How do Jews feel about their theology seeming to be outdated?

Okay. I know I said I wasn't going to invest more time and energy into this thread. And I mean to stick to it. However, this leaves me puzzled.

Zog Has-fallen said:

I agree it's a product of the date line. And there's nothing magical about having two groups migrate west and east from Jerusalem. The same riddle surfaces when two groups of travelers migrate west and east starting from any city on a round planet. Yes, my definition of a day is the interval from sunset to sunset.

Click to expand...

Zog, the only place where this would have any real quandary is the International Date Line. While it is, indeed, and imaginary line, all Jews have accepted it for all intents and purposes.

That being the case, what is the point of trying to go further?

Or is the real point to say, "You're wrong, and I can use your own text to show you why!" Because if it is, I can use your own text (Matthew, to be precise) to prove why Jesus CANNOT be the Messiah.

But it doesn't do anyone any good to play those games. You have been told over and over what Jewish law is. We've accepted the International Date Line in the Pacific Ocean, so the problem of coming and going hasn't been an issue since long before Europeans discovered America.

If you are going to go on about this game involving the hypothetical situation that has been ironed out by the IDL, you - and everyone who keeps playing - are beating a dead horse.

Zog Has-fallen said:

And a thousand years before that a perfectly reasonable interpretation was about to be revealed in the New Testament. And that reasonable interpretation seems to be that God purposely planned and inserted obsolescence into the Old Covenant.

Click to expand...

Perfectly reasonable for Christians. Not at all reasonable in Jewish thought, and bearing no relevance whatsoever to Judaism.

Rabbi Paul said...

Click to expand...

Nothing, because there was no Rabbi Paul. There was only Paul the apostate.

This substantiates the Christian view, unless you feel justified in returning to animal sacrifices to deal with your sins as God commanded, ignoring their symbolic meaning of course.

Click to expand...

This is painfully, painfully ignorant of both Torah and Judaism. I am almost embarrassed on your behalf, it's that ignorant.

Levite said:

This is painfully, painfully ignorant of both Torah and Judaism. I am almost embarrassed on your behalf, it's that ignorant.

Click to expand...

If you think so, then let's compare the former Rabbi's opinion with that of Moses.

Leviticus 16
11 “Then Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin offering which is for himself and make atonement for himself and for his household, and he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself. 12 He shall take a firepan full of coals of fire from upon the altar before the Lord and two handfuls of finely ground sweet incense, and bring it inside the veil. 13 He shall put the incense on the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of incense may cover the mercy seat that is on the ark of the testimony, otherwise he will die. 14 Moreover, he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east side; also in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.

15 “Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. 16 He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities.

Hebrews 10:4
"It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Where's the contradiction?

Zog Has-fallen said:

If you think so, then let's compare the former Rabbi's opinion with that of Moses.

Leviticus 16
11 “Then Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin offering which is for himself and make atonement for himself and for his household, and he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself. 12 He shall take a firepan full of coals of fire from upon the altar before the Lord and two handfuls of finely ground sweet incense, and bring it inside the veil. 13 He shall put the incense on the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of incense may cover the mercy seat that is on the ark of the testimony, otherwise he will die. 14 Moreover, he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east side; also in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.

15 “Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. 16 He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities.

Hebrews 10:4
"It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Where's the contradiction?

Click to expand...

The contradiction is that, if you had studied the Oral Torah as well as the Written, you would know that the offering was the culmination of a lengthy process of repentance, which the entire people were expected to go through both as individually as needed and collectively prefatory to Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement). In the absence of legitimate formal repentance, an offering did not clear one's sin.

The Apostate Paul, as is customary for him, either completely misrepresents or completely misunderstands the concept of repentance. Of course the blood of an animal-- or any kind of blood-- does not magically take away sins on its own. It is only symbolically and ritually effective in the context of culminating a process of repentance that included people accepting responsibility for their actions, making restitution and reparations for them, accepting the consequences of their actions (if any), publicly aplogizing to any wronged parties, confessing in prayer to God, and resolving not to commit that transgression again. Only after all of that would bringing a sin offering and participating in Yom Kippur and its communal sin-offerings actually remit a person's sins.

It seems to me that the "New Testament" was nothing more than an attempt from some authors to appropriate Judaism and its followers. Paul and his ilk spearheaded this appropriation, and they did so in the name of Jesus. It is quite sad.

Zog Has-fallen said:

Hebrews 10:4
"It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Click to expand...

The person who wrote that was right, but there is more to the story.


Jer 7:22 For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices,

Jer 7:23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in obedience to all I command you, that it may go well with you.

metis said:

Isaiah 53 has literally nothing to do with Jesus as it deals with events that took place many centuries previously. ... Now, how exactly does this square with the emergence of the Christian church?

Click to expand...

Isaiah 53 describes Jesus perfectly. It doesn't describe you.

Curious George said:

The magic is that you are constructing an artificial time difference based on circumnavigation. Our day is based on the rotation of the earth...there is no actual paradox. You are using movement to lengthen the day or shorten the day... Thus, we have to ask what solutions can these people use? They can count by Jerusalem time, or they can use time zones to recognize their positions and count accordingly to local time. This is not rocket science.there is no magic...

Click to expand...

As I said, there is no escape. The Sabbath is defined in Scripture as the period of time from evening to evening. Isn't that right? Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that God spoke in a way that hinted at and foreshadowed a later spiritual meaning/reinterpretation and the end of the Old Covenant.

rosends said:

Well, not exactly. There are cases where the word "l'olam" refers to 50 years. Are you suggesting that the covenant ended after 50 years? That would mean no divine right to a Davidic line so Jesus would have no potential role as king or messiah. Are you SURE you want to take that position?

Click to expand...

Or the word could simply mean "a lifetime". It certainly doesn't mean exactly 50 years in all those instances.

Zog Has-fallen said:

Isaiah 53 describes Jesus perfectly. It doesn't describe you.

Click to expand...

Actually, nothing in the Hebrew scriptures has anything to do with Jesus. Just because Christians retroject all sorts of things into our Tanach does not in any way mean there is any merit in them. We don't try to inject Jewish concepts into Christian scriptures. Kindly show us the same courtesy.

Levite said:

Actually, nothing in the Hebrew scriptures has anything to do with Jesus. Just because Christians retroject all sorts of things into our Tanach does not in any way mean there is any merit in them. We don't try to inject Jewish concepts into Christian scriptures. Kindly show us the same courtesy.

Click to expand...

The meaning of Isaiah 53 is to be interpreted via grammatical-historical exegesis. Scholarly methods of Biblical interpretation have nothing to do with bias. If you think that chapter describes you better than Jesus, please explain.

Zog Has-fallen said:

The meaning of Isaiah 53 is to be interpreted via grammatical-historical exegesis. Scholarly methods of Biblical interpretation have nothing to do with bias. If you think that chapter describes you better than Jesus, please explain.

Click to expand...

It's not talking about any individual. It's talking about the People Israel as a whole. Reading Jesus into it has nothing to do with exegesis, it's eisegetic. Christological "Old Testament scholarship" is not scholarship. Just Christian eisegesis.

Zog Has-fallen said:

As I said, there is no escape. The Sabbath is defined in Scripture as the period of time from evening to evening. Isn't that right? Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that God spoke in a way that hinted at and foreshadowed a later spiritual meaning/reinterpretation and the end of the Old Covenant.

Click to expand...

The Sabbath is defined in scripture for a stationary person, isn't that right?

Christianity Started with the Birth of Jesus.
That Christians took the Jewish scripture and reinterpreted it to confirm their own beliefs, has no effect whatever on The Jewish faith.
though it has the inherent possibility of irritating countless Jews. They have a far stronger relationship to it, and centuries of experience and knowledge in how to understand and interpret it in terms of each succeeding generation and situation.

There is nothing at all outdated about the Jewish theology.

Terrywoodenpic said:

Christianity Started with the Birth of Jesus.
That Christians took the Jewish scripture and reinterpreted it to confirm their own beliefs, has no effect whatever on The Jewish faith.
though it has the inherent possibility of irritating countless Jews. They have a far stronger relationship to it, and centuries of experience and knowledge in how to understand and interpret it in terms of each succeeding generation and situation.

There is nothing at all outdated about the Jewish theology.

Click to expand...

The seeds of Christianity may have been planted as early as the 1st century BC. All it needed was the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD to take root. Spend a little time and read about The “Gabriel Stone” also known as “Gabriel's Revelation”.

'I Am Gabriel': Ancient Stone on Display in Israel - Inside Israel - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

The “Gabriel Stone” on Display: Some Revised Interpretations – Biblical Archaeology Society

Gabriel's Revelation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zog Has-fallen said:

Or the word could simply mean "a lifetime". It certainly doesn't mean exactly 50 years in all those instances.

Click to expand...

Nope, not in all. i guess you get to decide what it means when it suits you. Maybe it means "God's lifetime." Since your God died...

Levite said:

It's not talking about any individual. It's talking about the People Israel as a whole.

Click to expand...

I'm looking at the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB). It reads like it's talking about an individual. Most importantly, there's an obvious contrast in the text between that righteous singular profile and the sinful people. "My righteous servant makes many righteous." That's the opposite of: "We all, like sheep, went astray; we turned, each one, to his own way; yet Adonai laid on him the guilt of all of us." For the righteous character it says: "Although he had done no violence and had said nothing deceptive."

Just because Judaism believes that they are a righteous servant, their text states clearly that they are not.

Isaiah 53
Who believes our report?
To whom is the arm of Adonai revealed?
2 For before him he grew up like a young plant,
like a root out of dry ground.
He was not well-formed or especially handsome;
we saw him, but his appearance did not attract us.
3 People despised and avoided him,
a man of pains, well acquainted with illness.
Like someone from whom people turn their faces,
he was despised; we did not value him.

4 In fact, it was our diseases he bore,
our pains from which he suffered;
yet we regarded him as punished,
stricken and afflicted by God.
5 But he was wounded because of our crimes,
crushed because of our sins;
the disciplining that makes us whole fell on him,
and by his bruises* we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, went astray;
we turned, each one, to his own way;
yet Adonai laid on him
the guilt of all of us.

7 Though mistreated, he was submissive —
he did not open his mouth.
Like a lamb led to be slaughtered,
like a sheep silent before its shearers,
he did not open his mouth.
8 After forcible arrest and sentencing,
he was taken away;
and none of his generation protested
his being cut off from the land of the living
for the crimes of my people,
who deserved the punishment themselves.
9 He was given a grave among the wicked;
in his death he was with a rich man.

Although he had done no violence
and had said nothing deceptive,
10 yet it pleased Adonai to crush him with illness,
to see if he would present himself as a guilt offering.
If he does, he will see his offspring;
and he will prolong his days;
and at his hand Adonai’s desire
will be accomplished.
11 After this ordeal, he will see satisfaction.
“By his knowing [pain and sacrifice],
my righteous servant makes many righteous;
it is for their sins that he suffers.
12 Therefore I will assign him a share with the great,
he will divide the spoil with the mighty,
for having exposed himself to death
and being counted among the sinners,
while actually bearing the sin of many
and interceding for the offenders.”

Curious George said:

The Sabbath is defined in scripture for a stationary person, isn't that right?

Click to expand...

Since the Sabbath requires rest, of course.

Zog Has-fallen said:

I'm looking at the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

Click to expand...

Which is a Christian Bible.

rosends said:

... your God died...

Click to expand...

Let's just say that I believe that Mashiach died in fulfillment of Daniel 9:26.