in his famous work, ‘What the Rabbis Know about the Messiah’. There he says, “Rabbi Yehoshua Bar Levi, referring to the Zechariah scripture, said that if Israel is not worthy, then the Messiah will come in humility riding upon an ass. This is Messiah Ben Yosef – the Suffering Messiah.” He is not the only missionary to wrongly make such an association. This passage has no direct information about Moshiach ben Yosef, or a suffering messiah, as it is not about him at all. Misnaming ‘Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’ is not his only mistake here.
In order to understand this passage in the Talmud, we need to understand who Moshiach ben Yosef is and where he fits into Rabbinic/Biblical eschatology. To get to this we need to find out three things:
1. What does the Tenach say about who is ‘messiah’?
2. What do the Rabbis mean by ‘messiah’?
3. Where do the Rabbis get their idea of more then one Messiah?
As to the Tenach, the facts about the ‘Messiah’ will be surprising. One of the top Biblical scholars J. H. Charlesworth states:
“The term, ‘the Messiah’ simply does not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament). The last group of scholars to acknowledge this fact were conservative Christians, and now the very conservative New Testament specialist [the late] Professor George Eldon Ladd states, without qualification, that ‘the simple term “the Messiah” does not occur in the Old Testament at all.’ Of course, the title ‘the Anointed One’[6] denotes in the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament) a prophet, a priest, and especially a king.”
From here we see that Biblically a person is ‘a messiah’ if he is doing some G-d ordained function: prophet, priest or king, but it does not refer to a single special person who is expected to arrive at some future date. This, of course, leads to a question. We use the term ‘Messiah’ and more or less, everyone has an understanding about that term. At the least, it refers to a person who will appear at the ‘end-times’. Where do we get this association with that term?
To understand this we need to look at some of the ‘end-times’ prophecies of the Tenach. While much of the arguments with missionaries deal with passages that are unclear as to when or to whom they apply, there are passages in the Tenach that announce that they are dealing with a specific period called ‘the end of days’. Some of them mention particular characters that seem to have a role to play in this future period:
One of the most well known passages that is explicit about being an end-times prophecy is Isaiah 2:2-4. Verse 4 is one of the most well known verses in the Tenach.
2 And it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established as the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3 And many peoples shall go and say: ‘Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the G-d of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4 And He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Here we see an announcement of the end of days with a few specifics of that time. These issues mentioned will help us to find more passages dealing with this time period. Let’s see what will happen then:
1. People will gather in Jerusalem to worship HaShem (verse 2-3)
2. War will end (verse 4)
3. The nations will be judged (verse 4)
In Isaiah 11 we see an expansion of these themes. Just as above we have: people gathering in Jerusalem in verse12, the end of war in verse 6-8, and the judgment of nations in 2-5.
1 And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a twig shall grow forth out of his roots.
2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.
3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD; and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither decide after the hearing of his ears;
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the land; and he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
6 And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk’s den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
10 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, that standeth for an ensign of the peoples, unto him shall the nations seek; and his resting-place shall be glorious.
11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord will set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people, that shall remain from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
12 And He will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the dispersed of Israel, and gather together the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and they that harass Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.
14 And they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines on the west; together shall they spoil the children of the east; they shall put forth their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them.
15 And the LORD will utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with His scorching wind will He shake His hand over the River, and will smite it into seven streams, and cause men to march over dry-shod.
16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, that shall remain from Assyria, like as there was for Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.
Besides the repetition of what is in Isaiah 2, this passage adds a few new points that add to our picture of the end-times:
1. There will be a leader, from the tribe of Judah who will also be the judge. (1 and 10)
2. Ephraim (the Northern kingdom of Israel) and Judah (the Southern Kingdom) will no longer contend with each other.
3. The Jewish people will be gathered from exile.
In Ezekiel 37 we find more about this reconciliation of Judah and Ephraim, with some more information about this ingathering period:
15. And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying:
16. ‘And thou, son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it: For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions; then take another stick, and write upon it: For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and of all the house of Israel his companions;
17 and join them for thee one to another into one stick, that they may become one in thy hand.
18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying: Wilt thou not tell us what thou meanest by these?
19 say into them: Thus saith the Lord G-D: Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his companions; and I will put them unto him together with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in My hand.
20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thy hand before their eyes.
21 And say unto them: Thus saith the Lord G-D: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land;
22 and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all;
23 neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling-places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; so shall they be My people, and I will be their G-d.
24 And My servant David shall be king over them, and they all shall have one shepherd; they shall also walk in Mine ordinances, and observe My statutes, and do them.
25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children’s children, forever; and David My servant shall be their prince forever.
26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them—it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will establish them, and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for ever.
27 My dwelling-place also shall be over them; and I will be their G-d, and they shall be My people.
28 And the nations shall know that I am the LORD that sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for ever.’
In addition to the same old themes, we see the following new ones added to our picture of the end times:
1. Ephraim and Judah will be joined together with Judah as the lead.
2. This leader will be David’s descendant. He is called the king, prince and leader of that time.
3. There will be a sanctuary (temple).
What is interesting about this passage in Ezekiel is that Ephraim and Judah are on the same level, but that Judah would lead. This indicates that both Ephraim and Judah would have leaders. But the one from Judah (i.e. the Davidic one) would be the sole leader. What happens to the leader of Ephraim?
Now if we look at Ezekiel 40-48 we see more information about that Temple and another important figure in that time. There we learn about the priesthood, and verse 44:27 refers to a single priest.
The final end-times prophecy we will look at is Malachi 3, which adds another piece of information.
23 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD.
24 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the land with utter destruction.
To summarize what we have seen in the end-times prophecies: There will be a Davidic king/leader, a Priest, and the prophet Elijah.
Sometime during the late second temple period we see that these people are referred to as ‘Messiahs’. We find this in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 1QS (Rule of the Community) we read (IX 11) ‘until the prophet comes and the messiahs of Aaron and Israel.’ Here we see the three figures mentioned above: the prophet, the priest of Aaron and the leader of Israel. Here are three messianic type characters in the end of days, in the Biblical text and in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There are two things I have found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. One is that the priestly ‘messiah’ seems to have the superior position. The second is that there is no mention of the House of Israel, i.e. the Northern tribes referred to as Ephraim in the Tenach. This is not so serious as the truth is that there is a limited amount of material in the Dead Sea Scrolls. But it is important. One factor seems to be missing. What about ‘Ephraim’ and her leader?
To understand what the Rabbis have taught about the major figures that will have a role in end time’s story we need to look at a few verses in Zechariah 2:
1 And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold four horns.
2 And I said unto the angel that spoke with me: ‘What are these?’ And he said unto me: ‘These are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem.’
3 And the LORD showed me four craftsmen.
4 Then said I: ‘What come these to do?’ And he spoke, saying: ‘These—the horns which scattered Judah, so that no man did lift up his head—these then are come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations, which lifted up their horn against the land of Judah to scatter it.’
5 And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand.
6 Then said I: ‘Whither goest thou?’ And he said unto me: ‘To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof.’
7 And, behold, the angel that spoke with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him, 8 and said unto him: ‘Run, speak to this young man, saying: ‘Jerusalem shall be inhabited without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein.
9 For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and I will be the glory in the midst of her.
10 Ho, ho, flee then from the land of the north, saith the LORD; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.
11 Ho, Zion, escape, thou that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.’
12 For thus saith the LORD of hosts who sent me after glory unto the nations which spoiled you: ‘Surely, he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
13 For, behold, I will shake My hand over them, and they shall be a spoil to those that served them’; and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.
These verses seem to be talking about the end times. Jerusalem is filled again with people and verse 10 indicates the ingathering which we have seen the Tenach places in the end-times. But look at 1-4; we see that there are 4 horns, which represent the enemies of the Jewish people, who sent them into exile. Opposed to them are four craftsmen, who cut them down. These four seem to be important figures in the end-times. Who are they? Here is what the Rabbis teach[13]: “ ‘And the LORD showed me four craftsmen.’ Who are these four craftsmen? Rav Chunah the son of Bizna said in the name of Rebbi Shimon, ‘These are Moshiach ben Dovid, Moshiach ben Yosef, Elijah and the Righteous Priest.’ “ The four of the Rabbis are the three people mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls plus the leader of Ephraim.
So what is the job of this fourth person? One hint is in the prophet Ovadiah:
17 But in mount Zion there shall be those that escape, and it shall be holy; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
18 And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken.
19 And they of the South shall possess the mount of Esau, and they of the Lowland the Philistines; and they shall possess the field of Ephraim, and the field of Samaria; and Benjamin shall possess Gilead.
20 And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel, that are among the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath, and the captivity of Jerusalem, that is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the South.
21 And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD’S.
He we see, from verse 18, that the House of Joseph (including its leader) has a military role in the end-times drama. Verse 21 indicates that this is a joint effort. From this we see that the time when the Moshiach ben Yosef comes ends with a period of peace. This would indicate the period we have seen above when there is world peace, a renewal of the Davidic kingdom, etc. Let me summarize the Rabbinic writings with regards to Moshiach ben Yosef:
There will be a period of about seven years of terrible famines and other troubles. The land of Israel will at that time be under Non-Jewish control, and a leader of the tribe of Ephraim, will arise to lead militarily against these nations who control Jerusalem. He will be successful, but after his initial victory he will die in battle. This will cause a great mourning and many will lose faith. At that time (still within the seven years) the Moshiach Ben David will be revealed, he shall finish the battle. After which, he will resurrect all the dead, starting with the Moshiach Ben Yosef. Both of them will go up to Mount Zion to fulfill the prophecy in Ovadiah verse 21: “And the saviors (plural - both Messiahs) shall go up onto Mount Tzion and judge Mount Esav, and the kingdom will be for Hashem.” There is the fulfillment of ALL the major prophesies like an end to war and a world at peace with the Jewish people in a restored Jerusalem with the third Temple.
The following points summarize this issue and are agreed to in all the Midrashim that deal with the Moshiach ben Yosef and the Moshiach ben Dovid.
1. They are two different people from two different tribal families.
2. They live at the same time.
3. Moshiach ben Yosef never takes the throne nor is he entitled to.
4. Moshiach ben Yosef is a warrior (Moshiach ben Dovid would also appear to be)
5. Moshiach ben Yosef will be killed in BATTLE[15] and will be the first to be raised from the dead by Moshiach ben Dovid.
6. The period of time from when Moshiach ben Yosef first comes into prominence until he is resurrected after the Moshiach ben Dovid comes to his throne is very short, the longest period is under two years.
7. The basic chronology of events is that there is a seven-year period. It starts with continually problems, it starts to improve and then in the sixth year it gets worse again. In the seventh year there are great wars in which the Moshiach ben Yosef is first successful and then he is killed in that later part of the year. Many Jewish people will become depressed and fall away. At the end of the seven years Moshiach ben Dovid comes and finishes the job and there comes the resurrection of the dead.
There is one more aspect with regards to Moshiach ben Yosef that appears in Rabbinic literature that we need to address, and then we can return to the passage in the Talmud which opened up this paper and see how far off they are. In the work, Emunah V’Deos by Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, after a discussion of the end-times he makes the following comment:
If we do not repent, the events of Ben Joseph will come to pass. But if we repent, they will not, and Messiah ben David will appear to us suddenly.
To understand this issue and how it could be, we need to understand something simple about Biblical prophecy. People usually think (based on Deuteronomy 18) that a false prophet says something will occur and it does not. Here is what appears in Deuteronomy 18:
21 And if thou say in thy heart: ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?’
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.
But there is a problem. Let’s look at the book of Jonah. In chapter 1 we see that Jonah is commanded by G-d to bring a message:
1. NOW THE WORD of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying:
2. ‘Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim against it; for their wickedness is come up before Me.’
In chapter 3 we see the message:
1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying:
2 ‘Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and make unto it the proclamation that I bid thee.’
3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city, of three days’ journey.
4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he proclaimed, and said: ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.’
So the message of Jonah was that Ninevah had only 40 days left. But that is not what happened:
5 And the people of Nineveh believed G-d; and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
6 And the tidings reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying: ‘Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing; let them not feed, nor drink water;
8 but let them be covered with sackcloth, both man and beast, and let them cry mightily unto G-d; yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
9 Who knoweth whether G-d will not turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, that we perish not?’
10 And G-d saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and G-d repented of the evil, which He said He would do unto them; and He did it not.
So is Jonah a false prophet??? What he said did not come to pass. The key is verse 10: When G-d sees that people repent; there is no need for the bad decree. With every prophecy of doom, there is an understood condition: If you repent then it is not going to happen. This principle is explicit in the Tenach. We read in Jeremiah 28:
7 Nevertheless hear thou now this word that I speak in thine ears, and in the ears of all the people:
8 The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence.
9 The prophet that prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.’
Here we see that although many prophecies of disaster have been sent it is only those prophecies of peace that must occur. Only through a positive philosophy can they know a true prophet. For that reason Jonah was NOT a false prophet. His prophecy of disaster had an understood condition that, IF they repent, then it will not have to come, but if not then it will. ONLY if he had predicted that there would be a peaceful result, then its non-occurrence would be a sign of his being a false prophet. From this we see that there can be two possibilities for the end-times. One will occur if they repent and the other if they do not. That is what Rabbi Saadiah Gaon was referring to.
With this we can return to the passage from the Rabbis quoted at the beginning. This passage refers to the principle we have just stated, and is a reference to Moshiach ben Dovid, and the two ways in which HE can come! Before this above passage we find the following passage:
Rabbi Eliezer said, ‘If Israel repents they will be redeemed, and if not they will not be.” Rabbi Yehoshua said to him, “If they don’t repent they will not be redeemed? But the Holy One Blessed is He will raise up for them a King who will make decrees over them like Haman and they will repent and return to the good.”
As Rabbi Saadiah Gaon points out this teaching refers to the wars and disasters that would occur before the coming of Moshiach ben Yosef. But if they do repent then there is no need for all of that. If we look at the Tenach we see two types of prophecies dealing with the end-times period. One tells of wars, like Ezekiel 38 and Zechariah 12. But others are silent, mentioning neither war, nor any other series of events. Based on the Biblical principle we saw from the books of Jonah and Jeremiah, we see that G-d’s message of war is a conditional one that can be mitigated by repentance. This is the message of the Talmud. Let’s see the passages in context. First Daniel 7:
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the Ancient of days, and he was brought near before Him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Here we see the end-times, but in a miraculous way. But in Zechariah 9, the same results are given in another format:
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto thee, he is triumphant, and victorious, lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass.
10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace unto the nations; and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.
Here the results are the same, but the protagonist is described as coming in a more humbling manner. Bringing all these Biblical verses and principles we now have the teaching of the Rabbis:
“Rabbi Alexandri said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi opposed two verses. One verse says, ‘with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man came.’ In another verse it says, ‘lowly and riding on an ass.’ If they merit ‘with the clouds of heaven’ if not ‘lowly and riding on an ass.’”
If the Jewish people will repent, then the horrible things described will not come and the end-times will be inaugurated in a wondrous way. If not, then there will be wars and humility.
Don’t play with your Christian Garbage here, it won’t wash.
Judges and officers you will set up in all your gates… (Devarim 16:18)
There are many commentaries that explain this posuk on several levels, one of which is the level of the individual acting as a judge in his own life. For, life is one judgment after another; correct judgments lead to growth and eternal reward in the World-to-Come, whereas bad judgments lead to just the opposite.
The Talmud teaches, advises, and warns:
A judge only has what his eyes see. (Bava Basra 131a)
In other words, if a judge is a prophet, then he can know that which has been presented to him, and that which has been omitted. However, if he has yet to achieve the high level of prophecy, then his decision can only be based upon the presentation of the facts before him. Yes, he can receive help from Heaven, but still, it is not the same as prophecy.
Oftentimes, the presentation of the facts is not entirely dependent upon others over whom we have little or no control. The information we may need to make an ‘informed’ and correct decision about, whether in a legal case or in our own personal lives, may exist ‘out there,’ available to those who seek it. Knowing this can lead to knowledge of the necessary information, which can lead to an entirely different vantage point in life, as the following account portrays.
There is a story at the end of Tractate Makkos of Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) that, like many others, says much more than it seems to be saying. Chazal (Chachamim Zichronam L’Brochah) were unbelievably good at layering meaning in what they taught. The account goes like this:
It happened again that they (Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva) were going to Jerusalem. When they arrived at Har HaTzofim (Mt. Scopus), they tore their clothing (as a sign of mourning over the destruction of the Temple, which could be seen from there). When they reached the Temple Mount and saw a fox coming out from the place where the Holy of Holies had been, they began to cry; Rabbi Akiva laughed.
They asked him, “Akiva, why do you laugh?”
He answered them, “Why do you cry?”
They said, “If the prophecy concerning the place which theposuk says, ‘The stranger who approaches (the Holy of Holies) will be put to death’ (Bamidbar 1:51), is now fulfilled that, ‘For the mountain of Tzion, which is desolate, the foxes walk upon it’ (Eichah 5:18), should we not cry?”
He said, “That is precisely why I laugh! It says, ‘I will take faithful witness to record, Uriah HaKohen and Zechariah…’ (Yeshayahu 8:2). Why is Uriah mentioned together with Zechariah? The former was from the time of the First Temple and the latter was from the time of the Second Temple! It is, therefore, to make the prophecy of Zechariah dependent upon the prophecy of Uriah. Uriah said, ‘Because of you Tzion shall be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps’ (Michah 3:12). Zechariah said, ‘There shall still sit old men and old women in the streets of Jerusalem’ (Michah8:4). Now, until the prophecy of Uriah was fulfilled I was very concerned that the prophecy of Zechariah might not be fulfilled. However, now that I have seen the fulfillment of Uriah’s prophecy, it is clear that the prophecy of Zechariah will come to be.”
Having heard this, they told him, “Akiva, you have consoled us! Akiva, you have consoled us!” (Makkos 24b)
Huh? Just like that? With so short an explanation Rabbi Akiva succeeded in turning his colleagues around 180 degrees? Yes. And, if you know what he said you’ll understand why.
The Nazarenes were Jewish patriots — and NOT ‘traitors.’ Nor is it at all clear that those early followers of Jesus were, as you maliciously claim, “in the Roman camp.” To this day, you have produced not a shred of evidence in support of your loathsome and self-serving charges. And, yes, I DO believe that any truly patriotic (as opposed to pathological) Jews would have left the Nazarene Jews alone and just fought Rome; you’re damned right, I do.
#112
I think I have if not proved at least provided you with enough source evidence mostly by Christian historians, Bible critics and researchers to show that the the early Christians were pacifists and in line with Jesus injunctions to obey Rome as the legal authority and not Love of Jews as a supreme ethos and mitzva; that they were then both Heretical Jews and traitorous Jews. That we have no historical records as to how real and patriotic Jews dealt with them, I can assume with some historical authority and precedent that they were not treated kindly or with Christian understanding. The Jews were not very kindly or nice to those who betrayed them( Penalty death) under Halacha. No, Jews were not very nice.
I will turn your question on it’s head: what evidence or proofs can you supply to substantiate your contentions? None! I have given you a sound circumstantial case and with more digging I am confident I can produce much more.
I’ve already cited the B-K Letters of Nakhal Khever & Wadi Muraabba in earlier posts in these exchanges. The letters are indeed fascinating and fact-filled as to the history. It’s plain that B-K was a dynamic personality who was also – manifestly — a cruel, egotistical thug with a cynical attitude toward his own messianic claims of being “sent by God” — and it’s astonishing that Akiva failed to “recognize” THAT before ‘anointing’ him, and that the Rebbe (apparently) failed to even reconsider what he done after B-K’s bizarre manner had become unmistakable
.
I could say the same negative things about your Jesus guy as was found in earlies Christian letters and verses in your book you call NT. Need I quote all again to remind you of the violent and nasty nature of your false messaih called jesus?
Sinat Chinam? Yes popular rabbinc mantra to explain if not justify Jewish terrible defeats. The revolt was popularily supported because it Threatened Judaism, an Obligation of every Jew to defend unto death. BK could have been a Messiah either Ben David or Ben Yoseph based on his personal qualities and attributes, tough times sometimes lead to tough decisions. Then BK never claimed for himself Messiahship only Nasi, a common and normal nomenclature. Proclaiming a Messiah is not the same as actually being one or for that matter having most Jews accepting blindly anyone even a BK. I have said Jews know what the Messaih must do empirically and as the Rambam later stated he must fulfill all of what Prophesy foretold or the Jews will reject him as a false messiah. All or nothing.
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.
JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH
Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets—Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.
According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, ( nor will he possess supernatural qualities.
The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David!
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot (commandments) remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37) For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), “He does not observe Shabbat!”
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an “alma” as giving birth. The word “alma” has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as “virgin.” This accords Jesus’ birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: “Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet.” The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word “gouged.” Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: “They pierced my hands and feet.”
Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):
The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone’s belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.
What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others… as it says, “Face to face, God spoke with you…” The Torah also states: “God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us—who are all here alive today.” (Deut. 5:3)
Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.
Your Jesus Guy fulfilled None Zero, Nada, Ephes, = False Messiah, False prophet, false god, false everything. Total fiction, never existed !total mystery religion, total pagan belief. We reject this fiction as False. While Judaism takes no strong position one way or another re: the historical character of Jesus. I do take a personal stand. Jesus never existed and is a historical fictional invention. I thinks this should end our discussion. I have allowed this to continue too long and we are talking past each other. Every theological and historical point I made in opposition to your positions are not responded to but sidetracked to other subjects so as to obscure your non responsiveness to my objections and criticisms.
Peskin I told you that I would double up since your suggestion that I cease. It is you who have inspired me, motivated to hyper typing. If there are complaints pls direct them to Peskin.
Peskin stick with your other Homo icon Ginsberg. You seem to have greater affinity and understanding of like fellows. I know you are stupid ,everyone reading any of your posts know you are a stupid fool, so why must you constantly reinforce their opinions of you. Your limp attempts at caustic humor falls flat on this site, maybe your effete friends who post to daily koss and similar sites might be entertained by the likes of you. They seems to be of a like mind( if you can call it that) same sexual orientations or at least tolerant of them, and all seem to be as ignorant and as shallow as you are.
According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will… possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, nor will he possess supernatural qualities.
A man who can die certainly “possess[es] normal physical attributes like other people.” You know quite well that I, for one, have never made any claim to the Christ’s being a “demi-god.”
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Again, you are just creating straw-men to give yourself something to knock down. We’ve been over this ground before; your repetitive attempts to slip this by me are tiresome, and frankly, discourteous — hardly the soul of derekh eretz – though I can’t say that comes as a shock. As I’ve already noted, where these matters are concerned, you’ve managed to make yourself quite predictable, Yamit.
I repeat, for the umpteenth time: HaNitzri said, “I come not to destroy [haTorah or haN'vi'im] but to fulfill [them]. [And furthermore] heaven and earth will pass away before a single jot or tittle of the law be done away with.” [Mt 5:17-18]
The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David!
“Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man [Yehoiakhin, "{Ye}Khoniah"] childless, a man that shall not prosper to his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. [Yir 22:30]
Because of Yekhoniah/Yehoiakhin’s evildoing [2 Ki 24:9], his seed was cut off from ever sitting on David’s Throne. [Yir 22:24-30]
As the foster son of Yoseph, a direct descendant of David — through Solomon and Yekhoniah [Mt 1:1-17] — Yeshua had the legal right to the Davidic Throne.
However, since the spiritual entitlement of Yehoiakhin’s heirs (including Yoseph) was ENDED, that spiritual right had to come from David via a different route altogether: The spiritual right to the Throne came through Jesus’ mother’s line, which descended also from David, but through another of the latter’s sons: Natan [Lk 3:31].
The virgin birth was necessary to the accomplishment of Christ’s mission, whose coditions required, among other things, that throughout his life he have a fully-functioning free will — a faculty not accessible to anyone born of the lineage of compulsion created by, and inherited from, Adam’s fall: an event which altered Adam’s mind AND body before he produced offspring, and affecting, as well, the manner in which his progeny would be produced.
That alteration to Adam’s being cost him his bright nature and his free will, thus rendering him — and all those born to him since then, in the usual way — compulsive: lacking the free will that Adam had begun life with, but lost when first he disobeyed the Almighty’s command and became death-bound.
And please don’t tell me that YOU have a free will….
[If you do make that claim, I will promptly ask if you have any bad habits -- "bad" in whatever way YOU choose to define "bad." For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter HOW you define it, or what you perceive those bad habits to BE -- only that you have some habits which you personally regard as bad ones.
What IS significant is that as soon as you answer "yes," that you do have some, you will have thereby confirmed that you do NOT have free will. Q.E.D.]
Anyway, because the mission of HaNitzri required a genuinely free will, he had to be born free of the taint of the fall. But that would mean he was no less human — no more of a “demi-god” or other “supernatural” being, etc — than Adam had been before his initial disobedience. A MAN, but kosher, as it were, from Day One of his existence.
Re (back to) 88:
I gather you accept and believe that [Jesus] was The Messiah… why do you think he was?
Comment by yamit82 — May 23, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
If that’s what you wanted to know, why in blue blazes didn’t you just ask me THAT in the first place? Till now, you seem to have asked me everything but — and moreover, obnoxiously insisted on responses to your own, straw-man assumptions of his non-existence altogether.
[I]f you have Jewish scriptural evidence…that he [Jesus] is THE MESSIAH, then lets have it.
As it happens, there’s quite a bit of that to point to; but that’s not what brought me to believe in the first place. So what would be the point in citing chapter and verse? Just as I had come to believe long before I ever knew that Jesus of Nazareth had been referenced by Tacitus, Suetonius, Celsus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian the Cynic, et al. — just so, I had likewise found the Jewish scriptural “evidence” only long after I believed.
But then, prophecy is typically intended to be comprehended only in hindsight. It’s not a roadmap — or it would be straightforward, not cryptic.
What brought me to believe was esssentially TWO things:
1. I came to understand what the Messiah’s true, cosmic mission consisted of, and why only the figure outlined in the gospels could have accomplished that; not that anybody “preached” that awareness into me.
Preaching has never gotten any action from me, in regard to anything; I always have to understand a thing for myself, or not at all. I simply came to appreciate the nature of that mission entirely for myself.
2. And having (at long last) resolved to read the gospel story on its OWN TERMS, quite apart from any pre-existing baggage I might have been bringing to it — I found the story believable.
What’s more, I think you’d find, if you pursued the matter, that most of those who do believe Yeshua is the Messiah (even those who haven’t a clue as to the mission I alluded to, or who assume that he actually “came to found a new religion”) — that most who “believe-in” HaNitzri do so not because biblical scholarship or external historical testimony confirms their belief, but because the gospel story itself is believable on a stand-alone basis.
What’s more, I think you’d find, if you pursued the matter, that most of those who do believe Yeshua is the Messiah (even those who haven’t a clue as to the mission I alluded to, or who assume that he actually “came to found a new religion”) — that most who “believe-in” HaNitzri do so not because biblical scholarship or external historical testimony confirms their belief, but because the gospel story itself is believable on a stand-alone basis.
Story believable? Maybe if you are already a Pagan as it would fit most of the Pagan beliefs of that time. Christian apologist Richard Sisson states:
“In fact, after the death of Jesus a whole flood of books that claimed to be inspired appeared…. Disputes over which ones were true were so intense that the debate continued for centuries. Finally in the fourth century a group of church leaders called a council and took a vote. The 66 books that comprised our cherished Bible were declared to be Scripture by a vote of 568 to 563.” They took a VOTE? 2 from column A 3 from column B Very Holy stuff. Democracy in action! Really Believable if you are brain dead or already believe in the Paganistic concepts they were based on. Then all might well be believable.
Paul and the writers of all four canonical Gospels described the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, as they understood it had happened. There is a acknowledged consensus among academic Christian theologians that:
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Jesus’ disciples but by a person or persons whose names are unknown.
Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers had been an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry or death.
The Gospels record the beliefs and memories of various Christian groups as they had evolved at the time they were written.
Roughly speaking the ancients’ gods:
* Were born on or very near our Christmas Day
* Were born of a Virgin-Mother
* Were born in a Cave or Underground Chamber
* Led a life of toil for Mankind
* Were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Savior, Deliverer
* Were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness
* And descended into Hell or the Underworld
* Rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world
* Founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism
* Were commemorated by Eucharistic meals
Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki; the Savior Dionysus was born of the virgin Semele. Buddha too was born of a virgin, as were the Egyptian Horus and Osiris. The old Teutonic goddess Hertha was a virgin impregnated by the heavenly Spirit and bore a son. Scandinavian Frigga was impregnated by the All-Father Odin and bore Balder, the healer and savior of mankind.
Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as “Savior,” “Son of God,” “Redeemer,” and “Lamb of God.” With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead — an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.
The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was originally the pagan birthday of Mithras, the sun god, whose day of the week is still known as “Sunday.” The halo of light which is usually shown surrounding the face of Jesus and Christian saints, is another concept taken from the sun god. The theme of temptation by a devil-like creature was also found in pagan mythology. In particular, the story of Jesus’s temptation by Satan resembles the temptation of Osiris by the devil-god Set in Egyptian mythology.
The whole of the Jesus narrative was firmly based, copied and incorporated into the Christian gospel narratives. So what is believable? Judaism, unlike the Christianity, does not believe that the Messiah is Jesus. The noun moshiach (translated as messiah) annotatively means “annointed one;” it does not, however, imply “savior.” The notion of an innocent, semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought or scripture. In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah. Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, the only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered high priest. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha, and Apocrypha never mention the Messiah. Matthew 20:28: Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.
Your ability to read and understand biblical texts is so far removed from reality and understanding that it is apparently impossible at least by me and my own limited abilities carry this thread further. Believe what you will that is your right and your choice. I have lost my interest and patience as well as concentration and focus necessary to pursue this further. If you were at least intellectually honest it might be another matter.
King David!
“Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man [Yehoiakhin, "{Ye}Khoniah"] childless, a man that shall not prosper to his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. [Yir 22:30]
Because of Yekhoniah/Yehoiakhin’s evildoing [2 Ki 24:9], his seed was cut off from ever sitting on David’s Throne. [Yir 22:24-30]
As the foster son of Yoseph, a direct descendant of David — through Solomon and Yekhoniah [Mt 1:1-17] — Yeshua had the legal right to the Davidic Throne.
However, since the spiritual entitlement of Yehoiakhin’s heirs (including Yoseph) was ENDED, that spiritual right had to come from David via a different route altogether: The spiritual right to the Throne came through Jesus’ mother’s line, which descended also from David, but through another of the latter’s sons: Natan [Lk 3:31].
a signet: Engraved and sealed in the flesh of My arm. :
I will remove you: Cf. (supra 12:3) “Draw them out (??????) like sheep to the slaughter” (Jos. 8:6) “Until we have drawn (?????????) them.” And the ‘nun’ is superfluous. And, according to the Midrash Aggadah (Pesikta d’Rav Kahana, p. 163a): In the place to which he was removed (??????), there he was rectified (???????) , for he repented in Babylon, and the Holy One, blessed be He, applied for absolution of the oath He had sworn, “Inscribe this man childless.” and Zerubbabel was born to him in Babylon, and it was said to him through the prophet (Haggai 2:23), “On that day… I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you as a signet,” directed toward what He said to his father, “Though… be a signet on My right arm,… I will remove him (sic).” Yirmiyahu 22: Rashi!
Learn to read the Tanach in Hebrew or get you to a real Rabbi to explain things to you properly. Alone you show scant ability to read or understand Jewish texts. Relying on Christian texts is like relying on the Protocpls of the Elders of Zion to understand Jews and Judaism. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing for some.
Peskin first time you said anything reasonably intelligent here.
Einstein on God:
Albert Einstein is on record as saying that he did not believe in a personal God. They keyword is personal. Einstein did not believe that god knows or cares about you on a personal level, that he hears your prayers or interferes in anyway in response to prayers. Instead, he believed that there was a God that maintained and created the harmony of the universe.
On whether he considered himself religious: “Yes, you could call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything we can comprehend is my religion.”
On whether he considered himself an atheist: “I’m not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God.”
On the nature of God: “That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
On whether science leads to religion: “Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of nature–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort.”
On how religion motivates scientific inquiry: “The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.”
On whether science and religion are at odds: “The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
On how he feels about atheist efforts to claim him as an ally: “There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”
On how he regards atheists: “The fanatical atheists…are creatures who cannot her the music of the spheres. I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”
Yamit. Why do you engage this dweller?
Comment by rongrand — May 23, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
Excellent question. I’ve been asking Yamit the same thing, but he just likes to generate verbiage; often, just wading thru the mounds of it and pondering it can take up my whole hour, leaving me no time to write a response. [Maybe that's his methodology of trying to silence me, along with his other various critics? Snow us under with palabra?]
Sometimes I wonder that he finds time to sleep (unless, of course, generating verbiage acts as a sleeping aid for him).
Advise dweller to find another website to babble on.
Why don’t YOU “advise” me to, Hero?
Or is Yamit the designated caretaker on this site?
Frankly, if you’ve been reading this exchange, then you must know that MOST of the ‘babbling’ in this thread — by far, the lion’s share — is, like most of the ‘babbling’ all over this site, demonstrably:
NOT mine, but Yamit’s [count the posts & the pages, if you don't believe that];
as often as not, off-point & irrelevant;
only OCCASIONALLY reflecting Yamit’s vaunted “expertise”;
EQUALLY OFTEN, reflecting his compulsive ignorance, lack of balance and insular perspective;
FREQUENTLY reflecting his undisciplined emotionalism;
and INVARIABLY reflecting his bloated, elephantine ego.
Tell me about babble.
This forum is to be used for dealing with Israeli crisis… Where is he going with this anyhow?
I will answer you in this way, Sir:
We are — Israel is — looking down the business end of what could well be developing into Bar Kochva “Redux.” If you honestly can’t see the connection between that and the contemporary “Israeli crisis,” then I’m SORRY that you can’t see it. Though I can’t frankly say I’m surprised: With so much ‘babbling’ to wade through, how could a hapless bystander (let alone, a guilt-ridden and apparently somewhat torpid one) ever be expected to find a sense of direction?
Be that as it may, however, the B-K paradigm is quite real, and if you truly ARE concerned — as you say — that Israel’s supporters should remain (or become) united and focused against the looming threat, then I suggest to you that — at least in THAT particular regard — you have more in common with YoursTruly than you do with Yamit, shocking though that may sound.
The inescapable fact of the matter is that the best and most reliable friends that Israel has at this time (and for the forseeable future) are NOT the morally compromised and “Barry”-bedazzled, liberal American Jewish community. The best and most reliable friends that Israel has are in fact Christian Zionists: largely (though not exclusively) of Evangelical background and posture, and found in substantial numbers stateside.
Yet the emotionally-scarred, paranoid polymath that you’ve taken for a mentor in Yamit is clearly bound-&-determined to scare them off, no matter how guileless and earnest they may be in Israel’s behalf. I’ll be damned if I’ll let him succeed in that perverse quest. That’s the short answer to your question ["Where is he going with this anyhow?"].
You shall not murder, which applies equally to humans and animals… Murder — even of animals… is still murder… Judaism prohibits murdering animals…
?!!?! What drivel. [Good God, Yamit, where do you keep dredging up -- or concocting -- this silly-assed stuff ?!]
THERE IS NO SUCH THING — in any Judaism not propounded by ‘animal rights’ dingalings (or other wingnuts with obvious axes to grind) — as the ‘murder of animals.’ The very notion is an oxymoron, a contradiction-in-terms.
Animals must be treated humanely wherever possible (that goes without saying); moreover, such an admonition may not be treated lightly, or as a mere formality.
But killing animals — under ANY circumstances — does not, and cannot, constitute ‘murder.’ It can, surely, depending on the particulars, constitute an act of reprehensible cruelty. However, a person can no more ‘murder’ a Guernsey cow than he/she can ‘make love‘ to a Guernsey cow (notwithstanding the person’s carnal proclivities).
NONE, not one, of Aseret Ha-Dibroht [the Ten Commandments] pertains directly to Man’s dealings with animals (except as the property of other men; e.g., the injunction against coveting). The Commandment expressly forbidding murder: “Lo tirtzakh” — like all the other ones not directly germane, and exclusively apposite, to Man’s relationship to God specifically — is strictly about PERSONS, and not about other animals.
Otherwise, the Commandment could just as easily have read “Lo taharog” ['You shall not KILL']. It clearly doesn’t, because killing and murder are not identical concepts, or interchangeable synonyms. Nor are the words etymologically related, or linguistically linked, in any manner or degree.
Alone among the Almighty’s works, only MAN — the “Crown of Creation” — is expressly made in God’s image ["b'tzal'mo b'tzelem elohim" - Br 1:27; "Imago Dei," in the Latin], and it is only to Man that murder — the act or the Commandment forbidding it — can possibly appertain.
Frankly, though, I STILL can’t figure out why you even WROTE post 91; it had nothing to do with the matter under discussion. You seem to go off on these jags at the weirdest times, yAMIT, seemingly whenever (and wherever) the prospect takes your fancy. You really do need to find a way to stop forgetting to take your medecine when it’s time.
Dweller You are a Christian Ignoramus especially when it pertains to Jewish Law and even Judaism itself: This is my last reply to you as you choose adhomenim rather than address to any of my major points of disagreement with you, your ideas and beliefs. I suppose by your last replies that you have no ans where you can rebut authoritatively based on Jewish and not Christian sources. The Ten commandments only represent the broad principles of Jewish law. The oral law is the interpretation of those principles. I suppose you do not accept oral Law as that would demolish all of your beliefs but then why use them to attempt to counter some of my arguments? Can’t have it both ways.
“Herod also got together a great quantity of wild beasts, and of lions in very great abundance, and of such other beasts as were either of uncommon strength or of such a sort as were rarely seen. These were trained either to fight one with another, or men who were condemned to death were to fight with them. And truly foreigners were greatly surprised and delighted at the vast expenses of the shows, and at the great danger of the spectacles, but to the Jews it was a palpable breaking up of those customs for which they had so great a veneration.” -Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews.
Judaism places great stress on proper treatment of animals. Unnecessary cruelty to animals is strictly forbidden, and in many cases, animals are accorded the same sensitivity as human beings. This concern for the welfare of animals is unusual in Western civilization. Most civilized nations did not accept this principle until quite recently; cruelty to animals was not outlawed until the 1800s.
Judaism expresses no definitive opinion as to whether animals are capable of experiencing physical or psychological pain as humans do; however, Judaism has always recognized the link between the way a person treats animals and the way a person treats human beings. A person who is cruel to a defenseless animal will undoubtedly be cruel to defenseless people, and a person who cares for the lowest of creatures will certainly care for his fellow man.
Jacob, Moses and David were all shepherds, people who caed for animals. The Talmud specifically states that Moses was chosen for his mission because of his skill in caring for animals. “The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said ‘Since you are merciful to the flock of a human being, you shall be the shepherd of My flock, Israel.’” Likewise Rebecca was chosen as a wife for Isaac because of her kindness to animals. When Abraham’s servant asked for water for himself, she volunteeed to water his camels as well, and thereby proved herself a worthy wife.
On the other hand, the two hunters in the Bible, Nimrod and Esau, are both depicted as villains. A great rabbi who was insensitive to the fear of a calf being led to slaughter was punished with years of pain.
In the Torah, humanity is given dominion over animals, and has the right to use animals for legitimate needs. Animal flesh can be consumed for food; animal skins can be used for clothing; the Torah itself must be written on parchment, that is, animal hides.
However, we are permitted to use animals in this way only when there is a genuine, legitimate need, and we must do so in the manner that causes the animal the least suffering. Kosher slaughtering is designed to be as fast and painless as possible, and if anything occurs that might cause pain (such as a nick in the slaughtering knife or a delay in the cutting), the flesh may not be consumed. Hunting for sport is strictly prohibited, and hunting and trapping for legitimate needs is permissible only when it is done in the least painful way possible.
The laws regarding treatment of animals are reffered to as Tzar Baalei Chayim, prevention of cruelty to animals.
Under Jewish law, animals have some of the same rights as humans do. Animals rest on Shabbat, as humans do. We are forbidden to muzzle an ox while it is working in the field, just as we must allow human workers to eat from the produce they are harvesting.
Several commandments demonstrate concern for the physical or psychological suffering of animals. We may not plow a field using animals of different species, because this would be a hardship to the animals. We are requied to relieve an animal of its burden, even if we do not know its owner, or even if it is ownerless. We are not permitted to kill an animal in the same day as its young, and are specifically commanded to send away a mother bird when taking the eggs, because of the psychological distress this would cause the animal. In fact, the Torah specifically says that a person who sends away the mother bird will be rewarded with long life, precisely the same reward that is given for honoring mother and father. This should give some indication of the importance of this law.
We are permitted to violate Shabbat to some extent to rescue an animal in pain or at risk of death.
In the Talmud, the rabbis further dictated that a person may not purchase an animal unless he has made provisions to feed it, and a person must feed his animals before he feeds himself. It is a violation of Jewish law to neuter a pet. The Torah prohibits castrating males of any species. Although this law does not apply to neutering female pets, neutering of females is prohibited by general laws relating to unnecessary cruelty to animals.
It is a violation of the general prohibition against cruelty to animals to have your pet physically alteed in any way without a genuine, legitimate need. For example, declawing cats and docking the ears or tails of dogs are forbidden.
I reiterate:
Jews are not prohibited from eating pork specifically. The prohibition is a trivial consequence of the commandment, You shall not murder, which applies equally to humans and animals. Life is sacred, and murder is prohibited. Practical Judaism, however, recognizes that some killing is unavoidable. Sometimes, it is “kill or be killed,” and Judaism allows killing to save other lives. Jews can kill enemies and heinous criminals legally.
People have to eat meat. The moot issue of vegetarianism aside, people cannot live without meat. In order to save their own lives, people have to kill animals. Hence Judaism makes an exception for three or four animals from the general prohibition of murder.
It is not that some animals are prohibited for food. All animals are prohibited, but out of necessity an exception is made for three or four of them. A few other animals were included in the list of permitted animals later, and erroneously—they do not strictly satisfy the criteria about hooves and chewing. Jews don’t eat humans, just as they don’t eat horses, camels, deer, bears, pigs, and most other species.
Animals earmarked for food must be domesticated. People give them life to take it later. Judaism stipulates that animals must be killed painlessly. Murder—even of animals, even out of utter necessity—is still murder and must not be enjoyed; Judaism opposes recreational hunting.
Dweller: One last thing: I am not opposed to Christian Zionists supporting Israel per se, If their motivations are pure. Since in most cases I can’t know whose are pure and whose have ulterior motives inimical to Jews and Israel I suspect all until proven otherwise. My attitudes my drive some ( I hope not) Christians from supporting Israel but so be it. Till now I haven’t been shown to be wrong in most if not all of my intuitive gut feelings about most so called Zionist Christians I have been in contact with. If I have erred on some apologies are due them.
“Do not do unto your neighbor what is hateful to you.” Christianity enhanced that rule just a bit…
Wrong. It was “enhanced” and preached by Yeshua HaNitzri — a Jew — BEFORE it was ever picked up by those gentiles who, later, came to call themselves “Christians” — and who, moreover, came to call themselves that only years after their gentile neighbors at Antioch started using that handle to identify them.
Those who followed him and who continued to live in Judea , had no need to be so distinguished by their neighbors, because — like those neighbors — the Judean members of their sect were almost entirely Jews, at least until 135.
[In fact, what you characterize, above, as an 'enhancement' may have been preached by other Jewish contemporaries of Jesus, as well. Not everybody had a traveling amanuensis taking down his every utterance in writing.]
Jesus taught and preached AS A JEW, and almost exclusively AMONGST Jews. He in fact explicitly forbade the Twelve to go preaching to anyone BUT the Jews [Mt 10:5-6] — not changing that policy until after his resurrection [28:19].
He NEVER called anybody a “Christian.” Indeed, the instances of the word, “Christian,” even appearing anywhere in the four gospels are exactly: zero.
Those who loved him, he called, quite simply, his “friends.”
…enhanc[ing] that rule… made it impractical. Positive reciprocity… when your neighbor means everyone… is unworkable.
Speak for yourself, Mahatma. And maybe you should table the talking points till you’ve tried on the proposition for size, and have some experience to speak FROM in that matter of ‘workability’ and ‘practicality.’
What is the love enjoined to our fellows? The context clarifies: “You shall not oppress your fellow” (19:13), “You shall not hate your brother” (19:17), and the 19:18: “You shall neither take revenge, nor restrain [yourself to take revenge later] at the children of your nation.”
Revenge is prohibited… against fellow Jews, on the… presumption of their general goodwill…
The prescribed love to one’s fellow is the absence of hatred, vengeance, oppression, and jealousy.
Comment by yamit82 — May 23, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
The Jewish sect of Netzarim [believers in Jesus, not yet constituting a different religion] of the Bar Kokhba era were neither meshumaddim [traitors] NOR gerim [resident strangers] — by ANY definition of the terms. Your hatred of them and your persistent defaming of their memory — without any evidence to verify your ugly charges — constitute libel and the bearing of false witness. Your attitude disgraces not only yourself but also Kol Yisrael.
You will not live this down, Yamit, until you come to terms with what you have done.
Re post 117 [out of sequence, to consolidate subject matter]:
[YAMIT -- in assuming Nazarene Jews' "treason," linked to their abstention from the Bar Kokhba 'Messianic' War]: “Have you ever heard, ‘you are with me or against me’?” [88]
[DWELLER]: “Have YOU ever heard of ‘innocent till proven guilty’?” [116]
[YAMIT]: “No! Not in Jewish LAW.” [117]
Comment by yamit82 — June 6, 2009 @ 7:38 am
As is so often the case in these matters, Yamit, you’re fullovit.
“Ve’heveh dan et kol ha-adam l’kaf z’khut”:
“Judge everyone on the positive side of the scale.”
(Pirkei Avoht 1:6)
What do you think that MEANS, if not to regard a man as innocent till proven guilty?
This is in fact the reason, for example, that it became an established practice — if not an outright DICTUM — in Jewish courts specifically — for an unsupported confession of crime to be disallowed for conviction, if it was not accompanied by additional, external, corroborating evidence and/or reliable outside testimony.
We Jews know — better than most [you seem to be an exception, as to empathy, if not awareness] — what life was like, living in one country after another where the presumption invariably lay with the accuser: and the burden of proof was always on the accused, to prove his INNOCENCE — rather than on the accuser, to prove the accused person’s GUILT. A lot of innocent persons were injured, exiled, reviled, dispossessed or executed (often in horrible ways), because of just such a policy.
And how does an falsely accused, or wrongly convicted, man who is DEAD clear his own name if he is guilty till proven innocent?
The fact is that much of English Common Law (and consequently, the inherited legal systems of much of the modern, English-speaking world) derived its foundations & legal principles from the first two Jewish Commonwealths, as well as the Jewish writings of the first few POST-Commonwealth centuries of the common era.
You still haven’t provided ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support (let alone, prove) your accusations of ‘treason’ by the Nazarene Jews against the Jewish People in the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In the absence of any such evidence, you stand revealed for the vicious and dangerous demagogue you are.
You still haven’t provided ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support (let alone, prove) your accusations of ‘treason’ by the Nazarene Jews against the Jewish People in the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In the absence of any such evidence, you stand revealed for the vicious and dangerous demagogue you are.
Origen also points to the militarism of the Hebrews when he suggests that if Christians ever came to control a country and its government, which did not happen until the reign of Constantine (long after Origen’s death), then Christians also would have an obligation to protect their lands and people.
Nor did Origen oppose war in principle as he and other Christians desired and prayed for victory for the Roman army and the destruction of its enemies. And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead
to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than
those who go into the field to fight for them. And we do take our part in public affairs, when along with
“No Christian writer prior to the time of Constantine approved of Christian participation in warfare.
righteous prayers we join self-denying exercises and meditations, which teach us to despise pleasures, and
not to be led away by them. And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under
him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army–an army of piety–by
offering our prayers to God.
Whether the early Christians were pacifists or not they did have an aversion to war and avoided it at all costs. This seems to be true through at least the first 2 early Christian centuries. I base in part my contention that early Christians refused to join the BK rebellion because A- they were pacifists and B- Loyal to the Roman Authority.
Thia proves they were traitors to the Jewish cause and it is inconceivable that there would have been no severe backlash reprisals by Jewish patriots especially after their siding with and supporting Rome. It’s all in #12 check it out for yourself.
How does the Torah condem the early pacifistic followers of Jesus? Try Leviticus 19:16, Etz Hayim translates our verse: “Do not profit by the blood of your fellow”, and the commentary on the verse tells us that, in context, the verse seems to mean: “Do not pursue [your] livelihood in a way that endangers another or at the expense of another’s well-being.” (p. 696) This translation and commentary do seem to fit the context of the surrounding verses.
But a more literal translation of our verse is: “Do not stand idly by [or "on/over"] the blood of your neighbor” One 18th century Sephardic commentary, the Me’am Lo’ez, written by Rabbi Yitzchak Magriso, incorporates earlier Talmudic and medieval commentaries, and then adds his contemporary perspective. Rabbi Magriso writes:
Included in the commandment, ‘Do not stand over the blood of your neighbor’ is an injunction that if one sees his neighbor in danger and has the ability to do something, he must do everything in his power to help him.
For example, if one sees someone drowning or attacked by murderers or wild beasts, if he can help him or bring others to do so, he is obliged to do it.
If he hears that others are planning to kill his neighbor or harm him, he has an obligation to inform him. If he knows that a gentile wishes to harm his friend and he can reconcile them, he has an obligation do so.
It goes without saying that if one is aware that people wish to forcibly convert his neighbor to another religion, he has an obligation to save him. Forced conversion is the same as destroying a soul. Likewise, if a person has been drawn away from Judaism, and one has the power to bring him back, he certainly has an obligation to do so.
In all these cases . . . God is saying “Do not stand still and say, ‘All is well with me’ when you see your friend in danger. You must make every effort with all your power to save him.
Yes not only were the early followers of Jesus Traitors they were also apikorim, and deserved capital punishment.
As is so often the case in these matters, Yamit, you’re fullovit.
“Ve’heveh dan et kol ha-adam l’kaf z’khut”:
“Judge everyone on the positive side of the scale.”
(Pirkei Avoht 1:6)
What do you think that MEANS, if not to regard a man as innocent till proven guilty?
As a general rule you are correct but there are exceptions where extrajudicial punishmnet is not only permitted but is an obligation of every Jew. The laws pertainting to rodef and Moser
read and weep Christian! As is so often the case in these matters, you’re ignorance is showing again.
The real difference between the two religions is practicality. Judaism is practical while Christianity - idealistic. Social teaching of Judaism is based on negative reciprocity, Do not do unto your neighbor what is hateful to you. Christianity enhanced that rule just a bit, and made it impractical. Positive reciprocity, Treat your neighbor as yourself, especially when neighbor means everyone, is unworkable.
#134
your ugly charges — constitute libel and the bearing of false witness. Your attitude disgraces not only yourself but also Kol Yisrael.
You will not live this down, Yamit, until you come to terms with what you have done.
In order to show and prove libel you must therefore prove beyond any doubt that I have; which you can’t because what I have posted is true unless: you can prove otherwise. You copied the Hebrew incorrectly it is Klal or Clal and not Kol.
Your stupid threats only reinforce my positions as defamation and threats are no substitute for substantiating your position in fact and not because you have beliefs and opinions however fallacious which you are entitled to but not as fact and not based on Jewish sources at least the ones uncorrupted in Christian beliefs and texts.
#133
Superficially there are many types of Judaism and Christianity, often overlapping. For example, there are professedly religious Jews who defy Sabbath and the Christians who observe it. Reform Judaism follows much of the practices of protestant Christianity. The issue of Jesus’ resurrection is practically insignificant. Suppose for a moment that Jews accepted the resurrection as a historical fact. What next? How does that change our life? Shall we abandon the commandments? No. Jesus told the crowd to do as the Pharisees teach, and that included the Oral Law codified in Talmud. Shall we follow an arbitrary apostolic set of rules? But James only commanded to abstain from blood; he told nothing about murder or stealing. Shall we assume those are not prohibited in Christianity? Shall the rule of positive reciprocity direct us? But how? Good Christians killed good Jews out of love for the fellow Christians. Love everyone is too vague to be practiced. Israel does not live with the Basic Law only, nor does America with the Bill of Rights. People need more detailed instructions. In Judaism, those are the commandments. Small communities of early Christians could abandon the law; their members were close and could love each other, even though Paul’s letters picture discontentment within Christian communities. After Christianity had expanded, its legits arbitrarily reintroduced some commandments. Christians reject at least one of the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, but accept the second-tier commandments such as prohibitions on usury and homosexuality.
The real difference between the two religions is practicality. Judaism is practical while Christianity - idealistic. Social teaching of Judaism is based on negative reciprocity, Do not do unto your neighbor what is hateful to you. Christianity made it impractical. Positive reciprocity, Treat your neighbor as yourself, especially when neighbor means everyone, is unworkable. We cannot feed everyone before sitting down at our meal, nor could we help everyone in dire need before buying non-essential goods for ourselves. Idealism sounds great, but it is not. People who cannot practice rules abandon them. They need to rationalize the failure. The rule of positive reciprocity cannot be imagined wrong, and so they find wrong with it’s rule’s objects. People not loved become demonized: look, even good Christians are unable to love them. Hatred to aliens is another side of the universal love. Christians cannot love the Jews who reject their teaching; many, therefore, hate the Jews.
Christian idealism caused the Jews many problems. Leftist political idealism of love and good faith settlement with enemies does likewise.
Messianic churches don’t want a secure and prosperous Israel. Many rational leaders and compassionate Christians side with the Jews, but the core attitude to Israel views her as a springboard for the eventual triumph of Christianity. To that end, Israel should not be secure. Jews who fit messianic description must suffer, shrink, fall into (leftist) idolatry, and eventually be annihilated. Few Christians subscribe to the alternate concept that Messiah comes on the wave of peace and prosperity. Christianity wants a specific Israel - the lamb of Isaiah.
The world did not pressure Russia over the immense atrocities commited against Chechnya, or China over the Uighurs. The world cares not about the Basques, Bretons, Red Indians, and scores of other oppressed minorities. The United States is built on occupied land. But the entirely insignificant tribe of Palestinian Arabs reaps international attention. The same media provides no coverage of other suffering Arabs: Shiites in Saudi Arabia, Christians in Egypt, Palestinians in Kuwait, etc. The only conceivable reason for the world’s passion for the Palestinians is anti-Semitism. Most anti-Semitic canards hold a bit of distorted truth, and so the Palestinian canard is true to an extent: Palestinians are much better off under Israeli rule, but they are less free, and most importantly, non-sovereign. But the screams in support of the Palestinian Arabs are not meant to support them, but rather to condemn Jews.
Jews lived peacefully with Muslims for centuries, but we have never felt comfortable in any Christian country; even the US was deeply anti-Semitic until the mid-twentieth century at least. Israeli problems with Arab nationalists stem in large measure from Christian actions. Christian nations pushed Israel into indefensible borders by carving Jordan and Palestine out of the land of Israel. Arabs might not fight a relatively large Israel in the borders of the Promised Land, but a beach-strip Israel is provocatively indefensible. The Christian state of America, rather than Muslim Egypt, forced Israel to give away the Sinai. Christian powers finance the Arabs’ wars with Israel by oil purchases, and enable those wars by selling Arabs advanced weapons. Whatever the liberal rabbis are saying now, the Rambam declared in the Laws of Kings, chapter 11, “Jesus of Nazareth… caused Israel to perish by the sword and to have their remnant scattered and degraded. He replaced the Torah and led astray most of the world to serve a god besides the Lord.”
Christian support for Israel is exaggerated. A two-thousand-year-old anti-Semitic mentality cannot change in a few years. Israel enjoys support from several messianic movements, but these are no more than the fringes of Christianity. Even for those churches, Israel is only an instrument for the messianic event. Should the Jewish state perish in an apocalyptic war, messianists will only see that as furthering their aims.
There are many sensible Christians who like the Jews, and still more of those who hate Muslims and view Jews as useful allies. But Israel can’t ever count on the Christian mainstream. Curious indifference is the best attitude among Christians the Jews could hope for.
Israel enjoys support from several messianic movements, but these are no more than the fringes of Christianity. Even for those churches, Israel is only an instrument for the messianic event. Should the Jewish state perish in an apocalyptic war, messianists will only see that as furthering their aims.
The choice of permitted animals is not accidental. Cows, goats, sheep, and gazelles are the folklore examples of stupidity. If we have to kill some animals, at least kill the least intellectually advanced. Similarly, Judaism prohibits scaleless sea creatures. All fish have at least some scales, and even shrimp have a scale-like chitin cover. The only truly scaleless sea creatures are sea mammals. They are intellectually advanced, and humans should not kill them for food. Similarly, swarming creatures are prohibited. The swarming creatures par excellence are ants and bees, incredibly smart beings.
Of course, the choice was not “accidental.” But it does not follow that the central criterion was intellect. The rebbes venerated intellect; so they may perhaps explain it this way. But I’m not so sure that’s the actual reason the food animals were so designated in Torah.
After all, there’s nothing special about the intellect.
[Those who are long on intellect may like to think there is, and they typically get lots of recognition for it from other men. And who doesn't like to be thought special? But that does not, of itself, make it so in the eyes of the One who constructed the intellect, to begin with.]
The intellect is just a tool, an instrumentality. Some animals have more of it, and some have less. Man has the most; big deal.
Arguably, in the absence of fast legs;
arguably, in the absence of sharp teeth and claws;
arguably, in the absence of powerful jaws and paws;
arguably, in the absence of lightning-quick reflexes;
arguably, in the absence of sharp vision or sensitive smell;
arguably, in the absence of all such endowments, and more –
man NEEDS more intellect…. just to keep up….
Yet no amount of “smarts” will ever bring any animal anywhere near to the place reserved for Man: as the “Crown of God’s Creation” — because intellect was never intended to be the distinguishing feature setting Man apart from the other animals NOT made in the Holy One’s blessed image [Br 1:27].
That exclusive feature is something of which no animal can partake, and in consequence of which, the entire animal kingdom, as it were, must rely on Man to exercise it on their behalf. That exclusive feature directly assigned to Man, and only Man, is the CONSCIENCE. No animal, however well-trained, has it in any degree, or ever will have it — or ever CAN have it.
The conscience is the faculty whereby a man can (among other things), for example, bind himself to a promise through Time, even if it brings him pain or discomfort to do so — for no other reason than that he knows in his heart that it is right to so bind himself to that promise.
Every culture accords honor to those who protect and provide for their families. But among civilized societies, above and beyond that general & universal dictum, the most honorable thing one can say about a man after he is gone comes out in phrases like, “he kept his promises,” “his handshake was as good as his signature,” “if he gave his word, you could bank on it,” etc., etc.
The conscience is God’s embassy in the foreign land that is this fallen world.
[The only persons who truly can't see that it is indeed fallen are those whose vanity cannot endure the naggings of conscience. So they tell themselves that conscience does not exist -- or that it is misinformed, or superfluous; since the world is purportedly 'not' descended from a "very good" one [Br 1:31], but rather, ‘evolving’ to a ‘better’ one.]
The conscience is really ha-ruakh ha-kodesh – God’s holy spirit — making it known to man in hindsight whenever he crosses the line. It is the faculty which earned for David the observation that he was a man “after God’s own heart.” David was as subject to sin as other men — sometimes horribly so — but in the end, he always allowed his conscience to catch up with him.
No animal — however winsome or felicitous — no animal other than Man has that exquisite potential.
Anyway, to return from this little excursion to its original point-of-departure: The assumption that limited intellect was the demarcating factor (over what was acceptable as food) strikes me as being just as doubtful as the assumption that “cleanliness” (as you also doubted) was the criterion.
There’s still quite a bit more in your post [91] that I could raise challenges to, as well, but, frankly I still don’t know why you even wrote it; or, at least, why you went on at-length with it as you did. I had only mentioned [in 85] a specific dietary law (the one prohibiting the mixing of milkhic w/ flaishic): I had mentioned it for the sole purpose of offering an example, in answer to a direct question from you [63] asking what I’d meant when I’d said (strictly in passing) earlier in the thread that you & I might differ as to which laws were intended only for Bnai Yisrael.
Yet from that single example, offerred solely to illustrate a point, you felt compelled to tell me (apparently) everything you know about Jewish dietary laws. Candidly, Yamit, I’m inclined to respond, “Good for you, Boychik; and what else is new?”
Dweller the intellect is the faculty whereby man is able to understand right from wrong. Knowing that means knowing what G-d tells us is right and wrong therefore we must learn the law and act upon it. Then we can elevate ourselves to be like G-d! When 3 million Hebrews stood at Sinai and heard G-d speak, each individual internalized and understood what G-d said differently than another. Therefore we might have up to 3 million different interpretations or nuances as a result. The Oral law fixed that.
1. Now the serpent was cunning, more than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made, and it said to the woman, “Did God indeed say, ‘You shall not eat of any of the trees of the garden?’”
2. And the woman said to the serpent, “Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat.
3. But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, “You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.’”
4. And the serpent said to the woman, “You will surely not die.
5. For God knows that on the day that you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like angels, knowing good and evil.”
6. And the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise; so she took of its fruit, and she ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
I rest my case! “AND YOU SHALL BE AS GODS”
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, stressed:
Without Torah there is no civic order, and without civic order there is no Torah. Without wisdom there is no fear of G-d, and without fear of G-d there is no wisdom. Without knowledge there is no intelligence, and without intelligence there is no knowledge. Without food there is no Torah, and without Torah there is no food. [Mishna Avot 3:20]
The idea here is that each component of these pairs helps create and completes its counterpart. The example of knowledge and intelligence, however, is a very delicate problem of philosophy. I mention it, relying on the understanding of those who take up this problem. The knowledge which comes to us and which we acquire, in turn, lets us understand the reasons to which it leads, if the whole idea is analyzed in detail and understood, or we can understand the separate reasons in their essence without applying them as knowledge. But the reasons themselves constitute essentially items of knowledge. This understanding is called intelligence, and it constitutes knowledge in itself, while knowledge is a medium for intelligence in that it makes it possible for us to understand whatever we do understand. It is like saying that if we do not understand the reason, we do not have real knowledge, while, if we have no knowledge, we do not understand the reason, because we understand it only based on our knowledge. To understand this idea is very difficult, even from the books written specially on this subject, all the more from this short passage. I only intended to point out the right path. [Rambam's Commentary on the Mishna]The right path is a knowledge of the whole of intelligence that makes up Torah so that it may be applied through intelligence as knowledge and not as intelligence through knowledge or knowing of it. Torah is a closed system of practical application while at the same time an open ended gateway of knowledge. To choose the right path is to understand this duality as a human misconception of a single divine idea.
[YAMIT]: “I have linked in common cause two totally obsessed idiots [dweller & Peskin].”
“Obsessed”? A bit of the pot and the kettle there, is it? — yourself vs the “idiots”?
I suggest that when it comes to obsession, Yamit, neither of your “two totally obsessed idiots” (or anybody else) has anything to teach YOU about obsession. And that’s being gentle about it. But be that as it may, I hardly think it obsessive of me, or anybody else, to be critical of bombast and irreverent toward pomposity.
Now dweller, You do so pontificate… and it seems have mastered adhominem and sophistry to cover what you can’t defend.
I “pontificate”? That’s rich. For somebody who routinely spits out as much palaver as you do, and invariably in the posture of authority, you leave an observer astonished to note that you make so little use of the dictionary. I suggest, with all due respect, that you find a moment to look up the word, “pontificate,” and see whether it applies to what you’ve read here from me, or to your own , ever-generously-provided, pronunciamentos.
As to what you characterize as “ad hominem” — are you quite sure you undertand what an ad hominem argument, or ad hominem attack, consists of? The expression, “ad hominem” means “to the person,” but not all personal observations during the course of a dispute — not even all negative perosnal observations — constitute ad hominem argument or attack.
If I poke fun at the sloppiness of your reasoning or your resort to supposition;
if I disdainfully call attention to your recurrent viciousness of tone or intellectual dishonesty;
if I snort over your persistent paranoia, or over any of a farrago of assorted shtiklakh connected with your manner of discourse
– these observations do not necessarily constitute argumentum ad hominem, particularly if they are offerred IN ADDITION TO (i.e., as an accompaniment to, rather than purely in lieu of) discussion on the merits of your assertions.
In fact, given the obvious compulsiveness of your methodology, it would be less than thorough of me NOT to make such observations in this regard. Still, though, if you think I’m using ad hominem remarks as a “cover,” you’re certainly welcome to show me specific examples of it, and how it constitutes a “cover.”
It’s apparent [embarrassingly obvious, really] that, with all your learning, you never got round to making a systematic study of the principles of logic & forensics. If you haven’t the discipline or inclination to pick it up on your own, then you might consider taking a course. You’d be a lot less likely to fall into such elementary rhetorical gambits as syllogistic reasoning or using supposition to make a case.
No instructor worth his salt (let alone, any assigned debate opponent) would ever let you get away with such devices.
What’s genuinely troublesome, from my perspective, about the sloppiness of your argumentation, though, is that if it’s this easy for me to see through it, it’s bound to be just as easy for Israel’s enemies to see through it as well. You might want to give that some thought.
But I have nothing to “cover,” Yamit. When I choose not to discuss a matter, I always tell you that, right up front; if there truly were any “obfuscation” intended on my part, I’d hardly allow myself to be so obvious about what I was doing as to state my intentions openly. If I’ve left any assertion or conclusion of mine undefended, as you suggest, after a challenge from you, then I am unaware of it; again, you’ll have to show me what you regard as specific examples of that on my part.
Interesting but to many of us nothing new here. This was presented quite well and understandable but it begs the question as to what can be done to change the trend ? According to the clip the demographics today are irreversible/ That said how is it any concern for we Jews? One can’t make a convincing argument that the Christian world has been better and more tolerant than the Muslims towards the Jews?
We Jews have an amazing Prophesy that states: The Moslems “making troubles” to Jews in the Land of Israel, but - more important - that the Moslems will ignite a war which will bring most of the Christian nations to fight them, as we see the beginning of the process right before our eyes with the Sep. 11 attack and the war in Afghanistan. We know as a fact that bin Laden wanted to start a war with Christianity, because Islam believes that the last war will be made between “believers” (in Islam) and “Romans” (Christians).
The demographic trends in the world tend to reinforce this position. Christian Nations will war against Muslim Nations or maybe just Muslims.
The war in Afghanistan is very relevant for us Jews. Here is why:
There’s almost nothing in the world that doesn’t have a Jewish connection… Here also, in the war that’s going on in Afghanistan there is a Jewish connection.
As remembered, before the destruction of the first Temple, the people of Israel was divided to 2 parts: Israel Kindgdom (in the north, with 10 tribes), and Judea Kingdom (with Jerusalem within its territory). The northern Israeli kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians, and the ten tribes were exiled to distant places. Since then they are “the lost tribes”. HaShem (G-d) promises in the prophecies (see for example Ezekiel 37, 15-28) that eventually they will return to the land of Israel and unite with their Jewish relatives. But in the meantime it is hard to know who they are.
One of the researches which was made some years ago, and was also introduces a few times on TV (Israeli TV and PBS), had reached Afghanistan, where it found - probably - remains of the ten tribes.
One subject of the Lost Tribes which has generally been ignored which I found to be personally fascinating are the tribe of the Pathans.
The Pathans are about 15 million people living mainly in Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as in Persia and India. They have a tradition of being of the Lost Tribes and have Israeli customs.
The Pathans have custom of circumcision on the 8th day. This is a known Jewish custom, and is the oldest Jewish tradition. Muslims have custom of circumcision but it is not on the 8th day, and usually at the age of 12.
The Pathans have a sort of small Tallit called Kafan. This is a 4 cornered garment which they tie strings similar to the fringes (Jews call them Tzitzit) and is one of the oldest Jewish traditions going back to the Torah and it is a sign of their Israeli origin. They also have bigger Tallit which they call Joy-Namaz. It is a garment 2-3 meters sq., and it is made to cover the head and part of the shoulders, and is used for prayer by spreading on the ground in the Muslim fashion. It has no fringes.
The Pathans have custom of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is considered a day of rest and they do not labor, cook or bake. The Pathans prepare 12 Hallot (traditional Jewish bread, Leviticus 24:5) in honor of the Sabbath as was done in the ancient temple. One of the significant indicators proving the Israeli origins of the Pathans is the lighting of the candle to honor the Sabbath. After lighting, the candle is covered usually by a large basket. The candle is lit by a woman past her menopause.
Pathans Live in Customs of Israelites
Pathans have custom of Kosher, dietary laws same as Jews. Pathans do not eat horse or camel meat, which is most common in their area but of course forbidden to Jews. There is some evidence to their not eating meat and milk together which is also an ancient Israeli tradition. And they have a tradition regarding differentiating between pure and impure birds which means permitted and not permitted birds similar to the Torah.
Some still wear a small box which Jews call Tefillin (phylactery) containing a verse of the Bible. This box resemble Japanese Tokin of Yamabushi’s forehead, too. This is an ancient custom of Israel. In the Jewish box there is the verse of Shema Israel, that is, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4) This custom of Tefillin came from a verse of the Scriptures, “You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8).
It is interesting to note that the Pathans retain family names of the Lost Tribes such as Asher, Gad, Naphtali, Reuben and Manasseh and Ephraim. Among them there are people who are called by these names, which are of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. There are also people who are called Israel, Samuel, and so on, which are never found among the Muslims. There are also many areas as locations, neighborhoods and villages with names of places that are similar to names in the land of Israel.
The region has archeological finds testifying to a Hebrew past, and they also resemble Jews of the area and their language Pashtu surprisingly has many Hebrew words. The Pathans are also called Afghans, or sons of the Pashtu which is their language, were mostly called “Bani-Israel” meaning children of Israel even though they live today as devout Muslims.
The external appearance of the Pathans resemble the Jews of the area. Together with their ancient customs and other data there is a definite connection that can be made to the Tribes of Israel.
The Pathans number 6 to 7 million in Afghanistan and 7 to 8 million in Pakistan. They live in the border area between these two countries and about 2 million live as nomads. These Pathans desire for their independence, which is supported by Afghanistan and is a cause of constant tension in Pakistan which does not desire their independence.
Pathans’ Law Resembles the Torah
Afghanistan is one of the least developed countries of Asia and the majority of the population is illiterate. They work primarily in farming and sheep-raising and other domesticated animals.
Most people still live in villages and some even live as nomads. It is a country that is ruled by Islamic religious law and more than 90 % of the population are Sunni Muslims. But whatever modernization has taken place, it has not reached the mountainous border areas. Here the Pathans continue their centuries old tribal life.
The legal system which is known as Pashtunwali, the law of the Pashtu, is very similar to the Torah, which is the holiest Jewish book and the book of ancient Jewish way of life. There are pages and even complete books among the pathans and they honor greatly what is called Tavrad El Sharif (the Torah of Moses), and they rise at the mention of the name of Moses even though it is not important in Islam.
The Pathans are very healthy, tall, and have strong light-skinned appearance. They are warriors and carry arms from a young age, they are hardworking, wise, truthful and extremely loyal and they also have a worldwide reputation for exemplary hospitality.
The ethnic origin of these Pathans has puzzled people for some time because they are different both externally and in the character traits from the other groups around them such as the Turks, the Mongolians, the Persians, or the Indo-Iranians. It is also difficult to trace their past history in a region in which tens of nations and major tribes of various origins have come and gone.
The personal identification of the Pathan Tribes with their Israelite origin is expressed in various ways. Besides the oral tradition related by the elders of the tribe, there are also interesting testimonies of keeping of scrolls of genealogy among the tribes, reaching back to the Fathers of the Jewish nation.
These scrolls are well preserved and some are written in gold on the skins of a doe. No less interesting and significant are the names of the tribes which bear close resemblance to the Tribes of Israel. The Rabbani Tribe is really Reuben, the Shinware Tribe is Shimon, the Lewani Tribe is Levi, The Daftani Tribe is Naphtali, and the Jaji Tribe is Gad, and the Ashuri Tribe is Asher, The Yusefsai Tribe is sons of Joseph, and the Afridi Tribe is really Ephraim. These are the names of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.
The Pathans themselves point out the differences between the original names of the tribes and their present names are because of the different dialects of the languages so that, for instance, Jaji was actually called Gaji for the tribe of Gad.
There are some Jews of Afghanistan today who count the Tribe of Israel among the Pathans. The physical similarity between the Pathans and other Jews is exemplified by the British ruled Afghanistan for a great length of time and called the Pathans Jews. When not wearing their traditional clothing Pathans are indistinguishable from other Jews of the area. Among the 21 nations of Afghanistan only the Pathans and the Jews have Semitic features, their faces are longer and lighter, and some even have blue eyes. Like the Jews of the area, Pathans grow beards and sidelocks which further serve to make them indistinguishable from Jews.
Israeli Features of the Pathans
The Pathans have many other features as descendants of Israelites.
Their wedding is like Jewish. Wedding ceremony with the Pathans includes a marriage canopy and rings similar to the Jewish custom.
Women of the Pathans keep laws similar to the Jewish laws regarding menstruation. During this time and for 7 days after, no contact is allowed with the husband. After this period, the woman immerses in a river or spring or in a bathhouse if a natural spring is not available. This is exactly the same as the Israeli tradition going back to the days of the Bible.
Pathans have custom of levirate marriage, which is the custom when a husband dies without children, his brother marries the widow to keep the name of the house. This custom no longer exists today, but was an ancient Israeli custom mentioned in the Bible (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).
The commandment to honor one’s parent is kept in exemplary manner in these tribes. The son must obey the parents in all matters. When the father enters the room all stand and bow their heads in his honor. This was a Israeli tradition as well.
Pathans have custom of Yom Kippur. We know of some of the members of the Lewani Tribe who came to the Jewish synagogue on Yom Kippur each year in Afghanistan. He would stay there until sundown without uttering even one word. He spoke of the tradition of the Temple on this day and of the high priest and his work there.
One year he erred in his calendar and did not come, he wept bitterly for one week for missing the observance of this day.
The Pathans have custom of scapegoat. In ancient Israel there was the custom to put sins of the nation onto a goat and send the goat away to desert. This custom of scapegoat was done to atone the sins of the nation (Leviticus chapter 16). Similar custom is found even today among the Pathans.
The Pathans usually pray in mosque. However some pray towards Jerusalem which is most unusual. There are some very old synagogues in their area and Pathans come to these synagogues on special days in times of great stress or tragedies or for special prayers. The individual who seeks help comes there to touch the lock and to pray. There are those who say that these places once contained scrolls of the Torah. This is interesting because today they are actually devout Muslims.
At the time of plague the Pathans slaughter a sheep and sprinkle its blood on the doorpost of their homes. This is what the Israelites did in ancient Egypt during the plagues that occurred there.
An interesting testimony relates to the placing of a wrapped book of Psalms of the Bible under the pillow of the ill in order to heal that person.
There are those who have said that there are Amulets written in Hebrew. Some contain the phrase “Shema Israel” and it is secretly written by the head of the tribe and it is forbidden to open it.
And the symbol of Shield of David (Star of David) is found in almost every Pathan house. The wealthy make it out of expensive metals and the poor out of simple wood. It can be seen in towers, in schools and also in tools, bracelets, and jewelry. I saw it at least 20 times in a variety of places. In Minerajan, the center of Afghanistan, there are even schools that have the Shield of David on the door or in the stone above the door.
Israeli Tradition in Afghan Royal Family
Not only the Pathans, but also the Afghan Royal Family has a very well known tradition placing its origin in ancient Israel, they came from the Tribe of Benjamin.
This tradition was first published in 1635 in a book called Mahsan-I-Afghani and has often been mentioned in the research literature. According to this tradition, King Saul had a son called Jeremiah who had a son called Afghana. Jeremiah died at about the time of King Saul’s death and Afghana was raised by King David and remained in the royal court during King Solomon’s reign.
About 400 years later in the time of disorder of Israel, the Afghana family fled to a land called Gur which is in central Afghanistan. They settled and traded with the people of the area and in the year 662, with the arrival of Islam, the sons of Israel in Gur converted to the prophet with 7 representatives of the Afghan. The leader of the sons of Israel was Kish like the name of Saul’s father.
According to this tradition Muhammed rewarded them and Kish’s Hebrew name was changed to Arab-A-Rashid by Muhammad and was given the task of spreading Islam among his people. This is the roots of Afghan Royal Family.
So Afghan Royal Family has the tradition of ancient Israel - Benjamin Tribe of the Southern Kingdom of Judah.
Comment by yamit82 — April 25, 2009 @ 4:26 am
The final parts of the documentary reflect the position I laid out in comment #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPILTGh8DuU Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCVSsGPqO6w&feature=related part2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eamnC8lTNvs&feature=related part3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbJ_2fw5OFQ&feature=related part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N8s46o3-zc&feature=related part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjju8g9c3rE&feature=related part 6
Comment by yamit82 — April 25, 2009 @ 6:17 am
The last 4 parts of the documentary con”t from #2 are mostly about Afghan Israelites the Pathan (Taliban) today but also Israelites. They provide possibly that link between Israel today Jews and the conflict between Islam and the mostly Christian West. I think there is a Historical drama being played out and we all in some way are its participants. To what end, if true?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEg5Ex1fRFQ&feature=related part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBH7Kj9gvg0&feature=related part 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf9T5ThjDLY&feature=related part 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKRxRJ5dx0I&feature=related part 10
Comment by yamit82 — April 25, 2009 @ 7:31 am
yamit: thanks, i watched the doc on the lost tribes. very interesting. what do you make of the population shift in europe and other areas going towards muslim majority? is is probable or possible that this is a final shift from idolatry of xnity towards a kind of monotheism of islam that precedes moshiach? kind of like a purifying of 2000 years of xn idolatry before moshiach.
Comment by bugsy — April 25, 2009 @ 11:22 am
“The Eternal Jew” contains scenes of scurrying rats, which the Nazis then compare to Jews. I am sure we could remix this particular scene to refer to militant “Muslims” who “breed like rats” to overrun the societies they infest like parasites.
8.1 children per family? I wonder how the militant “Muslims” support that many–probably welfare. Yes, they DO breed like rats (or cancer cells), and probably by design.
Jack Chick’s leaflets DO have their uses, and I hope he can provide Arabic translations.
Comment by Bill Levinson — April 25, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
bugsy
There are several prophetic and historical keys to take note.
With regards to Israel: There is no justification for a return to Zion except Judaism. The secular Jews have more or less expended their positive contribution and it is now time for the observant to complete the process of the return to Zion and the redemption of Clal Yisrael. This process will become a reality within the next 20-30 years. The majority of the worlds Jews now live in Israel. Those Jews who do not come willingly will shortly either be forced to come or perish at least as Jews.
G-d has decided to bring the Jews home and the historical process is unfolding before our eyes. The end of the 2000 year exile is coming to an end and we are in those times leading up to the prophesied time before the appearance of he Messiah Ben Yoseph. I look to the Pathans as a vital key in G-d’s eventual plan. The restoration of the whole house of Israel. I believe the Muslims and the Christians will war against each other and we should as much as possible stay out of it. It’s not our fight unless threatened directly. I have said before and will again while I despise Islam I hate Christianity (not individual Christians). Islam may be a threat to us physically but they are largely in tune with Judaism and are not idolatrous.
It appears Christianity is losing ground around the world as is Western culture. I don’t see how this trend can be reversed. It won’t happen suddenly but in all probability take a long time but not so long as it took Rome…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POsq5F5fAtY&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC7eqDnAtN8&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74eLGRlnLmo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHwQmplm78c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMjMPUfiYHc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT-nzJzG8qg&feature=related
Comment by yamit82 — April 25, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
[...] posted here: Israpundit » Blog Archive » Muslim Demographics This entry is filed under Muslim, Object. You can follow any responses to this entry through the [...]
Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » Muslim Demographics | VandeNikhiliam — April 25, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
Levinson your diatribe against the Muslims still does not address the shrinking negative demographics of all Western societies, that contain the seeds of self destruction.
check out Genesis 1:28
28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth.
Comment by yamit82 — April 25, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
yamit, thanks.
as you know, rambam postulated that a reason H’ allowed for the development and massive spread of xnity and islam was to prepare the world for the Oneness of Gd, moshiach etc. it therefore makes sense to me that islam will supplant xnity. i am not, though, comfortable with this given the violent and totalitarian tendencies of most muslim expansion.
you mentioned about the xn-islam war and if we, israel, could be left out of it.
uh, i think that’s a problem. we seem to be at the center of it simply because our sacred land, particularly jerusalem sits on the holiest place in the universe: the temple mount. islam knows this and their desire for total power is why they won’t leave.
it’s true what H’ said about the descendants of ishmael, of course: they’d be wild asses and against everyone. and they were blessed to be very numerous. there you go.
also, as you know, ishmael, at the end of his life did teshuva/repentance; however, his descendants did not.
what do you make of this?: although rambam said that islam was not idolatrous… and we must respect him; i can’t help but wonder about the whole moon-god thing and the way they act in the world.
it’s some weird blend of what they stole from judaism plus tribal idolatries, i guess.
of course, i cannot debate rambam, he was a great one. this is my own personal difficulty.
Comment by bugsy — April 25, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
Re: #8
Stop giving the parasites welfare, and they won’t enter our countries. Remember, rats and other pests arrive when you leave food out for them. If you put all your garbage in the dumpster, they will go elsewhere.
Comment by Bill Levinson — April 25, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
This is depressing. It’s time to throw the muslims out en masse and completely shut-down muslim immigration.
Comment by Laura — April 25, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
Laura , you are a true Jew almost as pissed off as me! Islam is a fucking horrible,”religion.” I will fight them to my death! All the governments of either your country(US) or mine Canada have taken a soft approach to these vermin! They have 22 countries, plus ripped-off any good trait of ours.The US gov’t is pathetic! They always favoured the Saudi’s who were definately responsible for more than 3000 deaths!Georgr W bush has much blood on his hands!
Comment by tov — April 26, 2009 @ 1:43 am
Bugsy
The Rambam lived in a different time and many of his ideas and thinking was colored by those realities. It is a mistake to accept carte blanche everything he said, wrote and thought as Torah mSinai. He was fought and rejected by most Torah authorities during his own lifetime. For us Islam and Christianity are nevela & trefa. We are living in the messianic age. According to Mishnah Sanhedrin, “There is no difference between this world and the messianic era, except for subjugation to kingdoms.” Rambam also supported that commonsensical view: a messiah is the man who delivers Israel from the Exile: “Do not imagine that the messianic king needs to give signs, perform miracles,… or resurrect the dead…. Rabbi Akiva and the wise men did not ask the King Ben Koziba for a sign or a miracle.” Some sages endowed the messiah with supernatural features, but arguably they did so to discourage the Jews who long for delivery from running after every self-proclaimed messiah, endangering Jews as the whole. Rambam, too, imagined some almost supernatural consequences of the messiah, such as the lasting peace and honest religiosity, but for the most part, a messiah for him was characterized by gathering Israel in the Promised Land and attempting to rebuild the Temple.
Gathering is the critical part. Jews have attempted rebuilding our state during the 1,900 years of the Exile, but only the recent attempt successfully gathered the Jews from the Diaspora communities. The 2,500-year-old Jewish communities in Babylon and Syria, Libya and Egypt are no more. Only in the late twentieth century the Gentile dominance over the Jews has ended. Only in the 1947 was a Jewish country created in conformance with the Talmud, by the UN decision, without the Jews rioting against the nations.
The messiah will fight Esau. The suggestion is rather strange, as he was never a significant enemy of Jews. Today, our major enemies are the Arabs, our cousins, the children of Esau.
Enigmatically, the messiah “will smite the head of all the descendants of Seth” (Numbers 24:17). The problem is that the entire humanity has descended from Seth through Noah, including the Jews. So there is an interpretation that the messiah will fight the entire world. That’s something Israel might be eventually forced to do, but perhaps a simpler explanation is that the prophet Balaam meant the Egyptian deity Seth. Modern Israel does have considerable problems with Egypt.
Israel reached the proportions of Zechariah 9:10: “from (Red) sea to (Mediterranean) sea, and from (Jordan) river to the land’s end (Mediterranean shore).”
The Exodus took place. Jews have left Europe and Arab countries for Israel. Those who refused to rise and go immediately, perished in the Holocaust. Like in the first Exodus, in the second one almost the entire generation perished, unable to reach the Promised Land; they died in Europe rather in the Sinai.
The renegade Jews perished: the Samaritans number mere hundreds, and Reform Jews assimilate quickly. Scores of blind leaders - abominable Jewish community bosses and atheist rabbis – arose to lead the blind into the pit of assimilation. The scale of devastation of the Diaspora Jewry in America, Canada, West and East Europe, comparable only to Holocaust in the silence of its victims and disregard of its Judenrat leaders, leaves no doubt about the divine plan.
Jewish influence is at the top worldwide. About 40% of American billionaires are Jewish. The influence has peaked, as Jewish moguls increasingly dissociate from Jewishness. God never does clear-cut miracles. The Reed Sea parting evidently left a good number of Jews unconvinced, as they soon complained of the lack of food and water. Indeed, that miracle looked anything but a miracle: the eastward wind, blowing all night, pushed shallow waters from the reed swamp and made it crossable on foot, while still impassible for the Egyptian heavy chariots, which, the Torah says, were stuck in the mud and lost their wheels. The Purim miracles were even more sublime: of his entire harem, the Persian despot became madly attracted to his old Jewish wife who surely looked sorrowful after a three-day fast, and followed her whims. Israeli victories in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 can be logically explained by peculiar military circumstances. After all, even a coin thrown up into the air can land on its edge. But after Yitzhak Shamir agreed to the Madrid Conference, the beginning of the giveaway of Judea to Arabs, 39 SCUD missiles hit Israel, the maximum number of lashes under the Torah law. Like under lashes, no one has died from the Iraqi missiles.
The Torah tells us to exterminate Amalek, but to evict the Canaanite nations – not kill them. God even promised to plant terror in their hearts so that they would flee from us. In 1948, 400,000 Palestinian Arabs took off from their land and fled the country for no rational reason.
God offered 40-day grace period to Nineveh, and 40-year – to Judea after Israel was destroyed. Nineveh repented and survived, but Judea didn’t and perished. In the current Israel, Jews first rebelled against the divine will in 1967 when we failed to annex the land of Judea which God gave in our hands miraculously. God slapped us with the Yom Kippur war, and saved in it. Then we sinned irreparably by giving away Sinai, the Promised Land. Did 1978 start a forty-year countdown?
There is a place in Esther 9 where, extremely unusually, four Hebrew letters are of non-standard size. The sages have long maintained that’s a prophecy. The four letters make the number 5-707, which is a Hebrew equivalent to the Gregorian year 1946-1947. That year, ten Nazis were hanged in Nuremberg, and transvestite Goring committed suicide. In Esther, Haman’s ten sons are hanged, and his daughter committed suicide, according to a midrash. To drive the point home to Jews, one of the Nazis, whose name is not deserved to be mentioned, screamed “The Purim 1946” at the gallows. In Esther 3, eleven months passed from the king’s decree on extermination of Jews to the salvation; 11 years passed from the 1935 Nuremberg laws to the 1946 Nuremberg trials. In 1953, Stalin died during or just before the Purim, days before the planned date of wiping out all Soviet Jews by transferring them to the coldest place in Siberia.
There are other strange correlations, including the number of Jews killed fighting for Jerusalem in 1967, the number of years between independence and capturing the Temple Mount (same as for King Jehoiakim), etc. Every such oddity can be explained rationally - it is a matter of Jewish belief that God performs miracles without violating the laws of nature – but there are just too many coincidences.
Jews didn’t long for statehood. Look at the modern Jews mumbling, “Next year, in Jerusalem!” but staying in New York. Ancient Diaspora Jews lacked Jeremiah’s nostalgia for their land, and comfortably settled in Rome and Babylon. They kept sending their half-shekel contribution to the Temple just like the modern American Jews buy Israeli bonds. Dhimmi status in tolerant Muslim societies allowed Jews excellent autonomy, good relations with non-Jewish neighbors, low taxes, and absence of conscription. That’s very much what the modern Jews enjoy in America.
Nor are the trials that befell us too unusual. Europeans reduced their Jewish communities to almost nil several times in the recorded history. Treacherous leaders are as common now as they were in the fifteenth century. We tend to idealize the then rabbis but perhaps a millennium from now Jews would admire Ovadia Yosef.
Source Halakha 12:
Talmud Bavli, Ketuvot, 110b, Our Rabbis taught: One should always live in the Land of Israel, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are idolaters, but let no one live outside the Land, in a town most of whose inhabitants are Israelites; for whoever lives in the Land of Israel may be considered to have a G-d, but whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who has no G-d. For it is said in Scripture, To give you the Land of Canaan, to be your G-d. [Vayikra 25:38] Has he, then, who does not live in the Land, have no G-d? But [this is what the text intended] to tell you, that whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who worships idols. Similarly it was said in Scripture in [the story of] David, For they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of the L-rd, saying: Go, serve other gods. [Shmuel I 26:9] Now, whoever said to David, ‘Serve other gods’? But [the text intended] to tell you that whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who worships idols. [Tosafot,'Avoda Zara, 5]
The Jew living outside the Land, constitutes the worshipping of idols because doing so denies the foundations of the Torah, i.e., the enactment of the Torah, and the living by the statutes of the Law. The project of enacting the Torah can only be legally accomplished in the Land as defined by the Law. The goal of Jewish practice is a single idea that can be dissected into three interrelated and independent subsections. The single idea is to know G-d, that is, to love G-d since the limits of human knowledge subject man’s knowing of G-d to the loving of Him. Subsection one of the idea deals with individual development; subsection two, with national development; and subsection three impacts upon universal development of mankind. Each subsection is dependent on the precepts of the Law, for it is the Law that elucidates these subsections and places definitional perimeters of their understanding. Development of self begins with adherence to all commandments which, in turn, lead to the national responsibility and finally its universal ramifications. Again, it is the participation in the project and what that participation says about the belief in the endeavor itself that is so central. There is such a notion in Jewish law because the foundation of Jewish practice is founded upon the creation of an autonomous Jewish political entity in the Land of Israel.
All of the PROPHETIC signs are visible before our eyes. We are now living in the Messianic time. All you Jews have some free choice to do what the commandments dictate which of course primarily to leave the exile ASAP. That is the trigger for the final redemption. May it be in our time.
Comment by yamit82 — April 26, 2009 @ 2:45 am
thanks.
Comment by bugsy — April 26, 2009 @ 3:30 am
Jewish Demographics and the promised Redemption
The voluntary devastation of the Jewish population is not historically unique. Most Jews refused to leave Egypt during the Exodus, Babylonia with Ezra, or America – for Israel. In Nehemiah’s time, Jews intermarried prodigiously. Today, too, we see some positive trends: many conservative Jews reject the reform’s leanings and embrace Orthodoxy; religious Jewish populations in Israel and the West are growing. But the proportions today are totally different.
For all the exaggerations of ancient historians, Jews constituted a respectable percentage of the civilized world then. Jewish presence was considerable in Europe just seventy years ago. A century ago, the number of Jews and Arabs in the world was about equal, around twenty million each. Today, the Arabs at 300 million are twenty times the number of Jews. Such disparities are not realistically recoverable. Moreover, globalization, mobility, and open societies threaten the Jewish survival. In the earlier times, assimilation was slow: some Jews baptized, some gentiles married into the Jewish people. The trends were slow, giving the Jews enough time to adapt and react, to re-group and restructure our Jewishness. Today, we cannot keep pace with assimilation: the entire American Jewry perished in two generations only; the intermarriage rate among the young atheists hits 90%.
So the divine plan for Jews is either to perish as a people, or to be left only in Israel. The messianic scenario involves substantially all Jews moving to the Land of Israel. The Bible recognizes King Cyrus a messiah even though most Jews refused returning to Israel; messiah need not return everyone. There are two ways to assure that almost all Jews return: make everyone return, or make those who don’t return, perish. Jews refused the first option, so we may be witnessing the second one unfolding.
Comment by yamit82 — April 26, 2009 @ 7:14 am
my understanding is that geulah shleimah, the final redemption, includes everyone.
Comment by bugsy — April 26, 2009 @ 11:38 am
Yamit:
There seems to be a miscommunication between Hashem and his chosen. Apparently the approximate 20,000 Israelis who have applied to make Alyiah to Germany this year have totally confused the biblical dictate-It is Israel, not Germany that is the homeland for the Jewish people. And they are just following the pattern of well over 1 million other Israelis who have left Israel for America, Europe, Canada and other economically more attractive locations.
Comment by h peskin — April 26, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
Only those who are worthy. Like Pinchas and those who return to Zion and rebuild the Temple. Religiosity of rituals has little merit outside of the Land of Israel. The very fact of choosing the exile is like a slave who refuses freedom and by Halacha is punished for it. The voluntary opting for galut is denial of the most basic tenants of Torah. Just like we refusing to rebuild the Temple and annex all of Yehudah and Shomron. We cannot have geulah until we execute acts that bring shleimot. We must emulate Pinchas and obey the Torah otherwise we push away the geulah.
At the conclusion of Parshas Balak, we learn that following the episode with Balak and Bilaam, the Bnei Yisrael began to sin with the daughters of Moav. A nesi bait av committed his sinful act with a daughter of the leader of Midyan before Moshe and all of the Bnei Yisrael.
The entire nation stood around weeping, at a complete loss. Hashem was about to send a plague as punishment for the crime when Pinchas arose from the crowd.
He was the sole individual who was not confounded by the unprecedented outrage - the only one who remembered the halacha and knew what had to be done. Even as cynics mocked him and he himself was unsure of the outcome his act would produce, Pinchas ignored the scoffers and sprang forward, plunging a spear into the bodies of Zimri and his partner.
He thus stopped the already devastating plague and brought a swift end to yet another inglorious chapter in our people’s history.
Parshas Pinchas opens with Hashem telling Moshe Rabbeinu, “Pinchas the son of Elazar the son of Aharon the Kohen turned back G-d’s wrath from the Bnei Yisrael with his act of kana’ut, and He did not destroy the Bnei Yisrael in His anger. Therefore, say [the following]: Hashem is bestowing upon Pinchas his covenant of peace. He and his children who follow him shall be privileged with the covenant of kehunah forever.”
By following the dictates he had been taught by Moshe Rabbeinu and intervening in a machlokes, Pinchas merited the blessing of eternal peace. The man of peace is not necessarily the one who sits back passively and does nothing. The one who sits on the sidelines weeping as evil rears its ugly head and seems to triumph is not promoting peace; he is encouraging evil.
Pinchas is deemed worthy to bear the torch of kehunah and carry on the tradition of Aharon Hakohen, to be an oheiv shalom verodef shalom, because he put his own ambitions aside and rose to the challenge. Pinchas was given the eternal blessing of peace because he made peace possible in Yisrael by exterminating evil.
Pinchas halted the plague which had already killed 24,000 Jews because he had the moral courage and clarity to act when others were confounded and immobilized.
He didn’t let popular opinion deter him from slaying those who brazenly defied the Torah’s authority. He knew that an oheiv shalom verodef shalom sometimes has to act courageously, even if his actions invite misunderstanding and recrimination.
Pinchas knew that the cause of peace is advanced through fidelity to halacha. Shalom is achieved by pursuing shleimut, even if that involves sacrificing sacred cows and jeopardizing a career.
Shalom is rooted in shleimut; when everything is proper, when everything is complete and whole, then it is possible to also have shalom. If you are lacking in shleimut, if the state is not absolutely intact, then you cannot have shalom. Torah is the absolute truth. With it the world was created, and it serves as the ultimate yardstick in defining our behavior. If we stay true to it, then we will consequently be blessed with peace.
Pinchas passed this test and he was therefore singled out as being worthy of following in the footsteps of Aharon Hakohen, who exemplified the pursuit of shalom through the service of G-d.
With all of the countless misfortunes besieging our people as yechidim and as a klal, it seems at times as if we are living through a period of mageifah.
Perhaps what we need are more people like Pinchas in order to stop the plague in its tracks. We need people whose loyalty to Torah compels them to arise from the mourners who sit weeping and demonstrate by action what needs to be done.
Comment by yamit82 — April 26, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
Peskin I fail to see your point here although I am sure you have one besides being supercilious.
Peskin this is the second time you throw that statistic at me and I haven’t seen it in print so send me a link and I will reply directly to it. On a much broader level keeping to your point I would generally reply like this: There are probably around 2 million ex pat Israelis scattered around the world and are usually included in the Jewish population stats of the respective countries of residence. Many eventually return or their children or grand children so I haven’t written any off completely except those like you.(Good Riddance) You know full well we have imported some 4-5 hundred thousand non Jewish Slavs that should never have been allowed in and I assume many are included in your 20,000 applicants to Germany where many more like Slavs using Israeli passports have gained entrance to various countries and Germany is certainly a popular destination among them.
My best friend spends half of ea. year in Mexico and there are several millions of Americans like him in Mexico. What does that mean. That America is a less desirous place to live? Israel is different because Jews are different and we have a specific purpose and that purpose is connected to the Land of Israel. As I said on other posts Peskin you and your clones are Toast and are not included in the redemptive end game plan. Of that I am sure.
Comment by yamit82 — April 26, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
The video was alarmist, not my cup of tea. Colin McEvedy’s “The Penguin Atlas of Modern History”, speaking about the world situation in 1483, said,
Things obviously did not turn out as it seemed they would.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — April 26, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
At what cost, in infidel lives and in years of effort, did Europe oust the invading swarms of Musulmen?
Nothing to be alarmed about. Take your time. Sip your cup of tea.
Comment by Shy Guy — April 27, 2009 @ 5:19 am
From post 6:
Are you quite sure about that, Yamit?
While the word “Islam” translates as “submission,” the question arises: Whom do Muslims want the world to ’submit’ to? Yes, yes, they will say, “to Allah,” of course. [What would you expect them to say?] But even if they have persuaded themselves that that is what they believe, the inescapable fact remains that the viciousness of both their conduct and their pronouncements suggests that they seek the world’s submission not to God but to MUSLIMS. And that goes for the “quiet” ones as well as the jihadi mushuganehs.
I suggest to you, with all due respect, that, although Islam may pride itself on its opposition to idolatry, that it is in fact the ultimate idolatry.
Comment by dweller — April 27, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
Islam, like Christianity, accepts the Jewish Bible and is based largely upon Jewish ideas and traditions. The philosophical underpinnings of Islam, however, are more closely aligned with those of Judaism. Whereas Christianity incorporates the idea of the “trinity,” Islam believes in one all-powerful, infinite God.
Mohammed, the founder of Islam, based many of his beliefs on the practices of local Jewish population in his native Mecca. For example, the Moslem practices of not eating pig, circumcision, daily prayer and fasting during the first month of the year were all culled directly from Judaism.
Since Islam was so similar to Judaism, Mohammed assumed the Jews would immediately accept this new religion. When the Jews did not live up to his expectations, he turned violently against them and many Jews died by the sword. (We are still suffering from this today;)
The real difference between the two religions, however, lies in their basis for belief. Judaism is based on the unique historical event of a divine revelation experienced by the entire nation. Whereas Islam is based on the prophetic claims of a single individual who subsequently convinced others to follow his ways.
Talmudic tradition says that while Abraham’s son Isaac became the forefather of the Jewish people, the Islamic line is descended from Abraham’s other son Ishmael. dweller, this is what I meant.
Comment by yamit82 — April 28, 2009 @ 2:49 am
Too early to claim that the present swine flu will become a Pandemic or even a very lethal one, but it would be very symbolic and even timely were it to happen. Swine flu? The name is for we Jews is symbolically prodigious.
http://wejew.com/media/4299/Moshiach-Imminent-Feature-Part-1-of-2/
http://wejew.com/media/4298/Moshiach-Imminent-Feature-Part-2-of-2/
Zachariah 13:8
8. And it shall come to pass throughout all the land, says the Lord, two parts of it shall be cut off. They shall perish, and the third shall remain therein.9. And I will bring the third in fire; and I will refine them as one refines silver, and I will test them as one tests gold. He shall call in My name, and I will respond to him. I said, “He is My people”; and he shall say, “The Lord is my God.”
12. And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the nations who besieged Jerusalem; his flesh will waste away while he still stands on his feet; his eyes will waste away in their sockets, and his tongue shall waste away in his mouth.
13. And it will come to pass on that day that there will be great consternation, sent by the Lord upon them; each one shall seize the hand of the other, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of the other.
14. Yea, even Judah will fight against Jerusalem! And the wealth of all the nations round about-gold and silver and apparel-will be gathered in very great abundance.
15. And so will be the plague of the horses, the mules, the camels, the donkeys, and all the animals that are in those camps, similar to this plague.
Comment by yamit82 — April 28, 2009 @ 9:21 am
On Passover we chanted this prayer from the traditional Haggadah:
“Pour forth Your wrath upon the nations that do not recognize You and upon the kingdoms that do not invoke Your name. For they have devoured Jacob and destroyed his habitation. Pour forth Your fury upon them and let Your burning wrath overtake them. Pursue them with anger and destroy them from beneath the heavens of the L-rd.”
Is it now coming to be? Are the prayers of millions of Jews beginning to be fulfilled? Who knows, but one can speculate.
Comment by yamit82 — April 28, 2009 @ 9:56 am
To me, these are clearcut evidences simple human egotism — the breeding grounds (if not the direct basis) of ALL idolatry.
While it is true that the proposition of a divine trinity [as well as the very notion that a man, any man, even Mashiakh himself, could be God] is inescapably idolatrous, I would suggest to you, Yamit, that these concepts have not always been integral to what has come to be known as ‘Christianity.’ Before the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the adherents of Yeshua HaNitzri ["Jesus"] regarded him as Mashiakh, but not as God.
Comment by dweller — April 28, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
1. Those Jews were not “Christians” and, in fact, “Christianity” was not concocted yet at that point. Yamit is referring to established Christianity.
2. Your claim is in complete contradiction to the new testatement. What historical documents do you base your claim on?
Comment by Shy Guy — April 29, 2009 @ 2:31 am
“regarded him as Mashiakh, but not as God” Even the Josephus brief mention is now considered a forgery by the Church as it only appeared in later translations not the original.
A- There is no historical evidence that this Jesus ever existed. He is most likely a composite mythological figure. Some say an invention of the Romans.
B-Over 1,000 years before the attributed birth of the historical Jesus, it was recorded in the Tanach:
Numbers 23:19: God is not a man, that He should be deceitful, nor the son of man, that He should repent. Would He say and not do, or speak and not confirm?
Psalms 146:3: Do not rely on princes nor in the son of man, for he holds no salvation.
Even the New Testament concurs that Jesus, in fact, is not the Messiah:
Matthew 20:28: Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.
C- The noun moshiach (translated as messiah) annotatively means “annointed one;” it does not, however, imply “savior.” The notion of an innocent, semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought or scripture. In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah. Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, the only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered high priest. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha, and Apocrypha never mention the Messiah.
Comment by yamit82 — April 29, 2009 @ 3:38 am
I agree that my “claim” contradicts the established, and dominant, ‘Christian’ reading of the New Testament. Whether it contradicts the scripture itself is another matter. Consider, for example, Mark 13:32, in the Olivet Discourse, where the matter of the time of the “Second Coming” is raised:
13:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
13:5 And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:…
13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but [only] the Father. [emphasis mine]
By any assessment, omniscience is a fundamental property of divinity: God knows everything. Yet here, this Christ character effectively acknowledges himself to not be omniscient — while [at the same time] noting that God indeed is all-knowing. There are some things that God knows, and that the “Son” of God doesn’t know. The Son of God is, thus, not “God the Son.” Fancy that.
In John’s gospel, when Christ stops at a well in Sh’khem [then called "Sychar"] and asks a Samaritan woman there for a drink of water, at one point in the discussion, he tells her that it’s less important whether she worships God on Mt. Gerizim or on Mt. Zion [i.e.,in Jerusalem] than that she understand that God isn’t limited to one place or another — because God is a Spirit [Jn 4:24]: He isn’t a place or a person and cannot be confined to anything physical.
4:22 …salvation is of the Jews.
4:23 .. the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him.
4:24 God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.” [emphases mine]
Well, yes, that’s just the point — or my point anyway.
Look, until the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the Judean adherents of Jesus [as
distinguished from those in the Greek cities, the Greek Islands, Asia Minor, etc] were almost entirely Jewish. There’s no way that Jews would have swallowed the notion that a man could be ‘God.’ Jews had far too much history of rejecting that shmeggegge. The Jews were the only people of the ancient world for whom the proposition was utter anathema.
Every other people [including Judea's nearest neighbors] had a cultural or religious provision for viewing the King or the Emperor — or his horse or his cat or his weasel, or whatever, etc. — as a god. Not the Jews. And everybody else knew it. It’s inconceivable that Jews would have gone for a Messiah (or anybody else) who told them [or who let it be said about him] that he was ‘God.’ And no would-be Moshiakh — real or bogus or far-blonjit — would have been stupid enough to try.
The Bar Kokhba Revolt changed all that — or a helluva lot of it.
Any Jews who survived the Hadrianic Genocide — and who didn’t flee east to Parthia, and who weren’t exiled to the Galilee, or taken into slavery, or impressed into Rome’s increasingly popular, gladiatorial & man-v-beast, “to-the-death,” public divertissements in the Colosseum [whose construction was financed by the Flavians w/ proceeds of the sale of booty from the looted Beit HaMiqdahsh, incidentally] — were barred, on pain of death,
from the municipality-and-district of Jerusalem [i.e., from everywhere within eyeshot of the City].
That banishment extended to ALL Jews — even Jewish adherents of Jesus [which, at the time, as I've pointed out, would have amounted to most of his Judean followers]: Whatever you believed or disbelieved, if you were ‘mutilated’ [the hellenistic Hadrian had a problem with circumcision], then Jerusalem [re-named "Colonia Aelia Capitolina"] was off-limits to you.
What this meant, among other things, was that, in Judea, from that time forward [i.e., after CE 135], the spreading community of adherents of Yeshua HaNitzri would have consisted of anybody but Jews. So, within Judea [now re-named "Syria-Palaestina"], only gentiles would have had their hands on the defining concepts of the faith. Can you see where I’m going with this?
It was only after this point that all that stuff about Christ as ‘God,’ the “Trinity” and Churchianity — and the rest of the can of beans was able to acquire a foothold: because now the only people who would have been guaranteed to have known better [i.e., the Jews] were completely out of the loop.
Hey, I’m not interested in changing anybody’s mind — about anything. All I do is plant my seeds; sometimes they take root, sometimes not. When they do grow, I say mazal tov, but I know that, even then, it’s not me that makes them grow; it’s the person’s own searching mind. When the seeds don’t grow — or don’t take root right away – that’s ok too.
I would suggest to anybody who has a problem with what they’ve been told Yeshua HaNitzri is about, that they simply pick up the Book and read it for themselves [It really won't burn your fingers, trust me] — and leave aside the cultural overlay that’s been permitted [or encouraged] to smother the reality.
Comment by dweller — April 29, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
By highlighting some of the most elementary contradictions in NT verses, you only confirm further the flimsiness of the entire Jesus movement, starting from day 1 through current times.
So, Dweller, after showing us what a historical and spiritual farce Jesus was and a most failed messiah, what are you hinting at by calling this dead Am Ha’Aretz/Apikores Jew on a stick “Yeshua HaNitzri”? Are you a one of these? Is that you, Paqid Yirmiyahu?
Comment by Shy Guy — April 29, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
Here I gave you a plug!
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, Then it seems like a safe bet that we have our Christian Cultist: Of All the different kinds of proselytizing, this one is really different. I know the Jews can’t be their targets as one has to be really stupid to buy into their crap. They must be seeking out fellow deviants and Pagans (Gullible Christians).
Actually I prefer the Karites but we can’t go around sacrificing sheep all over the place now, can we?
Comment by yamit82 — April 30, 2009 @ 9:44 am
Give me a little more time to digest yesterday’s Independence Day BBQ meal and then we can move on to sheep sacrifices.
Comment by Shy Guy — April 30, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Re: post 28
If Yeshua HaNitzri is purely a ‘Roman’ invention, then, judging from the gospel narrative, I’d have to say that they [the Romans] managed to distill the essence of the prior twenty centuries to create the jewel-in-the-Crown that is Jewish civilization. Because that’s what it would’ve taken to ‘invent’ Christ. But to say that would be to give the Mistress-on-the-Tiber infinitely more credit than she has coming. Rome certainly got a few things right, but only a few — and Rabbi Yehoshua is hardly one of them.
Rome — at no point (even the Roman Republic) — would have had the wit, the intellect, the wisdom, the compassion, the resilience — even the strength (especially the strength) — to produce a Jesus of Nazareth: even if she had the patience and the discernment to study two millennia of then-existing Jewish history to do it.
To appropriate him unto herself, yes. Why not — since, after his earthly mission was completed, he wasn’t around to speak for himself and shatter the illusions and conceits of the appropriators (and a ‘dead’ man is so much easier to re-cast in one’s own image)? To appropriate him would’ve been about as complicated and problematic as falling off a log, and a no-brainer from Day One. But to produce him? No sale. Not by a hair on my chinny chin chin. I say Yeshua HaNitzri is stamped with “Made in Am Yisrael” all over him. He is surely in some ways utterly unique; no getting around that.
But he is also the quintessential Jew.
“Innocent,” yes. “Semi-divine” (whatever “semi” in such a context means), no. As I’ve already said, he isn’t/wasn’t divine, did not claim to be, and would not have wanted anybody to believe that he was.
“To save us from the consequences of our own sins” is, I grant you, a frankly dumb concept as interpreted by the historic ‘Christian’ Church; you won’t get an argument from me on that one. However, I contend that the accepted rendering is a thorough distortion of its actual metaphysical meaning — a meaning which is not at-all unJewish.
[There's a lot more to be said about this stuff, and I'm more than happy to explore it with you if you're interested. My problem is that I use the computers at the public library, and they limit you to an hour per day; so I'm constantly having to curtail some of my remarks till future sessions. If you want to take that as an evasion, I can't stop you.]
The idea, per se, of one man dying for others is not what is unJewish. (Undeniably, the history of the Jewish People is full of such things (again, a subject for another drohsh, another time). What is unJewish is the silly (and really offensive, I agree) fantasy that the Master of the Universe ‘requires’ such a substitution to propitiate His own foul temper – and, more, that He can be appeased by such a gesture.
It degrades, insults and trivializes the character of the Most High — and is quite obviously the product of a goyish consciousness, which (even in this day and age) hasn’t even got the good grace to be embarrassed by the fact that it represents an anomalous remnant of an ancient world which would have seen the propitiation of a god (which ‘god’ was, in turn, invariably the projection of the local or regional monarch) as perfectly ‘normal.’
The point here, however, is that — while dying for others certainly is in the gospels ["Greater love hath no man than he that would lay down his life for his friends..." (from John's Gospel, I think)] — dying to ‘appease’ an infinitely just and all-merciful God most assuredly is not. If you can find that in there, show it to me, and I’ll have a look at it.
Re: post 30
All I was doing was responding to your prior assertion [post 27] that “[my] claim is in complete contradiction to the new testament.” The fact that you find that ‘claim’ to reveal some (apparent) internal NT contradictions does, in any event, I think, refute the assertion that what I’ve said ‘completely contradicts’ the NT. Thank you for confirming the fact.
I know nothing about this movement [if that's what it is] — and neither have nor have ever had any affiliation or other connection to any group with an ax to grind in these matters. I try to do my own thinking. Would it be excessively presumptuous of me to suggest that you do the same?
Comment by dweller — April 30, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
Yamit glad to see your well and back as usual.
Every now and then someone shows up preaching.
First of all the Jews don’t need to be preached to. Conversion not necessary.
The Jewish people have returned home to Israel with the help of G-d and are home.
As Catholics, Christians or whatever your belief, we need to stand together to protect this home (Israel).
There are forces out there that want to deny this.
Let it be known the Jews are home for good.and will not be driven away ever again.
Comment by rongrand — April 30, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Very common Jewish name and many were rabbis some even great sages. Which one of these Rabbi Yehoshuas might you be referring to?
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I can show that the use of the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus,(Yehoshua) simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness’ own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss .
YOUR GUY Yeshua HaNitzri never exited! There is no historical proofs. Even if there were what is so special or remarkable about him that he should be venerated in any way shape or form. Even a place known to you as Nazareth is never mentioned in any Jewish source reference certainly not the Tanach or the Talmud. The Talmud: refers to Jesus? However, this Jesus, actually depicts a disciple of Yehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus aka, Yeshua HaNitzri.
Comment by yamit82 — April 30, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
If Yeshua HaNitzri is purely a ‘Roman’ invention, then, judging from the gospel narrative, I’d have to say that they [the Romans] managed to distill the essence of the prior twenty centuries to create the jewel-in-the-Crown that is Jewish civilization.
Was Jesus a roman invention? Atwill Interview: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sffpDc8l5AU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdsVZFa31Wk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCNJf83bqjs&NR=1
All forms of Christianity are Pagan and based on pure Paganism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1FdtpH8lSI&NR=1
Jesus (Yehoshua ) was a Roman creation of the Persian Mithra
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SblyuFUM9Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvDOtpsmxbc&feature=related
Comment by yamit82 — April 30, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
Yes, as we do not base our lives on toxic cocktails consisting of fairy tales with two shots of wishful thinking and 4 tablespoonfuls of molases.
Comment by Shy Guy — April 30, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
from post 34:
If that was aimed at YoursTruly, I agree, 100 percent. As I’ve already said, in post 29,
As for the rest of your comment,
i.e..
; again, I agree. No argument whatsoever.
re post 35:
I was clearly referring to Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps you’d have felt better if I’d put it in quotation marks?
Look Yamit, I could argue with you from now till Hell freezes over (and the devil skates across the ice) about the historicity of the man I call Christ, and we’d only be talking past each other. What I find fascinating, however, is that somebody who obviously makes a point of studying what’s out there has yet to take up this particular matter on its own terms. Read the NT for yourself.
Comment by dweller — May 2, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
Many of us have. That’s 99% of the point.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 2, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
I have 3-4 times cover to cove and lots in between. The sequel is never as good as the original, in most cases they are a labored attempt and always stretch the originals point to maintain interest.
Can you relate to any or most of the above descriptions?
JESUS NEVER EVEN HINTED THAT HIS FOLLOWERS SHOULD STOP DOING THE LAWS THAT GOD GAVE TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. IN FACT, YOU WILL SEE THAT HE GOES OUT OF HIS WAY TO SAY THE OPPOSITE. JESUS MAY HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE PRIORITIES PEOPLE WERE PUTTING ON CERTAIN LAWS, RATHER THAN ON OTHERS, BUT HE NEVER ADVOCATED DOING AWAY WITH GOD’S LAW.
MAT005:017 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
MAT005:018 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
MAT005:019 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
PAUL TAUGHT PEOPLE NOT TO DO SOME OF GOD’S LAWS AND MANY OF GOD’S LAWS ARE NOT BEING TAUGHT IN CHRISTIANITY TODAY. WOULD PAUL BE CALLED “LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN”?
MAT005:020 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
HERE IT APPEARS THAT JESUS SAID THAT BEING RIGHTEOUS (FOLLOWING GOD’S LAW), IS THE ONLY WAY TO ENTER INTO HEAVEN. AS YOU WILL SEE PAUL SAID IT ONLY REQUIRES FAITH IN JESUS. (SEEMS LIKE JESUS AND PAUL DID NOT HAVE THE SAME BELIEF.)
MAT007:021 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
HERE EVEN JESUS SAID THAT FAITH IN HIM WAS NOT ENOUGH. DOING GOD’S WILL, AS MANIFESTED IN THE LAW, IS THE KEY TO ENTERING INTO HEAVEN.
MAT023:001 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
MAT023:002 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
MAT023:003 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
EVEN THOUGH THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE PORTRAYS JESUS AS BEING VERY NEGATIVE TOWARDS THE SCRIBES AND THE PHARISEES, HERE JESUS TOLD EVERYONE TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS THAT THEY TEACH. HE EVEN ADMITTED THAT THEY SAT IN MOSES’ SEAT, NOT HIM. HE KNEW THAT THE TORAH SAYS THAT ONLY THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER THE LAW (SEE DEU017:008-012).
MAT023:023 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.
MAT023:024 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
MAT023:025 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
MAT023:026 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
JESUS SEEMED TO FEEL THAT THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES WERE HYPOCRITES; THEY TAUGHT ONE THING BUT PRACTICED ANOTHER. IT SEEMS THAT HE FELT THEY WERE CONCENTRATING ON LITTLE THINGS AND MISSING THE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF GOD’S LAW. BUT PLEASE NOTE THAT JESUS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY SHOULD NOT LEAVE ANY UNDONE.
MAR010:017 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
MAR010:018 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
MAR010:019 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
JESUS DID NOT TELL THIS PERSON ALL HE NEEDED TO DO WAS TO BELIEVE IN HIM. INSTEAD HE REPEATED A FEW OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. JUST BECAUSE JESUS DID NOT REITERATE THE ENTIRE TORAH, WITH ALL 613 COMMANDMENTS, CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT IMPLY THESE ARE THE ONLY LAWS JESUS FELT WERE IMPORTANT. FEEDING THE HUNGRY AND HELPING THE POOR ARE PART OF GOD’S LAW, BUT NOT PART OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
LUK016:016 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
LUK016:017 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
EVEN THOUGH JESUS WANTED TO MAKE ADDITIONS TO GOD’S LAW, IN NO WAY DID HE GIVE ANY INDICATION THAT WITH HIM, IT WAS THE END OF THE LAW.
JESUS APPEARED TO HAVE LINKED LOVING HIM TO DOING GOD’S LAW:
JOH014:015 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
JOH014:021 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
JESUS MADE IT CLEAR THAT BEING RIGHTEOUS (FOLLOW-ING GOD’S LAW) IS WHAT WILL GET YOU INTO HEAVEN:
MAT013:041 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
MAT013:042 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
MAT013:043 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Which Jesus do you prefer Mathews Jesus or Paul’s Jesus ?
dweller what say you to these points?
Comment by yamit82 — May 3, 2009 @ 1:35 am
dweller:
I KNOW THAT CHRISTIANS ENJOY READING THE PROVERBS OUT OF THE JEWISH BIBLE BUT DO THEY SKIP OVER THESE TWO?
PRO028:009 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.
PRO029:018 Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
IS THERE ANY WONDER WHY THE JEWISH ELDERS, WHO WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE JEWISH BIBLE, REJECTED PAUL’S THEOLOGY? REMEMBER THE BOOK OF PROVERBS IS ATTRIBUTED TO KING SOLOMON, THE WISEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED. WHO DO YOU BELIEVE, PAUL OR KING SOLOMON?
EXO019:005 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
EXO019:006 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
IS IT ANY WONDER THAT THE JEWS COULD NOT BELIEVE WHAT PAUL WAS SAYING, CONCERNING GOD’S LAW? THEY KNEW THAT KEEPING GOD’S LAWS WAS THE “ONLY” WAY TO KEEP THEIR COVENANT WITH GOD.
Comment by yamit82 — May 3, 2009 @ 1:51 am
dweller:
ACT015:001 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
1KI003:012 Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.
WHO DO YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE, KING SOLOMON OR PAUL?
Comment by yamit82 — May 3, 2009 @ 2:09 am
All I do is plant my seeds
Please no more planting seeds especially here.
God already planted seeds in Israel and there is an abundance for the harvest.
If you want to plant seeds, look to Africa and other undeveloped countries.
Bring God to those who do not know him
Comment by rongrand — May 3, 2009 @ 10:21 am
Dear Yamit: Good questions, esp. in 40 & 41. I’ll do what I can to address them, but I have very little time left to me in today’s session in the library, so it looks like they will have to wait till next time. Sincere regrets.
Dear Shy, Rongrand, possibly some unannounced others:
I wouldn’t want it to come as a shock to you, but actually I have a personal policy of never trying to pull out of denial anybody who doesn’t (as I perceive him) want to be pulled out. So you can relax.
Of course, surface appearances aren’t always a reliable index to the underlying reality at any given moment. Sometimes, for example, a party will huff-&-puff in ways that seem to say he doesn’t want his illusions disturbed. Yet actually he may just hope to be allowed to pick apart his assumptions on his own time — and, if with assistance, then only in ways that will neither insult, nor condescend to, his intelligence. His defenses are most understandable — and I always respect and honor them: as a matter of both courtesy and personal discipline.
Other times, a guy may make noises about being “open” to wherever the truth may lead (and may even come to believe that he is so open) — but in reality he’s just fencing: sparring — dancing around, in hopes of getting a closer look, with an eye to perhaps spotting some weakness in you and using it (now or later) against you. But any open-hearted receptivity to the promptings of reality is no part of his horizon. And nothing anybody else shows him will find him ready to take a real look. As I’ve said, the surface doesn’t always betoken the fact.
That being said, the two of you can relax. In your cases specifically, you can exhale. Where I’m concerned, you’re quite safe at anchor. Your depth of denial is plainly all-too-dear for you to take the risk of coming out from it, and I have no intention of disturbing it (unless — and until — you want me to, should I come to perceive that you do).
Comment by dweller — May 4, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
Dear Yamit
Dear Shy, Rongrand
Yamit, do you know by chance who this boy is?
Yamit trust me and don’t tell me he is a Catholic.
I could be wrong, but he resembles and behaves as a Jehovah Witness.
He reminds of the JW who would come knocking on your door even though you may have a statue of the Blessed Mother outside your home.
You are polite and tell them in a nice way, thanks but no thanks.
When you close the door and you look out and they are still standing there looking at the instruction book with the “What am I suppose to do now” look.
They once came to a home of a Jewish friend of mine who had the Star of David outside and when my neighbor asked them if they recognized the star they said “you forgot to take down your Christmas decoration”.
Amen
Comment by rongrand — May 4, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
Shoe.
Other.
Foot.
Pot.
Kettle.
Black.
Try dealing with fact, not fancy. Yes, the truth hurts but remember: “The truth will set you free!”
Comment by Shy Guy — May 4, 2009 @ 11:27 pm
Re post 35:
Come on, Yamit, if you know anything at all about accepted legal procedure, then you know perfectly well that there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule [among which are included, among others, "excited utterance"]. But the hearsay line of disputation is one of the weakest of your arguments, as I’m sure you’re aware. Let’s move on to substantive matters.
Re post 36:
Well, you are correct — partly correct — in asserting that post-Judean, historic ‘Christianity’ has a pagan origin. But it’s not solely pagan. Actually it has two roots: 1. pagan, and 2. Jewish. There is no 3rd root [there couldn't be]. What has come to be known as “Christianity” was the form — the vehicle (badly flawed, to be sure) — by which the morality, if not the faith, of the Jews was imported (however imperfectly) into the world. And while I do insist that Yeshua HaNitzri was/is an actual person, I am equally certain that it was never his intention to found a ‘new religion.’
I believe that it is in the interests of the Jewish People to encourage “Christendom” to progressively abandon more-&-more of the elements of its pagan & idolatrous overlay, and for self-professed Christians to to rediscover and explore their faith’s original Jewish roots.
What I find frankly troublesome, under the circumstances, then, Yamit, is the stridency with which — like some others who strive to be Torah-true — you (appear, anyway, to) set yourself at odds with seemingly any substantive and honorable attempt to bridge that gap. [Unless I'm simply misreading you -- in which case I'm more than happy to have you set me straight on that score.)
If your comment, in post 6, for example --
-- represents your take (or is based on your take) on "a people that shall dwell alone, and not be reckoned among the nations" [Num 23:9], then I can only conclude, with all due respect, that you are much mistaken and seriously misguided — and for Am Yisrael, perhaps dangerously so.
I must tell you, in all candor, that it occurs to me that, had Bar Kokhba been somewhat less uncordial [the B-K Letters confirm that he was quite ruthless] toward the then-”Nazarene Jewish” sect: when he effectively converted what had begun as a War for Judea (which the Nazarenes were quite willing and eager to support — it was their fight too) into a War for ‘Moshiakh’ (which they obviously couldn’t, in good conscience, endorse: as they believed, rightly or wrongly, in a different one), he denied the resistance an important and growing alliance and resource.
Admittedly, the Nazarenes’ augmented support for the rebellion might still have been insufficient to decisively defeat the Imperial Legions in the field; yet the added troop strength they could have provided might nonetheless have been able to prolong and stiffen the already protracted [3.5 yrs] resistance sufficiently that other restive peoples throughout the Empire might well — with the added time, have taken courage from the Judean struggle, and been themselves moved to arise in revolt. Dio Cassius cites Apollodorus of Damascus: “Many outside nations, too, were joining [the Judeans] through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth, one might almost say, was being stirred up over the matter.” [How 'bout them apples?]
It’s important to bear in mind that Rome’s expenditure of blood & treasure (to say nothing of diplomatic prestige) in the War were already enormous. This was no romp for the self-important Mistress-on-the-Tiber; she was breathin’ ragged.
With brushfire wars and assorted insurgencies breaking out simultaneously or in rapid succession in a dozen different locales, the possibility seems not that far-fetched to me that Rome might have eventually undergone a bad case of “cramps” — which could well have changed the course of history. Especially Judean history. Just contemplating the possibilities of what might have been…. the mind boggles — even as the heart breaks.
My point in revisiting the matter at this time is that I would hope that we’ve learned from our mistakes.
I also think that elements of the ‘Christian’ world (not all of it, I grant you) are indeed exploring the Jewish roots of their faith, to the point of acknowledging an indebtedness to Judaism for those roots, as well as a heartfelt gratitude to the Jews for it. We should neither spurn nor revile nor ignore that phenomenon. It may still be in the early, clumsy, just-learning-to-crawl, stages — but it’s real.
from post 40:
It has long been my contention that outfits like “Jews for Jesus” are, in fact, theologically “Christian” and not Jewish. As you note, they typically dress up their stuff in the more visible trappings of Jewish observance, with bows to the festivals, prayer paraphernalia, etc. and scattered sprinklings of ceremonial language (even occasional yiddishisms), etc. But this is all clearly intended to sugar-coat the pill which they want these ungrounded Jews to swallow. No doubt, for many of the proselytizers, that’s what made it possible for the group to close-in on them personally (though, as you’ve correctly observed, they were already primed for it: they were already susceptible, being disconnected or alienated from, or had never been associated with, Jewish faith or the Jewish community).
The key factor, though, that makes them ‘Christian’ and not Jewish (from the standpint of theology, of course, not ethnicity) is that they sign-on to the proposition that Christ is ‘God incarnate.’ (That also makes them, among other things, unwitting idolaters.) No believing Jew (in fact, not even an “un-believing” Jew) would subscribe to the notion that a man, any man — even the best of men, even the most unique of men, even Mashiakh himself — could possibly be God. It would never happen; wouldn’t even occur to a Jew to think in those terms. [As I'm constantly having to point-out to self-professed Christian acquantances of mine; oh, yes, I give them as much grief -- albeit of a different species -- as I do you.]
In fact, I recall Rambam saying something similar in this regard — though it seems hardly necessary to resort to him for authority in the matter, it’s just so fundamental.
What makes such groups not Jewish, however, is not — I stress — the fact that they take Jesus for Moshiakh, but that they take him for God as well. That’s the dividing line. Even if Yeshua HaNitzri were not Moshiakh, the simple fact of following (or presuming to follow) him would not (of itself), I submit, make one non-Jewish theologically. ‘Mistaken,’ yes. “Non-Jewish,” no.
Throughout history, lots of Jews have let themselves get caught -up with false messiahs, like Shab’tzai Tzvi, Sh’lomo Molcho, David Reubeni, et al. Those deluded souls who followed them as ‘Moschiakh’ did not cease thereby to be Jews. They were simply Jews who were mistaken — sadly mistaken, but still Jews. They would have ceased to be Jews, however, had they regarded these pied pipers as ‘God’ — that’s the point at which a person goes off the deep end. (Not that even they aren’t salvageable. They might be; it happens.)
When Rebbe akiva believed, and declared, Bar Kokhba to be ‘Mashiakh,’ the Sanhedrin thought he was full-of-it (to coin a phrase). So did lots of Rabbanim. Support for the War was one thing. Support for ‘Mashiakh’ was something else again.
Rebbe Yokhanan ben Torta was reputed to have promptly said (right to R. Akiva’s face), “Akiva, grass will be growing out of your cheekbones, and the Son of David will not have come.” [Jerus. Talmud, probably]
Today, no Jew (or anybody else) seriously suggests that Bar Kokhba was in fact ‘Moshiakh.’ But would anybody presume to say that R. Akiva, by his mistaken assertion, ‘ceased’ thereby to be theologically Jewish? Get real.
My hour’s up; gotta run.
Comment by dweller — May 5, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
The gap between truth and lies is unbridgable.
Unless, of course, you comprimise on the truth, converting it into a lie. So much for truth setting you free.
Rabbi Akiva never claimed that Bar Kochva was god in the flesh. He claimed that Bar Kochva had the potential qualifications of a mashiach (small “m”), which indeed was a possibility at that moment, until Bar Kochva abused his position, ensuing his downfall. After that point, R’ Akiva did not suggest creating a permanent movement to worship Bar Kochva for eternity, not as a human, nor as a pagan god. R’ Akiva never advocated the abandonment of even one letter of the Torah to “comprimise” on his shattered hopes.
So, your point was what, exactly? There never was a historic comparison. Or do you wish to comprimise historic events and their meanings, too, to suit your fantasies?
Comment by Shy Guy — May 5, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
dweller Re #35
You still have not countered my contention that Jesus or any of the other names he is known by was not a real historical being. When one compares all existing evidence against the lack thereof the scales are heavily weighted in favor of the latter. On a scale of 0-10, ten reflecting irrefutable concrete evidence and zero none, I go with zero. If you disagree with this show me what you got? I submit that whether your guy on a stick existed or not is core to further discussion of this topic for If your guy is myth anything subsequent is mute. Jews always give literary credit for the good guys and the bad, Philo commented on just about everything but not a word on your mythological J. Nobody seemed to mention him in any contemporary source during and just after he was supposed to have lived. We know by name of hundreds of personalities all claiming to be the messiah during the time J was supposed to have lived but not one mention of your myth. Why is that dweller? Jewish and Gentile conspiracy of silence? without modern communications yet? Good trick, how did they manage to pull it off? Josephus devoted several pages on the Essenes but only a few words deemed to be a forgery on Christians and Jesus? Why do you suppose this is? Put aside Christianity for the moment and prove beyond reasonable doubt that J existed.
and we continue; if you can’t then not much more to discuss. 1001 Arabian Night has more truth. Without truth we accept the lie in it’s place and I for one am not prepared to do so.
Josephus Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phæædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Philo-Judææus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
NOT A WORD OR MENTION. Curious?
I can’t prove the Romans invented Jesus and Christianity but it is as plausible as any if not more so. What is indisputable is that Paul and the writers of all four canonical Gospels described the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, as they understood it had happened. There is a acknowledged consensus among academic Christian theologians that:
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Jesus’ disciples but by a person or persons whose names are unknown.
Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers had been an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry or death.
The Gospels record the beliefs and memories of various Christian groups as they had evolved at the time they were written.
Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:31 describe “angels” appearing to Jesus’ mother and her husband informing them of her forthcoming “immaculate conception” and “virgin birth” to the “Son of God,” the “Messiah.” When compared with the way Jesus’ family and neighbors treated him, it is absurd to believe that “angels” really visited them:
Mark 3:21: Upon hearing of it, his family went out to seize him, for they said, “He is beside himself.”
To offset the startling fact that Jesus’ family thought that he was insane, some New Testament editions replace “they” with “people,” although “they” is in the original Greek text.
John 7:5: For even his brothers did not believe in him.
Luke 4:16: And Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the Sabbath day…
There, Jesus hinted to his friends and neighbors that he was the Messiah, however:
Luke 4:28: When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up, and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.
How very strange it is, that during all the years in which Yeshu grew up with them, his brothers, friends, and neighbors did not notice that he was a “divine being.” And could it have been that his parents forgot or didn’t tell anyone what they experienced? This stretches one’s imagination.
Lastly: There are over a dozen additional prophecies which the Messiah will also achieve (there is no mention of any “second coming” in the Tanach or the New Testament). In order to avoid identifying the wrong individual as Messiah, the Code of Jewish Law dictates criteria for establishing the Messiah’s identity (Mishnah Torah Kings 11:4):
“If a king arises from the House of David who meditates on the Torah, occupies himself with the commandments as did his ancestor King David, observes the commandments of the Written and Oral Law, prevails upon all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to follow its direction, and fights the wars of God, it may be assumed that he is the Messiah.
If he does these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the Third Temple on its location, and gathers the exiled Jews, he is beyond doubt the Messiah. But if he is not fully successful, or if he is killed, he is not the Messiah.”
Over 1,000 years before the attributed birth of the historical Jesus, it was recorded in the Tanach:
Numbers 23:19: God is not a man, that He should be deceitful, nor the son of man, that He should repent. Would He say and not do, or speak and not confirm?
Psalms 146:3: Do not rely on princes nor in the son of man, for he holds no salvation.
Even the New Testament concurs that Jesus, in fact, is not the Messiah:
Matthew 20:28: Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.
Still waiting your cogent comments on #40, 41, 42. Get thou to a library!
I did a thesis on Rabbi Akiva and I wouldn’t want to embarrass you. and is not relevant to our discussion anyway.
Comment by yamit82 — May 6, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Re 40:
I find little to disagree about in this post. In fact, so much of it seems right that I could almost wonder whether you put it there to make my case instead of your own. Yes, Jesus insisted that the people adhere to the law, and that his intention was not to supercede it. “I come not to destroy but to fulfill.” [Although I'm constantly having to remind Christian acquaintances that "fulfill," as used here, means to underscore, to amplify, to explicate, to bring to fruition, etc. -- not to abolish.]
As I’ve said before, I seriously doubt that it was it was Christ’s intention to found a ‘new religion.’ What Paul took into the broader world would, of necessity, have had to set aside those elements of the Mosaic law which pertained specifically to the Jewish People per se: ceremonial matters, ritual, etc., because the people to whom he was bringing it were not part of Am Yisrael. But I see no reason to believe that he sought to do away with anything in the Noakhic Covenant where the goyim were concerned.
Re 41:
That is replacement theology. I don’t know where I may have given you the idea that I subscribe to it, but I don’t; never have, never would. To do so is to say that God doesn’t keep His promises, and you’ll never see or hear me say that. And if, as you say, you’ve read Romans [chaps. 7-11, as I recall], then you know that Paul didn’t subscribe to it either.
I don’t think, if you read it carefully, you’ll see Paul saying the law is valueless. He’s simply saying that a finite being cannot, of himself, make himself just, simply by going thru the motions, jotting all the i’s & crossing all the t’s, of obedience to the law — and that, if it were possible for such beings to obey each and every law flawlessly & consistently, they wouldn’t be finite; that therefore something more is needed.
“V’ohavta eyss Adonoi elohekha, v’chol l’vavkha, u’v'khol naphsh’kha, u’v'khal m’yodecha. V’hoyoo ha-d’vorim ha-eleh asher anokhi m’tzav’kha ha-yom al l’vovekha…” Something more is needed to put “the words into your heart.”
But, again, as I’ve already said, a goodly number of Jews [including elders] did in fact believe. In Judea proper, the majority of Nazarene adherents were in fact Jews. [And not "apostate" Jews; believing Jews.] After the collapse of the Bar Kokhva Revolt, all that changed.
Comment by dweller — May 7, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Re 48:
I didn’t say he claimed B-K was God. [You might want to review what I actually did say {towards the end of post 47}, if it doesn't upset your stomach too badly.]
I said he proclaimed B-K to be “Moshiakh.” [He said he was "King Messiah."]
My remark was made in response to Yamit’s assertion/implication that belief in Yeshua HaNitzri as Moshiakh rendered one un-Jewish (because presumably Yeshua was a ‘false’ messiah). I used R. Akiva & B-K to illustrate how even that [belief in a false messiah] couldn’t, of itself, possibly be a sufficient criterion — since R. Akiva mistakenly declared B-K to be Moshiakh: yet he still remained Jewish, despite that. If the simple belief in the false messiah, B-K, doesn’t render one un-Jewish, then neither does the simple belief in the (purportedly) ‘false’ messiah, Yeshua, render one un-Jewish either.
On the other hand, nobody who declared B-K or Yeshua (or any other flesh-&-blood person) to be ‘God’ could be Jewish.
Re 49:
Okay, but in that case, you’re going to have a fine time trying to prove a negative, since — rhetorically speaking — the burden of proof rests with the assertor, the “moving party,” if you will. Meanwhile, however, I’ll be waiting for what evidence you may adduce to establish that Avraham existed. Also Damessek Eliezer, Loht, Sarah, Rivka, Malkhi-tzedek, et al.
He never claimed to be a ‘divine’ being. That is strictly a pagan, post-Judean, overlay [maybe even an anti-Judean overlay, to deny the Jewish People their due].
Of course there is. I thought we covered that already, in post 29 [Mk 13:3-32]. Did you need to have it specifically so-labelled? You can’t eat an orange until you have a name for it?
Incidentally (for what it’s worth), Yamit, my point of entree to this thread was at post 22, specifically in response to your assertion in post 6, that “Islam is not idolatrous” [and that 'Christianity' presumably is]. I maintain that they BOTH are idolatrous, as presently practiced. The difference is that Christianity in its origins and at its essence is not at-all idolatrous; at first, it did not view Christ as God. On the other hand, Islam, at its core, and from its very beginnings has always been idolatrous.
Comment by dweller — May 7, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Dweller it is not up to me to prove or disprove the historical Jesus but since you claim he existed the onus is on you not me, in any event I submit the following in favor of my contention.
look at the pervasive silence on the Gospel Jesus of Nazareth which we find in almost a hundred years of earliest Christian correspondence. Not once does Paul or any other first century epistle writer identify their divine Christ Jesus with the recent historical man known from the Gospels. Nor do they attribute the ethical teachings they put forward to such a man. Virtually every other detail in the picture of the Gospel Jesus is similarly missing. If Jesus was a “social reformer” whose teachings began the Christian movement, as today’s liberal scholars now style him, how can such a Jesus be utterly lacking in all the New Testament epistles, while only a cosmic Christ is to be found?
Virtually every element of the Gospel biography of Jesus of Nazareth is missing from the epistles, and that Paul and other early writers present us only with a divine, spiritual Christ in heaven, one revealed by God through inspiration and scripture. Their Jesus is never identified with a recent historical man. Like the savior gods of the Greek mystery cults, Paul’s Christ had performed his redeeming act in a mythical arena.
Mark is usually dated by its “Little Apocalypse” in Chapter 13, which tells of great upheavals and the destruction of the Temple, spoken as a prophecy by Jesus. This must, it is claimed, refer to the first Jewish War (66-70); thus Mark wrote in its midst or shortly after. But even Mark is presumed to have drawn on source elements, and some think this Little Apocalypse could originally have been a Jewish composition (with no reference to Jesus), one that Mark later borrowed and adapted. Or, if Chapter 13 is by Mark, it could well have grown out of a later period, for other documents, like Revelation and some Jewish apocalypses, show that vivid apocalyptic expectations persisted until at least the end of the century. In fact, 13:7 has Jesus warning his listeners not to regard the End as imminent even when the winds of war arrive. Nothing in Mark should force us to date him before the 90s.
The core of the historical Jesus precedes the Gospels and was born in the community or circles which produced the document now called “Q” (for the German “Quelle,” meaning “source”). No copy of Q has survived, but while a minority disagree, the majority of New Testament scholars today are convinced that Q did exist, and that it can be reconstructed from the common material found in Matthew and Luke which they did not get from Mark.
Q was not a narrative Gospel, but an organized collection of sayings which included moral teachings, prophetic admonitions and controversy stories, plus a few miracles and other anecdotes. It was the product of a Jewish (or Jewish imitating) sectarian movement located in Galilee which preached a coming Kingdom of God. Scholars have concluded that Q was put together over time and in distinct stages. They have identified the earliest stratum (calling it Q1) as a set of sayings on ethics and discipleship; these contained notably unconventional ideas. Many are found in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount: the Beatitudes, turn the other cheek, love your enemies. A close similarity has been noted between these maxims and those of the Greek philosophical school known as Cynicism, a counterculture movement of the time spread by wandering Cynic preachers. Perhaps the Q sect at its beginnings adopted a Greek source, with some recasting, one they saw as a suitable ethic for the kingdom they were preaching. In any case, there is no need to impute such sayings to a Jesus; they seem more the product of a school or lifestyle, formulated over time and hardly the sudden invention of a single mind.
What did Mark do? He crafted a ministry which moved from Galilee to Jerusalem, now the site of Jesus’ death. He virtually re-invented the Apostles out of early, now-legendary figures in the Christ movement; they served mostly instructional purposes. He brought into the Jesus orbit all the figures and concepts floating about in the Christian air, like Son of God, Messiah, Son of David, the apocalyptic Son of Man.
It is now recognized that the Gospels are thoroughly sectarian writings. They were a response to the “life situation” of the groups which produced them, serving their needs. They created a sacred past for the faith, one going back to divine establishment. They offered a bulwark against outside attack. They legitimated the community’s beliefs and sanctioned its practices. The burning issue, for example, of association and table fellowship, whether Jew could mix with gentile, whether the ritually pure could eat meals with the impure, was solved by having Jesus portrayed as condemning the Pharisees for their obsession over purity, as one who had consorted with outcasts and gentiles. The issue of whether the Jewish Law still applied was addressed by having Jesus make rulings on it. And so on. It is easy to see how such sectarian interests, when several different communities and times were involved, would lead to the many contradictions we find in Jesus’ actions and pronouncements between one Gospel and another.
Just as scripture had earlier provided a picture of the mythical Christ of Paul, the same writings (using passages taken out of context and with no regard to their original meaning) now supplied the setting and details of a recent earthly life of Jesus. Mark brought to a head an already fledgling process and added those “biographical” elements he found in the Q traditions. Out of such components, with the Bible open before him, he fashioned his story of Jesus’ ministry and passion.
Both Matthew and Luke place Jesus’ birth at Bethlehem because the prophet Micah (5:2) had declared that this would be the birthplace of the future ruler of Israel. After that, the two evangelists’ Nativity stories agree on virtually nothing. Scriptural midrash can be a very haphazard thing.
The Gospel account of Jesus’ trial and death shows the heaviest dependence on scripture.
Virtually every element of Mark’s passion story, beginning with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, is based on a biblical passage. Here are a few examples:
The prophet Hosea (9:15): “For their evil deeds I will drive them from my house.” Plus Zechariah (14:21): “No trader will be seen in the house of the Lord.” Jesus drives the money changers from the Temple.
Psalm 42:5: “How deep I am sunk in misery, groaning in my distress.” Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Psalm 41:9:”Even the friend whom I trusted, who ate at my table, exults in my misfortune.” The betrayal by Judas. Conflict with the Jewish establishment would have provided strong motivation for coming up with the figure of Judas to represent all hostile and unbelieving Jewry.
Isaiah 53:12: “And he was numbered with the transgressors.” Jesus is crucified between two thieves.
Psalm 22:18: “They divided my garments among them, and for my raiments they cast lots.” The soldiers gamble for Jesus’ clothes at the foot of the cross.
Comment by yamit82 — May 8, 2009 @ 2:28 am
After all is said and written
Yamit I would only hope others who have the enthusiasm you do for your faith.
I love it.
No matter what is written by other or handed down from generation to generation I believe G-d/God loves us for the faith we have in Him regardles of the path we take.
More important we stand together to insure a peaceful Israel safe from intruders, agitators and outside infulence.
An Israel home of the Jews.
Comment by rongrand — May 8, 2009 @ 5:29 am
Dweller
Paul:
PAUL TAUGHT THAT WITH JESUS IT MEANT THE END OF GOD’S LAW:
ROM010:004 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
HERE PAUL SEEMED TO HAVE SAID THAT THE JEWS WERE GIVEN THE LAW BECAUSE THEY WERE HORRIBLE, DISOBEDIENT, UNGODLY SINNERS:
1TI001:008 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
1TI001:009 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1TI001:010 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1TI001:011 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
PAUL TAUGHT THAT ONE CAN NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY GOD’S LAW BUT ONLY BY HAVING FAITH IN JESUS:
GAL002:015 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
GAL002:016 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
GAL002:017 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
GAL002:018 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
GAL002:019 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
GAL002:020 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
GAL002:021 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
ACT013:039 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
WHEN IT COMES TO GOD’S LAW, PAUL WENT AGAINST WHAT GOD SAYS AS WELL AS WHAT JESUS SAID:
GAL003:006 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
GAL003:007 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
GAL003:008 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
GAL003:009 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
GAL003:010 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
GAL003:011 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
GAL003:012 And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them.
GAL003:013 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
GAL003:014 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
GAL005:018 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
EPH002:015 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
PAUL SAID THAT YOU HAVE TO BE RIGHTEOUS TO GET INTO HEAVEN:
1CO006:009 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1CO006:010 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
HERE PAUL SAID THAT YOU CAN NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN THE LAW AND THAT SALVATION IS THROUGH FAITH NOT THROUGH WORKS (YOUR ACTIONS):
ROM003:026 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
ROM003:027 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
ROM003:028 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
ROM003:029 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
ROM003:030 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
ROM003:031 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
STATEMENTS LIKE THESE CAUSE CHRISTIANS TO THINK THEY ARE NO LONGER UNDER GOD’S LAW, EVEN THOUGH JESUS SAID THAT THEY WERE:
GAL005:018 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
HERE IT SEEMS THAT PAUL SAID THAT CHRISTIANS ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW BUT STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW IT:
ROM006:014 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
ROM006:015 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
HERE PAUL SEEMED TO WAVER AND SURE MADE IT SEEM LIKE FAITH WAS NOT THE ONLY CRITERIA:
GAL005:019 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
GAL005:020 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
GAL005:021 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
PAUL WAVERS YET AGAIN AND SAYS:
EPH002:014 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
EPH002:015 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
SO AGAIN PAUL SAID THAT THE LAW IS ABOLISHED. I HOPE YOU CAN SEE WHY I HAVE NEVER REALLY FIGURED OUT WHAT PAUL REALLY FELT ABOUT GOD’S LAW. BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS, THE END RESULT IS THAT MANY OF GOD’S LAWS ARE IGNORED IN CHRISTIANITY.
PAUL ADMITTED TO SAYING WHATEVER IT TOOK AND BEING WHOEVER HE NEEDED TO BE TO CONVERT PEOPLE:
1CO009:020 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1CO009:021 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1CO009:022 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1CO009:023 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
IT DOES NOT SEEM VERY HONEST TO ME.
I’M SURE YOU HAVE HEARD DEBATES ON LOWERING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COLLEGE ADMISSIONS, SO THAT PEOPLE WHO CAN NOT MEET THESE STANDARDS, CAN STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. I’M SURE THAT MANY CHRISTIANS, WOULD BE AGAINST LOWERING THESE REQUIREMENTS AND IN FACT SUGGEST THAT THESE PEOPLE WORK HARDER TO MEET THE STANDARDS. BUT LOOK WHAT PAUL SAID:
ROM004:015 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
ROM004:016 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;
IT SEEMS LIKE PAUL BELIEVED THAT BY DOING AWAY WITH GOD’S LAWS, PEOPLE COULD NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED SINNERS. THEREFORE THEY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE SAVED THROUGH GRACE — HAVING FAITH IN JESUS AND HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR ACTIONS. TALK ABOUT LOWERING THE STANDARDS. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A SCALE AND CAN NOT WEIGH YOURSELF, DOES THIS MEAN YOU CAN NOT GAIN WEIGHT? I WISH!
I DO NOT BELIEVE GOD WOULD EVER LOWER HIS STANDARDS. YET I DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXPECTS PERFECTION EITHER (IT APPEARS IN THE BIBLE THAT MOSES WAS SOMEHOW INVOLVED IN THE DEATH OF AN EGYPTIAN, AARON WAS INVOLVED IN THE GOLDEN CALF INCIDENT AND KING DAVID SEEMED TO HAVE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH A MARRIED WOMAN). BUT I DO BELIEVE GOD WANTS US TO STRIVE TO MEET HIS STANDARD, BY FOLLOWING THE LAWS HE HAS GIVEN TO US.
King Solomon or Paul? That is the Germain question.
Comment by yamit82 — May 8, 2009 @ 6:56 am
I’m lovin’ it!
Comment by Shy Guy — May 8, 2009 @ 7:20 am
dweller: Abraham?
JAM002:023 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
JAM002:021 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
JAM002:008 If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well:
JAM002:010 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
I disagree there is virtually nothing Jewish left in Christianity that has not been corrupted out. Those Christians looking for the true path must reject Jesus and accept Noahide beliefs and practice which is totally based on Torah without the Myriad Jewish obligations.
The Jewish believers in Jesus were a fifth column who colluded with the Romans and deserved the be slain as many were. I would advocate the same today if possible. They like many others either refused to participate in the revolt or sided with Rome. Tough to fight a successful rebellion when a sizable portion of the people not only remain neutral but side with the enemy and some actively fought against the revolt . This is probably the reason Akiva proclaimed a Messiah to get the fire under the Jews to fight. No doubt that if by some miracle The revolt had ended in success that Bar-chocba would have been accepted by all the people as messiah but he wasn’t and was killed so that ended that. The revolt did seperate permanently Jews and followers of Jesus.
The point re: Akiva and his students. Akiva the penultimate Activist Rabbi rejected waiting for the Messiah and declared one. It united most of the nation and they managed for a time to defeat the greatest power of the ancient world. The example of rabbi Akiva and his students is counterproductive to the aims of the rabbis. Instead of sitting on society’s welfare, issuing senseless fatwas (oy, halachot) over minute details of Jewish life, and waiting for the messiah, Rabbi Akiva proclaimed one. Akiva wasn’t a fool, far from that. He surely knew that bar Kochba’s chances against the Romans were limited. Yet the wise rabbi did not wait for supernatural wonders or try to preserve his yeshiva, but proclaimed the war. Akiva chose dignity over life – and even over Judaism itself which he put at stake. Akiva reasoned that he should do his part and let the Almighty do his and take care of the Jews. Akiva sacrificed himself and thousands of his students in the revolt, but he established a thing more important than human lives: the will to fight for self-evident truths. Get the message?
Comment by yamit82 — May 8, 2009 @ 8:30 am
“Rome did not convert to Christianity. Christianity converted to Rome.”
James Tabor’s latest book: Restoring Abrahamic Faith.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 10, 2009 @ 6:56 am
Protesters Prepare for Pope Inside Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIgD8i3A1OU
Mega Security Planned for Pope’s Israel Visit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pJQHqsXick&feature=related
Comment by yamit82 — May 10, 2009 @ 8:12 am
Today we pray for all the Mothers on this their special day.
Happy Mothers Day Moms and G-d/God Bless You.
Comment by rongrand — May 10, 2009 @ 9:29 am
Re post 40:
Wrong; the sequel is rarely as good as the orignal [an important correction]. Depends on the author, really. What’s more, if it’s the same Author, then the two works are likely to shed significant light on each other.
Re post 52:
Not so fast, my man. I simply accept, and take for granted, the common rendering of history (albeit not perhaps the common conclusions deriving from it). The presumption of fact, Yamit, rests with the “received wisdom” till somebody proves otherwise (or provides enough positive evidence to at least reverse the presumption). You challenged that common understanding, beginning in post 28, and thus you are indeed the moving party and saddled accordingly with the burden of proof.
Furthermore, while what you offer here [in 52] in support of your challenge — much verbiage, largely speculative — is occasionally interesting, even genuinely provocative (and I appreciate that, sincerely), there is nothing in there of a probative nature. Which is not to suggest that there is no value to speculation. If I thought speculation had no value, I wouldn’t indulge it myself; and I do, quite a bit. But I know its place.
Speculation has a useful function: as a basis for contemplation, and as a spur to further inquiry; but it has no evidentiary value of any kind or degree.
I’ve already pointed out that Christ, as shown in the gospels, and as described (somewhat less vividly) in the balance of the NT, doesn’t make any claim to divinity, and your repeating the assertion of a divinity claim, as if it were established, won’t make it so — nor induce me to concede it.
In fact, for the record, let me say right now that, unless, at some point, you read words of mine explicitly conceding that specific point, you can reliably assume that my ‘failure’ to object to any future such assertion of yours (or of anybody else’s — if anybody else is still on-board with this thread by then) was purely an oversight [a not-at-all far-fetched possibilty, given the time constraints I'm working under when I'm at the terminal].
“Of myself I can do nothing; the Father in me, He doeth the works.” [Jn 5:19]
“The Son can do nothing of himself.” [Jn 5:30]
A man making claims to the Godhead would make no such assertion as those cited above. Quite the contrary, if he were ‘God,’ there would be nothing he couldn’t do “of himself.” So why would he claim otherwise? I repeat what I concluded in post 29: the Son of God is not “God the Son.”
Re post 54:
Ah, there you go again. Yeshua didn’t claim to be any kind of ‘deity.’ What’s more, no believing Jew — let alone, a disciple of Rabban Gamaliel (which Paul was) — would, under any circumstances [before or after the Damascus Road epiphany] assert that any man (even Moshiakh) could possibly be a ‘deity.’ Wouldn’t happen. Breasts would grow on a bull first.
Remember, if you will, that Paul was at no point an apostate. He went straight from being a believing Jew to being a believing Nazarene Jew. There was no lag time in-between.
Yes: the end of rote, strictly ritualistic relationship to the Law –because the Law would be in one’s heart: “V’hoyu ha-d’vorim ha-eleh, ah’sherr anokhih m’tzav’kha ha-yom al l’vovekha.”
He would no more speak in terms of ‘abolishing’ the Law itself than of ‘abolishing’ the Laws of Gravitation, Thermodynamics or Supply-&-Demand. They are there; they are part of the skeletal structure of the universe, and they will be what they are, whether you observe them or ignore them. The question is, how do you relate to them in such a way as to leave your conscious mind free to live a life at the same time?
Oh, for goodness’ sake, if that’s what he was saying, then why does he say the following (in your own next citation)? :
Do those sound like the remarks of a man who regarded the Jews as unusually “HORRIBLE, DISOBEDIENT, UNGODLY SINNERS”?
He knew — thru personal experience — that Jews were no more sinful (or, arguably, any less so) than most other people. When Yirm’yohu or Ahmos fulminate bitterly against the people of Israel, are they saying that Jews are ‘more ungodly or disobedient’ than anybody else? Be serious. [Are you quite sure that you aren't, even just a little bit, deliberately looking to find a scar in Paul that you would never assume existed in Yirm'yohu, et al.?]
Actually, the Law was given to the Jews specifically — because nobody else was fit to be entrusted with it. It was the highest of honors, hardly a badge of shame, let alone, a ‘punishment.’
The “justification” references will have to wait for another day’s discussion, I’m afraid. That’s a long one.
[By the way, it was not my intention to make these posts into some kind of brief or apologia on behalf of the Christian Faith, but only to illustrate the correctness of my initial assertion that Christianity at its essence is not -- and, from its origins, was not -- idolatrous {and which was my original reason for entering into this extended little drohsh}. And I do think I've largely succeded in that regard. I write as a Jew, however.
For an actual apologia on behalf of traditional Christianity, in fairness, you'd have to address your inquiries to a nominal Christian: i.e., to somebody who explicitly subscribes to the Nicene Creed. (I don't & never have. Never will.)]
Right. [You thought I would give you an argument over that?] I’m in full agreement. Of course, that naturally raises the question: If I rape my neighbor’s wife in the name of “freedom,” have I in fact struck a blow for FREEDOM — or merely found the handiest, sweetest-sounding jacket in which to drape my outrages?
That’s not the same thing as saying he is ‘wrong.’ There’s lots of stuff in Paul (and other folks) that I still can’t make sense of at any given time. But I’ve seen enough in him that does make sense to me to have the confidence that when I run into a rough patch, if I leave it as an open question — if I put on the back burner, without jettisoning it — that that particular thing will eventually do begin to jell.
Excellent point; absolutely right. I’ve had occasion to point that out to Christian friends more times than I can count. The response tends to be a mixed bag: Most of them become very quiet & thoughtful when it’s shown to them, but there’s bound to be a couple, here & there, to whom it gives a case of serious heartburn. Still others don’t need to be told; they already know it.
It’s not that it doesn’t “work,” but that their devotion is a superficial thing; sometimes an exploitative thing. They appropriate ‘Christ’ unto themselves only to avoid doing t’shuvah — even though he would be scandalized & offended by their trying to skip past repentance (and in his name, no less). Kind of like presuming to do an “end-run” around one’s conscience. [It's called having your cake and eating it too. (And I agree: it sucks -- to put it bluntly.)]
But flawed, shallow, phony, and/or self-deluded adherents do not, of themselves, constitute evidence of the ‘bogus’ faith of Christianity any more than they bear witness to the ‘falsity’ of Judaism .
He writes in a certain ideational shorthand, I think, that makes it easy to take him wrongly, but — as I’ve already shown — he isn’t actually proposing to do away with Law as such. In some instances, it’s a question of changing the way somebody relates to the Law.
In other instances, he’s simply saying that he tried to keep differing local cultures and customs from interfering with getting to the essential matters. Of itself, it isn’t dishonest. You’re viewing him as a cheap politician; I don’t see that as a necessary conclusion.
I see him as a Jew who — notwithstanding his mission to bring the ethics-of-the-fathers, as it were, to a pagan world — realized that he couldn’t possibly (or reasonably) expect that world to fathom (or even imagine) what it was like to be a Jew.
What’s more, if , as you note, “many of God’s laws are ignored in Christianity” — and I agree with you that they are (though we might disagree as to which ones are applicable solely to the Jewish People) — I hardly think that to be specifically Paul’s doing.
I don’t think God is in the rejection business. Not that it can’t happen; but I wouldn’t, for a moment, presume to second-guess Him. But to address your question directly, I see no evidence that God ‘rejected’ Paul, or that Paul believed that He had. [What an odd question, though!]
Well, yes, but remember that the prophets almost never had occasion to address themselves directly to anybody but Am Yisrael. Paul had to address himself to a multitude of other cultures in addition to the Jews.
You’ll be happy, then, of course [I suppose], to know that you’re in good company [as it were], since most self-styled “Christians” would say the same as you in that regard — though Christ himself said otherwise: “Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”
I take him seriously, though, even if they don’t.
Post 56, next time.
Comment by dweller — May 11, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
Bad anology, Try instead, not divinely written or inspired. Not based on anybodys historical account or record during the attributed life of one called Jesus or any other attributed Hebrew name for him. We only know of him in any form by second and third hand accounts. So it is more than just speculation. If you discount just this point it is because you do not choose to do so as then the whole house of cards and all of your subsequent postulates crumble like so must dust.
For arguments sake I will concede that a Jesus Character may have existed but is then some composite of many different attributes other than what he may have really been. That is about the most I can rationally concede unless shown conclusively otherwise. Whether Abraham or any other Biblical ( our bible) character existed or not is not relevant to Judaic core belief which is based on Torah but then here is catch 22. The Torah tells us about the life and times of Abraham and the Abrahamic Dynasty and subsequent historical and semi-historical characters. There are many , many confirmations of many of these events mentioned in the Bible but it was never meant to be a history as we might call it today but most events and historical characters have since been confirmed by historical research and archeology.
The beginnings of all ancient and modern religions have a common thread: one or two people have a revelation and persuade others to follow. Thus, for example, Buddhist writings tell us that Prince Siddhartha Gautama launched Buddhism after his solitary ascendance through the eight stages of Transic insight; Islamic texts tell us that Muhammad founded Islam following the first of many personal, prophetic experiences; Christian writings reveal that Paul first met Jesus, converted to Christianity, and spread the faith more than three decades after Jesus’ death; Joseph Smith, Jr., and his partner, Oliver Cowdery, launched the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints (the Mormon church) after the two men were visited by angels and long-dead disciples of Jesus; and Sun Myung Moon launched the Unification Church after privately receiving direct orders to do so from Jesus himself. The beginnings of Children of God, Christian Science, Eckankar, Elan Vital, I AM, and Theosophy — in fact, the beginnings of all world religions — are equally unverifiable. Never does a large, clearly identifiable group of people experience prophecy and live to tell others about it. Moreover, in a handful of cases wherein large groups of people supposedly witnessed miracles, rarely are these witnesses named or identified in any way that would allow for verification; and in the very exceptional cases involving clearly identified groups of witnesses, never more than one or two of the religion’s current adherents claim to have met or descended directly from the named witnesses. In all these cases, the religion’s credibility rests on the credibility of its one or two founders. While it is certainly possible that the beginnings claimed by any of the thousands of sects and cults included in the world’s more than three hundred major religious traditions could be true, it is easy to imagine how charismatic charlatans could have launched any of these movements.
The one known exception to this rule is Judaism. The Torah claims that every Jewish man, woman, and child alive in 1312 B.C.E. — about three million people, according to the Torah — heard God speak at Mount Sinai and survived to teach their descendants about the event. Here we have an easily identifiable group — all of Jewry — who could have verified or denied the story any time during the first two or three generations after the alleged mass prophecy transpired. It seems to me that all you have really is Pauls word for it.
The Torah is aware of its uniqueness and unabashedly offers this challenge to every Jew who has lived since Sinai:
Crucially, the Torah’s claim about national revelation isn’t esoteric. If a religion claimed to have started when a centipede metamorphosed into a gorilla who, falling into a river, exploded in flame and disintegrated into ashes before rising in the form of a great human prophet, we would understand why such a claim might never be repeated. It is unlikely that two people would independently dream up identical stories with such intricate and nonintuitive details. Yet the Jewish claim is obvious and simple: God spoke to a group of people. This is the sort of claim that would occur to anyone.
You believe Paul and not King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived according to the Torah. Paul was never mentioned by G-d. Nor was Jesus.
Comment by yamit82 — May 12, 2009 @ 4:43 am
Yamit, do you have a book bibliography on the subject of historical refutation of Christianity which you recommend?
Comment by Shy Guy — May 12, 2009 @ 5:33 am
You use many words here except: “You will do them”, no ands, ifs or buts but clear concise simple Hebrew!! You betray yourself a a messianic fraud ea. time you attempt to keep to your fraudulent masquerade.
This is what G-d says, In clear language:
DEU005:029 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
LEV019:037 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the Lord.
LEV020:022 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.
LEV025:018 Wherefore ye shall do My statutes, and keep My judgments, and do them; and ye shall dwell in the land in safety.
LEV026:046 These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.
DEU004:001 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you.
DEU004:008 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
DEU005:001 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
DEU011:001 Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway.
DEU026:016 This day the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgments: thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
DEU030:016 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
Really? There are so many contradictions of what Paul said that if it is difficult for you me and others more learned than us and I can’t fathom what exactly he was saying, teaching and trying to convey to the then unlearned and largely ignorant Jews and Pagans in his own time and today as well. I think it was purposeful so as to make it mordifficult to pin down.
In other instances, he’s simply saying that he tried to keep differing local cultures and customs from interfering with getting to the essential matters. Of itself, it isn’t dishonest. You’re viewing him as a cheap politician; I don’t see that as a necessary conclusion.
Worse! A cheap antisemitic Charlatan of a politician.
I see him as a Jew who — notwithstanding his mission to bring the ethics-of-the-fathers, as it were, to a pagan world — realized that he couldn’t possibly (or reasonably) expect that world to fathom (or even imagine) what it was like to be a Jew.
Bullshit at the beginning of Christianity it’s estimated that roughly 10% of the population of the Roman Empire were Jews and I would have to assume a large part were converts who had no problem fathoming Judaism. You show your ignorance or intentional obfuscation when being an apologist for such a vile creature as Paul. It also shows your ignorance of history at least Jewish History or like most of you Messianics when you do know you just cherry pick only what serves your purposes.
What’s more, if , as you note, “many of God’s laws are ignored in Christianity” — and I agree with you that they are
— I hardly think that to be sp
And what laws do you suppose we might disagree about?
Gentiles—-7 laws of Noah Universal Laws. Jews about 613. It is not damming for Gentiles not to observe Jewish laws as they are meant for the Jews but outside of Jewish law and Noahide Law there is only apostasy, heresy and Paganism
Comment by yamit82 — May 12, 2009 @ 9:15 am
dweller:
You really blew it here dweller: His mission to bring ethics of the fathers (perkei Avot) to the Gentiles(Pagans)?
Most of Perkei Avot was compiled mostly from from the Mishna and was not compiled and completed until the second century CE. Pirkei Avot is a collection of teachings from leading Jewish sages spanning a period of more than five-hundred years–from the time following the compilation of the Bible at the beginning of the second temple period (circa 360 BCE) until well into the second century. During these years, great challenges faced the Jewish people; new opposing factions arose within the Jewish community that threatened to undermine the foundations and future of Judaism; the world was shaken by radical changes due to an unsettled civilization in the transformation from Greek to Roman rule.
Judaism is not and never was about ethics. Every culture and religion has ethics. Judaism is:
Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one.
(Rashi) The Lord is our God; the Lord is one: The Lord, who is now our God and not the God of the other nations-He will be [declared] in the future “the one God,” as it is said: “For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language that all of them call in the name of the Lord” (Zeph. 3:9), and it is [also] said: “On that day will the Lord be one and His name one” (Zech. 14:9). (see Sifrei)
And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means.
And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart.
And you shall teach them to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up
And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for ornaments between your eyes.
And you shall inscribe them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates.
And it will be, when the Lord, your God, brings you to the land He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you, great and good cities that you did not build,
and houses full of all good things that you did not fill, and hewn cisterns that you did not hew, vineyards and olive trees that you did not plant, and you will eat and be satisfied.
Beware, lest you forget the Lord, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Do not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples who are around you.
For the Lord, your God, is a zealous God among you, lest the wrath of the Lord, your God, be kindled against you, and destroy you off the face of the earth.You shall not try the Lord, your God, as you tried Him in Massah.
Ethics?
Comment by yamit82 — May 12, 2009 @ 9:27 am
Shy:
Here are some:
The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (Paperback)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0932813747/ajewishresp09-20
The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? : Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus (Paperback)
by Earl Doherty (Author)
The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays (The Freethought Library) (Paperback)
The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did by Gerd Ludemann
The Jesus Mysteries: Was the “Original Jesus” a Pagan God? by by Timothy Freke
The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence John E. Remsberg
Judaism and Christianity: the Differences by Trude Weiss-Rosmarin
A Jewish Response to Cults by Gary Bretton-Granatoor
Comment by yamit82 — May 12, 2009 @ 10:15 am
Her son is a brilliant Rav Tamid Chacham, who lives in Jerusalem.
Thanks.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 12, 2009 @ 11:14 am
The Christ Conspiracy
My friend Yamit.
There comes a time in life when we need to put the differences aside.
When we pass on and meet our Almighty all will be revealed to us.
Trust me G-d/God will love us no less for traveling to Him in different paths.
He will commend us for being true to our beliefs and especially how we treat one another.
Remember the common denominatior is G-d/God.
Christians and Jews need to form an admiration society.
Most important issue at hand is we all need to stand together in full support of Israel.
Comment by rongrand — May 12, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Tough one. Christians owe the Jews such an historical debt, I think it’s past time and past due they start to repay some of it.
OK I’m here, so it’s up to you guys to come to us with open hands and open arms, without any preconditions.
Ron you are a good soul and I advise you disregard anything I say or post against Christianity. It is certainly not against you personally. My comments are directed mostly for the Jews here and some few nefarious Christians who pose as friends but have less than honest and goodwill motivations. I believe you have as I seen some few of them here.
Comment by yamit82 — May 12, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Tough one. Christians owe the Jews such an historical debt, I think it’s past time and past due they start to repay some of it.
OK I’m here, so it’s up to you guys to come to us with open hands and open arms, without any preconditions.
I am with you on this. Nothing like the present to begin.
In fact I told Caroline Glick the Vatican should return any items belonging to the Jewish people (you did tell me they had some precious articles) and they need to engage with their Jewish counterparts with open and frank discussion with respects to Pope Pius XII, there should be nothing to hide.
I agree with Caroline, all of Jerusalem and the holy site should be under Israeli sovereignity.
This is where it all needs to begin.
By the way you also told me about the children that were saved from the Germans and kept by Catholic families.
What I found alarming is they brought them up in the Catholic faith.
They had an obligation to see to it that they continued in their own Jewish beliefs. It was not up to them to made a change.
I am sure G-d was not pleased with that decision.
The names of those children should be made avaiable to the Jews.
There has been a lot of mistakes made in the name of Catholism some of which most Catholics are not even aware of.
We need to make sure these do not happen again.
Comment by rongrand — May 12, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Oh please!
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”
- Romans 1:16 (The Great Commission)
And how!
Comment by Shy Guy — May 12, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Oh please!
Shy Guy, I am not sure sarcasm is appropriate.
I feel bad enugh after I was informed the Jewish children saved from the Holocaust were raised as Catholics by the families who cared for them.
Comment by rongrand — May 12, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Shy, I believe Ron is one of the good ones.
Comment by yamit82 — May 12, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
Ron, I don’t doubt your sincerity and you good intentions for a moment.
However, the Christians raising those lost Jews are simply complying with the most elementary of Christianity’s beliefs. After all:
“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” - John 3:18
Comment by Shy Guy — May 12, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Re post 56:
Hunh?! This is supposed to ‘prove’ that Avraham existed? You effectively tell me the NT is bunkum, and then you take recourse to that very NT as an authority? — what chutzpah. Now that’s really choice! I challenged you, in 51, to use the same standard of proof — external documentary evidence — to ‘prove’ that Abraham existed, that you had demanded of me to establish that Jesus did, and you come back to me with the Letter of James?
Come one, Yamit, I’ve seen enough of your stuff to know you can do better than that. In any event, my point remains undisturbed: A paucity of available external documentation to establish the existence of Yeshua constitutes no more a ‘proof’ of his ‘non-historicity’ than does the absence of same to establish the ‘non-existence’ of Avraham, Rivka, Melkhi-tzedek, Eliyau, Moshe, et al.
The reality is that, historically speaking, arguments from silence are, by their very nature, vulnerable — since you can’t always know what the silence betokens; silence can’t ’speak’ (with any explicitness) for itself. Therefore silence is always subject to opportunistic & self-serving interpretation. The bottom line is that, of itself, silence is unreliable — and that arguments that do rely on it are, at best, weak.
But, you know, this whole line of pursuit has about it as much gravity to it as the claims which the ding-a-ling “Palestinians” and their useful-idiot, Western academic, cohorts have been pushing for a couple of decades now, to the effect that David & Solomon were ‘non-historical’ figures — no more than folk legends, at best — and that Beit Hamiqdahsh never existed, or not on the Temple Mount, anyway (though even Hajj Amin didn’t have the nerve to suggest that), etc., etc.
If those claims sound like drivel, how do you suppose the “Jesus-is-a-fairy-tale” claim sounds (even to a lot of atheists)? — like, maybe, drivel dripping on a grinding axe?
Yes, “we.” When I used the word, “we,” in that context, I had explicit reference to the Jewish People. I’ve already told you: I believe that — by allowing what had begun as a War for Israel to be converted into a War for ‘Moshiakh’ — that WE: Am Yisrael — made a horrible mistake. If you have a problem with that, so be it. I stand by it — foursquare.
So you do acknowledge Christianity’s Jewish roots. [Can't quite shake that little foxtail loose from your ear, can you, Rover?]
This is a total non-sequitur to your earlier [immediately above-cited] assertion. What’s the connection? — how does the second follow from the first? Are you saying that Jesus himself is the source of Christianity’s corruption? If you are, then how to square that with your suggestion, in 28, that he is likely a “composite” ? A composite of what, if not a Jewish ‘composite?’ And if a Jewish ‘composite,’ then how a source of corruption?
I repeat what I wrote in 33: Christ, by any name [well, other than "God the Son"], is the Jewel-in-the-Crown that is Jewish Civilization. Moreover, I don’t see anything in Jesus’ teaching or presence to suggest that he represents an assault on the Noakhic Code.
But to address more directly the substance of your assertion that “there is virtually nothing Jewish left in Christianity that has not been corrupted out”: “Nothing,” even as modified & preceded by weasel words, like “virtually,” is a pretty big word — too big to be allowed to pass. Frankly, I see plenty in Christianity — even in contemporary, vanilla, white-bread, squeezed-from-the-tube, Gentile, “Churchianity” — which still retains its Jewish basis (perhaps much in spite of itself, but nonetheless, unmistakably so).
And I venture to say that if you weren’t so eaten-up with your own caustic bile and intellectual bigotry, Yamit, you’d perceive it as well.
Furthermore, occasionally I even see elements of Judaism which much (even most) of contemporary Jewry (and almost all of secular Jewry) has — to its shame and utter disgrace — jettisoned, and which only believing Christians (i.e., parts of ‘Christendom,’ anyway) have continued to uphold. And for that, the latter are to be heartily saluted and humbly thanked.
The Jewish believers in Jesus were a fifth column who colluded with the Romans… or sided with Rome… side[d] with the enemy and some actively fought against the revolt.
Comment by dweller — May 13, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
He is completely superfluous, as far as we Jews are concerned. To the pagan world and their descendants, like yourself, he must be the best thing since sliced bread.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 14, 2009 @ 12:49 am
Dweller you seem to have mastered the art and technique of sophistry and obsfucation, a very potent mix when you need to divert and misdirect the arguments (mine) away from my arguments to yours and in such an unesoterical manner. I postulated that your Jesus never existed but allowed only for the sake of argument some plausibility of some composite character who in fact I hold is mythical. I give no essential ground here, just enough to continue our discussion in order to see how far you are prepared to go on with your charade. I find that you answered none of my questions or challenges but sidestepped almost all and attempted to redirect the question onto peripheral issues without responding to my many questions and challenges. Nice technique.
Protagoras, Gorgias, Thrasymachus, and Hippias of Elis.Would be proud of your failed efforts. They too mostly failed with their intellectual equals and certainly with their betters.
BK was not the messiah BenDavid and not even the Messiah BenYoseph because he lost, period. Your Jesus Guy is not the messiah either because The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets—Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.
According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, nor will he possess supernatural qualities.
The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David!
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37) For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), “He does not observe Shabbat!”
St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nazianzus, wrote: “A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire,” and you seem to have lapped up a lot if not most of the Jargon!
AUTHENTIC JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION, The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others… as it says, “Face to face, God spoke with you…” The Torah also states: “God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us—who are all here alive today.” (Deut. 5:3)
Judaism is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.
Your Jesus said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). That seems pretty clear to me, simple straight forward language.
Judaism says that the Messiah will be born of human parents, and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, and will not possess supernatural qualities. In fact, an individual is alive in every generation with the capacity to step into the role of the Messiah. (see Maimonides - Laws of Kings 11:3)
SO WHAT JEW NEEDS A JESUS? In Judaism, prayer is a totally private matter, between each individual and God. As the Bible says: “God is near to all who call unto Him” (Psalms 145:18). Further, the Ten Commandments state: “You shall have no other gods BEFORE ME,” meaning that it is forbidden to set up a mediator between God and man. (see Maimonides - Laws of Idolatry ch. 1)
In short, Jews don’t retreat from life, we elevate it. SO Why would we need someone like Jesus? What can he offer that we don’t have already? He can’t be the messiah, Isn’t a Prophet and we already have a personal link to G-d? We had wiser men then what is attributed to him and more learned and pious. We have the torah which is G-ds Truth You have a conflicted Book written about a man by none who knew him in the flesh and ea. Book contradicts another. Even Paul the missionary admitted to subterfuge and lies in his own words.
The veracity of everything that Paul said and wrote is called into question by the fact that these quotes are found in the books he himself authored. Your previous response was at best unconvincing and apologetic.
Try again:
Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:31 describe “angels” appearing to Jesus’s mother and her husband informing them of her forthcoming “immaculate conception” and “virgin birth” to the “Son of G-d” the “Messiah”. When compared with the way Jesus’s family and neighbors treated him, it is absurd to believe that “angels” really visited them:
Mark 3:21 Upon hearing of it, his family went out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is beside himself’.
To offset the startling fact that J’s family thought that he was insane, some New Testament editions replace “they” with “people”, although “they” is in the original Greek text.
John 7:5 For even his brothers did not believe in him.
Luke 4:16 And Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the Sabbath day…
There Jesus hinted to his friends and neighbors that he was the Messiah, however:
Luke 4:28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up, and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.
How very strange it is, that during all the years in which J grew up with them, his brothers, friends, and neighbors did not notice that he was a “divine being”? And could it have been that his parents forgot or didn’t tell anyone what they experienced? This stretches one’s imagination.
Explain; I know you can do better than the last attempt.
You misrepresent the concept of perfection. Here is what we believe:
The Messiah is an individual who has attained such an exalted spiritual level as to be prepared to commune with G-d at any time.
As the leader and role model for all the human race, he will need to be capable of relating to and interacting with all nations, cultures, and individuals. He will be the perfect servant of G-d:
In the situations quoted below, determine for yourself if Jesus could have been this towering spiritual giant:
John 2:13 In the Temple, Jesus found those selling oxen, sheep and pigeons and the money changers sitting, and when he made a whip of cords, he drove them all, with their sheep and oxen, out of the Temple, and he poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
From Mark 11:16 we learn : And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the Temple.
Matthew 8:21 Another of the disciples asked him, let me first go and bury my father. But Jesus answered him ‘Follow me and leave the dead to bury their own dead.’
To those who disagreed with him, Jesus responded:
Matthew 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
The Jewish People rejected the idea that Jesus could be THE MESSIAH because he simply did not meet the criteria for one to be the Messiah, as our Prophets had taught us during the previous 1300 years.
Comment by yamit82 — May 14, 2009 @ 9:15 am
While we’re quoting this verse, it’s worth mentioning that whoever penned it never witnessed any such event in Jerusalem. For any student of the Talmud today or any Jew who was living in those times 2000 years ago knew that the market for such wares was not “IN” the Temple, as stated in this fictitious verse. The marketplace was located in the streets outside and surrounding the Temple.
Nyuk.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 14, 2009 @ 11:20 am
Re post 56 (cont):
Translation: He thought to force the hand of the Almighty.
Bright he may have been, learned he most surely was, but “wise”? — hardly . Indeed, it is impossible to not be struck by just how astonishingly presumptuous his attitude was, and especially so in somebody who, of all persons, would reasonably have been expected to know better.
What’s more, it is the height of absurdity — to say nothing of perversity — to suggest that “his [Akiva's] part” consisted of, effectively, hijacking a legitimate and necessary War for the Independence of Judea, and squandering its initial successes on the anointing of an egotistical thug as ‘Moshiakh.’
No, I hardly think it could possibly have been “his part” to do such a thing.
Essentially Akiva played “double-or-nothing” with the capital of those early victories — he gambled for the messianic glory, and did so with the future of the Jewish People in Eretz Yisrael — and lost.
Oh, indeed I do (much to my dismay, I do): The “message” is that it’s quite clear that, as I feared, some of us have not learned from our mistakes. A pity, though hardly a surprise. You’re so predictable, Yamit.
Re post 57:
Half right.
Half wrong.
Rome converted to a watered-down ‘Christianity,’ and Christianity, in turn, absorbed a hefty dose of pagan Rome. An exchange, of sorts, took place. A coffee salesman trying to peddle his product amongst milk-drinkers unaccustomed to, and uncordial toward, coffee may find himself diluting his coffee with varying proportions of milk, to make a sale.
Of course, by doing so, he risks the real possibility that he’ll end up selling coffee-flavored milk instead of coffee. I rather doubt, however, that this was the doing of the first generation of Christian adherents in Rome, because they were primarily Jewish. Christianity’s absorption of pagan elements came with succeeding generations, and especially beginning in the third century.
Note:
I will, in all probability, continue wading through these posts and responding to them pretty much in numbered order — as time, opportunity and inclination permit. However, you will not corral me, Yamit, into some sophomoric and tiresome, pissing contest over the historicity of Christ, because that was never my purpose in entering this thread, back at 22 & 26.
Nor am I here, I repeat, to provide you with an apologia for traditional Christianity; if you want somebody to argue with over that, there are plenty of church-based types who subscribe to the Nicene Creed who will be more than happy to take you on. On that score, I leave you and them to each other.
My intent in entering this thread [as I have already, once before, reminded you] was to show that, contrary to your claim in 6 — which maintains that Islam is “not idolatrous,” and (by implication) that Christianity is – the reality is in fact, at its essence, precisely the reverse.
I took up that matter because, frankly, I found your comment uncommonly engaging and provocative, and — though much mistaken — entitled to a thoughtful response.
Since your sole reply to my assertion of 22 consisted of an at-best, rote and perfunctory, and, at worst, off-point and tangential, stab at the matter [in 23], I can only conclude that, either A.: You concede the point, or B.: Despite the massive amounts of time you devote to the computer, to texts and to search engines, you have yet to find evidence to refute my denial of your claim, or C.: The question simply does not interest you, so you ignore it.
When I indicated in 26 the reasoning behind my dissatisfaction with your [un-]responsive comments of 23, instead of replying to 26 with a rebuttal, you, in effect, changed the subject: by launching [28] into an unfocused assault on the historicity of Jesus [which you have clung to for dear life ever since, like a security blanket], which attack you accompanied with a brief and pediatric discussion, at the time, of the meaning of “moshiakh” — both issues unrelated, in any direct sense, to the question per se of idolatry in Islam and Christianity.
I don’t find the assertion of Christ’s historical ‘non-existence’ as having value or substance or potency; not for myself. [It simply isn't, and never has been, interesting to me, as a matter of pursuit -- in the way that the question of Muslim and/or Christian idolatry is.] So I have no need to attempt to unearth (or construe) further evidence for or against the proposition.
If you do, then mazal tov; I wish you well with it. No problem. And if you do come to suspect that you’ve found something noteworthy — and probative — then, by all means, do show it to me & I’ll be happy to have a look at it, if I get a spare moment. But my time at the computer [a couple of clocked, separated, one-hour-long sessions per week, at most] is far more limited than yours, Yamit, and I pursue what interests me.
You see, the fact of the matter is that — contrary to Rongrand’s oblique and mistaken insinuations in 34 & 43 — I truly don’t ‘preach,’ and have no compulsion to influence, to ‘win converts’ or to otherwise change minds, etc.; not even a little bit. Never have; it’s not my style. My ego doesn’t need it.
Of course, judging from your obsession with the subject, it would appear that yours does.
ONE MORE THING, before the clock catches me and I have to close out this session. I really have to make the following observation — one that I have been putting off for some time now, because I’ve always tried to make a disciplined practice of refraining from speculating aloud if even the slightest possibility exists that such could spill over into the asserting — or inferring — of false, defamatory or purely imaginary ‘allegations.’
It is clear to me, however, that there is no longer a reason for hesitation. What I say here, therefore, is carefully and soberly considered:
Your erudition, Yamit, suggests a person who reads a lot.
And writes a lot. (Or blogs a lot, anyway.)
Maybe even teaches a lot.
But I don’t think you understand a lot.
Assuming that such is, in fact, the goal of your scholarly labors.
You probably don’t get told that a lot….
You’ve likely got credentials out the wazoo, and enough degrees to make yourself a bowl of alphabet soup.
Your top-heavy reservoir of learning, no doubt, intimidates many who might be otherwise inclined to challenge you — though, altogether candidly, I personally find little to be overawed at.
[However disagreeable my tone may be sounding at this point, I'm honestly not trying to be rude, though I realize I am being quite blunt. And I'm just getting started.]
If I patiently plod through the mounds of verbiage you routinely crank out, I will, per occasion, find here or there a living nugget that will provoke further inquiry; and I always welcome — indeed I delight over — those little insights and discoveries.
But that’s more because I’m receptive to truth (from any quarter: yes, even from those who insist on making themselves my adversaries), than it is because you’ve actually stumbled onto something lively. [As they say, even a broken clock gets the time right, twice a day, every day.]
Quite candidly, most of what I see in your writing, Yamit, as well as in your prognostications (even the non-sanctimonious ones), is dry-as-dust, long-ago-overworked, and all-too-often, tiresomely shallow.
Moreover, I can’t help reflecting that, on some (perhaps less-than-altogether-conscious) level, you relate to your massive learning as a personal possession – also as an implicit bludgeon with which to control your associates and bully potential opponents — rather than as a vehicle for discovery of truth.
I may be mistaken, Sir, but I don’t think your exclusively intellectual approach to God gives you much joy. Seems more like a compulsion for you. [If you do think I'm reading you wrong, say so; I'm listening.]
I rather strongly suspect that your knowledge — far from facilitating your understanding — actually, as often as not, stands in the way of that understanding. It’s as if your cerebral “hard drive” were packed so full of “RAM” that it left no space for interior creative ferment and the resultant seykh’l that might consequently issue forth.
IF YOU ARE genuinely as fond of Solomon as you purport to be, then might I suggest, with all due respect, that you “take a page,” as it were, from the discerning monarch himself: who, you’ll recall, had occasion to observe that “[o]f the making of books, there is no end, and much learning is a weariness of the flesh.” [Ec 12:12]
As you’ll recall, he acknowledges that, though he “sought wisdom” [here referring to intellectual more than philosophical or contemplative pursuits], it had brought him only “sorrow” and “vexation of spirit. [1:16-18]. Moreover, he explicitly counsels a man to not “make thyself over-wise” [7:16] –i.e., to go easy on strictly scholarly endeavors.
Plainly, if he were the “wisest of all men,” in our modern sense of the word “wise,” he would not have made so many mistakes — and he made a truckload of them. Some quite grievous and terribly far-reaching, as you know.
Solomon had a world-class mind with a protean intellect, which he cultivated and honed to an impressive degree; but in the end, he had to admit to its utter inadequacy: It simply couldn’t take him where he wanted to go, and the realization of that hard fact left him terribly depressed, indeed devastated.
I’d be the last person in the world to suggest that the intellect is of no value. Quite the contrary, the intellect has an entirely legitimate place and function — however, it is a self-contained faculty: incapable of taking itself outside of its own limitations, and one which, therefore, has no potential for direct perception of the Divine.
This is because the intellect by its nature is “masculine” [i.e., active], and the soul (of man or woman) is always properly “female” [i.e., receptive] in its stance before God: the Prime Mover (and All-Knower), and ultimately the only true Male. (All the rest of us are, in a sense, only symbols: made in His image. And forever tempted to play at being Him, sometimes in the name of — among other things — “activism.”)
Intellect and intuition are simply designed to complement each other. You cannot rely on just the one or just the other (any more than you can rely on only one leg, or only the other, to walk); they’re intended to operate in tandem. Until you are willing to open yourself to the leading of ha-ruakh ha-kodesh on a regular and recurrent basis, your intellectual pursuits will never take you out of the mental cul-de-sac in which you are plainly mired.
Yes, I realize this all may well be coming across to you as just so much gobbledy-gook. But I can’t help that. I plant my seeds and I pray that Av Ha-Rakhamim may see fit to make them germinate in His own good time.
What’s more, I suggest to you that those through whose personal agency the Scriptures were first committed to writing for posterity were rendered capable of being appropriate vehicles for the transmission of God’s Word, in part because they were receptive to that leading –and were willing to endure the interior humiliation that such receptiveness always brings.
It only makes sense, then, that one who — like yourself — makes a point of seeking to understand prophecy, could not but profit from a similar mien and perspective, if only to more closely align himself with the mindset and outlook of the writers; yes?
[Just a thought; take it or leave it, as you please.]
Comment by dweller — May 16, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
dweller thanks for your candor re: your opinion of my personal attributes which of course I will neither concede nor rebut. You are certainly welcome to your own as i am to mine.
What I did dweller is to challenge your stated positions mostly based on texts and scripture that you yourself claim belief in. So far you have taken this discussion as far away from direct rebuttal to my source based contentions and opted to instead discuss immaterial (to this discussion)subjects including personal opinions of me and generalizations about Biblical events and Characters I mentioned. Opinion you are entitled to but for rebuttal we need evidential source material even if it is second and third hand. In this you have failed, (come up short) of rebutting or refuting any of my stated contentions particularly those that may have been in direct conflict with your stated beliefs.
The Rambam states in Yad Hazaka, Sefer HaMada’ Hilkhot De’ot, (1:5) the following:
It is natural for a man’s character and actions to be influenced by his friends and associates and for him to follow the local norms of behavior. Therefore, he should associate with the righteous and be constantly in the company of the wise, so that as to learn from their deeds. Conversely, he should keep away from the wicked who walk in darkness, so as not to learn from their deeds.
A person who lives in a place where the norms of behavior are evil and the inhabitants do not follow the straight path should move to a place where the people are righteous and follow the ways of the good.
If all the places with which he is familiar and of which he hears reports follow improper paths, as in our times, or if he is unable to move to a place where the patterns of behavior are proper, because of gangs of raiding troops, or for health reasons, he should remain alone in seclusion as it states: Let him sit alone and be silent. [Eikha 3:28]
The Jewish people have today a unique opportunity. Am Yisrael has before it the path that can either lead it to the fulfillment of the 3500 year idea, that of doing the will of G-d, or the path that leads nowhere. The path that leads nowhere is not simply a euphemism for a journey into the unknown, but rather it is a description of the road that destroys, day by day, what is, within the human context, the understanding of G-d. The definition of the desecration of G-d’s name is found on this path, the wrong path. By following the latter path the Jewish people not only creates the Hillul Hashem [desecration of G-d's name], but it exhibits disdain for the memory of each and every past generation that sought out the truth of human existence and martyred themselves for the idea of Torah. What can the Jewish people possibly know of itself other than its own purpose through revelation? We cannot escape what is our obligation. We have no right to reject that with which G-d has blessed us. It is time that Jews act as Jews by coming to grips with that which is their obligation, Torah Judaism. This of course does not include you or those like you. Never!
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, stressed:
Without Torah there is no civic order, and without civic order there is no Torah. Without wisdom there is no fear of G-d, and without fear of G-d there is no wisdom. Without knowledge there is no intelligence, and without intelligence there is no knowledge. Without food there is no Torah, and without Torah there is no food. [Mishna Avot 3:20]
Dweller in a nut shell and in summation; If a Jew is to accept one tenant of the Torah, he must, in order to be logically consistent, accept the whole of Torah. Likewise, if a person is to accept that he is Jewish then he must define this concept upon viable and authentic Jewish sources and render precise his own actions accordingly. Any other alternative to this is something other than Judaism. That is, a person may, given free-will, live according to what is right in his own eyes, however, he must be rationally forced to understand that it is of his own devise and should be so called as such. No matter to whom you were born your belief in Jesus even as a Messiah puts you beyond the pale of Judaism and based on what you have said and intimated It is probably much more than you admit here in this discussion as you have given us enough hints despite your many disclaimers.
Lastly except to state that I am wrong that Islam however abominable their beliefs is not according to Jewish Law idolatrous. You say yes it is! Show us?
Comment by yamit82 — May 17, 2009 @ 3:12 am
G-d gave each and every one of us a brain. So that we may know good and evil and to reject evil. All things learned come from that innate human Characteristic. Based on Human limitations like longevity we can never become G-ds but we have the potential to become like G-d by doing G-d’s will through his ordinances (Mitzvot) “And You Shall Be As Gods” Gen 3:5
5. For God knows that on the day that you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like angels, knowing good and evil.”
Rashi:
For God knows: Every craftsman hates his fellow craftsmen. He [God] ate of the tree and created the world (Gen. Rabbah 19:4).
and you will be like angels: Creators of worlds. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ch. 13]
7. And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves and made themselves girdles.
Rashi:
And…were opened: Scripture is referring to wisdom, and not to actual vision, and the end of the verse proves this. — [from Gen. Rabbah 19:7]
and they knew that they were naked: Even a blind man knows when he is naked! What then is the meaning of “and they knew that they were naked” ? They had one commandment in their possession, and they became denuded of it.
fig leaves: That is the tree of which they had eaten. With that which they had sinned, they were rectified, but the other trees prevented them from taking their leaves. — [from Ber. 40a, Sanh. 70b] Now why was the tree not identified? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not wish to grieve any creature, so that [others] should not put it to shame and say, “This is [the tree] because of which the world suffered.” (Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma, Vayera 14, Buber 32).
Comment by yamit82 — May 17, 2009 @ 7:50 am
Since you quote Kohelet 12:12 try 13 and 14 as well:
The end of the matter, everything having been heard, fear God, etc.:
Comment by yamit82 — May 17, 2009 @ 8:07 am
dweller sorry for skipping around as my brain sometimes gets stuck having to reread after delays of a day or two what you said and what I said and I am afraid by accident and neglect I did pass over some of your points but that was unintentional on my part. You are right we started this conversation with my commnents re: Islam and if it is an idolatrous beleif. I said no based on Jewish sources and you said yes based on no sources other than your own opinion. Fine you are entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong.
Here again you state your opinion nothing more? Show us the Muslim idol worship?
This is not an argument but an opinion based only on your narrow reasoning but not on Judaisms understanding of Islam. Look they don’t agree that your Jesus guy was either God the son or the messiah but they do grant him Phrophetic status which is more than we do. You should I think be more sympathetic to their beliefs than ours after all you both somehow recognize your Jesus guy as at least above the ordinary Human persona. Birds of a Feather?
Actually it doesn’t interest me a whole lot but I suggest you read Spencer, he wasn’t very kind to poor Mohamed, as a matter of fact quite critical but viewing Islam as an insane belief creed and even an abomination does not mean I agree with the point of view that they are in fact idolatrous. Two different concepts here. Now I do view everything to do with the Jesus cult as not only an abomination but idolatry as well.
It wasn’t me who got started on the discussion of Jesus and Christianity dweller it was you. I only threw a few acorns your way and you gobbled them up, didn’t it seems even bury a few for winter. I find your phony usage of Christian transliterated Hebrew amusing, and have not commented on it so far but as I said I am on to you and you do relate to the J guy as a deity as well as a messiah. Either way you are trolling in an insidious manner and it won’t work here, but I can suggest where you might find a more receptive audience. I won’t though. I think I outlined why we Jews can never accept you J as either a god or a messiah, I didn’t expect rebuttal or comment on that from you as what can you say to the truth. You silence on the matter speaks volumes. Was you who said that you plant seeds was it? Well I through you acorns and what have you come back with? Pseudo Freudian descriptions of me.
You mentioned Christ several times and we both know what that means. So you have already admitted that you are a follower of Christ real or imagined. By definition that would make you a Christian. You can’t be a Christian Jew. That’s an oxymoron and a Christian invention, any more than a woman can be half pregnant. But wait Christians believe in virginal birth. You forgot to mention as well which part of the Jewish and Christian Bibles you accept and which parts you reject. You can’t have it both ways. Truth will always trounce lies.
Which one of us holds the truth and which the lies? I hope there are better advocates of J than you. By the way one of the major differences between Christianity & Judaism is Judaism is ego supportive and elevating while dour Christianity like Zen seeks to suppress the human ego. To my mind that is to dehumanize. A suggestion: Try having sex with feeling next time.
Comment by yamit82 — May 17, 2009 @ 9:14 am
dweller sorry for typos I think faster than I type and am afraid to edit as I have been marked as spamer lately when I try to edit, so I left them this time.
Comment by yamit82 — May 17, 2009 @ 9:20 am
A gift Dweller from me to you.
Ana B’Ko’ach
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EdL_TLbHsg&feature=related
Comment by yamit82 — May 17, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Re post 61:
Blame yourself for that, Yamit — you chose the metaphor, back at the beginning of 40: “The sequel is never as good as the original” — your words. I just picked up the ball you threw at me, and ran with it.
Your discussion of the utter uniqueness of Judaism in 61 was apt, perceptive and well put. I find no quarrel with what you wrote there, other than perhaps to note that that exceptionality does not, of itself invalidate all or any of the other ‘religions.’ That is to say, if they are invalid, it is not simply because they lack the specific uniqueness of Judaism. The revelation at Sinai to the entire nation was a function of the Almighty’s intention to (quite literally) call into being an entire nation — “am zuyoh’tzarti li” [Yish 43:21] — for the accomplishing of His plan.
Yet the other world-religions might, for example, conceivably have their own unique — and divinely-ordained– purpose in being; if so, then the circumstances attendant to such a uniqueness might well require a different, even non-group-originated, paradigm of revelation. And yes, it might well be “esoteric.” [Yes, of course, I'm speculating; told you, I do lots of it.] In the main, I leave the other faiths, for the present, an open question.
I say, “in the main,” because there are some which are very obviously invalid. The “Religion of Peace,” in my (anything-but-humble) opinion, is one of them: not least because of its intrinsic paradigm of violence, conquest, gratuitous cruelty, triumphalism — and unrelenting intent (from Day One, and ever since) upon imposing itself on the world. Islam is kind of, like, ‘the original Borg’ ["You will be assimilated; resistance is futile, etc"] — but God wants volunteers, not conscripts.
Anyway [and not to be beating a dead horse], it’s good to know that you implicitly recognize that there is indeed a place for “hearsay evidence” — since that’s essentially what each succeeding generation of Jews has received from the previous one in regard to what was, in fact, actually experienced by only the one which stood at the foot of Har Sinai in the late 14th century BC.
At all events, however, I have never endorsed, implied or conceded — by assertion or by silence — the proposition that it was ever the intention of Ha-Nitzri to found a ‘new religion.’ To be sure, somebody with as penetrating an awareness of human nature as he seems to have had might well have realized that it would ultimately come to that. Still, it has always seemed to me that, cosmically speaking, his actual mission lay elsewhere [that is, that that mission was of a different nature altogether -- and that, in this respect at least, not only Jews but also self-professed "Christians" are selling him short].
Thus, your attempt to clump (what came to be called) “Christianity” with the other ‘non-Judaisms’ — while undeniably interesting as a line of discourse — is, from my perspective anyway, essentially irrelevant.
Of course, having read the NT, as you say, “3-4 times cover to cover, and lots in between” [40], you are aware that Christ himself [call him "X," if it'll keep you from wincing] never called anybody a “Christian,” a “Messianic,” etc. [He clearly isn't attributed, in the gospels, with ever having called anybody a "Christian," etc.] Those who loved him, he called his friends. [e.g., Jn 15:15]
Ooh; undt vass you dere, Sharlie?!
They certainly were never “mentioned” by God in Tanakh, as it was completed [its writing was completed] before their time. Surely, however, you would not presume to say that everything that God has ever “mentioned” to anybody about anything, or about anybody, is recorded there (or, necessarily, even recorded at all)?
For that matter, why should it be assumed that there will never be found any further record of what God has “mentioned,” that is presently hidden, lost, or available but damaged beyond the (present) sophistication of technology to restore to legibility, etc.? Surely you would not think His utterances, or anything else about Him, to be so easily confined? “The heavens are My throne, the earth is my footstool; so where is the house that you can build for Me?” [Yish 66:1]
Re post 63:
The quotation marks are YOURS. Who will do what? What are you talking about? Would it be too much to ask for just a little coherence here? Give me a clue; indulge my sluggish wit.
Again I must ask you to kindly marshal your thoughts before engaging the keyboard. What are you talking about here? Perhaps you’d care to re-read what you wrote? What about “clear, concise, simple Hebrew?”
Define, please, the following terms, as you use them [at least so we'll be "on the same page" while you're cussing me out]: “messianic,” “fraud,” “masquerade.”
Because honestly, Yamit, I am not aware of having hidden — or having wanted to hide, or needed to hide — anything from you, or from anybody else, in the course of these discussions. If you believe otherwise, you’re going to have to spell it out for me — since I seem to be really slow on the uptake here. Meanwhile, I repeat what I said in 33: “[I] neither have, nor have ever had, any affiliation with, or other connection to, any group with an ax to grind in these matters. I try to do my own thinking.” Do you really think I’d lie about something like that? Exactly what sort of “fraudulent masquerade” do you believe I’m perpetrating (or attempting)?
I have already suggested to you that something other than the purely cognitive faculties is needful here, though I’m hardly so short-sighted as to expect you to relate to the proposition purely because I raise the issue; for what it’s worth, I sympathize with your perplexity. In some ways, ironically enough, you remind me of Sha’ul [the pre-Damascus Road Paul]; that’s not a putdown — though I suppose that, given your mindset, you’ll feel constrained to take it that way.
So I’m an “apologist” for Paul, then, simply because I agree to answer your questions about him? [Better that I should have kept quiet altogether? After all, how better to maintain the "masquerade" than to keep silent?] I remind you that it was yourself, not me, who brought up the subject of Paul in this thread; at 40, I think. It’s hardly as if I “pushed” him (or what I understand him to be about) on you, or on anybody who’s still bothering to read our exchanges.
Evidence, please, of his “antisemitism”; also that he was a “vile creature.”
Certainly there are such things as “Jewish antisemites.” Antisemitism — Jew-hatred, Judeopathy, Judeophobia, etc. — is not an exclusive club that discriminates against Jews: anybody can join history’s great, Jew-hating fraternity. Yea, verily, even a Jew; as demonstrated by a long succession of such — from Wilhelm Marr (the half-Jew who first coined the term “antisemite”) to Lassalle to Marx, Karl Kautsky, Abram Leon, et al.
But these seem to have been primarily either apostate Jews or the children of opportunistically baptised parents. And Paul was never an apostate: having gone directly from being a believing, “conventional” Jew, to being a believing, Nazarene Jew — with no lag period in-between. I’ve yet to see evidence of Paul’s ‘paying any dues’ to the club of antisemitism; nor yet seen evidence that he was “vile” — antisemitically, or generically, or in any other way, ‘vile.’ Sorry, but if the man did have any such pathology, I have yet to see it.
News Flash [since you apparently never got the bulletin]: Everybody cherry picks, Yamit — even those of us who don’t know themselves well enough to see that they do…. Not that there is necessarily something wrong with cherry-picking, per se. It CAN be a means of separating what is essential from what is extraneous, superficial or distracting. In any event, I’ve already told you, in 78, that I “cherry pick”: “I pursue what interests me.” And my conscience — a very active conscience, as it happens — is clean-as-a-whistle in that regard; squeaky clean.
As to what “serves [my] purposes” — I’ve already asked you (above) what you understand my “purposes” (apparently nefarious, or at least in some way, covert, no doubt) to be. I’ll be awaiting your answer to that direct question.
That would be an enormous assumption you’d be making, Old Boy, unless you have reason to believe that you know, specifically and of a certainty, what the conversionary process consisted of at the time — as compared, certainly, with what it’s like now (or in any other era): not least, in view of the fact that Judaism itself was focused upon, and oriented largely around, Beit HaMiqdahsh until 70, and a lot of the records and other writings concerning sacerdotal (and other) matters would have been destroyed with the Temple itself.
“For most such converts, the precise mechanism by which they became Jewish is not known…” [Martin Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (Knopf, NY, 2007), p. 161] Emphasis, of course, on the word, “most” — as Goodman does cite the anomalous example of the Adiabene conversions of Izates & Helena, as annotated by Josephus, but Goodman also [correctly] remarks that “[Josephus'] conversion narrative itself gives no indication at all by whose authority they had become Jewish…” [emphasis added] [p. 163]
Moreover, “[s]tories of the mass conversion to Judaism of the Idumaeans in the 120’s BCE, or of the Ituraeans in the Galilee in 104-103, presuppose that the High Priest, who was responsible for the proselytization of these gentiles, had the power to turn them by fiat into Jews…” [emph. add] [Ibid.]
More significant, I would submit, in ANY case, is Goodman’s observation that, “[u]nlike Roman identity, Jewish identity was, it seems, to some extent a matter of personal self-identification. In essence, Izates was a Jew primarily because he thought of himself as a Jew…” [emph. add] [Ibid.] Add to this the fact that “Jews varied in their ways of interpreting the Bible more in the first century CE than in any other time in Jewish history until the emergence of Reform and Liberal Judaism in Europe in the nineteenth century.” [emph. add] [p. 166]
Goodman may not constitute the be-all & end-all of scholarly exploration of the subject, but he’s no slouch either. I renew my musing from an earlier post: Taking the gospel to the far reaches of the Empire would have necessitated dealing with peoples who had no clue as to what it was like to be a Jew.
I’ll give you an EXAMPLE, not that it’s intended, by any means, to be the only one I could offer:
It’s absurd to think that someone not raised in (or otherwise familiar with) Eretz Yisrael — and specifically in the post-Exodus period — could possibly have been familiar with the imagery, let alone the significance, of “seething a kid in its mother’s milk.” This was a Canaanite practice encountered by Bnai Yisrael upon entering the Land.
What would a Laplander know about that?
How would persons unacquainted with the post-Exodus, cultural conditions of the Land and its existing populace be expected to see a connection: between the deliberate abstention from what was considered a delicacy among the surrounding Canaanite clans, and the enjoinder to the new nation created at Sinai to maintain a compassionate attitude in their dealings with their fellow man — as symbolized in their relationship toward animals, and remembered every time they partook of food or performed any task
having to do with its serving, storage or preparation?
How would a Laplander put that together (unless by sheer happenstance there existed a similarly-prepared dish in Laplander cuisine)? How would he be constantly thus reminded of the directive’s intent by forever refraining to mix milkhic with flaishic? Keeping dairy meals entirely separate from meat meals would have seemed to him only a mindless, arbitrary and unnecesssarily burdensome restriction. And the fact that keeping to such a practice also aided & facilitated in maintaining group identity and cohesion among B’nai Yisrael, as distinct from their neighbors, would have likewise meant nothing to him.
Comment by dweller — May 22, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
But candidly, Yamit, I think the more substantive question here is what laws you take seriously. For example, the following:
“You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.” [Sh'moht 23:1]
“Keep yourself far from a false matter.” [Sh'moht 23:7]
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” [Sh'moht 20:13 (alt. 20:16)]; [D'vorim 5:17 (alt. 5:20)]
You have made a truly vile — and unsupported — accusation in 56 against the Nazarene Jews in the Bar Kokhva Revolt. Whether or not you concede the material historicity of HaNitzri, you cannot deny the physical existence of ‘his’ Jewish adherents at the time of the insurgency — nor can you deny that you unambiguously defamed their memory viciously and intemperately in 56: by, essentially, accusing them of treason against Am S’gooloh.
Had there existed the thinnest, barest, tissue of evidence to buttress your hideous charges, Yamit, you would not have hesitated to display it instantly (even gleefully) when I challenged you on it in 60 — and you know it. You may call the Nazarene Jews of the period minim, if you like (not very convincingly, I think, but, nonetheless), without harm.
But to, in effect, characterize them as meshumaddim? — There you cross the line: from matters of personal inclination and affinity — into matters of justice and elemental fairness.
Accordingly, if you cannot document your claim with corroborating evidence, then you dishonor not only yourself but also the Jewish People — to say nothing of the Ninth Commandment itself — for as long as you fail to retract the bald and slanderous allegation. That’s the bottom line here.
Your moment-of-truth has arrived, Yamit: Let’s see what you’re made of.
Comment by dweller — May 22, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Re post 75 [out of sequence]:
Oh, come off it, Shy. You wouldn’t recognize a ‘pagan’ if one bit you. You just use the word as a crude weapon to fend off your personal insecurities and give yourself a half-assed sense of belonging.
Look, I already told you: You’re safe where I’m concerned. You can stay Shy as long as you like, and I won’t go after you. But you’ve still gotta start growing up. These cheap shots don’t make it; they aint workin’ for you.
Comment by dweller — May 22, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
“The earliest Christian generation in Jerusalem consisted almost entirely of Jews. These people believed in Jesus as the Messiah, but saw themselves as true Jews. The book of Acts of the Apostles makes it clear that the first Jewish Christians went to the Temple in Jerusalem, attended synagogue services, and wanted to remain Jews. There were tensions with mainstream Jews, who looked askance at the belief that a crucified person was the Messiah. There was, however, no breaking point or even a discussion of excommunicating the Jewish Christians.
“The situation changed slowly in the second generation of Christians. This was directly related to the missionary activities of people like the Apostle Paul and his collaborators. Their vision was that ‘salvation,’ as they called it, was intended by God not only for the Jewish people but also for others. They began to preach their message to non-Jews outside the Land of Israel as well.
“These earliest missionaries wanted to facilitate the entrance of non-Jews into the growing Christian community. They therefore began to downgrade the Torah (the Pentateuch) and its commandments. Later they started to toy with the idea that, if God wanted non-Jews to be part of the community as well, the commandments of the Torah should be solely for the Jewish members. That gave rise to the first tensions between Jewish and gentile Christians.”
“Later on, as is also made quite clear in the New Testament, gentile Christians began to claim that their communities were the true Israel. They asserted that in neglecting many of the Torah’s commandments, they-and not the Jews-knew what God wanted from His people. The issues of the centrality and the remaining value and validity of the Torah were among the first reasons for tensions. Here one sees the beginnings of a split between Judaism and Christianity.
“With this came the beginning of anti-Jewish sentiments in Christianity. It was also aggravated by a second factor. In the same period, perhaps in the second and certainly in the third generation of Christians-by the end of the first century of the Common Era-they began to explicitly call Jesus God. He, as a Jew, had never done so. In the four chronologically latest books of the New Testament, Jesus is called God, though only incidentally. These documents are all from around the turn of the first to the second century: the Gospel of John, the Epistle of the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, and the so-called Epistle of Titus.
“In the Gospel of John it is clear that this is going to be a breaking point between Jews and Christians. The Gospel’s author has Jews saying about Jesus, ‘He makes himself equal to God.’ We have to interpret this to mean that it is the Christians who are equating Jesus with God.
“From a Jewish viewpoint this is terrible. Once the Christians began to declare Jesus as equal to God, the core of Jewish monotheism was in danger. The Jewish leaders decided that they could no longer live under one roof with this group, which led to the break. The Christians then claimed that the Jews said they had to throw Jesus’ followers out of the synagogue. That is not historical, because it was not said in Jesus’ time but probably later, in the time of the writer of the Gospel of John.”
“The Gospel of John is the only one to use the Greek word Aposynagogos. It means ‘thrown out of the synagogue’ and reflects the situation around the year 100 CE. Here one sees for the first time that Judaism and Christianity have split apart completely. It was probably in more or less the same period-which began after the year 70 CE-that the early rabbinical authorities inserted the additional benediction, the birkat haminim, into the Amidah [the main daily Jewish prayer].
“This birkat haminim consists of a curse of the heretics. Without doubt the Christians at this time held beliefs that contradicted Jewish religious precepts. They were heretics because they no longer lived according to the Torah and they regarded a human being as God. These two major factors caused the definitive split between Judaism and Christianity.
“There were some lesser reasons as well. One was that in the Jewish wars against the Romans in 66 and 132, the Christians did not fight against the Romans. The Jews reproached them for this.” It is my contention but with no historical proofs that the rebukes exceeded the verbal. Logic dictates that those who not only refused to fight and most probably sided with Rome against the rebelling Jews more than verbal rebukes seem to have been in order.Who the hell do you think the Sicarii killed? I offer: Jesus is reputed to have said: Render therefore unto Cesar the things which be Cesar’s; and unto God the things which be God’s. The Loyalkty of J and his followers thus were to the established Ruling authority which was Rome. Even the Hated Samaritans joined the fight but the Christians were either quite on the sidelines or actively engaged on the side of Rome. In either case they were traitors to the cause of Judaism and the Jewish people.
Now you have audacity to still call a Jew?
Is this your point of view? Is this what you believe?
Some historical backround to give some context to my position:
The Temple was no more. Jerusalem had been conquered. Rome had asserted its might and crushed the Great Revolt of the Jews. Now there could be quiet.
Hardly.
Virulent anti-Semitism continued unabated in the Roman Empire, generated by the Hellenists Many of whom were early Christians or followers of J, not happy to leave well enough alone, seemed determined to pour salt onto Jewish wounds.
(This same need for overkill would be exhibited by later enemies of the Jews, who, having exterminated entire Jewish communities, and having no more Jews left to slaughter, would then go on to desecrate Jewish cemeteries and mutilate Jewish corpses.)
The level of hostility and mistreatment of the Jews escalated throughout the Roman Empire to the extent of becoming unbearable.
In response, the Jews revolted several times more. Each time thousands of their number were killed. As a result, the average Roman looked at every Jew as a person hostile to Rome. Jews were officially designated as having “enemy status”—dediticci in Latin.
When Publius Aelius Hadrianus, known to us as Hadrian, took the reigns of power in 117 CE, he inaugurated - at least at first - an atmosphere of tolerance. He even talked of allowing the Jews to rebuilt the Temple, a proposal that was met with virulent opposition from the Hellenists and early Christians.
Of course, the Jews in the Land of Israel had been crushed in the Great Revolt, and—at least, right after the destruction of the Temple—did not have the strength to fight. But we must remember that at this time, a considerable number of Jews were living outside Israel. In fact, historians estimate that there were about 5-7 million Jews living in the Roman Empire and at least 60% of that number were living outside the land of Israel. Places like Alexandria, Egypt (one of the most cosmopolitan cities of that era) alone had a Jewish population of about 250,000 and boasted the largest synagogue in the world.
Hadrian decided to spin around 180 degrees. Instead of letting the Jews rebuild, Hadrian formulated a plan to transform Jerusalem into a pagan city-state on the Greek polis model with a shrine to Jupiter on the site of the Jewish Temple.
Nothing could be worse in Jewish eyes than to take the holiest spot in the Jewish world and to put a temple to a Roman god on it. This was the ultimate affront. As bad as this was, the real cause of the revolt seems to have been Hadrian’s attempt to follow in the footsteps of the Selucid Greek Empire 300 years earlier by trying to destroy Judaism. Specifically he targeted Sabbath observance, circumcision, the laws of family purity and the teaching of Torah. An attack against such fundamental commandments of Judaism was bound to trigger a revolt-which it did.
Bar Kochba made his final stand in the city of Betar, which is to the southwest of Jerusalem. You can go visit it today, thought ancient Betar has not been excavated. The Talmud (in Gittin 57a) relates what happened in Betar:
“They had the custom in Betar that when a baby boy was born they planted a cedar tree and for a baby girl they planted a pine tree, and when they would marry they would cut them down and make a marriage canopy of the branches. One day the daughter of Caesar was passing and the shaft of her litter broke. They cut down a cedar and brought it to her. The Jews of Betar fell upon them and beat them. They reported to Caesar that the Jews were rebelling and marched against them … they killed [Jewish] men, women and children until their blood flowed into the Mediterranean Sea … It was taught that for seven years the gentiles cultivated their vineyards with the blood of Israel without requiring manure for fertilization.”
The city fell on the saddest day in the Jewish calendar—the 9th of Av of the year 135, the same date as both the First and the Second Temple fell.
The Romans, in their fury, did not want to allow the Jewish bodies to be buried; they wanted to leave them out in the open to rot. According to tradition, the bodies lay in the open for months but did not rot. Today, when Jews say the Grace after Meals, Birkat HaMazon, they add a special blessing (ha tov u’mativ) as a way of thanking God for this act of mercy in Betar.
Exhausted, the Romans have had enough of the Jews who had caused them more manpower and material losses than any other people in the history of Empire. At the end of the Bar Kochba revolt, Hadrian decided that the way not to have another one is to cut off the Jews from connection to their beloved land.
At this point I believe is when Rome with the aid Hellenistic and Heretic Jews created the Jesus myth. They needed a peaceful compliant and obedient to Romes authority Jewish population. Especially those that remained in Judea.
No people had revolted more or caused the Romans greater manpower or material losses than the Jews. But they had done so at a great price to themselves as well.
The Roman historian Dio Cassius writes that over half a million Jews died in the fighting. Even if this figure is exaggerated, there is no doubt that hundreds of thousands of Jews did die and the country was laid low.
The Jewish challenge to Rome that had begun in 66 CE had lasted almost 70 years. How such a comparatively small group could take on the might of Rome over and over again and for so long is hard to fathom. But perhaps the answer lies in the reason behind the conflict.
It was not so much a fight over territory or property, as it was a fight over the very way of life. Monotheism and the laws of the Torah were so deeply ingrained in the Jews that any attempt to separate the people from the essence of Judaism was seen as the death of the very soul of the nation.
The Jews found reserves in themselves beyond normal human boundaries, like a mother who is capable of superhuman feats of strength to defend the life of her child.
In the end the Jews were crushed. And the Romans did everything in their power to make sure that they would stay crushed. They wanted to make sure that no Jew was ever in a position to rally his brethren again.
Their solution: separate the Jews from their land and possibly I believe the creation of a pacifistic religion within Judaism or it’s replacemenmt
Do you really believe those Jewish patriots would leave such traiterous Jews alone and Just fight Rome? Have you ever heard you are with me or agaisnt me? Clearly those early followers of J were in the Roman Camp and as such were fair game for retribution. Those Jews knew what retribution was all about not like today. Seems living under Christian Rule for 2000 years has had a strong influence on the Jews. A very dangerous one for many reasons.
I gather you accept and believe that J was The Messiah even though you ignored all of my reasons given why we believe he couldn’t be. So in a shortend form why do you think he was? This I think is the real crux of our on going and extremely long discussion which seems to be going around in circles evading this question. If you only accept this as an act of faith then we need not continue, if you have Jewish scriptural evidence and proofs that he is THE MESSIAH, then lets have it.
Comment by yamit82 — May 23, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Accepting the gospels as they stand is an act of faith, not historical accuracy. The gospels as we have them were written perhaps three generations or so after the reputed death of Jesus. Bishop Papias, writing about 130 CE, does not know anything about the gospels of Luke and John. He does mention an account by Mark, but his description of it demonstrated that it was different from the one we have. And his description of Matthew’s account (in Aramaic, which few could understand) again seems quite different from our present version. The first mention of four gospels by name dates from the late 2nd Century BCE, and our earliest fairly complete texts come from the 4th Century BCE (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus).
We have about 55 different gospels available today, most rescued from ancient rubbish dumps. It is obvious that there were many more which did not survive, and therefore that most Christian communities had their own local gospels. The four we have today in the New Testament are the ones which proved most popular.
The first gospel is apparently the one ascribed to Mark, though we don’t know who wrote it. It did not incorporate the resurrection chapter in the 4th Century texts above: that was added later, appearing in the 11th Century Byzantine texts.
Matthew and Luke incorporated almost all of Mark into their texts, and added their own traditions which they had received from other sources. These two cannot agree on the birth story, Matthew dating it in King Herod’s time which probably means 6-7 BCE (Herod died 4 BCE), while Luke opts for Quirinius’ census of Judea in 6-7 CE to justify the Bethlehem story. Writing so long after the main participants had died, they had to collect whatever stories they could, and improvise other material from scriptual sources (eg compare Luke’s passion scene with Psalm 22 v15-16) and other historical and oral stories.
John is different - written probably by John the Elder of Ephesus, it draws on the memoirs of John the beloved disciple (different from John the Apostle) - if you read the text, it actually says that at the end. So here is different source material from the other three. All four have collected different traditions - they don’t even agree on the names of the twelve apostles.
So the four gospel accounts are late and composite. They are based on a plethora of second and third hand oral and written sources, and incorporate a central figure who is variously a king, a poor itinerant preacher, a magician and a revolutionary leader. There were several role models in contemporary Jewish stories of the first half of the 1st Century CE from which these different figures could be drawn a few generations later when the gospels as we know them were written.
As for Paul’s account, he did not know Jesus, and apart from some obvious later interpolations by another hand, regards him as a spiritual being, about whom he learnt from God (as he says in 2 Corinthians 12) in an out-of-world experience when he was lifted up to the third level of Heaven. About half of the letters ascribed to him are widely recognised as written by his successors.
Comment by yamit82 — May 23, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Yamit
Why do you engage this dweller?
This forum is to be used for dealing with Israeli crisis.
We need you to concentrate on these issues.
Your expertise in these matters is more important to all of us.
Advise dweller to find another website to babble on.
Where is he going with this anyhow?
Comment by rongrand — May 23, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
It’s absurd to think that someone not raised in (or otherwise familiar with) Eretz Yisrael — and specifically in the post-Exodus period — could possibly have been familiar with the imagery, let alone the significance, of “seething a kid in its mother’s milk.” This was a Canaanite practice encountered by Bnai Yisrael upon entering the Land.
You are correct this was a pagan practice and I think all of the Laws of Kashrut were to separate Jewish customs from Pagan customs. That’s essentially what Judaism is about separation, in thought and deed from the gentile pagans. So we Jews could give a rats ass what Laplander might understand or not. We never sought to include them or you in our ways or our cultural and religious norms. Except for a brief flirtation of seeking converts under Hycranus that gave us later Herod; we ceased the practice lest we get more Herods in the bargain. not worth the effort I suppose. Anyway we know in the Messianic age all the gentiles left, will come to the Jews to show them the truth of the one true G-d.
Jews are not prohibited from eating pork specifically. The prohibition is a trivial consequence of the commandment, You shall not murder, which applies equally to humans and animals. Life is sacred, and murder is prohibited. Practical Judaism, however, recognizes that some killing is unavoidable. Sometimes, it is “kill or be killed,” and Judaism allows killing to save other lives. Jews can kill enemies and heinous criminals legally.
People have to eat meat. The moot issue of vegetarianism aside, people cannot live without meat. In order to save their own lives, people have to kill animals. Hence Judaism makes an exception for three or four animals from the general prohibition of murder.
It is not that some animals are prohibited for food. All animals are prohibited, but out of necessity an exception is made for three or four of them. A few other animals were included in the list of permitted animals later, and erroneously—they do not strictly satisfy the criteria about hooves and chewing. Jews don’t eat humans, just as they don’t eat horses, camels, deer, bears, pigs, and most other species.
Animals earmarked for food must be domesticated. People give them life to take it later. Judaism stipulates that animals must be killed painlessly. Murder—even of animals, even out of utter necessity—is still murder and must not be enjoyed; Judaism opposes recreational hunting.
The choice of permitted animals is not accidental. Cows, goats, sheep, and gazelles are the folklore examples of stupidity. If we have to kill some animals, at least kill the least intellectually advanced. Similarly, Judaism prohibits scaleless sea creatures. All fish have at least some scales, and even shrimp have a scale-like chitin cover. The only truly scaleless sea creatures are sea mammals. They are intellectually advanced, and humans should not kill them for food. Similarly, swarming creatures are prohibited. The swarming creatures par excellence are ants and bees, incredibly smart beings.
Similarly, creeping creatures are prohibited. Their prototype, the serpent, is the symbol of wisdom in Judaism and other cultures. Prohibition of pork has nothing to do with uncleanness. Horses are clean, but Jews do not eat them. Deer are nice, clean animals, yet prohibited for food. Jewish children can play with pigs in a zoo just as they would play with horses. Judaism prohibits murdering animals, not playing with them or using them. Drinking camel’s milk is okay for the Jews just like eating honey produced by non-kosher bees. Jews must not derive benefits from pigs murdered by others, particularly by wearing pig leather clothes. My interpretation differs from accepted rabbinical understanding. The real difference between the two religions is practicality. Judaism is practical while Christianity - idealistic. Social teaching of Judaism is based on negative reciprocity, Do not do unto your neighbor what is hateful to you. Christianity enhanced that rule just a bit, and made it impractical. Positive reciprocity, Treat your neighbor as yourself, especially when neighbor means everyone, is unworkable.
Comment by yamit82 — May 23, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
Ron you are right I am trying to figure out myself where he is going but he keeps dodging and obfuscating my points. Last attempt I promise.
Comment by yamit82 — May 23, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
dweller re: conversion well we do have within our texts a pretty good idea:
The critical difference between us and Christians is who to consider a fellow man. Modern Christians unrealistically pronounce all people fellows, and surely fail to treat them as such. But their own parable of the Good Samaritan is instructive: even a despised Samaritan could be one’s fellow if the Samaritan helped him. Fellow is the one from whom help is expected. Such a definition surely excludes Canaanites and Palestinian Arabs from the commandment to love your fellow.
What is the love enjoined to our fellows? The context clarifies: “You shall not oppress your fellow” (19:13), “You shall not hate your brother” (19:17), and the 19:18: “You shall neither take revenge, nor restrain [yourself to take revenge later] at the children of your nation.” This, by the way, refutes the claims that human vengeance is prohibited in Judaism, but is the power of God only. Revenge is prohibited only against fellow Jews, on the double presumption of their general goodwill and efficient law enforcement. In such a society, revenge on the personal level was superfluous. But taking revenge on the enemies of Jews (even their distant offspring) is not merely a right, but an often-reiterated obligation: “a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:8).
The commandment of love concludes a list which parallels the Decalogue, and is therefore comparable to the prohibition of jealousy (Exodus 20:13).
The prescribed love to one’s fellow is the absence of hatred, vengeance, oppression, and jealousy. While gerim must not be oppressed, fellows must also not be hated. The Torah distinguishes between several circles of people: the closer is the circle, the more rights are accorded to it. Extended family, a closer circle, enjoys still more rights: one must respect his parents. One’s own family, the closest circle, awards generous rights to wives. Later on, when Hebrew society became strong and gerim were fully integrated, the commandment of love was expanded onto them (Deuteronomy 10:19); converts became treated strictly on par with native Jews.
The Torah prescribes, “The ger who resides among you in your land shall be for you like a native, and you shall love him just as you love yourself” (Leviticus 19:34). You cannot be more compassionate than that. But why the Torah, so short on words, reiterates, “in your land”? So that the ger absolutely recognizes the land as ours. And indeed the parallel Exodus 12:48: “And if a ger will reside with you, and will keep the Pesach to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised… he shall be like the native…” In order to be like a Jew, ger must be like a Jew: he must circumcise, keep Jewish customs, and to all purposes become a Jew. Then, sure enough, we must love him just as we love any Jew, including ourselves.
To summarize: In “You shall not oppress strangers” the Torah enjoins us against arbitrarily taking life or property of the submissive resident aliens who are loyal to Judaism. In “You shall love your fellow just as yourself” the Torah enjoins positive attitude toward one’s compatriots, the like-minded people only.
Comment by yamit82 — May 23, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
Re post 64:
Good grief, you are so thoroughly predictable, Yamit. When I wrote that phrase, I actually paused — for a full five minutes [a long time for me, given my limited computer hours] — to consider re-stating the point using different language.
It occurred to me, at the time, that it would be just like you to take the expression literally and jump at the opportunity for some lame “gotcha” judgment. But then I thought, “well, surely he would see that I hyphenated the expression, and left it uncapitalized; surely he will see that it was intended in a general sense, and not as a reference to the Pirke Ahvot.”
But just to be sure that there would be no ambiguity, I took a further step and added the phrase, “as it were” — the standard locution used to communicate that one intends that the immediately preceding phrase be taken figuratively, and not literally. [After all, I'd already USED the phrase "as it were," a few times, in earlier posts in this thread.] If you were really that hopelessly dense, then by seeing that device, you’d be certain to get the point, right?
Wrong.
Sure enough, you jumped on it like a dog on a bone, and in your unfailingly pedantic, reliably shallow way. What can I say? I should have trusted my own common sense with you, but — fool that I was — I resolved to keep an open mind where you were concerned. You are as predictable as clockwork, fella.
As to your comment that Judaism is not about “ethics” but about God’s singularity and man’s duty to love Him: It’s not “either-or” — it’s both. The two are inextricably intertwined, since man is not only God’s direct creation but also His express image; thus, what man does to (or for) man, he does likewise to God’s image, as well, in the doing.
The point I was making [that prompted your post 64] was that the problem confronting Paul was that the outer world (Greek civilization, specifically) to which he had to relate the gospel was one which (unlike that of the Jews) had, as yet, NO PREEXISTING CONCEPT of God’s oneness — the folkloric pantheon of Greek deities amounted to nothing more than a multiplicity of human projections, all characteristically flawed, invariably at odds w/ eachother, and unrelated in any way to moral behavior.
Yet Greek culture DID have a long tradition of philosophic speculation and ethical contemplation, albeit academic and unconnected with the power, wonder and purpose of the universe presided over by “the gods.”
Paul needed to introduce to such a culture the revolutionary notion that the one true God — who loves righteousness and mercy — is the very same God who shakes the mountaintops, colors the sunsets in glory and fills the human heart with tears and laughter. Since the Greek world DID have a history of ethical exploration, he used that as his point-of-entree in his quest to ACQUAINT that civilization with the God who revealed Himself to Avraham.
You’re obviously confusing Paul’s background with somebody else’s [possibly that of the disciple, Matthew, who HAD been a tax collector]. Paul was not a tax collector, but made his living as a tentmaker, and had a well-established reputation as a diligent and accomplished student of Rabban Gamaliel.
But you still haven’t yet responded to my challenge to you, to back up your (typically) reckless characterization of Paul as “antisemitic.” Don’t worry, though; I’m not holding my breath. I’ve already learned to know what to expect from you in response to a challenge to your vicious accusations….
Comment by dweller — June 4, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Re (more) 64:
“Betrays” my innate Christianity? “Implies” who I am? You make my beliefs sound like they were a secret [and a deep, dark secret, at that] — and yourself, like a ‘Judge’ in the Inquisition.
Of course, the use of the word “Christ” indicates “who and what” I am. I should hope it would. I’ve told you time and again that I believe that HaNitzri is indeed the Messiah promised by God to the Jews, and promised likewise by the Almighty to the world: through the Jews. And “Christ” means Moshiakh.
So most definitely that makes me a “Christian” [duh!] — albeit hardly so in the conventional sense of the word, since I don’t subscribe — and never have subscribed, or ever will — to the Nicene Creed: which characterizes Christ as “God,” and which self-identified “Christendom” has used for the past 17 centuries as its ticket of admission.
But why would I ‘hide’ what I believe? I’m proud of it, blessed by it, and honored in it. It is my overwhelming delight. Why would I keep it a secret?
Of course your compulsive assumption that I’m part of some simple-minded (or sinister) “Messianic” outfit or cult invariably gets a giggle out of me (sometimes it’s more like a snort, or even a belly-laugh) each time you revisit that desperate fantasy. It really is hugely amusing — and in the most ironic of ways. I’ll tell you why:
The truth is that those folks would NEVER have anything to do with somebody like YoursTruly because I adamantly, vociferously and persistently deny the ‘divinity’ of Christ; it drives (some of) them right up the wall, because they are actually traditional, conventional Christians — albeit w/ matzot, knitted kipot, woollen taleisim, and other tchatchkes. The “Messianic” types that give you such a bad case of the willies state right up-front that they won’t even allow somebody on their blogsite, chatroom, etc., who holds such a view as to deny Jesus’ ‘deity.’
It’s ok, though. I don’t mind walking alone, if that’s where the Father leads.
I know the One who guides my steps, and who keeps His promises throughout all of time.
Comment by dweller — June 4, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
Re post 76:
Neither, actually. There’s nothing to obfuscate. Nor have I the slightest use for sophistry. It’s not about either of those things. As I’ve told you before, it’s about INTEREST — actually disinterest, to be precise: boredom, if you will. I simply chose to communicate that fact in a gentle and courteous manner; I can’t help it if you insist on taking that for ‘obfuscation’ or ’sophistry.’ The subject you wanted me to discuss was never of interest to me, and I told you so, early-on. [Check the record; it's all there for the looking, boychik.]
Obviously we disagree as to what is central, and what is “peripheral” (or even irrelevant), to our little exchange. You characterize my remarks as “obfuscation & sophistry” — but that’s just another way of telling us all that you have an overblown view of the significance of your own ideas.
I responded to a few of your questions in a sincere and thoughtful, though summary and perfunctory, way: purely as a courtesy to you . But I made quite clear, at the time, that I wasn’t about to let you manipulate my good will into an adolescent pissing contest. So if, as you say, you found those limited responses of mine “unconvincing” [as if your pre-primed outlook would ever permit you to be 'convinced' of anything that challenged it, anyway] — then you have only yourself to blame, Yamit.
Next time, you’d be better advised to take what you call your “acorns” and play marbles with them — either that, or leave them on the tree for the chipmunks. They may be easier for you to draw in.
I have a strong and well-grounded sense of myself, Yamit, and I never allow myself to be roped into discussions that hold no interest for me; you try to discount that with sarcasm, like, “nice technique” — but the truth is that [like some of those evangelistic types who come knocking at your door & get a little carried away with their product, and themselves] you just have a hard time taking “no” for an answer.
Of course that requires a certain kind of discipline, and I do hope that with time you’ll acquire it.
This is the best you can do with that? He responded to the charge by noting that haShabbat was made for man, not vice versa. Any one of those turkeys would have ‘violated’ haShabbat at the drop of a hat, by going after a sheep or goat that was lost or in trouble, and nobody would have bellowed, “sacrilege!” How much less ‘naughty’ would it be to heal a sick human being, or even save his life, on Shabbat! Pikuakh nefesh – the preservation of life — TRUMPS the Sabbath.
In fact, arguably, pikuakh nefesh CONFIRMS haShabbat.
And that’s how you make your assessment? After the fact? — and based exclusively on pre-set, external criteria? That’s it? The ESSENCE of the proposition itself doesn’t enter into it? ‘He lost, so it couldn’t have been he’? End of discussion? C’est tout? Q.E.D.?
How curious. You think the same way the post-Nicene, ‘Christian fathers’ think: ‘God must have abandoned the Jewish People (and His eternal promises to them), since, after all, they lost their sovereignty. Q.E.D.’ — Right?
Same way that Muslims think, too: ‘The proof that Islam is the one true faith is the speed of its early spread and its continued rapid growth in numbers; obviously God looks on it with favor. Q.E.D.’ — Right?
This is all such self-serving, mush-head logic — fit most assuredly for no yiddisher kop, except perhaps one that resides eternally in the Land of Chelm…. Come to think of it, you and the Muslims and the ‘Christians’ — REMIND me of the Chelmer Khakhomim. Your thought processes follow the same pattern of far-kakh’de logic. Perhaps your brains and theirs are lodged in the same moist, warm place?
The statement that B-K wasn’t the Messiah “because he lost” is precisely 180 degrees bass-ackwards. The truth is that B-K lost because he wasn’t Moshiakh, and had no business billing himself (or letting himself be billed) as such — instead of simply fighting an otherwise legitimate war on its own terms and retaining its fullest possible base of support.
I repeat what I said in 47: It’s entirely conceivable to me that, handled differently [without the 'messianic' overlay], the B-K War could have been won. I suggest you think about that…. if you can bear to.
None of those, quite true; not yet. And if there were no persistent assertion [in both the Gospels and the Tanakh] of an anticipated return engagement, then you might have a case — since only some of the prophecies [albeit a goodly number of them] were fulfilled last time out. Given a second advent, however, your claim hangs, at best, suspended. You’re spinning your wheels, Yamit. Do you find time for physical exercise, BTW (for any muscles & ligaments apart from those in your typing fingers)?
In any case, you obviously assume that those four evidences of the Messiah [which you cite above] constitute his specific objectives. BUT THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW.
Indeed, I would submit that — though he will assuredly accomplish those things [the rebuilding of Beit HaMiqdahsh, the in-gathering of the Exiles, etc] — that they are themselves hardly his OBJECTIVES; they will merely be the most obvious EVIDENCES (among other indicators) of his work.
They will happen quite naturally as an outgrowth – a “bi-product,” if you will — of the completion of his mission.
Oh, right: Moshiakh as super diplomat. Kissinger without the croak.
Except that — unlike the folks at the Tower of Bovel, who thought the same way as you — YOUR ‘messiah’ is somebody who actually will HAVE the capability to ‘pull himself up by his own bootstraps,’ and to “attain such an exalted spiritual level as to… commune w/ God.” Right, got it: Divine companionship as a function of completing an ‘Advanced Degree’ in ‘God Studies.’ Your grasp of the matter is so obviously pediatric, it’s embarrassing to behold.
The truth is that IF a finite person HAD within him the power or the authority or the understanding to “attain” such a “level,” then he would have never LOST said “level” in the first place — and wouldn’t need to “attain” it in the second. That power, authority and understanding to do the ‘attaining’ — and the “level” itself – would be WITH him from Day One of his existence, and would never leave him. Sorry, no sale. Something more is needed — and ‘attainment’ has nothing whatever to do with it. Back to Square One, Yahnkele.
As to your assertion that what you wrote immediately above constitutes “what we believe” — I will say this gently [though I am not at all certain that your chutzpadik presumptuousness MERITS gentleness]:
What you should have said was, ‘Here is what some of us believe.’
Some of us believe all of that, and that only.
Some of us believe none of that, but something else entirely.
Some of us believe some of that.
Some of us believe some or all of that, and more.
Fortunately for all of us, Jewish belief — having always been multifarious — has neither catechisms, nor magisteria (nor, indeed, any formally structured and bounded theology), nor ayatollahs, nor popes, nor a kommissariat, nor thought police to “enforce” any such.
Even the Rambam never presumed to pose as some kind of gatekeeper to Jewish belief. Even the Ahni Ma’amin was never intended as some kind of formal creed that a Jew was required to recite twenty times a day to the drooling schlemiel at the door before he’d let him inside. No Jew who knew his place before God would ever be so arrogant; and nobody understood that better than Maimonides himself.
I would submit that neither you nor anyone else may presume to speak for “what we believe.”
If you think you should be entitled to do so, then I suggest you publish a book incorporating your proposals. I’m certain that A. some of us will read it; and that B. some of us won’t. In any event, the writing project will give you good practice in organizing your thoughts.
Comment by dweller — June 4, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
Re post 77:
This is a significant matter to you?
This is petty, Shy — and if you were doing your own thinking, you’d know it.
So much of Temple activity during those years occurred in the courtyard — i.e., inside the outer wall and on the grounds — that for someone to refer to proceedings occurring “in the Temple” was commonly understood to mean not only in the actual Temple structure itself, but ALL Temple-related matters, in- or out-of-doors, within the general enclosure. Furthermore, and in any case, if you really don’t think the buying-and-selling, at this point, had become horribly corrupt and deleterious to its original intent, then you’re less of a “student of Talmud” (or of anything else) than you make yourself out to be.
More importantly, though, let me tell you something:
A mind that goes looking for a scar
will surely find one,
or make one
for itself to find.
Don’t be TOO shy…. about letting yourself think about that. [The act -- of thinking -- after all, costs you nothing, and betrays nobody either.]
Ah, yes; spoken like a true stooge. Larry, Curly, Moe… and Shy. The question is, whose stooge would you be? (Let me guess.)
Comment by dweller — June 5, 2009 @ 12:01 am
Re post 76:
and post 79:
and post 82:
You’re truly paranoid, Yamit. I’m not being cute (or trying to be); I’m being quite literal, starkly serious. You’re losing it, Pancho.
There is something downright Kafkaesque about your whole outlook and demeanor. What’s more, this self-assigned, “keeper-of-the-flame” thing of yours, which you cultivate like a hothouse plant, would be amusing if it weren’t so plainly escapist; but it doesn’t wash. Whatever it is you actually do want, you really need to get out more, Yamit.
And if you aren’t prepared to actually see somebody for what you’ve got, then you probably shouldn’t skip your medication quite so often. Don’t get me wrong; it’s good to wean yourself off of that stuff, to be sure, but you need to be more gradual about it.
Don’t take on any more reality than you’re accustomed to handling at any one time.
Comment by dweller — June 5, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Re post 80:
If, by that, you refer to cognition — analysis, intellect, etc — that is, as I said in a previous post, only one of the brain’s MULTIPLE functions. It is a good and legitimate function, and ought to be entirely sufficient, even unto itself, for you, for example, to put together the obvious conclusion that Islam, both at its essence AND as practiced, is indeed idolatrous.
However, the truth is, only some things learned — not all, as you assert — come from that one “innate human characteristic.” There are other faculties accessible to the brain, and by which other things are learned; you overlook those other faculties. Indeed, I think [yes, my opinion, of course] that you actually fear those other faculties. Yet they are as much the gift of God as the intellect.
In fact, all major advances (the genuine ones) — in science, mathematics, economics, historical or archeological discovery, as well as the most profound and exquisite works of music, drama, literature, art, cinema, etc. — are invariably preceded by a hunch, a flash of intuition, a special awareness or insight, a sudden (or sneaking) clarity, an epiphany, an illumination: coming not by way of the intellect [though ultimately, perhaps, verifiable with the intellect's assistance, once the insight has been RECEIVED].
That particular process of perception and understanding is not cognitive, not analytical, not intellectual — but, rather, intuitive.
It is as if every so often God decided to let out a bit more of His endless procession of wonders by releasing it into the mind of a person suitably readied — by Him – to receive it. And I would submit that much (probably all) of PROPHECY is likewise revealed through the same faculty and by the same process. The kicker, however, is that — not only is that kind of illumination not subject to study, learning, etc., but also — its reception can actually be HINDERED by excessive study.
Moreover, when it does come, it’s not the sort of thing for which the ego can [whether openly or secretly] take personal credit….
You do recall, I suppose, who the party was that reputedly SPOKE those words you quoted above? And you regard that individual as authoritative? or otherwise worthy of your devotion?
Comment by dweller — June 5, 2009 @ 12:19 am
Re post 82:
? Hunh?! What are you talking about? What in blazes does “having sex with feeling” [or, for that matter, with gravy & biscuits] have to do with the price of onions in Ossawatamie? You obviously have way too much time on your hands these days, Yamit.
For goodness’ sake, don’t try mixing the viagra with the tranquilizers; these fanciful experiments never pan out.
Comment by dweller — June 5, 2009 @ 12:23 am
Re (more) 82:
Horse pucky, and horse pucky. What you mean is that you wish it put me beyond the pale; that you wish that “Christian Jew” were an oxymoron. Well, dream on, dude.
Not only is it neither an ‘oxymoron’ nor an ‘invention,’ but the entire Jewish community of its originating era in Judea knew it was not an internal contradiction — notwithstanding your wishful thinking that it were, Yamit. As to your line denying that one can embrace HaNitzri and still be Jewish, “any more than a woman can be half pregnant” — I’m not “half” ANYTHING.
In fact, the very first paragraph of the long [unattributed] excerpt which you quoted [in 88] REFUTES your above statement:
“Half-pregnant,” my arse.
I’ll have more to say about this quoted material when I get to 88, later.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Neither Judaism nor Christianity nor Zen seeks to elevate the ego; and none of them seeks to suppress it either. The ego, made in the image of God, is a man’s conscious self and, as such, has its proper place in the universe — and, as God’s creation, it needs no ‘elevating.’ But because it is finite at the same time that it bears God’s impress, it is regularly tempted to play at being God — so it needs to be reminded that it is NOT the Almighty.
Whenever it forgets that fact, it becomes guilty of idolatry. The unstated follow-up to “Be still, and know that I am God” — is ‘and you are not.’
The consequences of idolatry may, in some instances, tempt some persons & cultures to try to “suppress” the ego, but that addresses the problem no better than “elevating” it does. Both such responses to the ego’s finitude are flawed — they are opposite sides to the same counterfeit coin — and you are mistaken in concluding that the essence of any of the “religions” you cite is to elevate or suppress the ego. Of course, how people carry out their faith’s admonitions and dicta is another matter altogether.
It will, no doubt, come as a most frustrating discovery to you learn that the Jewish community disagrees with you as to YoursTruly; apparently their definition of “we Jews” [not to mention that of Rambam and other scholars] differs from yours. But then, what I am or am not is a matter of God’s determining, not yours (or even the community’s).
I’m quite comfortable letting the matter rest in His hands; after all, I can TRUST His intentions….
Comment by dweller — June 5, 2009 @ 1:05 am
Re (still more) 82:
“Phony”?
What’s “phony” about my transliteration?
Define “phony” in this context [this should be good].
And when did you, Moishe Groisse, become an authority in these matters?
And what exactly does “Christian transliterated Hebrew” consist of? As distinguished from “Buddhist transliterated Hebrew’ — or “Muslim transliterated Hebrew” — or “Taoist transliterated Hebrew”?
I find that I must correct my above assessment of you, Yamit: You are NOT ONLY a paranoid boor, but also — and notwithstanding the pomposity of your claims — an ignorant and slow-witted one. For all your acknowledged erudition, you remain a monstrous, judgmental, top-heavy buffoon.
What’s more, I’m going to tell you something you should know about me, since you obviously haven’t the wit to conceive of it on your own:
The truth is that I actually use nobody’s transliteration but my own. I intentionally try, for the most part, to be as close to phonetically accurate as practically possible. If that occasionally coincides with some other system, that is sheer coincidence. There’s nothing holy about transliteration – i.e., the approximation of the spoken sounds of one language into the written characters of another.
Transliteration is merely a device, and one which has two purposes: A. It enables those who ARE familiar with the sounds and cadences of the language from which the words are taken to communicate with each other in writing by means of the characters of the adopted language — AND, B. It also aids those who are NOT familiar with the language from which the words come to at least pronounce them aloud, based on their own common understanding of the sounds of their own language.
I concern myself purely with the functionality and practical usage of transliteration, and — because I know that I may be communicating on this blog (or elsewhere, in print) with those who may not have a working, or even rudimentary, knowledge of Ivrit – I deliberately go out of my way to accommodate them, as a matter of common courtesy.
Typically, however, you choose to see something sinister in it. Again though, that paranoia reflects more on you than it does on me; my conscience (a very active one, as it happens) is squeaky clean.
In point of fact, even when I was a kid, I never liked the commonly used systems of transliteration of Ivrit into Anglit, because it often made so little allowance for the typical diphthongs, consonantal forms and syllabification as used by the broader culture and its written language, whose characters were being used for the Hebrew transliteration. Since it addressed only the first of the above-cited functions of transliteration, but never the second, it invariably caused unnecessary confusion outside the Jewish community [and even amongst some sectors within the community itself].
For example, “ch” in American-accented English is almost always pronounced like the “ch” in “chop,” occasionally like a “k” in “character” — but never like the guttural “kh” in “Bukhara.”
So, what was the point, within the American milieu, of transliterating the festival celebrated beginning on the 25th of Kislev as “Chanukah” (or even as “Hanukkah”), when “Khahnukah” made so much more sense?
But the “Messianic” groups that you try so hard to link me to have never gone so far as to think such matters through, that way. They just aren’t familiar with the more common renderings used in the Jewish community — because they’ve never been part of it, or not in any substantive way. I, on the other hand, have never NOT been part of the Jewish community [much to your chagrin, obviously, but a fact all the same]. I just don’t like the standard usages, and never have.
Still, though, if a superficial thing like transliteration is your idea of a “dead giveaway” as to where I’m at in regard to anything (let alone, as to Messianic ‘Judaism,’ specifically) — then you’re even more shallow and dull-witted than I thought you were.
Comment by dweller — June 5, 2009 @ 1:16 am
Try this on for size I am too tired and too much time has passed to catch up . Maybe later.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/media/a/paul/
http://www.simpletoremember.com/media/a/who-is-the-messiah/
http://www.simpletoremember.com/media/a/how-do-missionaries-paint-jesus/
http://www.simpletoremember.com/media/a/law-of-moses/
Comment by yamit82 — June 5, 2009 @ 1:17 am
Yamit, who let the worm out the can?
This boy needs professional help.
Don’t pay attention to him.
Comment by rongrand — June 5, 2009 @ 1:50 am
Re (more yet) 82:
I did show it to you: in the very same, earlier remark of mine, which you even blockquoted [presumably to refute the remark itself -- though it doesn't succeed in doing so]:
Of course it’s an argument. So your notion of ‘Judaism’ leaves no room for reasoning now? You unwittingly tell us more about yourself here than you do about Judaism. Define “narrow” as you’ve used it here. Or is it simply the fact that my reasoning is grounded in common sense and the known facts of history that makes you call it “narrow”?
You also contradict yourself, since in 80 you note that God gave men a brain to think with. Would it be asking too much that you use the one you were given, to do that? Or would you have to find an explicit scriptural or midrashic enjoinder to do so before you could proceed?
The truth is that, in every instance, the worship of the creation (or some element of it) — in place of the Creator — is specifically what constitutes idolatry. If you think the only idolatry in this world consists of bowing down before dumb statues of wood, stone or plaster, then you have completely missed the point of the problem.
God says you can’t worship anything in His creation — and Him at the same time; it must be one or the other. (As you’ll recall, He characterizes Himself as “jealous.”) Anything in the creation may well have its legitimate place, but it is not entitled to man’s worship. By, in effect, seeking the submission of other men to themselves — albeit in the name of Allah — Muslims are clearly worshipping part of the creation: the human ego [their own].
Yes, they are most definitely, and unmistakably, idolators.
Comment by dweller — June 5, 2009 @ 1:57 am
Re post 88:
You cite no SOURCE for those ten, quoted, opening paragraphs. Am I not supposed to be able to verify the accuracy of your transmission or check the context? [Sloppy, for somebody who claims to have written a 'thesis.']
Yes, that’s what I’ve been saying. Actually, it should read, ‘by the end of the second century, they began calling Jesus “God”‘ — because until after the B-K War [135], most of the Judean Christians were Jews. But otherwise those particular passages are correct. In fact, “Jewish believers were the leading theologians of the [Nazarene community], and the Gentiles had [at first] mostly learned their theology from Jewish tutors…”
[Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 2002), p. 223]
The point is — since you seem to keep missing it [and since you keep foisting your misleading take on it upon your readers, who hang on your every word as if anything you said were itself holy writ] — the point is that there is nothing automatically ‘unJewish’ per se about viewing Jesus as Messiah. Even if he were a ‘false’ messiah, the mere belief in him as Moshiakh would not have been, OF ITSELF, ‘unJewish’ (however dearly you would like to cast it in such a garish light).
Nor was it considered ‘unJewish,’ at the time, by other Jews of the day; weird, maybe, by some assessments — but not unJewish.
After the Bar Kokhva War, by prohibiting ALL circumcised persons from the city and district of Yerushalayim, Hadrian unknowingly took the Jewish leadership of the Nazarenes out of the movement’s home base — thus creating a Nazarene leadership vacuum in the city, which was filled by the gentile Nazarenes: since, among the movement, only they (being un-circumcised) would have had access to Yerushalayim. Whereupon they proceeded to make HaNitzri into a ‘god’ — something he never wanted.
Right. Exactly so. But NOT UNTIL then. That’s WHY I said that belief in HaNitzri as Christ [i.e., as the Messiah] is not of itself ‘unJewish.’ It is belief in him as ‘God’ that is unJewish — indeed, a threat to the Jewish “core.” And, as I pointed out in an earlier post, Rambam concurs with this holding. [Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 2:5]
Oh, get a life! Logic ‘dictates’ nothing of the sort. But then, you’re not about logic, Yamit [notwithstanding that you tell us that God gave you a brain]. What you are about is a certain species of over-heated, demagogic emotionalism — at least in these matters — an emotionalism which, moreover, drives out reason and leaves no room for cool, clear logic.
You assume, a priori, hostility on the part of the Nazarene Jews, at the time, toward their fellow Jews, but there is no evidence to support the assumption — not even evidence of any RECIPROCAL resentment toward B-K’s “enforcers” for their hateful treatment of the Nazarenes (resentment which would have been perfectly understandable, had they harbored any such). Nobody — apart from your illustrious self — suggests anything of the sort.
You base your supposition of Nazarene Jewish hostility toward the larger Jewish community on subsequent events beginning nearly a couple of centuries later – when the Christians were composed almost entirely of gentiles, and not any longer of Jews. Because it suits your purposes, you view the matter in hindsight; you are looking backward, but that is fallacious, because history always unfolds moving FORWARD — not backward.
It’s abundantly clear to me that it isn’t just the goyim who are subject to demagoguery; they may be notorious for it, but it’s plain to see that, sometimes, even a Jew may not be immune to it…. A pity.
And a shonde.
In point of fact, what IS dictating such prejudicial and undocumented speculations as your [immediately-above] statement is very obviously nothing more than your own pre-primed bigotry, sanctimony and intellectual dishonesty — in short, the mentality of the lynch mob, clothed in the robes of serious scholarship. [There's something very scary about you, Yamit.]
Show me some evidence to the contrary, regarding your vile accusations, and I’ll consider revising the above judgment; not unless, and not until.
At Matzadah, mostly themselves & each other (if you accept Josephus’ account on its face). Before that, anybody who was a rival to their group’s power quest in the steaming cauldron that constituted Jerusalem in the run-up to the first revolt — and there were plenty such rival groups in that era. However, the Christian Jews were not among those rivals, as their aspirations lay in another dimension of concern altogether.
In any case, the Sicari’i had nothing to do with the B-K Revolt, but rather with the earlier war, of 66-71: an unplanned fiasco, that everybody virtually fell into, and where the lines of loyalty were a lot more “fluid.” In fact, you could probably make a lot easier case for ‘treason’ against the likes of Yokhanan ben Zakkai (to say nothing of Josephus) during that affair than against the Nazarene Jews of the B-K War. (A fool’s errand, in any event.)
Comment by dweller — June 5, 2009 @ 2:20 am
Re (more) 88:
This is so lame. Also incredibly sloppy. That confrontation and admonition occurred during neither of the two Judean war periods. And in fact, during the B-K struggle, the “ruling authority” in Judea was essentially divided (for 2.5 yr of the 3.5-yr-long war): between Rome and the Rebel Administration in Yerushalayim. Christ was simply counseling persons to recognize the necessity of relating to both the world within AND the world without: the abiding need for civil order AND the importance to seek God’s will & leading at all times. It’s obvious that you’re just trying to pick a fight, even in an instance in which there’s nothing to fight over. Lame and sloppy — AND weird, Yamit.
But I’ll have more to say about your astonishingly sophomoric reasoning in this matter, shortly. [BTW, did your "thesis" ever get approved?]
What a steaming pile of malodorous pig plop. Show me the ‘treason.’ I’ve rubbed your nose in your mess three or four times now, asking you each time to produce some evidence to support your hateful allegations — and each time you have come back with nothing but speculation grounded in what you want to believe. In this particular matter, I’m still waiting for as much as a soupçon of evidence pointing to something other than your own vicious pathology — and I’ve had a bellyful of that.
Put up or shut up.
There is no evidence or testimony portraying, or suggesting, Christians “actively engaged on the side of Rome” in the B-K Revolt. If they were ’sidelined,’ that is directly attributable to B-K’s arrogant pretensions to the messianic glory — and with Akiva’s irresponsible and presumptuous endorsement: “This is King Messiah!” [T. Yer. Ta'anit iv.68d] The obvious reality is that if B-K wanted the Nazarenes’ active engagement, then posturing as “Moshiakh” was the absolute worst possible way to go about securing it.
The messianic claim, together with its endorsement and enforcement, was — beyond question or cavil — the greatest, most fateful (and fatal), error of the War. And, arguably, the most fateful error in all of Jewish history as well.
[from Max I. Dimont, Jews, God and History (Simon & Schuster, NY, 1962), p. 108]:
“…Jews of every sect… flocked to [B-K's] standards, but not the Christian [-Jew]s, who were caught in a dilemma. [They] were suffering as much as the [other] Jews, if not more, under the Roman yoke and would under normal circumstances have joined the [non-Nazarene] Jews in the rebellion. But already having a Messiah in Jesus, they could not accept the other messiah in Bar Kochba, and thus they could not join the[ir fellow] Jews in the showdown with the Romans.”
[from Chaim Potok, Wanderings: Chaim Potok's History of the Jews (Fawcett Crest, NY, 1975), p. 301]:
“Christian-Jews who refused to [be conscripted] were treated with severity and contempt.”
Neither Dimont nor Potok nor Talmud Yerushalmi — nor any other author or source I’ve ever encountered — asserts or suggests, or even speculates on, the vile and despicable proposition that the Nazarene Judeans of the B-K era consituted a “fifth column,” or that they “colluded with,” or defected to, or “sided with,” or “were in the camp of,” or in any way sympathized with Hadrian’s legions.
Why would they? — From Hadrian’s perspective, if you were circumcised, you were trouble.
The Christian-Jews were as patriotic as any other Jews, and would have readily and gladly fought for the Nation. But how could they be expected to fight for a ‘messiah’ they did not believe in? Would you fight for a ‘messiah’ that you disbelieved in? Get real.
B-K and Akiva effectively DROVE the Nazarenes out of the fight. If you honestly can’t see that, Yamit, it’s only because you don’t want to. You can’t admit the obvious truth,
because YOU ENJOY YOUR HATRED TOO MUCH.
Comment by dweller — June 5, 2009 @ 2:50 am
Re (still more) 88:
You bet your sweet, tender tushy, I do. Absolutely. [Why wouldn't I?] Bank on it, Bubbeleh.
And you, Sir — you, who can brazenly, recklessly, flagrantly and unrepentantly bear false witness against your neighbor — DO YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CALL YOURSELF A “JEW”?
Exactly what part of “self-righteous” do you not understand?
What kind of ‘Jew’ has no pang of conscience over breaking the Ninth Commandment?
To say nothing of violating the Third?
What — pray, tell — is “Torah-true” about taking the name of the Lord in vain?
You make a great show of superficial piety by not spelling out the word “God”; yet you see no problem with persistently defaming somebody’s reputation [whether you regard them as 'believing Jews' or not is irrelevant: nobody is fair game for slander], by your denouncing them as ‘traitors,’ based on nothing more than supposition (and your own wishful thinking) — and justifying it in the name of “G-d.”
This is Torah-true?
In what parallel universe?
You are, Yamit, a 24-karat fake.
In the words of an obscure and unlettered, first-century rebbe, you “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” Aptly put, don’t you think? He certainly seems to have had a problem with hypocrites of all stripes; maybe that’s what really bothers you about him (cuts a little too close for comfort, does he?). And such a way with words, hmmm?
Comment by dweller — June 5, 2009 @ 2:59 am
Re (continuing yet with) 88:
There is nothing, Yamit, in your profferred “historical background” of the Bar Kokhva era that was unfamiliar to me, as I’ve studied the period in some detail for more years than I care to count, and written at length about it. A few of your figures are of dubious accuracy, but your account, as presented here, is, nevertheless, essentially correct as to the non-numerical facts. It’s when you launch out into speculation that you wander (or drift) into the deep end of the pool and get yourself into trouble. I’ve already said, a few times in this thread, that there’s nothing wrong with speculation PER SE. But not all speculation is by its nature legitimate — or even honest.
Speculation is ok as long as it’s not palmed off as fact, AND as long as it’s grounded in what is known.
Speculation is good for NOTHING WHATSOEVER, on the other hand, if it’s based purely on what you want to believe: Unalloyed desire makes a poor counselor — and a jaundiced judge.
Speculation that is based purely on personal desire (as yours very obviously IS, in re the Nazarenes in the B-K War) merely assures that each fact that is known (or comes to light) is invariably bent toward a predetermined conclusion. In other words, that kind of speculation — the kind grounded solely in desire — is a cul-de-sac: a dead-end. In has no potential for leading to new discoveries (or for communicating old ones).
Of course, it can do great things for a bloated ego that can’t bear to acknowledge itself to ever be wrong….
Comment by dweller — June 5, 2009 @ 3:30 am
Levinson:
Holy moly, Goebbels is not dead- he has been resurrected in the guise of Bill Levinson.
Comment by h peskin — June 5, 2009 @ 3:53 am
Dweller:I find that I must correct my above assessment of you, Yamit: You are NOT ONLY a paranoid boor, but also — and notwithstanding the pomposity of your claims — an ignorant and slow-witted one. For all your acknowledged erudition, you remain a monstrous, judgmental, top-heavy buffoon.
Comment by h peskin — June 5, 2009 @ 4:04 am
Jesus, what have I done? I have linked in common cause two totally obsessed idiots. Peskin the coward stands on the sidelines hoping some will shed the blood of another so he can as cowards do cheer them on. He would never venture to fight his own battles with zeal and conviction or for any reason. He is what as known on the street as those who always are there to pile on, when he thinks there is no risk to himself.
Now dweller, You do so pontificate and it seems have mastered adhominem and sophistry to cover what you can’t defend. Early Christians betrayed their brother Jews because they were cowardly pacifists and Roman Stooges: In the first three centuries, Christians were pacifists. Post Enlightenment Christianity often emphasizes the peaceful nature of Jesus, as opposed to the very numerous accounts of divinely sanctioned violence or warfare in the Hebrew Scriptures [Old Testament]. Proponants of the Christian pacifist position sometimes point to the early Church, the first three centuries of Christianity, and cite it as “pacifist” in arguing against Christian participation in warfare, under any circumstances. Such claims are often cited as a means of illuminating the supposedly un-Christian character of the crusades.
In Romans 13,
for example, Paul justifies the violence of the pagan emperor, for the emperor is yet a
minister of God. And Christians served in the Roman army from the second century on.
Following the conversion of the emperors, in the fourth century, the church became
more open to using violence. Church leaders, after an initial shock, began supporting the
use of force against heretics. Then Augustine formulated his theory of “just war,” but his
terms effectively mean “holy war.” Augustine and the medieval world concluded that
violence is not evil. Instead, violence is morally neutral. That makes a crusade possible.
How did medieval Christians support their idea that violence was morally neutral?
Augustine gave this example: Suppose a man has gangrene in the leg and is going to
die. The surgeon believes the only way to save him is by amputating the leg. Against
he man’s will, the surgeon straps him to a table and saws off the leg. That is an act of
extreme violence.
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except
that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted,
and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those
who do right, but for those who do wrong. Romans 13
Origen also points to the militarism of the Hebrews when he suggests that if Christians ever came to control a country and its government, which did not happen until the reign of Constantine (long after Origen’s death), then Christians also would have an obligation to protect their lands and people.
Nor did Origen oppose war in principle as he and other Christians desired and prayed for victory for the Roman army and the destruction of its enemies. And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead
to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than
those who go into the field to fight for them. And we do take our part in public affairs, when along with
righteous prayers we join self-denying exercises and meditations, which teach us to despise pleasures, and
not to be led away by them. And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under
him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army–an army of piety–by
offering our prayers to God.
Christians interpreted the commandment don’t murder as don’t kill!
An important distinction needs to be made between the sin of murder (always condemned by early Christians) and killing (executions and warfare) which God often called for according to the Hebrew scriptures.Basil noted this distinction among the early fathers when in 374 he wrote, “Our fathers did not think killing in war was murder;” Modern scholars of Hebrew have argued that Exodus 20:13 should be translated, “Thou shalt not murder” rather than “Thou shalt not kill.” The distinction is important, as otherwise the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testement), full of divine exhortations to kill, whether in combat or by means of execution, would make no sense.
Bainton’s conclusions concerning the acceptability of military service by Christians before Constantine might be summed up as follows; the military was never embraced as a profession by Christians before Constantine, although from around 170 A.D. forward we do find varying degrees of evidence in some regions of Christian participation in the military. Christians did serve in the military and this suggests that at least some of them found the profession acceptable. Yet we must be careful in claiming too much, as this evidence in itself does not signify any sort of formal acceptance of Christian service in the military by the Church. Bainton supports such a position through reiterating the various condemnations of important theologians from the period who he claims uniformly write of military service for the Christian as taboo until the time of Constantine. The only exception some make, as Bainton notes, is for the possibility of serving in a non-combat role and only so long as the Christian will not be forced to engage in various forms of idolatry often required by those they serve. Bainton apparently continued to embrace such a view throughout his career as in 1960, fourteen years later, he wrote, “No Christian writer prior to the time of Constantine approved of Christian participation in warfare.
Whether the early Christians were pacifists or not they did have an aversion to war and avoided it at all costs. This seems to be true through at least the first 2 early Christian centuries. I base in part my contention that early Christians refused to join the BK rebellion because A- they were pacifists and B- Loyal to the Roman Authority.
Comment by yamit82 — June 5, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
The Ninth Commandment
“Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor.”
If the 9th Commandment only stated “Thou shalt not bear false witness” period, then it’s Universal and applies to all. But the word “Neighbor” refers ONLY to the tribes of Israel.
The First Commandment
“I am the Lord thy God, which have
brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.”
You dweller are no neighbor!!!! anyway you follow the NT not the Torah! This is what you believe:
Now as a follower of Jesus and base from what you write on NT scripture you must to be consistent believe in the whole of the NT, If so what you claim to profess is contradictory to that same work known as NT. Rom. 10:4: "Christ is the end of the Law,
On one occasion Jesus was asked, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?." He replied, "'You must love your G-d with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, 'You must love your neighbor as yourself.'
What neighbor should we love?
The important sense of l-h-tz root for oppression is its communal character: in the word’s common usage, one polity oppresses another. When the oppression is between individuals, it is referred to as a-sh-k, such as, “You shall not trample upon (taashok) your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:13).
Long before Christians adopted this commandment as their major tenet, Jews were told, “You shall love your fellow [man] just as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). Not to the extent that you love yourself, but the way you do. Your love to fellow man should be in the likeness (cmo) of your love to yourself. An alternative reading is that you should love a man who is like you, your fellow man.
The common translation of r-y-h as “neighbor” does not relate the word correctly. In Psalm 45:15, for example, the virgins in the king’s wife’s train are definitely not her neighbors. The translation friends also falls short, as Leviticus 19:13 won’t prohibit trampling upon one’s friend. The r-y-h sense has to do with following, going in the same direction. That sense makes for the double meaning of r-y-h: evil (to bend someone, to steer away) and friend (to bend together with someone, to have a common path unlike the others’).Thus, r-y-h is not an abstract neighbor, but someone sufficiently close that you “bend the rules” together, deviate from the others’ road. For example, the Tower of Babel builders are described as r-y-h, fellows. Rather than neighbor, the proper translation of r-y-h is compatriot (with co- relating the sense of sticking together) or fellow.
What is the love enjoined to our fellows? The context clarifies: “You shall not oppress your fellow” (19:13), “You shall not hate your brother” (19:17), and the 19:18: “You shall neither take revenge, nor restrain [yourself to take revenge later] at the children of your nation.” This, by the way, refutes the claims that human vengeance is prohibited in Judaism, but is the power of God only. Revenge is prohibited only against fellow Jews, on the double presumption of their general goodwill and efficient law enforcement. In such a society, revenge on the personal level was superfluous. But taking revenge on the enemies of Jews (even their distant offspring) is not merely a right, but an often-reiterated obligation: “a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:8).
The commandment of love concludes a list which parallels the Decalogue, and is therefore comparable to the prohibition of jealousy (Exodus 20:13).
The prescribed love to one’s fellow is the absence of hatred, vengeance, oppression, and jealousy. While gerim must not be oppressed, fellows must also not be hated. The Torah distinguishes between several circles of people: the closer is the circle, the more rights are accorded to it. Extended family, a closer circle, enjoys still more rights: one must respect his parents. One’s own family, the closest circle, awards generous rights to wives. Later on, when Hebrew society became strong and gerim were fully integrated, the commandment of love was expanded onto them (Deuteronomy 10:19); converts became treated strictly on par with native Jews.
The Torah prescribes, “The ger who resides among you in your land shall be for you like a native, and you shall love him just as you love yourself” (Leviticus 19:34). You cannot be more compassionate than that. But why the Torah, so short on words, reiterates, “in your land”? So that the ger absolutely recognizes the land as ours. And indeed the parallel Exodus 12:48: “And if a ger will reside with you, and will keep the Pesach to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised… he shall be like the native…” In order to be like a Jew, ger must be like a Jew: he must circumcise, keep Jewish customs, and to all purposes become a Jew. Then, sure enough, we must love him just as we love any Jew, including ourselves.
To summarize: In “You shall not oppress strangers” the Torah enjoins us against arbitrarily taking life or property of the submissive resident aliens who are loyal to Judaism. In “You shall love your fellow just as yourself” the Torah enjoins positive attitude toward one’s compatriots, the like-minded people only. THAT WOULD SEEM TO LEAVE YOU OUT OF OUR JEWISH CIRCLE OF FELLOWS OR NEIGHBORS YOU THEN DON’T COUNT FOR US IN OUR BIBLICAL INJUNCTION!
Never preach to me about Judaism or Christianity for that matter if you were born a Jew you are an apikoros; (kefira? or kefiro) If you are just a Christian wannabe Fuck off!
Comment by yamit82 — June 6, 2009 @ 12:04 am
Yamit don’t continue, we can’t afford to have you distracted from the real issues facing Israel.
Don’t pay attention to him.
This site is not a religious battle ground.
This is site is about those of various religious backgrounds who support the people and Nation of Israel.
Ignore dweller and he will find another website to infect.
All you need to do is read portions of his posting and you come to the conculsion he is a sissy and needs professional help.
In fact I may be wrong he may be a she. Damn.
Comment by rongrand — June 6, 2009 @ 12:15 am
Jewish thought rests upon the validity of the Torah being true, then the halakhic decisions derived must conform to these truths. If a Jew is to accept one tenant of the Torah, he must, in order to be logically consistent, accept the whole of Torah. Likewise, if a person is to accept that he is Jewish then he must define this concept upon viable and authentic Jewish sources and render precise his own actions accordingly. Any other alternative to this is something other than Judaism. That is, a person may, given free-will, live according to what is right in his own eyes, however, he must be rationally forced to understand that it is of his own devise and should be so called as such.
Comment by yamit82 — June 6, 2009 @ 12:35 am
Re (still staying on) 88:
Yes, and Rome — at the time — regarded every Christian Jew as EQUALLY (or MORE) hostile to Rome: right up until shortly before 325. So that certainly was true during (and for quite some time after) the B-K insurgency [132-135].
That’s just it [don't you get it ?!?!]: He DIDN’T “unite the entire Jewish people around him.” Quite the contrary, his messianic pretensions, in point of fact, ALIENATED whole segments of the Jewish community, including the Nazarene Jews. The Sanhedrin thought his messianic pretensions were full of it — and only a few rabbonim: Gershom, Akha, and Akiva — were on-board with the “King Messiah” proposition. If B-K had indeed united the entire Jewish people around him, the War could well have been won – and the whole configuration, and and future, of the ancient world, massively altered.
JEWISH SOVEREIGNTY IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL COULD HAVE REMAINED INTACT TO THIS VERY DAY. THINK ABOUT IT.
The very fact that you [or whoever wrote those words] could characterize B-K as having “messianic potential” shows that you really haven’t a clue as to what Moshiakh was to have been about. And if what Akiva “recognized” in him was “potential,” then Akiva was as clueless as you [or as the writer of those words]. WHOEVER the Messiah is — or will be — there’s no “potential” in him: either he is or he isn’t [no "partly pregnant," a simile you (ineptly and erroneously) favored earlier in this thread].
I’ve already cited the B-K Letters of Nakhal Khever & Wadi Muraabba in earlier posts in these exchanges. The letters are indeed fascinating and fact-filled as to the history. It’s plain that B-K was a dynamic personality who was also – manifestly — a cruel, egotistical thug with a cynical attitude toward his own messianic claims of being “sent by God” — and it’s astonishing that Akiva failed to “recognize” THAT before ‘anointing’ him, and that the Rebbe (apparently) failed to even reconsider what he done after B-K’s bizarre manner had become unmistakable.
They weren’t united; that’s the problem. They BEGAN united. But the B-K//Akiva “moshiakh” gambit LOST them that unity.
As to the rest of that passage, you are quite right. That’s why I said [in an earlier post] that, for the period of its tenure, the Rebel Administration was, in a very real sense, the “ruling authority.” Therefore your claim — that Yeshua’s admonition (”Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s & to God what is God’s”) — your claim that this somehow means that Christ would have given ‘loyalty’ to Rome as the civil authority, is dead wrong.
In fact, arguably, the Rebel Administration constituted, of ITSELF, a “Caesar,” of sorts — unless you’re suggesting that the coins they minted had Hadrian’s face on them…. Think about it. [You do that, once in a while, right?]
Yes. I told you that myself, multiple times in earlier posts in the thread. And that uniqueness is integral to the REASON that I believe the B-K War could have been won — if B-K and Akiva (along with R. Gershom, R. Akha, et al.) hadn’t hijacked what began as a legitimate and just War for the Nation and made it into a spurious and vainglorious War for ‘Moshiakh.’ By raising the War’s stakes that way, they cast away a substantial component of support for the struggle.
That component (the Nazarene Jews) — had they not been, through conscience, forced out of the War by the “Moshiakh” declaration and its immediate aftermath — could have helped keep the resistance afloat long enough for other restive peoples throughout the Empire to “catch fire.” Rome could not have sustained a multiplicity of simultaneous seismic strains to the imperium.
Akiva and B-K squandered what was truly a unique opportunity.
More specious and sophomoric speculation. Nobody (ever) believes a myth.
A myth may conveniently encapsulate a collection of precepts and accepted understandings, but nobody believes the myth itself — not past the age where children stop believing in Santa Claus. The Jesus story is in an altogether different category. It’s not phantasmagorical. Even most people who don’t regard themselves as “Christians” don’t see the narrative as a cock-&-bull story. Among persons free of intellectual bigotry, HaNitzri is not viewed like the tooth fairy.
The story, for better or for worse, is believable.
“[The Gospel story] is not transparent to the reason: we could not have invented it ourselves. It has not the suspicious a priori lucidity of Pantheism or of Newtonian physics. It has the seemingly arbitrary and idiosyncratic character which modern science is slowly teaching us to put up with in this wilful universe…. If any message from the core of reality ever were to reach us, we should expect to find in it just that unexpectedness, that wilful, dramatic anfractuosity which we find in the Christian faith. It has the master touch — the rough, male taste of reality, not made by us, or indeed for us, but hitting us in the face…”
[C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (Collins, Fontana Books, London, 1957), p. 13]
Whatever else you may want to tell yourself about the story, it’s not the invention of a finite mind; or a committee of same.
You may want to check your Dio Cassius a little more carefully. Jewish combat deaths were not as high as that, despite very few surrenders. Total Jewish deaths, however, ran higher still: to 580,000 (and quite possibly higher).
The Nazarenes were Jewish patriots — and NOT ‘traitors.’ Nor is it at all clear that those early followers of Jesus were, as you maliciously claim, “in the Roman camp.” To this day, you have produced not a shred of evidence in support of your loathsome and self-serving charges. And, yes, I DO believe that any truly patriotic (as opposed to pathological) Jews would have left the Nazarene Jews alone and just fought Rome; you’re damned right, I do.
Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that the non-Nazarene Jews were simply assholes…. But — again, absent any testimony or other evidence to that effect — I don’t believe that they were. Do YOU?
Because if you do, then I’m sure I needn’t remind you that the Rabbonim have acknowledged that the nation was lost through sinat khinahm – groundless hatred. And that is something you , in particular, need to think about….
Those who fail to learn from history….
Have YOU ever heard of “innocent till proven guilty”?
Comment by dweller — June 6, 2009 @ 2:21 am
No! Not in Jewish LAW
Comment by yamit82 — June 6, 2009 @ 7:38 am
Halacha leaves no doubt that any Jew indeed, must be executed, like anyone else who abandons any piece of land which Jews control. Sanhedrin is unnecessary for the judgment: during emergencies, community rabbis are entitled to pronounce death sentences on those who endanger the Jewish masses.
The milhemet mitzva, the obligatory war commandment: Is the authority, regardless of the Sanhedrin, kings, or rabbis every Jew has an individual obligation to go to war when the enemy wants to take away any land that we hold.
The Jews did not rebel because Akiva proclaime BK as having Messaiah Potential but they were obligated to war under Jewish Law. Those who refused violated Torah commandment and injunction.
The Two Messiahs
Our Sacred Sages had a tradition that in the beginning [of the End Times] there would arise a Messiah [i.e. Anointed Saviour] from the house of Joseph who will reign over the Ten Tribes. He will wage wars and all of Israel will be gathered together under his banner. [This will continue] until later on, a descendant of David will appear and he will reign over them….
<<A transformation will take place. The Ten Tribes and the stick of Joseph will draw themselves closer unto the stick of Judah, and this too, will be through the agency of a Prophet and by miracles.
The Commentary of “Malbim” on Ezekiel 37:15
Ezekiel says: ~AND ALL THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL~, for unto him [unto Joseph] were joined all of Israel which belong to the Ten Tribes… Our Sacred Sages had a tradition that in the beginning (of the End Times) would arise a Messiah, [i.e. Anointed Saviour], from the house of Joseph who will reign over the Ten Tribes. He will wage wars and all of Israel will be gathered together under his banner. [This will continue] until a descendant of David later appears and he will reign over them… [over all the tribes].
Jews never had to speculate whether any claim to messiahship was true. They would see with their own eyes the empirical evidence for themselves. The real Messiah would fulfill in his lifetime what was expected of him. Then we also have the concept of Moshiach Ben Yoseph: CLAIM: The Rabbis believe in two messiahs, one exalted and one suffering. It’s not two messiahs one exalted and one suffering, but one messiah, first time suffering the second time exalted.
The MALBIM connects the Prophecy in Ezekiel 37 with that in the Book of Micah chapter 5. The fifth chapter of Micah
[Micah 5:1] NOW GATHER THYSELF IN TROOPS, O DAUGHTER OF TROOPS: HE HATH LAID SIEGE AGAINST US: THEY SHALL SMITE THE JUDGE OF ISRAEL WITH A ROD UPON THE CHEEK. [Micah 5:2] BUT THOU, BETHLEHEM EPHRATAH, THOUGH THOU BE LITTLE AMONG THE THOUSANDS OF JUDAH, YET OUT OF THEE SHALL HE COME FORTH UNTO ME THAT IS TO BE RULER IN ISRAEL; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH HAVE BEEN FROM OF OLD, FROM EVERLASTING. [Micah 5:3] THEREFORE WILL HE GIVE THEM UP, UNTIL THE TIME THAT SHE WHICH TRAVAILETH HATH BROUGHT FORTH: THEN THE REMNANT OF HIS BRETHREN SHALL RETURN UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.
The above verses speak of a King from the House of David who came out of Beth-Lehem. He shall rule over some of the exiled of Israel who will return. This is what King Josiah did. It is also what the Messiah is destined to do at first.
Micah 5:4] AND HE SHALL STAND AND FEED IN THE STRENGTH OF THE LORD, IN THE MAJESTY OF THE NAME OF THE LORD HIS GOD; AND THEY SHALL ABIDE: FOR NOW SHALL HE BE GREAT UNTO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH. [Micah 5:5] AND THIS MAN SHALL BE THE PEACE, WHEN THE ASSYRIAN SHALL COME INTO OUR LAND: AND WHEN HE SHALL TREAD IN OUR PALACES, THEN SHALL WE RAISE AGAINST HIM SEVEN SHEPHERDS, AND EIGHT PRINCIPAL MEN.
[Micah 5:6] AND THEY [i.e. the Israelites] SHALL WASTE THE LAND OF ASSYRIA WITH THE SWORD, AND THE LAND OF NIMROD IN THE ENTRANCES THEREOF: THUS SHALL HE DELIVER US FROM THE ASSYRIAN, WHEN HE COMETH INTO OUR LAND, AND WHEN HE TREADETH WITHIN OUR BORDERS.
[Micah 5:7] AND THE REMNANT OF JACOB SHALL BE IN THE MIDST OF MANY PEOPLE AS A DEW FROM THE LORD, AS THE SHOWERS UPON THE GRASS, THAT TARRIETH NOT FOR MAN, NOR WAITETH FOR THE SONS OF MEN. [Micah 5:8] AND THE REMNANT OF JACOB SHALL BE AMONG THE GENTILES IN THE MIDST OF MANY PEOPLE AS A LION AMONG THE BEASTS OF THE FOREST, AS A YOUNG LION AMONG THE FLOCKS OF SHEEP: WHO, IF HE GO THROUGH, BOTH TREADETH DOWN, AND TEARETH IN PIECES, AND NONE CAN DELIVER.
[Micah 5:9] THINE HAND SHALL BE LIFTED UP UPON THINE ADVERSARIES, AND ALL THINE ENEMIES SHALL BE CUT OFF.
The major intention of Chapter Five of The Book of Micah, was for the Messianic period.
The MALBIM in his commentary on this Fifth Chapter of Micah intended to also throw additional light on Chapter 37 in Ezekiel. The Malbim considered chapter five of Micah and Chapter 37 of Ezekiel as talking about the same events. A few extracts from the Commentary of the Malbim on chapter five of Micah helps us understand his Commentary on Chapter 37 of Ezekiel.
“Rabbi Alexandri said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi opposed two verses. One verse says, ‘with the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man came.’ In another verse it says, ‘lowly and riding on an ass.’ If they merit ‘with the clouds of heaven’ if not ‘lowly and riding on an ass.’” Frydland makes the association of this passage to Moshiach ben Yosef in his famous work, ‘What the Rabbis Know about the Messiah’. There he says, “Rabbi Yehoshua Bar Levi, referring to the Zechariah scripture, said that if Israel is not worthy, then the Messiah will come in humility riding upon an ass. This is Messiah Ben Yosef – the Suffering Messiah.” He is not the only missionary to wrongly make such an association. This passage has no direct information about Moshiach ben Yosef, or a suffering messiah, as it is not about him at all. Misnaming ‘Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’ is not his only mistake here.
In order to understand this passage in the Talmud, we need to understand who Moshiach ben Yosef is and where he fits into Rabbinic/Biblical eschatology. To get to this we need to find out three things:
1. What does the Tenach say about who is ‘messiah’?
2. What do the Rabbis mean by ‘messiah’?
3. Where do the Rabbis get their idea of more then one Messiah?
As to the Tenach, the facts about the ‘Messiah’ will be surprising. One of the top Biblical scholars J. H. Charlesworth states:
“The term, ‘the Messiah’ simply does not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament). The last group of scholars to acknowledge this fact were conservative Christians, and now the very conservative New Testament specialist [the late] Professor George Eldon Ladd states, without qualification, that ‘the simple term “the Messiah” does not occur in the Old Testament at all.’ Of course, the title ‘the Anointed One’[6] denotes in the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament) a prophet, a priest, and especially a king.”
From here we see that Biblically a person is ‘a messiah’ if he is doing some G-d ordained function: prophet, priest or king, but it does not refer to a single special person who is expected to arrive at some future date. This, of course, leads to a question. We use the term ‘Messiah’ and more or less, everyone has an understanding about that term. At the least, it refers to a person who will appear at the ‘end-times’. Where do we get this association with that term?
To understand this we need to look at some of the ‘end-times’ prophecies of the Tenach. While much of the arguments with missionaries deal with passages that are unclear as to when or to whom they apply, there are passages in the Tenach that announce that they are dealing with a specific period called ‘the end of days’. Some of them mention particular characters that seem to have a role to play in this future period:
One of the most well known passages that is explicit about being an end-times prophecy is Isaiah 2:2-4. Verse 4 is one of the most well known verses in the Tenach.
2 And it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established as the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3 And many peoples shall go and say: ‘Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the G-d of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4 And He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Here we see an announcement of the end of days with a few specifics of that time. These issues mentioned will help us to find more passages dealing with this time period. Let’s see what will happen then:
1. People will gather in Jerusalem to worship HaShem (verse 2-3)
2. War will end (verse 4)
3. The nations will be judged (verse 4)
In Isaiah 11 we see an expansion of these themes. Just as above we have: people gathering in Jerusalem in verse12, the end of war in verse 6-8, and the judgment of nations in 2-5.
1 And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a twig shall grow forth out of his roots.
2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.
3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD; and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither decide after the hearing of his ears;
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the land; and he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
6 And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk’s den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
10 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, that standeth for an ensign of the peoples, unto him shall the nations seek; and his resting-place shall be glorious.
11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord will set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people, that shall remain from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
12 And He will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the dispersed of Israel, and gather together the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and they that harass Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.
14 And they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines on the west; together shall they spoil the children of the east; they shall put forth their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them.
15 And the LORD will utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with His scorching wind will He shake His hand over the River, and will smite it into seven streams, and cause men to march over dry-shod.
16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, that shall remain from Assyria, like as there was for Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.
Besides the repetition of what is in Isaiah 2, this passage adds a few new points that add to our picture of the end-times:
1. There will be a leader, from the tribe of Judah who will also be the judge. (1 and 10)
2. Ephraim (the Northern kingdom of Israel) and Judah (the Southern Kingdom) will no longer contend with each other.
3. The Jewish people will be gathered from exile.
In Ezekiel 37 we find more about this reconciliation of Judah and Ephraim, with some more information about this ingathering period:
15. And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying:
16. ‘And thou, son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it: For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions; then take another stick, and write upon it: For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and of all the house of Israel his companions;
17 and join them for thee one to another into one stick, that they may become one in thy hand.
18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying: Wilt thou not tell us what thou meanest by these?
19 say into them: Thus saith the Lord G-D: Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his companions; and I will put them unto him together with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in My hand.
20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thy hand before their eyes.
21 And say unto them: Thus saith the Lord G-D: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land;
22 and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all;
23 neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling-places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; so shall they be My people, and I will be their G-d.
24 And My servant David shall be king over them, and they all shall have one shepherd; they shall also walk in Mine ordinances, and observe My statutes, and do them.
25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children’s children, forever; and David My servant shall be their prince forever.
26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them—it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will establish them, and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for ever.
27 My dwelling-place also shall be over them; and I will be their G-d, and they shall be My people.
28 And the nations shall know that I am the LORD that sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for ever.’
In addition to the same old themes, we see the following new ones added to our picture of the end times:
1. Ephraim and Judah will be joined together with Judah as the lead.
2. This leader will be David’s descendant. He is called the king, prince and leader of that time.
3. There will be a sanctuary (temple).
What is interesting about this passage in Ezekiel is that Ephraim and Judah are on the same level, but that Judah would lead. This indicates that both Ephraim and Judah would have leaders. But the one from Judah (i.e. the Davidic one) would be the sole leader. What happens to the leader of Ephraim?
Now if we look at Ezekiel 40-48 we see more information about that Temple and another important figure in that time. There we learn about the priesthood, and verse 44:27 refers to a single priest.
The final end-times prophecy we will look at is Malachi 3, which adds another piece of information.
23 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD.
24 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the land with utter destruction.
To summarize what we have seen in the end-times prophecies: There will be a Davidic king/leader, a Priest, and the prophet Elijah.
Sometime during the late second temple period we see that these people are referred to as ‘Messiahs’. We find this in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 1QS (Rule of the Community) we read (IX 11) ‘until the prophet comes and the messiahs of Aaron and Israel.’ Here we see the three figures mentioned above: the prophet, the priest of Aaron and the leader of Israel. Here are three messianic type characters in the end of days, in the Biblical text and in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There are two things I have found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. One is that the priestly ‘messiah’ seems to have the superior position. The second is that there is no mention of the House of Israel, i.e. the Northern tribes referred to as Ephraim in the Tenach. This is not so serious as the truth is that there is a limited amount of material in the Dead Sea Scrolls. But it is important. One factor seems to be missing. What about ‘Ephraim’ and her leader?
To understand what the Rabbis have taught about the major figures that will have a role in end time’s story we need to look at a few verses in Zechariah 2:
1 And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold four horns.
2 And I said unto the angel that spoke with me: ‘What are these?’ And he said unto me: ‘These are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem.’
3 And the LORD showed me four craftsmen.
4 Then said I: ‘What come these to do?’ And he spoke, saying: ‘These—the horns which scattered Judah, so that no man did lift up his head—these then are come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations, which lifted up their horn against the land of Judah to scatter it.’
5 And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand.
6 Then said I: ‘Whither goest thou?’ And he said unto me: ‘To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof.’
7 And, behold, the angel that spoke with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him, 8 and said unto him: ‘Run, speak to this young man, saying: ‘Jerusalem shall be inhabited without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein.
9 For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and I will be the glory in the midst of her.
10 Ho, ho, flee then from the land of the north, saith the LORD; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.
11 Ho, Zion, escape, thou that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.’
12 For thus saith the LORD of hosts who sent me after glory unto the nations which spoiled you: ‘Surely, he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
13 For, behold, I will shake My hand over them, and they shall be a spoil to those that served them’; and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.
These verses seem to be talking about the end times. Jerusalem is filled again with people and verse 10 indicates the ingathering which we have seen the Tenach places in the end-times. But look at 1-4; we see that there are 4 horns, which represent the enemies of the Jewish people, who sent them into exile. Opposed to them are four craftsmen, who cut them down. These four seem to be important figures in the end-times. Who are they? Here is what the Rabbis teach[13]: “ ‘And the LORD showed me four craftsmen.’ Who are these four craftsmen? Rav Chunah the son of Bizna said in the name of Rebbi Shimon, ‘These are Moshiach ben Dovid, Moshiach ben Yosef, Elijah and the Righteous Priest.’ “ The four of the Rabbis are the three people mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls plus the leader of Ephraim.
So what is the job of this fourth person? One hint is in the prophet Ovadiah:
17 But in mount Zion there shall be those that escape, and it shall be holy; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
18 And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken.
19 And they of the South shall possess the mount of Esau, and they of the Lowland the Philistines; and they shall possess the field of Ephraim, and the field of Samaria; and Benjamin shall possess Gilead.
20 And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel, that are among the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath, and the captivity of Jerusalem, that is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the South.
21 And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD’S.
He we see, from verse 18, that the House of Joseph (including its leader) has a military role in the end-times drama. Verse 21 indicates that this is a joint effort. From this we see that the time when the Moshiach ben Yosef comes ends with a period of peace. This would indicate the period we have seen above when there is world peace, a renewal of the Davidic kingdom, etc. Let me summarize the Rabbinic writings with regards to Moshiach ben Yosef:
There will be a period of about seven years of terrible famines and other troubles. The land of Israel will at that time be under Non-Jewish control, and a leader of the tribe of Ephraim, will arise to lead militarily against these nations who control Jerusalem. He will be successful, but after his initial victory he will die in battle. This will cause a great mourning and many will lose faith. At that time (still within the seven years) the Moshiach Ben David will be revealed, he shall finish the battle. After which, he will resurrect all the dead, starting with the Moshiach Ben Yosef. Both of them will go up to Mount Zion to fulfill the prophecy in Ovadiah verse 21: “And the saviors (plural - both Messiahs) shall go up onto Mount Tzion and judge Mount Esav, and the kingdom will be for Hashem.” There is the fulfillment of ALL the major prophesies like an end to war and a world at peace with the Jewish people in a restored Jerusalem with the third Temple.
The following points summarize this issue and are agreed to in all the Midrashim that deal with the Moshiach ben Yosef and the Moshiach ben Dovid.
1. They are two different people from two different tribal families.
2. They live at the same time.
3. Moshiach ben Yosef never takes the throne nor is he entitled to.
4. Moshiach ben Yosef is a warrior (Moshiach ben Dovid would also appear to be)
5. Moshiach ben Yosef will be killed in BATTLE[15] and will be the first to be raised from the dead by Moshiach ben Dovid.
6. The period of time from when Moshiach ben Yosef first comes into prominence until he is resurrected after the Moshiach ben Dovid comes to his throne is very short, the longest period is under two years.
7. The basic chronology of events is that there is a seven-year period. It starts with continually problems, it starts to improve and then in the sixth year it gets worse again. In the seventh year there are great wars in which the Moshiach ben Yosef is first successful and then he is killed in that later part of the year. Many Jewish people will become depressed and fall away. At the end of the seven years Moshiach ben Dovid comes and finishes the job and there comes the resurrection of the dead.
There is one more aspect with regards to Moshiach ben Yosef that appears in Rabbinic literature that we need to address, and then we can return to the passage in the Talmud which opened up this paper and see how far off they are. In the work, Emunah V’Deos by Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, after a discussion of the end-times he makes the following comment:
If we do not repent, the events of Ben Joseph will come to pass. But if we repent, they will not, and Messiah ben David will appear to us suddenly.
To understand this issue and how it could be, we need to understand something simple about Biblical prophecy. People usually think (based on Deuteronomy 18) that a false prophet says something will occur and it does not. Here is what appears in Deuteronomy 18:
21 And if thou say in thy heart: ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?’
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.
But there is a problem. Let’s look at the book of Jonah. In chapter 1 we see that Jonah is commanded by G-d to bring a message:
1. NOW THE WORD of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying:
2. ‘Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim against it; for their wickedness is come up before Me.’
In chapter 3 we see the message:
1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying:
2 ‘Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and make unto it the proclamation that I bid thee.’
3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city, of three days’ journey.
4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he proclaimed, and said: ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.’
So the message of Jonah was that Ninevah had only 40 days left. But that is not what happened:
5 And the people of Nineveh believed G-d; and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
6 And the tidings reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying: ‘Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing; let them not feed, nor drink water;
8 but let them be covered with sackcloth, both man and beast, and let them cry mightily unto G-d; yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
9 Who knoweth whether G-d will not turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, that we perish not?’
10 And G-d saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and G-d repented of the evil, which He said He would do unto them; and He did it not.
So is Jonah a false prophet??? What he said did not come to pass. The key is verse 10: When G-d sees that people repent; there is no need for the bad decree. With every prophecy of doom, there is an understood condition: If you repent then it is not going to happen. This principle is explicit in the Tenach. We read in Jeremiah 28:
7 Nevertheless hear thou now this word that I speak in thine ears, and in the ears of all the people:
8 The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence.
9 The prophet that prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.’
Here we see that although many prophecies of disaster have been sent it is only those prophecies of peace that must occur. Only through a positive philosophy can they know a true prophet. For that reason Jonah was NOT a false prophet. His prophecy of disaster had an understood condition that, IF they repent, then it will not have to come, but if not then it will. ONLY if he had predicted that there would be a peaceful result, then its non-occurrence would be a sign of his being a false prophet. From this we see that there can be two possibilities for the end-times. One will occur if they repent and the other if they do not. That is what Rabbi Saadiah Gaon was referring to.
With this we can return to the passage from the Rabbis quoted at the beginning. This passage refers to the principle we have just stated, and is a reference to Moshiach ben Dovid, and the two ways in which HE can come! Before this above passage we find the following passage:
Rabbi Eliezer said, ‘If Israel repents they will be redeemed, and if not they will not be.” Rabbi Yehoshua said to him, “If they don’t repent they will not be redeemed? But the Holy One Blessed is He will raise up for them a King who will make decrees over them like Haman and they will repent and return to the good.”
As Rabbi Saadiah Gaon points out this teaching refers to the wars and disasters that would occur before the coming of Moshiach ben Yosef. But if they do repent then there is no need for all of that. If we look at the Tenach we see two types of prophecies dealing with the end-times period. One tells of wars, like Ezekiel 38 and Zechariah 12. But others are silent, mentioning neither war, nor any other series of events. Based on the Biblical principle we saw from the books of Jonah and Jeremiah, we see that G-d’s message of war is a conditional one that can be mitigated by repentance. This is the message of the Talmud. Let’s see the passages in context. First Daniel 7:
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the Ancient of days, and he was brought near before Him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Here we see the end-times, but in a miraculous way. But in Zechariah 9, the same results are given in another format:
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto thee, he is triumphant, and victorious, lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass.
10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace unto the nations; and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.
Don’t play with your Christian Garbage here, it won’t wash.
Comment by yamit82 — June 6, 2009 @ 8:57 am
In other words, if a judge is a prophet, then he can know that which has been presented to him, and that which has been omitted. However, if he has yet to achieve the high level of prophecy, then his decision can only be based upon the presentation of the facts before him. Yes, he can receive help from Heaven, but still, it is not the same as prophecy.
Oftentimes, the presentation of the facts is not entirely dependent upon others over whom we have little or no control. The information we may need to make an ‘informed’ and correct decision about, whether in a legal case or in our own personal lives, may exist ‘out there,’ available to those who seek it. Knowing this can lead to knowledge of the necessary information, which can lead to an entirely different vantage point in life, as the following account portrays.
There is a story at the end of Tractate Makkos of Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) that, like many others, says much more than it seems to be saying. Chazal (Chachamim Zichronam L’Brochah) were unbelievably good at layering meaning in what they taught. The account goes like this:
It happened again that they (Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva) were going to Jerusalem. When they arrived at Har HaTzofim (Mt. Scopus), they tore their clothing (as a sign of mourning over the destruction of the Temple, which could be seen from there). When they reached the Temple Mount and saw a fox coming out from the place where the Holy of Holies had been, they began to cry; Rabbi Akiva laughed.
They asked him, “Akiva, why do you laugh?”
He answered them, “Why do you cry?”
They said, “If the prophecy concerning the place which theposuk says, ‘The stranger who approaches (the Holy of Holies) will be put to death’ (Bamidbar 1:51), is now fulfilled that, ‘For the mountain of Tzion, which is desolate, the foxes walk upon it’ (Eichah 5:18), should we not cry?”
He said, “That is precisely why I laugh! It says, ‘I will take faithful witness to record, Uriah HaKohen and Zechariah…’ (Yeshayahu 8:2). Why is Uriah mentioned together with Zechariah? The former was from the time of the First Temple and the latter was from the time of the Second Temple! It is, therefore, to make the prophecy of Zechariah dependent upon the prophecy of Uriah. Uriah said, ‘Because of you Tzion shall be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps’ (Michah 3:12). Zechariah said, ‘There shall still sit old men and old women in the streets of Jerusalem’ (Michah8:4). Now, until the prophecy of Uriah was fulfilled I was very concerned that the prophecy of Zechariah might not be fulfilled. However, now that I have seen the fulfillment of Uriah’s prophecy, it is clear that the prophecy of Zechariah will come to be.”
Having heard this, they told him, “Akiva, you have consoled us! Akiva, you have consoled us!” (Makkos 24b)
Huh? Just like that? With so short an explanation Rabbi Akiva succeeded in turning his colleagues around 180 degrees? Yes. And, if you know what he said you’ll understand why.
Comment by yamit82 — June 6, 2009 @ 9:04 am
Yamit: Rather than reproducing every word written during the biblical days follow the dictate,
which of course refers to: A Ginsberg - Kaddish.
and as an aside- the number 9, can be associated with October 9,
the day Yamit82 completed his touch typing course. It’s been downhill for western civilization, ever since.
Comment by h peskin — June 6, 2009 @ 9:42 am
#112
I think I have if not proved at least provided you with enough source evidence mostly by Christian historians, Bible critics and researchers to show that the the early Christians were pacifists and in line with Jesus injunctions to obey Rome as the legal authority and not Love of Jews as a supreme ethos and mitzva; that they were then both Heretical Jews and traitorous Jews. That we have no historical records as to how real and patriotic Jews dealt with them, I can assume with some historical authority and precedent that they were not treated kindly or with Christian understanding. The Jews were not very kindly or nice to those who betrayed them( Penalty death) under Halacha. No, Jews were not very nice.
I will turn your question on it’s head: what evidence or proofs can you supply to substantiate your contentions? None! I have given you a sound circumstantial case and with more digging I am confident I can produce much more.
.
I could say the same negative things about your Jesus guy as was found in earlies Christian letters and verses in your book you call NT. Need I quote all again to remind you of the violent and nasty nature of your false messaih called jesus?
Sinat Chinam? Yes popular rabbinc mantra to explain if not justify Jewish terrible defeats. The revolt was popularily supported because it Threatened Judaism, an Obligation of every Jew to defend unto death. BK could have been a Messiah either Ben David or Ben Yoseph based on his personal qualities and attributes, tough times sometimes lead to tough decisions. Then BK never claimed for himself Messiahship only Nasi, a common and normal nomenclature. Proclaiming a Messiah is not the same as actually being one or for that matter having most Jews accepting blindly anyone even a BK. I have said Jews know what the Messaih must do empirically and as the Rambam later stated he must fulfill all of what Prophesy foretold or the Jews will reject him as a false messiah. All or nothing.
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH
Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets—Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.
According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, ( nor will he possess supernatural qualities.
The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David!
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot (commandments) remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37) For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), “He does not observe Shabbat!”
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an “alma” as giving birth. The word “alma” has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as “virgin.” This accords Jesus’ birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: “Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet.” The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word “gouged.” Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: “They pierced my hands and feet.”
Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):
The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone’s belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.
What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others… as it says, “Face to face, God spoke with you…” The Torah also states: “God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us—who are all here alive today.” (Deut. 5:3)
Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.
Your Jesus Guy fulfilled None Zero, Nada, Ephes, = False Messiah, False prophet, false god, false everything. Total fiction, never existed !total mystery religion, total pagan belief. We reject this fiction as False. While Judaism takes no strong position one way or another re: the historical character of Jesus. I do take a personal stand. Jesus never existed and is a historical fictional invention. I thinks this should end our discussion. I have allowed this to continue too long and we are talking past each other. Every theological and historical point I made in opposition to your positions are not responded to but sidetracked to other subjects so as to obscure your non responsiveness to my objections and criticisms.
Comment by yamit82 — June 6, 2009 @ 10:22 am
Peskin I told you that I would double up since your suggestion that I cease. It is you who have inspired me, motivated to hyper typing. If there are complaints pls direct them to Peskin.
Peskin stick with your other Homo icon Ginsberg. You seem to have greater affinity and understanding of like fellows. I know you are stupid ,everyone reading any of your posts know you are a stupid fool, so why must you constantly reinforce their opinions of you. Your limp attempts at caustic humor falls flat on this site, maybe your effete friends who post to daily koss and similar sites might be entertained by the likes of you. They seems to be of a like mind( if you can call it that) same sexual orientations or at least tolerant of them, and all seem to be as ignorant and as shallow as you are.
AS in West side Story: Stick to your own kind!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2lG1Q4V4JU
Comment by yamit82 — June 6, 2009 @ 11:31 am
[...] Creative | Please Feed The AnimalsIsrapundit » Blog Archive » Muslim Demographics [...]
Pingback by Guerilla Media Mogul ! How To Develop Your Own Reality Tv Show. | 7Wins.eu — June 7, 2009 @ 9:13 am
Re post 76:
A man who can die certainly “possess[es] normal physical attributes like other people.” You know quite well that I, for one, have never made any claim to the Christ’s being a “demi-god.”
Again, you are just creating straw-men to give yourself something to knock down. We’ve been over this ground before; your repetitive attempts to slip this by me are tiresome, and frankly, discourteous — hardly the soul of derekh eretz – though I can’t say that comes as a shock. As I’ve already noted, where these matters are concerned, you’ve managed to make yourself quite predictable, Yamit.
I repeat, for the umpteenth time: HaNitzri said, “I come not to destroy [haTorah or haN'vi'im] but to fulfill [them]. [And furthermore] heaven and earth will pass away before a single jot or tittle of the law be done away with.” [Mt 5:17-18]
“Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man [Yehoiakhin, "{Ye}Khoniah"] childless, a man that shall not prosper to his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. [Yir 22:30]
Because of Yekhoniah/Yehoiakhin’s evildoing [2 Ki 24:9], his seed was cut off from ever sitting on David’s Throne. [Yir 22:24-30]
As the foster son of Yoseph, a direct descendant of David — through Solomon and Yekhoniah [Mt 1:1-17] — Yeshua had the legal right to the Davidic Throne.
However, since the spiritual entitlement of Yehoiakhin’s heirs (including Yoseph) was ENDED, that spiritual right had to come from David via a different route altogether: The spiritual right to the Throne came through Jesus’ mother’s line, which descended also from David, but through another of the latter’s sons: Natan [Lk 3:31].
The virgin birth was necessary to the accomplishment of Christ’s mission, whose coditions required, among other things, that throughout his life he have a fully-functioning free will — a faculty not accessible to anyone born of the lineage of compulsion created by, and inherited from, Adam’s fall: an event which altered Adam’s mind AND body before he produced offspring, and affecting, as well, the manner in which his progeny would be produced.
That alteration to Adam’s being cost him his bright nature and his free will, thus rendering him — and all those born to him since then, in the usual way — compulsive: lacking the free will that Adam had begun life with, but lost when first he disobeyed the Almighty’s command and became death-bound.
And please don’t tell me that YOU have a free will….
[If you do make that claim, I will promptly ask if you have any bad habits -- "bad" in whatever way YOU choose to define "bad." For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter HOW you define it, or what you perceive those bad habits to BE -- only that you have some habits which you personally regard as bad ones.
What IS significant is that as soon as you answer "yes," that you do have some, you will have thereby confirmed that you do NOT have free will. Q.E.D.]
Anyway, because the mission of HaNitzri required a genuinely free will, he had to be born free of the taint of the fall. But that would mean he was no less human — no more of a “demi-god” or other “supernatural” being, etc — than Adam had been before his initial disobedience. A MAN, but kosher, as it were, from Day One of his existence.
Re (back to) 88:
If that’s what you wanted to know, why in blue blazes didn’t you just ask me THAT in the first place? Till now, you seem to have asked me everything but — and moreover, obnoxiously insisted on responses to your own, straw-man assumptions of his non-existence altogether.
As it happens, there’s quite a bit of that to point to; but that’s not what brought me to believe in the first place. So what would be the point in citing chapter and verse? Just as I had come to believe long before I ever knew that Jesus of Nazareth had been referenced by Tacitus, Suetonius, Celsus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian the Cynic, et al. — just so, I had likewise found the Jewish scriptural “evidence” only long after I believed.
But then, prophecy is typically intended to be comprehended only in hindsight. It’s not a roadmap — or it would be straightforward, not cryptic.
What brought me to believe was esssentially TWO things:
1. I came to understand what the Messiah’s true, cosmic mission consisted of, and why only the figure outlined in the gospels could have accomplished that; not that anybody “preached” that awareness into me.
Preaching has never gotten any action from me, in regard to anything; I always have to understand a thing for myself, or not at all. I simply came to appreciate the nature of that mission entirely for myself.
2. And having (at long last) resolved to read the gospel story on its OWN TERMS, quite apart from any pre-existing baggage I might have been bringing to it — I found the story believable.
What’s more, I think you’d find, if you pursued the matter, that most of those who do believe Yeshua is the Messiah (even those who haven’t a clue as to the mission I alluded to, or who assume that he actually “came to found a new religion”) — that most who “believe-in” HaNitzri do so not because biblical scholarship or external historical testimony confirms their belief, but because the gospel story itself is believable on a stand-alone basis.
Comment by dweller — June 9, 2009 @ 2:46 am
dweller and Yamit:
Let me settle the argument in the briefist terms:
There is no Deity.
The Deity is a necessary fiction to provide solace and comfort
to those who need some meaning in there lives. It is a necessary
fiction for the most primitive and the most sophisticated peoples.
Otherwise we will all be singing ” Is that all there is?”- a la
Peggy Lee
END OF SERMON
Comment by h peskin — June 9, 2009 @ 4:32 am
Story believable? Maybe if you are already a Pagan as it would fit most of the Pagan beliefs of that time. Christian apologist Richard Sisson states:
“In fact, after the death of Jesus a whole flood of books that claimed to be inspired appeared…. Disputes over which ones were true were so intense that the debate continued for centuries. Finally in the fourth century a group of church leaders called a council and took a vote. The 66 books that comprised our cherished Bible were declared to be Scripture by a vote of 568 to 563.” They took a VOTE? 2 from column A 3 from column B Very Holy stuff. Democracy in action! Really Believable if you are brain dead or already believe in the Paganistic concepts they were based on. Then all might well be believable.
Paul and the writers of all four canonical Gospels described the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, as they understood it had happened. There is a acknowledged consensus among academic Christian theologians that:
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Jesus’ disciples but by a person or persons whose names are unknown.
Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers had been an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry or death.
The Gospels record the beliefs and memories of various Christian groups as they had evolved at the time they were written.
Roughly speaking the ancients’ gods:
* Were born on or very near our Christmas Day
* Were born of a Virgin-Mother
* Were born in a Cave or Underground Chamber
* Led a life of toil for Mankind
* Were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Savior, Deliverer
* Were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness
* And descended into Hell or the Underworld
* Rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world
* Founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism
* Were commemorated by Eucharistic meals
Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki; the Savior Dionysus was born of the virgin Semele. Buddha too was born of a virgin, as were the Egyptian Horus and Osiris. The old Teutonic goddess Hertha was a virgin impregnated by the heavenly Spirit and bore a son. Scandinavian Frigga was impregnated by the All-Father Odin and bore Balder, the healer and savior of mankind.
Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as “Savior,” “Son of God,” “Redeemer,” and “Lamb of God.” With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead — an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.
The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was originally the pagan birthday of Mithras, the sun god, whose day of the week is still known as “Sunday.” The halo of light which is usually shown surrounding the face of Jesus and Christian saints, is another concept taken from the sun god. The theme of temptation by a devil-like creature was also found in pagan mythology. In particular, the story of Jesus’s temptation by Satan resembles the temptation of Osiris by the devil-god Set in Egyptian mythology.
The whole of the Jesus narrative was firmly based, copied and incorporated into the Christian gospel narratives. So what is believable? Judaism, unlike the Christianity, does not believe that the Messiah is Jesus. The noun moshiach (translated as messiah) annotatively means “annointed one;” it does not, however, imply “savior.” The notion of an innocent, semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought or scripture. In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah. Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, the only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered high priest. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha, and Apocrypha never mention the Messiah. Matthew 20:28: Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.
Your ability to read and understand biblical texts is so far removed from reality and understanding that it is apparently impossible at least by me and my own limited abilities carry this thread further. Believe what you will that is your right and your choice. I have lost my interest and patience as well as concentration and focus necessary to pursue this further. If you were at least intellectually honest it might be another matter.
a signet: Engraved and sealed in the flesh of My arm. :
I will remove you: Cf. (supra 12:3) “Draw them out (??????) like sheep to the slaughter” (Jos. 8:6) “Until we have drawn (?????????) them.” And the ‘nun’ is superfluous. And, according to the Midrash Aggadah (Pesikta d’Rav Kahana, p. 163a): In the place to which he was removed (??????), there he was rectified (???????) , for he repented in Babylon, and the Holy One, blessed be He, applied for absolution of the oath He had sworn, “Inscribe this man childless.” and Zerubbabel was born to him in Babylon, and it was said to him through the prophet (Haggai 2:23), “On that day… I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you as a signet,” directed toward what He said to his father, “Though… be a signet on My right arm,… I will remove him (sic).” Yirmiyahu 22: Rashi!
Learn to read the Tanach in Hebrew or get you to a real Rabbi to explain things to you properly. Alone you show scant ability to read or understand Jewish texts. Relying on Christian texts is like relying on the Protocpls of the Elders of Zion to understand Jews and Judaism. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing for some.
Comment by yamit82 — June 9, 2009 @ 9:00 am
Peskin first time you said anything reasonably intelligent here.
Einstein on God:
Albert Einstein is on record as saying that he did not believe in a personal God. They keyword is personal. Einstein did not believe that god knows or cares about you on a personal level, that he hears your prayers or interferes in anyway in response to prayers. Instead, he believed that there was a God that maintained and created the harmony of the universe.
On whether he considered himself religious: “Yes, you could call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything we can comprehend is my religion.”
On whether he considered himself an atheist: “I’m not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God.”
On the nature of God: “That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
On whether science leads to religion: “Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of nature–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort.”
On how religion motivates scientific inquiry: “The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.”
On whether science and religion are at odds: “The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
On how he feels about atheist efforts to claim him as an ally: “There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”
On how he regards atheists: “The fanatical atheists…are creatures who cannot her the music of the spheres. I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”
Nietzsche said G-d is dead!
G-d said Nietzche is dead!
Comment by yamit82 — June 9, 2009 @ 9:17 am
dweller:
JUDAISM
- says that all humans are born pure, and innocent
JUDAISM
- says that G-d would never allow/enable a ‘virgin birth’
JUDAISM
- says that no man gets a ’second coming’
JUDAISM
- says that every human should speak directly to G-d
JUDAISM
- says that we are ALL equally G-d’s children
JUDAISM
- has no concept of ‘hell’
JUDAISM
- has no ‘devil’, the Jewish ’satan’ is just an ordinary angel, under G-d’s control
JUDAISM
- the ‘messiah’ will be a normal, mortal man who must fulfill all the Jewish messianic prophecies in one normal, mortal lifetime
JUDAISM
- says that the righteous of ALL faiths will reach ‘gan eden’ or ‘garden of eden’.
Comment by yamit82 — June 9, 2009 @ 9:33 am
Re post 90:
Excellent question. I’ve been asking Yamit the same thing, but he just likes to generate verbiage; often, just wading thru the mounds of it and pondering it can take up my whole hour, leaving me no time to write a response. [Maybe that's his methodology of trying to silence me, along with his other various critics? Snow us under with palabra?]
Sometimes I wonder that he finds time to sleep (unless, of course, generating verbiage acts as a sleeping aid for him).
Why don’t YOU “advise” me to, Hero?
Or is Yamit the designated caretaker on this site?
Frankly, if you’ve been reading this exchange, then you must know that MOST of the ‘babbling’ in this thread — by far, the lion’s share — is, like most of the ‘babbling’ all over this site, demonstrably:
NOT mine, but Yamit’s [count the posts & the pages, if you don't believe that];
as often as not, off-point & irrelevant;
only OCCASIONALLY reflecting Yamit’s vaunted “expertise”;
EQUALLY OFTEN, reflecting his compulsive ignorance, lack of balance and insular perspective;
FREQUENTLY reflecting his undisciplined emotionalism;
and INVARIABLY reflecting his bloated, elephantine ego.
Tell me about babble.
I will answer you in this way, Sir:
We are — Israel is — looking down the business end of what could well be developing into Bar Kochva “Redux.” If you honestly can’t see the connection between that and the contemporary “Israeli crisis,” then I’m SORRY that you can’t see it. Though I can’t frankly say I’m surprised: With so much ‘babbling’ to wade through, how could a hapless bystander (let alone, a guilt-ridden and apparently somewhat torpid one) ever be expected to find a sense of direction?
Be that as it may, however, the B-K paradigm is quite real, and if you truly ARE concerned — as you say — that Israel’s supporters should remain (or become) united and focused against the looming threat, then I suggest to you that — at least in THAT particular regard — you have more in common with YoursTruly than you do with Yamit, shocking though that may sound.
The inescapable fact of the matter is that the best and most reliable friends that Israel has at this time (and for the forseeable future) are NOT the morally compromised and “Barry”-bedazzled, liberal American Jewish community. The best and most reliable friends that Israel has are in fact Christian Zionists: largely (though not exclusively) of Evangelical background and posture, and found in substantial numbers stateside.
Yet the emotionally-scarred, paranoid polymath that you’ve taken for a mentor in Yamit is clearly bound-&-determined to scare them off, no matter how guileless and earnest they may be in Israel’s behalf. I’ll be damned if I’ll let him succeed in that perverse quest. That’s the short answer to your question ["Where is he going with this anyhow?"].
So much for babble.
Comment by dweller — June 10, 2009 @ 5:16 am
Re post 91:
?!!?! What drivel. [Good God, Yamit, where do you keep dredging up -- or concocting -- this silly-assed stuff ?!]
THERE IS NO SUCH THING — in any Judaism not propounded by ‘animal rights’ dingalings (or other wingnuts with obvious axes to grind) — as the ‘murder of animals.’ The very notion is an oxymoron, a contradiction-in-terms.
Animals must be treated humanely wherever possible (that goes without saying); moreover, such an admonition may not be treated lightly, or as a mere formality.
But killing animals — under ANY circumstances — does not, and cannot, constitute ‘murder.’ It can, surely, depending on the particulars, constitute an act of reprehensible cruelty. However, a person can no more ‘murder’ a Guernsey cow than he/she can ‘make love‘ to a Guernsey cow (notwithstanding the person’s carnal proclivities).
NONE, not one, of Aseret Ha-Dibroht [the Ten Commandments] pertains directly to Man’s dealings with animals (except as the property of other men; e.g., the injunction against coveting). The Commandment expressly forbidding murder: “Lo tirtzakh” — like all the other ones not directly germane, and exclusively apposite, to Man’s relationship to God specifically — is strictly about PERSONS, and not about other animals.
Otherwise, the Commandment could just as easily have read “Lo taharog” ['You shall not KILL']. It clearly doesn’t, because killing and murder are not identical concepts, or interchangeable synonyms. Nor are the words etymologically related, or linguistically linked, in any manner or degree.
Alone among the Almighty’s works, only MAN — the “Crown of Creation” — is expressly made in God’s image ["b'tzal'mo b'tzelem elohim" - Br 1:27; "Imago Dei," in the Latin], and it is only to Man that murder — the act or the Commandment forbidding it — can possibly appertain.
Frankly, though, I STILL can’t figure out why you even WROTE post 91; it had nothing to do with the matter under discussion. You seem to go off on these jags at the weirdest times, yAMIT, seemingly whenever (and wherever) the prospect takes your fancy. You really do need to find a way to stop forgetting to take your medecine when it’s time.
Comment by dweller — June 10, 2009 @ 5:43 am
Dweller You are a Christian Ignoramus especially when it pertains to Jewish Law and even Judaism itself: This is my last reply to you as you choose adhomenim rather than address to any of my major points of disagreement with you, your ideas and beliefs. I suppose by your last replies that you have no ans where you can rebut authoritatively based on Jewish and not Christian sources. The Ten commandments only represent the broad principles of Jewish law. The oral law is the interpretation of those principles. I suppose you do not accept oral Law as that would demolish all of your beliefs but then why use them to attempt to counter some of my arguments? Can’t have it both ways.
Judaism places great stress on proper treatment of animals. Unnecessary cruelty to animals is strictly forbidden, and in many cases, animals are accorded the same sensitivity as human beings. This concern for the welfare of animals is unusual in Western civilization. Most civilized nations did not accept this principle until quite recently; cruelty to animals was not outlawed until the 1800s.
Judaism expresses no definitive opinion as to whether animals are capable of experiencing physical or psychological pain as humans do; however, Judaism has always recognized the link between the way a person treats animals and the way a person treats human beings. A person who is cruel to a defenseless animal will undoubtedly be cruel to defenseless people, and a person who cares for the lowest of creatures will certainly care for his fellow man.
Jacob, Moses and David were all shepherds, people who caed for animals. The Talmud specifically states that Moses was chosen for his mission because of his skill in caring for animals. “The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said ‘Since you are merciful to the flock of a human being, you shall be the shepherd of My flock, Israel.’” Likewise Rebecca was chosen as a wife for Isaac because of her kindness to animals. When Abraham’s servant asked for water for himself, she volunteeed to water his camels as well, and thereby proved herself a worthy wife.
On the other hand, the two hunters in the Bible, Nimrod and Esau, are both depicted as villains. A great rabbi who was insensitive to the fear of a calf being led to slaughter was punished with years of pain.
In the Torah, humanity is given dominion over animals, and has the right to use animals for legitimate needs. Animal flesh can be consumed for food; animal skins can be used for clothing; the Torah itself must be written on parchment, that is, animal hides.
However, we are permitted to use animals in this way only when there is a genuine, legitimate need, and we must do so in the manner that causes the animal the least suffering. Kosher slaughtering is designed to be as fast and painless as possible, and if anything occurs that might cause pain (such as a nick in the slaughtering knife or a delay in the cutting), the flesh may not be consumed. Hunting for sport is strictly prohibited, and hunting and trapping for legitimate needs is permissible only when it is done in the least painful way possible.
The laws regarding treatment of animals are reffered to as Tzar Baalei Chayim, prevention of cruelty to animals.
Under Jewish law, animals have some of the same rights as humans do. Animals rest on Shabbat, as humans do. We are forbidden to muzzle an ox while it is working in the field, just as we must allow human workers to eat from the produce they are harvesting.
Several commandments demonstrate concern for the physical or psychological suffering of animals. We may not plow a field using animals of different species, because this would be a hardship to the animals. We are requied to relieve an animal of its burden, even if we do not know its owner, or even if it is ownerless. We are not permitted to kill an animal in the same day as its young, and are specifically commanded to send away a mother bird when taking the eggs, because of the psychological distress this would cause the animal. In fact, the Torah specifically says that a person who sends away the mother bird will be rewarded with long life, precisely the same reward that is given for honoring mother and father. This should give some indication of the importance of this law.
We are permitted to violate Shabbat to some extent to rescue an animal in pain or at risk of death.
In the Talmud, the rabbis further dictated that a person may not purchase an animal unless he has made provisions to feed it, and a person must feed his animals before he feeds himself. It is a violation of Jewish law to neuter a pet. The Torah prohibits castrating males of any species. Although this law does not apply to neutering female pets, neutering of females is prohibited by general laws relating to unnecessary cruelty to animals.
It is a violation of the general prohibition against cruelty to animals to have your pet physically alteed in any way without a genuine, legitimate need. For example, declawing cats and docking the ears or tails of dogs are forbidden.
I reiterate:
Jews are not prohibited from eating pork specifically. The prohibition is a trivial consequence of the commandment, You shall not murder, which applies equally to humans and animals. Life is sacred, and murder is prohibited. Practical Judaism, however, recognizes that some killing is unavoidable. Sometimes, it is “kill or be killed,” and Judaism allows killing to save other lives. Jews can kill enemies and heinous criminals legally.
People have to eat meat. The moot issue of vegetarianism aside, people cannot live without meat. In order to save their own lives, people have to kill animals. Hence Judaism makes an exception for three or four animals from the general prohibition of murder.
It is not that some animals are prohibited for food. All animals are prohibited, but out of necessity an exception is made for three or four of them. A few other animals were included in the list of permitted animals later, and erroneously—they do not strictly satisfy the criteria about hooves and chewing. Jews don’t eat humans, just as they don’t eat horses, camels, deer, bears, pigs, and most other species.
Animals earmarked for food must be domesticated. People give them life to take it later. Judaism stipulates that animals must be killed painlessly. Murder—even of animals, even out of utter necessity—is still murder and must not be enjoyed; Judaism opposes recreational hunting.
Comment by yamit82 — June 10, 2009 @ 9:43 am
Dweller: One last thing: I am not opposed to Christian Zionists supporting Israel per se, If their motivations are pure. Since in most cases I can’t know whose are pure and whose have ulterior motives inimical to Jews and Israel I suspect all until proven otherwise. My attitudes my drive some ( I hope not) Christians from supporting Israel but so be it. Till now I haven’t been shown to be wrong in most if not all of my intuitive gut feelings about most so called Zionist Christians I have been in contact with. If I have erred on some apologies are due them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NUylyDsE-c
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=55901CA07DC20748&search_query=gavriel+sanders
Comment by yamit82 — June 10, 2009 @ 10:06 am
[Continuing in order of existing posts]
Re (more) post 91:
Wrong. It was “enhanced” and preached by Yeshua HaNitzri — a Jew — BEFORE it was ever picked up by those gentiles who, later, came to call themselves “Christians” — and who, moreover, came to call themselves that only years after their gentile neighbors at Antioch started using that handle to identify them.
Those who followed him and who continued to live in Judea , had no need to be so distinguished by their neighbors, because — like those neighbors — the Judean members of their sect were almost entirely Jews, at least until 135.
[In fact, what you characterize, above, as an 'enhancement' may have been preached by other Jewish contemporaries of Jesus, as well. Not everybody had a traveling amanuensis taking down his every utterance in writing.]
Jesus taught and preached AS A JEW, and almost exclusively AMONGST Jews. He in fact explicitly forbade the Twelve to go preaching to anyone BUT the Jews [Mt 10:5-6] — not changing that policy until after his resurrection [28:19].
He NEVER called anybody a “Christian.” Indeed, the instances of the word, “Christian,” even appearing anywhere in the four gospels are exactly: zero.
Those who loved him, he called, quite simply, his “friends.”
Speak for yourself, Mahatma. And maybe you should table the talking points till you’ve tried on the proposition for size, and have some experience to speak FROM in that matter of ‘workability’ and ‘practicality.’
Comment by dweller — June 11, 2009 @ 2:52 am
Re post 93:
The Jewish sect of Netzarim [believers in Jesus, not yet constituting a different religion] of the Bar Kokhba era were neither meshumaddim [traitors] NOR gerim [resident strangers] — by ANY definition of the terms. Your hatred of them and your persistent defaming of their memory — without any evidence to verify your ugly charges — constitute libel and the bearing of false witness. Your attitude disgraces not only yourself but also Kol Yisrael.
You will not live this down, Yamit, until you come to terms with what you have done.
Re post 117 [out of sequence, to consolidate subject matter]:
As is so often the case in these matters, Yamit, you’re fullovit.
“Ve’heveh dan et kol ha-adam l’kaf z’khut”:
“Judge everyone on the positive side of the scale.”
(Pirkei Avoht 1:6)
What do you think that MEANS, if not to regard a man as innocent till proven guilty?
This is in fact the reason, for example, that it became an established practice — if not an outright DICTUM — in Jewish courts specifically — for an unsupported confession of crime to be disallowed for conviction, if it was not accompanied by additional, external, corroborating evidence and/or reliable outside testimony.
We Jews know — better than most [you seem to be an exception, as to empathy, if not awareness] — what life was like, living in one country after another where the presumption invariably lay with the accuser: and the burden of proof was always on the accused, to prove his INNOCENCE — rather than on the accuser, to prove the accused person’s GUILT. A lot of innocent persons were injured, exiled, reviled, dispossessed or executed (often in horrible ways), because of just such a policy.
And how does an falsely accused, or wrongly convicted, man who is DEAD clear his own name if he is guilty till proven innocent?
The fact is that much of English Common Law (and consequently, the inherited legal systems of much of the modern, English-speaking world) derived its foundations & legal principles from the first two Jewish Commonwealths, as well as the Jewish writings of the first few POST-Commonwealth centuries of the common era.
You still haven’t provided ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support (let alone, prove) your accusations of ‘treason’ by the Nazarene Jews against the Jewish People in the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In the absence of any such evidence, you stand revealed for the vicious and dangerous demagogue you are.
Comment by dweller — June 11, 2009 @ 5:39 am
You still haven’t provided ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support (let alone, prove) your accusations of ‘treason’ by the Nazarene Jews against the Jewish People in the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In the absence of any such evidence, you stand revealed for the vicious and dangerous demagogue you are.
Whether the early Christians were pacifists or not they did have an aversion to war and avoided it at all costs. This seems to be true through at least the first 2 early Christian centuries. I base in part my contention that early Christians refused to join the BK rebellion because A- they were pacifists and B- Loyal to the Roman Authority.
Thia proves they were traitors to the Jewish cause and it is inconceivable that there would have been no severe backlash reprisals by Jewish patriots especially after their siding with and supporting Rome. It’s all in #12 check it out for yourself.
How does the Torah condem the early pacifistic followers of Jesus? Try Leviticus 19:16, Etz Hayim translates our verse: “Do not profit by the blood of your fellow”, and the commentary on the verse tells us that, in context, the verse seems to mean: “Do not pursue [your] livelihood in a way that endangers another or at the expense of another’s well-being.” (p. 696) This translation and commentary do seem to fit the context of the surrounding verses.
But a more literal translation of our verse is: “Do not stand idly by [or "on/over"] the blood of your neighbor” One 18th century Sephardic commentary, the Me’am Lo’ez, written by Rabbi Yitzchak Magriso, incorporates earlier Talmudic and medieval commentaries, and then adds his contemporary perspective. Rabbi Magriso writes:
Yes not only were the early followers of Jesus Traitors they were also apikorim, and deserved capital punishment.
Comment by yamit82 — June 11, 2009 @ 6:19 am
As a general rule you are correct but there are exceptions where extrajudicial punishmnet is not only permitted but is an obligation of every Jew. The laws pertainting to rodef and Moser
read and weep Christian! As is so often the case in these matters, you’re ignorance is showing again.
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/mesiralaw2.html
Comment by yamit82 — June 11, 2009 @ 6:42 am
#134
In order to show and prove libel you must therefore prove beyond any doubt that I have; which you can’t because what I have posted is true unless: you can prove otherwise. You copied the Hebrew incorrectly it is Klal or Clal and not Kol.
Your stupid threats only reinforce my positions as defamation and threats are no substitute for substantiating your position in fact and not because you have beliefs and opinions however fallacious which you are entitled to but not as fact and not based on Jewish sources at least the ones uncorrupted in Christian beliefs and texts.
#133
Superficially there are many types of Judaism and Christianity, often overlapping. For example, there are professedly religious Jews who defy Sabbath and the Christians who observe it. Reform Judaism follows much of the practices of protestant Christianity. The issue of Jesus’ resurrection is practically insignificant. Suppose for a moment that Jews accepted the resurrection as a historical fact. What next? How does that change our life? Shall we abandon the commandments? No. Jesus told the crowd to do as the Pharisees teach, and that included the Oral Law codified in Talmud. Shall we follow an arbitrary apostolic set of rules? But James only commanded to abstain from blood; he told nothing about murder or stealing. Shall we assume those are not prohibited in Christianity? Shall the rule of positive reciprocity direct us? But how? Good Christians killed good Jews out of love for the fellow Christians. Love everyone is too vague to be practiced. Israel does not live with the Basic Law only, nor does America with the Bill of Rights. People need more detailed instructions. In Judaism, those are the commandments. Small communities of early Christians could abandon the law; their members were close and could love each other, even though Paul’s letters picture discontentment within Christian communities. After Christianity had expanded, its legits arbitrarily reintroduced some commandments. Christians reject at least one of the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, but accept the second-tier commandments such as prohibitions on usury and homosexuality.
The real difference between the two religions is practicality. Judaism is practical while Christianity - idealistic. Social teaching of Judaism is based on negative reciprocity, Do not do unto your neighbor what is hateful to you. Christianity made it impractical. Positive reciprocity, Treat your neighbor as yourself, especially when neighbor means everyone, is unworkable. We cannot feed everyone before sitting down at our meal, nor could we help everyone in dire need before buying non-essential goods for ourselves. Idealism sounds great, but it is not. People who cannot practice rules abandon them. They need to rationalize the failure. The rule of positive reciprocity cannot be imagined wrong, and so they find wrong with it’s rule’s objects. People not loved become demonized: look, even good Christians are unable to love them. Hatred to aliens is another side of the universal love. Christians cannot love the Jews who reject their teaching; many, therefore, hate the Jews.
Christian idealism caused the Jews many problems. Leftist political idealism of love and good faith settlement with enemies does likewise.
Messianic churches don’t want a secure and prosperous Israel. Many rational leaders and compassionate Christians side with the Jews, but the core attitude to Israel views her as a springboard for the eventual triumph of Christianity. To that end, Israel should not be secure. Jews who fit messianic description must suffer, shrink, fall into (leftist) idolatry, and eventually be annihilated. Few Christians subscribe to the alternate concept that Messiah comes on the wave of peace and prosperity. Christianity wants a specific Israel - the lamb of Isaiah.
Comment by yamit82 — June 11, 2009 @ 7:31 am
On so called Christian friends of Israel:
The world did not pressure Russia over the immense atrocities commited against Chechnya, or China over the Uighurs. The world cares not about the Basques, Bretons, Red Indians, and scores of other oppressed minorities. The United States is built on occupied land. But the entirely insignificant tribe of Palestinian Arabs reaps international attention. The same media provides no coverage of other suffering Arabs: Shiites in Saudi Arabia, Christians in Egypt, Palestinians in Kuwait, etc. The only conceivable reason for the world’s passion for the Palestinians is anti-Semitism. Most anti-Semitic canards hold a bit of distorted truth, and so the Palestinian canard is true to an extent: Palestinians are much better off under Israeli rule, but they are less free, and most importantly, non-sovereign. But the screams in support of the Palestinian Arabs are not meant to support them, but rather to condemn Jews.
Jews lived peacefully with Muslims for centuries, but we have never felt comfortable in any Christian country; even the US was deeply anti-Semitic until the mid-twentieth century at least. Israeli problems with Arab nationalists stem in large measure from Christian actions. Christian nations pushed Israel into indefensible borders by carving Jordan and Palestine out of the land of Israel. Arabs might not fight a relatively large Israel in the borders of the Promised Land, but a beach-strip Israel is provocatively indefensible. The Christian state of America, rather than Muslim Egypt, forced Israel to give away the Sinai. Christian powers finance the Arabs’ wars with Israel by oil purchases, and enable those wars by selling Arabs advanced weapons. Whatever the liberal rabbis are saying now, the Rambam declared in the Laws of Kings, chapter 11, “Jesus of Nazareth… caused Israel to perish by the sword and to have their remnant scattered and degraded. He replaced the Torah and led astray most of the world to serve a god besides the Lord.”
Christian support for Israel is exaggerated. A two-thousand-year-old anti-Semitic mentality cannot change in a few years. Israel enjoys support from several messianic movements, but these are no more than the fringes of Christianity. Even for those churches, Israel is only an instrument for the messianic event. Should the Jewish state perish in an apocalyptic war, messianists will only see that as furthering their aims.
There are many sensible Christians who like the Jews, and still more of those who hate Muslims and view Jews as useful allies. But Israel can’t ever count on the Christian mainstream. Curious indifference is the best attitude among Christians the Jews could hope for.
Comment by yamit82 — June 11, 2009 @ 7:40 am
Welcome to Jewish Israel!
Comment by Shy Guy — June 11, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Re (more) 91:
Of course, the choice was not “accidental.” But it does not follow that the central criterion was intellect. The rebbes venerated intellect; so they may perhaps explain it this way. But I’m not so sure that’s the actual reason the food animals were so designated in Torah.
After all, there’s nothing special about the intellect.
[Those who are long on intellect may like to think there is, and they typically get lots of recognition for it from other men. And who doesn't like to be thought special? But that does not, of itself, make it so in the eyes of the One who constructed the intellect, to begin with.]
The intellect is just a tool, an instrumentality. Some animals have more of it, and some have less. Man has the most; big deal.
Arguably, in the absence of fast legs;
arguably, in the absence of sharp teeth and claws;
arguably, in the absence of powerful jaws and paws;
arguably, in the absence of lightning-quick reflexes;
arguably, in the absence of sharp vision or sensitive smell;
arguably, in the absence of all such endowments, and more –
man NEEDS more intellect…. just to keep up….
Yet no amount of “smarts” will ever bring any animal anywhere near to the place reserved for Man: as the “Crown of God’s Creation” — because intellect was never intended to be the distinguishing feature setting Man apart from the other animals NOT made in the Holy One’s blessed image [Br 1:27].
That exclusive feature is something of which no animal can partake, and in consequence of which, the entire animal kingdom, as it were, must rely on Man to exercise it on their behalf. That exclusive feature directly assigned to Man, and only Man, is the CONSCIENCE. No animal, however well-trained, has it in any degree, or ever will have it — or ever CAN have it.
The conscience is the faculty whereby a man can (among other things), for example, bind himself to a promise through Time, even if it brings him pain or discomfort to do so — for no other reason than that he knows in his heart that it is right to so bind himself to that promise.
Every culture accords honor to those who protect and provide for their families. But among civilized societies, above and beyond that general & universal dictum, the most honorable thing one can say about a man after he is gone comes out in phrases like, “he kept his promises,” “his handshake was as good as his signature,” “if he gave his word, you could bank on it,” etc., etc.
The conscience is God’s embassy in the foreign land that is this fallen world.
[The only persons who truly can't see that it is indeed fallen are those whose vanity cannot endure the naggings of conscience. So they tell themselves that conscience does not exist -- or that it is misinformed, or superfluous; since the world is purportedly 'not' descended from a "very good" one [Br 1:31], but rather, ‘evolving’ to a ‘better’ one.]
The conscience is really ha-ruakh ha-kodesh – God’s holy spirit — making it known to man in hindsight whenever he crosses the line. It is the faculty which earned for David the observation that he was a man “after God’s own heart.” David was as subject to sin as other men — sometimes horribly so — but in the end, he always allowed his conscience to catch up with him.
No animal — however winsome or felicitous — no animal other than Man has that exquisite potential.
Anyway, to return from this little excursion to its original point-of-departure: The assumption that limited intellect was the demarcating factor (over what was acceptable as food) strikes me as being just as doubtful as the assumption that “cleanliness” (as you also doubted) was the criterion.
There’s still quite a bit more in your post [91] that I could raise challenges to, as well, but, frankly I still don’t know why you even wrote it; or, at least, why you went on at-length with it as you did. I had only mentioned [in 85] a specific dietary law (the one prohibiting the mixing of milkhic w/ flaishic): I had mentioned it for the sole purpose of offering an example, in answer to a direct question from you [63] asking what I’d meant when I’d said (strictly in passing) earlier in the thread that you & I might differ as to which laws were intended only for Bnai Yisrael.
Yet from that single example, offerred solely to illustrate a point, you felt compelled to tell me (apparently) everything you know about Jewish dietary laws. Candidly, Yamit, I’m inclined to respond, “Good for you, Boychik; and what else is new?”
Comment by dweller — June 13, 2009 @ 12:35 am
Dweller the intellect is the faculty whereby man is able to understand right from wrong. Knowing that means knowing what G-d tells us is right and wrong therefore we must learn the law and act upon it. Then we can elevate ourselves to be like G-d! When 3 million Hebrews stood at Sinai and heard G-d speak, each individual internalized and understood what G-d said differently than another. Therefore we might have up to 3 million different interpretations or nuances as a result. The Oral law fixed that.
1. Now the serpent was cunning, more than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made, and it said to the woman, “Did God indeed say, ‘You shall not eat of any of the trees of the garden?’”
2. And the woman said to the serpent, “Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat.
3. But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, “You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.’”
4. And the serpent said to the woman, “You will surely not die.
5. For God knows that on the day that you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like angels, knowing good and evil.”
6. And the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise; so she took of its fruit, and she ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
I rest my case! “AND YOU SHALL BE AS GODS”
The idea here is that each component of these pairs helps create and completes its counterpart. The example of knowledge and intelligence, however, is a very delicate problem of philosophy. I mention it, relying on the understanding of those who take up this problem. The knowledge which comes to us and which we acquire, in turn, lets us understand the reasons to which it leads, if the whole idea is analyzed in detail and understood, or we can understand the separate reasons in their essence without applying them as knowledge. But the reasons themselves constitute essentially items of knowledge. This understanding is called intelligence, and it constitutes knowledge in itself, while knowledge is a medium for intelligence in that it makes it possible for us to understand whatever we do understand. It is like saying that if we do not understand the reason, we do not have real knowledge, while, if we have no knowledge, we do not understand the reason, because we understand it only based on our knowledge. To understand this idea is very difficult, even from the books written specially on this subject, all the more from this short passage. I only intended to point out the right path. [Rambam's Commentary on the Mishna]The right path is a knowledge of the whole of intelligence that makes up Torah so that it may be applied through intelligence as knowledge and not as intelligence through knowledge or knowing of it. Torah is a closed system of practical application while at the same time an open ended gateway of knowledge. To choose the right path is to understand this duality as a human misconception of a single divine idea.
Comment by yamit82 — June 13, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Re post 112:
“Obsessed”? A bit of the pot and the kettle there, is it? — yourself vs the “idiots”?
I suggest that when it comes to obsession, Yamit, neither of your “two totally obsessed idiots” (or anybody else) has anything to teach YOU about obsession. And that’s being gentle about it. But be that as it may, I hardly think it obsessive of me, or anybody else, to be critical of bombast and irreverent toward pomposity.
I “pontificate”? That’s rich. For somebody who routinely spits out as much palaver as you do, and invariably in the posture of authority, you leave an observer astonished to note that you make so little use of the dictionary. I suggest, with all due respect, that you find a moment to look up the word, “pontificate,” and see whether it applies to what you’ve read here from me, or to your own , ever-generously-provided, pronunciamentos.
As to what you characterize as “ad hominem” — are you quite sure you undertand what an ad hominem argument, or ad hominem attack, consists of? The expression, “ad hominem” means “to the person,” but not all personal observations during the course of a dispute — not even all negative perosnal observations — constitute ad hominem argument or attack.
If I poke fun at the sloppiness of your reasoning or your resort to supposition;
if I disdainfully call attention to your recurrent viciousness of tone or intellectual dishonesty;
if I snort over your persistent paranoia, or over any of a farrago of assorted shtiklakh connected with your manner of discourse
– these observations do not necessarily constitute argumentum ad hominem, particularly if they are offerred IN ADDITION TO (i.e., as an accompaniment to, rather than purely in lieu of) discussion on the merits of your assertions.
In fact, given the obvious compulsiveness of your methodology, it would be less than thorough of me NOT to make such observations in this regard. Still, though, if you think I’m using ad hominem remarks as a “cover,” you’re certainly welcome to show me specific examples of it, and how it constitutes a “cover.”
It’s apparent [embarrassingly obvious, really] that, with all your learning, you never got round to making a systematic study of the principles of logic & forensics. If you haven’t the discipline or inclination to pick it up on your own, then you might consider taking a course. You’d be a lot less likely to fall into such elementary rhetorical gambits as syllogistic reasoning or using supposition to make a case.
No instructor worth his salt (let alone, any assigned debate opponent) would ever let you get away with such devices.
What’s genuinely troublesome, from my perspective, about the sloppiness of your argumentation, though, is that if it’s this easy for me to see through it, it’s bound to be just as easy for Israel’s enemies to see through it as well. You might want to give that some thought.
But I have nothing to “cover,” Yamit. When I choose not to discuss a matter, I always tell you that, right up front; if there truly were any “obfuscation” intended on my part, I’d hardly allow myself to be so obvious about what I was doing as to state my intentions openly. If I’ve left any assertion or conclusion of mine undefended, as you suggest, after a challenge from you, then I am unaware of it; again, you’ll have to show me what you regard as specific examples of that on my part.
AFTER A