The Jewish Jehovah's Witness.

[John D. Brey]

Sure, however, the type of symbolism that that will indicate, would not follow one ''type'' of circumcision, ie, in this instance, the purely physical outcome of the /a/ , circumcision. The meaning of the Xian circumcision, or rather it's nature, is not physical at all. So, it seems as if this overtly physical symbolism, is meant to imply a..symbiosis/?/, then it is lopsided, in nature, or expression. One might expect something non-physical, in the outward expression,/symbolically/, thusly.

In this forum I've often quoted Rabbi Hirsch to the affect that circumcision is a new birth, and that it's not a completion or supplement to the first (physical birth), but a new, spiritual, birth. Fleshly circumcision represents this new, spiritual, birth, a Being Born-again in Jewish Terms. ----How appropriate is it that the sign of the new, spiritual, birth, is the bleeding of the cause of the first, physical, birth? . . . And since in Christian dogma, symbolism, and iconography, the phallus is the serpent, how apropos is it that it's that organ that's shown the business end of a knife in the covenant cutting that represents a Jew being born-again?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

so this wasn't a statement of Jewish belief "even as it's against the law [Niddah 16b] to conceive the old man, the flesh, during the day)"?

I mean, it is wrong, but are you saying that you aren't presenting the Jewish theological position (the Jewish belief)?

R. Johanan stated: It is forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the day-time.25 What is the Scriptural proof? That it is said, Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night wherein it was said: 'A man-child is brought forth'.26 The night is thus set aside27 for conception but the day is not set aside for conception. Resh Lakish stated: [The proof is] from here: But he that despiseth His ways28 shall die.29 As to Resh Lakish, how does he expound R. Johanan's text?26 — He requires it for the same exposition as that made by R. Hanina b. Papa. For R. Hanina b. Papa made the following exposition: The name of the angel who is in charge of conception is 'Night', and he takes up a drop and places it in the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He, saying, 'Sovereign of the universe, what shall be the fate of this drop?
​

It's factual to say the Talmud makes it forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the daytime. So it's not wrong to suppose I'm quoting factual Jewish positions. . . . . On the other hand, if you prefer to say that I was quoting a Jewish "belief" inaccurately, then, since I did "quote" the Jewish writer word-for-word, how could it be that I'm quoting him inaccurately?


John

 

[Deeje]

I've been stating facts that don't really require a viewpoint. The sages claim two bloods are mingled on the doorpost (mezuzah) on Passover. I'm not saying two bloods are mingled on the mezuzah; the sages are. . . Likewise, it's factual that in the modern mezuzah, there are two majuscules (enlarged letters) on the scroll. In point of fact, the two enlarged letters are the ayin ע and the dalet ד which together spell "witness." ---- The mezuzah is a Jewish Jehovah witness.

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses but I am not Jewish. As a gentile Christian, I am not under Jewish law. Since you posted this thread in a "Scriptural Debate" section of the forums I assume that you have scripture to debate?

I do not need a mezuzah, which is described in Wiki as ......"mezuzah, (Hebrew: מְזוּזָה‎ "doorpost"; plural: מְזוּזוֹת mezuzot) is a piece of parchment (often contained in a decorative case) inscribed with specified Hebrew verses from the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-21). These verses compose the Jewish prayer "Shema Yisrael", beginning with the phrase: "Hear, O Israel, the LORD (is) our God, the LORD is One". In mainstream, i.e. Rabbinic Judaism, a mezuzah is affixed to the doorframe of Jewish homes to fulfill the mitzvah (Biblical commandment) to inscribe the words of the Shema "on the doorposts of your house" (Deuteronomy 6:9). Some interpret Jewish law to require a mezuzah on every doorway in the home[1] apart from bathrooms and closets too small to qualify as rooms.[2] The parchment is prepared by a qualified scribe (a "sofer stam") who has undergone many years of meticulous training, and the verses are written in black indelible ink with a special quill pen. The parchment is then rolled up and placed inside the case."

I see such fastidious adherence to performance as unnecessary in Christian life and worship. We are no longer under a written code, but under the 'law of love'.

Jews were taught to love God with all they had.....

Deuteronomy 6:5:
"You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength."

Deuteronomy 10:12:
“Now, O Israel, what is Jehovah your God asking of you? Only this: to fear Jehovah your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul"

Joshua 22:5:
"Only be very careful to carry out the commandment and the Law that Moses the servant of Jehovah gave you, by loving Jehovah your God, by walking in all his ways, by keeping his commandments, by sticking to him, and by serving him with all your heart and with all your soul.”

But Jesus went even further than that....
Matt 5:43-48:
“You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous.  For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing?  And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing?  You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Which of those verses is an appeal to the heart and not just the law? If we love only those who love us, Jesus said...so what....even people who don't know God are doing that.

God spoke about a "new covenant" and he said that it would be written on hearts, not on scrolls.

Jeremiah 31:31-33:
“Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant.  It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.”
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.”

Now which of these rings true according to Jeremiah's words? The placing of the mezuzah as an act of ritualistic performance on a doorpost? Or the writing of God's laws on hearts to move them to love even their enemies? To practice love in every aspect of life even when no one is looking?

This is the appeal of Christianity to me....it doesn't just rely on empty ritual or performance but on heartfelt desire to please God in all things....even the things unseen by others but only visible to God.

What part of Australia are you from?

I come from Sydney.

 

[Desert Snake]

so this wasn't a statement of Jewish belief "even as it's against the law [Niddah 16b] to conceive the old man, the flesh, during the day)"?

I mean, it is wrong, but are you saying that you aren't presenting the Jewish theological position (the Jewish belief)?

The wording is problematic. I agree, he means beliefs, but that could be a whole different argument.

 

[Desert Snake]

In this forum I've often quoted Rabbi Hirsch to the affect that circumcision is a new birth, and that it's not a completion or supplement to the first (physical birth), but a new, spiritual, birth. Fleshly circumcision represents this new, spiritual, birth, a Being Born-again in Jewish Terms. ----How appropriate is it that the sign of the new, spiritual, birth, is the bleeding of the cause of the first, physical, birth? . . . And since in Christian dogma, symbolism, and iconography, the phallus is the serpent, how apropos is it that it's that organ that's shown the business end of a knife in the covenant cutting that represents a Jew being born-again?



John

Your OP, is being descriptive, then. This is not entirely clear in your arguments, nor is it 'clear', to the reader. I , for example do not understand the 'relational, between the JW's, and your subjects. They seem, unrelated, actually. You actually seem to be presenting a type of //Judaism, argument, and unlike the inference of the OP title, it does not correlate a non-physical circumcision to a physical one, but rather, attempts to connect some aspect of the JW paradigm in relation, to other branches of Christianity? Is that correct?

 

[rosends]

R. Johanan stated: It is forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the day-time.25 What is the Scriptural proof? That it is said, Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night wherein it was said: 'A man-child is brought forth'.26 The night is thus set aside27 for conception but the day is not set aside for conception. Resh Lakish stated: [The proof is] from here: But he that despiseth His ways28 shall die.29 As to Resh Lakish, how does he expound R. Johanan's text?26 — He requires it for the same exposition as that made by R. Hanina b. Papa. For R. Hanina b. Papa made the following exposition: The name of the angel who is in charge of conception is 'Night', and he takes up a drop and places it in the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He, saying, 'Sovereign of the universe, what shall be the fate of this drop?
​

It's factual to say the Talmud makes it forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the daytime. So it's not wrong to suppose I'm quoting factual Jewish positions. . . . . On the other hand, if you prefer to say that I was quoting a Jewish "belief" inaccurately, then, since I did "quote" the Jewish writer word-for-word, how could it be that I'm quoting him inaccurately?


John

It is NOT factual to say that the talmud makes it forbidden mostly because that's not the function of the talmud. But let's assume that it does. Then you would be quoting Jewish belief. In fact (and we reviewed this on another thread and you somehow forgot to answer me) the Jewish law on the matter is codified as אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בַּיּוֹם, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוּא בַּיִת אָפֵל so your claim about the talmud is defeated. If you had continued studying and gotten to 17a, the 7th and 8th of the thicker lines, you would have seen this. You quoted the belief inaccurately in that you are presenting this isolated talmudic discussion as a presentation of the Jewish theological position when it isn't. You should learn Jewish law before you try and represent it in any public forum.

 

[rosends]

The wording is problematic. I agree, he means beliefs, but that could be a whole different argument.

But then the question is, "what does John think he means?" I see statements representing the theological position as presenting a Jewish belief. The distinction between "belief" and "beliefs" is useless in this situation.

 

[John D. Brey]

It is NOT factual to say that the talmud makes it forbidden mostly because that's not the function of the talmud. But let's assume that it does. Then you would be quoting Jewish belief. In fact (and we reviewed this on another thread and you somehow forgot to answer me) the Jewish law on the matter is codified as אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בַּיּוֹם, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוּא בַּיִת אָפֵל so your claim about the talmud is defeated. If you had continued studying and gotten to 17a, the 7th and 8th of the thicker lines, you would have seen this. You quoted the belief inaccurately in that you are presenting this isolated talmudic discussion as a presentation of the Jewish theological position when it isn't. You should learn Jewish law before you try and represent it in any public forum.

I don't see where Niddah 17a is in opposition to the idea that performing marital duties in the day is prohibited? Where is the law codified as you quote it?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

But then the question is, "what does John think he means?" I see statements representing the theological position as presenting a Jewish belief. The distinction between "belief" and "beliefs" is useless in this situation.

Tumah said that I wasn't accurately "quoting" Jewish beliefs. But when I was indeed "quoting" I was quoting Jewish sages word-for-word. So the idea is how could I be misquoting Jewish belief if I'm quoting Jewish sages word-for-word?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I see such fastidious adherence to performance as unnecessary in Christian life and worship. We are no longer under a written code, but under the 'law of love'..

Since I assume your quotation comes from a written code, it's at least ironic that you seem to get the idea that you're not under a written code from a written code. Would it be fair to say that you prefer your written code to mine because yours says you're not under a written code, in which case you're not really even beholden to your own written code, which actually means you could join me in my written code if you so chose, and your own written code, since it says you're not under a written code, could not protest.



John

 

[psychoslice]

No single religion, be that JW's or whatever are right, this idea of being the true religion is nothing more than arrogance, and is only from the ego, it needs to stop for the sake of peace between every other religion.

 

[Deeje]

Since I assume your quotation comes from a written code, it's at least ironic that you seem to get the idea that you're not under a written code from a written code. Would it be fair to say that you prefer your written code to mine because yours says you're not under a written code, in which case you're not really even beholden to your own written code, which actually means you could join me in my written code if you so chose, and your own written code, since it says you're not under a written code, could not protest.

LOL
The written code I am not under is the one that would have me circumcise my son, observe a Sabbath, offer blood sacrifices, never wear a garment with two mixed threads, never to eat unclean meat ect.

As a gentile Christian, I am not without law, because we too must follow the principles of the law of love. We are instructed by Jesus to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus teaches us more than a written set of rules. We have a Bible trained conscience that acts as a moral compass to lead us in the right direction and to help us to evaluate our activities.

I believe that God wants worship from the heart, guided by conscience, rather than performance based on a strict code.

Any comment on Jeremiah 31:31-33?

 

[2ndpillar]

Someone knowledgeable concerning Christian dogma would know that original sin is passed down through the biological serpent. That flesh is the biological, fleshly, analogue to the angel of death. Therefore, the blood of that organ, sacred in Judaism, is the blood (which as a symbol represents death) of death itself. The death of death is the birth of everlasting life since if there's no death, if death is dead, then all that's left is life, everlasting.

John

LOL
The written code I am not under is the one that would have me circumcise my son, observe a Sabbath, offer blood sacrifices, never wear a garment with two mixed threads, never to eat unclean meat ect.

As a gentile Christian, I am not without law, because we too must follow the principles of the law of love. We are instructed by Jesus to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus teaches us more than a written set of rules. We have a Bible trained conscience that acts as a moral compass to lead us in the right direction and to help us to evaluate our activities.

I believe that God wants worship from the heart, guided by conscience, rather than performance based on a strict code.

Any comment on Jeremiah 31:31-33?

Dear dee,
Jeremiah 31:31-33 follows Jeremiah 30, whereas it is speaking to the house of Judah and the house of Israel, after "I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob" (Jer 30:18). While Judah and Jerusalem my have been restored as of the 1967 war, Israel remains "scattered among the nations" (Joel 3:2), and has yet to be united with Judah (Ez 37:19), and has yet to have "My Servant David" as "king over them", and "walk in My statutes, and observe them" (Ez 37:24).

 

[2ndpillar]

Someone knowledgeable concerning Christian dogma would know that original sin is passed down through the biological serpent. That flesh is the biological, fleshly, analogue to the angel of death. Therefore, the blood of that organ, sacred in Judaism, is the blood (which as a symbol represents death) of death itself. The death of death is the birth of everlasting life since if there's no death, if death is dead, then all that's left is life, everlasting.

John

Dear john,
Not that your "Christian dogma" on "original sin" isn't interesting to some people, but you didn't answer the question to as to what "born again" means to you. I know we are in a political season where non answers are the norm, but hopefully no one is running for office here. From your answer, are you inferring that no one can be "born again" until there is no longer any death, such as after the "great white throne judgment" (Rev 20:11), when death is "thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:14)? I think that kind of even flies in the face of your false prophet Paul's concept of "twinkling" into immortality.

 

[rosends]

I don't see where Niddah 17a is in opposition to the idea that performing marital duties in the day is prohibited? Where is the law codified as you quote it?



John

Then you aren't reading niddah 17a. It is codified in the rambam. I even quoted the salient portion -- didn't you read it? אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בַּיּוֹם, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוּא בַּיִת אָפֵל

 

[rosends]

Tumah said that I wasn't accurately "quoting" Jewish beliefs. But when I was indeed "quoting" I was quoting Jewish sages word-for-word. So the idea is how could I be misquoting Jewish belief if I'm quoting Jewish sages word-for-word?



John

Because not every word said by a sage is Jewish belief. In this case, the words of this sage must be combined with the words of another before one has the Jewish belief.

 

[John D. Brey]

Then you aren't reading niddah 17a. It is codified in the rambam. I even quoted the salient portion -- didn't you read it? אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בַּיּוֹם, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוּא בַּיִת אָפֵל

Various interpretations and interpreters read the various statements of law the way they want to read them. Your quotation implies that it's permitted to have sexual relations during the day so long as you darken the room. But these are nit-picking justifications that have nothing to do with the spirit of why it must be dark, or night, to have sexual relations. The Talmud, the Zohar, and various other midrashim, are correct so far as I'm concerned, in their reasoning for why it must be night, or dark, when the nocturnal serpent is allowed to venture out into his dark realm to practice jus prima noctis, seeking out victims, vulnerable ova, with which to deposit his poison, so he can raise Cain while there's no Light.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Dear john,
Not that your "Christian dogma" on "original sin" isn't interesting to some people, but you didn't answer the question to as to what "born again" means to you. I know we are in a political season where non answers are the norm, but hopefully no one is running for office here. From your answer, are you inferring that no one can be "born again" until there is no longer any death, such as after the "great white throne judgment" (Rev 20:11), when death is "thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:14)? I think that kind of even flies in the face of your false prophet Paul's concept of "twinkling" into immortality.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? There's being born-again in a Christian context, with all the New Testament statements about it, versus being born-again the way Rabbi Hirsch speaks of it?


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Any comment on Jeremiah 31:31-33?

In a nutshell, I would initially interpret that particular written code to be saying that in the new covenant, the written code will be abolished, since the living code, put into the inward part of Israel (her womb), will by then have been born into the world, and breathed, or spoken, a new Torah, that fulfills and thus enfeebles the initial code, that was written by, and as, a harsh taskmaster for, both corralling, and punishing, born-sinners.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

No single religion, be that JW's or whatever are right, this idea of being the true religion is nothing more than arrogance, and is only from the ego . . . .

Religions are composed of beliefs and belief statements like the one you're making. By your own reasoning, no belief statement, even the one you're making, is more right or true than any other. . . So it's arrogant, and a sign of ego, for you to dogmatically make the statement you're making. This is to say your tongue is clearly forming a noose around your own neck as it attempts to lasso everyone else.



John