1. 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!

Featured God's Name as Opposed to his Titles

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by Deeje, Jan 5, 2018.

  1. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,305
    Ratings:
    +4,784
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    God's name (YHWH) is recorded in Scripture as the name he revealed to Moses, not a name that humans gave him. (Exodus 3:14-15) And the names of every other person of note are recorded in the Bible. Jesus has many names, pertaining to his various roles in the outworking of God's purpose.

    Names have been used to identify and differentiate us humans since Adam and Eve. Names had meaning...they were not just labels.
    Cain, ["Something Produced"] as their firstborn, was named as the first one "produced" as Eve said: “I have produced a man with the aid of Jehovah.” (Genesis 4:1)

    Abel [possibly, Exhalation] was also named by his parents....It is probable that, while he was alive, Abel had sisters; the record mentions the birth of daughters to his parents, but their names are not recorded. (Genesis 5:1-4) This may explain where Cain got his wife. There was no law prohibiting such a marriage. Abraham was married to his half sister.

    Then you need to read the Bible more. :D Since God is the one who gave his own name to mankind, it must be a necessary thing. You cannot have a close relationship with someone whose name you do not know.

    Pagan? really? How else are we to differentiate our God from the multitude of other gods that people are devoted to?

    When David came up against Goliath, he said...
    “You are coming to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin, but I am coming to you with the name of Jehovah of armies, the God of the battle lines of Israel, whom you have taunted. This day Jehovah will surrender you into my hand . . . People of all the earth will know that there exists a God belonging to Israel. And all this congregation will know that neither with sword nor with spear does Jehovah save, because to Jehovah belongs the battle.” (1 Samuel 17:45-47)

    The Philistines were Ball worshippers. By this victory Baal was shown to be defeated, not just his human champion.

    In ancient times a son was known by his father's name. The incorporation of "ben" in a name meant "son of".
    In English, names like 'Johnson' or 'Stephenson' or 'Wilson' convey this too.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. djhwoodwerks

    djhwoodwerks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    3,058
    Ratings:
    +776
    Religion:
    Christian
    Jesus! He never once "uttered" it.
     
  3. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,305
    Ratings:
    +4,784
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Can I just address this at the start.....where on earth did you glean this little gem? Who told you this? We most certainly do refer to our parents by their familiar designations, "father" or "mother" "Mom or Dad", as they did in the Bible. Where would there ever be such a strange prohibition? Didn't the Jews use the term "Abba" when referring to a more endearing term for a father?

    Since all Bible names had meanings, it is reasonable to assume that the original language conveyed the correct meaning of the divine name. I cannot comprehend the need to use "Hashem" as a way to describe or to introduce an intimate family figure. It just makes no sense in view of how many times the name of God is used in the Hebrew scriptures. There were no substitutes only a shortening or abbreviation of the name. (Yah, or Jah)

    Yet "calling upon his name" is clearly stated in your own scripture. Malachi 3:5
    "And it shall come to pass that whoever shall call in the name of the Lord shall be delivered, for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be a deliverance, as the Lord said, and among the survivors whom the Lord invites."

    In the Hebrew text the tetragrammaton is there. We are to call on the name of YHWH (however it is pronounced in our own language)
    God never said we are to refrain from using his name in a reverential and respectful way. All of the Bible writers did so.

    Why is there a need to change the spelling? Who said that this was a necessary thing? Help me understand what this is supposed to accomplish.

    Is there a verse (or verses) that tell us what these "names of God" are?
    I would read those words in a completely different way....destroying the names of false gods, doesn't mean to destroy something written on parchment...it means to destroy belief and reputation by promoting the superiority of your own God. This is what David did when he confronted Goliath. The Philistine god Baal was defeated along with his champion because David came "in the name of YHWH", Israel's God. (1 Samuel 17:45)

    Now you see this is what I find strange.....I can quote from your own scripture in Hebrew where the divine name is clearly in the text, but you cannot reproduce it because of a superstition....? God never said "don't you dare use my name because you might do something wrong".....
    It seems to me that none of the ancients treated the divine name the way the later Jews did. If there was some kind of command from God, that would be proof that you were doing what he commanded....but there is no such command, except from men.

    I see, so time and natural events (or even unnatural events such as war) can destroy what is written in scripture, but not anything written can be destroyed by you? So if I jotted down a scripture and I quoted what it said for my reference and it contained the divine name, I could never screw up that piece of paper and toss it in the bin? Does that mean that its better not to make notes...or better to keep them in a pile somewhere?

    I am a student of God's word...I make notes all the time. My house would look like a hoarder's house if I kept every note. Is that what God wants?

    I loved my father but sometimes it chafed to 'serve' him. He punished me when I did wrong but if it was just, I didn't remember it. If he corrected me and showed me potential consequences for my actions, it was wisdom to listen and obey, but young people are not noted for their wisdom, which usually comes with age. I had a great respect for my father but I wasn't afraid of him. The fear I had was more a fear of displeasing him, than the actual punishment. You never want someone you love dearly to be angry with you. That is how I feel about God. This is what the "fear of God" means to me.

    Was it a law of God or a requirement imposed by men? I cannot see where God ever made laws based on nit-picking over minor details.

    One incidence that comes to mind that others have noted was the man gathering firewood on the Sabbath being struck down. It seemed to be an inconsequential act, but it was a violation of the law. No work meant no work.
    The same with the man who steadied the ark when David was transporting it the wrong way. There was almost an upset and the man put out his hand to save the ark, but it was against God's law for a man to touch it....again two violations of the law...one by David and the other by the man who did what it was not lawful for a man to do. I understand both of those completely...but the extent to which "transgression" is taken by some Orthodox Jews escapes me.

    Were you raised in an Orthodox household?

    There were no laws that required anyone to be a genius to understand them. They were all just mostly common sense. The 10 Commandments were all easily understood. The other laws required some understanding of what God required and why he required them. 'Strict' adherence was a requirement, but 'blind' adherence seems to be an indication of no understanding. The Rabbis taught the people what God required and should have imparted the reasons for them as well.

    This is why I believe that many were drawn to Jesus....he explained in clear language what the Rabbis were not imparting. His illustrations got right to the heart of many matters. He did not come to start a new religion, but came, as many other prophets before him, to correct an errant people who had lost the plot spiritually speaking. Israel never took correction well....did they?

    Have you ever asked.."what if he really was the Messiah?"

    Where is the path of God supposed to lead us? If you have two teachers...one with a big stick who hovers to make sure that you follow every part of every rule and will beat you if you fail......and the other who acknowledges your imperfections and puts out his hand to help you up after you have suffered many beatings.....to whom will you be drawn? Which one accurately reflects the personality of the true God?

    Jesus was Jewish....he is our leader. I believe that he came to show us the true personality of the Father, to teach us the truth about God's requirements, and to offer his own life that was pictured by the blood sacrifices in Israel. Once offered, there was no need of blood sacrifices again. Jews do not follow the law in this regard now, do they? Can I ask why you think that is so?

    There was no reason for another Temple either, which is why, after the destruction of the last one, a third one was never built.
    Can you tell me why God made provision for Temple worship only up until the Romans destroyed the last one? Why is there no Temple for worship today?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,305
    Ratings:
    +4,784
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Really? You know that for a fact do you?

    John 17:25-26
    ...."O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.” (ESV)

    Matthew 6:9...."Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name...."

    Footnote: Or Let your name be kept holy, or Let your name be treated with reverence.

    I am quoting from your own Bible. Not everything Jesus said and did is recorded in the scriptures. (John 21:25)

    When Jesus got up to read the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue, he read....

    "The spirit of the Lord God was upon me, since the Lord anointed me to bring tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to declare freedom for the captives, and for the prisoners to free from captivity.
    אר֛וּחַ אֲדֹנָ֥י יֱהֹוִ֖ה עָלָ֑י יַ֡עַן מָשַׁח֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה אֹתִ֜י לְבַשֵּׂ֣ר עֲנָוִ֗ים שְׁלָחַ֙נִי֙ לַֽחֲבֹ֣שׁ לְנִשְׁבְּרֵי־לֵ֔ב לִקְרֹ֚א לִשְׁבוּיִם֙ דְּר֔וֹר וְלַֽאֲסוּרִ֖ים פְּקַח־קֽוֹחַ:


    2To declare a year of acceptance for the Lord and a day of vengeance for our God, to console all mourners.
    בלִקְרֹ֚א שְׁנַת־רָצוֹן֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה וְי֥וֹם נָקָ֖ם לֵֽאלֹהֵ֑ינוּ לְנַחֵ֖ם כָּל־אֲבֵלִֽים: (Isaiah 61:1-2; Luke 4:16-21)


    Since Jesus said that he had come to make God's name known, do you honestly think he would have failed to read the divine name 3 times in that prophesy? The prophesy he said was fulfilled in him. After initially marveling at his teaching ability, these same people soon wanted to throw him off a mountain.

    The "Lord" is in the English translation of Isaiah 61, but the tetragrammaton is in the Hebrew text. Would he have condoned a tradition that his Father never authorized?

    God's name has always been associated with his people...."Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name." (Acts 15:14) Even the Gentiles who became Christian worshippers of the true God, knew that it was Jehovah whom they were serving.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,305
    Ratings:
    +4,784
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    What other commandments are you obligated to keep in a day?

    Deuteronomy 17:11..."According to the law they instruct you and according to the judgment they say to you, you shall do; you shall not divert from the word they tell you, either right or left."
    "According to the law they instruct you" means whatever is in God's law must be observed. They were teachers of the law, weren't they? Their judgments were also carried out according to the law, so as far as I can see, it was not up to them to add anything. What was in the Torah was what they were under obligation to teach and to judge those who broke that law. If no one could deviate to the right or to the left, then I assume that included the teachers.
    All through Israel's history we know that the leaders did not always take that responsibility seriously. They were want to take matters into their own hands and take portions of God's law to ridiculous extremes whilst ignoring the weightier matters.

    Jesus accused them of many transgressions..."They bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger. 5 All the works they do, they do to be seen by men, for they broaden the scripture-containing cases that they wear as safeguards and lengthen the fringes of their garments. 6 They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men....you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was necessary to do, yet not to disregard the other things. 24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel!" (Matthew 23)

    These were pretty serious accusation, so it is no wonder that even today's Jews find his words hard to swallow.....but was he right? Wasn't Israel's history full of such conduct? Be honest.

    Should we be concentrating on the punishment or on the deeds that led to it? All sin is bad....sinning once, twice or even three times would not alter God's reaction to the sinner. God is not a bully with a big stick. He demands an accounting, but he allows for repentance and forgives in a large way, as long as we don't repeat the sin and presume on his mercy. The death penalty in Israel was carried out regardless of how many people had been killed at a murder's hand. Sinning once was enough to incur the penalty.

    Using God's name in a way that would bring reproach on him is not avoided by refraining from its use.....it is avoided by treating him with the respect he deserves by obeying him in all things. If we fail, we can repent and receive his forgiveness. He knows when the repentance is genuine.

    Misinformation is not telling it like it is. We need to get information from the source, whenever possible. This is why these forums are beneficial.....we get to hear about the beliefs of others and hear them explained and defended.

    Why do we keep valuables out of sight, do you think? Why are guards needed when someone is wearing a priceless piece of jewellery?
    Why would that piece of jewellery be kept in a safe? Isn't it because you are a target for thieves? Who is going to steal a name? Many people treat sacred things with disrespect, do you see God striking them down? Or does he allow people to show their true colors in order to judge them later?

    Would it be any more than Jewish prejudice against Messianics and Christians?

    Jesus mentioned a few in his day. He said of the Pharisees..."you build the graves of the prophets and decorate the tombs of the righteous ones, 30 and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have shared with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Therefore, you are testifying against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Well, then, fill up the measure of your forefathers."

    "Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Let the one who speaks abusively of his father or mother be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have that could benefit you is a gift dedicated to God,” 6 he need not honor his father at all.’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition."
    (Matthew 23; Matthew 15:3-6)

    The scribes and Pharisees in the first century attached great importance to the washing of hands and took issue with Jesus concerning his disciples’ overstepping the traditions of men of former times by not washing their hands when about to eat a meal. This involved no ordinary hand washing for hygienic purposes but was a ceremonious ritual....more for a show of piety than anything God commanded.

    Do you think Jesus was lying in his expose' of the religious leaders of his day, or can you see a repeat pattern in the way Israel's leaders took scripture and twisted it to suit their own view of things?

    The reality of what goes on in Judaism seems dependent upon which branch of Judaism one adheres to. Do all Jews see other branches as genuine? You describe yourself as "Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism" so are there other less "ultra" branches of Judaism that are acceptable to you and if so how?...and if not, why not? I am wanting to learn.
     
    #65 Deeje, Jan 8, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  6. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28,205
    Ratings:
    +11,796
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    No, you don't, as all you want to do is to preach your "my way or the highway" message.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Tumah

    Tumah Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    10,832
    Ratings:
    +7,169
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    I'm not really sure. but you've spent a very long time arguing that not calling G-d by His Name somehow diminishes the strength of the loving relationship we can have with Him, So I understood from there that you also don't call your own parents by their names, otherwise you'd fall to the same problem.
    When talking Aramaic and today also in Hebrew, yes.

    So I guess this goes back to the difference between JW's and Jews. When we introduce our parents, we say "this is my dad/mom", while I assume you actually say their names. Actually according to Jewish Law, we never say our parents' names in fulfillment of Lev. 19:3. Even more so for G-d Himself.

    And as I proved to you from other instances of this phrase, its simply a phrase meaning to select a subject, in this case - allegiance to G-d's Word. Not a literal saying G-d's Name.
    And again, all the Bible writers did so as they were writing holy texts. We do so as well in that case.
    Again: it is Biblically forbidden per Deut. 12:4 to erase (or cause to be erased) G-d's Name. When writing mundane texts that don't require special handling, its very likely that they'll be thrown out or otherwise mishandled. So the imperative is to not write G-d's Name on any mundane text or any text that is likely to be mishandled to avoid transgressing the prohibition. In practice, the way we accomplish this, is by either writing a substitute for G-d's Name, by changing the letters, etc. so that if the page is ruined, G-d's Name won't have become ruined as well. That's in Hebrew. When some Jewish people write in English, we adopted the concept of not dishonoring G-d's Name by not writing translations of these Names as well. It is another way of honoring G-d and His Name.

    No, we have Oral traditions for that.
    That interpretation doesn't fit the context. The verses there are talking about destroying the physical structures that were used for idolatry (and subsequently, building a physical structure for serving G-d). The context is destroying tangible items. Also, the Philistine Baal wasn't defeated, it still continued to exist for hundreds of years after David was buried.
    This is not a superstition, this is a practical application of a Biblical Law as mentioned earlier. I notice that you keep referring to it as a superstition because it isn't in line with your own beliefs and you have trouble drawing logical conclusions. But calling it what it isn't, doesn't change what it actually is.
    I've already provided the verse multiple times. So this response comes across as odd.
    This is kind of foolish, no? We're discussing not writing G-d's Name through substitutions or manipulations of the letters so as to avoid the very issue you're mentioning here - and you're asking me what a person is supposed to do when they want to take notes with references to G-d's Name...
    These are both types of ways among others, to fear G-d.
    G-d is infinite. G-d's Word is infinite. Why can't every Law of G-d's Word have infinite degrees of application?
    I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.
    I'm not sure what "extent" of transgression you're referring to.
    Yes.
    Can you explain the rationale behind using specifically a red heifer's ashes to purify a person of impurity from contact with a dead body - but not any other type of impurity?
    Can you explain the logic of taking four species of - three unedible branches and one fruit, on the holiday when produce is gathered as a rememberance of G-d taking us out of Egypt?
    Can you explain why there needs to be so many different forms of sacrifices instead of just one or two? And why so many on some holidays? While you're at it, I'd like to know why some sacrifices are either from sheep or goats, some are from bulls but not sheep or goats, some are from sheep but not goats, some are from goats but not sheep? What's up with the pigeons? Also, I get the blood is the life thing, for sacrifices, but if that's what it's all about, then why are there grain sacrifices? And if G-d is willing to forego the blood, then why not all the time?
    Why do I need to add a blue string to my fringe garment? Why fringes altogether instead of a badge or special hat?
    Why do I need to leave the corners of my field specifically and not just a single side?
    Why can't I eat fruit during the first three years of a trees life?
    Why can I eat a moose, but not camel? Also, why can I eat a bull, but not a donkey? Why can I eat trout, but not catfish?
     
  8. Tumah

    Tumah Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    10,832
    Ratings:
    +7,169
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    The NT authors didn't explain a thing. Some of their illustrations were ridiculous. All they did, was cut out everything they deemed "unnecessary". They didn't correct any errant people, they provided an excuse for errant people to continue to do so without feeling bad.
    The Rabbis were teachers as well as leaders. Anyone who wanted to learn was capable of walking into a study house and learning everything that all the other students were learning. It's not the Rabbis who were unwilling to teach, it's the NT authors who were ignorant of what was taught.
    The possibility of Jesus being the Messiah is so absurd to me, that I think if there was a second coming, I'd immediately assume that G-d realy is crazy. There's literally no basis in Jewish Scriptures for assuming that Jesus is the messiah. There's plenty of reason to assume that he is not. The only basis that exists is the NT which itself has no basis for being factual. The arguments of the NT are terrible and show a lack of intimate familiarity with the subjects they're arguing against. The "proof texts" are clearly eisegetic interpretations with no correlation to context because they were only gathered in order to build a case for Jesus rather than to express what the Torah actually says. Many of the "events" are clearly meant to bolster the feeling of authenticity by calling to mind stories of righteous people from the Jewish Scriptures. It's obvious that the authors are trying to appeal to Hellenized Jew, not just because of their arguments against the Rabbinical leaders, but because the very concept of the logos was fabricated by a Hellenized Jew and would be a language they were familiar with. There's just nothing real there to give me reason to pause.

    Neither. G-d is above any sort of personality. Instead He uses both traits of judgement and kindness, vengence and love according to how He sees fit for each individual and for every nation in order to accomplish His Will.
    Can you show me the verse that says once a person brings a sacrifice for a sin, he doesn't need to bring another one for a subsequent sin?
    Jews do not follow what law in what regard?
    That is not the reason a third one was never built, it's because the Jews were stripped of sovereignity and mostly exiled from the land, by the Romans and later the Christians and Muslims. There was an attempt to rebuild it, but that fell through. Today, there are other barriers to rebuilding the Temple. I'm not sure what you mean by "made provision". This is the second time we've been exiled from the land and lost our Temple. This time is just longer. The third Temple is connected to the Messianic Age. Not having a Temple is connected to our exile. We've only just begun the process of returning from exile, but we are still not in the Messianic Age. Since we're not there yet, we don't have it yet.
    Putting on phylacteries (Ex. 13:9), wearing a fringe garment (Num. 15:38), praying (Ex. 23:25), blessing G-d after eating (Deut. 8:10), reciting the Shema (Deut. 6:7), studying Torah (ibid). And then there are situational ones depending on who one is interacting with (such as honoring one's father), working a field (such as leaving the corners), taking a haircut (leaving the corners) etc.
    That's what verse 10 is talking about - following the judgement that the judges decide - not verse 11. Verse 11 is either unnecessary or adding something more than what was stated previously. If the Law was simply following everything that was written in the Book, than there's no need for a judge, a Hebrew language teacher would suffice. That's not what it's saying here.
    While there were leaders over the course of Jewish history who worked for their own purposes and their were leaders who worked for G-d's purposes. What you are suggesting, that all Jewish leaders worked for their own nefarious reasons is wrong. Just because the authors of the NT told you that the Rabbinical leaders should be counted among the former and not the latter, doesn't mean that they're right. It just means that this was their opinion. They could have been (and in my opinion were) the ones who are working for their own gain.
    This is an interesting accusation. I notice that there is no accusation here of fabricating "loads" but burdening "loads". It suggests that the Rabbis have the authority to determine how to interpret and apply the Law and that the Rabbis are interpreting everything stringently in transgression of taking up the yoke of one's fellow.
    So I mean, obviously for the NT authors who are about to abolish what amounts to all the Laws of G-d, this perspective seems appropriate. But from the perspective of someone who is bound to follow the Laws of G-d, I'd like to see an itemization of stringently interpreted Laws before this accusation will be anything more than vague and baseless.
    Here it seems that the NT authors have determined that the Rabbis don't really believe that there is some fulfillment of Divine mandate by doing these things. It's not clear what proof is being brought to this accusation.
    How does the author of the NT know that the Rabbis like it and don't do it for reasons they feel are beyond their control? Even beyond that, I find it hard to imagine that any leaders of any country of the era ever sat anywhere but at the front. That's probably part of being a leader. This seems more like it was meant to rile up the people against the Rabbis than a real accusation.
    It would be odd to call them "farmer" when their occupation is "Rabbi", no? Another ridiculous claim.
    This again is a vague and intangible claim. Where are the proofs that the Rabbis didn't uphold the strictest of justice in court? Where are the proofs that the rabbis acted mercilessly to the people? Where are the proofs that the rabbis broke faith with the people? I see none.
    He was absolutely wrong. The Rabbis were more exacting on themselves than they were on the public. Their interpretations of the Law were objective applications of exegetical rules. Their enactments were always in the interest of the people: to heal a breach in observance, to encourage proper fulfillment of G-d's Law and to ensure the community runs smoothly.
     
  9. Tumah

    Tumah Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    10,832
    Ratings:
    +7,169
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    I don't know why you keep accusing me of focusing on punishment and penalty. You are the one who keeps bringing it up. I have not been talking about them.
    I'm not really sure what your logic here is. It seems like maybe you don't see each individual sin as a separate problem. You also seem to be conflating with the responsibilities of the individual with the charge of the leaders.
    That is a different Law, not to profane G-d's Name (Lev. 22:32 et al). We are discussing not taking G-d's Name in vain. These are two separate Laws.
    I'm not sure what misinformation you're talking about.
    For valuables, it is because you want to keep them safe that they not be stolen, lost or ruined. With G-d's Name we want to make sure that it's not uttered by someone unworthy of speaking such a holy Name.
    I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but in general we don't see G-d striking anyone down.
    Yes, because we aren't taught anything about Christianity or Messianics as neither are relevant to our religion. Everything we know, we learn from our own interactions with them.
    Can you explain what the complaint is here? It starts off saying that we recognize that we descend from people who have sinned and that we believe we would had the strength to have not sinned in the same situation. What is the complaint after that?
    This is simply ignorance on the part of the NT authors. The problem here is a conflict between two Biblical commandments: to honor one's parents (Deut. 5:15) and to fulfill one's oaths in donating property to G-d (Deut. 23:22-24). You could argue that he shouldn't have made the donation as that transgresses his requirement to honor his parents. But once he did, his property is no longer his. It's the same as if he sold all his property to another person. You can't say that the sale wasn't valid as it fulfills all the requirements of making a sale. So it was a valid sale, it was just also made in bad faith. This person made a vow in accordance with the Laws of vows. The Rabbis don't have the ability to annul a vow made in bad faith. The person is still required to honor his parents, only now, he's also poor, so he may have less opportunity to do so.
    No, it wasn't a show of piety, nor was great importance attached to it. We still do it today. Here's what happened:
    King Solomon enacted a requirement that all priests wash their hands before performing sacrifices. During the latter half of the Second Temple era, the Rabbis additionally required that the priests was their hands before eating the heave offering (which was eaten at home). Around the time of the destruction of the Temple, the Rabbis made a blanket requirement that all Jews wash their hands before eating a meal, in order to encourage the priests to abide by the previous requirement to wash their hands before eating the heave offering.
    The problem stems from the fact that the sacrifices and the heave offering have a degree of holiness to them and can become impure. People (especially in those days) don't always pay attention to what they touch and there exists a possibility that one touched something impure. That would render one's hands impure which would in turn render the sacrifice or heave offering impure. In order to avoid that, the above succession of enactments were created. An alternative, not directly touching the food, is also permissible.
    I think that the Israelite NT authors were lying and twisting the actions of the religious leaders of the day. I don't think there is a pattern of such behavior as something similar is only mentioned once by on prophet, rather than a continuous issue such as idolatry that is mentioned by a number of prophets.
    I meant within the body of Jewish Law. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with how how Jewish Law works, its process, history, everything.
    I am [ultra] Orthodox and we accept the validity of all forms of Judaism which follow Jewish Law, namely all Orthodox branches. We do not accept the validity of other branches which we feel either bend the Law to suit their perception rather than bend their perception to suit the Law, or do not believe the Law of G-d is binding at all.
     
  10. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,305
    Ratings:
    +4,784
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Rather than go to a prejudiced source, I am grateful to @Tumah for his patience in explaining the Jewish view of so many issues metis. I am learning many things about current Jewish beliefs and the scriptural reasons for them....it is useful to me in my studies.

    There are no Jewish people where I live, so this is a good opportunity for me to understand why Jews believe as they do from one who is "ultra" Orthodox in belief and practice. Tumah is unwavering in his faith, unlike many others who can't decide who or what they are, despite a lifetime of considering the evidence. I might not believe what Tumah believes, but I respect the strength of his faith and the depth of his conviction. (James 1:5-8)
     
  11. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28,205
    Ratings:
    +11,796
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    First of all, let me just say that I do apologize for my sarcasm as I was going to go back and change it, but I forgot. It's an age-thingy.:(

    There's both pluses and minuses to that as you well should know since you used to be Anglican.

    Ditto on that, which is why I almost always defer to him, @RabbiO, and a couple of others here when it comes to Torah and things Jewish.
     
    #71 metis, Jan 9, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2018
  12. Rival

    Rival Shtreimel Wearer
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Messages:
    11,509
    Ratings:
    +12,290
    Religion:
    בת נח
    How the heck is it that Tumah ever sleeps?? Always people on RF begging him to explain this, to detail that, like RF is some kind of rogue Yeshiva with only one Rav.

    We appreciate your long posts written at crazy hours, Tum.
     
  13. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,305
    Ratings:
    +4,784
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Thank you for your time and patience in answering my questions Tumah.

    I don't view my parents as gods but I have great respect for the wisdom that comes with years of life experience. In this day and age, it is difficult to know where to draw the line in this. My aged mother is appalled that young children are told to call her by her first name. It was never done in her day. Respect meant being addressed as "Mr" or "Mrs".....but now even those "gender specific" terms are viewed as antiquated. Its a sad state of reality that respect for older ones has all but disappeared. Respect for God has disappeared with it.

    In our congregations young ones are encouraged to address older ones by saying "brother" or "sister" (first or last name depending on the degree of familiarity) This we believe instills some respect.

    When I introduce my mother to new people (she does not share my faith) I introduce her as my mother along with her first name to adults. I leave the parents to introduce their children.

    I understand. But in a world where people are dying of hunger, wars are killing people by the hundreds of thousands, refugees are displaced by the millions....it seems a little strange to worry over words on a piece of paper. There are much more important things to stress about....don't you think?
    I don't think God wants us to go to those sorts of extremes. I would go mad! If we are not concerning ourselves over the more important issues, it seems useless to unduly stress about something relatively inconsequential. Do Jews see all these things on the same level?
    What happens if you fail to perform your daily rituals?

    So you trust that the oral traditions have God's approval then? When God appointed leaders in Israel, if they led the people as God directed according to his explicit instructions, they were blessed and prospered, but when those leaders decided for themselves to add their own views, they were penalized as a nation for what those errant leaders did. Isn't God the one who tells us when we are doing things right? Doesn't his blessing naturally follow? Can I ask where the evidence of God's blessing is upon his people today?

    As with Elijah and the Baal prophets at Mt Carmel.....Baal was humiliated before all the people....Israel had been led to incorporate Baal worship into God's worship. Elijah demanded a test.
    1 Kings 18:21...."And Elijah drew near to all the people and said, "Until when are you hopping between two ideas? If the Lord is God, go after Him, and if the Baal, go after him."

    After the test was finished, the people were left in no doubt who was the true God. What test do we have today to determine who worships the true God?

    I'm sorry but it seems that way to me. I cannot see anything in scripture that prevents us using God's name in a reverential way, nor do I see anything written on a piece of paper to be sacred when it can be destroyed in any number of ways. I believe life is sacred but people die every day.

    Jesus likened our words of spiritual wisdom to 'pearls cast before swine'....they would be 'trampled underfoot by unreasoning animals'. It doesn't mean that the words themselves should not be uttered but just not wasted on people who do not value them.

    I guess they can, but we only have God's word itself...the interpretation is something else entirely.

    Some have pointed to those incidents as petty on God's part. The actions of the men concerned seem to be small in comparison to the penalty carried out, making God out to be a petty tyrant. But these incidents demonstrate that God's law was law. It left no room for those who wanted to push the boundaries, regardless of their motive.

    The man gathering firewood on the Sabbath should have gathered it the day before. Was it going to be used to cook food? Only God knows. King David knew the law regarding the transportation of the sacred ark. But he had it carried on a wagon and almost cause it to fall to the ground. That transgression of God's law, cost a man his life. Regardless of what motive the man had, no human was allowed to touch the ark for any reason. His actions resulted in his death. Both transgressed a clearly stated law.

    If there was no clearly stated laws then perhaps the actions of those men might have been viewed very differently?

    Since it was specifically stated in the law that these things be carried out, unless God specified his reasons, then we can only guess.

    In the 10 Commandments, all the laws were to do with being accountable to God for the bigger issues, which is why they were issued first I guess. The specifics of the other laws, particularly related to sacrifices came later.

    It is interesting that after the golden calf incident, God never allowed his people to organize their own festivals. All of Israel's festivals were held according to very specific instructions. Often humans are not very good judges of what is acceptable to God, and what isn't.

    Just as a thought on some of the things you mentioned.....

    The pigeons or turtle doves were an offering for the poor. weren't they? That is understandable.

    Grain offering like many others was the act of giving the best of the bounty given to them by God, back to him.
    Everything offered to God had to be the best, which was a divider of people...a test...since God knows when one is holding the best back for himself. It tested people's love and appreciation for the generosity of God to be generous in return.

    "the corners" of a field....I actually understood that it was the perimeter of the field.
    According to one Hebrew dictionary, the English words for the Hebrew word פֵּאָה can mean border, edge or side. So perhaps not just corners. It was an act of generosity on the part of the farmer to give gleaning to the poor, dignified by working for their food rather than just being given charity.

    The reason for the fringe and not a badge or hat, could be because headgear designated certain ones with spiritual responsibilities in Israel and badges may have been too easily mislaid. The blue thread along with the fringe was distinctive and identified a Jew right away.

    Not cutting the sidelocks could also serve as an identifier since it was customary for men of the nations to wear their beards in a decorative fashion or to shave them off altogether.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    It would certainly make Jews stand out.
     
    #73 Deeje, Jan 9, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2018
  14. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,305
    Ratings:
    +4,784
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    We are of a similar vintage metis. What "age-thingy" is that exactly?

    I was raised with one set of beliefs and when I was old enough to work things out for myself, I started to doubt that the church I attended was actually practicing what they preached. The more I saw, the more doubts I had. I never doubted God or his word...only the people who claimed to dispense Bible truth. I left Christendom before I encountered JW's. They were the last people on earth I though had anything to teach me. How wrong I was. I got to understand how it was possible for the majority of the first century Jews to fail to recognize Jesus.
    Perception management was invented by the devil. Plant seeds of doubt, water them and fertilize them and voila! the truth becomes a lie and the lie becomes truth.

    He has clarified a few things for me and I appreciate his efforts particularly as his daily schedule is a busy one.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Tumah

    Tumah Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    10,832
    Ratings:
    +7,169
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    So the concept of not saying the name of someone you need to honor and respect isn't foreign to you. In that case, I don't really know what you have so much trouble with understanding.

    The thing is that you've already been programmed to assume that it's not possible to do all these things because that's what you're NT tells you. But if you spend any time looking into Orthodox Jewish organizations, you'll find that we have time to "stress" about not writing G-d's Name and establish a tremendous number of charity organizations for our size.

    Then I have failed to fulfill G-d's Will. That can't be good.

    [quoteSo you trust that the oral traditions have God's approval then?[/quote]
    Of course. He was the one who initiated them.

    No, this is false. G-d doesn't punish me for something you did. Maybe if the majority of the nation is doing evil, then G-d will also include the minority of righteous, especially if they don't speak out. But if it's just the leaders, then only the leaders will be punished.

    This is not a question. Do you know what percentage of Jewish people follow Jewish Law?

    What makes you think that every generation needs a test?

    I understand and this is reflected in our belief that G-d Himself goes into exile so to speak, while we are in exile.

    We aren't talking about wisdom, but about sanctity and honor.

    We have the Words themselves and we also have rule for exegesis.

    And can you explain what about gathering wood constitutes work, that should have been obvious even without hindsight? What exactly is the difference between gathering branches off the floor and gathering the toys your children left out for you to step on?

    Does it not seem reasonable to you that when you see the most holy object in the world about to be trampled on the ground, you should catch it? If you seem someone about to get mortally injured and the only way to save him would be to collect the branches between you on the Sabbath, would you not?

    But didn't you argue before against blind obedience?

    [quoteIn the 10 Commandments, all the laws were to do with being accountable to God for the bigger issues, which is why they were issued first I guess. The specifics of the other laws, particularly related to sacrifices came later.[/quote]
    The 10 Commandments were not issued first. We were already commanded to count Nisan as the first month, bring the Passover offering (which itself includes a number of Laws), remove all leavened bread, sanctify the firstborn, redeem the firstborn, and not to leave the boundary of a city on the Sabbath.

    Have you heard of Purim, established by Mordechai per Esther 9:20-21? Perhaps it was simply that G-d only intended that we have certain major festivals regardless the golden calf.

    Not only. They were also brought by women who recently gave birth (Lev. 12:6) and a Nazirite who became impure before he finished the length of his vow (Num. 6:10) regardless of their affluence or lack thereof.

    Where does it say "the best of the bounty" in the commandments to bring a grain offering? But even besides that, if the way to get atonement is with blood, why can a pauper bring a meal offering (Lev.5:11) instead of an animal with blood in it? Doesn't that mean he's never going to gain atonement?

    To me knowledge, the word פאה never means a border or edge. But still, why specifically the corner/border and then also the forgotten and dropped grain? I get giving them the opportunity to work for their food, but can't that be accomplished by commanding that a set percentage of every field needs to be left aside for the poor to harvest? And if we're giving them an opportunity to work for their food while collecting charity, why do I also have to give a tithe of my harvest every third year of the Sabbatical cycle sans work.

    There were only two types of hats and they had distinct shapes. It would be very easy to create a third type of hat and let's say, color it blue. And why a blue thread as opposed to red or green? And why are we trying to identify Jews anyway?

    This is the same question as above: why are we trying to make Jews distinctive and why do we need to make them distinctive through that specific method. Why not a top-knot or a forelock or a ducktail or even a tonsure? Or we should have to shave our goatees but leave the beard on the side?
     
  16. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,305
    Ratings:
    +4,784
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    The concept of honoring aged family members is cultural, generally how an older person is addressed is according to local custom.
    Those influenced by the teachings of the Bible are encouraged to show respect for older ones (Leviticus 19:22; Proverbs 23:22)
    How you demonstrate that respect is generally dependent on how you are raised to do so.

    Wasn't that the problem with the law? Wasn't it a constant reminder that no one could keep it perfectly? Wasn't it a constant reminder that without the sacrifices, humans were incapable of pleasing God for any length of time due to their own efforts? Who is the perfect man who can keep a perfect law? Did God create the law simply to condemn his people? What was the purpose of it all? Perpetual sacrifice?

    What is "charity" to Jewish people? To whom is it extended? Is it based on the ancient model requiring some effort on the part of the one receiving it?

    And where will I find that written in scripture? To my understanding, Scripture is what God inspired, not the commands of men that fall outside of what is written. That to me implies that God was remiss in that he left important things out of his instruction. Would he do that?

    God punished the whole nation for something Achan did. (Joshua ch 7)

    Yes, Jeremiah prophesied the complete desolation of the Jewish homeland as retribution for their disgusting behavior. A whole generation was left to die in a foreign land because so few were actually living up to their dedication. But the few were punished along with the rest. Daniel, Han·a·niʹah, Mishʹa·el, and Az·a·riʹah were exemplary young men who refused to compromise on true worship in pagan Babylon. They must have had excellent training from their God-fearing parents, who are never mentioned. (Jeremiah ch 32; Daniel ch 1)

    Probably about the same percentage of those who identify as "Christian" who don't follow Christ's teachings. It is human nature to want to follow your own rules when something is too hard to put in an effort. Many take the position that 'some' is better than 'none', which we know is unacceptable to a God who requires obedience to all of his commands. Ritual may be followed with no real heart attachment to any of it.

    What makes you think they don't? Everything in this life is a test....unless you believe that this is what God had in mind when he placed the first humans in Eden?

    That is an interesting way of putting it.....but it seems more like God turns his back on those who willfully break his laws...especially those pertaining to bloodshed. (Isaiah 1:15)

    We are talking about holding God's wisdom in sanctification and honor. His wisdom is expressed in his word.

    This is always where humans come unstuck IMO.....interpretation has always allowed men to make up their own rules and explanations about what the scriptures actually say. Jesus gave us a rule of thumb....he said don't just listen to what they say...look at what they do, and if you see God's blessing on them, you will know who is teaching the truth. They will be prospering (spiritually) whilst others are dying of 'malnutrition' and lost. (Malachi 3:18; Isaiah 65:13-14)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,305
    Ratings:
    +4,784
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    No difference at all unless it was the motive that made it sinful. There were exceptions to the Sabbath rule though weren't there?

    But since observance of the Sabbath is a Jewish requirement, we (Gentile Christians) are not under obligation to hold a weekly Sabbath...and certainly not on a Sunday. It was intended to be a day of rest...to put aside selfish pursuits and concentrate on spiritual things. No work meant no energy was to be expended on works of the flesh. Though cooking food could be done the day before, so eating was OK. Was it work to fill a vessel to drink?

    I don't think killing a flea was to be considered "hunting" or to grasp a few heads of grain whilst walking through a field as "harvesting". That appears to be where the law became absurd, adding fear again to a day that was originally intended to be joyous and spiritually upbuilding.

    Obedience to a stated command is not blind. Obedience to an interpretation of a command when there is no clear reason for it gives us pause to to reflect on whether it is a genuine command of God...or just a command of men for the sake of adding another command.

    Passover was a commemoration of Israel's deliverance from the 10th plague brought on Egypt by God. The blood of the Passover Lamb on the doorpost of every Israelite's house ensured their safety on that night. But it was still celebrated according to God's explicit instructions.

    Purim was not commanded by God, but imposed by Mordecai who wanted the Jews to remember their deliverance on that day. The festivities of this event were added to over time to include the Fast of Esther.
    While it is said by some commentators that the Festival of Purim as celebrated by the Jews in the present day has more of a secular than a religious nature and is sometimes accompanied by excesses, this was not so at the time of its institution and early celebration. Both Mordecai and Esther were servants of the true God, and the festival was established to honor Him, not Mordecai or Esther.

    It seems reasonable to me that the most powerful entity in existence can take care of his own name. He has not prevented people from abusing it in the past. Perhaps it was he who withdrew his name from a disobedient nation in the first place?

    Not everyone could afford a sheep, so in Leviticus 5:7, reflecting God’s tender consideration, the Law said: "But if he cannot afford a sheep, he shall bring as his guilt offering for that [sin] that he had committed, two turtle doves or two young doves before the Lord, one for a sin offering, and one for a burnt offering.”
    As far as I am aware these birds have blood.

    Obviously not. Grain offerings were in recognition of God’s bounty in supplying blessings and prosperity, so every offering had to be the very best they had.
    If the offering of the poor was accepted as if it were a blood sacrifice, is that not a loving provision?

    Do you question God's requirements? He commanded this, not Moses.

    Again, it is God asking for these things.....do you questions them? How wonderful to give the poor the dignity of work. Many charities could take a leaf out of their book. Don't hand the man a fish...teach him to catch fish for himself. There is no place for laziness in God's requirements.

    What color is the sky and the ocean? It appears as if blue is one of God's favorite colors.

    Perhaps you are familiar with Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan? The way in which these men were dressed identified who they were.
    The man who was robbed and beaten was stripped of his clothing, meaning that Jews passing by could not tell what nationality the victim was. Two Jews, a priest and a Levite, passed him by without caring if he was a fellow Jew, but if he was a hated Samaritan they doubly didn't care...One rabbi is quoted in the Mishna as saying: “He that eats the bread of the Samaritans is like one that eats the flesh of swine.” (Shebith 8:10) Many Jews would not believe the testimony of a Samaritan or accept a service from one.

    In the parable, all the Samaritan saw was a fellow human in need of care and attentions. Since Jews were commanded to love their neighbors, Jesus was making it clear who our neighbors are. Anyone of any nationality or religion are our neighbors. Do modern day Jews still hold to old hatreds?

    Perhaps you should ask God?
    Christians have no such laws and restrictions. All we have to do is adhere to the Bible's standards of modesty and decency. It is clear by the way we dress if we are sticking to those standards. We should not draw undue attention to ourselves by strange hairstyles or outlandish dress. Our looks should not detract from our speech. We have a message to impart so our appearance should enhance our message.
     
    #77 Deeje, Jan 10, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Tumah

    Tumah Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    10,832
    Ratings:
    +7,169
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    What makes you think that there is no clear reason for it? What do you think actually goes on in the Talmud?

    Yes, but it was commanded before the 10 commandments (among the others I listed).

    Without knowing what we are actually doing, I'm not sure how your commentators can make that distinction. But that aside, the point is to question whether Mordechai had the power to create an enactment that was not commanded by G-d or not. And if he did, why do you assume that the Rabbis did not?

    That doesn't seem to be a reasonable idea considering that there's an actual command to guard the Temple (Num 18:5). Couldn't G-d guard His own Temple? If He wasn't going to prevent people from abusing the Temple, why should He command us to do so?

    Yes, that's for the Rising and Falling offering. It is brought for the reasons enumerated in the first four verses. The Rising and Falling sacrifice comes with options for poor and very poor people. It seems reasonable that pigeons were cheaper than animals, so it makes sense that pigeons were provided as an option there. However, the cases I quoted to you were a woman who recently gave birth (Lev. 12:6) and a Nazirite who didn't finish the length of his vow's time before becoming impure (Num. 6:10). In both those cases pigeons are prescribed as required sacrifices without any options for rich or poor.

    They do have blood, but all these questions are because you mentioned earlier that you don't need to be a genius to understand them, they are mostly common sense. I am showing you that there doesn't seem to be any common sense involved in this. Why should those two specific cases have pigeons as required sacrifices instead of being the pauper's option?

    Source please?

    Wait a minute. So you're saying that blood is not a necessary component for atonement? G-d can make provisions granting atonement through other methods as well?

    Yes, but as before, you were the one who mentioned that they were based on common sense.


    As you say, "one of". So is red as can be seen from the Tabernacle. Why not red?

    I am not, but that doesn't explain why there needs to be a commandment to be identifiable.

    Obviously I doubt the voracity of the story.
    But here's the full quote:
    And they (the Sages) also said in front of him (Rabbi Akiva), "Rabbi Eliezer would say, one who eats the breath of the Cuthean is as eating the flesh of a pig."
    He (Rabbi Akiva) said to them, "Quiet, I will not tell you what Rabbi Eliezer said about this [matter]."​

    Rabbi Akiva was a student of Rabbi Eliezer (among others). The Law is that we may not eat bread made by Jews who did not take the heave offering and tithes, nor may we eat bread baked by non-Jews. The Sages came to Rabbi Akiva and said that they heard that Rabbi Eliezer held by the stringent opinion that a Samaritan's bread is prohibited. There are two possibilities for this reason. One is because at an earlier point in history Samaritan were believed to be Jewish, but they were not careful with following most Laws. So their bread is prohibited because it contains in it a portion of the heave offering and tithes which are prohibited for Jews to eat, hence "it as if he ate the flesh of a pig". Pig is the common example of an animal that Jews may not eat, which is why it was used for the comparison. The other possibility is that later on it was determined that Samaritan weren't Jewish at all and their bread is the bread of non-Jews, which is again prohibited to Jews (albeit by Rabbinical decree).

    Rabbi Akiva responds to the Sages that they are wrong and that in fact Rabbi Eliezer held of the lenient opinion that Cuthean bread is permitted (the previous Mishnah uses the same expression to indicate that Rabbi Eliezer was lenient on another Law regarding the Sabbatical year). He doesn't want to tell them this outright because he felt that Rabbi Eliezer was too lenient.

    When it comes to Samaritans, the reason they did not have standing in the Law originally, is because they didn't keep it. It had nothing to do with them being Samaritan, the same was true for an ignorant Jew. The reason why Samaritans are singled out is because as a group they didn't keep the Law, while Jews had to be identified as ignorant first (which they usually are). After it was determined that Samaritans weren't Jewish, than again they weren't singled out for being Samaritans, but because it was determined that they were no different than any other Jew.

    Well, for one thing Jesus was wrong about his interpretation of who our neighbors are. It includes Jews and only Jews. Obviously when the writers of the NT want to bring the Samaritans into the nascent Christian fold, throwing them a bone is necessary. Today, Jews who follow the Talmud still believe Samaritans are not Jewish. This has nothing to do with hatred. I don't know any Samaritans and have no ill feeling about them. It's simply that their conversion was not a proper conversion and so they are not Jewish. Any Samaritan who is interested in rectifying that, is free to do so today and two thousand years ago.

    You were the one who said the Laws were common sense.

    Ok.
     
  19. Tumah

    Tumah Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    10,832
    Ratings:
    +7,169
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    The concept of honoring a parent is commanded. There are no limits within that commandment to the ways one needs to fulfill this commandment.

    What are you talking about? First of all, it's definitely possible to keep all the Laws, we do it all the time with many, many additional Rabbinical enactments on top of them. You've been fooled greatly by the NT in that regard.

    Secondly, there is no requirement to be perfect, that's why we have repentance. The righteous fall seven times - not the wicked. We only need to be righteous. Part of being righteous means, when you trip up, you repent. It doesn't mean you never trip up. There is no commandment to be perfect and that's obvious because there is a commandment to repent. Clearly the possibility for mistakes is incorporated into the system.

    The reason we have so many Laws is to provide us so many opportunities to fulfill G-d's Will.

    Sacrifices extend well beyond atonement - in fact atonement sacrifices are the minority within the system. So ideally there should always be sacrifices, because there are always reasons why we need to bring one and that's without getting into sin.

    Fooled again. The priests and Levites as well as any pauper on the third (and sixth) year of the Sabbatical cycle did no work for the charity they received.

    Yes He would because He has foreknowledge. The entirety of Jewish Law far exceeds anything that we would be capable of travelling with as we were exiled from country to country. But because G-d is Wise unlike any other, He could create a short encrypted book containing His infinite Will. Then He provided Moses with the exegetical tools we would need to derive His will from the encryption. The Book is called the Written Torah and the tools are called the Oral Torah. Now equipped, we don't have to worry about driving trucks worth of pages wherever we go.

    In my Joshua 7 the nation (or at least a group of people within the nation) are accused of breaking the ban in verses 1 and 11.

    And if their parents are never mentioned, maybe there are other righteous people who were never mentioned.


    I'd guess it's significantly less. They might not agree with you about what constitutes being a good Christian, but they still intend to follow Christianity as they understand it from your texts. That is not the same at all with Judaism.

    I'm not sure if you are following the chain of responses here. The originally quoted a passage where Elijah makes a test proving that G-d is the real G-d and not Ba'al. Then you asked what test do we have today. Following the passage you were quoting, I understood that you were asking, "what test do we have today to prove to people who the real G-d is?" I responded that it's not necessary for every generation. Your response now is talking about a different type of test: the tests that G-d gives a person as chances to fulfill His will. These two things are not the same.

    Deut. 31:16-18

    I have no idea what you are talking about. We were talking about the sanctity of G-d's Name and the respectful way it needs to be treated or not. Where does wisdom come in here?

    That's funny coming from someone who believes in the NT.

    Well then apparently the NT authors contradict themselves because they Matt. 23:3 seems to say the exact opposite of this.

    And how do you tell if someone is prospering spiritually or dying of malnutrition?

    Malachi 3:18 is talking about during the Messianic Era, presumably related to the Day of Judgement.
    Isaiah 65:13-14 is again talking events leading up to the Messianic Era where those that don't follow G-d will meet a bad end.
    Neither of these verses speak about regular everyday life.

    But the commandment isn't "do not be have work-related motive while working", is it?

    Can you quote the verse that says that the Sabbath was meant to concentrate on spiritual things or works of the flesh? Why is eating ok?

    Perhaps the reason you think so is because as you said above, you're a gentile and not commanded to observe the Sabbath. You're concept of what observing the Sabbath actually means seems to be very vague and difficult to gauge. There has to be concrete definitions here, because the court is required to stone a person who transgresses the Sabbath Law. There is no Biblical requirement to read anyone's mind, how are they supposed to know whether a person is motivated by a desire to do work or not? Here you have presumably studied your OT and yet you're still fairly vague on what the prohibition might entail. Why is that?
     
  20. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,118
    Ratings:
    +69

    וַיְהִ֣י אַבְרָ֔ם בֶּן־תִּשְׁעִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה וְתֵ֣שַׁע שָׁנִ֑ים וַיֵּרָ֨א יְהוָ֜ה אֶל־אַבְרָ֗ם וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלָיו֙ אֲנִי־אֵ֣ל שַׁדַּ֔י הִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ לְפָנַ֖י וֶהְיֵ֥ה תָמִֽים׃

    Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: with Westminster Hebrew Morphology. (1996). (electronic ed., Ge 17:1). Stuttgart; Glenside PA: German Bible Society; Westminster Seminary.​

    As Deeje implies, meaning is in the "I" of the interpreter. Wittgenstein says the eye isn't included in the picture it paints. And if the "I" in eisegesis doesn't know it's in the exegesis all kinds of ******* interpretations grow out of this unfortunate state. (No great sage grew out of Kentucky or Tennessee.)

    Rabbi HIrsch says תמים means "perfect" or "absolute" or "absolutely perfect." -----Of course where that doesn't jibe with modern Judaism's vibe, the word can be relativized to mean whatever it needs to mean. On this very verse Rabbi Hirsch suggests that a serious and thoughtful Jew, interpreting in a state of mind other than Kentucky or Tennesse, shouldn't relativize it:

    If one takes תמים to be only a relative concept, a quality of man in relation to God as in תמים תהיה עם ה׳ אלפיך (Devarim 18:13) and the like, then תמים would designate the one who aspires only to serve God; he has no other wish. People can easily deceive such a man, for his mind is totally absorbed in serving God; but only relatively good, and one could speak also of תמים לעזאזל. However, in our verse (והיה תמים) it is evident that תמים is absolute good.​

    It would seem Rabbi Hirsch support's Deeje's implication that the Abrahamic-covenant requires absolute perfection and not the sort of perfection that can be attained by "one who aspires only to serve God" through the complete performance of a litmus test or litany of laws.


    John
     
    #80 John D. Brey, Jan 20, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018
Loading...