BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I didn't insult any Noachides. I said they're more Jewish than you. That's a compliment.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I didn't insult any Noachides. I said they're more Jewish than you. That's a compliment.
the section you quoted is a section not about atonement but about giving sacrifices NOT for atonement (see verse 8, "And you should say to them: Any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers who will sojourn among them, who offers up a burnt offering or [any other] sacrifice,")
When one gives any sacrifice and eats a portion of it, one may not eat the blood because, in the context of animal-atonement sacrifices, the blood is considered an essential part. But we don't need a blood atonement for 3 reasons (and you can commence rolling your eyes because it will keep you from having to read the screen):
1. Not all sins are covered by sacrifices
2. Not all sin sacrifices had to have animals/blood
3. When there is no temple, there are no sin sacrifices
A couple of verses later, talking about sacrifices which are birds (which can also be used for sin sacrifice) the text requires that the blood be covered with dust and not eaten. Do you adhere to that also?
If you want to read up on Chabad.org's position, start here
https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...sh/Atonement-in-the-Absence-of-Sacrifices.htm
So only one - faith in God?
I inserted ignoring the rest of the Torah (AKA the Pentateuch). Is that okay?
So only one mitzvah. And I gather that this faith is only on condition of reward?Faith in God for eternal life--including atonement of sin, not via mitzvot, via faith in God.
What, list you the verses that show the ways in which atonement can be achieved without blood?If you have an answer from Penteteuch or Tanakh, I'm all ears.
"Nonsense"?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."
So only one - faith in God?
Psalm 119 refutes this doesn't it?Faith in God for eternal life--including atonement of sin, not via mitzvot, via faith in God.
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...Psalm 119 refutes this doesn't it?
The entire psalm describes devotion to the commandments, plural, as a demonstration of faith in salvation.
If the subject is atonement for sin without a Temple, look in Daniel.If you have an answer from Penteteuch or Tanakh, I'm all ears.
Might not be the same though. Maybe there are different standards for Jews and non-Jews.If the subject is atonement for sin without a Temple, look in Daniel.
24 Indeed, O king, may my counsel please you, and with charity you will remove your sin and your iniquity by showing mercy to the poor; perhaps your tranquility will last."
Revelation, foreknowledge, is the currency of the realm? Your devotion can be purchased? Christian values are for sale? That's disasterous.This Jewish teaching that the inability for Jews to feel Gods love and to have a relationship with him is disastrous.
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.
Might not be the same though. Maybe there are different standards for Jews and non-Jews.
What fellowship? I'm confused.Repeating, as long as you act rudely, I have no desire to go back to fellowship with you.
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.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, 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.rosends pointed out that it was these sins that caused the exile and loss of characteristics of authentic ancient Jewish religion.
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.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.
To separate Judaism into disconnected versions so that you can insert Christianity into some imagined void.However, My “personal agenda” would be what?
This is not elitism so establishing that strawman is uncalled for.A desire to point out rational historical changes in religion to impress readers?
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.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.
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.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.
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.“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”.
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 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.
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.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.
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.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.
Again, if you quote from a text which has no authority to Judaism, why do you think that it will be persuasive?“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….
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.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.
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.Um, the modern Jewish religion had its prophets taken away.
Why "on-going"? That's historically inaccurate. After Sinai, after crossing the Jordan, after all sorts of times, there was no revelation.It had on-going revelation taken from them.
And why is the creation of scripture fundamental as an on-going feature once the canon is closed?It had the ability to create scripture taken from them.
And it included instructions for what to do before, in between and after the temples stood as part of the fundamental instructions.It had the temple worship taken from them.
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.It had a fully functioning priesthood taken from them.
This is the same religion.This is not the ancient 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.Attacking Christianity does not help your own position.
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.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.
So one "I stand corrected" and one "you did not say these words." Interesting trend.You did not say those words.
Yes, this is your way of discussing this. Not mine.I pointed out that Prophets and revelation and the ability to produce scripture and temple worship and priesthood were characteristics of ancient Judaism.
I don't recall saying that it can be dismissed so you are taking a contrary position to something that was not 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.
And yet that's what you are doing.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.
So you agree that you were setting up a strawman. The trend continues.I agree. I was not trying to impress anyone.
No, "Judaism" does not. The Jewish nation has gone through periods marked by different events. The religion hasn't changed.I was simply making a historical observation that the Judaism of the ancients had characteristics that modern Judaism lacks.
But then we'd both be wrong, and who needs that?If you said "the same holds true of all MODERN Judaism" I might understood the claim.
Of course, neither Abraham nor Moses was Jewish. So there's that.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.
Good thing that those events are not essential to the structure and existence of a Jewish religion!Nowadays, Judaism has no prophet to receive revelation and offer additional, ongoing scripture and sacred beliefs and interpretation and traditions.
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).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.
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.This response is silly. I am not talking about excluding any historian, certainly I would not exclude Jewish historians.
Yes. I mentioned one.Clear said : “Your phrase “though national and public revelation did occur at Sinai…” is my point.
Anciently, Jews did have revelatory experiences.
The last time it occurred was at Sinai. There were other, intermittent public revelatory events but nothing on a national level.When is the last time a “Sinai-type” of experience of “national and public revelation” occur in modern Judaism?
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.When was the last time an actual Jewish prophet spoke to a group of Jews?
Yes and people walked in deserts. Neither is a foundational characteristic in Judaism.Prophets did spoke to groups in Ancient 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.Prophets do not speak to groups in modern Judaism.
There is only the one religion no matter how you try to invent otherwise.These are two different religions with different characteristics.
Ah, in that case, my claim about hearing the prophets through their writing is appropriate.Much of Christianity still claim ongoing revelation through the holy spirit.
Because none of the "having" was essential to what Judaism is, so "not having" doesn't necessitate the creation of anything new.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.