• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does Judaism have Doctrine of Original Sin and if not why does Christianity?

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Original sin is having knowledge of good and evil, which is basically having a moral compass. So Jesus was sent to earth to rid people of their moral compasses.
You could at least look stuff up on Wikipedia before you start talking about a subject of which you know nothing...
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Actually you have that backwards. Scriptures often refers to the person or creature by his/its soul. Gen. 2:7 "and He blew into his nostrils the Breath of life and the man became a living soul." "NeFeSH" means "respiration." The Hebrew words for soul are all based on the breath because it is the breath of G-d.

The Jewish Publication Society of America, the editor-in-chief, H.*M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College “Other translators have interpreted it [Nefesh] to mean ‘soul,’ which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.”—The New York Times, October 12, 1962.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15,*17; 13.37).”[/COLOR]—1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

Its more then just breathing...its living as a person or animal...all breathing creatures are 'souls' because they are living and have the breath of life. Having breath means they are alive... if they have no breath, they die and are no longer a soul.


You are putting your Christian doctrine on Judaism. The Oral Law was given to us the same time the Written Law was. It doesn't need Priestly authority (and that wouldn't even make sense). It has Divine authority.

why is there no record in the written law that an oral law was given to moses?

According to Exodus 34:27 it says that Moses wrote down all the words of Jehovah...it doesnt say anything about an additional oral law. And Deut 4:2 says 'you must not add to these words i am commanding you' which begs the question, should there ever have been an oral law in the first place?


Jewish commentary is based entirely on one segment or another of the Oral Law. There is no Jewish commentary that contradicts Scriptures.

that may be true, but its also true that the oral law has been the focal point for judaism since the destruction of the temple and priesthood in 70ce... so how would you know if the oral law is correct seeing it has not been taught by the divinely instituted priesthood?


And please, you study the Hebrew Scriptures? What you mean to say is you study an English interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. I'd be surprised if you knew the first Hebrew word in Scriptures and what its translation is.
'beginning' is the first word of the hebrew scriptures ;)
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
In Hebrew? With a Talmud available to show how interpretations may possibly be rendered? With a good knowledge of Jewish culture and tradition 2000+ years ago?

with the greek scriptures which were were written by jews living 2,000 years ago. You dont need the Talmud...Jesus wasnt a teacher of the Talmud, he was a teacher of the Hebrew scriptures.
 

Zelophehad

Member
You could at least look stuff up on Wikipedia before you start talking about a subject of which you know nothing...

If you read the Bible, you'd see I am exactly right. According the Bible, YHWH did not want Eve, or humans, to have knowledge between right and wrong, good from evil. Knowing right from wrong, good from evil, is having a moral compass. Jesus is often taught as the one who was supposed to clear mankind of this "original sin", thus, he came to rid people of their own moral compasses, and put what YHWH and Moses wants in it's place, because you are all dirty little sinners, so who are you to judge? That is the Bible.
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
If you read the Bible, you'd see I am exactly right. According the Bible, YHWH did not want Eve, or humans, to have knowledge between right and wrong, good from evil. Knowing right from wrong, good from evil, is having a moral compass. Jesus is often taught as the one who was supposed to clear mankind of this "original sin", thus, he came to rid people of their own moral compasses, and put what YHWH and Moses wants in it's place, because you are all dirty little sinners, so who are you to judge? That is the Bible.

As pointed out by many sources, including, but not limited to, the Jewish Study Bible, "knowledge of good and evil" may very well be a merism. If you don't know what a merism is, you can look it up.

Peter
 

Tarheeler

Argumentative Curmudgeon
Premium Member
'beginning' is the first word of the hebrew scriptures


...בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים​
 

CMike

Well-Known Member
why is there no record in the written law that an oral law was given to moses?

According to Exodus 34:27 it says that Moses wrote down all the words of Jehovah...it doesnt say anything about an additional oral law. And Deut 4:2 says 'you must not add to these words i am commanding you' which begs the question, should there ever have been an oral law in the first place?

Yes because that's part of the commandments given to the jews.

In case you are interested.

» Actually, There Are Two Torahs



that may be true, but its also true that the oral law has been the focal point for judaism since the destruction of the temple and priesthood in 70ce... so how would you know if the oral law is correct seeing it has not been taught by the divinely instituted priesthood?



'beginning' is the first word of the hebrew scriptures ;)

The oral law is as much divinly inspired as the written law.

I hae no idea what a "divinely inspired priestwoodis?

The oral law is necessary to implement the written law.

For example, G-D tells the jews to keep the shabbos. However in the written law it doesn't say:

When does shabbos start?
What is work?
What can and can't you do specifically?
Can you cook on shabbos?
What if someone is sick can they take medicine on shabbos?
Can people wash themselves?

These questions are answered in the oral law.

Without the oral law the written law commandments can't be implemented.

The oral law was given to Moses on Mt Sinai as well as the written law.

Here is more about it...

What is the oral Torah? - Torah.org
 

CMike

Well-Known Member
with the greek scriptures which were were written by jews living 2,000 years ago. You dont need the Talmud...Jesus wasnt a teacher of the Talmud, he was a teacher of the Hebrew scriptures.
:eek::rolleyes::faint:
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Yes because that's part of the commandments given to the jews.

In case you are interested.

» Actually, There Are Two Torahs

the problem is that God did not give oral laws to the Isrealites... man did.


And this is what Jesus objected to. He objected to man dictating to others how they should apply Gods written laws.

Do we not all have our own conscience? If so, why must You or I live by the conscience of another person?? Wouldn't God want us to live by our own consciences???

The oral law is as much divinly inspired as the written law.

I hae no idea what a "divinely inspired priestwoodis?

by that, i mean the priesthood inaugurated at Mount Sinai. That priesthood was divinely inspired and authorised. And im sure the priests had their various learned traditions which they passed onto their sons to teach them how to carry out their priestly duties.

But the oral laws of the Talmud are not from those priests. They were originally from the sects of the Pharisees who 'assumed' authority.

I believe this is why Jesus rejected their oral teachings....they did not have authority to teach such things, only the priests did.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
the problem is that God did not give oral laws to the Isrealites... man did.

The Oral Torah is just as much God-given as the Written Torah.

by that, i mean the priesthood inaugurated at Mount Sinai. That priesthood was divinely inspired and authorised. And im sure the priests had their various learned traditions which they passed onto their sons to teach them how to carry out their priestly duties. But the oral laws of the Talmud are not from those priests. They were originally from the sects of the Pharisees who 'assumed' authority.

Devarim/Deuteronomy 17:8-11
כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט בין דם לדם בין דין לדין ובין נגע לנגע דברי ריבת בשעריך וקמת ועלית אל המקום אשר יבחר ה' אלהיך בו׃ ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השפט אשר יהיה בימים ההם ודרשת והגידו לך את דבר המשפט׃ ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא אשר יבחר ה' ושמרת לעשות ככל אשר יורוך׃ על פי התורה אשר יורוך ועל המשפט אשר יאמרו לך תעשה לא תסור מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך ימין ושמאל׃
"When a matter of law is too difficult for you-- whether a capital crime or a tort or a case of damages-- and it becomes a source of quarrel among you, then you shall arise and go up to the place which Hashem your God shall choose; and you shall come to the levite priests, or to the judge that there shall be in those times, and you shall inquire of them. And you shall act in accordance with the matter as they interpret it for you, from that place where Hashem has chosen-- you shall do everything they teach you. You shall act according to the Torah as they interpret it, and the law as they speak it: do not turn aside from what they teach you-- neither to the right nor to the left."

The Torah was never interpreted solely by the priesthood. It was not even interpreted primarily by the priesthood. There were always judges appointed, as Moshe (Moses) appointed the seventy elders, and they in turn appointed lesser judges below them. In the days of the prophets, Torah was interpreted by them, too. When the age of prophets ended, there were still judges-- and a good thing, too, since by the turn of the Common Era, much of the priesthood serving in the Temple was corrupted. And the priests that were not corrupt were mostly Perushim (Pharisees), and they endorsed the right of the Sanhedrin and the other Rabbis to interpret Torah and make halachah.

The Rabbis were the judges of their time. Just as rabbis have continued to be the judges of their time ever since.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
The Oral Torah is just as much God-given as the Written Torah.

Devarim/Deuteronomy 17:8-11
כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט בין דם לדם בין דין לדין ובין נגע לנגע דברי ריבת בשעריך וקמת ועלית אל המקום אשר יבחר ה' אלהיך בו׃ ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השפט אשר יהיה בימים ההם ודרשת והגידו לך את דבר המשפט׃ ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא אשר יבחר ה' ושמרת לעשות ככל אשר יורוך׃ על פי התורה אשר יורוך ועל המשפט אשר יאמרו לך תעשה לא תסור מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך ימין ושמאל׃
"When a matter of law is too difficult for you-- whether a capital crime or a tort or a case of damages-- and it becomes a source of quarrel among you, then you shall arise and go up to the place which Hashem your God shall choose; and you shall come to the levite priests, or to the judge that there shall be in those times, and you shall inquire of them. And you shall act in accordance with the matter as they interpret it for you, from that place where Hashem has chosen-- you shall do everything they teach you. You shall act according to the Torah as they interpret it, and the law as they speak it: do not turn aside from what they teach you-- neither to the right nor to the left."

Hi Levi,
Thanks for the reply. But looking at Deuteronomy, the text here deals solely with the procedure of judgment in judicial cases. It doesnt deal with customs or traditions.
For example, in Vs 8, it literally means “between blood and blood, between legal claim and legal claim, and between violent deed and violent deed.”

I totally agree that some traditions would have been passed down, but even then, the fact that a tradition is long-standing does not prove inspiration.
We can see an example of this in the 'copper serpent' made by moses. At 2*Kings 18:4 it shows that the Isrealites had made a tradition of making sacrifices to that copper serpent and this tradition was removed by good king Hezekiah.

So i dont think Deut 17 really proves that there was an oral law. Those judges were judging cases of criminality according to the law, they weren't dictating how to apply certain laws.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
The Jewish Publication Society of America, the editor-in-chief, H.*M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College “Other translators have interpreted it [Nefesh] to mean ‘soul,’ which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.”—The New York Times, October 12, 1962.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15,*17; 13.37).”[/COLOR]—1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

Its more then just breathing...its living as a person or animal...all breathing creatures are 'souls' because they are living and have the breath of life. Having breath means they are alive... if they have no breath, they die and are no longer a soul.

If "NeFeSH" meant "living" then "NeFeSH CHaYaH" is a redundancy. The root word here is breathing. The soul exists beyond the flesh, which is why a "living NeFeSH" is not a redundancy. When the soul enters the body it becomes alive. You can determine that a person is alive by his breath. If his "breathing" is cut off (Ex. 12:19 et al), he dies. Similarly, Ex. 31:17, "and on the seventh day He ceased VaYiNaFaSH (and He respired)." Gen 7:15, "which had in it the spirit (lit. wind) of life." Again, the soul is compared to the air we breathe.



why is there no record in the written law that an oral law was given to moses

That is a problem with your perception of the purpose of Scriptures. But we don't need a record of it, we already know we have it.

But let's be honest here. You rely on our Oral Law too.
This is how you spell "milk" in Hebrew: חלב.
This is how you spell animal fat in Hebrew: חלב.
Deuteronomy 14:21 says, "do not cook a goat in the חלב of its mother."
So now, bearing in mind that the vowel-point system was not invented until much, much later- what does G-d not want me to cook a goat in?

According to Exodus 34:27 it says that Moses wrote down all the words of Jehovah...it doesnt say anything about an additional oral law. And Deut 4:2 says 'you must not add to these words i am commanding you' which begs the question, should there ever have been an oral law in the first place?

Maybe you have it backwards and the main thing was the Oral Law, and G-d dictated a Written Law as a reminder of what we were taught.

I think the verse you meant was Deut. 31:9.

It is impossible to follow almost any of the Laws that are written in it, with just the information given. Scriptures is the reference notes:
- Remember to wear my fringe garment
- Remember to slaughter my animals before eating
- Remember to sit in a booth
- Remember to take the four species
- Remember not to work on Sabbath
- Remember to circumcise my sons
- Remember to use a bill of divorce if necessary
But it doesn't give you the information needed to fulfill the commandments:
- How many string constitutes "fringes"? How do I need to attach them? What is this "blue" that I need to use on them? How much of the thread needs to be this "blue"?
- How do I slaughter my animal? With what? Where?
- What is a booth made out of? Dimensions? Can I build it in my living room?
- What type of plants are those four species supposed to be? What am I to do with them? Is it enough to stick them in my hat and call them macaroni because that makes me rejoice?
- What type of work is not permitted? What is the difference between the two words used to describe prohibited work and how does that apply to me?
- Which part of my sons flesh needs to be circumcised? If I circumcised his ear lobe flap thing will G-d be happy with me? How about if I cut off one of his lips? If I do open heart surgery and slice off a small piece of my sons heart muscle, will I have fulfilled the requirement to circumcise the foreskin of my sons flesh? How much do I need to cut off anyway?
- Bill of Divorce... How did I even get married??? What separates that marriage from living with a steady woman my whole life? What's a bill of divorce? What does it need to say in it to render it effective? If my shrewish wife doesn't have hands am I stuck for life?

As for Deut. 4:2. Every Christian asks this and the answer is simple. Nothing was added or subtracted to the words of Scriptures. There is a strong delineation between Biblical Commandments and Rabbinical Decrees. No different than building a fence around a tree. The fence is not an addition to the tree.

that may be true, but its also true that the oral law has been the focal point for judaism since the destruction of the temple and priesthood in 70ce... so how would you know if the oral law is correct seeing it has not been taught by the divinely instituted priesthood?

The Oral Law has always been the focal point of Jewish life. The first Mishnaic personality, Simon the Righteous, lived at least 300 years before the destruction of the Temple. And the Mishnah traces from him teacher to student, every name until Rabbi Judah the Prince, the redactor of the Mishnah.

Deut. 17:9 "...and the judge...". Not that I understood what you mean by "it was not taught by the divinely instituted priesthood. Where does it say that the priests are the only ones who teach the Law?

'beginning' is the first word of the hebrew scriptures ;)

Close. But the literal translation is "בראשית", "In [the] beginning of". The next two words are "do/make" in the perfective third person singular and "El-him" meaning G-d. These three words do not form a grammatically correct sentence: In [the] beginning of, G-d made. The appropriate word "בראשון" which would have rendered it: In [the] beginning, G-d created" is not used here. So what do you do with that?
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
If "NeFeSH" meant "living" then "NeFeSH CHaYaH" is a redundancy. The root word here is breathing. The soul exists beyond the flesh, which is why a "living NeFeSH" is not a redundancy. When the soul enters the body it becomes alive. You can determine that a person is alive by his breath. If his "breathing" is cut off (Ex. 12:19 et al), he dies. Similarly, Ex. 31:17, "and on the seventh day He ceased VaYiNaFaSH (and He respired)." Gen 7:15, "which had in it the spirit (lit. wind) of life." Again, the soul is compared to the air we breathe.

and this is where jewish thought and the hebrew scriptures part way.

The soul IS the living flesh according to the hebrew scriptures. Man was non existent before God created him from the dust and breathed life into him. When he came to life, he was a soul. Animals are also called 'souls' in genesis: 1:20*And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.” 21*And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.


And this is why the hebrew scriptures also state that souls can die.
Genesis 17:14 And an uncircumcised male who will not get the flesh of his foreskin circumcised, even that soul must be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant.”

Judges 16:30 And Samson proceeded to say: “Let my soul die with the Phi·lis′tines.” Then he bent himself with power, and the house went falling upon the axis lords and upon all the people that were in it, so that the dead that he put to death in his own death came to be more than those he had put to death during his lifetime.

Job 33:22 And his soul draws near to the pit, And his life to those inflicting death.

Psalm 78:50 He proceeded to prepare a pathway for his anger. He did not hold back their soul from death itself; And their life he handed over even to the pestilence.

Isaiah 53:12 For that reason I shall deal him a portion among the many, and it will be with the mighty ones that he will apportion the spoil, due to the fact that he poured out his soul to the very death, and it was with the transgressors that he was counted in; and he himself carried the very sin of many people, and for the transgressors he proceeded to interpose.

Ezekiel 18:4*Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

If the soul is eternal as you say, then it cannot die, nor can it be created. But that is not the teachings of Moses or the prophets...it comes from Greeks and other pagan religions from Egypt and Babylon.


That is a problem with your perception of the purpose of Scriptures. But we don't need a record of it, we already know we have it.

the record of it is in the mishnah and tulmud, correct?

And when were these actually written?

But let's be honest here. You rely on our Oral Law too.
This is how you spell "milk" in Hebrew: חלב.
This is how you spell animal fat in Hebrew: חלב.
Deuteronomy 14:21 says, "do not cook a goat in the חלב of its mother."
So now, bearing in mind that the vowel-point system was not invented until much, much later- what does G-d not want me to cook a goat in?

wouldn't this be categorised under scholarship of the language and not interpretation of how laws can and can't be applied?

im all for scholars teaching on the language and its meaning. But there is a big difference between interpreting language and interpreting laws. The oral laws seek to describe how a law should be applied by the everyday person.

Maybe you have it backwards and the main thing was the Oral Law, and G-d dictated a Written Law as a reminder of what we were taught....


As for Deut. 4:2. Every Christian asks this and the answer is simple. Nothing was added or subtracted to the words of Scriptures. There is a strong delineation between Biblical Commandments and Rabbinical Decrees. No different than building a fence around a tree. The fence is not an addition to the tree.

what if the fence actually hides the tree so that you can't see the tree anymore ?


The Oral Law has always been the focal point of Jewish life. The first Mishnaic personality, Simon the Righteous, lived at least 300 years before the destruction of the Temple. And the Mishnah traces from him teacher to student, every name until Rabbi Judah the Prince, the redactor of the Mishnah.

Not always according to Judges 17:6*In those days there was no king in Israel. As for everybody, what was right in his own eyes he was accustomed to do

and this was after God had instituted the law covenant and the priesthood. The families of Isreal lived by the mosaic law according to their own consciences. If they need a judicial matter heard, they would go to the priests or elders of the city and have their cases heard.

Deut. 17:9 "...and the judge...". Not that I understood what you mean by "it was not taught by the divinely instituted priesthood. Where does it say that the priests are the only ones who teach the Law?

The role of teaching fell primarily on the priests. They were annointed for that role and its an annointing to 'time indefinite'

Exodus 28:41*And with them you must clothe Aaron your brother and his sons with him, and you must anoint them and fill their hand with power and sanctify them, and they must act as priests to me. 42*And make drawers of linen for them to cover the naked flesh. From the hips and to the thighs they are to extend. 43*And they must be upon Aaron and his sons when they come into the tent of meeting or when they go near to the altar to minister in the holy place, that they may not incur error and certainly die. It is a statute to time indefinite for him and his offspring after him

While its true that 'older men' of the city could also judge, it wasnt true that they had authority over the priests. The order of authority was 1st Priest, 2nd Levites, 3rd Judges/older men.
Deuteronomy 17:9 and you must go to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who will be acting in those days, and you must make inquiry, and they must hand down to you the word of the judicial decision.

Deuteronomy 19:17 the two men who have the dispute must also stand before Jehovah, before the priests and the judges who will be acting in those days.

Malachi 2:7 For the lips of a priest are the ones that should keep knowledge, and [the] law is what people should seek from his mouth; for he is the messenger of Jehovah of armies

Notice how in all verses it is the Priest who is first. This signifies he holds the primary responsibility to teach and jugde a situation.

Close. But the literal translation is "בראשית", "In [the] beginning of". The next two words are "do/make" in the perfective third person singular and "El-him" meaning G-d. These three words do not form a grammatically correct sentence: In [the] beginning of, G-d made. The appropriate word "בראשון" which would have rendered it: In [the] beginning, G-d created" is not used here. So what do you do with that?

I dont try to make anything of it. The first hebrew word is Bereʼ·****h′ (from the Greek Septuagint) and that word means beginning/origin.
 

Zelophehad

Member
As pointed out by many sources, including, but not limited to, the Jewish Study Bible, "knowledge of good and evil" may very well be a merism. If you don't know what a merism is, you can look it up.

Peter

I am just going by what the Bible says. I am but a simple man. It says the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Having knowledge of good and evil would suggest to me that that would mean you can discern between what is good and right, and what is bad and wrong. Which is living by your own moral compass- Not somebody else's, not YHWH's, not Moses's, bur your own. I suspect if you were to go by your own sense, or knowledge of good and evil, that would mean YHWH and Moses are in trouble, because they are guilty of committing horrible crimes against humanity, and many of the stories of the Bible are actually sick and disturbing. You would see that YHWH and Moses are guilty by their own standards, and break their own laws. Biting the proverbial apple is what SAVES you from blindly following a murderous, terrorist , slave trading, genocidal cult, led by a murderous, genocidal Hitler-like, Charles Manson-like psychopath, jealous, control freak, immoral terrorist with abandonment issues. That's what "biting the Apple of good and evil" reveals.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
Hi Levi,
Thanks for the reply. But looking at Deuteronomy, the text here deals solely with the procedure of judgment in judicial cases. It doesnt deal with customs or traditions.
For example, in Vs 8, it literally means “between blood and blood, between legal claim and legal claim, and between violent deed and violent deed.”

I totally agree that some traditions would have been passed down, but even then, the fact that a tradition is long-standing does not prove inspiration.
We can see an example of this in the 'copper serpent' made by moses. At 2*Kings 18:4 it shows that the Isrealites had made a tradition of making sacrifices to that copper serpent and this tradition was removed by good king Hezekiah.

So i dont think Deut 17 really proves that there was an oral law. Those judges were judging cases of criminality according to the law, they weren't dictating how to apply certain laws.

2 Kings 18 has no relevance here, as the people were going against the Torah by committing idolatry, and the king destroyed the object of their idolatry-- it has nothing to do with how to interpret Torah or observe the commandments from within the tradition. It's about not going outside the covenant.

As for Deuteronomy 17, it's not merely about laws. The particular sorts of cases presented are examples, not rigid definitions of what judges may interpret. The judges in question are answering any questions of how to apply the laws of the Torah-- any laws of the Torah. It says very clearly, "You shall act according to the Torah as they interpret it." This is what judges have always done in our tradition, all the more so because one cannot separate out civil and criminal laws from ritual, home, synagogue, and other laws-- they are all intertwined, because Torah is a whole thing: a unified way of life.

This all, of course, is in addition to the interpretation concerning two Torahs that CMike already referenced.

You might also wish to see the first chapter of Pirkei Avot, the tractate of mishnah devoted to the wisdom literature of the Rabbis. In that first chapter they outline the tradition of teaching the Oral Torah from generation to generation, from Moshe (Moses) all the way through to the generation of Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi (Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, who redacted the Mishnah).
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
I am just going by what the Bible says. I am but a simple man. It says the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Having knowledge of good and evil would suggest to me that that would mean you can discern between what is good and right, and what is bad and wrong. Which is living by your own moral compass- Not somebody else's, not YHWH's, not Moses's, bur your own. I suspect if you were to go by your own sense, or knowledge of good and evil, that would mean YHWH and Moses are in trouble, because they are guilty of committing horrible crimes against humanity, and many of the stories of the Bible are actually sick and disturbing. You would see that YHWH and Moses are guilty by their own standards, and break their own laws. Biting the proverbial apple is what SAVES you from blindly following a murderous, terrorist , slave trading, genocidal cult, led by a murderous, genocidal Hitler-like, Charles Manson-like psychopath, jealous, control freak, immoral terrorist with abandonment issues. That's what "biting the Apple of good and evil" reveals.

What apple??

Peter
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
and this is where jewish thought and the hebrew scriptures part way.

The soul IS the living flesh according to the hebrew scriptures.

Lev. 17:11, "Because the NeFeSH of the flesh, it is in the blood..." The soul is not the living flesh, it is in the flesh.

Gen 9:4 "Only flesh with its NeFeSH, its blood you shall not eat." This is living flesh, yet the verse still differentiates between its flesh and its soul.

Man was non existent before God created him from the dust and breathed life into him. When he came to life, he was a soul. Animals are also called 'souls' in genesis:... [/COLOR][/I]

Ex. 1:5, "And it was, all [the] NeFeSH, [that] came out of [the] thigh of Jacob: seventy souls."
Scriptures uses the word souls to refer to creatures. Because what makes them alive is their souls. Gen. 1:21 "...and every soul of the life that creeps..." But as I illustrated above, "NeFeSH" is not an adjective describing the state of the flesh as living.

And this is why the hebrew scriptures also state that souls can die.
Genesis 17:14 And an uncircumcised male who will not get the flesh of his foreskin circumcised, even that soul must be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant.”

Judges 16:30 And Samson proceeded to say: “Let my soul die with the Phi·lis′tines.” Then he bent himself with power, and the house went falling upon the axis lords and upon all the people that were in it, so that the dead that he put to death in his own death came to be more than those he had put to death during his lifetime.

Job 33:22 And his soul draws near to the pit, And his life to those inflicting death.

Psalm 78:50 He proceeded to prepare a pathway for his anger. He did not hold back their soul from death itself; And their life he handed over even to the pestilence.

Isaiah 53:12 For that reason I shall deal him a portion among the many, and it will be with the mighty ones that he will apportion the spoil, due to the fact that he poured out his soul to the very death, and it was with the transgressors that he was counted in; and he himself carried the very sin of many people, and for the transgressors he proceeded to interpose.

Ezekiel 18:4*Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

If the soul is eternal as you say, then it cannot die, nor can it be created. But that is not the teachings of Moses or the prophets...it comes from Greeks and other pagan religions from Egypt and Babylon.

Correct, the soul can't die. It is the breath of G-d and G-d is eternal. The definition of death then, is the removal of the soul from the body. Saying the soul dies is synonymous with saying the soul left the body.

the record of it is in the mishnah and tulmud, correct?

And when were these actually written?

Correct, written in the 2nd century CE. I can see though, as JW is a "restorationist" denomination, you are forced to believe that it is impossible for a chain to remain unbroken. You are a product of one of three schisms that took place within a group who's inception barely dates back 150 years. Itself a product of a denomination within Protestantism who only dates back about 500 years. And that is a product of Catholicism which came out of the authors of the NT who argued that the tradition isn't true. So your history has only taught you that chains of a single tradition don't last.

On the other hand, in 10 minutes I can create a chain from myself to my Rabbi to his Rabbi for the past 1,000 years- it will take a bit longer to go another 1,000 years before that. My tradition is unbroken. So for me chains of tradition can last.

wouldn't this be categorised under scholarship of the language and not interpretation of how laws can and can't be applied?

There is no scholarship that can determine the meaning of this word. Without a tradition of what the word is supposed to be, there is no way to know what it is. These words come up three times:
Ex. 23:19 - after talking about the first fruits of the land
Ex. 34:26 - again after talking about the first fruits of the land
Deut. 14:21 - after talking about what to do with an animal that had already died

There is nothing in the context anywhere discussing either milk or any type of fats. I looked at New World Translation on JW.org, but there is no information on how they determined the word to be "milk". Maybe you can ask a elder?

im all for scholars teaching on the language and its meaning. But there is a big difference between interpreting language and interpreting laws. The oral laws seek to describe how a law should be applied by the everyday person.

Of course. Because the Law is not practicable as outlined in Scriptures alone. There is simply not enough information. As I have illustrated. Obviously, G-d isn't trying to trick us. Therefore he must have given us the relevant information as well. And the Law applies to everyone [Jewish].

what if the fence actually hides the tree so that you can't see the tree anymore ?

That's good question and on a practical level this is not the case as I said before, Biblical Laws are clearly defined and differentiated from Rabbinical ones.
But still, what if the tree is so precious that you don't want everyone's grubby hands ripping pieces off it?

Not always according to Judges 17:6*In those days there was no king in Israel. As for everybody, what was right in his own eyes he was accustomed to do

and this was after God had instituted the law covenant and the priesthood. The families of Isreal lived by the mosaic law according to their own consciences. If they need a judicial matter heard, they would go to the priests or elders of the city and have their cases heard.

That verse has nothing to do with what you are saying. In context the verse is saying that Micah was able to make his idols and no one could say a word. Everybody did what they wanted because there was no law-of-the-land, no monarchy. You are pulling it out of context and reinterpreting to mean how people translated the Law.

The role of teaching fell primarily on the priests. They were annointed for that role and its an annointing to 'time indefinite'

Exodus 28:41*And with them you must clothe Aaron your brother and his sons with him, and you must anoint them and fill their hand with power and sanctify them, and they must act as priests to me. 42*And make drawers of linen for them to cover the naked flesh. From the hips and to the thighs they are to extend. 43*And they must be upon Aaron and his sons when they come into the tent of meeting or when they go near to the altar to minister in the holy place, that they may not incur error and certainly die. It is a statute to time indefinite for him and his offspring after him

This verse doesn't say anything about what you are saying. They were anointed to serve in the Temple. There is nothing there about them being the original arbitrators or the sole disseminators of the Law. Or even about them being appointed to serve as such. I'm not even sure why you brought that verse altogether.

While its true that 'older men' of the city could also judge, it wasnt true that they had authority over the priests. The order of authority was 1st Priest, 2nd Levites, 3rd Judges/older men.
Deuteronomy 17:9 and you must go to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who will be acting in those days, and you must make inquiry, and they must hand down to you the word of the judicial decision.

Deuteronomy 19:17 the two men who have the dispute must also stand before Jehovah, before the priests and the judges who will be acting in those days.

Malachi 2:7 For the lips of a priest are the ones that should keep knowledge, and [the] law is what people should seek from his mouth; for he is the messenger of Jehovah of armies

Notice how in all verses it is the Priest who is first. This signifies he holds the primary responsibility to teach and jugde a situation.

For you it holds this significance. But there is no where in the verse that states that a priest has more authority than a judge. Personally, I would have said that since priests are awarded more sanctity (Lev. 21:8), so Scriptures also accords him respect by listing him first. But in practice, to determine priority in judging the Law on the basis on lineage as opposed to erudition is pure foolishness and there is no verse that requires that.

I dont try to make anything of it. The first hebrew word is Bereʼ·****h′ (from the Greek Septuagint) and that word means beginning/origin.

Well, the word is "Bereʼ·****h′", but that's not the correct translation. Hebrew has grammatical structure, with prefix and suffixes. בראשית = BeRe****H:
ב - in
ראש - begin (well not the root word, but in context)
ית - of

Speak to your Hebrew speaking elder about this. I'm sure he will know exactly what I'm talking about.
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
It's one of those interesting distinguishing things about Christianity and Judaism. As far as I know there is no concept or doctrine of original sin in Judaism yet there is one in Christianity.

Given the close ties that Christianity has with Judaism at least in terms of its origins, why is such a crucial doctrine missing in Judaism? Where did it come from, how did it develop and were there those of the Jewish community who believed in such a doctrine or still do?

The doctrine of original sin is not accepted by many Protestants. Or at least not in its Catholic form. What most Protestants believe is that human beings have a propensity to sin and that does connect with the Jewish concept of the yetzer ha-ra.
 
Top