Reading in the right order

74x12 · Dec 30, 2020

Tumah said:
As an example, there's nothing in "You shall have no other gods before Me, the Father, My Son and My Holy Spirit" would in any way negate the possibility for Jesus being killed.

I don't believe the trinity; so I agree with you here. But, the Son of God is mentioned in the Tanakh (Proverbs 30:4) and the holy Spirit is also used. (Psalm 51:11; Isaiah 63:10)

Tumah said:
"There shall come a time, where these commandments shall not be of important, rather you shall have faith in My Son whom I shall send to you, and he shall be your salvation from hell".

Well there are ritualistic commandments and moral commandments. Not even modern Jews can keep all the rituals of the Law because there is no temple service. So yes we do believe the rituals of the Law have been fulfilled but do you agree that there is a resurrection? Because who can say if those who have been raised from the dead have to keep the Law of Moses? It was made for mortals not immortals. Once you're dead and you rise in the resurrection; you're not under the Law. That's why God promised a "new covenant" which would be "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers" (Jer 31:31).

This new covenant is the resurrection. It's a new contract. a new deal. It's new life from the grave. So the old covenant of Moses is for this life but there comes a time when God gives a new covenant.

As for moral commandments we believe that to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself is fulfilling the righteousness of the Law.

Tumah said:
Also, if "they didn't even know what they were talking about", then their words would make no sense outside the context of the NT.

I disagree because many scriptures have more than one meaning. Besides you imply you know or understand the whole Tanakh.

Where we disagree is that you believe the sages/rabbis should interpret the scripture. I believe the holy Spirit should. Because the Spirit gave it and should interpret it also.

Brickjectivity · Dec 30, 2020

SomeRandom said:
So all the Christians who say Jews reject Jesus are promoting “fake news” then?

My opinion the Christians are missing the point who say that the Jews are rejecting Jesus simply by saying he isn't the messiah. Fact is everything hasn't been accomplished, yet; so there is not evidence yet that he is the messiah. The Jewish person when asked if Jesus is the messiah considers what has already been accomplished not what might be accomplished in the future, and Jesus is the messiah only within the reality of his future victory. This means believing he is the messiah is a matter of belief not of evidence, yet. What I mean is that the NT writers clearly don't think Jesus transforms the world in person but that the church brings about peace on earth, good will toward all, and until that time Jesus is not here. Hence he both is and isn't the messiah depending on his future success, somewhat like Schroedinger's Cat is either alive or dead. I know it sounds like I'm making it all up, but I'm not.

Tumah · Dec 31, 2020

Brickjectivity said:
They do accept Jesus but not like some people would prefer. They consider him a fellow Jew and his arguments are considered. If they said he wasnt Jewish that would be rejection.

No, we emphatically reject him.
The confusion is that "Jewish" can refer to ethnicity as well as religious beliefs. His ethnicity was Jewish, his beliefs, clearly not.

Jayhawker Soule · Dec 31, 2020

Brickjectivity said:
They do accept Jesus but not like some people would prefer. They consider him a fellow Jew and his arguments are considered. If they said he wasnt Jewish that would be rejection.

How did you come to know what and how (and why) Jews accept? There seems to be a lot of that going around these days.

Tumah · Dec 31, 2020

74x12 said:
I don't believe the trinity; so I agree with you here. But, the Son of God is mentioned in the Tanakh (Proverbs 30:4) and the holy Spirit is also used. (Psalm 51:11; Isaiah 63:10)

Prov. 30:4 does not mention the son of G-d. It's not even talking about G-d. He's saying that he lacks understanding and wisdom. He's referring to the Laws of G-d. Deut. 4:6, "because it is your wisdom and understanding". The one who went up and came down is Moses who ascended to Heaven to get the Law and brought it down to the nation.
Do you see the flow? He starts off saying he lacks wisdom and knowledge referring to G-d's Law (v.2-3). Then he praises Moses the one who brought the Law (v.4) - presumably for him to learn it and gain the wisdom and knowledge he lacks. Then he praises the Law itself (v.5-6) that he now has.

Well there are ritualistic commandments and moral commandments. Not even modern Jews can keep all the rituals of the Law because there is no temple service.

There has never been a time in history where a single Jew has kept all the Law, including Moses himself. The vast majority of the Laws are situational. That includes the Laws of Temple service. We are not not keeping the Laws. The Laws aren't relevant for our situation.

So yes we do believe the rituals of the Law have been fulfilled but do you agree that there is a resurrection? Because who can say if those who have been raised from the dead have to keep the Law of Moses? It was made for mortals not immortals. Once you're dead and you rise in the resurrection; you're not under the Law. That's why God promised a "new covenant" which would be "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers" (Jer 31:31)

This new covenant is the resurrection. It's a new contract. a new deal. It's new life from the grave. So the old covenant of Moses is for this life but there comes a time when God gives a new covenant.

There is no Scriptural support for any of this.

As for moral commandments we believe that to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself is fulfilling the righteousness of the Law..[/quote]
There is no Scriptural support for any of this.

I disagree because many scriptures have more than one meaning. Besides you imply you know or understand the whole Tanakh.

Before, you yourself had said that the people who wrote the books had no idea what they were writing. It sounds like what you meant to say was that they didn't know about the "hidden meaning" of what they wrote. Which brings us back to the OP.

Where we disagree is that you believe the sages/rabbis should interpret the scripture. I believe the holy Spirit should. Because the Spirit gave it and should interpret it also.

It's not the Holy Spirit that is interpreting Scriptures for you. It's your brain trying to rationalize the Tanach with the Christian Testament to avoid the dissonance it's causing.

Brickjectivity · Dec 31, 2020

Tumah said:
No, we emphatically reject him.
The confusion is that "Jewish" can refer to ethnicity as well as religious beliefs. His ethnicity was Jewish, his beliefs, clearly not.

I don't intend to increase any such confusion. All I mean to say is that it isn't actually offensive for you to say you can't accept the NT or Jesus. A lot worse could be said that isn't, and its actually burying a lot of hatchets.

Jayhawker Soule said:
How did you come to know what and how (and why) Jews accept? There seems to be a lot of that going around these days.

I don't know what Jews accept, but rejecting Jesus beliefs and claims about him doesn't mean that you reject morality or that Christians shouldn't approve of you.

1213 · Dec 31, 2020

Tumah said:
I have not. But I've read passages here and there as they were relevant.

I recommend to read the whole book, before commenting.

Tumah said:
That is classical Christian belief, yeah?

Classical Christian belief is not the same as what the Bible tells.
Unfortunately, “Christians” have many non-Biblical teachings that have led many astray.

Tumah said:
There is nothing in that passage that points to Jesus.

But, that was done through Jesus. The words Jesus declared can cause that change in heart.

Tumah said:
Jeremiah did not describe a covenant with new content, but a covenant with the same content that would accessed in a new way.

I agree in that the will is the same, only that how it is written is different. In the older covenant the law was written in stone tablets, now it is written in persons heart, if he has received Jesus.

Tumah said:
The lord is David. It's not David who's talking.

Interesting, at least King James translation calls it A Psalm of David. But, who is then the one who keeps David as his Lord?

Tumah · Dec 31, 2020

1213 said:
I recommend to read the whole book, before commenting.

I'll take your recommendation into consideration. Regardless, my comments stand.

Classical Christian belief is not the same as what the Bible tells.
Unfortunately, “Christians” have many non-Biblical teachings that have led many astray.

That's irrelevant. We can find plenty of other examples. G-d having a son for instance. G-d making His Word "flesh" for instance. G-d retracting everlasting commandments for instance. Etc.

But, that was done through Jesus. The words Jesus declared can cause that change in heart.

This is demonstrable false. In fact, the Christian Testament even has to come up with a reason why so many people think Jesus was a load of hogwash that it declares that G-d stuffed up their hearts. Which is in direct contradiction to the prophecy you're claiming was fulfilled.

I agree in that the will is the same, only that how it is written is different. In the older covenant the law was written in stone tablets, now it is written in persons heart, if he has received Jesus.

Everything until the word "if" can be found in the prophecy.

Interesting, at least King James translation calls it A Psalm of David. But, who is then the one who keeps David as his Lord?

I see that the KJV doesn't differentiate when in the Hebrew the order of words are different. Sometimes the Psalm says, "a psalm of David" and sometimes it says, "of David, a psalm". In this case, it's the latter. The one who wrote it is some unnamed subject of David or at least someone who holds him in high esteem.

74x12 · Jan 1, 2021

Tumah said:
Prov. 30:4 does not mention the son of G-d. It's not even talking about G-d. He's saying that he lacks understanding and wisdom. He's referring to the Laws of G-d. Deut. 4:6, "because it is your wisdom and understanding". The one who went up and came down is Moses who ascended to Heaven to get the Law and brought it down to the nation.

I don't believe Moses can be said to have gathered the wind in his fist, bound the waters in a garment and established the ends of the earth. Those are things God does. Waters being bound in a garment is most likely referring to clouds as is Job 26:8 which uses similar language and in Job 26:7 God is establishing the ends of the earth. God also descends and ascends. (Exodus 19:18, Psalm 47:5)

Moses never actually went to heaven to get the Law. He went up the mountain and saw God who had "descended" down to the mountain in Exodus 19:18.

In any case we have extra-biblical sources like the book of Enoch(fragments of which have been found among the dead sea scrolls) which do constantly speak of the "son of man" and of course Daniel 7:13 does also. This mysterious "Son of man" figure is really easily understood as Jesus and furthermore Jesus often referred to himself as "the son of man" which would have been taken as a claim to being the Messiah by Jews familiar with those prophetic texts in those days.

Tumah said:
Do you see the flow? He starts off saying he lacks wisdom and knowledge referring to G-d's Law (v.2-3). Then he praises Moses the one who brought the Law (v.4) - presumably for him to learn it and gain the wisdom and knowledge he lacks. Then he praises the Law itself (v.5-6) that he now has.

I see the flow but I don't think Moses fits the riddle.

Tumah said:
There has never been a time in history where a single Jew has kept all the Law, including Moses himself. The vast majority of the Laws are situational. That includes the Laws of Temple service. We are not not keeping the Laws. The Laws aren't relevant for our situation.

And that's my point. Which Laws are relevant in the new Covenant which is everlasting life from the dead?

Tumah said:
There is no Scriptural support for any of this.

If you died and God resurrected you and you were immortal you'd know it was a new covenant.

It's the sure mercies of David mentioned in Isaiah 55:3. Many other verses speak of it but you need to have eyes to see.

Tumah said:
It's not the Holy Spirit that is interpreting Scriptures for you. It's your brain trying to rationalize the Tanach with the Christian Testament to avoid the dissonance it's causing.

There is no need for rationalizing, just humble prayer and careful study. Seeking God with all your heart so you'll know the truth for yourself rather than what traditions man has passed on to you. The scripture is given by the holy Spirit and interpreted by the same. The beginning point of wisdom is to know to whom it belongs and who can give it to you. (1 King 3:9) The truth is hidden from the "wise" of this world because they are "wise" in their own eyes. (Isaiah 29:14) That is they are proud and not a fit conduit of the wisdom of God.

So you'll understand more than all your teachers. (Psalm 119:99)

Tumah · Jan 2, 2021

74x12 said:
I don't believe Moses can be said to have gathered the wind in his fist, bound the waters in a garment and established the ends of the earth. Those are things God does. Waters being bound in a garment is most likely referring to clouds as is Job 26:8 which uses similar language and in Job 26:7 God is establishing the ends of the earth. God also descends and ascends. (Exodus 19:18, Psalm 47:5)

The winds is a reference to throwing up the ash and scattering it over Egypt. The waters is a reference to splitting the sea.

Moses never actually went to heaven to get the Law. He went up the mountain and saw God who had "descended" down to the mountain in Exodus 19:18.

That was during the actual reciting of the commandments. Moses spent 40 days up their.

In any case we have extra-biblical sources like the book of Enoch(fragments of which have been found among the dead sea scrolls) which do constantly speak of the "son of man" and of course Daniel 7:13 does also. This mysterious "Son of man" figure is really easily understood as Jesus and furthermore Jesus often referred to himself as "the son of man" which would have been taken as a claim to being the Messiah by Jews familiar with those prophetic texts in those days.

Son of man is how you say "person" in Hebrew and Aramaic. Occasionally, we see that heavenly beings use the phrase to emphasize the humanness of the subject among the non-human diving beings. It's like saying, "the Asian guy".

I see the flow but I don't think Moses fits the riddle.

It's not a riddle.

And that's my point. Which Laws are relevant in the new Covenant which is everlasting life from the dead?

I can't understand this question.

If you died and God resurrected you and you were immortal you'd know it was a new covenant.

I'm looking for support for this in the Tanach. Is there any?

It's the sure mercies of David mentioned in Isaiah 55:3. Many other verses speak of it but you need to have eyes to see.

That's a load of bull dung. The sure mercies of David refers to G-d's promise to him that his descendants will retain the kingship.

There is no need for rationalizing, just humble prayer and careful study. Seeking God with all your heart so you'll know the truth for yourself rather than what traditions man has passed on to you. The scripture is given by the holy Spirit and interpreted by the same. The beginning point of wisdom is to know to whom it belongs and who can give it to you. (1 King 3:9) The truth is hidden from the "wise" of this world because they are "wise" in their own eyes. (Isaiah 29:14) That is they are proud and not a fit conduit of the wisdom of God.

So you'll understand more than all your teachers. (Psalm 119:99)

Up until you realize that you are just rationalizing the inconsistencies, you'll never be able to see that you're not reading what G-d wrote, but what men interpolated into G-d's Words. That's what this thread is about. Realizing that if you start from Genesis, you'll never get to the Christian Testament. It's only when you start from the Christian Testament that you can somewhat circle back around through the Tanach. And that is very, very telling.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jan 2, 2021

Tumah said:
Imagine you unknowingly read a fan-fiction about a world in the Star Wars universe.

In this world, father is a colloquial term not just for a parent, but also a grandparent. One day, you go back and watch the original Star Wars. In the movie, Darth Vader says to Luke Skywalker "Luke it is true. I am your father."

Now, since you didn't know that what you read was a fan-fiction and not authentic Star Wars franchise, you may at that point stop and wonder to yourself, "Hmm... Does he mean his actual father, or grandfather?" (I don't know if at some other point in the story this is made clear, but let's just assume not for the purpose of the example.)

Is there anyone in who would argue that the creators of Star Wars had in mind the colloquial use of the word father fabricated by the fan-fiction when they wrote that script? Of course not.

This is another reason why Judaism cannot accept the Christian Testament.

Reading the Tanach in it's own light, leaves absolutely no reason to assume that the Christian Testament would ever be written. In fact, in many cases, it causes a person to expect that it wouldn't be written.

That would be like the fan-fiction world describing Luke Skywalker as Darth Vader's father! After reading Moses' plea to see G-d's face being rejected on the grounds that no man can see G-d's face, would you expect to see G-d take human form and allow any person to see His face? After reading about G-d's dissimilarity to humans and Moses' warning the Israelites that they did not see any sort of image of G-d, would you expect G-d to become human? After reading about how the Commandments of G-d would be everlasting, would you expect G-d to simply do away with them? Etc., etc.

But that aside, simply reading through the Tanach would give you absolutely no reason to ever come to the conclusion of a Jesus.

And this tells you that the "hundreds" of prophecies about Jesus are nothing more than eisegetic re-interpretations - often divested of their original context. And that makes the Christian Testament's relationship to Tanach about the equivalent of Chuck Tingle's fan-fiction of the Harry Potter universe.

While all this is true, I also see the Torah as "fan fiction" riffing on earlier Canaanite religion.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jan 2, 2021

Tumah said:
That being the case, this means that the Tanach doesn't support the Christian Testament anymore than the original supports a fanfiction.

... similar to how the polytheistic book of Genesis doesn't support the monotheistic Moses narrative.

I see similar patterns: just as Christian incorporated (co-opted?) earlier religious ideas and built on them, so did Judaism.

It's just that Judaism is older, so the fog of time works in its favour a bit more.

And I have no doubt that the earlier Canaanite religion that Judaism built on was itself "fan fiction" on earlier beliefs, and so on, and so on, until we get back to some sort of rudimentary animism.

Tumah · Jan 2, 2021

9-10ths_Penguin said:
While all this is true, I also see the Torah as "fan fiction" riffing on earlier Canaanite religion.

9-10ths_Penguin said:
... similar to how the polytheistic book of Genesis doesn't support the monotheistic Moses narrative.

I see similar patterns: just as Christian incorporated (co-opted?) earlier religious ideas and built on them, so did Judaism.

It's just that Judaism is older, so the fog of time works in its favour a bit more.

And I have no doubt that the earlier Canaanite religion that Judaism built on was itself "fan fiction" on earlier beliefs, and so on, and so on, until we get back to some sort of rudimentary animism.

Sure. Would you mind just quoting for me from the book(s) of the Canaanite religion so that I can see that for myself?

9-10ths_Penguin · Jan 2, 2021

Tumah said:
Sure. Would you mind just quoting for me from the book(s) of the Canaanite religion so that I can see that for myself?

... because you can read ancient Ugaritic text?

Are you actually unfamiliar with this idea?

74x12 · Jan 3, 2021

Tumah said:
The winds is a reference to throwing up the ash and scattering it over Egypt. The waters is a reference to splitting the sea.

Your interpretation is as questionable as anything I could bring forward. I do find your interpretation to be interesting because I've never heard it before but I still believe you're incorrect.

It looks like to me that you're ignoring the evidence from Job that this is language speaking of rain clouds. The rain cloud being like a cloth with water in it. Remember they didn't know what a cloud was like we do now so that's how they imagined it. Water coming out in drops through the cloth.

On the other hand I don't know what binding up water in cloth has to do with splitting the red sea. Maybe you can think of something. I remember he did it with a staff; not cloth.

Tumah said:
That was during the actual reciting of the commandments. Moses spent 40 days up their.

Yes he spent 40 days on the mountain that God is said to have "descended" to get down to in Exodus 19:18. And the mountain was on fire with smoke etc because God was on it. So clearly the mountain is not heaven since God descended down to get to it.

So, your interpretation of Proverbs 30:4 that this is saying Moses went to heaven must be wrong.

Tumah said:
Son of man is how you say "person" in Hebrew and Aramaic. Occasionally, we see that heavenly beings use the phrase to emphasize the humanness of the subject among the non-human diving beings. It's like saying, "the Asian guy".

Well if you've read the book of Enoch there is a specific "son of man" spoken quite a bit about and the argument could be made that it's the same son of man mentioned in Daniel's vision.

Tumah said:
It's not a riddle.

According to Proverbs 1:6 the wise speak in proverbs and riddles/parables. It's not easy to understand them.

Tumah · Jan 3, 2021

74x12 said:
Your interpretation is as questionable as anything I could bring forward. I do find your interpretation to be interesting because I've never heard it before but I still believe you're incorrect.

It looks like to me that you're ignoring the evidence from Job that this is language speaking of rain clouds. The rain cloud being like a cloth with water in it. Remember they didn't know what a cloud was like we do now so that's how they imagined it. Water coming out in drops through the cloth.

On the other hand I don't know what binding up water in cloth has to do with splitting the red sea. Maybe you can think of something. I remember he did it with a staff; not cloth.

Yes he spent 40 days on the mountain that God is said to have "descended" to get down to in Exodus 19:18. And the mountain was on fire with smoke etc because God was on it. So clearly the mountain is not heaven since God descended down to get to it.

So, your interpretation of Proverbs 30:4 that this is saying Moses went to heaven must be wrong.

Well if you've read the book of Enoch there is a specific "son of man" spoken quite a bit about and the argument could be made that it's the same son of man mentioned in Daniel's vision.

According to Proverbs 1:6 the wise speak in proverbs and riddles/parables. It's not easy to understand them.

Do you see what you're doing? You just quoted Proverbs as saying that wise men speak in parables, but you're arguing for a literal interpretation of Proverbs...

We can tell that it's not in any way meant to be taken as literal, because G-d's Words didn't literally burn until their impurity was removed. G-d's Words are clearly not a literal shield, in fact many people have died for them. Agur is clearly not a brute lacking intelligence to be able to write this chapter.

The author is using poetic license to describe a few of the main events in which Moses was the major actor. We can tell that it's Moses, because the context is G-d's Law and Moses was the one who brought that to us. He fits the context and the metaphor.

If you are reading this literally, you have definitely not understood the words of wise men.

Also, it doesn't mean cloth, it means clothes. He bound up water in his garment, not a handkerchief.

oldbadger · Jan 3, 2021

Tumah said:
Imagine you unknowingly read a fan-fiction about a world in the Star Wars universe.

In this world, father is a colloquial term not just for a parent, but also a grandparent. One day, you go back and watch the original Star Wars. In the movie, Darth Vader says to Luke Skywalker "Luke it is true. I am your father."

Now, since you didn't know that what you read was a fan-fiction and not authentic Star Wars franchise, you may at that point stop and wonder to yourself, "Hmm... Does he mean his actual father, or grandfather?" (I don't know if at some other point in the story this is made clear, but let's just assume not for the purpose of the example.)

Is there anyone in who would argue that the creators of Star Wars had in mind the colloquial use of the word father fabricated by the fan-fiction when they wrote that script? Of course not.

This is another reason why Judaism cannot accept the Christian Testament.

Reading the Tanach in it's own light, leaves absolutely no reason to assume that the Christian Testament would ever be written. In fact, in many cases, it causes a person to expect that it wouldn't be written.

That would be like the fan-fiction world describing Luke Skywalker as Darth Vader's father! After reading Moses' plea to see G-d's face being rejected on the grounds that no man can see G-d's face, would you expect to see G-d take human form and allow any person to see His face? After reading about G-d's dissimilarity to humans and Moses' warning the Israelites that they did not see any sort of image of G-d, would you expect G-d to become human? After reading about how the Commandments of G-d would be everlasting, would you expect G-d to simply do away with them? Etc., etc.

But that aside, simply reading through the Tanach would give you absolutely no reason to ever come to the conclusion of a Jesus.

And this tells you that the "hundreds" of prophecies about Jesus are nothing more than eisegetic re-interpretations - often divested of their original context. And that makes the Christian Testament's relationship to Tanach about the equivalent of Chuck Tingle's fan-fiction of the Harry Potter universe.

Yep. I'll buy that.
That was an easy sell for you as far as I'm concerned because I don't think that Jesus ever intended for Christianity to take off in the way that it did.
Jesus was a Galilean Jew and all for Judaism. He just didn't like all the corruption and rip offs.

Tumah · Jan 3, 2021

oldbadger said:
Yep. I'll buy that.
That was an easy sell for you as far as I'm concerned because I don't think that Jesus ever intended for Christianity to take off in the way that it did.
Jesus was a Galilean Jew and all for Judaism. He just didn't like all the corruption and rip offs.

You know what. His opinion is completely irrelevant because he didn't leave any writing behind to perpetuate his beliefs. So you can either buy into the NT or not, because those authors are all you got.

oldbadger · Jan 3, 2021

Tumah said:
You know what. His opinion is completely irrelevant because he didn't leave any writing behind to perpetuate his beliefs. So you can either buy into the NT or not, because those authors are all you got.

Oh I don't think so.
Just because folks leave their words behind by oral tradition doesn't mean that the World will discard them.
And one author seems to have been fairly accurate, if you drive out the determined additions you can get a fair idea of what Jesus wanted.

And you are wrong about 'all you've got' because anti Christians wrote some interesting accounts about him as well.

I'll buy in to an investigated review of the gospels, if that's ok with you.

1213 · Jan 3, 2021

Tumah said:
....This is demonstrable false. In fact, the Christian Testament even has to come up with a reason why so many people think Jesus was a load of hogwash that it declares that G-d stuffed up their hearts. Which is in direct contradiction to the prophecy you're claiming was fulfilled.....

Sorry, I disagree with that, can you show the scriptures?

Reading in the right order

Well-Known Member

wind and rain touch not this brain

Veteran Member

-- untitled --

Veteran Member

wind and rain touch not this brain

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Veteran Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Veteran Member

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Well-Known Member