BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Repeating, as long as you act rudely, I have no desire to go back to fellowship with you.
-
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!
Why the NT is Historically and Theologically not acceptable for Torath Mosheh Jews
- Thread starter Ehav4Ever
- Start date
Repeating, as long as you act rudely, I have no desire to go back to fellowship with you.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Nonsense. Verse 10 starts a new section as to why we don't eat blood, plus 11 says it is the blood that is used "to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul."
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Faith in God for eternal life--including atonement of sin, not via mitzvot, via faith in God.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
If you have an answer from Penteteuch or Tanakh, I'm all ears.
So only one mitzvah. And I gather that this faith is only on condition of reward?
What, list you the verses that show the ways in which atonement can be achieved without blood?
rosends
Well-Known Member
"Nonsense"?
Based on what? Your delusions and wishes? It doesn't work like that.
"Verse 10 starts a new section"?
Based on what? Verse 10 begins with the conjunction "and" and there is no break in the words indicating a new section until after verse 16. Verse 10 repeats (after the introductory conjunction) the same address (ish ish) from verse 8 and verse 3 connecting the verses topically.
Care to show me how you come to this conclusion of "new section"?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Psalm 119 refutes this doesn't it?
The entire psalm describes devotion to the commandments, plural, as a demonstration of faith in salvation.
I myself prefer Psalm 119 as evidence that Jews were, in fact, able to keep the commandments, unlike what is claimed by many Christians, that Jesus had to "fulfill" all of them because it was impossible to keep them. But what do I know? I'm just an Orthodox Jew...
Might not be the same though. Maybe there are different standards for Jews and non-Jews.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Revelation, foreknowledge, is the currency of the realm? Your devotion can be purchased? Christian values are for sale? That's disasterous.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Agreed, how about this?
Sukkah 49b:9
Proverbs 21:3: "Performing charity and justice is preferred by God to a sacrifice."
Last edited:
What fellowship? I'm confused.
1) REGARDING REVELATION AND ITS CENTRAL ROLE IN THE CREATION AND FUNCTION OF AUTHENTIC RELIGION
Dybmh said : “Revelation, foreknowledge, is the currency of the realm? Your devotion can be purchased? Christian values are for sale? That's disasterous.”
You are confused. Prophetic Revelation from God as a characteristic of authentic religion is not a thing that is purchased.
Rosends and I were initially discussing the reason the early Jews lost the prophetic gifts including revelation and the ability to create scripture, the loss of their temple worship, the loss of a fully functioning priesthood, etc.
rosends pointed out that early Jews raped women and committed other sexual immorality, and were guilty of murder, and they created and adopted of man-made religion and worshipped idols, and they were guilty of baseless hate.
rosends pointed out that it was these sins that caused the exile and loss of characteristics of authentic ancient Jewish religion.
I claimed that modern Judaism that had none of these characteristics was different than the ancient Judaism that had all of these things.
2) WHETHER MODERN JUDAISM IS THE SAME RELIGION AS ANCIENT JUDAISM
Clear said regarding Ancient versus Modern Judaism: “These are two different religions with different characteristics regardless of a personal agenda to claim they are the same.
Rosends replied : “No, they are not, regardless of your personal agenda to claim that they are different.”
While I think the “personal agenda” for modern Jews to attach their religion to ancient Judaism would include the desire to be seen as an authentic, God-created religion that has authentic existence from very ancient antiquity that has an unbroken set of traditions to which Jews may place their faith in. It is an appeal to antiquity for authority for its existence.
However, My “personal agenda” would be what?
An irrational desire to embarrass Jews? (meaness?). I am not trying to be mean by pointing out a historical occurrence.
A desire to point out rational historical changes in religion to impress readers? (elitism?) I do not suggest I am better than the Jews
A desire to “one up” Jews when I have already pointed out the Christians made the same mistakes as the Jews? (superiority?) I have pointed out that ALL individuals tend to apostatize.
3) Exclusion of prophets and revelation as the source of doctrines and religion.
rosends said ; “But having prophets declare doctrine (which they mostly didn’t do, by the way) was not a necessary or foundational element of the Jewish religion, and the doctrinal aspects of the religion anticipated the need to establish doctrine in the absence of prophets so their lack was accounted for, foundationally.
I agree that MODERN Judaism does not have prophets and revelation to “declare doctrine’ and thus prophets and revelation are NOT a “foundational element” of MODERN Jewish interpretation and doctrines and religion.
Thus, interpretation and doctrines and religion for MODERN Judaism came from the only other source available, from mankind.
Anticipation of the “need to establish doctrine in the absence of Prophets” is not the same as prophets establishing doctrines and interpreting texts and explaining and declaring the truth through revelation is not the same a mankind establishing doctrines.
4) RECONCILING THE TEXTS TO AGREE WITH ONES' BELIEFS VERSUS RECONCILING ONES' BELIEFS WITH THE TEXT
Rosends said : “No, the process of maintaining the integrity of the text by reconciling it was part of the ongoing tradition of the process of honoring God’s word”
“reconciling” the text to a tradition created by men and their beliefs and traditions is not the same as “reconciling” our beliefs and traditions to the text. This is another difference between ancient Judaism and the later religion called “Judaism”.
5) ANYONE CAN STUDY AND LEARN RELIGIOUS HISTORY
Rosends said : “Citing texts outside of Judaism to establish some understanding of Judaism is a fools’ errand...”
This is silly exclusionism.
Of course non-Jewish historians have some understanding of some aspects of Judaism just as some atheist historians have some understanding of some aspects of Christianity or of Islam.
6) READING AND STUDY ABOUT GOD VERSUS REVELATION FROM GOD AS AN INDICATOR OF A RELATIONSHIP TO GOD
Clear said : “Maintaining traditions of rabbis does not seem to be the proper process in religion where one central principle seems to be maintaining a relationship with God. The results of such a process is to LOSE this relationship as the Jews tell us.”
rosends responded : ““Which is why even a Jew who lives in Jerusalem today says in his prayers, "Because of our sins we were exiled from our Land." For even one who is physically in the Land of Israel, is still in galut.”
Rosends said : “And if you read more on the Chabad site, you would learn that the goal is to reaffirm that connection which we do through interacting with the texts and studying the laws.
This is another difference between the two religions called ancient Judaism and modern rabbinic Judaism.
Early Judaism would interact by revelation and communicated with God.
Later Judaism interacts with the texts.
Clear said: “It creates a religion where individuals simply live according to written tradition of rabbis rather than living inside a living, thriving, ongoing revelatory and personal experience with God as was given to the Christians.
Rosends : “This borders on preaching and possibly proselytizing (and it ignores that no gospels have been written in many, many years, so therefore, Christianity must be a different religion )
I am making a historical statement. You admit the Jews lost Prophets and revelation and ability to create scriptures. The Christians claim to have those gifts.
It doesn’t ignore the fact that Christianity in general have undergone a similar process to the Jews. I've already pointed this out.
In post #330 after pointing out the Prophet Ezra said the religion given to the Jews was taken away from the Jews, I pointed out that the Christians mad the same mistakes.
Clear said : “God can give authentic religion to a people and he can take it away :
“Hear these words, O Israel. At first our fathers dwelt as aliens in Egypt and they were delivered from there, and received the Law of life, which they did not keep, which you also have transgressed after them. then land was given to you for a possession in the land of Zion; but you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given. “ Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32….
I said : "Lest you think I am picking on the Jews who did these terrible things, I can point out that the Christians ended up making exactly the same mistakes, and, mostly for the same reasons. (post #330)
WHAT AND HOW MUCH MUST BE CHANGED BEFORE A RELIGION IS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME RELIGION?
Clear said: When you claim that the two religions are the same simply because the Jews knew they were going to lose important characteristics of their original religion, doesn’t mean the two religions are the same.
Rosends explained : “Sure it does. Saying it doesn’t is meaningless. A program with an "if then" subroutine doesn't become a new program when that condition is met. It just jumps to the subroutine within the same overall program.
I agree with this logic to a point.
HOW MUCH MUST BE CHANGED BEFORE A "CAR" IS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME "CAR" ONE HAD IN THE BEGINNING?
If I buy a car and you remove the motor, it’s still a car. It’s just a different car.
If the wheels are removed, it’s still a car. Just no motor and no wheels.
If the seats are removed, it’s still a car. Just no motor, no wheels and no seats.
If the operating controls are removed, it’s still a car. Just no motor, no wheels, no seats and no controls.
If minor functions such as a cigarette lighter are removed, the car functions pretty much the same.
If foundational functions such as the motor or wheels, or seats, etc are removed, one can still call it a car, but it does not function as it did originally.
Similarly, if God removes foundational functions from the ancient Jewish religion such as prophets, revelation, the temple, the priesthood functions, creation of scripture, exegesis and interpretation by revelation from the Jews, then the original religion no longer functions the way the original religion was intended. If these functions are replaced by something else that do not function, then, I think through this sort of rationalization, one can say it is the same religion, but in name only, not in function. Even if you call the pile of parts a “car”, It is not the same as a fully functioning car anymore. It is different.
Clear said: God can give authentic religion to a people and he can take it away :
Rosends replied : “Sure, He can. But he hasn’t. “
Um, the modern Jewish religion had its prophets taken away.
It had on-going revelation taken from them.
It had the ability to create scripture taken from them.
It had the temple worship taken from them.
It had a fully functioning priesthood taken from them.
It had guidance by living prophets taken from them.
This is not the ancient religion.
REGARDING CHRISTIANITY AND ITS RELATION TO THE CHANGE IN JEWISH RELIGION
Rosends said : “Creating something only a couple of thousand years ago following some failed itinerant preacher and the fictions written about him after he fails and dies would be silly. But don’t be offended…I point out this same failing to people of other religions as well.”
Attacking Christianity does not help your own position.
Whether Christianity is correct or false, or whether it exists or not, whether the Messiah was true or false, doesn’t change the historical principle that modern Judaism is a different religion than the very ancient Judaism.
You and I both have a reason to be very, very grateful to the most ancient Jews for their diligence and faithfulness in offering textual witnesses to what God was like and how he interacted with mankind anciently.
In any case, I hope your own journey is pleasant and fulfilling and wonderful rosends. I ap[ologize if I came across as snotty or mean. That was not my intent. I honor the ancient Jews and much of what they did. And although you pointed out the terrible sins they committed which resulted in the loss of prophetic revelation and other characteristics, I do not think Christians were free of the exact same weaknesses that cost the Jews so very much.
Clear
φυφυακακω
Dybmh said : “Revelation, foreknowledge, is the currency of the realm? Your devotion can be purchased? Christian values are for sale? That's disasterous.”
You are confused. Prophetic Revelation from God as a characteristic of authentic religion is not a thing that is purchased.
Rosends and I were initially discussing the reason the early Jews lost the prophetic gifts including revelation and the ability to create scripture, the loss of their temple worship, the loss of a fully functioning priesthood, etc.
rosends pointed out that early Jews raped women and committed other sexual immorality, and were guilty of murder, and they created and adopted of man-made religion and worshipped idols, and they were guilty of baseless hate.
rosends pointed out that it was these sins that caused the exile and loss of characteristics of authentic ancient Jewish religion.
I claimed that modern Judaism that had none of these characteristics was different than the ancient Judaism that had all of these things.
2) WHETHER MODERN JUDAISM IS THE SAME RELIGION AS ANCIENT JUDAISM
Clear said regarding Ancient versus Modern Judaism: “These are two different religions with different characteristics regardless of a personal agenda to claim they are the same.
Rosends replied : “No, they are not, regardless of your personal agenda to claim that they are different.”
While I think the “personal agenda” for modern Jews to attach their religion to ancient Judaism would include the desire to be seen as an authentic, God-created religion that has authentic existence from very ancient antiquity that has an unbroken set of traditions to which Jews may place their faith in. It is an appeal to antiquity for authority for its existence.
However, My “personal agenda” would be what?
An irrational desire to embarrass Jews? (meaness?). I am not trying to be mean by pointing out a historical occurrence.
A desire to point out rational historical changes in religion to impress readers? (elitism?) I do not suggest I am better than the Jews
A desire to “one up” Jews when I have already pointed out the Christians made the same mistakes as the Jews? (superiority?) I have pointed out that ALL individuals tend to apostatize.
3) Exclusion of prophets and revelation as the source of doctrines and religion.
rosends said ; “But having prophets declare doctrine (which they mostly didn’t do, by the way) was not a necessary or foundational element of the Jewish religion, and the doctrinal aspects of the religion anticipated the need to establish doctrine in the absence of prophets so their lack was accounted for, foundationally.
I agree that MODERN Judaism does not have prophets and revelation to “declare doctrine’ and thus prophets and revelation are NOT a “foundational element” of MODERN Jewish interpretation and doctrines and religion.
Thus, interpretation and doctrines and religion for MODERN Judaism came from the only other source available, from mankind.
Anticipation of the “need to establish doctrine in the absence of Prophets” is not the same as prophets establishing doctrines and interpreting texts and explaining and declaring the truth through revelation is not the same a mankind establishing doctrines.
4) RECONCILING THE TEXTS TO AGREE WITH ONES' BELIEFS VERSUS RECONCILING ONES' BELIEFS WITH THE TEXT
Rosends said : “No, the process of maintaining the integrity of the text by reconciling it was part of the ongoing tradition of the process of honoring God’s word”
“reconciling” the text to a tradition created by men and their beliefs and traditions is not the same as “reconciling” our beliefs and traditions to the text. This is another difference between ancient Judaism and the later religion called “Judaism”.
5) ANYONE CAN STUDY AND LEARN RELIGIOUS HISTORY
Rosends said : “Citing texts outside of Judaism to establish some understanding of Judaism is a fools’ errand...”
This is silly exclusionism.
Of course non-Jewish historians have some understanding of some aspects of Judaism just as some atheist historians have some understanding of some aspects of Christianity or of Islam.
6) READING AND STUDY ABOUT GOD VERSUS REVELATION FROM GOD AS AN INDICATOR OF A RELATIONSHIP TO GOD
Clear said : “Maintaining traditions of rabbis does not seem to be the proper process in religion where one central principle seems to be maintaining a relationship with God. The results of such a process is to LOSE this relationship as the Jews tell us.”
rosends responded : ““Which is why even a Jew who lives in Jerusalem today says in his prayers, "Because of our sins we were exiled from our Land." For even one who is physically in the Land of Israel, is still in galut.”
Rosends said : “And if you read more on the Chabad site, you would learn that the goal is to reaffirm that connection which we do through interacting with the texts and studying the laws.
This is another difference between the two religions called ancient Judaism and modern rabbinic Judaism.
Early Judaism would interact by revelation and communicated with God.
Later Judaism interacts with the texts.
Clear said: “It creates a religion where individuals simply live according to written tradition of rabbis rather than living inside a living, thriving, ongoing revelatory and personal experience with God as was given to the Christians.
Rosends : “This borders on preaching and possibly proselytizing (and it ignores that no gospels have been written in many, many years, so therefore, Christianity must be a different religion )
I am making a historical statement. You admit the Jews lost Prophets and revelation and ability to create scriptures. The Christians claim to have those gifts.
It doesn’t ignore the fact that Christianity in general have undergone a similar process to the Jews. I've already pointed this out.
In post #330 after pointing out the Prophet Ezra said the religion given to the Jews was taken away from the Jews, I pointed out that the Christians mad the same mistakes.
Clear said : “God can give authentic religion to a people and he can take it away :
“Hear these words, O Israel. At first our fathers dwelt as aliens in Egypt and they were delivered from there, and received the Law of life, which they did not keep, which you also have transgressed after them. then land was given to you for a possession in the land of Zion; but you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given. “ Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32….
I said : "Lest you think I am picking on the Jews who did these terrible things, I can point out that the Christians ended up making exactly the same mistakes, and, mostly for the same reasons. (post #330)
WHAT AND HOW MUCH MUST BE CHANGED BEFORE A RELIGION IS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME RELIGION?
Clear said: When you claim that the two religions are the same simply because the Jews knew they were going to lose important characteristics of their original religion, doesn’t mean the two religions are the same.
Rosends explained : “Sure it does. Saying it doesn’t is meaningless. A program with an "if then" subroutine doesn't become a new program when that condition is met. It just jumps to the subroutine within the same overall program.
I agree with this logic to a point.
HOW MUCH MUST BE CHANGED BEFORE A "CAR" IS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME "CAR" ONE HAD IN THE BEGINNING?
If I buy a car and you remove the motor, it’s still a car. It’s just a different car.
If the wheels are removed, it’s still a car. Just no motor and no wheels.
If the seats are removed, it’s still a car. Just no motor, no wheels and no seats.
If the operating controls are removed, it’s still a car. Just no motor, no wheels, no seats and no controls.
If minor functions such as a cigarette lighter are removed, the car functions pretty much the same.
If foundational functions such as the motor or wheels, or seats, etc are removed, one can still call it a car, but it does not function as it did originally.
Similarly, if God removes foundational functions from the ancient Jewish religion such as prophets, revelation, the temple, the priesthood functions, creation of scripture, exegesis and interpretation by revelation from the Jews, then the original religion no longer functions the way the original religion was intended. If these functions are replaced by something else that do not function, then, I think through this sort of rationalization, one can say it is the same religion, but in name only, not in function. Even if you call the pile of parts a “car”, It is not the same as a fully functioning car anymore. It is different.
Clear said: God can give authentic religion to a people and he can take it away :
Rosends replied : “Sure, He can. But he hasn’t. “
Um, the modern Jewish religion had its prophets taken away.
It had on-going revelation taken from them.
It had the ability to create scripture taken from them.
It had the temple worship taken from them.
It had a fully functioning priesthood taken from them.
It had guidance by living prophets taken from them.
This is not the ancient religion.
REGARDING CHRISTIANITY AND ITS RELATION TO THE CHANGE IN JEWISH RELIGION
Rosends said : “Creating something only a couple of thousand years ago following some failed itinerant preacher and the fictions written about him after he fails and dies would be silly. But don’t be offended…I point out this same failing to people of other religions as well.”
Attacking Christianity does not help your own position.
Whether Christianity is correct or false, or whether it exists or not, whether the Messiah was true or false, doesn’t change the historical principle that modern Judaism is a different religion than the very ancient Judaism.
You and I both have a reason to be very, very grateful to the most ancient Jews for their diligence and faithfulness in offering textual witnesses to what God was like and how he interacted with mankind anciently.
In any case, I hope your own journey is pleasant and fulfilling and wonderful rosends. I ap[ologize if I came across as snotty or mean. That was not my intent. I honor the ancient Jews and much of what they did. And although you pointed out the terrible sins they committed which resulted in the loss of prophetic revelation and other characteristics, I do not think Christians were free of the exact same weaknesses that cost the Jews so very much.
Clear
φυφυακακω
Last edited:
rosends
Well-Known Member
No, that's what I didn't do. I referred to three cardinal sins and the idea of baseless hatred and then said that these sins should be studied and can't be summed up with glib summaries.
No, I didn't. I pointed out that these were the sins that led to the destructions of the 2 temples and then that led to exile which had, along with it, the loss of prophecy (after the second temple). I never said that this caused any "loss of characteristics of authentic" anything. Please, don't put words in my mouth or grossly misstate my posts.
Any reliance on a precedented system can be dismissed as an appeal to antiquity. Thing is, while an appeal is a fallacious argument sometimes, it is also not fallacious sometimes. Your dismissal of the entirety by using the phrase "appeal to to antiquity" is reductionist and incorrect.
To separate Judaism into disconnected versions so that you can insert Christianity into some imagined void.
This is not elitism so establishing that strawman is uncalled for.
That's nice, but the same holds true of all Judaism. You are starting with a belief that there are these distinct versions so you then twist what you find to apply to only one grouping or another. But since your supposition is flawed, your conclusions are flawed.
If the provisions are established to account for the lack of prophets in the words of the divine or prophetic texts, themselves, then they are exactly the same as declared truths through revelation.
Good thing that that isn't what we do. We start with two concurrent streams of ritual/practice/belief and text and use each to support the other. Your creating a "difference" is wrong.
Great..."some." If you want to rely on "some" and make conclusions from that, even in the face of statements of those who, by dint of lifelong study and experience have "more" then you have made a very telling choice.
Another thing that is wrong. Though national and public revelation did occur at Sinai, the rank and file member of the nation was not interacting via revelation -- instead, they would consult the human experts who, given authority by the actual Torah text, would explain the laws and the text. I can cite chapter and verse if you would like.
No, early Christians claimED to have those gifts. This new religion of "Christianity" which is nothing like the ancient version does not have that ability.
Again, if you quote from a text which has no authority to Judaism, why do you think that it will be persuasive?
Ah, but you are still wrong in calling these foundational functions. You are also wrong in saying that the religion no longer "functions the way the original religion was intended" because, as I explained, the base (and foundational) texts account for the changes which you speak of and explain how their coming about is part of the same religious structure.
That's true. They were replaced with other functionaries. So? Show me where in the foundation of a religion, a prophet was REQUIRED. There is an entire book called "Judges" covering a time when there weren't prophets who guided the people.
Why "on-going"? That's historically inaccurate. After Sinai, after crossing the Jordan, after all sorts of times, there was no revelation.
And why is the creation of scripture fundamental as an on-going feature once the canon is closed?
And it included instructions for what to do before, in between and after the temples stood as part of the fundamental instructions.
Not really. It just had to account for the functions of a priest when not all their functions could be completed. We still have the functioning priesthood operating under the same rules. You really seem to be commenting on a religion that you know little about.
This is the same religion.
I'm not attacking anything. I am just showing how your arguments are more applicable there than at Judaism. Not seeing this is a matter of willful blindness, masked by defensiveness.
Hi @rosends
1) Clear said: "...and the ability to create scripture, the loss of their temple worship, the loss of a fully functioning priesthood, etc.
rosends pointed out that early Jews raped women and committed other sexual immorality, and were guilty of murder, and they created and adopted of man-made religion and worshipped idols, and they were guilty of baseless hate.
No, that's what I didn't do. I referred to three cardinal sins and the idea of baseless hatred and then said that these sins should be studied and can't be summed up with glib summaries.
I asked why the Jews lost the gift of prophetic revelation and temples and ability to create scripture. YOU then linked me to a blog that pointed out the three cardinal sins the Jews were guilty of were :
1) rape and sexual immortality
2) Murder
3) Idolatry and you added
4) Baseless hatred.
I agree that there is nothing about rape and sexual immorality, or murder, or idolatry or hatred that calls for glibness.
2) Clear said: rosends pointed out that it was these sins that caused the exile and loss of characteristics of authentic ancient Jewish religion.
Rosends point out : “No, I didn't. I pointed out that these were the sins that led to the destructions of the 2 temples and then that led to exile which had, along with it, the loss of prophecy (after the second temple).
I stand corrected. I should have said "these sins led to the loss of the temples as well as loss of these other characteristics as part of the punishment by exile."
3) Rosends said : “I never said that this caused any "loss of characteristics of authentic" anything.
You did not say those words. You pointed out the sins of the jews which led to the loss of temples, the punishment of exile and the loss of the gift of prophetic revelation and the loss of ability to create scriptures.
I pointed out that Prophets and revelation and the ability to produce scripture and temple worship and priesthood were characteristics of ancient Judaism.
4) Clear said: “While I think the “personal agenda” for modern Jews to attach their religion to ancient Judaism would include the desire to be seen as an authentic, God-created religion that has authentic existence from very ancient antiquity that has an unbroken set of traditions to which Jews may place their faith in. It is an appeal to antiquity for authority for its existence.”
Rosends said : “Any reliance on a precedented system can be dismissed as an appeal to antiquity.
I very much agree that history is a system that relies on precedence. I do not agree that history and it’s consequences can be dismissed.
5) Clear said: However, My “personal agenda” would be what?
rosends responded : "To separate Judaism into disconnected versions so that you can insert Christianity into some imagined void."
This is actually not a bad theory. I hadn’t consciously thought of doing that since I had not gotten to that line of thinking yet.
However, I think the time line of when the Jews were punished for their sins and went into exile and lost the aforementioned gifts of God and religious characteristics don’t match well.
Clear said: A desire to point out rational historical changes in religion to impress readers?
Rosends said : “This is not elitism so establishing that strawman is uncalled for.”
I agree. I was not trying to impress anyone.
I was simply making a historical observation that the Judaism of the ancients had characteristics that modern Judaism lacks.
6) Clear said: I agree that MODERN Judaism does not have prophets and revelation to “declare doctrine’ and thus prophets and revelation are NOT a “foundational element” of MODERN Jewish interpretation and doctrines and religion.
Rosends said : “That's nice, but the same holds true of all Judaism.”
If you said "the same holds true of all MODERN Judaism" I might understood the claim.
Ancient religion in the age of the Prophets such as Abraham and Moses had prophets who were able to receive foundational revelation and offer foundational scripture and foundational history and foundational sacred beliefs and foundational interpretation and foundational sacred traditions.
Nowadays, Judaism has no prophet to receive revelation and offer additional, ongoing scripture and sacred beliefs and interpretation and traditions.
7) Clear said: Anticipation of the “need to establish doctrine in the absence of Prophets” is not the same as prophets establishing doctrines and interpreting texts and explaining and declaring the truth through revelation is not the same a mankind establishing doctrines.
Rosends said : “If the provisions are established to account for the lack of prophets in the words of the divine or prophetic texts, themselves, then they are exactly the same as declared truths through revelation.
Just as Past tense is not the same a present tense, past revelations are not the same as present revelations. A prophet nowadays could have, perhaps prophesied of Covid19, or give specific advice regarding world leadership or explain interpretations of prior texts which are not particularly clear, or answer whether Jesus is the Messiah or not.
Clear
Rosends said : “Rosends said : “Citing texts outside of Judaism to establish some understanding of Judaism is a fools’ errand...”
Clear said: This is silly exclusionism. Of course non-Jewish historians have some understanding of some aspects of Judaism just as some atheist historians have some understanding of some aspects of Christianity or of Islam.
Rosends responded : “Great..."some." If you want to rely on "some" and make conclusions from that, even in the face of statements of those who, by dint of lifelong study and experience have "more" then you have made a very telling choice.
This response is silly. I am not talking about excluding any historian, certainly I would not exclude Jewish historians.
Clear said: This is another difference between the two religions called ancient Judaism and modern rabbinic Judaism. Early Judaism would interact by revelation and communicated with God.
Rosends said : “Another thing that is wrong. Though national and public revelation did occur at Sinai, the rank and file member of the nation was not interacting via revelation -- instead, they would consult the human experts who, given authority by the actual Torah text, would explain the laws and the text. I can cite chapter and verse if you would like.”
Clear said : “Your phrase “though national and public revelation did occur at Sinai…” is my point.
Anciently, Jews did have revelatory experiences.
When is the last time a “Sinai-type” of experience of “national and public revelation” occur in modern Judaism?
When was the last time an actual Jewish prophet spoke to a group of Jews?
Prophets did spoke to groups in Ancient Judaism.
Prophets do not speak to groups in modern Judaism.
These are two different religions with different characteristics.
Clear said: I am making a historical statement. You admit the Jews lost Prophets and revelation and ability to create scriptures. The Christians claim to have those gifts.
Rosends responded : “No, early Christians claimED to have those gifts. This new religion of "Christianity" which is nothing like the ancient version does not have that ability.”
To a certain extent this is correct for Christianities that have abandoned the concept of revelation.
Much of Christianity still claim ongoing revelation through the holy spirit.
In any case, How does this claim help your claim that modern Judaism without Prophets and revelation and ability to create scriptures the same as ancient Judaism that HAD Prophets and revelation and ability to create scriptures.
Clear
φυσετζφυω
1) Clear said: "...and the ability to create scripture, the loss of their temple worship, the loss of a fully functioning priesthood, etc.
rosends pointed out that early Jews raped women and committed other sexual immorality, and were guilty of murder, and they created and adopted of man-made religion and worshipped idols, and they were guilty of baseless hate.
No, that's what I didn't do. I referred to three cardinal sins and the idea of baseless hatred and then said that these sins should be studied and can't be summed up with glib summaries.
I asked why the Jews lost the gift of prophetic revelation and temples and ability to create scripture. YOU then linked me to a blog that pointed out the three cardinal sins the Jews were guilty of were :
1) rape and sexual immortality
2) Murder
3) Idolatry and you added
4) Baseless hatred.
I agree that there is nothing about rape and sexual immorality, or murder, or idolatry or hatred that calls for glibness.
2) Clear said: rosends pointed out that it was these sins that caused the exile and loss of characteristics of authentic ancient Jewish religion.
Rosends point out : “No, I didn't. I pointed out that these were the sins that led to the destructions of the 2 temples and then that led to exile which had, along with it, the loss of prophecy (after the second temple).
I stand corrected. I should have said "these sins led to the loss of the temples as well as loss of these other characteristics as part of the punishment by exile."
3) Rosends said : “I never said that this caused any "loss of characteristics of authentic" anything.
You did not say those words. You pointed out the sins of the jews which led to the loss of temples, the punishment of exile and the loss of the gift of prophetic revelation and the loss of ability to create scriptures.
I pointed out that Prophets and revelation and the ability to produce scripture and temple worship and priesthood were characteristics of ancient Judaism.
4) Clear said: “While I think the “personal agenda” for modern Jews to attach their religion to ancient Judaism would include the desire to be seen as an authentic, God-created religion that has authentic existence from very ancient antiquity that has an unbroken set of traditions to which Jews may place their faith in. It is an appeal to antiquity for authority for its existence.”
Rosends said : “Any reliance on a precedented system can be dismissed as an appeal to antiquity.
I very much agree that history is a system that relies on precedence. I do not agree that history and it’s consequences can be dismissed.
5) Clear said: However, My “personal agenda” would be what?
rosends responded : "To separate Judaism into disconnected versions so that you can insert Christianity into some imagined void."
This is actually not a bad theory. I hadn’t consciously thought of doing that since I had not gotten to that line of thinking yet.
However, I think the time line of when the Jews were punished for their sins and went into exile and lost the aforementioned gifts of God and religious characteristics don’t match well.
Clear said: A desire to point out rational historical changes in religion to impress readers?
Rosends said : “This is not elitism so establishing that strawman is uncalled for.”
I agree. I was not trying to impress anyone.
I was simply making a historical observation that the Judaism of the ancients had characteristics that modern Judaism lacks.
6) Clear said: I agree that MODERN Judaism does not have prophets and revelation to “declare doctrine’ and thus prophets and revelation are NOT a “foundational element” of MODERN Jewish interpretation and doctrines and religion.
Rosends said : “That's nice, but the same holds true of all Judaism.”
If you said "the same holds true of all MODERN Judaism" I might understood the claim.
Ancient religion in the age of the Prophets such as Abraham and Moses had prophets who were able to receive foundational revelation and offer foundational scripture and foundational history and foundational sacred beliefs and foundational interpretation and foundational sacred traditions.
Nowadays, Judaism has no prophet to receive revelation and offer additional, ongoing scripture and sacred beliefs and interpretation and traditions.
7) Clear said: Anticipation of the “need to establish doctrine in the absence of Prophets” is not the same as prophets establishing doctrines and interpreting texts and explaining and declaring the truth through revelation is not the same a mankind establishing doctrines.
Rosends said : “If the provisions are established to account for the lack of prophets in the words of the divine or prophetic texts, themselves, then they are exactly the same as declared truths through revelation.
Just as Past tense is not the same a present tense, past revelations are not the same as present revelations. A prophet nowadays could have, perhaps prophesied of Covid19, or give specific advice regarding world leadership or explain interpretations of prior texts which are not particularly clear, or answer whether Jesus is the Messiah or not.
Clear
Rosends said : “Rosends said : “Citing texts outside of Judaism to establish some understanding of Judaism is a fools’ errand...”
Clear said: This is silly exclusionism. Of course non-Jewish historians have some understanding of some aspects of Judaism just as some atheist historians have some understanding of some aspects of Christianity or of Islam.
Rosends responded : “Great..."some." If you want to rely on "some" and make conclusions from that, even in the face of statements of those who, by dint of lifelong study and experience have "more" then you have made a very telling choice.
This response is silly. I am not talking about excluding any historian, certainly I would not exclude Jewish historians.
Clear said: This is another difference between the two religions called ancient Judaism and modern rabbinic Judaism. Early Judaism would interact by revelation and communicated with God.
Rosends said : “Another thing that is wrong. Though national and public revelation did occur at Sinai, the rank and file member of the nation was not interacting via revelation -- instead, they would consult the human experts who, given authority by the actual Torah text, would explain the laws and the text. I can cite chapter and verse if you would like.”
Clear said : “Your phrase “though national and public revelation did occur at Sinai…” is my point.
Anciently, Jews did have revelatory experiences.
When is the last time a “Sinai-type” of experience of “national and public revelation” occur in modern Judaism?
When was the last time an actual Jewish prophet spoke to a group of Jews?
Prophets did spoke to groups in Ancient Judaism.
Prophets do not speak to groups in modern Judaism.
These are two different religions with different characteristics.
Clear said: I am making a historical statement. You admit the Jews lost Prophets and revelation and ability to create scriptures. The Christians claim to have those gifts.
Rosends responded : “No, early Christians claimED to have those gifts. This new religion of "Christianity" which is nothing like the ancient version does not have that ability.”
To a certain extent this is correct for Christianities that have abandoned the concept of revelation.
Much of Christianity still claim ongoing revelation through the holy spirit.
In any case, How does this claim help your claim that modern Judaism without Prophets and revelation and ability to create scriptures the same as ancient Judaism that HAD Prophets and revelation and ability to create scriptures.
Clear
φυσετζφυω
rosends
Well-Known Member
I sent you to a website that could give a grounding in 3 three sins. If you had learned a bit more about them, you would have known that sh'fichat damim, giluy arayot and avodah zara are technical categories, each surrounded by loads of intricacies and subtleties. I also sent you to a site which explained that these were three categories among many, and it provided sources for other opinions. I also pointed out that after the destruction of the first temple (with which these categories of sin are associated) there was still prophecy. If you want to ignore all that, and introduce your understanding of the sins then just be honest and say that these are the way you selectively present and understand the sins.
So one "I stand corrected" and one "you did not say these words." Interesting trend.
Yes, this is your way of discussing this. Not mine.
I don't recall saying that it can be dismissed so you are taking a contrary position to something that was not said.
And yet that's what you are doing.
So you agree that you were setting up a strawman. The trend continues.
No, "Judaism" does not. The Jewish nation has gone through periods marked by different events. The religion hasn't changed.
But then we'd both be wrong, and who needs that?
Of course, neither Abraham nor Moses was Jewish. So there's that.
Good thing that those events are not essential to the structure and existence of a Jewish religion!
then you misunderstand the role of prophet and the entire nature of Judaism and its interrelation with its texts and laws. You might recall that Yitro, Moses' father-in-law suggested to Moses that Moses set up a series of lower level judges to answer people's questions so only the hardest or most complex issues took up Moses' time. If there was constant revelation from God, and not a reliance on people who were versed in the law and its application, then this entire event would never have taken place. So your claim fails from way back. The text then later has Moses command the people to listen to the societal leaders of each generation who can explain, apply or adjudicate. This isn't something new or unexpected. And we don't need a message from God to know that Jesus fails on most every front in a claim regarding messiah status. If you think we do, then you haven't studied enough Jewish law (from WAY back).
So you are happy with historians who only have familiarity or knowledge of SOME aspects of Judaism when looking for authorities. If you are quoting non-Jewish texts as if they are historically accurate then you are, indeed, ignoring Jewish scholars who say that these texts have no authority.
Yes. I mentioned one.
The last time it occurred was at Sinai. There were other, intermittent public revelatory events but nothing on a national level.
300 years before the common era. It is good that you are asking basic questions finally. It shows not just that you don't know but that you are figuring out WHAT you don't know.
Yes and people walked in deserts. Neither is a foundational characteristic in Judaism.
They continue to speak to us every day. The mode is through their writings. Yeah, that's a more homiletic approach but your claim is so flawed that it seems reasonable by comparison.
There is only the one religion no matter how you try to invent otherwise.
Ah, in that case, my claim about hearing the prophets through their writing is appropriate.
Because none of the "having" was essential to what Judaism is, so "not having" doesn't necessitate the creation of anything new.
Hi @rosends
1) Clear said: "...and the ability to create scripture, the loss of their temple worship, the loss of a fully functioning priesthood, etc.
rosends pointed out that early Jews raped women and committed other sexual immorality, and were guilty of murder, and they created and adopted of man-made religion and worshipped idols, and they were guilty of baseless hate.
rosends said ; No, that's what I didn't do. I referred to three cardinal sins and the idea of baseless hatred and then said that these sins should be studied and can't be summed up with glib summaries.
Clear responded : “I asked why the Jews lost the gift of prophetic revelation and temples and ability to create scripture. YOU then linked me to a blog that pointed out the three cardinal sins the Jews were guilty of were :
1) rape and sexual immorality
2) Murder
3) Idolatry and you added
4) Baseless hatred.
I agree that there is nothing about rape and sexual immorality, or murder, or idolatry or hatred that calls for glibness.”
rosends responded : “I also sent you to a site which explained that these were three categories among many, and it provided sources for other opinions.”
While the Jews may have committed many categories of sins than three, the “three cardinal sins” you alluded to were certainly evil enough to justify God having taken the Jews original religion from them.
2) Clear said: rosends pointed out that it was these sins that caused the exile and loss of characteristics of authentic ancient Jewish religion.
Rosends point out : “No, I didn't. I pointed out that these were the sins that led to the destructions of the 2 temples and then that led to exile which had, along with it, the loss of prophecy (after the second temple).
Clear responded : "I stand corrected. I should have said "these sins led to the loss of the temples as well as loss of these other characteristics as part of the punishment by exile."
3) Rosends said : “I never said that this caused any "loss of characteristics of authentic" anything.
Clear responded : "You did not say those words. You pointed out the sins of the jews which led to the loss of temples, the punishment of exile and the loss of the gift of prophetic revelation and the loss of ability to create scriptures. I pointed out that Prophets and revelation and the ability to produce scripture and temple worship and priesthood were characteristics of ancient Judaism.
rosends responded : rosends responded : “So one "I stand corrected" and one "you did not say these words." Interesting trend.”
I was trying to clarity that the link you gave me that explained that specific and the terrible sins of the Jews such as rape, sexual immorality, murder, Idolatry and Baseless hate had specific consequences that led to the loss of prophetic revelation, the loss of the ability to produce scripture, the loss of the temple and the loss of temple worship and the loss of priestly functions.
While you claimed the Jews lost these characteristics in a certain order, they were still lost.
The loss of these important characteristics resulted in changes to the character of their religion just as the prophet Ezra said would happen when the Jews sinned: “Hear these words, O Israel. At first our fathers dwelt as aliens in Egypt and they were delivered from there, and received the Law of life, which they did not keep, which you also have transgressed after them. then land was given to you for a possession in the land of Zion; but you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given. “ Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32….
You pointed out that it was the sins of the Jews which led to the consequences.
I pointed out such as to the loss of temples, exile, loss of prophetic revelation, loss of ability to produce scripture, loss of fully functioning priesthood and temple worship.
I simply pointed out that these were characteristics of authentic Judaism.
4) Clear said: “While I think the “personal agenda” for modern Jews to attach their religion to ancient Judaism would include the desire to be seen as an authentic, God-created religion that has authentic existence from very ancient antiquity that has an unbroken set of traditions to which Jews may place their faith in. It is an appeal to antiquity for authority for its existence.”
Rosends said : “Any reliance on a precedented system can be dismissed as an appeal to antiquity.
Clear said : I very much agree that history is a system that relies on precedence. I do not agree that history and it’s consequences can be dismissed.
rosends said : “I don't recall saying that it can be dismissed so you are taking a contrary position to something that was not said.”
I am pointing out that the Jews had a religious system that was developed characteristics such as Prophetic revelation, the ability to create sacred literature (scripture), the characteristic of temple worship, the characteristic of a functioning priesthood, and a worship of the Abrahamic God.
Secondly, that these specific, important characteristics were taken away or lost due to sins such as you pointed out includings rape and sexual immorality, murder, apostasy from the true God and turning to idolatry, and baseless hatred.
5) Clear said: I agree that MODERN Judaism does not have prophets and revelation to “declare doctrine’ and thus prophets and revelation are NOT a “foundational element” of MODERN Jewish interpretation and doctrines and religion.
Rosends said : “That's nice, but the same holds true of all Judaism.”
Clear said : If you said "the same holds true of all MODERN Judaism" I might understood the claim.
Ancient religion in the age of the Prophets such as Abraham and Moses had prophets who were able to receive foundational revelation and offer foundational scripture and foundational history and foundational sacred beliefs and foundational interpretation and foundational sacred traditions.
Nowadays, Judaism has no prophet to receive revelation and offer additional, ongoing scripture and sacred beliefs and interpretation and traditions.
Rosends responded : “Of course, neither Abraham nor Moses was Jewish.
I did not claim they were “Jewish”.
The point is that modern rabbinic Judaism doesn’t have access to ANY prophets in their modern religion to look to for modern, ongoing guidance. They no longer have access to prophetic revelation. They no longer have the ability to produce prophetic scripture.
A great deal of the foundational beliefs and doctrines and traditions and interpretations from early Judaism came from prophets and revelation. (e.g. the Ten commandments), this avenue of sacred direction and traditions and beliefs and interpretations were taken away from the later Jews because they committed sins.
Such basic sacred histories are foundational to the development of Jewish sacred history, as a source of belief, of tradition, of commandments, of exegesis.
6) Clear said: Anticipation of the “need to establish doctrine in the absence of Prophets” is not the same as prophets establishing doctrines and interpreting texts and explaining and declaring the truth through revelation is not the same a mankind establishing doctrines.
Rosends said : “If the provisions are established to account for the lack of prophets in the words of the divine or prophetic texts, themselves, then they are exactly the same as declared truths through revelation.
Clear said ; Just as Past tense is not the same a present tense, past revelations are not the same as present revelations. A prophet nowadays could have, perhaps prophesied of Covid19, or give specific advice regarding world leadership or explain interpretations of prior texts which are not particularly clear, or answer whether Jesus is the Messiah or not.
Rosends responds : “then you misunderstand the role of prophet and the entire nature of Judaism and its interrelation with its texts and laws. You might recall that Yitro, Moses' father-in-law suggested to Moses that Moses set up a series of lower level judges to answer people's questions so only the hardest or most complex issues took up Moses' time.
Readers will recall that Moses became a prophet who received revelation that enabled him to understand his calling, be an instrument for God, announce miracles to Pharoah, lead the people from bondage, divide waters, make waters sweet, receive the commandments from God, inaugurate the tabernacle in the wilderness, predict the manna, the quail, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Without Moses prophetic qualities and revelation, no freedom from Egypt.
No freedom from Egypt, no other lessor stories from history would have occurred as it did.
The Prophetic calling and revelation are foundational principles to much of religious history.
Religion that has prophets and revelations and miracles and ongoing guidance from prophets develops differently and is a different religion than a religion that never had or has lost such foundational characteristics.
MUCH of what we read in sacred histories has to do with revelations and miracles and prophetic utterances. MUCH of what individuals on the forums debate involves the quoting of scripture. Much of that scripture either was uttered by or is in reference to or comes from the life of a prophet. If none of that existed, it would change the character of religion.
Clear
φυσιειδρ
1) Clear said: "...and the ability to create scripture, the loss of their temple worship, the loss of a fully functioning priesthood, etc.
rosends pointed out that early Jews raped women and committed other sexual immorality, and were guilty of murder, and they created and adopted of man-made religion and worshipped idols, and they were guilty of baseless hate.
rosends said ; No, that's what I didn't do. I referred to three cardinal sins and the idea of baseless hatred and then said that these sins should be studied and can't be summed up with glib summaries.
Clear responded : “I asked why the Jews lost the gift of prophetic revelation and temples and ability to create scripture. YOU then linked me to a blog that pointed out the three cardinal sins the Jews were guilty of were :
1) rape and sexual immorality
2) Murder
3) Idolatry and you added
4) Baseless hatred.
I agree that there is nothing about rape and sexual immorality, or murder, or idolatry or hatred that calls for glibness.”
rosends responded : “I also sent you to a site which explained that these were three categories among many, and it provided sources for other opinions.”
While the Jews may have committed many categories of sins than three, the “three cardinal sins” you alluded to were certainly evil enough to justify God having taken the Jews original religion from them.
2) Clear said: rosends pointed out that it was these sins that caused the exile and loss of characteristics of authentic ancient Jewish religion.
Rosends point out : “No, I didn't. I pointed out that these were the sins that led to the destructions of the 2 temples and then that led to exile which had, along with it, the loss of prophecy (after the second temple).
Clear responded : "I stand corrected. I should have said "these sins led to the loss of the temples as well as loss of these other characteristics as part of the punishment by exile."
3) Rosends said : “I never said that this caused any "loss of characteristics of authentic" anything.
Clear responded : "You did not say those words. You pointed out the sins of the jews which led to the loss of temples, the punishment of exile and the loss of the gift of prophetic revelation and the loss of ability to create scriptures. I pointed out that Prophets and revelation and the ability to produce scripture and temple worship and priesthood were characteristics of ancient Judaism.
rosends responded : rosends responded : “So one "I stand corrected" and one "you did not say these words." Interesting trend.”
I was trying to clarity that the link you gave me that explained that specific and the terrible sins of the Jews such as rape, sexual immorality, murder, Idolatry and Baseless hate had specific consequences that led to the loss of prophetic revelation, the loss of the ability to produce scripture, the loss of the temple and the loss of temple worship and the loss of priestly functions.
While you claimed the Jews lost these characteristics in a certain order, they were still lost.
The loss of these important characteristics resulted in changes to the character of their religion just as the prophet Ezra said would happen when the Jews sinned: “Hear these words, O Israel. At first our fathers dwelt as aliens in Egypt and they were delivered from there, and received the Law of life, which they did not keep, which you also have transgressed after them. then land was given to you for a possession in the land of Zion; but you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given. “ Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32….
You pointed out that it was the sins of the Jews which led to the consequences.
I pointed out such as to the loss of temples, exile, loss of prophetic revelation, loss of ability to produce scripture, loss of fully functioning priesthood and temple worship.
I simply pointed out that these were characteristics of authentic Judaism.
4) Clear said: “While I think the “personal agenda” for modern Jews to attach their religion to ancient Judaism would include the desire to be seen as an authentic, God-created religion that has authentic existence from very ancient antiquity that has an unbroken set of traditions to which Jews may place their faith in. It is an appeal to antiquity for authority for its existence.”
Rosends said : “Any reliance on a precedented system can be dismissed as an appeal to antiquity.
Clear said : I very much agree that history is a system that relies on precedence. I do not agree that history and it’s consequences can be dismissed.
rosends said : “I don't recall saying that it can be dismissed so you are taking a contrary position to something that was not said.”
I am pointing out that the Jews had a religious system that was developed characteristics such as Prophetic revelation, the ability to create sacred literature (scripture), the characteristic of temple worship, the characteristic of a functioning priesthood, and a worship of the Abrahamic God.
Secondly, that these specific, important characteristics were taken away or lost due to sins such as you pointed out includings rape and sexual immorality, murder, apostasy from the true God and turning to idolatry, and baseless hatred.
5) Clear said: I agree that MODERN Judaism does not have prophets and revelation to “declare doctrine’ and thus prophets and revelation are NOT a “foundational element” of MODERN Jewish interpretation and doctrines and religion.
Rosends said : “That's nice, but the same holds true of all Judaism.”
Clear said : If you said "the same holds true of all MODERN Judaism" I might understood the claim.
Ancient religion in the age of the Prophets such as Abraham and Moses had prophets who were able to receive foundational revelation and offer foundational scripture and foundational history and foundational sacred beliefs and foundational interpretation and foundational sacred traditions.
Nowadays, Judaism has no prophet to receive revelation and offer additional, ongoing scripture and sacred beliefs and interpretation and traditions.
Rosends responded : “Of course, neither Abraham nor Moses was Jewish.
I did not claim they were “Jewish”.
The point is that modern rabbinic Judaism doesn’t have access to ANY prophets in their modern religion to look to for modern, ongoing guidance. They no longer have access to prophetic revelation. They no longer have the ability to produce prophetic scripture.
A great deal of the foundational beliefs and doctrines and traditions and interpretations from early Judaism came from prophets and revelation. (e.g. the Ten commandments), this avenue of sacred direction and traditions and beliefs and interpretations were taken away from the later Jews because they committed sins.
Such basic sacred histories are foundational to the development of Jewish sacred history, as a source of belief, of tradition, of commandments, of exegesis.
6) Clear said: Anticipation of the “need to establish doctrine in the absence of Prophets” is not the same as prophets establishing doctrines and interpreting texts and explaining and declaring the truth through revelation is not the same a mankind establishing doctrines.
Rosends said : “If the provisions are established to account for the lack of prophets in the words of the divine or prophetic texts, themselves, then they are exactly the same as declared truths through revelation.
Clear said ; Just as Past tense is not the same a present tense, past revelations are not the same as present revelations. A prophet nowadays could have, perhaps prophesied of Covid19, or give specific advice regarding world leadership or explain interpretations of prior texts which are not particularly clear, or answer whether Jesus is the Messiah or not.
Rosends responds : “then you misunderstand the role of prophet and the entire nature of Judaism and its interrelation with its texts and laws. You might recall that Yitro, Moses' father-in-law suggested to Moses that Moses set up a series of lower level judges to answer people's questions so only the hardest or most complex issues took up Moses' time.
Readers will recall that Moses became a prophet who received revelation that enabled him to understand his calling, be an instrument for God, announce miracles to Pharoah, lead the people from bondage, divide waters, make waters sweet, receive the commandments from God, inaugurate the tabernacle in the wilderness, predict the manna, the quail, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Without Moses prophetic qualities and revelation, no freedom from Egypt.
No freedom from Egypt, no other lessor stories from history would have occurred as it did.
The Prophetic calling and revelation are foundational principles to much of religious history.
Religion that has prophets and revelations and miracles and ongoing guidance from prophets develops differently and is a different religion than a religion that never had or has lost such foundational characteristics.
MUCH of what we read in sacred histories has to do with revelations and miracles and prophetic utterances. MUCH of what individuals on the forums debate involves the quoting of scripture. Much of that scripture either was uttered by or is in reference to or comes from the life of a prophet. If none of that existed, it would change the character of religion.
Clear
φυσιειδρ