Mosaic law still present?

2ndpillar said:

That is not quite true. Jewishness is now determined, apparently by their scribes, by if the mother is a Jew. The term Jew came as a designation for those of the "house of Judah". Judah was not a mother. As for Gentiles/nations, the "house of Israel" is scattered among the nations/Gentiles" (Ezekiel 36:19). They have not been "hunted down" and returned to "their own land" (Jeremiah 16:15-16). The "house of Israel"/"Ephraim will be joined to Judah to become one house (Ezekiel 37:15-28), and live on the "land I gave to Jacob". That will happen after "Jacob's distress" (Jeremiah 30:7), when Jacob will be "justly" "judged" (Jeremiah 30:11). As for beliefs, some, considered Gentiles are closer to keeping the Law, than your average liberal Jew, who may be an Atheist, Buddhist, or supporter of mass murder.

Click to expand...

Hey, I'll be the first one to say that a Jew can be obedient to God or can be wicked. There is nothing about the Jewish soul that makes him inherently more moral. One has only to read the Tanakh to find accounts of just how wicked Jews can be.

However, it IS true that one can be an atheist or buddhist and still be a Jew. Being a Jew/Israelite is a tribal thing. It is true that the tribe has a tribal religion. But members of the tribe choose whether to go by the tribal religion or whether to go off the derech.

An individual may in fact keep the law much better than an individual Jew. I've certainly known such cases. And? So? They are still a Gentile and the Jew is still a Jew. Keeping the Law doesn't make you a Jew. To become a Jew one must go through a halakhic conversion process, which ends in one not only adopting the Jewish religion, but ALSO being adopted into the People of Israel.

Just to give you a comparison... Let's say a non-NDN is heavily influenced by Lakota spirituality. They adopt many Lakota ways and religious practices, attend pow wows, etc. In fact, they observe more Lakota traditions than many actual Lakota tribal members. THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEM LAKOTA. There ARE those who are adopted into the Lakota tribe. But a person doesn't "adopt themselves" into the tribe simply by assimilating Lakota ways.

2ndpillar said:

Ruth and Mose's wife, Zipporah, became an Israelite, by way of acts of faith. Mose's wife circumcised their child before the angel was about to kill Moses. You need to become more familiar with your own bible, and less familiar with the pen of the scribes. Most Jews of today, have little such faith, and apparently 2 out of 3 will not come out alive of the refining fire of Zechariah 13:8-9.

https://www.biblehub.com/exodus/4-25.htm
But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it. "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said. But Moses' wife, Zipporah, took a flint knife and circumcised her son. She touched his feet with the foreskin and said, "Now you are a bridegroom of blood to me.".

Click to expand...

It took more than faith for those women to become Israelites. For example, Zipporah had to actually do a bris. That's an action of obedience, not a belief.

IndigoChild5559 said:

It took more than faith for those women to become Israelites. For example, Zipporah had to actually do a bris. That's an action of obedience, not a belief.

Click to expand...

Acting on what one believes is called faith.. You and the "Christians" seem to stumble over the difference between belief and acting on one's belief, which is faith, which is shown in the action of Zipporah. She saw the angel of death, and acted, on what she believed would save her husband. No one commanded her to circumcise her son, she simply believed that was the means to save her husband. Some people believe the "Word of God" and act accordingly. Some believe the pen of their scribes, and act accordingly. One action leads to life, and one leads to death.

IndigoChild5559 said:

An individual may in fact keep the law much better than an individual Jew. I've certainly known such cases. And? So? They are still a Gentile and the Jew is still a Jew. Keeping the Law doesn't make you a Jew. To become a Jew one must go through a halakhic conversion process, which ends in one not only adopting the Jewish religion, but ALSO being adopted into the People of Israel.

Click to expand...

Your "halakhic conversion process" is a tradition of men, not part of the law of God. The law of God only requires a "foreigner" to "hold fast my covenant", and "keep from profaning the Sabbath" to "join" themselves to the LORD" (Isaiah 56:6). That would exclude "many" Jews, but include many Gentiles, from "joining themselves to the LORD". Your "halakhic conversion process" only allows one to be part of the Jewdom of men, based on the traditions of men. If you are converted in one Jewish sect, that does not mean it works for another Jewish sect. It is all man based nonsense, and has little to do with ones DNA link to Judah, and therefore any tribal connection. You can wear a feather in your hat, have wide cheekbones, but that does not make you 1/1000 Indian, even if it that lie will get you into a first rate college. As for the tie between "Judah" and the "Israel", that bond remains broken (Zechariah 11:14).

sooda said:

Temple.... NOT century.

Click to expand...

Metis wrote: I believe that a Jew in 1st Temple Judaism would hardly recognize late 2nd Temple Judaism because of all the changes that took place, so a 1st century Jew would likely look at a late 2nd century Jew as being very "liberal" because of these additions

2ndpillar said:

I believe that a Jew in 1st Temple Judaism would hardly recognize late 2nd Temple Judaism because of all the changes that took place, so a 1st century Jew would likely look at a late 2nd century Jew as being very "liberal" because of these additions

Click to expand...

Except the Pharisees weren't liberal.

2ndpillar said:

Your "halakhic conversion process" is a tradition of men, not part of the law of God. The law of God only requires a "foreigner" to "hold fast my covenant", and "keep from profaning the Sabbath" to "join" themselves to the LORD" (Isaiah 56:6).

Click to expand...

Isaiah 56:6 describes some of the things converts do. It doesn't describe the conversion process.

Look, God himself GAVE men the authority to create these traditions, these necessary applications of the Law. Deuteronomy 17:8-13 specifically gives to the Levites and the elders (judges/rabbis) the authority to interpret law. It follows from that, that they have the authority to determine how a person legally becomes a member of the tribe, since the Torah doesn't state how. And that passage also says we are not to go to the right or to the left of what they determine, and that anyone who questions their decision should be put to death.

Look 2ndpillar. It's true that we Jews don't proselytize. We think you guys are just fine being Gentiles. Just believe in God and be good people, and you've got the gist of it. BUT if you WANT to become a Jew, we welcome everyone. So, second pillar, it sounds like from some of the things you've said, that you may be having some thoughts of wanting to be an Israelite or something. Please know that if that's what you want (no pressure here) we would welcome you. Just call your local synagogue. And I'm here to answer any questions you might have. There are other Jews on the forum as well. I just have the biggest mouth LOL.

2ndpillar said:

I believe that a Jew in 1st Temple Judaism would hardly recognize late 2nd Temple Judaism because of all the changes that took place, so a 1st century Jew would likely look at a late 2nd century Jew as being very "liberal" because of these additions

Click to expand...

You are not using the term "liberal" correctly. There are three basic meanings of liberal.
1. Embracing change, and eschewing tradition
2. Having a lax standard
3. Slightly to the left on the political spectrum

Second Temple Judaism is not liberal in any of these three senses. It was the opposite of #1 and #2, and #3 just doesn't apply.

IndigoChild5559 said:

All of the additions are based on the adage that the first thing we need to do is build a fence around the Torah. It's like the Catholic saying that you need to avoid the near occasion of sin. If you don't want to end up in bed with a prostitute, you don't go hang out in the red light district, right? The oral laws that were added basically said, "Don't go hang out in the red light district." The very nature of these rules would make Judaism STRICTER rather than more liberal.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm quite familiar with that.

IndigoChild5559 said:

Liberal would be taking away rules or making many exceptions for them. That is NOT what happened in Second Temple Judaism.

Click to expand...

But one can use "liberal" in another way, namely referring to a deviation from the norm, so it depends on how one looks at this in terms of what "liberal" is being referenced to.

IndigoChild5559 said:

Do you see what I'm saying now?

Click to expand...

Yes, and I agree with you but just wanted to point out that there's another angle on this.

And, btw, I'm enjoying this discussion as well.

Take care.

IndigoChild5559 said:

"Don't go hang out in the red light district."

Click to expand...

Oh, btw, I actually did go to the red-light district in Amsterdam with a group but did not participate. To make up for that , I also visited the Portuguese Synagogue there, which was where Spinoza attended. Beautiful shul!

sooda said:

Except the Pharisees weren't liberal.

Click to expand...

So says the liberal sooda. The Pharisees turned to the traditions of men, to subvert the law (Jeremiah 8:7-9) You could even call them Progressive.

The Pharisees were impressed by Hellenism's Stoic philosophers, who taught an inner standard impervious to happenstance and suffering. And the Pharisees were attracted to Hellenistic law-making: Greek-style legislative bodies. The Pharisees created the Beth Din ha-Gadol (Great Legislature) as a lawmaking, law-transmitting and law-confirming body.

Were the Pharisees Hellenized?
radixfidem.org/thread-42.html

2ndpillar said:

So says the liberal sooda. The Pharisees turned to the traditions of men, to subvert the law (Jeremiah 8:7-9) You could even call them Progressive.

The Pharisees were impressed by Hellenism's Stoic philosophers, who taught an inner standard impervious to happenstance and suffering. And the Pharisees were attracted to Hellenistic law-making: Greek-style legislative bodies. The Pharisees created the Beth Din ha-Gadol (Great Legislature) as a lawmaking, law-transmitting and law-confirming body.

Were the Pharisees Hellenized?
radixfidem.org/thread-42.html

Click to expand...

You have had several well-educated Jews explain to you that the Pharisees weren't liberal.. What's your intent here?

IndigoChild5559 said:

You are not using the term "liberal" correctly. There are three basic meanings of liberal.
1. Embracing change, and eschewing tradition
2. Having a lax standard
3. Slightly to the left on the political spectrum

Second Temple Judaism is not liberal in any of these three senses. It was the opposite of #1 and #2, and #3 just doesn't apply.

Click to expand...

Well, why don't you just define "righteousness" as well (Malachi 3:17-18). "Liberal" means you can "not strictly" interpret the law. Redefined by the standards of men, such as with the pen of the scribes (Talmud).

Definition of "liberal":
(especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact.
liberal definition - Bing

sooda said:

You have had several well-educated Jews explain to you that the Pharisees weren't liberal.. What's your intent here?

Click to expand...

Apparently, they don't understand the meaning of "liberal", as well as many other things. Those who follow the pen of the scribes, according to Jeremiah 8:8-9, would be in the realm of a joke, when calling themselves wise. The "law" speaks for itself. No pen of the scribes required. No 6200 page additions required. Kind of like you requiring the false prophet Paul to understand the law of lawlessness. Do you eat your locust plain, or with salt? As per Yeshua, with respect to those who consider themselves "wise and intelligent", the truth is hidden from them (Matthew 11:25). I am thinking you consider yourself "wise and intelligent" also.

definition of liberal: (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact.
liberal definition - Bing

Jeremiah 8:8-9 8"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? 9The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?

There are actually 2 Talmuds - the “Babylonian” Talmud and the “Jerusalem” Talmud. The both have the same “Mishna”, but they have different “Gemaras” and different sets of commentary. The Talmud has 63 tractates (“books” is a poor translation, but it will do for now) and is over 6200 pages long (in “standard” printed format). size of talmud - Bing

metis said:

The Mosaic Law is only binding on Jews, not Gentiles, and since the vast majority of Christians are Gentiles, ...

Click to expand...

Lots of Mosiac laws are binding on all UK citizens.

Lots ......

2ndpillar said:

Apparently, they don't understand the meaning of "liberal", as well as many other things. Those who follow the pen of the scribes, according to Jeremiah 8:8-9, would be in the realm of a joke, when calling themselves wise. The "law" speaks for itself. No pen of the scribes required. No 6200 page additions required. Kind of like you requiring the false prophet Paul to understand the law of lawlessness. Do you eat your locust plain, or with salt? As per Yeshua, with respect to those who consider themselves "wise and intelligent", the truth is hidden from them (Matthew 11:25). I am thinking you consider yourself "wise and intelligent" also.

definition of liberal: (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact.
liberal definition - Bing

Jeremiah 8:8-9 8"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? 9The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?

There are actually 2 Talmuds - the “Babylonian” Talmud and the “Jerusalem” Talmud. The both have the same “Mishna”, but they have different “Gemaras” and different sets of commentary. The Talmud has 63 tractates (“books” is a poor translation, but it will do for now) and is over 6200 pages long (in “standard” printed format). size of talmud - Bing

Click to expand...

Look at WHEN Jeremiah was a prophet and why he was called the weeping prophet.

why would anyone assume that any biblical reference to lying scribes would refer to the rabbis who wrote down the talmud when there was no written talmud until well after the destruction of the second temple? The entire force of the talmud was in its status as oral and not written. Connecting it to the scribes shows a lack of knowledge.

rosends said:

why would anyone assume that any biblical reference to lying scribes would refer to the rabbis who wrote down the talmud when there was no written talmud until well after the destruction of the second temple? The entire force of the talmud was in its status as oral and not written. Connecting it to the scribes shows a lack of knowledge.

Click to expand...

So who was Jeremiah talking about?

sooda said:

So who was Jeremiah talking about?

Click to expand...

Lying prophets who claimed to receive the word of god and wrote down their messages to disseminate to the people. Though things weren't going well, these false prophets told the people otherwise and the people chose to listen to them.

rosends said:

Lying prophets who claimed to receive the word of god and wrote down their messages to disseminate to the people. Though things weren't going well, these false prophets told the people otherwise and the people chose to listen to them.

Click to expand...

Ha ! That makes more sense.