• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Torah based Jews would be unconvinced

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I was only referring to the legal system.

There are
1 - ordinances - sacrifices ec
2 - judgements - inheritance etc
3 - commandments - morals

The NT says you must obey the laws of your society. You don't have to observe
the sacrifices because you believe Jesus is the sacrificial lamb, for instance.

As an aside, loving God and your fellow man is something the law has nothing to
comment on.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Then there's the issue of whether the Hebrew God is the same as the Christian God. Since both Christian and Jew believes in one God, and the Christian claims are based, at source, on the prophecies of the Tanakh, it seems highly likely that Christian and Jew are believing in the same God.
The problem arises that Christians believe a man, Jesus, is God. That is NOT the God of the jews.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
OK, OK, how about this? :)

What about Jubilee? Jubilee is another way to redemption in addition to through Jesus' salvation ( assuming it exists ). The captive soul goes free on Jubilee regardless of their relationship to Jesus. Leviticus 25:47 and Leviticus 25:54.
Multiple ways means that the covenant of grace was offered in false pretenses. Because of Jubilee, souls can get to the-father ( assuming the-father is God ) without Jesus. He is not the *only* way.

Thoughts?
The Jubilee is very interesting.

If Christ fulfils all of the law, then the freedom offered to slaves at Jubilee must be a freedom found in Christ.

If one attributes the words of lsaiah 61 to the Messiah, then one can say that the Messiah brings the Jubilee to fruition, not just for one year in fifty, but for ever.

Is lsaiah 61 referring to the Jubilee? In the JPS notes on verse 1 it says, 'Proclaim release: The phrasing comes from Lev. 25:10 which discusses lsraelite farmers who lost their land and were forced into indentured servitude. Leviticus rules that they may leave their servitude and regain their land every fifty years. Deutero-lsaiah applies this concept to the nation as a whole:'

Jesus claimed this passage of scripture, lsaiah 61, as being fulfilled [Luke 4:16-21]. Note, however, that he did not include 'the vengeance of God'.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The problem arises that Christians believe a man, Jesus, is God. That is NOT the God of the jews.
No, that is wrong.

Numbers 23:19 says that 'God is not a man.'

The title 'Christ' refers to the 'anointing' of God, as you well know. This means that Christ is the Spirit of God. Jesus, a man, was anointed with the Spirit of God. Or, as lsaiah expresses it, 'the Spirit of the LORD was upon (him)'.

'Torah based Jews' appear to reject the idea that God can dwell on earth amongst men. The question was posed by Solomon, who began to wonder whether the temple he was building could possibly house the majesty of the Almighty. It was a good question!

Christians believe that God has built his own temple, a temple 'made without hands'. Into this temple he places his Spirit. That way, God is able to dwell on earth amongst men.

The problem with the view that the Messiah is wholly human, as held by Torah Jews, is that he becomes a sinner, incapable of salvation.

The Christian understanding is that Christ Jesus sheds his flesh and blood at death. In resurrection Jesus Christ is made incorruptible. What ascends to the Father is, therefore, a spiritual, not human, being.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
They've made the tales of the chosen ones into nothing but stories for themselves.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's not about the chosen ones and righteous images and names of God like Samuel, no it's all about us, we are so special and God loves us more then others.
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
Yeah, that is a problem from a ancient Hebrew perspective. For example, in ancient Hebrew one doesn't need to distiquish between (אלהים) when dealing with The Source of Creation and (אלהים) when dealing a normal human person who is strong/has power/or some type of judicial authority. There is no need to spell it any different or try to distiquish it in ancient Hebrew. In ancient Hebrew, it all goes back to what the three letter roots (א-י-ל) or (א-ו-ל) to a word means.

Thus, what I mean when I say that conceptually a god in English is not equatable to what (אלהים) means in Hebrew.
The word applied to both is the same but to quickly make a distinction I uppercase one and lowercase the other. This is one of the things I personally hold back on explaining because I have experienced missionizing Christians who change, on the fly, their theological and historical definitions to try to match Jewish ones.

Message me privately and I will let you know. Because of the fact that someone on this thread has made missionary type statements I know that if I explain it to you they will change their definitions, present a Christian translation/or Christian inspired one, and pretend as if it matches the Hebrew text. (I have had past expereince with some people doing this.) ;)

No, we don't historically have such a concept. There are some Jews, influenced by English, who when speaking English sometimes use terms that may sound to a non-Jew like we do, but again, when a Torah based Jew is saying something in English they often have a different meaning than someone who is not Jewish with the exception of some athiests and some Classical Arabic speaking Muslims. Like I mentioned I can actually relate to Athiests conceptually better than I can Christians on this issue.

What I mean by this is that the terms we Torah based Jews often use in Hebrew to describe THE Source of Creation would be a lot closer to saying (מהפץ הגדול) or as you say in English "the Bing Bang" or what caused it [the big bang] rather than the English word "god." Even if one was to say, there was more than one big bang, the Hebrew language would say - the Source of the very first one all sub-sequent ones.

That is because the concept of how the Torah, in Hebrew, is worded is more conceptual than it is something that a human being can pinpoint. The reason being that the scope of something that caused the universe/reality to exist is way more vast than humanity and can only be related to using mathetmatics, science, and philosphical concepts. Other than that humans are way too small in the scope of even our solar system to really take that and then place it in human terms. This is why Rabbi Mosheh ben-Maimon (Rambam) stated in his book Moreh Nevuchim that if a Jew really wants to come to Hashem, as they can humanly do, they must know Torah, Halakha, Philosophy, Math, science, history, and they must experiment and challenge every concept they accept or reject over and over and over again for the their entire lives.

By like token, if the Big Bang is not a thing based on/or confined to a state of energy or matter, does not become human, is not human like, has no emotions, and is way beyond what a human is by magnitudes beyond calculation for logical reasons - by like token, it makes no sense for a person to say that the Big Bang became human is broken up into idependent conscious parts and it also serves logical purpose for such a thing to be human/humanlike/to split itself into parts or send part of itself to be human for the sake of saving people sins. This same same concept, to distance ourselves from such an illogical scenary, was conveyed to the Israeli/Jewish people about Hashem, The Source of Creation/reality, when the Torah was given at Mount Sinai. It is further the reason that most Jews are not compelled, or commanded, to try and convince the world to join us or hold by these concepts.

Thus, the shortest way to deal with is, from a Torah based Jewish perspective is to say. We don't define the nature of The Source, because that is not possible or even necessary and even the concept of "nature" "characteristics" etc. are not adequote. What we can do is say what The Source is not. I.e. The Source of creation is not human, not human-like, won't be human, has no reason to be human, and is not made up of matter like humans and what we experience, as a result of The Source in the reality that we exist in is the result of what The Source established.

The closest thing to the English word "god" would be (אלילים) which normally denotes something that, idependantly, has no power/strength on its own but people think/believe it does. For example, there were cultures in ancient, and in some places in modern times, that believed/beleive that they are taking what you can term in English as "spiritual" energy from an external source and putting it into physical objects. For Jews, this is a type of Avodah Zara. By like token, the concept of trying to connect physical things to The Source of creation is also Avodah Zara for Jews, even if it is conceptual. The concept is called (שיתוף) and is considered a part of what most Christians hold by.

In the Hebrew text virtually from start the start of the Torah Scroll to the finish. Even the individual letters have always been considered to be a part of what explains this.

From the start:
View attachment 57202

to the finish:
View attachment 57203

First word, (בראשית) Beresheeth and last word (ישראל) Yisrael.

I will shorten what you above so we can be saying the same thing. Delete everything in red below and only go by the blue w/o anything else and it is possible we are saying the same thing.

"For to say that God is the Uncaused Cause is nothing more than to say (in general) that He is the Eternally Self-Existent Creator, or that He was not created and caused by any other. You saying "The Source of All Creation/Reality" to me sounds like you agree. If there is such a distance then I'd agree."

If you go by the blue w/o any religious concepts attached to it we are saying the same thing, in principle.

That is a very strange conception of God to me in part although other things of it make sense, thank you for the explanation. DM sent.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The Jubilee is very interesting.

If Christ fulfils all of the law, then the freedom offered to slaves at Jubilee must be a freedom found in Christ.

If one attributes the words of lsaiah 61 to the Messiah, then one can say that the Messiah brings the Jubilee to fruition, not just for one year in fifty, but for ever.

Is lsaiah 61 referring to the Jubilee? In the JPS notes on verse 1 it says, 'Proclaim release: The phrasing comes from Lev. 25:10 which discusses lsraelite farmers who lost their land and were forced into indentured servitude. Leviticus rules that they may leave their servitude and regain their land every fifty years. Deutero-lsaiah applies this concept to the nation as a whole:'

Jesus claimed this passage of scripture, lsaiah 61, as being fulfilled [Luke 4:16-21]. Note, however, that he did not include 'the vengeance of God'.
Isaiah 61 , from my pov, doesn't speak about Jubilee. Look at verse 7:

7 Instead of your shame, which was twofold, and your disgrace, which they would bemoan as their lot; therefore, in their land they shall inherit twofold; they shall have everlasting joy.
Jubilee returns all portions of land to their original owner. Isaiah 61 says that a double portion will be inherited. Seems like 2 different things in my opinion.

Regarding Luke, I see the reference to releasing the captives; but this doesn't exclude Jubilee or in other words, it doesn't overrule Jubilee. From these verses both Jubliee and Salvation by Grace are viable options for redemption. Thus there is more than 1 way. And if there is more than 1 way, then John 14:6 is incomplete. The text makes it seem like Salvation by Grace is one-of-a-kind... but it's not.
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
No, that is wrong.

Numbers 23:19 says that 'God is not a man.'

The title 'Christ' refers to the 'anointing' of God, as you well know. This means that Christ is the Spirit of God. Jesus, a man, was anointed with the Spirit of God. Or, as lsaiah expresses it, 'the Spirit of the LORD was upon (him)'.

'Torah based Jews' appear to reject the idea that God can dwell on earth amongst men. The question was posed by Solomon, who began to wonder whether the temple he was building could possibly house the majesty of the Almighty. It was a good question!

Christians believe that God has built his own temple, a temple 'made without hands'. Into this temple he places his Spirit. That way, God is able to dwell on earth amongst men.

The problem with the view that the Messiah is wholly human, as held by Torah Jews, is that he becomes a sinner, incapable of salvation.

The Christian understanding is that Christ Jesus sheds his flesh and blood at death. In resurrection Jesus Christ is made incorruptible. What ascends to the Father is, therefore, a spiritual, not human, being.

What do you mean by this? What of "perfect man and perfect God" and Christian theology? The Lord does not become non-human in the Resurrection and neither do we, but retains His human nature which is divinized as we will have our human nature divinized. How is Christ the Spirit of God? Do you mean that He is the Third Person of the Trinity?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It is my native language and I have been studying the biblical Hebrew for several years now.
Even so though, there is a lot I have yet learned.
I try to learn new words every day :)

One Rabbi told me that the Torah is only 900 words. And if one had knowledge of 90 words, you can read 90% of the Torah.

Well I dont know about that. So You were a born Jew. Thats good.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
One Rabbi told me that the Torah is only 900 words. And if one had knowledge of 90 words, you can read 90% of the Torah.
That doesn't sound correct at all.
It might be true for the "root" words.
Some words have multiple meanings based on their context.
There are 23K~ verses. Each word in each verse should be learned on its own, in its verse context, in its paragraph context and so on.
It is true, though, that you can have a basic understanding of what the story is about without knowing the entire scope of words.
There are also Aramaic words in the bible (these ones I struggle with most, as I have very little knowledge of Aramaic).
Many words have a very different meaning than the modern Hebrew. This, many times, leads to wrong interpretations of words.
Well I dont know about that. So You were a born Jew. Thats good.
I was born an Israeli.
My Mother is and Egyptian Jew and my father is Polish Jew.
Why do you consider it being a good thing to be born a Jew?
I can't see any difference between being born Jew or any other nationality.
The only thing I am glad, is that I had the chance to know the Jewish traditions from early age. I do consider this to be a good thing and I find the Jewish teachings mostly smart.
The Jewish belief states, that someone choosing to become Jew is much more "Powerful" than someone born as such ;)
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
That doesn't sound correct at all.

Ah. I believe him because I know who he is. But that's alright. Its not relevant. Its gonna become a tug o war.

Why do you consider it being a good thing to be born a Jew?

Err. I dont give two hoots if one is born a jew or an alien. The whole thread at the beginning was on the language. So its good if you are born jewish if you know the language.

And what do you expect me to say when you say you were a born jew? No no. Its not good. You should have been born a Chinese?

Ciao.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
No, that is wrong.

Numbers 23:19 says that 'God is not a man.'

The title 'Christ' refers to the 'anointing' of God, as you well know. This means that Christ is the Spirit of God.
No it doesn't. Where do you get that idea? I think you make it up out of whole cloth. Annointing is something that was done to consecrate someone to God's service. Kings were annointed. Prophets were annointed. High priests were annointed. The annointed one in question is simply he who will be king during the messianic era.

'Torah based Jews' appear to reject the idea that God can dwell on earth amongst men.
That is correct. It is against God's nature to be a man. We know this because teh Tanakh says THREE TIMES that God is not a man/mortal. When something is repeated like that, it elevates it to being a major teaching.


The problem with the view that the Messiah is wholly human, as held by Torah Jews, is that he becomes a sinner, incapable of salvation.[/quotte]The problem is that Christians assume that messiah has something to do with salvation from sins. He doesn't. He is simply he who will be king during the messianic era.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Isaiah 61 , from my pov, doesn't speak about Jubilee. Look at verse 7:

7 Instead of your shame, which was twofold, and your disgrace, which they would bemoan as their lot; therefore, in their land they shall inherit twofold; they shall have everlasting joy.
Jubilee returns all portions of land to their original owner. Isaiah 61 says that a double portion will be inherited. Seems like 2 different things in my opinion.

Regarding Luke, I see the reference to releasing the captives; but this doesn't exclude Jubilee or in other words, it doesn't overrule Jubilee. From these verses both Jubliee and Salvation by Grace are viable options for redemption. Thus there is more than 1 way. And if there is more than 1 way, then John 14:6 is incomplete. The text makes it seem like Salvation by Grace is one-of-a-kind... but it's not.

Isaiah 61 mixes the coming of the 'suffering servant' with the coming of the king. The 'suffering servant' is sent to free the prisoners, whilst the king returns to bring judgement and the covenant of peace. What you are quoting in verse 7 is the land during the millennium of peace.

Your final paragraph is not clear to me. How does this disprove that Christ is the fulfilment of the law? IMO, whether it's the Jubilee, or some other aspect of the Law, all find their fulfilment in Christ.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Isaiah 61 mixes the coming of the 'suffering servant' with the coming of the king. The 'suffering servant' is sent to free the prisoners, whilst the king returns to bring judgement and the covenant of peace. What you are quoting in verse 7 is the land during the millennium of peace.

Your final paragraph is not clear to me. How does this disprove that Christ is the fulfilment of the law? IMO, whether it's the Jubilee, or some other aspect of the Law, all find their fulfilment in Christ.
My position is the covenant of grace was offered under false pretenses. Thus the covenant is null and void. The covenant as stated in John 14:6 is that Jesus is the only way. I've been giving scriptural examples of other ways to salvation which do not involve Jesus. The most recent example is Jubilee.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
What do you mean by this? What of "perfect man and perfect God" and Christian theology? The Lord does not become non-human in the Resurrection and neither do we, but retains His human nature which is divinized as we will have our human nature divinized. How is Christ the Spirit of God? Do you mean that He is the Third Person of the Trinity?
This is Christian theology!

Paul taught [1 Corinthians 15:50], 'Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.'

This means that 'It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body' [verse 44].

As regards 'Christ', I am referring to the Spirit of God that comes to dwell in Jesus, and amongst men. 2 Corinthians 3:17.'
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty'.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You are free to have your conclusion. Mine is that people have the freedom to conclude whatever they want about anything they want. Jews are not in the world trying to convince the world to accept our texts, our concepts, our culture, or our knowledge of our texts/concepts/culture/knowledge.

Further, I will have to be honest with you. You should just accept that you are an expert in the Quran and Islam. You will also have to accept that you are not an expert in Torath Mosheh just like I will have to accept that I am not a dolphin trainer at Sea World. There is nothing wrong with this being the reality. I don't lose any sleep that I am not an expert in Islam and Christianity. I welcome that as a reality. So, be comfortable with your strengths and your weaknesses like I am. It will make your life much happier.

YET, a person has to know their limits. History has shown that Torah based Jews won't be convinced of something without it coming from a knowledgable, logical, authentic, and reliable source. Knowing how to read something, as it was written, is a basic skill for Torath Mosheh Jews. You don't have to like it my friend, you can live your life while ignoring us and our stiff necked ways. (There are two meanings to that statement and you have just learned the second one throughout this thread.) We obviously didn't present anything to you and force you to accept it - you chose to enter the arena.

Just as a person with no engineering background has no chance of convincing an Electrical Engineer that VL = √3 VPH or VL = √3 EPH can be expressed by the formalla of Lygers = Cats x Dogs - (Lions * Monkey Feet)/π I am not convinced by your claims/arguements about the bible you read from relating to Torah based Jews and that is fine.

And just to be fair. I would never pretend to tell a Muslim, or a Christian, or anyone, that I know their situation better than they do. I am honest with the fact that I know very little when it comes to other people's religions and cultures.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

This is something you have to know. An illiterate person may understand the Quran better then a person who studied it their whole lives in details and knowing the nuances of eloquence etc. This is because the nature of guidance and impact on the heart, is not about how you know of details, but it's rather a light God casts to the heart of who he pleases.

I'm not an expert in Islam nor Judaism nor any religion, but when I read the Torah the beginning impacted me and I loved it from the emphasis on Seth and the contrast of those who idolized men and men who named themselves as names of God without proof. I also see the exalted ones and know exactly what the Bible says about them, the ones Adam (s) wanted to reach their level and take their position when the serpent tricked him by deception.

I'm not an expert in the language but from the tree of life to the story of the two sons of Adam and envy, and what the believers then faced from Pharaoh, this is not a story set in time, it's a story that repeats itself in the past many times between Noah and Moses, and there is grand finally coming obviously by the "the one who God will send" who will remove the knot on all tongues of Messengers and the truth will become apparent.

I read the Bible and I would just check words and their multiple meanings on a site that provided that, I don't know Hebrew or Greek, but I saw multiple translations and looked up words.

The effect it had on my heart is that I understood Quran better and know where Quran agrees with it and where it disagrees. However, the Quran, is commenting on the Torah and Gospels and books between, and so you have to understand that.

Of course, if chosen humans like Sulaiman and Saul can turn evil, maybe chosen ones are not all that great, but the Quran corrects all that for a reason.

Still, in the Torah and Gospels books between, there is emphasis on characters like Noah, Enoch, Moses, Aaron, David, etc, to all be of elevated status and that God uses them for a reason.

Not everything is about how much you study or how long.

I've learned that scholars who studied Quran and ahadith often are blind to majority of hadiths on a subject and interpret things per their blindness rather then the insights provided by Ahlulbayt (A) and these scholars are put on a very high rank in people's eyes because they studied and devoted their lives to the study of religion.

Maybe God doesn't want clergy and blinds people who take the mantle to represent his religion and teachings? I believe Quran says he does this.

We can be warners, learn it deeply, but must never claim authority and mantle of being the luminaries to be turned for religion.

This is for God's chosen leaders that have proof in scripture and other signs that they are appointed by God.

Anyways, when I got to the Elijah vs soothsaying Prophets, this was a huge impact on my heart. And when I read the Gospels and what it says about John and Elijah I finally understood the verse:

"And Zakariya, and Yahya, and Isa and Elyas and all from the righteous/setters aright"

Elyas appears in Two chapters in Quran and very little is mentioned about him. But here there is a subtle point with Surah 6 (Al-anaam).

In fact, the order of how Prophets (a) are mentioned and the groupings is a huge topic in Quran itself and miracle to me.

When I read the story of Elijah in the Tanakh - I understood so much at that point.

It has an impact on my heart. I don't know Hebrew, and maybe if I studied under your scholars, I would have a different view, but to me it's wrong to rely on people not appointed by God for religion and any holy book, but rather to rely on the family of the reminder. For example, during Isaac leadership and guiding humanity, I would rely on him and his family, the family of Abraham.

To me it's not an issue of language and knowing it here, it's about if your heart, wants to make religion into a plaything for you or do you really want to see miracles, light of God, his face, the spiritual kingdom, taste of God's sustenance from the sky/heaven and light.

This the choice, to see God or to use his religion for the world. Nothing else.

If you want to see God then you must approach him through means of people like David who God loves more then others and who he makes the means toward himself.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Kings were annointed. Prophets were annointed. High priests were annointed. The annointed one in question is simply he who will be king during the messianic era.

Ok, but what you are failing to say here is what the anointing is. When scripture says, 'the Spirit of the LORD was upon...' it means that God has anointed a person with his Holy Spirit. The outward use of oil is simply the symbolism. The reality is the inner illumination of God's Word to man's spirit and soul.

If you do not believe that the Messiah is more than a human king, then you, too, condemn yourself to a sinful imposter!
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
My position is the covenant of grace was offered under false pretenses. Thus the covenant is null and void. The covenant as stated in John 14:6 is that Jesus is the only way. I've been giving scriptural examples of other ways to salvation which do not involve Jesus. The most recent example is Jubilee.
But where does the Law state that the Jubilee is to be understood spiritually? To my understanding, under the Law the Jubilee is about slaves being freed from their enslavement every 50 years. It has nothing to do with sin enslaving a man's soul.
 
Top