Moses and Paul in Taubes' Judaism: Addendum.

[paarsurrey]

Surely Judaism can't have that? That would be both the death of a Jewish firstborn (in this case --the --Jewish firstborn), at the hands of all of Israel (at this time just Abraham) followed by resurrection from the dead on the third day (v.4).

What led the Sages to make the implausible claim that this was the same as$ that Moses rode, and that eventually King Messiah himself will ride on?

Abarbanel.​

Jesus rode to his death at the behest of Israel (more than just Abraham at this point), on the back of the as$ Abarbanel finds implausible that Messiah should ride in on (Matthew chapter 21). He died and was resurrected on the third day.

John the Baptist, Jewish through-and-through, appears to be the only follower of Jesus who knows how Jesus' end will come from reading ahead in Genesis chapter 22. John the Baptist is the only person in the Gospels to call Jesus the "lamb of God" whose death will save the firstborn of Israel (more than just Isaac at this point), through a sacrificial, substitutionary, atoning switcheroo, of biblical proportions.

John

" He (Jesus) died and was resurrected on the third day."

Totally wrong, it never happened, I understand, as this makes Jesus a false Messenger/Prophet of G-d. Right?
It is a creed crafted by Paul (his associates and the Church), one may or could and or must say. Right?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

" He (Jesus) died and was resurrected on the third day."

Totally wrong, it never happened, I understand, as this makes Jesus a false Messenger/Prophet of G-d. Right?
It is a creed crafted by Paul (his associated and the Church), one may or could and or must say. Right?

Dogmatism doesn't seem like a very fruitful tool for argumentation. Which is to say that in my opinion the point of argumentation is not to use what we believe as the criteria for authority but to justify what we believe not dogmatically, and through pure dogmatism, but through accumulating facts and figures and exegetical nuances that support our belief. That doesn't mean our beliefs are necessarily correct or true, or that anyone will buy into them, but supporting them as best we can seems like the best we can do.

Case in point. When you say "totally wrong, it never happened," you may or may not be correct, but for what it's worth there have been literally billions of people who believe it happened. And many of them have been some of the best educated people the world has ever known. Albert Einstein said he trusted no man's judgment more than Isaac Newton. And Newton believed that what you said never happened, happened indeed, and beyond any possibility of doubt.

We can't prove what we believe. We can only show support for what we believe with argumentation, facts, and in the case of scripture, exegesis of the text. Isaac Newton wrote more than a million words in his own handwriting supporting his belief. He wrote more words expounding exegetical commentary on scripture than he wrote delineating his scientific concepts. Newton was firstly a Christian exegete, and only secondly a scientist. Science was his hobby. Scriptural exegesis was his true love and vocation.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

John the Baptist, Jewish through-and-through, appears to be the only follower of Jesus who knows how Jesus' end will come from reading ahead in Genesis chapter 22. John the Baptist is the only person in the Gospels to call Jesus the "lamb of God" whose death will save the firstborn of Israel (more than just Isaac at this point), through a sacrificial, substitutionary, atoning switcheroo, of biblical proportions (Genesis 22:13; John 3:16).

As I was editing and re-reading the paragraph above a strange nuance to the narrative hit me concerning the supposed parallel between the lamb of God in Genesis 22:13 and the alleged lamb of God in John 3:16. In Genesis 22:13 the death of the lamb of God saves the firstborn of Israel (just Isaac at this point) in an undeniably substititionary way. The death of the lamb takes the place of the death of Israel (Rabbi Hirsch implies that Abraham might take his own life if he's made to go through with the sacrifice of Isaac).

If Jesus is the archetypal lamb of God ritualized in the Akedah (Abraham), and the Passover (Moses), then his death should be a true substitute for the death of Israel aka the Akedah and the Passover. And amazingly, looked at historically, Jesus' death is indeed the salvation of Israel, Judaism, Jewish-ness, just as the Akedah lamb of God saved the world from the loss of Abraham and Isaac, and the Passover lamb saved the fledgling nation from death and annihilation.

After Tisha b'Av, CE 70, the nation of Israel was dispersed from the holy land (less than a generation after the death of the archetypal lamb of God) and was spread out among their nemesis the goy nations where antisemitism would have been the end of them but for the fact that a group of Jewish zealots, and particularly one Saul of Tarsus, sold the heart and soul of Judaism to the Gentile nations (and they bought it hook line and sinker) such that antisemitism now becomes the murder of one's own brother, sister, father, or mother, which is profane in the writ writ large in Judaism and summarily transferred to the new testimony of the Gentile-Judaism begun in earnest by Saul (the Jew) after he became Paul (the Jew to the Gentiles).

Though Paul is mostly hated by religious Jews, he, like Moses (and Abraham's lamb of God before him), saves the nation from sure annihilation. In Paul's case, he rescues, with little thanks from Israel, Judaism from complete destruction at the hands of the antisemitic goyim precisely by selling Judaism to them on the cheap (no circumcision needed). In this sense, Paul becomes more wily in his desire to save Israel from annihilation than Moses ever dreamed he could be, since as history records for all to see, Paul single-handedly saved Israel (from God's attempt to destroy them at and after Tisha b'Av 70 CE) in the most brilliant, probably the only way that would have worked (for two-thousand years of exile) by selling the goyim on the substitutionary atoning power of the lamb of God he heard John the Baptist crowing about.



John

 

[paarsurrey]

As I was editing and re-reading the paragraph above a strange nuance to the narrative hit me concerning the supposed parallel between the lamb of God in Genesis 22:13 and the alleged lamb of God in John 3:16. In Genesis 22:13 the death of the lamb of God saves the firstborn of Israel (just Isaac at this point) in an undeniably substititionary way. The death of the lamb takes the place of the death of Israel (Rabbi Hirsch implies that Abraham might take his own life if he's made to go through with the sacrifice of Isaac).

If Jesus is the archetypal lamb of God ritualized in the Akedah (Genesis 22:13), then his death should be a true substitute for the death of Israel aka the Akedah. And amazingly, looked at historically, Jesus' death is indeed the salvation of Israel, Judaism, Jewish-ness, just as the Akedah lamb of God saved the world from the loss of Abraham and Isaac.

After Tisha b'Av, CE 70, the nation of Israel was dispersed from the holy land (less than a generation after the death of the archetypal lamb of God) and was dispersed among their nemesis the goy nations where antisemitism would have been the end of them but for the fact that a group of Jewish zealots, and particularly one Saul of Tarsus, sold the soul of Judaism to the Gentile nations (and they bought it hook line and sinker) such that antisemitism then becomes the murder of one's own brother, sister, father, or mother, which is profane in the writ writ large in Judaism and summarily transferred to the new testimony of the Gentile-Judaism begun in earnest by Saul (the Jew) after he became Paul (the Jew to the Gentiles).

Though Paul is mostly hated by religious Jews, he, like Moses (and the lamb of God before him), saved the nation from annihilation. In Paul's case he rescued, with little thinks from Israel, Judaism from complete destruction at the hands of the antisemitic goyim precisely by selling Judaism to them on the cheap (no circumcision needed). In this sense Paul becomes more wily in his desire to save Israel from annihilation than Moses ever dreamed he could be since as history records for all to examine Paul single-handedly saved Israel (from God's attempt to destroy them at and after Tisha b'Av 70 CE) in the most brilliant, probably the only way that would have worked for two-thousand years of exile, by selling them on the substitutionary power of the lamb of God he heard John the Baptist crowing about.

John

" Jesus' death is indeed the salvation of Israel "

Jesus did not die on the Cross, he survived and migrated out of the Judea and out of the Roman Empire (many clues very much in the NT Gospels to this affect), so no, salvation of Israel/Jews did not and never depended on Jesus' death on the Cross to make him a false Messenger/Prophet as per Torah. Right?

It is just superstition and or a myth spread by Paul, a Hellenist ( and Pauline-Christianity) to deviate from the truthful path of Jesus and his teachings, I understand. Right?
Israel/Jews were waiting for an indigenous Jewish Messiah not a Hellenist Christ-a myth involving a life-death-rebirth deity . Right?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

Jesus did not die on the Cross, he survived and migrated out of the Judea and out of the Roman Empire (many clues very much in the NT Gospels to this affect), so no, salvation of Israel/Jews did not and never depended on Jesus' death on the Cross to make him a false Messenger/Prophet as per Torah. Right?

Why would you reference the NT and Gospels to the effect that Jesus migrated out of Judea when the Gospels and NT clearly imply he died on the cross? Do you have an NT owners manual that tells which parts are lies, and which parts are gospel truth?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

As I was editing and re-reading the paragraph above a strange nuance to the narrative hit me concerning the supposed parallel between the lamb of God in Genesis 22:13 and the alleged lamb of God in John 3:16. In Genesis 22:13 the death of the lamb of God saves the firstborn of Israel (just Isaac at this point) in an undeniably substititionary way. The death of the lamb takes the place of the death of Israel (Rabbi Hirsch implies that Abraham might take his own life if he's made to go through with the sacrifice of Isaac).

If Jesus is the archetypal lamb of God ritualized in the Akedah (Abraham), and the Passover (Moses), then his death should be a true substitute for the death of Israel aka the Akedah and the Passover. And amazingly, looked at historically, Jesus' death is indeed the salvation of Israel, Judaism, Jewish-ness, just as the Akedah lamb of God saved the world from the loss of Abraham and Isaac, and the Passover lamb saved the fledgling nation from death and annihilation.

After Tisha b'Av, CE 70, the nation of Israel was dispersed from the holy land (less than a generation after the death of the archetypal lamb of God) and was spread out among their nemesis the goy nations where antisemitism would have been the end of them but for the fact that a group of Jewish zealots, and particularly one Saul of Tarsus, sold the heart and soul of Judaism to the Gentile nations (and they bought it hook line and sinker) such that antisemitism now becomes the murder of one's own brother, sister, father, or mother, which is profane in the writ writ large in Judaism and summarily transferred to the new testimony of the Gentile-Judaism begun in earnest by Saul (the Jew) after he became Paul (the Jew to the Gentiles).

Though Paul is mostly hated by religious Jews, he, like Moses (and Abraham's lamb of God before him), saves the nation from sure annihilation. In Paul's case, he rescues, with little thanks from Israel, Judaism from complete destruction at the hands of the antisemitic goyim precisely by selling Judaism to them on the cheap (no circumcision needed). In this sense, Paul becomes more wily in his desire to save Israel from annihilation than Moses ever dreamed he could be, since as history records for all to see, Paul single-handedly saved Israel (from God's attempt to destroy them at and after Tisha b'Av 70 CE) in the most brilliant, probably the only way that would have worked (for two-thousand years of exile) by selling the goyim on the substitutionary atoning power of the lamb of God he heard John the Baptist crowing about.

כתבים משני עבריהם וגו׳. The meaning of what is said here regarding the writing on the tablets cannot be established conclusively. Nevertheless, in our view, the two phrases "כתבים משני עבריהם" and "הם כתבים מזה ומזה" denote two things: First, that the writing went right through both sides of the stone and was not engraved merely to a certain depth. Second, that in spite of this the writing was readable from both sides. On both sides the words appeared in proper sequence; they did not appear reversed . . . The writing penetrated right through the tablets and nevertheless could be read from both sides.

The Hirsch Chumash.
​

Rabbi Hirsch follows up the statement above with compelling exegesis and tradition for why the writing is known to have penetrated through the stone. Sound exegesis could be added here to support Rabbi Hirsch's conclusion but that would distract from the primary point:

. . . the writing had free mastery over the tablets . . . The tablets did not have mastery over the writing, but, rather, the writing supported the tablets.​

Point being:

Not only is the writing of God's Testimony independent of the material, but the writing supports the material that is subordinate to it and that serves it. The writing raises the material above and beyond the laws of nature, which govern all matter. The same applies to human beings in whom the spirit of this writing has taken hold: They make themselves the bearers of this spirit, and the spirit uplifts them, bears them, and supports them, above and beyond the force of blind compulsion, which clings to all matter. In other words, they become free.​

Finally:

If the tablets of the testimony were written on one side only, the person responsible for reading to the people the laws written on the tablets would be placed in a dictatorial position vis-a-vis the masses listening to his speech. He alone would have the text before his eyes, and the masses would have to simply accept what they would hear from his mouth. Clearly, he would be the intermediary between the people and the law.​

Acts chapter 2:

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them floating letters forming a language like as of fire, and it burned upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with the multivocality, the plasticity of divine languages, as the Spirit gave them utterance

Act 2:1–4.​

What Israel rejected, bidding Moses be the delivery boy for these burning language of fire, "Let us listen to him . . . let him fetch the language of fire . . . and bring it to us and we will listen to him; let him be our dictator . . . but let not us be in danger from the spirit of that conflagration," the disciples in the upper room, Acts 2:1-4, received as a community, so that the scriptures were opened up to each and every one of them individually, with multiple, seventy or more, interpretations. At Pentecost, borrowing the words of Rabbi Hirsch:

Thus, the Torah addresses the people and each of its individual members directly. Moshe's status as intermediary disappears, and he becomes simply one of the people. The people can read the Law to Moshe as well as he can read it to them. Thus, even if "this man Moshe" disappears, the people no longer need him; for the Torah presents itself before the eyes of every individual at every moment as given directly from God.​

But that's not what happened at Horeb, and it's not the Jewish position now. When Ibn Ezra was confronted with the divine plasticity of interpretations being circulated by the Christians ---born out of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4) ---he remarked that for Jews, the tradition handed down from Moses and all the other dictators is the way the Jew must read and interpret the text. There is none of the freedom Rabbi Hirsch possesses and uses to try to imply it's germane to Judaism. It just isn't there in the Law, or in Judaism proper. It's all about dictator Moses, and the Chazal. God forbid a lay Jew read the scroll laid before him from his own stars or from his own spirit. That's a Christian thing; a Christian kind of freedom, though Rabbi Hirsch possesses it, and uses it to try and write that freedom into the events at Horeb, even though the literal text shows he's using his freedom in a horrible and unlawful manner.



John

 

[paarsurrey]

Why would you reference the NT and Gospels to the effect that Jesus migrated out of Judea when the Gospels and NT clearly imply he died on the cross? Do you have an NT owners manual that tells which parts are lies, and which parts are gospel truth?
John

" Gospels and NT clearly imply he died on the cross"

isn't that one's confirmation bias only, as I understand, please? Right?
Actually it is other way round, one must say? Right?

Regards
_______________

April 14, 2012 – The Muslim Times65-reasons-to-believe-jesus-did-not-die-on-the-cross/

 

[John D. Brey]

" Gospels and NT clearly imply he died on the cross"

isn't that one's confirmation bias only, as I understand, please? Right?
Actually it is other way round, one must say? Right?

Regards
_______________

April 14, 2012 – The Muslim Times65-reasons-to-believe-jesus-did-not-die-on-the-cross/

John 12:32-33; Mark 15:37; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; etc., etc., etc...... Forgive me if I accept the witness of the Gospel writers over the writers of The Muslim Times.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

But that's not what happened at Horeb, and it's not the Jewish position now. When Ibn Ezra was confronted with the divine plasticity of interpretations being circulated by the Christians ---born out of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4) ---he remarked that for Jews, the tradition handed down from Moses and all the other dictators is the way the Jew must read and interpret the text. There is none of the freedom Rabbi Hirsch possesses and uses to try to imply it's germane to Judaism. It just isn't there in the Law, or in Judaism proper. It's all about dictator Moses, and the Chazal. God forbid a lay Jew read the scroll laid before him from his own stars or from his own spirit. That's a Christian thing; a Christian kind of freedom, though Rabbi Hirsch possesses it, and uses it to try and write that freedom into the events at Horeb, even though the literal text shows he's using his freedom in a horrible and unlawful manner.

The Rabbinic Bible, the Miqra'ot Gedolot, prefaces its commentary with statements from Ibn Ezra on the nature of proper interpretation of the seminal text. At first he claims: "I treat God alone with awe, and will show no favor to the Torah, seeking the correct meaning of each and every word with all my might. Then I will interpret each verse as best I am able." -----He's seemingly appealing to something like the tradition Rabbi Hirsch expounded concerning the multivocality, the plasticity of divine language, as associated with the concept that two people could read the original tablets at the same time: one from the back, and one from the front. He will be guided by the fiery spirit of God ---the words of fire will support his interpretation, and not the material tablets alone (he will show no favor to natural, blind materialistic compulsion, so far as interpretation of the holy text is concerned).

But then he addresses the problem of where his own interpretation diverges from numerous Christian interpretations; but where the material letters, the blind compulsion of the clear and literal text, supports both, or all interpretations equally, or, godforbid, supports the Christian version more perfectly than his (say Psalms 2:6)?

In the introduction to the Miqra'ot Gedolot, Ibn Ezra is made to address the problem of the multivocality, the numerous voices/interpretation made possible by the polysemous nature of the original revelation, such that in mid-stream, his foundational approach to proper exegesis and interpretation takes a 180 degree turn parallel to the 180 degree turn Rabbi Hirsch's interpretation took whereby though he knows the literal text says Israel made Moses their dictatorial mediator, and of their own freewill (not wanting the frightening responsibility of letting the fiery letters land on them as it did the poor souls in the upper room ---most of whom were later martyred for their troubles), they nevertheless are somehow endowed with the discourse associated with the upper room events in Acts chapter 2?

Caught with his hand stuck in the cookie jar of interpretative fidelity, Ibn Ezra changes his tune dramatically, and in such a manner as to reflect the true nature of the happenings at Horeb:

To be sure, when it comes to the laws, if we find two possible meanings, we will follow the one handed down by our righteous Sages. We can rely perfectly on them. . . Our Sages were true; all their words are true. May the true God guide His servants on the true path.​

So much for awe of God, and relying exclusively on his spirit, his fiery words, written on the heart more deeply than in the stone tablets (Ezekiel 11:19). No, it's Jewish men, Moses, the Chazal, the Jewish Sages, who are the dictators and mediators of the true path, the true interpretation, the slavery of all the minor Jews of orthodox Judaism. Let the Christians believe they have the law written on their heart so that they can individually interpret the text. We have Moses and the Chazal. You think you have God, the spirit, freedom; well we have our glorious dictator and slave-driver Moses who lashes us down with the weight of the law, strikes us with the yoke of the law, precisely as we begged him.

And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: 20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Ezekiel 11:19–20.

​

John

 

[paarsurrey]

The Rabbinic Bible, the Miqra'ot Gedolot, prefaces its commentary with statements from Ibn Ezra on the nature of proper interpretation of the seminal text. At first he claims: "I treat God alone with awe, and will show no favor to the Torah, seeking the correct meaning of each and every word with all my might. Then I will interpret each verse as best I am able." -----He's seemingly appealing to something like the tradition Rabbi Hirsch expounded concerning the multivocality, the plasticity of divine language, as associated with the concept that two people could read the original tablets at the same time: one from the back, and one from the front. He will be guided by the fiery spirit of God ---the words of fire will support his interpretation, and not the material tablets alone (he will show no favor to natural, blind materialistic compulsion, so far as interpretation of the holy text is concerned).

But then he addresses the problem of where his own interpretation diverges from numerous Christian interpretations; but where the material letters, the blind compulsion of the clear and literal text, supports both, or all interpretations equally, or, godforbid, supports the Christian version more perfectly than his (say Psalms 2:6)?

In the introduction to the Miqra'ot Gedolot, Ibn Ezra is made to address the problem of the multivocality, the numerous voices/interpretation made possible by the polysemous nature of the original revelation, such that in mid-stream, his foundational approach to proper exegesis and interpretation takes a 180 degree turn parallel to the 180 degree turn Rabbi Hirsch's interpretation took whereby though he knows the literal text says Israel made Moses their dictatorial mediator, and of their own freewill (not wanting the frightening responsibility of letting the fiery letters land on them as it did the poor souls in the upper room ---most of whom were later martyred for their troubles), they nevertheless are somehow endowed with the discourse associated with the upper room events in Acts chapter 2?

Caught with his hand stuck in the cookie jar of interpretative fidelity, Ibn Ezra changes his tune dramatically, and in such a manner as to reflect the true nature of the happenings at Horeb:

To be sure, when it comes to the laws, if we find two possible meanings, we will follow the one handed down by our righteous Sages. We can rely perfectly on them. . . Our Sages were true; all their words are true. May the true God guide His servants on the true path.​

So much for awe of God, and relying exclusively on his spirit, his fiery words, written on the heart more deeply than in the stone tablets (Ezekiel 11:19). No, it's Jewish men, Moses, the Chazal, the Jewish Sages, who are the dictators and mediators of the true path, the true interpretation, the slavery of all the minor Jews of orthodox Judaism. Let the Christians believe they have the law written on their heart so that they can individually interpret the text. We have Moses and the Chazal. You think you have God, the spirit, freedom; well we have our glorious dictator and slave-driver Moses who lashes us down with the weight of the law, strikes us with the yoke of the law, precisely as we begged him.

And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: 20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Ezekiel 11:19–20.

John​

​

Is there any mention of Paul in one's post? I don't see it. Right?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

​

Is there any mention of Paul in one's post? I don't see it. Right?

Are you implying that the message in question isn't consistent with the name of the thread?




John

 

[paarsurrey]

" Jesus' death is indeed the salvation of Israel "

Jesus did not die on the Cross, he survived and migrated out of the Judea and out of the Roman Empire (many clues very much in the NT Gospels to this affect), so no, salvation of Israel/Jews did not and never depended on Jesus' death on the Cross to make him a false Messenger/Prophet as per Torah. Right?

It is just superstition and or a myth spread by Paul, a Hellenist ( and Pauline-Christianity) to deviate from the truthful path of Jesus and his teachings, I understand. Right?
Israel/Jews were waiting for an indigenous Jewish Messiah not a Hellenist Christ-a myth involving a life-death-rebirth deity . Right?

Did Moses say that " Jesus' death is indeed the salvation of Israel ", please?
It is just superstition and or a myth spread by Paul. Right?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

Did Moses say that " Jesus' death is indeed the salvation of Israel ", please?
It is just superstition and or a myth spread by Paul. Right?

I would say that yes, Moses did say that. Using, of course, the language proper to what he was communicating. Which is to say, since Jesus wasn't born yet, he used mythological language, eschatological language, prophetic language . . . and not, as it were, the English language.



John

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Did Moses say that " Jesus' death is indeed the salvation of Israel ", please?
It is just superstition and or a myth spread by Paul. Right?

I would say that yes, Moses did say that. Using, of course, the language proper to what he was communicating. Which is to say, since Jesus wasn't born yet, he used mythological language, eschatological language, prophetic language . . . and not, as it were, the English language.
John

Isn't it simply one's "confirmation bias" of what one has been given to understand by the anti-Christ/Jesus clergy of Pauline-Hellenistic-Christianity, please?
Right?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

Isn't it simply one's "confirmation bias" of what one has been given to understand by the anti-Christ/Jesus clergy of Pauline-Hellenistic-Christianity, please?
Right?

Why is your question not based on a desire to support your own personal "confirmation bias"? Why is your worldview not biased while mine is? Why am I just seeking to confirm my personal bias but you're not?



John