Names of God

[Tumah]

It's almost like I never read the book?

Yes. Its almost like you never read the book. Which is why you're about to embark on a rant that never actually deals with the two verses that I brought, that disprove your theory.
Buckle up.

Oh, you mean the book that says the Jews chose to worship a golden calf over God?

Yes. That book.

Do you mean the book that says that we should pay a ransom on the census?

Unless you are Jewish, no. I know of no book that expects non-Jews to pay ransom for a census.

How did the Rabbi's get the money to God? Or, did they spend the money on nice robes and nice furnishings for their elaborate rooms?

There were these baskets in the Temple called "Shofaros". People put their half-shekels into it. Then they were collected and stored in a vault in the Temple. Whenever they needed money for Temple upkeep or publicly funded things like sacrifices and whatnot, they used that money.

Do you mean the book that says I should sacrifice my best animal on the steps of the temple?

Nope.

How did the Rabbi's get the animal to God?

Rabbis are not priests, they weren't involved in the sacrificial offerings. Unless a priest happened to be a rabbi.

Or, did the temple assistants prepare the animal for that nights meal?

There were no sacrifices offered at night.

That's why they wrote in their books that it has to be the best of the flock and not the sickly ones.

Perhaps you meant to say "an unblemished animal", since no where does it say that a sacrifice has to be from the best of the flock.
Most sacrifices were burnt completely. The ones that weren't were split between all the priests. They had to keep doctors at the Temple because the priests would get sick from eating so much meat.

Anyway, is there a difference in taste between an animal that's missing an eye and an animal that isn't?

But, of course, that rule came from God, right?

Right.

How come you don't put to death those who violate the sabbath anymore? How come you don't put to death those who commit adultery? I mean it's in the book, you read that part of the book, haven't you?

The problem is that capital punishment is contingent on there existing a Sanhedrin and it needs to sit on the Temple mount. About 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, the existing Sanhedrin moved from the Temple mount to Yavne (I believe) because murder was rampant and they didn't want to be put into a position where they'd have to put so many people to death. By moving out of the Temple Mount, they made it technically prohibited to perform capital punishment. Since then, for technical reasons, we aren't capable of re-establishing a Sanhedrin and even could we, they'd not be able to sit on the Temple mount. So for the while, there is no capital punishment.

It's almost like you never studied primitive cultures and you don't know that writing things down in a book gave it power over the people because most people couldn't read back then. You could put whatever you wanted in the book, the people didn't know one way or the other whether it was from God or the Rabbi.

Most people in some countries. Apparently your studies of culture, haven't helped you read texts as here we are at the end of your post and there's nary a sign of any intent to address my arguments.

 

[Super Universe]

Yes. Its almost like you never read the book. Which is why you're about to embark on a rant that never actually deals with the two verses that I brought, that disprove your theory.
Buckle up.

Yes. That book.

Unless you are Jewish, no. I know of no book that expects non-Jews to pay ransom for a census.

There were these baskets in the Temple called "Shofaros". People put their half-shekels into it. Then they were collected and stored in a vault in the Temple. Whenever they needed money for Temple upkeep or publicly funded things like sacrifices and whatnot, they used that money.


Nope.

Rabbis are not priests, they weren't involved in the sacrificial offerings. Unless a priest happened to be a rabbi.


There were no sacrifices offered at night.

Perhaps you meant to say "an unblemished animal", since no where does it say that a sacrifice has to be from the best of the flock.
Most sacrifices were burnt completely. The ones that weren't were split between all the priests. They had to keep doctors at the Temple because the priests would get sick from eating so much meat.

Anyway, is there a difference in taste between an animal that's missing an eye and an animal that isn't?

Right.


The problem is that capital punishment is contingent on there existing a Sanhedrin and it needs to sit on the Temple mount. About 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, the existing Sanhedrin moved from the Temple mount to Yavne (I believe) because murder was rampant and they didn't want to be put into a position where they'd have to put so many people to death. By moving out of the Temple Mount, they made it technically prohibited to perform capital punishment. Since then, for technical reasons, we aren't capable of re-establishing a Sanhedrin and even could we, they'd not be able to sit on the Temple mount. So for the while, there is no capital punishment.


Most people in some countries. Apparently your studies of culture, haven't helped you read texts as here we are at the end of your post and there's nary a sign of any intent to address my arguments.

I have read the bible but I have never read the Torah. Why would anyone do that? It's how many years old and so outdated that even the Jews don't follow it's rules anymore.

There were baskets for money offerings? So it is written that Jews shall pay a ransom on the census and the money goes to the Rabbi's and the temple policy book was written by the Rabbi's. So, not every sentence in the bible is the word of God. The writers of the books wrote what they wanted the people to believe and follow. So, when it says that you are the chosen people, it's kind of like saying "Everything on the internet is true," and when someone asks where they got that from they say "Because it say's so on the internet."

Rabbi's were not involved with sacrificial offerings? The Rabbi's may not have been the ones who sacrificed the animals but they wrote into their temple policy books that the offerings should be the best of the flock, or, "unblemished", whatever, because the Rabbi's wouldn't eat the sick ones.

There were no offerings at night? I didn't say there were. You can slaughter an animal at noon and then cook it later on or cook it immediately and eat it later on.

It says the animal sacrifice should be "unblemished" and not "the best of the flock". Okay, fine.

Most sacrifices were burnt completely? A small portion might be burnt into carbon black but a whole body of a goat is not something that could be burned completely unless the wood pile was substantial. The necks were slit on the steps of the temple and the temple assistants then dragged the body away. I don't think all of the sacrifices were eaten by the Rabbi's, I'm sure they sold many to the markets and then kept the money and spent it on gold rings.

You say that about 40 years before the destruction of the temple the Sanhedrin moved and thus could not sentence people to death any longer? So the Sanhedrin and Jewish Rabbi's have the power to make changes to God's rules? Or, they were never God's rules to begin with. Maybe Moses made them up to control his people and keep them separate from the other people and their beliefs?

The temple was first destroyed in 586 bc by Nebuchadnezzer and then destroyed again in 63 ad by the Romans. The Sanhedrin existed during the time of Jesus, they were the ones who pleaded with Pontius Pilate to sentence Jesus to death. If the Sanhedrin stopped putting people to death 40 years before the destruction of the temple in 70 ad, it seems a coincidence that they stopped killing people right after the crucifixion of Jesus. It's almost as if Jesus message started to be accepted. Must be a coincidence, right?

My studies haven't helped me read texts? It's 3,000 years old. What great revelation is there in it? Oh, an eye for an eye. Yeah, great philosophy that is. The only reason to study primitive cultures is to learn how ignorant we were.

 

[Tumah]

I have read the bible but I have never read the Torah. Why would anyone do that? It's how many years old and so outdated that even the Jews don't follow it's rules anymore.

I don't think any non-Jew is required to read the Torah. But on the other hand, if you're going to make an argument from verses in the Torah as you did in the first post I responded to, its probably best if you had read it so that you could back up your arguments.

There were baskets for money offerings? So it is written that Jews shall pay a ransom on the census and the money goes to the Rabbi's and the temple policy book was written by the Rabbi's.

No. Again, although the rabbis defined Temple policy, they weren't actually running the activities there. The priestly class did that.

So, not every sentence in the bible is the word of God. The writers of the books wrote what they wanted the people to believe and follow. So, when it says that you are the chosen people, it's kind of like saying "Everything on the internet is true," and when someone asks where they got that from they say "Because it say's so on the internet."

Not sure how that follows from the previous statement...

Rabbi's were not involved with sacrificial offerings?

No, rabbis had to bring sacrifices just like everyone else. It was strictly the priestly class who was involved in sacrificial offerings, with some minor rituals that were permitted or necessary for the owner of the sacrifice to do. If a non-priest would perform any of the major sacrificial rituals, it would nullify the sacrifice and they'd need to bring a new one.

The Rabbi's may not have been the ones who sacrificed the animals but they wrote into their temple policy books that the offerings should be the best of the flock, or, "unblemished", whatever, because the Rabbi's wouldn't eat the sick ones.

The rabbis could not eat from the sacrifices since that is one the sacrificial rituals (for those sacrifices that were eaten) unless it was the type of sacrifice that the owner of the sacrifice is meant to eat. So for instance, the sin-offering, could only be eaten by members of the priestly class. If anyone else ate from it, they'd get as many of 39 lashes that they were capable of staying alive for. On the other hand, a rabbi - and indeed any circumcised Jew -could eat from the Passover offering, since that is eaten by the owner and his friends.

There were no offerings at night? I didn't say there were. You can slaughter an animal at noon and then cook it later on or cook it immediately and eat it later on.

That's true, although for most of the sacrifices, they needed to be eaten by solar midnight of that night.

It says the animal sacrifice should be "unblemished" and not "the best of the flock". Okay, fine.

Most sacrifices were burnt completely? A small portion might be burnt into carbon black but a whole body of a goat is not something that could be burned completely unless the wood pile was substantial.

I shouldn't say that most sacrifices were burnt completely, because only one type of sacrifice was actually burnt completely. But of the sacrifices that are not eaten by the owners, the most common ones were those that were burnt completely.
The top of the altar was somewhere between 24-32 square feet. The skin and bones do not need to be burned.

The necks were slit on the steps of the temple and the temple assistants then dragged the body away.

No, that would invalidate the offering. The animals were slaughtered within the inner Temple courtyard. Depending on the sacrifice, it could be anywhere within the courtyard, or in a specific part of it. There were rings in the ground to hold the animals head north of the altar.
[quote[I don't think all of the sacrifices were eaten by the Rabbi's, I'm sure they sold many to the markets and then kept the money and spent it on gold rings.[/quote]
The only sacrifices that could be eaten by the Rabbis were sacrifices that were meant to be eaten by the owner of the sacrifice. The Rabbis (and any non-Priest or Levite) were prohibited to even enter the area where the animals were sacrificed (unless of course the Rabbi happened to be a priest as well) unless they had a specific ritual they needed to fulfill on their personal sacrifice.

You say that about 40 years before the destruction of the temple the Sanhedrin moved and thus could not sentence people to death any longer? So the Sanhedrin and Jewish Rabbi's have the power to make changes to God's rules? Or, they were never God's rules to begin with.

No, they didn't change the rule. There's no rule requiring the members of the Sanhedrin to sit on the Temple Mount. The rule is that in order to carry out the main functions of a Sanhedrin the had to be sitting in their court on the Temple Mount.

Maybe Moses made them up to control his people and keep them separate from the other people and their beliefs?

Maybe he didn't.

The temple was first destroyed in 586 bc by Nebuchadnezzer and then destroyed again in 63 ad by the Romans. The Sanhedrin existed during the time of Jesus, they were the ones who pleaded with Pontius Pilate to sentence Jesus to death. If the Sanhedrin stopped putting people to death 40 years before the destruction of the temple in 70 ad, it seems a coincidence that they stopped killing people right after the crucifixion of Jesus. It's almost as if Jesus message started to be accepted. Must be a coincidence, right?

Actually that would prove that they had already stopped sitting in the Temple Mount or they would have killed Jesus directly instead of through the Romans. The fact that in the narrative they had to go through the Romans indicates, that according to the narrative, they had already stopped sitting at the Temple Mount.

My studies haven't helped me read texts? It's 3,000 years old. What great revelation is there in it? Oh, an eye for an eye. Yeah, great philosophy that is. The only reason to study primitive cultures is to learn how ignorant we were.

So I'm supposed to understand after reading your posts, that you're no longer ignorant?

 

[Super Universe]

I have read the bible. I haven't read the Torah so I don't know if the Torah is different. Really, it doesn't matter whether it says "the best of the flock" or "unblemished". The point is that primitive ignorant selfish humans wrote those ancient books and purposely wrote what they wanted their people to believe and follow and then they claimed it came from God. They did that in order to control their people and prevent their people from having relationships with others. Kind of like what the Jews still do to this day, isn't it?

I agree 100% that the top religous leaders, Sanhedrin, had all the real temple work done for them. What work does the Pope do? He gets his hand kissed by thousands of people.

Humans don't make universal policy. Not the Pope. Not a Rabbi, and not John the Baptist. The old religous texts are a history of ignorant humans attempting to explain something that was thousands of years beyond their ability to comprehend. Even today we still don't have a good explanation of God.

Rabbi's had to bring sacrifices to the temple (Sanhedrin) just like everyone else? And where did the Rabbi's get their sacrifice? From their people. It's all a system of control. The religious leaders made the rules and claimed it was from God. God never wanted us to sacrifice animals. Primitive, tribal, humans came up with that.

The Rabbi's could not eat the sacrifices? So you're saying that hundreds or thousands of sacrificed goats and cows and chickens were wasted along with a great deal of wood that was needed to completely burn them? I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

I didn't say that there was a rule that the Sanhedrin had to sit on the Temple Mount. I said the rule was Moses ten commandments. Put to death Jews who don't obey the sabbath. Put to death Jews who commit adultery. You're not following what you believe to be God's laws. What Jew has the power to disobey God's laws?

Maybe Moses didn't make up the ten commandments? I'm sure he heard a voice in his head that told him the ten commandments. What do we do with people who hear voices in their heads now?

The Sanhedrin went through the Romans because they wanted to attempt to wash their hands of it, remove resonsibility and put it on the Romans. Many Jews were followers of Jesus at the time so the Sanhedrin played it so they could blame the Romans if they had to.

I'm no longer ignorant? I'm very ignorant of many things but fireballs from heaven are meteors, not vengeance. Earthquakes are not signs of an angry God. Drought is not a punishment. God never sent a plague. The primitive humans had no understanding of science so they readily believed that all these things were acts of God when none of them were.

 

[Tumah]

I have read the bible. I haven't read the Torah so I don't know if the Torah is different. Really, it doesn't matter whether it says "the best of the flock" or "unblemished". The point is that primitive ignorant selfish humans wrote those ancient books and purposely wrote what they wanted their people to believe and follow and then they claimed it came from God. They did that in order to control their people and prevent their people from having relationships with others. Kind of like what the Jews still do to this day, isn't it?

So the point you were trying to make when you incorrectly stated:

God said "I am", meaning, "I exist". He gave no name. The Jews took "I am" and used that as His name.​

Was about Jews trying to control other Jews.
Well that's interesting.

​

I agree 100% that the top religous leaders, Sanhedrin, had all the real temple work done for them. What work does the Pope do? He gets his hand kissed by thousands of people.

Its not exactly doing the Temple work for the Sanhedrin. Most members of the Sanhedrin were simply not allowed into the main area of the Temple. Nor did they have anything to gain from the Temple work. The priests got everything that was burnt or given back to the owners.

Humans don't make universal policy. Not the Pope. Not a Rabbi, and not John the Baptist. The old religous texts are a history of ignorant humans attempting to explain something that was thousands of years beyond their ability to comprehend. Even today we still don't have a good explanation of God.

I'm not familiar with anywhere in the Tanach where it attempts to explain G-d. Maybe Job?

Rabbi's had to bring sacrifices to the temple (Sanhedrin) just like everyone else?

Yes.

And where did the Rabbi's get their sacrifice?

They bought them from the animal pens in the upper market of Jerusalem, just like everyone else.

From their people.

Well, I guess its conceivable that a store owner might want to give a rabbi an animal as a gift. But other than that, they had to buy their animals just like everyone else. Unless it was the animal tithe of their personal flock. In that case, I guess they'd be bringing it from their own flock.

It's all a system of control.

Well, I guess it is a system of control, since all of our actions are meant to be controlled. Except that the Rabbis weren't outside the system either.

The religious leaders made the rules and claimed it was from God. God never wanted us to sacrifice animals. Primitive, tribal, humans came up with that.

I guess G-d told you that.

The Rabbi's could not eat the sacrifices?

Unless it was a sacrifice that was returned to the owner, no.

So you're saying that hundreds or thousands of sacrificed goats and cows and chickens were wasted along with a great deal of wood that was needed to completely burn them?

Mostly goats and sheep. Not very many bull offerings and no chicken offerings, although some dove offerings, meal offerings, wine libations and a weeks worth of water libations.
I'm not sure how many were "wasted" as many of them were eaten by the priests or returned to the owners, but sure, many were burned, like the daily offering.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

That's cool. Although I'm not sure "that's too wasteful to be true" is a really tenable position.

I didn't say that there was a rule that the Sanhedrin had to sit on the Temple Mount. I said the rule was Moses ten commandments.

I'm pretty sure this is the first time you're mentioning the 10 commandments.

Put to death Jews who don't obey the sabbath. Put to death Jews who commit adultery. You're not following what you believe to be God's laws. What Jew has the power to disobey God's laws?

The commandment is on the courts to execute capital punishment, not on the individual. If I see someone committing adultery, I'm not commanded to kill him. I'm commanded to testify in court about his actions.

Maybe Moses didn't make up the ten commandments?

Right.

I'm sure he heard a voice in his head that told him the ten commandments.

The entire nation heard the 10 commandments from G-d, not from Moses.

What do we do with people who hear voices in their heads now?

We ask them to stop writing long ranting posts about topics they clearly are not very knowledgeable on.

The Sanhedrin went through the Romans because they wanted to attempt to wash their hands of it, remove resonsibility and put it on the Romans. Many Jews were followers of Jesus at the time so the Sanhedrin played it so they could blame the Romans if they had to.

I'm not sure if "Super Universe said so", is a good argument. When the Sanhedrin sat on the Temple Mount, they adjudicated capital punishment cases. When they left, they stopped. If you have any reasonable proof that they were still sitting on the Temple Mount in the NT narrative when Jesus' cases was to have been adjudicated, then you'll have to bring proof that they didn't do it themselves in order to remove responsibility, rather than your say so.

Also, if you intend to follow through with your original statement that they stopped adjudicating capital punishment because they accepted Jesus' message after his death, you'll have to prove that they did so for that reason. To save you some time, I'll also point out that the Sanhedrin continued to sit until around 350 CE. So you'll also need to explain how they accepted Jesus' message, but chose not to teach Jesus' message.

I'm no longer ignorant? I'm very ignorant of many things but fireballs from heaven are meteors, not vengeance. Earthquakes are not signs of an angry God. Drought is not a punishment. God never sent a plague. The primitive humans had no understanding of science so they readily believed that all these things were acts of God when none of them were.

No, you're absolutely right. You are very ignorant of many things.

 

[pearl]

Maybe Moses didn't make up the ten commandments? I'm sure he heard a voice in his head that told him the ten commandments. What do we do with people who hear voices in their heads now?

Moses more than likely adapted the covenant form from existing treaties, pacts, international covenants between kings and vassal peoples known in the kingdom of the Hittites.
It is only the first three commandments that are unique to God, the others would apply to any group of people for survival.

 

[Super Universe]

So the point you were trying to make when you incorrectly stated:

God said "I am", meaning, "I exist". He gave no name. The Jews took "I am" and used that as His name.​

Was about Jews trying to control other Jews.
Well that's interesting.

​

Its not exactly doing the Temple work for the Sanhedrin. Most members of the Sanhedrin were simply not allowed into the main area of the Temple. Nor did they have anything to gain from the Temple work. The priests got everything that was burnt or given back to the owners.


I'm not familiar with anywhere in the Tanach where it attempts to explain G-d. Maybe Job?


Yes.

They bought them from the animal pens in the upper market of Jerusalem, just like everyone else.

Well, I guess its conceivable that a store owner might want to give a rabbi an animal as a gift. But other than that, they had to buy their animals just like everyone else. Unless it was the animal tithe of their personal flock. In that case, I guess they'd be bringing it from their own flock.

Well, I guess it is a system of control, since all of our actions are meant to be controlled. Except that the Rabbis weren't outside the system either.

I guess G-d told you that.


Unless it was a sacrifice that was returned to the owner, no.

Mostly goats and sheep. Not very many bull offerings and no chicken offerings, although some dove offerings, meal offerings, wine libations and a weeks worth of water libations.
I'm not sure how many were "wasted" as many of them were eaten by the priests or returned to the owners, but sure, many were burned, like the daily offering.


That's cool. Although I'm not sure "that's too wasteful to be true" is a really tenable position.


I'm pretty sure this is the first time you're mentioning the 10 commandments.

The commandment is on the courts to execute capital punishment, not on the individual. If I see someone committing adultery, I'm not commanded to kill him. I'm commanded to testify in court about his actions.


Right.

The entire nation heard the 10 commandments from G-d, not from Moses.

We ask them to stop writing long ranting posts about topics they clearly are not very knowledgeable on.


I'm not sure if "Super Universe said so", is a good argument. When the Sanhedrin sat on the Temple Mount, they adjudicated capital punishment cases. When they left, they stopped. If you have any reasonable proof that they were still sitting on the Temple Mount in the NT narrative when Jesus' cases was to have been adjudicated, then you'll have to bring proof that they didn't do it themselves in order to remove responsibility, rather than your say so.

Also, if you intend to follow through with your original statement that they stopped adjudicating capital punishment because they accepted Jesus' message after his death, you'll have to prove that they did so for that reason. To save you some time, I'll also point out that the Sanhedrin continued to sit until around 350 CE. So you'll also need to explain how they accepted Jesus' message, but chose not to teach Jesus' message.


No, you're absolutely right. You are very ignorant of many things.

Yes, Yahweh is a Jewish invented name. The Jews came up with the idea that there is one supreme God. Thank you very much for that. They invented a name for Him since He would not give them a name and they had to come up with new rules for their people to follow to distinguish and isolate them from the other groups of people. The neighboring peoples had many other names for their gods.

Jerusalem was conquered many times. The Jews tried to maintain their culture even while they were captives in Babylon and Egypt. The books were written, and re-written, and copied many times. The ancient stories from the Jews who returned to Jerusalem after years of slavery in Babylon had to be combined with the stories the Jews in Jerusalem had. There was a human influence in the stories that we now know. Some of it the mistakes were simple mistranslation errors, some of it was attempt to establish rules, some of it was temple policy and never meant to be taken as the word of God.

Most members of the Sanhedrin were not allowed into the temple nor did they have anything to gain from the temple work? They gained respect, influence, power, money, an easy life, nice clothes, a nice place to live, and good food. Their decisions sent people to death.

You're not aware of anywhere in the Tanach where it attempts to explain God? So when it says that God is a jealous God that's not an attempt to explain Him to the people? That's not an attempt to scare the people? It absolutely is. It's as if the Priests were saying "You'd better do as we say or else". Do Jews still think that God is a jealous God? God created the universe, what could He possibly be jealous of?

The Rabbi's bought their sacrificial animals from the animal pens in the market? Where did the Rabbi's get their money?

The Urantia Book describes a scene when Jesus was young and His earthly father took Jesus to visit Jerusalem: They now passed down to the priests’ court beneath the rock ledge in front of the temple, where the altar stood, to observe the killing of the droves of animals and the washing away of the blood from the hands of the officiating slaughter priests at the bronze fountain. The bloodstained pavement, the gory hands of the priests, and the sounds of the dying animals were more than this nature-loving lad could stand.

As for the animal sacrifice argument, you're stuck on one time and place in Jewish history, the temple, but the tradition goes back much farther than that.

Did God tell you that everything in the Torah came from Him?

The ten commandments apply to the courts, not individuals? Okay, is violating the sabbath punished by death by any Jewish court? Nope. So what Jewish Rabbi, or Priest, or Sanhedrin, or whoever had at one time or now has the authority to disobey Moses laws, oh, I mean God's laws? Seems you all know that Moses just made them up or you would still obey them.

The entire Jewish nation heard God speak the ten commandments? Okay, you've definately been taught something different than I was taught. If the people all heard God give Moses the ten commandments then how come when Moses came down the mountain they were praying to their golden calf?

I'm clearly not knowledgeable about Jewish books? Why would anyone waste time on that? Your ideas were upgraded 2,000 years ago. Why would I or anyone waste time learning Hebrew, so I can figure out that some text in some old book really means "unblemished" instead of "the best of the flock", as if that is going to give you some new truth and understanding of God? You don't follow those old rules any more anyway. No Jews do, so how can it really be the word of God?

What is your evidence that the Sanhedrin stopped functioning before Jesus was tried? So you're saying that the Jewish religious leaders had nothing to do with it and that it was entirely Pontius Pilate?

I am ignorant of many things. How about you? Oh, right, you're the chosen people. As Tevye said to the sky when his horse came up lame and he had to pull the milk cart "I know we are the chosen people. Don't you think once in a while you could choose someone else?''

 

[Super Universe]

Moses more than likely adapted the covenant form from existing treaties, pacts, international covenants between kings and vassal peoples known in the kingdom of the Hittites.
It is only the first three commandments that are unique to God, the others would apply to any group of people for survival.

If you've ever read Hammurabi's Laws I think you would see a similarity between them and the ten commandments. They sound alike. Hammurabi was a Babylonian King who lived between 1792-1750 bc, maybe 250 years before Moses lived. Hammurabi didn't conquer Jerusalem but there may have been trading caravans in those days that the Jews had some contact with.

 

[Tumah]

Yes, Yahweh is a Jewish invented name. The Jews came up with the idea that there is one supreme God. Thank you very much for that. They invented a name for Him since He would not give them a name and they had to come up with new rules for their people to follow to distinguish and isolate them from the other groups of people. The neighboring peoples had many other names for their gods.

Well. I can't argue with everything.

Jerusalem was conquered many times. The Jews tried to maintain their culture even while they were captives in Babylon and Egypt. The books were written, and re-written, and copied many times. The ancient stories from the Jews who returned to Jerusalem after years of slavery in Babylon had to be combined with the stories the Jews in Jerusalem had. There was a human influence in the stories that we now know. Some of it the mistakes were simple mistranslation errors, some of it was attempt to establish rules, some of it was temple policy and never meant to be taken as the word of God.

That's one possibility.

Most members of the Sanhedrin were not allowed into the temple nor did they have anything to gain from the temple work?

That's right.

They gained respect, influence, power, money, an easy life, nice clothes, a nice place to live, and good food.

They may have gotten some of those things, but they didn't get it from the Temple if they weren't priests, since that would garner them a nice set of lashes. And they did work hard to get it, just like someone in another job.

Their decisions sent people to death.

Yes, that's one of the things that courts do.

You're not aware of anywhere in the Tanach where it attempts to explain God?

That's right.

So when it says that God is a jealous God that's not an attempt to explain Him to the people?

In Jewish monotheism, G-d has no attributes and is described apophatically.

That's not an attempt to scare the people?

A description of retribution is not the same as a description of character.

It absolutely is. It's as if the Priests were saying "You'd better do as we say or else".

Except that the priests were also bound by the Law. Technically, the had more prohibitions they could transgress than any other Jew.

Do Jews still think that God is a jealous God? God created the universe, what could He possibly be jealous of?

You can see my post here, if you're interested in an answer.

The Rabbi's bought their sacrificial animals from the animal pens in the market? Where did the Rabbi's get their money?

From their jobs. Same like everyone else.

The Urantia Book describes a scene when Jesus was young and His earthly father took Jesus to visit Jerusalem: They now passed down to the priests’ court beneath the rock ledge in front of the temple, where the altar stood, to observe the killing of the droves of animals and the washing away of the blood from the hands of the officiating slaughter priests at the bronze fountain. The bloodstained pavement, the gory hands of the priests, and the sounds of the dying animals were more than this nature-loving lad could stand.

I don't think there was a rocky ledge in front of the Temple.
The Herodian Temple stood on the top of the Temple mount (that means you're going up from Jerusalem and could not 'pass down') in Jerusalem. The mountain was shaved down to a huge platform surrounded by 60 foot high walls, of which the Western Wall is the last remaining one. The Temple stood in the southern part of the platform and its auxiliary buildings were next to it on the platform. The Temple itself had its own 60 foot high walls. The alter stood within the inner court. That means if you're standing in front of the Temple within the walls of the Temple mount, you'd have to go up the 12 steps to the Temple (not 'passed down' as you say), through the outer court's doors, up (again not 'passed down') the 15 steps in the outer court, to enter the inner court's doors about 200 feet in.

So I don't think there was a place to put a rocky ledge. Also, the Temple floors were made of marble, not pavement.

As for the animal sacrifice argument, you're stuck on one time and place in Jewish history, the temple, but the tradition goes back much farther than that.

The tradition of...?

Did God tell you that everything in the Torah came from Him?

In a roundabout way, yes.

The ten commandments apply to the courts, not individuals?

No, the commandment to execute punitive measures applies to the court, not the individual. The chapters of the ten commandments don't list any punishments for transgressing them. Those are found in other chapters.

Okay, is violating the sabbath punished by death by any Jewish court? Nope. So what Jewish Rabbi, or Priest, or Sanhedrin, or whoever had at one time or now has the authority to disobey Moses laws, oh, I mean God's laws? Seems you all know that Moses just made them up or you would still obey them.

As I said before, in order to execute capital punishment, the Sanhedrin has to exist and be sitting on the Temple Mount. Since the Sanhedrin doesn't exist, and they are not sitting on the Temple Mount, the courts don't have authority to execute capital punishment. When there will be a future time that the Sanhedrin could be re-established and returned to the Temple Mount, then they will again have authority to kill people for violating the Sabbath.

The entire Jewish nation heard God speak the ten commandments? Okay, you've definately been taught something different than I was taught.

Deut. 5:4 Face to face G-d spoke with you (pl.) on the mountain from within the fire.

According to Jewish tradition, the nation only heard G-d directly speak the first two commandments and Moses finished the other eight.

If the people all heard God give Moses the ten commandments then how come when Moses came down the mountain they were praying to their golden calf?

They transgressed the commandment G-d gave them...

I'm clearly not knowledgeable about Jewish books? Why would anyone waste time on that?

I'm not saying you should. I'm only saying (for the second time, mind you), that if you are going to bring an argument about a Jewish text, you should be knowledgeable about the text you are arguing against. If I said, "The Urantia Book claims that G-d ate pigeons every Thursday", you'd tell me the same thing. You've been making all these claims, without actually knowing about the topic you are making claims against. Don't you think that's foolish?

Your ideas were upgraded 2,000 years ago. Why would I or anyone waste time learning Hebrew, so I can figure out that some text in some old book really means "unblemished" instead of "the best of the flock", as if that is going to give you some new truth and understanding of God? You don't follow those old rules any more anyway. No Jews do, so how can it really be the word of God?

There isn't a rule in the Book that could be followed, that I don't follow. Plus, many, many more.

What is your evidence that the Sanhedrin stopped functioning before Jesus was tried?

My evidence is that they would have killed him themselves. In fact, according to Jewish texts, they did. But that's besides the point. If the Sanhedrin still had authority to kill, they wouldn't have needed to go to the Romans.

So you're saying that the Jewish religious leaders had nothing to do with it and that it was entirely Pontius Pilate?

Well, my relgious texts teach that the Sanhedrin stoned Jesus themselves, so I wouldn't say they had nothing to do with it. But I am also not saying that according to the NT's narrative the religious leaders had nothing to do with it. I'm just saying that according to that narrative, the Sanhedrin was already no longer executing capital punishment and so your claim that they had "begun to accept Jesus' teaching" as the reason they moved off the Temple Mount, is baseless.

I am ignorant of many things.

For some reason you want to keep showing me that.

How about you?

I am as well. Although I try not to make statements about things I know nothing about.

Oh, right, you're the chosen people. As Tevye said to the sky when his horse came up lame and he had to pull the milk cart "I know we are the chosen people. Don't you think once in a while you could choose someone else?''

You may not have seen this earlier in a previous response to you, but it bears mentioning again.

 

[Super Universe]

Well. I can't argue with everything.


That's one possibility.


That's right.

They may have gotten some of those things, but they didn't get it from the Temple if they weren't priests, since that would garner them a nice set of lashes. And they did work hard to get it, just like someone in another job.

Yes, that's one of the things that courts do.


That's right.

In Jewish monotheism, G-d has no attributes and is described apophatically.

A description of retribution is not the same as a description of character.

Except that the priests were also bound by the Law. Technically, the had more prohibitions they could transgress than any other Jew.

You can see my post here, if you're interested in an answer.


From their jobs. Same like everyone else.


I don't think there was a rocky ledge in front of the Temple.
The Herodian Temple stood on the top of the Temple mount (that means you're going up from Jerusalem and could not 'pass down') in Jerusalem. The mountain was shaved down to a huge platform surrounded by 60 foot high walls, of which the Western Wall is the last remaining one. The Temple stood in the southern part of the platform and its auxiliary buildings were next to it on the platform. The Temple itself had its own 60 foot high walls. The alter stood within the inner court. That means if you're standing in front of the Temple within the walls of the Temple mount, you'd have to go up the 12 steps to the Temple (not 'passed down' as you say), through the outer court's doors, up (again not 'passed down') the 15 steps in the outer court, to enter the inner court's doors about 200 feet in.

So I don't think there was a place to put a rocky ledge. Also, the Temple floors were made of marble, not pavement.


The tradition of...?


In a roundabout way, yes.


No, the commandment to execute punitive measures applies to the court, not the individual. The chapters of the ten commandments don't list any punishments for transgressing them. Those are found in other chapters.


As I said before, in order to execute capital punishment, the Sanhedrin has to exist and be sitting on the Temple Mount. Since the Sanhedrin doesn't exist, and they are not sitting on the Temple Mount, the courts don't have authority to execute capital punishment. When there will be a future time that the Sanhedrin could be re-established and returned to the Temple Mount, then they will again have authority to kill people for violating the Sabbath.


Deut. 5:4 Face to face G-d spoke with you (pl.) on the mountain from within the fire.

According to Jewish tradition, the nation only heard G-d directly speak the first two commandments and Moses finished the other eight.


They transgressed the commandment G-d gave them...


I'm not saying you should. I'm only saying (for the second time, mind you), that if you are going to bring an argument about a Jewish text, you should be knowledgeable about the text you are arguing against. If I said, "The Urantia Book claims that G-d ate pigeons every Thursday", you'd tell me the same thing. You've been making all these claims, without actually knowing about the topic you are making claims against. Don't you think that's foolish?


There isn't a rule in the Book that could be followed, that I don't follow. Plus, many, many more.


My evidence is that they would have killed him themselves. In fact, according to Jewish texts, they did. But that's besides the point. If the Sanhedrin still had authority to kill, they wouldn't have needed to go to the Romans.


Well, my religious texts teach that the Sanhedrin stoned Jesus themselves, so I wouldn't say they had nothing to do with it. But I am also not saying that according to the NT's narrative the religious leaders had nothing to do with it. I'm just saying that according to that narrative, the Sanhedrin was already no longer executing capital punishment and so your claim that they had "begun to accept Jesus' teaching" as the reason they moved off the Temple Mount, is baseless.


For some reason you want to keep showing me that.

I am as well. Although I try not to make statements about things I know nothing about.

You may not have seen this earlier in a previous response to you, but it bears mentioning again.

The Sanhedrin and priests worked hard for everything they had? You and I have a very different idea's of what working hard is then.

Courts sentence people to death? What court sentences people to death for adultery or for violating the sabbath? An ISIS court maybe but that's it nowadays.

In Jewish monotheism God has no attributes? He is described as being jealous. He is described as being vengeful, angry, and punishing, one who sends fireballs from heaven. You can try to put your modern spin on it but it's evidence of a primitive culture that didn't now what meteors were and so they blamed every unknown thing on their God.

A description of retribution is not the same as a description of character? Sure it is. If a people cut off the hand of a starving man who steals bread from a market, that is evidence of character. You are really into spin, are you a lawyer?

The priests were bound by the law too? Were they now? The law was "thou shall not kill" but they would kill people for violating the sabbath. How does God propose laws that conflict with each other? God doesn't do that, humans do that. God's real laws are the laws of physics and they don't conflict.

So you think the Rabbi's worked regular jobs? Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. The high priests/Sanhedrin certainly did not have real jobs but I guess you think that dressing yourself in expensive robes and gold rings is a hard job.

The Jewish word for jealousy can mean different things? Spin! Spin! Spin! So you don't like the old teachings, you think they have to be fixed because they are unacceptable to your modern mind. You don't like the idea that the ancient Jewish idea of God was of an angry God. There are just too many copies of your book around. It's in black and white. You can try to spin it all you want but it is what it is. God theory is ever evolving and now the scientists are giving us more clues about God than any religious leader. The Jews made their contribution by giving us the idea of one supreme God and we've since moved on.

You don't think there was a rocky ledge in front of the temple? Okay fine, maybe there wasn't.

The tradition of animal sacrifice goes back farther in time than just the temple.

God, in a roundabout way, told you that everything in the Torah came from Him? What if this happens, you die and wake up in a spirit body and you are escorted to a classroom full of other Jewish students and a teacher teaches you a very advanced God theory that explains angels, Jesus, and the Lucifer Rebellion. The teacher introduces you to Moses who then tries to explain the real Jewish history to you and he tells you that Jesus really was the messiah and son of God and that Jesus has control over the door to heaven. Will you accept it or will you still refuse?

The ten commandments apply to courts and don't list any punishments for transgressing them? SPIN! The punishments are listed in the laws. He who violates the sabbath shall be put to death.

In order to execute capital punishment the Sanhedrin has to exist? The ten commandments don't say that. Jews don't have the power or authority to change/violate God's law IF it really is God's law. SPIN! You must be a lawyer who is also a DJ.

The Jewish nation heard God speak the first two laws? Okay, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

I should be knowledgeable about Jewish texts before arguing about them? What does it matter when you just spin everything and try to change the meaning of the words? The ancient Jewish beliefs are in line with the beliefs of primitive people of that time. Everyone thought that God was an angry and vengeful God. The only exception is that the Jews came up with the idea of a supreme God. That's it.

There isn't a rule in the book that could be followed that you don't follow? When was the last time you killed someone for violating the sabbath? Oh, right, the Sanhedrin has the power to apply or not apply God's laws. SPIN!

The Sanhedrin didn't NEED to go to the Romans, they chose to go to the Romans. They could have killed Jesus themselves, any one could have, but Jesus had many followers and they thought it was better to use the Romans as the executioners. When Kim Jung Il sentences people to die he probably isn't the one pulling the trigger on the anti-aircraft gun. He has others do it for him.

Your religious texts teach that the Sanhedrin stoned Jesus themselves? What New Testament book is accepted by any Jew? What book says that Jesus was stoned to death?

I didn't claim that the Sanhedrin had begun to accept Jesus teaching and that is the reason they moved off the Temple Mount. You're spinning yourself.

My last post was a non-sequitor? Just because you can't follow something it has to be a non-sequitor.

You were the chosen people all the way until you weren't.

 

[Tumah]

The Sanhedrin and priests worked hard for everything they had? You and I have a very different idea's of what working hard is then.

They had jobs and they fulfilled them. Just like everyone else.

Courts sentence people to death? What court sentences people to death for adultery or for violating the sabbath? An ISIS court maybe but that's it nowadays.

What they are sentencing people to death for is irrelevant to the point.

In Jewish monotheism God has no attributes? He is described as being jealous. He is described as being vengeful, angry, and punishing, one who sends fireballs from heaven. You can try to put your modern spin on it but it's evidence of a primitive culture that didn't now what meteors were and so they blamed every unknown thing on their God.

Apophatic theology in Judaism is not even close to modern.

A description of retribution is not the same as a description of character? Sure it is. If a people cut off the hand of a starving man who steals bread from a market, that is evidence of character. You are really into spin, are you a lawyer?

No, that is evidence of law (assuming that is the law).

The priests were bound by the law too? Were they now?

Yes.

The law was "thou shall not kill"

No, the Law is "thou shall not murder". Its a different Hebrew word than killing. The difference between murder and killing is that the former is illegal and the latter may or may not be. Its illegal to kill someone who has not been sentenced to death, that is called murder. That is what is prohibited.

but they would kill people for violating the sabbath.

The priests didn't kill people as they are prohibited from coming near a corpse not of their immediate family unless there is no one available to bury the person. Its the courts that carry out capital punishment through court appointees.

How does God propose laws that conflict with each other? God doesn't do that, humans do that. God's real laws are the laws of physics and they don't conflict.

There is no conflict, you just didn't have all the information. Now you do.

So you think the Rabbi's worked regular jobs? Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. The high priests/Sanhedrin certainly did not have real jobs

The priests actually worked relatively hard. They had to keep a doctor in the Temple because they'd be getting sick all the time from walking barefoot on the cold marble and from eating too much meat.
The Sanhedrin were judges. Being a judge is a real job that many people today do.

but I guess you think that dressing yourself in expensive robes and gold rings is a hard job.

This is the second time you mentioned them dressing in expensive robes and gold rings, but you've yet to actually bring any proof that they actually did so. So I'll just continue to keep ignoring this comment.

The Jewish word for jealousy can mean different things? Spin! Spin! Spin! So you don't like the old teachings, you think they have to be fixed because they are unacceptable to your modern mind. You don't like the idea that the ancient Jewish idea of God was of an angry God. There are just too many copies of your book around. It's in black and white.

Translating one language into another when they're so different from each other is not easy. There are subtleties that don't always translate. But in my linked post, I brought evidence of the different translations of the word based on context.

You can try to spin it all you want but it is what it is. God theory is ever evolving and now the scientists are giving us more clues about God than any religious leader. The Jews made their contribution by giving us the idea of one supreme God and we've since moved on.

Blah, blah, blah.

You don't think there was a rocky ledge in front of the temple? Okay fine, maybe there wasn't.

Unless you happen to have an explanation of how it got there given the setup of the Temple Mount. You can search for images and see it for yourself.

The tradition of animal sacrifice goes back farther in time than just the temple.

It does, but the place that the animals were sacrificed in the Temple is based on the Laws for animal sacrifice provided in the Torah.

God, in a roundabout way, told you that everything in the Torah came from Him? What if this happens, you die and wake up in a spirit body and you are escorted to a classroom full of other Jewish students and a teacher teaches you a very advanced God theory that explains angels, Jesus, and the Lucifer Rebellion. The teacher introduces you to Moses who then tries to explain the real Jewish history to you and he tells you that Jesus really was the messiah and son of God and that Jesus has control over the door to heaven. Will you accept it or will you still refuse?

Ask me after it happens.

The ten commandments apply to courts and don't list any punishments for transgressing them? SPIN! The punishments are listed in the laws. He who violates the sabbath shall be put to death.

You can find the list of the ten commandments in Ex. 20:2-13 and Deut. 5:6-17. Those are the only two times that the ten commandments are listed in the Torah. If you can find anything resembling the line "He who violates the Sabbath shall be put to death" within those chapters, I'd be more than willing to admit you were right.

In order to execute capital punishment the Sanhedrin has to exist? The ten commandments don't say that. Jews don't have the power or authority to change/violate God's law IF it really is God's law. SPIN! You must be a lawyer who is also a DJ.

There are a lot of things the ten commandments don't say. There's another 603 commandments besides for them.

The Jewish nation heard God speak the first two laws? Okay, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

That's cool.

I should be knowledgeable about Jewish texts before arguing about them? What does it matter when you just spin everything and try to change the meaning of the words? The ancient Jewish beliefs are in line with the beliefs of primitive people of that time. Everyone thought that God was an angry and vengeful God. The only exception is that the Jews came up with the idea of a supreme God. That's it.

How could you know if I am spinning anything when you are not familiar with texts in question?

There isn't a rule in the book that could be followed that you don't follow? When was the last time you killed someone for violating the sabbath? Oh, right, the Sanhedrin has the power to apply or not apply God's laws. SPIN!

I am not a court judge, so it would be prohibited for me to do such a thing.

The Sanhedrin didn't NEED to go to the Romans, they chose to go to the Romans. They could have killed Jesus themselves, any one could have, but Jesus had many followers and they thought it was better to use the Romans as the executioners. When Kim Jung Il sentences people to die he probably isn't the one pulling the trigger on the anti-aircraft gun. He has others do it for him.

Sure. Now can you show me the proof to back up your conjecture?

Your religious texts teach that the Sanhedrin stoned Jesus themselves? What New Testament book is accepted by any Jew? What book says that Jesus was stoned to death?

The Talmud.

I didn't claim that the Sanhedrin had begun to accept Jesus teaching and that is the reason they moved off the Temple Mount. You're spinning yourself.

Here are your words:

If the Sanhedrin stopped putting people to death 40 years before the destruction of the temple in 70 ad, it seems a coincidence that they stopped killing people right after the crucifixion of Jesus. It's almost as if Jesus message started to be accepted.​

My last post was a non-sequitor? Just because you can't follow something it has to be a non-sequitor.

No. Your last paragraph was. You began with a rant about your ignorance and you ended with a rant about Jews' chosen-ness. There was no explanation to explain how the two are connected.

You were the chosen people all the way until you weren't.

That's one possibility.

 

[Super Universe]

The religious elite did have jobs, technically. There certainly were not like everyone else's job's though and it was not hard work. Does anyone think the Pope works hard?

The point was and still is that the ancient Jewish laws were so primitive that no one follows them anymore, not even the Jews themselves. The old laws might not be relevant today but they certainly were thousands of years ago, especially to a man who depended on getting milk from his only goat but that goat escaped the pen on the sabbath and fell into an old well.

Laws are evidence of laws and not character? So the laws that a people choose to adopt have nothing to do with the character of those people? Wrong.

You say the law was "thou shalt not murder" instead of "thou shalt not kill"? Then your book says something different from my book. Did you write in the change to your book yourself? Do you just line out the old word and write the new one above it?

So, you can't admit that the ancient laws were primitive and unevolved because that would mean that they could not have come from God. And if your ancient laws were not from God then maybe the rest of the writings in the books were made up as well. Then, you never were the chosen people at all, you were just, people. It's a difficult thing to accept, when you find out that you're not really special. I don't think you can do it.

The Sanhedrin court didn't kill people, they had their appointees do it for them? I'm sure they did, that's too much work. They might have gotten their expensive robes soiled.

Now I have all the information? Only God has all the information. It's not in your old books written by men who were afraid of comets.

The priests worked very hard? They had to keep a doctor because they were getting sick from cold floors and eating too much meat? We actually know what causes sickness now, it's not cold floors or eating too much meat, well, unless you eat so much at one time that your stomach rejects it. You're trying very hard to make the old primitive ideas somehow fit with what science has taught us about how God's universe works. We've moved on. We're not going backwards but you can since you think that God told you to.

I don't have any proof that the Sanhedrin dressed in expensive robes and wore gold rings? So you think the religious elite didn't have nice robes and jewelry? But they had the power to have temples built and put people to death. You could try to spin it and say that they dressed in rags, like the High Sparrow, hehe...

I don't have an image of the temple as it was 2,000 years ago. Wasn't it destroyed by the Romans and then conquered by the Crusaders and then Saladin?

Ask you after you've begun your ascension? No thanks. You have your path and I have mine.

The ten commandments doesn't really say that those who violate the sabbath should be put to death? Yeah, it does. Spin, spin, spin.

There's another 603 commandments? There's really none but if you want to get in to heaven there is one thing you have to agree to. It's kind of a secret, I can tell you but you can't tell anyone else ever. You have to agree to do God's will. I could explain all the details of what God's will is but you would try and change the meaning of the words.

I'm not familiar with the texts in question? The Urantia Book details Jesus life, not just from age 30, His whole life, so, I don't need to learn Hebrew to try and figure out why a 3,000 year old primitive text really says "unblemished" or not.

Only a religious court judge has the power to execute people? Which one of the ten commandments says that? You Jews have really spent a lot of time coming up with a Rube Goldberg system of ideas to try and exlain why the old outdated and primitive rules still could be accepted by today's standards.

Can I show you proof of my claim? There is no such thing as proof. Ahmadenijad says the Holocaust didn't happen. There's no proof that you could show him that he would ever accept. People believe what they want to believe.

The Talmud says that Jesus was stoned to death? Okay, I will look it up online. Can you give me the page or chapter?

I didn't say the Sanhedrin adopted Jesus teachings. No Jew would ever admit to that if it was true. I mentioned that it seemed to coincide with a change. I mean, if Jews, for the last two thousand years, have been trying to treat others as they wish to be treated, well, that would be, uhh, Christian. Must just be coincidence.

There is no explanation as to how my ignorance is related to your Jewish sense of superiority? That's because you can't see it.

 

[Rival]

The religious elite did have jobs, technically. There certainly were not like everyone else's job's though and it was not hard work. Does anyone think the Pope works hard?

The point was and still is that the ancient Jewish laws were so primitive that no one follows them anymore, not even the Jews themselves. The old laws might not be relevant today but they certainly were thousands of years ago, especially to a man who depended on getting milk from his only goat but that goat escaped the pen on the sabbath and fell into an old well.

Laws are evidence of laws and not character? So the laws that a people choose to adopt have nothing to do with the character of those people? Wrong.

You say the law was "thou shalt not murder" instead of "thou shalt not kill"? Then your book says something different from my book. Did you write in the change to your book yourself? Do you just line out the old word and write the new one above it?

So, you can't admit that the ancient laws were primitive and unevolved because that would mean that they could not have come from God. And if your ancient laws were not from God then maybe the rest of the writings in the books were made up as well. Then, you never were the chosen people at all, you were just, people. It's a difficult thing to accept, when you find out that you're not really special. I don't think you can do it.

The Sanhedrin court didn't kill people, they had their appointees do it for them? I'm sure they did, that's too much work. They might have gotten their expensive robes soiled.

Now I have all the information? Only God has all the information. It's not in your old books written by men who were afraid of comets.

The priests worked very hard? They had to keep a doctor because they were getting sick from cold floors and eating too much meat? We actually know what causes sickness now, it's not cold floors or eating too much meat, well, unless you eat so much at one time that your stomach rejects it. You're trying very hard to make the old primitive ideas somehow fit with what science has taught us about how God's universe works. We've moved on. We're not going backwards but you can since you think that God told you to.

I don't have any proof that the Sanhedrin dressed in expensive robes and wore gold rings? So you think the religious elite didn't have nice robes and jewelry? But they had the power to have temples built and put people to death. You could try to spin it and say that they dressed in rags, like the High Sparrow, hehe...

I don't have an image of the temple as it was 2,000 years ago. Wasn't it destroyed by the Romans and then conquered by the Crusaders and then Saladin?

Ask you after you've begun your ascension? No thanks. You have your path and I have mine.

The ten commandments doesn't really say that those who violate the sabbath should be put to death? Yeah, it does. Spin, spin, spin.

There's another 603 commandments? There's really none but if you want to get in to heaven there is one thing you have to agree to. It's kind of a secret, I can tell you but you can't tell anyone else ever. You have to agree to do God's will. I could explain all the details of what God's will is but you would try and change the meaning of the words.

I'm not familiar with the texts in question? The Urantia Book details Jesus life, not just from age 30, His whole life, so, I don't need to learn Hebrew to try and figure out why a 3,000 year old primitive text really says "unblemished" or not.

Only a religious court judge has the power to execute people? Which one of the ten commandments says that? You Jews have really spent a lot of time coming up with a Rube Goldberg system of ideas to try and exlain why the old outdated and primitive rules still could be accepted by today's standards.

Can I show you proof of my claim? There is no such thing as proof. Ahmadenijad says the Holocaust didn't happen. There's no proof that you could show him that he would ever accept. People believe what they want to believe.

The Talmud says that Jesus was stoned to death? Okay, I will look it up online. Can you give me the page or chapter?

I didn't say the Sanhedrin adopted Jesus teachings. No Jew would ever admit to that if it was true. I mentioned that it seemed to coincide with a change. I mean, if Jews, for the last two thousand years, have been trying to treat others as they wish to be treated, well, that would be, uhh, Christian. Must just be coincidence.

There is no explanation as to how my ignorance is related to your Jewish sense of superiority? That's because you can't see it.

I think you should consider yoursef lucky that Tumah has even bothered to respond to any of this nonsense. Your antisemitism quite frankly disgusts me.

 

[Thanda]

It's not quite as simple as that. There is some debate as to whether ancient Hebrew, that is recorded in Exodus, even has a future tense. That and the tense system of biblical Hebrew doesn't necessarily correspond to that of modern English, so the whole situation gets murky.

So both translations are fine. One could even translate it to I am he who endures. Or even, I am that which endures (or what endures), since the term asher is subjective to debate as well.

There are even some who refuse to fully translate the reading as they say it is unintelligible. Either way, the translations are fine and the meaning really doesn't change.

That is interesting . In my church Jehovah is said to mean "the self-existent one "

 

[Super Universe]

I think you should consider yoursef lucky that Tumah has even bothered to respond to any of this nonsense. Your antisemitism quite frankly disgusts me.

Because anyone who doesn't agree with the Jews about everything has to be an anti-Semite, right? We can't just have a different opinion, it has to be racism. God said you are the chosen people so we're all supposed to listen to you and accept your superiority over us?

The truth is that those words weren't really from God but were written by Jewish religious leaders who wanted to give their people a small sense of superiority because they were surrounded by enemies.

I did a search for the great Tumah online, I came up with no great person. So how exactly am I supposed to feel lucky when no one has ever heard of him? Has he given us any great philosophy, like the idea of forgiveness? Has he given us some new invention? Has he given us a discovery? Oh, wait, he gave us "umblemished" instead of "the best of the flock". Wow. Willl that cause Israel's GDP or food production to increase? Probably not.

You can worship him, the rest of us are moving into the future.

 

[Tumah]

The religious elite did have jobs, technically. There certainly were not like everyone else's job's though and it was not hard work. Does anyone think the Pope works hard?

I think you forget that we are talking about judges. They had to adjudicate cases because they were judges. That's what judges do. That's what they are.

The point was and still is that the ancient Jewish laws were so primitive that no one follows them anymore, not even the Jews themselves. The old laws might not be relevant today but they certainly were thousands of years ago, especially to a man who depended on getting milk from his only goat but that goat escaped the pen on the sabbath and fell into an old well.

There's not a single one that is permitted to be fulfilled today that I don't.

Laws are evidence of laws and not character? So the laws that a people choose to adopt have nothing to do with the character of those people? Wrong.

No, in your example of cutting off a robber's hand, the one who cuts the robbers hand is not expressing his own character, but the requirement of the law.

You say the law was "thou shalt not murder" instead of "thou shalt not kill"? Then your book says something different from my book. Did you write in the change to your book yourself? Do you just line out the old word and write the new one above it?

No, I just read the Hebrew. It says in the Hebrew לא תרצח, the root word רצח means murder not killing. The root for killing is הרג. That's just Hebrew.

So, you can't admit that the ancient laws were primitive and unevolved because that would mean that they could not have come from God. And if your ancient laws were not from God then maybe the rest of the writings in the books were made up as well. Then, you never were the chosen people at all, you were just, people. It's a difficult thing to accept, when you find out that you're not really special. I don't think you can do it.

Maybe. But to be fair, considering the amount of ignorance you've been displaying in your posts about the subject you are ranting about, it would be saying much worse about me if I did take your advice.

The Sanhedrin court didn't kill people, they had their appointees do it for them? I'm sure they did, that's too much work. They might have gotten their expensive robes soiled.

That's how courts work. The judge is not the one who flips the switch on the electric chair. The judge deliberates. Are you familiar with how courts work?

Now I have all the information? Only God has all the information. It's not in your old books written by men who were afraid of comets.

I have no idea what you are responding to here.

The priests worked very hard? They had to keep a doctor because they were getting sick from cold floors and eating too much meat? We actually know what causes sickness now, it's not cold floors or eating too much meat, well, unless you eat so much at one time that your stomach rejects it. You're trying very hard to make the old primitive ideas somehow fit with what science has taught us about how God's universe works. We've moved on. We're not going backwards but you can since you think that God told you to.

No, I'm just telling you what was actually going on. They were getting sick. They could only wear the four priestly garments while performing Temple work, winter or summer. They were barefoot on the cold marble. They had to eat a lot of meat. They got sick often and had to have a permanent doctor on call.

I don't have any proof that the Sanhedrin dressed in expensive robes and wore gold rings? So you think the religious elite didn't have nice robes and jewelry?

I'm not sure, "that's how it must have been" is a valid argument.

But they had the power to have temples built

No. No, they didn't. The first one was built by the king Solomon. The second one was built by Ezra and redone by Herod.

and put people to death.

Judges in 31 states in the US have that power too.

You could try to spin it and say that they dressed in rags, like the High Sparrow, hehe...

I don't know who the High Sparrow is. I also don't claim to know how they dressed, because I have not seen any evidence about how members of the Sanhedrin dressed. So I don't make any claims.

I don't have an image of the temple as it was 2,000 years ago. Wasn't it destroyed by the Romans and then conquered by the Crusaders and then Saladin?

If it was destroyed by the Romans, how would it be later conquered by the Crusades?

Ask you after you've begun your ascension? No thanks. You have your path and I have mine.

Then why did you ask me...?

The ten commandments doesn't really say that those who violate the sabbath should be put to death? Yeah, it does. Spin, spin, spin.

Ok. So would you kindly quote the verse?

There's another 603 commandments? There's really none but if you want to get in to heaven there is one thing you have to agree to. It's kind of a secret, I can tell you but you can't tell anyone else ever. You have to agree to do God's will. I could explain all the details of what God's will is but you would try and change the meaning of the words.

No, I think its more likely that I'll simply not believe since you have this habit of making statements without providing any evidence. Or knowledge of the subject for that matter...

I'm not familiar with the texts in question? The Urantia Book details Jesus life, not just from age 30, His whole life, so, I don't need to learn Hebrew to try and figure out why a 3,000 year old primitive text really says "unblemished" or not.

And Moby Dick details Ishmael the sailor's life. But that has nothing to do with the fact that when you are debating a text, you should be familiar with the content of the text you are debating. If you make claims about a text without reading it, you just might be misrepresenting the text and by extension making invalid arguments. Which is exactly what you're doing here.

Only a religious court judge has the power to execute people? Which one of the ten commandments says that? You Jews have really spent a lot of time coming up with a Rube Goldberg system of ideas to try and exlain why the old outdated and primitive rules still could be accepted by today's standards.

You seem to be hung up on the ten commandments, not realizing that they only make up two chapters of the text of the Pentateuch. There are a lot of other commandments in there. I'm not sure why you're having trouble absorbing that.

Can I show you proof of my claim? There is no such thing as proof. Ahmadenijad says the Holocaust didn't happen. There's no proof that you could show him that he would ever accept. People believe what they want to believe.

Well, there is such a thing as proof. The question is whether a person is willing to acknowledge the proof is compelling or not.

The Talmud says that Jesus was stoned to death? Okay, I will look it up online. Can you give me the page or chapter?

Sure. There's a whole Wikipedia page about it.

I didn't say the Sanhedrin adopted Jesus teachings. No Jew would ever admit to that if it was true. I mentioned that it seemed to coincide with a change. I mean, if Jews, for the last two thousand years, have been trying to treat others as they wish to be treated, well, that would be, uhh, Christian. Must just be coincidence.

You didn't said it seemed to coincide with the change, you said, "It's almost as if Jesus message started to be accepted." But that's ok.

There is no explanation as to how my ignorance is related to your Jewish sense of superiority? That's because you can't see it.

My Jewish sense of superiority is not the source of your ignorance. It seems you were doing a great job of being ignorant about the subjects you've been ranting on about since before you met me. I've only been pointing out what already existed.
The weird thing is that you admit to not having read the text, yet at the same time, you don't think you're ignorant about what it says...

 

[Rival]

Because anyone who doesn't agree with the Jews about everything has to be an anti-Semite, right? We can't just have a different opinion, it has to be racism. God said you are the chosen people so we're all supposed to listen to you and accept your superiority over us?

The truth is that those words weren't really from God but were written by Jewish religious leaders who wanted to give their people a small sense of superiority because they were surrounded by enemies.

I did a search for the great Tumah online, I came up with no great person. So how exactly am I supposed to feel lucky when no one has ever heard of him? Has he given us any great philosophy, like the idea of forgiveness? Has he given us some new invention? Has he given us a discovery? Oh, wait, he gave us "umblemished" instead of "the best of the flock". Wow. Willl that cause Israel's GDP or food production to increase? Probably not.

You can worship him, the rest of us are moving into the future.

You didn't even read my "Religion" label did you?

You accused Tumah of having a "Jewish sense of superiority" and have written trash things like "You Jews have really spent a lot of time coming up with a Rube Goldberg system of ideas to try and exlain why the old outdated and primitive rules still could be accepted by today's standards."

'You Jews' sounds very accusatory here.

 

[Super Universe]

It was the job of the elite religious judges to adjudicate cases. The wearing of the nice robes and jewelry was choice. The point, that you keep trying to spin away from, is that they had power and used that power to enforce laws that are unacceptable by today's standards. So, how could 3,000 year old laws that were said to have come from God ever become outdated?

What about an eye for an eye? It's very old fashioned, right? Not exactly a modern philosophy. What about the idea of forgiveness. It's 2,000 years old. Is it outdated yet? Is it ever going to become outdated? How about the idea that we should treat each other as we wish to be treated?

There is not a single ancient Jewish law that you don't follow? I doubt that but you've put your spin on it so you probably believe that's true.

The hand cutter is absolutely expressing his own character. There are people who would not do that job. In WW2 many religious American's volunteered for the military but refused to use a weapon or harm another. They were usually assigned to medical or some other duty. The laws and punishments that a country adopts reflects the character of those people.

Hebrew says "thou shalt not murder" instead of "thou shalt not kill"? Okay, then your book is definitely different from my book. I will tell you this, the real truth is that we should not kill even in defense of ourselves or others unless we can determine whether the other life form does not have a soul connection. If it doesn't, we can resist. Of course, we can't see souls so there is no way for us to know, yet. But that is one reason why Jesus allowed Himself to be executed.

You're the ignoramus. Wasting time studying 3,000 year old "an eye for an eye" philosophy and lying and changing ancient text and purposely mistranslating it so it sounds more modern, more Christian. You can't join our club, maybe try "Jews for Jesus", but I think they have standards, no lying and no changing the meaning of words.

Also, I looked up your Talmud reference to Jesus. Some of the manuscripts say that Jesus was hanged not stoned. So, once again you just make it up as you go, probably because hanging was not the approved execution method, stoning was, right? So you just lie and change the meaning from hanging to stoning.

Am I familiar with how courts work? Yeah, a bit. The one with the power sits in the big chair, right? But we don't stone to death people for working on Friday and neither do the Jews anymore but that's because some elite Jewish religious leader changed God's law and it's okay, right? Jews can change God's law as they please because they are the chosen people.

You have no idea what I'm responding to? Yeah, it's becoming a theme. Just call it a non-sequitor, every time you don't understand something.

The temple priests got sick a lot, wore no shoes, and ate a lot of meat? You're looking so hard for the truth, you want it so bad and you keep looking in your old books but you can't figure it out. Why does God allow bad things to happen? Where did God come from? Who were the Elohim? Why did Adam and Eve violate God's will? Why was Cain afraid of being killed when there wasn't any other human on the planet?

The real answers aren't in your books, well, bits and pieces of the truth are but you can't figure it all out from them because the ancient humans changed things and didn't include all of the real revelation they were given. They couldn't accept the truth and humans still can't. You want to be special. You want God to be all about you and only concerned with you. It never was that way and never will be that way but keep looking in your old books. To you the important thing is that it really says "unblemished" instead of "the best of the flock". Keep telling yourself that you don't really want to know the important answers.

You're not sure how "it must have been" is a valid argument? But I didn't say "it must have been". You're so used to changing the meaning of words that you do it constantly.

The first temple was built by Solomon? Once again you're stuck on one time and place in Jewish history. Ancient Jewish leaders were the religious leaders as well.

Judges in 31 states in the US have the power to put people to death? Not for working on Sunday they don't.

You don't know who the High Sparrow is? Seems you're not as smart as you thought you were. You don't claim to know how the Sanhedrin dressed? There are various artist images and movies but we don't really know for sure. But, we kind of know people. How did ancient people in powerful positions dress? In rags or expensive clothes? Didn't these Sanhedrin have the power to judge the king?

If the temple was destroyed by the Romans how could it then be conquered by the Crusades and Saladin? Rome destroyed it in 70. The first crusade captured Jerusalem in 1099. Saladin captured Jerusalem in 1187. You got your history mixed up. If I made a mistake like that you would be calling me "ignorant" but I can be the better man and not do that to you.

Why did I ask you whether you would accept Moses telling you that Jesus is the son of God? Because you are a unique personality experiment. Humans have greatly inflated ego's. I'm always curious about the many personality experiments that God is conducting. It takes time but I can figure people out by their actions and answers. The more I learn about humans, the more I learn about God.

Would I kindly quote the verse where the ten commandments says that those who violate the sabbath should be put to death? I would have to look it up but I believe you said earlier that the ten commandments is only in two places so you already know them both. You're just going to change the meaning of the words from "thou shalt not violate the sabbath" to "treat others as you wish to be treated" or something.

I have a habit of not providing any evidence or knowledge of the matter? And you've provided evidence? Show me a fireball from heaven. Has science found a single one? Show me a God caused drought? Just one. How about manna from heaven? Got any? You just need to show me one. How about the fragments of the ten commandments? Got those? Moses cane? The Ark of the Covenant? You have some stories that were written long ago by humans who didn't understand science and thought that the ground shaking was an angry God because they didn't know about Plate Tectonics.

Herman Melville didn't claim that the book "Moby Dick" was given to him by God and that he was the chosen one. I'm familiar with the content, just not in the way you are. My claims were about my version of the text, not yours.

Also, since you like to point out ignorance. A invalid argument is one where ones conclusion does not agree ones premise. Validity has nothing to do with truth. I can say "Men always were hats. John is a man. Therefore, John always wears a hat." That is a valid statement even though it is not true. It's a common mistake among those who have not studied ancient Greece philosophy.

I'm hung up on the ten commandments and not so much on the other supposed commandments? Because the other commandments are not commandments. A Jewish religious leader who writes a temple policy book that one day finds itself being included into the bible does not make it God's law.

There is such a thing as proof? What is proof to you? I can explain it to you but I'd rather hear your guess first.

The Wiki page you posted says that some editions of the Talmud say that Jesus was hanged, not stoned as you claimed. Also, don't you think that some Jewish religious leaders may have written some things down that were not exactly true after Jesus was executed to discredit Him and His earthly family?

It is almost as if Jesus teachings started to become accepted by Jews. They no longer put people to death for adultery. They no longer put people to death for working on Friday and to this day they no longer follow Moses laws. You think that following tradition and rituals is what God wants. Primitive humans came up with all kinds of crazy ideas in an attempt to win God's favor. There is nothing you can do to win God's favor. If having a life isn't good enough then there is nothing that can satisfy you.

I admit that I haven't learned Hebrew nor have I read your version of the Old Testament. To you anyone who can't read Hebrew is ignorant. Seems the rest of the world has done okay without it though. You know we have the wheel now, right?

 

[Super Universe]

You didn't even read my "Religion" label did you?

You accused Tumah of having a "Jewish sense of superiority" and have written trash things like "You Jews have really spent a lot of time coming up with a Rube Goldberg system of ideas to try and exlain why the old outdated and primitive rules still could be accepted by today's standards."

'You Jews' sounds very accusatory here.

I didn't even read your "Religion" label? Don't know, have a number of things going on at one time. Don't think I saw it. Was it important?

I accused Tumah of having a Jewish sense of superiority? I guess you missed the part in your book where it says that Jews are the chosen ones and that supposedly comes straight from God. So writing in your books that you and only you are chosen by God doesn't sound like a sense of superiority over others? No group of people are preferred by God over any other group of people.

You Jews sounds accusatory here? Take it as you wish. Your great Tumah has called me ignorant many times simply because I don't know Hebrew. As if Hebrew is an important language. Everyone is going to be learning Chinese here in another 100 years or so, certainly not Hebrew.

 

[Tumah]

Your rants are getting so long I had to break my response up into two posts. This last rant was over 8,400 characters and the site only allows posts of 12,000. Maybe for your next rant you can keep the stuff that aren't on topic to yourself?

It was the job of the elite religious judges to adjudicate cases.

Yes.

The wearing of the nice robes and jewelry was choice.

Which you have yet to prove was actually done. You keep stating it as fact for some reason. Its not clear why.

The point, that you keep trying to spin away from, is that they had power and used that power to enforce laws that are unacceptable by today's standards. So, how could 3,000 year old laws that were said to have come from God ever become outdated?

They are unacceptable by your standards. Your standards are not the objective standard by which we measure acceptability of a Law.

What about an eye for an eye? It's very old fashioned, right? Not exactly a modern philosophy.

Nope. The way it was enforced is by value, not literal eye-gouging. Seems fair to me.

What about the idea of forgiveness. It's 2,000 years old. Is it outdated yet? Is it ever going to become outdated? How about the idea that we should treat each other as we wish to be treated?

Forgiveness is a concept mentioned in the Torah. Its not a new idea the NT authors came up with.

There is not a single ancient Jewish law that you don't follow? I doubt that but you've put your spin on it so you probably believe that's true.

You've yet to prove otherwise at least.

The hand cutter is absolutely expressing his own character. There are people who would not do that job. In WW2 many religious American's volunteered for the military but refused to use a weapon or harm another. They were usually assigned to medical or some other duty. The laws and punishments that a country adopts reflects the character of those people.

You are conflating two different concepts here. You start off talking about the execution of a law and end off talking about the creation of a law. I can be robbing people every night and still show up to my day job as the court appointed officer in charge of putting robbers in jail. In the capacity of executor of law, it doesn't matter whether I feel the defendant is guilty or not, it only matters what the judge tells me I need to do.

Hebrew says "thou shalt not murder" instead of "thou shalt not kill"? Okay, then your book is definitely different from my book.

That's ok. Your book probably has a lot of other mistakes too.

I will tell you this, the real truth is

Please don't tell me. I'm not even vaguely interested. I'll just delete the following and we'll pretend you didn't say anything.

You're the ignoramus. Wasting time studying 3,000 year old "an eye for an eye" philosophy and lying and changing ancient text and purposely mistranslating it so it sounds more modern, more Christian.

I don't think you understand what the word "ignoramus" means as you seem to have accused me of being ignorant and of being studious.

You can't join our club, maybe try "Jews for Jesus", but I think they have standards, no lying and no changing the meaning of words.

I'm not remotely interested in joining your club or J4J. And they actually have quite the history in "changing the meaning of words".

Also, I looked up your Talmud reference to Jesus. Some of the manuscripts say that Jesus was hanged not stoned. So, once again you just make it up as you go, probably because hanging was not the approved execution method, stoning was, right? So you just lie and change the meaning from hanging to stoning.

Hanging was done after a person was stoned. Once he was dead, they hung his body on a pole or tree until nightfall.

Am I familiar with how courts work? Yeah, a bit. The one with the power sits in the big chair, right? But we don't stone to death people for working on Friday and neither do the Jews anymore but that's because some elite Jewish religious leader changed God's law and it's okay, right? Jews can change God's law as they please because they are the chosen people.

I'm not sure exactly how much power a judge has in general. Its kind of hard to say that there was a change to the Law, when there was no Law prohibiting the Sanhedrin from moving off the Temple Mount in the first place.

You have no idea what I'm responding to? Yeah, it's becoming a theme. Just call it a non-sequitor, every time you don't understand something.

That sounds like a good idea.

The temple priests got sick a lot, wore no shoes, and ate a lot of meat?

Yes. At times, there were a lot of sacrifices and the weather gets cold here during the winter.
The wearing no shoes is a religious requirement, not an effect of being sick.

You're looking so hard for the truth, you want it so bad and you keep looking in your old books but you can't figure it out.

No I'm not. I already found it in my books.

Why does God allow bad things to happen?

He doesn't allow bad things to happen. He controls everything. The problem is in our perception, not in the event.

Where did God come from?

He didn't come from anywhere. He always was.

Who were the Elohim?

Depending on the context, elohim is either a collective name for the false gods that people have worshiped, angels, judges or other people in power and G-d.

Why did Adam and Eve violate God's will?

Because they understood that they were ultimately meant to eat from the tree but calculated wrongly in terms of the time frame they were meant to do that.

Why was Cain afraid of being killed when there wasn't any other human on the planet?

There were still animals on the planet as well as future generations to be born. His fears were validated when he was in fact killed by another human.

The real answers aren't in your books, well, bits and pieces of the truth are but you can't figure it all out from them because the ancient humans changed things and didn't include all of the real revelation they were given. They couldn't accept the truth and humans still can't.

That's one possibility. Albeit not one that I think is true.

You want to be special.

Do I?

You want God to be all about you and only concerned with you.

Is that it?

It never was that way and never will be that way but keep looking in your old books.

Wasn't it? Won't it?

To you the important thing is that it really says "unblemished" instead of "the best of the flock". Keep telling yourself that you don't really want to know the important answers.

So you think that by putting that DJ's spin on the words to give them a different nuance that is otherwise stated, you'll learn important answers?

You're not sure how "it must have been" is a valid argument? But I didn't say "it must have been". You're so used to changing the meaning of words that you do it constantly.

You didn't say that, that's true. But you also refuse to bring a shred of evidence and seem to be relying on some conception of how things must have been. I have pointed out that you refuse to bring evidence, but you haven't actually brought anything to the table since then. Just some rhetorical questions.

The first temple was built by Solomon?

Yes. Its actually called Solomon's Temple.
Solomon's Temple - Wikipedia

Once again you're stuck on one time and place in Jewish history. Ancient Jewish leaders were the religious leaders as well.

Solomon was a religious leader as the king, sure. But not the religious leader. There were prophets then as well. But you were raving on about the rabbis and the priests, while he was a king.