By Ted Belman
I have said many times that Israpundit is not the place to have Christian/Jewish disputations. They only serve to divide us.
Israpundit has one objective and that is to unite us in the defense of liberty and in the defense of Israel.
So please adhere to this guideline.
Ameyn v’ameyn. No argument there.
At the risk of being tiresome, I’m taking the liberty of quoting MYSELF from an earlier comment posted in re Gerald Honigman’s recent article posted previously on this site:
“May 15th And The Case Of The Missing Nakba…” [May 14, 2011]
dweller says: May 19, at 8:19 am
“In Mark, when asked what his return will be like, [Y’shua] says nobody knows the time of it — neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. [13:32]
“The Father knows something the Son doesn’t know (and something directly pertinent to the Son himself, no less!). The Son isn’t omniscient, all-knowing. Yet Omniscience is a distinguishing attribute by which God is identified. The Son of God is NOT ‘God the Son.’
“In John when he talks with the Samaritan woman at the well, and he tells her ‘Salvation is of the Jews,’ she tells him that her people worship at the nearby mountain, Gerizim, while the Jews (descendants of those who had returned five-&-a-half centuries earlier from the Babylonian Captivity) worship at Mt Zion (viz, in Jerusalem).
“Whereupon he tells her the time is coming when it won’t matter where you are, because God is wherever you are; He’s a spirit & must be worshipped in spirit & in truth; that He’s not physical, and therefore can’t be confined to one place — like a man. Omnipresence is another attribute of divinity, not of a man. Even the best of men. Even Mashiakh himself.
“He says in John that ‘of myself, I can do nothing. The Father within me — HE doeth the works.’
“Those are hardly the words of a ‘divine’ being; maybe a special man, in certain significant ways, but not a god. Omnipotence is yet another identifiable attribute of divinity. If he were in fact ‘God,’ there is surely NOTHING that of himself, he could NOT do… ”
There are some 30 centuries of Jewish tradition & history previous to Christ’s advent — and of which he was/is a direct outgrowth — that would take issue with your assertion that his ‘divinity’ is Jewish.
More from the same excerpted post in the earlier thread:
“There’s a reason WHY he had to be born to the Jews.
“Absolutely no other people — anywhere, anytime — that he could’ve been born to.
“This was the only people of the ancient world that firmly rejected the proposition that a man — ANY man, even the best of men — could possibly be ‘divine.’ Every other people had provision for it, under one circumstance or another; a king maybe, an emperor (Nero’s horse). Had somebody called himself ‘God’ in a place like Judea, the people would have thought he was drunk, or retarded, or possessed. And there’s nothing in the Gospels to suggest that Christ ever did call himself that.”
To which I would add, at this time, only the following:
If a man in Judea had characterized himself as ‘God,’ ALL Jews (not merely most Jews, but all Jews) — of whatever generation it occurred in — would’ve looked at him cockeyed; they wouldn’t have known what to make of it, precisely BECAUSE the concept was so utterly outlandish to them & manifestly absurd.
The other thing you may want to contemplate, for what it’s worth, Sense, is that, if indeed he wanted his Jewish listeners to deduce from his recorded remarks that he was/is indeed ‘God’ — he sure-as-blazes was terribly coy about something so extraordinary…
For over more than a year now, there hasn’t been a single pagan jesus believe here who has responded logically and rationally to these disputations:
Jesus was not the messiah
The disciples died for a lie
Nothing but crickets chirping from the christian peanut gallery.
@ dweller.
Hey dweller, what’s that saying about ‘Two Rabbis, three opinions’ or something like that? We human beings are all like that. We got too many opinions. God reveals, and we distort His revelation in our minds. The teachers of organised, established religion are the worst when it comes to that. I don’t believe God is ‘three persons’ or a ‘trinity’ either, but oh yes, I believe Y’shua (the salvation of HaShem) is HaShem ‘manifest in the flesh’, as the New Testament clearly teaches. And I believe that that is Jewish. But most Jews will say it isn’t. And you will say it ain’t true. Who’s right when there are so many who ‘know the truth’ and yet we all contradict one another?
“Let God be true”. And every man a liar (especially Palestinian ‘politicians’!).
I wouldn’t presume to dampen your enthusiasm, Sense, but I must say, with all due respect, that if the “Messianic Jews” to whom you refer (Rabbis or not) adhere to the notion that Yeshua is ‘God,’ then they are not Jews.
It’s one thing for them to see him as Mashiakh; that’s not INHERENTLY “unJewish.”
(Yes, I know, Yamit will vehemently & obstreperously disagree; and so will Shy, and probably Yonatan, and others as well. But there is nothing about believing in a false Messiah — even if Yeshua were a false one — that would take somebody out of the circle of the Jewish People. Lots of Jews have, over the centuries believed in various false Messiahs. But that didn’t, of itself, render them any-the-less Jewish.)
It is, however, another matter ENTIRELY, to view the Nazarene as ‘God.’
If your “Messianic Jewish” friends tell you that, then — whatever else one may say about them — they have crossed the line.
If they subscribe to the Nicene Creed (or any of the subsequent creeds), then notwithstanding the name they give themselves, they are not ‘Jews.’ Very nice people perhaps, just not Jews.
Again, if they hold to the proposition that the Son of God is ALSO ‘God the Son’ — then they are not Jews.
There’s nothing in a belief in the “Virgin Birth” — or in a literal, physical, actual, historical, Resurrection of a man who was indeed dead — to keep them from being Jewish.
But there is EVERYTHING in the proposition of an ‘Incarnation,’ a ‘Trinity,’ or any other ascription of ‘Divinity’ to Christ that would very definitely keep them from being Jewish.
The truth is that there is actually very little, Sense, from the standpoint of sheer doctrine, per se, to keep somebody from being Jewish.
The proposition that a man, any man — even the Messiah himself — could be ‘God’ — is, however, such a case.
Other areas of consideration might conceivably render somebody mistaken, or confused, even ‘heretical’ but not necessarily unJewish.
To regard Jesus as ‘God,’ they would not be Jewish.
No way around that.
What’s more, there’s AMPLE evidence in the Gospel itself that he certainly did not see himself that way,
and that he didn’t wish anybody else to view him that way.
Or they could be quoting ME
— if it were merely a matter of scholarship
which it isn’t…
No. What it proves is:
A. that you believe only what you WANT to believe, Yamit, and
B. that not only have you never learned to think “outside the box,”
but also that you’re threatened by anybody who has.
Not so.
What you mean is, that is an interpretation of the text that YOU do not countenance.
However, you are not Judaism’s hierophant, Yamit.
You do not speak for Jews.
You speak for one Jew.
Yourself.
Period.
No.
What you SHOULD’VE said, Yamit, was that this is the opinion of Dr Kaufman, whose words you excerpted at some length — and without attribution or even quotation marks.
Dr Kaufman speaks for himself.
Would you (and Kaufman) have preferred that the Eternal One provide you with a theological treatise on the subject, Yahnkeleh, so you wouldn’t have to put it together for yourself?
Whom did Moshe Rabbenu have — to put things together for him?
What chapters & verses did HE turn his eyes bloodshot poring over?
God did not ‘create’ evil.
Evil was simply the consequence of disobedience.
He didn’t ‘create’ thirst either.
Thirst is simply the consequence of a lack of water.
The first humans HAD a free will.
After their first sin, however, that was no longer the case.
Got any bad habits, Yamit?
That is: got any habits that you’d rather you didn’t have?
So much for your free will.
The only reason we speak of the (legal fiction of) “free will” in jurisprudence is that the legal system could not function without the presumption of same.
Yamit82 said:
I really don’t mind if you don’t believe in Jesus, I really don’t. But you’re talking to someone who has read the entire New Testament over and over again, as well as the entire Old Testament a good few times, and you are talking absolute, total rubbish. Anyone who reads the passage where John 7:42 is written can see that John is only recording a history of what arguments took place between the Jews regarding where the Messiah should come from. None of the gospels contradict one another on the issue of where the Messiah was born and where He grew up – there’s not even the slightest hint of a contradiction. Whatever contradiction there is is a figment of your over-active philisophizing imagination. He was born in Bethlehem, and His mother and Joseph took Him to Egypt, from whence they returned after a period, going and living in Nazareth, which is where Y’shua grew up. No problem with that history and no hint of that problem anywhere in John or anywhere else (P.S – remember, you are talking to someone who knows and understands that book much better than you do).
Yamit82 said:
Like I said, suit yourself. It does not make me even dislike you. I have this incredible love and respect for the Jews that Jesus planted in me, which I suddenly found a part of me only after I turned from being a 100% unbeliever in the Bible and Jesus to being a 100% believer in Jesus and the Bible all in one night, over 30 years ago. And that love for the Jews I get from having a very deep understanding, through my faith in Jesus, of the incredible love that the God of Israel and His messiah, Jesus, has for the Jews. Before that day, the Jews mattered not to me, any more than the Japanese mattered. I know (not believe, not “I’m convinced of”), but I know how deep and wide and high an eternal is the love of God for Jews – because He has put it in me.
So suit yourself, and God bless you. I stand with you and I stand with Israel, regardless of your crazy re-interpretations of the writings of Moses and the prophets.
Yamit82 said:
Disobeying the only command God gave Adam in the garden of Eden shows what Adam did with his free will and does not show a “moral” choice. And God did not, as you state, give man a choice of whether or not to worship Him when He created man. Nowhere does the Torah or the prophets imply this. There’s never any choice:
“For thou shalt bow down to no other god; for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God;” (Exo 34:14)
“And Samuel spoke unto all the house of Israel, saying: ‘If ye do return unto the LORD with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Ashtaroth from among you, and direct your hearts unto the LORD, and serve Him only; and He will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.'” (1Sa 7:3).
And you imply that God does not mean what He says. HaShem said:
“‘Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'” (Gen 2:16-17)
Your argument implies that HaShem never meant EXACTLY what He said, that He said one thing, but had another plan in mind: To actually use “the serpent” to give man the opportunity to disobey Him. That sums up your opinion of HaShem.
Like Adam, we can either believe the Word of HasHem or we can believe the Word of another even when the other word contradicts the Word of HaShem.
Abraham believed the Word of HaShem, and it was accounted to Abraham for righteousness:
“And He brought him forth abroad, and said: ‘Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if thou be able to count them’; and He said unto him: ‘So shall thy seed be.’ And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.” (Gen 15:5-6)
Moses did not write that Abraham’s ‘righteousness’ was counted to Abraham for righteousness, he wrote that Abraham’s belief in (faith in) the Word of HaShem was counted to him for righteousness. Abraham’s belief in HaShem, His Word and His promises was Abraham’s righteousness – and that was said over 430 years before the law was given to the people via Moses on Mount Sinai.
Eve would never have gazed at that tree and considered it “good for food” had she not believed the word of the serpent which contradicted the Word of HaShem, and Adam would not have done likewise. There was no choice granted to Adam by HaShem of whether or not to worship Him or whether or not to believe His Word, and there never has been any choice regarding worship of HaShem only, and your insinuation that there was and is such a choice is pagan, no matter how many Rabbis twist what Moses wrote.
What you say implies that it was the will of God that “the serpent” beguile mankind, only so that you can “prove” that the serpent did not become the adversary of HaShem and His will and His Word.
Yamit82 said:
Who said there was? There is only one deity – HaShem.
Yamit82 said:
Of course evil is under the control of the Almighty. nobody said it was not. The fact that evil still exists is proof that God is aloowing it to continue. But to say that God created everything, so He must have created evil is to imply that He is the author of evil.
You flatly ignore the context of the verse where HaShem says through the prophet that He creates evil:
“Thus saith the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and that the gates may not be shut: I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron; And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I am the LORD, who call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel. For the sake of Jacob My servant, and Israel Mine elect, I have called thee by thy name, I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known Me. I am the LORD, and there is none else, beside Me there is no God; I have girded thee, though thou hast not known Me; That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside Me; I am the LORD; and there is none else; I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.” (Isa 45:1-7)
God “created evil” to come upon the Babylonians so that He might deliver His people from Babylonian captivity. HaShem does that all the time. Throughout history He does it:
“I will also give thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and break down thy lofty places; and they shall strip thee of thy clothes, and take thy fair jewels; and they shall leave thee naked and bare.” (Eze 16:39)
In the above passage God is saying that he will bringing punishment on His people’s waywardness by bringing evil upon them. It is in this context, and this context alone that HaShem “creates evil”.
God could only have created evil in the pagan sense you say He created evil if He had willed evil. But He did not, because He did not will that Adam would disbelieve His Word and disobey His command. It was not His will. Evil only entered into the creation when Adam sinned, and Adam sinned because he disbelieved the Word of HaShem and believed the lie:
Who put these thoughts into the heart of man?:
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations! And thou saidst in thy heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, above the stars of God will I exalt my throne, and I will sit upon the mount of meeting, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.'” (Isa 14:12-14)
Is it not the same spirit who put thoughts into the heart of man from the beginning?
“Oh, the serpent is just an animal that could talk”
It’s ridculous. The Hindus might believe you. No animal has ever been known to have thoughts about contradicting the Word of HaShem to a human. Believe if you like that HaShem created animals with that sort of mental capacity. Like I said, the Hindus might believe you. I doubt that Moses and the prophets would have though.
Yamit82 said:
I do – from the Messianic Jews, many of them who are very learned Rabbis. At least they don’t re-interpret Moses’ writings through pagan lenses like you are doing.
sense.com says:
Just For You
Will Messiah will be born in Bethlehem?
Micah 5:1 states: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrath, who are little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of you shall come forth to Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.” Is it true that this is a prediction that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem?
Answer: This verse refers to the Messiah, a descendant of David. Since David came from Bethlehem, Micah’s prophecy speaks of Bethlehem as the Messiah’s place of origin. Actually, the text does not necessarily mean the Messiah will be born in that town, but that his family originates from there. From the ancient family of the house of David will come forth the Messiah, whose eventual existence was known to God from the beginning of time.
Christians allege that Jesus fulfilled Micah’s prophecy in that he was supposedly born in Behlehem. Matthew’s claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1) is supported by Luke 2:4-7. Mark is silent on the matter. John relates that some people believed the Messiah will come from Bethlehem (John 7:42), but does not take advantage of the opportunity to demonstrate that Micah’s prophecy was fulfilled by claiming that Jesus was actually born there. This is highly unusual and leads one to suspect that John did not agree with the assertion that Jesus was a Bethlehemite. He lets stand the opposing assertion that Jesus was really of Galilean origin (John 1:46, 7:41).
Except for the birth references found in Matthew and Luke, all indications, even in the writings of these two evangelists, point to the fact that Jesus was from Nazareth. In any case, being born in Bethlehem is of dubious value in establishing messianic credentials for Jesus. Jesus did not fulfill so man essential messianic qualities, as found in the Prophets, that having been born in Bethlehem would be of no consequence whatsoever.
Have it your way: Serpent is the term used to translate a variety of words in the Hebrew bible, the most common being Hebrew: (nahash), the generic word for “snake”.
The most famous Biblical serpent is the talking snake in the Garden of Eden who tempts Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and denies that death will be a result. The Serpent has the ability to speak and to reason, and is identified with the wisdom of this world: “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made” (Genesis 3:1). There is no indication in the Book of Genesis that the Serpent was a deity in its own right, although it is one of only two cases of animals that talk in the Pentateuch (Balaam’s donkey being the other).
In Genesis, the Serpent is portrayed as a deceptive creature or trickster, who promotes as good what G-d had forbidden, and shows particularly cunning in its deception. (cf. Gen. 3:4–5 and 3:22)
The Serpent has the ability to speak and to reason, and is identified with the wisdom of this world: “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made” (Genesis 3:1)
A taking wise snake might just be what he is portrayed according to the text without Christian pagan embellishments and interpretations which have always proved to be either lacking in true insight or fraudulent.
A Smart taking snake might be just that; a smart worldly snake plying on the naive and gullible. As dweller likes to say “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”. You can’t Chery pick those things you want to read as literal or those that are allegorical while at the same time rejecting the allegorical except when it fits your Christian agenda.
Nowhere in the texts does it describe the snake as being a supernatural being, or the devil. Since your Christian concepts of the devil is alien to Judaism and since it’s our book, our language, our understanding if you ned to understand anything in the Jewish scriptures I suggest you ask a Jew and I’m sure some would be pleased to educate you.
The serpent tempted Eve to go against G-d’s wishes. However, Judaism does not say that the serpent was Satan. Satan as an evil power does not appear in the Jewish scriptures until the book of Chronicles. However, in the Book of Job, Satan appears as a sort of spy for G-d.
G-d created everything, so G-d must also have created evil. If G-d is all-powerful (omnipotent), then evil will be under G-d’s control. If G-d is all-loving then it is reasonable to believe that G-d created evil for a purpose.
When G-d created humans he gave them free will so that they could choose whether to worship him or not. If free will is to mean anything, then humans have to live in a world which allows them to make moral choices between good and evil. This is why G-d created evil.
People will be punished for the sins they commit, but not for the sins of other people. This was made clear in the writings of the Prophet Ezekiel.
Adam and Eve were punished not so much because from the tree of knowledge but because G-d told them not to and they did. G-d could have chosen any tree in the Garden and forbade the eating of it’s fruit.
Jewish opinion is that man was mortal from the point of his creation. There were hellenistic Jewish sects who believed that mortality was a punishment for the transgression in Eden, but this view is not authoritative. Christianity’s theology is, itself, essentially Greek, so it is not surprising that the view surfaces there. It is, however, unBiblical. When G-d says to Adam that if he eats from the tree, he will “surely die,” He nowhere indicates that by “die” He means that the human race will become mortal. That is an interpretation of the text that Judaism does not countenance and which makes no sense, given G-d’s purpose in creating man.
G-d had a heavenly host comprised of immortal beings and did not need two more. 🙂
Yamit82 said:
The pagans got their original ideas from the sons of Seth and the sons of Shem, and then twisted them:
“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”
(Gen 3:15)
(9:5) “For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele- joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;” (Jewish Publication Society Bible).
The child who would be born, the son who would be given, would be called names like “everlasting father” and “Mighty God”. How pagan! (according to you)
Of course, you will introduce hellenistic philosophy to re-interpret the Jewish scriptures, but “the seed of the woman” in Hebrew is zera ishah. In ancient Babylonian it was zero ishtar (zera ishah in Hebrew). the pagans began to worship Ishtar – and Tammuz as her “seed”. The Persians called “the seed” zara and the woman “ashta” (zara ashta – Zoroaster). The “magi” who came to worship Jesus were Zoroastrian priests, according to the Lion “Handbook to the world’s religions”.
The worship of the woman and her seed was carried out by “the nations” (70 of them) from the vicinity of the tower of Babel, and you can find this corruption of the original revelation in many of their myths – such as the one which is the origin of the name of the European continent:
Zeus, the Greek “father of the gods” sees EUROPA on a beach (situated on the coast of Israel) and lusts after her. He turns himself into a glistening bull with crescent horns (crescent – moon-god), and entices her onto his back. Then he dives with her into the waves of the (Mediterranean) sea, and rapes her, whereafter he takes her to the isle of Crete (the birth place of Hellenist and Roman culture and civilization). On Crete EUROPA gives birth to the sun-god, the incarnation of Zeus, “the father of the gods”, and then she flies into the heavens and becomes “the queen of heaven” (Virgo), and the bull is flung back into the heavens, becoming the sign of Taurus (the bull).
Yes, the pagan myths are full of the corruption of the original revelation handed down by Seth and his descendents to Noah, Shem and his descendants:
“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”
(Gen 3:15)
(9:5) “For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele- joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;” (Jewish Publication Society Bible).
Your Hebrew scriptures testify to the fact that “the nations” corrupted and paganized the original revelation. But it is the Hebrew scriptures themselves that said “the seed of the woman” would come into the world.
But you won’t have it. You will introduce hellensitic philosophical concepts to re-interpret your own scriptures, rather than take HaShem’s revelation literally.
Yamit82 said
Salestalk: Make the person aware of the real or supposed “benefits” of the product, and create in the person a desire for the benefits:
“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”
They had been made in the image and likeness of God, but the serpent says they will be like gods, and their (spiritual) eyes will be opened, and then they will know the difference between good and evil.
It’s only after that that we read that “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”
And only once their (spiritual) eyes were opened to sin and evil and once they “knew that they were naked” – only then did they feel the need to hide from God:
“And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” (Gen 3:5-11)
“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
God had said none of this. Where did these ideas come from in the mind of Eve?
You say those thoughts came from Eve herself, and from the sin in her. But again, that’s not what the account (which is the Revelation of HaShem Himself) says – because HaShem’s accouont adds a third party to the narrative.
By saying that there was no third party involved, you are adding to the word of HAShem (because it is His Word, His Revelation).
You say it Was it Eve calling HaShem a liar to herself, saying “You shall not surely die” and then implying that HaShem had a hidden motive for saying it.
Whether the account (which is an accoount of what actually took place) is given in the form of a story or not (allegory), no Jew or Gentile has the right to add to it – to add your (very Greek sounding) philosophical notions about Eve actually planting these seeds of thought into herself through her “propensity to sin” – because that is not what HaShem has revealed here.
HaShem’s account introduces a third party – the serpent – into the narrative – and the serpent just happens to be the ancient symbol of haSatan from ancient Babylonian and pre-Israelite days. (Baylonian clay tablets, Canaanite texts discovered by archeologists, etc). Livyathan (Leviathan) was the ancient name given to that serpent, as testified to by ancient Babylonian clay tablets and Canaanite texts.
It seems to me that your desperate attempts to move Judaism as far away from Christianity as possible is what led to the development of your new Judaism, which is unlike the Judaism of Moses and the prophets in many respects, through the introduction of not a little hellenistic philosophy (Philo etc), and this is why you change HAShem’s introduction of a third party into the narrative into a philosophical treatise about the sin principle inherent in man being the cause of Adam’s disobedience to the plain and simple command.
Christian pagan BS
Christian pagan BS: No basis in the Tanach.
Christian Gibberish
You could be quoting Mithra or Dionysus, Krishna and Others: At least quote the original and not some cheap copy but it Proves your beliefs are Pagan centered.
POCM: introduces you to Christianity’s origins in ancient Pagan religion.
Eternal life was part of Pagan religion for thousands of years before Jesus
YucK you are disgustingly naive and gullible.
No the serpent is not the devil in Jewish thought and beliefs
Since this chapter of the Garden of Eden story is allegorical, one must in that context learn he lessons The Torah seeks to transmit. Is the narrative literal or figurative, and is the Serpent an animal, a demon or merely the symbolic representation of Sin? There have been many answers to these questions; and none of them are of cardinal importance to the Faith of the Jew. There is nothing in Judaism against the belief that the Bible attempts to convey deep truths of life and conduct by means of allegory. Eminent Jewish thinkers, like Maimonides and Nachmanides, have accordingly understood this chapter as a parable; and Saadyah regarded the Serpent as the personification of the sinful tendencies in man, the Yetzer hara, the Evil Inclination.
Two fundamental religious truths are reflected in this Chapter. One of them is the seriousness of sin. There is an everlasting distinction between right and wrong, between good and evil. There have always been voices—Serpent voices—deriding all moral do’s and dont’s, proclaiming instinct and inclination to be the truest guides to human happiness, and bluntly denying that any evil consequences follow defiance of G-d’s commands. This Chapter for all time warns mankind against these insidious and fateful voices. In the words of Isaiah it seems to say, ‘Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes.’
Christian dogma of Original Sin is counter to Jewish thought and belief. Judaism rejects these doctrines. Man was mortal from the first, and death did not enter the world through the transgression of Eve. the Law of G-d is the bulwark against the devastations of animalism and godlessness. The Psalmist often speak [sic] of sin and guilt: but never is there a reference to this chapter or to what Christian Theology calls ‘The Fall’. One searches in vain the Prayer Book, of even the Days of Penitence, for the slightest echo of the doctrine of the Fall of man. ‘My God, the soul which Thou hast given me is pure,’ is the Jew’s daily morning prayer. ‘Even as the soul is pure when entering upon its earthly career, so can man return it pure to his Maker’ (Midrash).
Instead of the Fall of man, Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants. ‘There is no generation without its Abraham, Moses or Samuel,’ says the Midrash; i.e. each age is capable of realizing the highest potentialities of the moral and spiritual life. Judaism clings to the idea of Progress.
The other vital teaching of this chapter is, Free will has been given to man, and it is in his power to work either with or against G-d. It is not the knowledge of evil, but the succumbing to it, which is deadly; man may see the forbidden fruit, he need not eat of it. Man himself can make or mar his destiny. In all ages and in all conditions, man has shown the power to resist the suggestions of sin and proved himself superior to the power of evil. And if a man stumble and fall on the pathway of life, Judaism bids him rise again and seek the face of his Heavenly Father in humility, contrition and repentance. ‘If a man sin, what is his punishment?’ ask the Rabbis. The answer of the Prophet is, ‘The soul that sinneth, it shall die’—the wages of sin is death. The answer of the Sage is, ‘Evil pursueth the evil-doer—the wages of sin is sin. The answer of the Almighty is, ‘Let a man repent, and his sin will be forgiven him’—the wages of sin is repentance.
No Jew accepts the original sin concept of Christianity. It is totally illogical and counter to the whole purpose of creation and our purpose.
“mene mene tekel upharsin”
Define: “early”
i.e., dates, please.
There’s no evidence — or testimony — that Christian-Jews of Judea were “anti-Jewish” OR “pro-Rome.” Or “Roman snitches against Jews, etc.”
So if by “early” you mean before AD 135, Yamit, then you are bearing false witness against your neighbor.
Sources for WHAT, pls?
— for saying that the scenario I presented “would have saved us many centuries of grief”?
What’re your sources for your assertion that “BK should have wiped out all of the ‘traitorous’ Christians” — and that THAT “would have saved us many centuries of grief.”
The facts are largely to be found in the Bavli; we’ve been over them aplenty, Yamit, in earlier threads — as you are fully aware.
What remains is your take on them, and mine.
Two sets of opinions.
Half right.
Half wrong.
There is only one Creator, and everything that is not the Creator is His creation.
“Satan” is an angel; yes, a fallen one, but an angel all-the-same.
Angels are not the Creator; therefore they are created beings.
That includes fallen angels, and indeed, the “Prince” of the fallen angels.
Why is the blockquote “half right”?
The “Prince” of the fallen angels “IS a messenger of God & unable to do anything outside of God’s will.”
Why ONLY “half right”?
Because his service to God is not a reflection of his OWN willing commitment to the divine behest.
His service is the price he pays for not being destroyed immediately when first he rebelled.
He is INDEED God’s ‘rival’ — or, better stated, he desired (and still desires) to be.
Crazy, under the circumstances? — yes. Megalomania always is.
Hence his fall from the Heavens, and his designation as the Evil One.
And within the broad parameters of his subsequent (viz., post-fall) status as Lord of this World, he is actually, in large part, ‘lawful.’ He is useful to God as a messenger — a negative messenger, TBS — for testing & tempering of man, as [the uncited, Michael Katz in Yamit’s quoted excerpt] says.
The solitary instance, since his fall, in which the Evil One — quite flagrantly DID “break the rules” of his earthly estate, was in taking unto himself and his ‘realm’ a soul to which he had no lawful right — and in that, he really had no choice, because the (short-term) alternative (from his perspective) would have been infinitely worse. But it was designed that way from the beginning: a great, Cosmic “sting operation.”
He took the soul of the spotless one, who — faithful to his mission — allowed himself to be killed, and dying, left his body, saying, “Into thy hands, Father, I commit my spirit.” Whereupon Satan came & took him.
Hence the phrase from the Apostles’ Creed (the very first of the creeds, and the only one that contains it), “…died and was buried. He descended into hell [alt., “descended unto the dead”]… ” He was TAKEN into hell.
Satan took that soul — along with all the others that he DID have a ‘right’ to — into his “luciferian pawn shop.”
A pawn shop is a technically “lawful” place, formerly on the outskirts of town (nowadays, more often in the inner city, yet, in any case, on the “moral ouskirts” of town) — but, while the shop is itself lawful, if the Authorities should ever, just one time, be able to clearly establish that the pawnbroker had knowingly taken into the shop a single piece of merchandise to which he had no right…
On earth, Satan’s only real power is the power of deceit, and even that is ineffective unless he can find a home for deceit in man’s vanity. That is, there has to be an appeal, for temptation to get a toehold, to take root…
Yamit82 says:
OK, Moses had it wrong, because he wrote that God commanded Adam not to… because… “you shall surely die”, and then the serpent says, “You shall not surely die…”
First he calls God a liar, contradicting the Word of haShem which came to Adam, then he implies that haShem had a hidden agenda for saying that.
Who was this serpent, “according to the Jewish concept”?
Your sources pls.
sense.com Re: comment #20
Do angles lie? According to John:4, they do! This is not a Jewish concept but Pagan Christian concept. The author of John writes that Satan, an angel, “is a liar, and the father of lies” (John 8:44). While this is not a Jewish concept, the Christian Bible clearly teaches that angels do lie. The Jews, Jesus spoke to in john:31, were nondescript and non defined, but one thing for sure they were not leaders or rabbis which is apparent from their replies.
Jesus as well shows his ignorance of Judaism and concepts by his use and conceptualization of the devil (Satan).
Satan is the fallen angel of gnostic origins and the universal symbol of evil as defined by Christianity and Islam. He is described in literature (Paradise Lost, et al.) and in theology as an adversary of G-d. This notion of Satan as a fiend or a Prince of Darkness is inimical to the Jewish concept of G-d, which regards Satan as a servant of G-d.
First mentioned in the Book of Job, Satan asks G-d to take away the earthly advantages of Job, in an effort to prove that Job might well not be so wonderful if all his benefits were removed. G-d permits Satan to do this, which is an example showing that Satan is always acting on G-d’s behalf, whether as the evil inclination or as the prosecuting angel in the world to come. Satan’s task is a thankless job where failure in effect denotes success. G-d creates Good and Evil in order to give man free will; Satan, rather than being an instigator creating evil, is G-d’s vehicle to test man’s free will of good versus evil.
In Christianity, Satan is an enemy of G-d, an opposing force, and something very bad. In Christianity, Satan has a level of power that is considered almost equal to that of G-d. In the Christian bible (2 Corinthians 4:3-4), Satan is called the god of this world. However, in Judaism Satan is an agent of G-d, created by G-d for a specific purpose, and something very good. Satan is simply an agent of G-d, just as all the other angels are simply agents of G-d. This is why we frequently see passages where the author appears to interchange G-d and an angel (leading to the often erroneous Christian concept of a christophony).
If we take a look at Isaiah 45:7, we see that Hashem is the creator of everything, as the text says, “bringing forth light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil, I am G-d who does all these things.” In the Jewish bible, everything is under the jurisdiction of G-d and under His power – all forces, even evil forces. Everything comes from G-d, He created everything, good and evil. That being the case, Satan is not a rival of G-d, he is a messenger of G-d and unable to do anything outside of G-d’s will.
If you look at the use of Satan in the Hebrew bible, you find that as a concept, it is much more about an experience than a person, an experience where G-d has put a roadblock in front of us. This is Satan, this is an adversary. So why is this a good thing? Because if we were to go through life without ever experiencing these roadblocks or adversaries, obstacles in life, there would be no potential for virtue in the world. For if we were never tempted to do the things that we are not supposed to do, then not doing them would be of no value to us. It is only in coming up against a desire to do what is wrong and overcoming this that we grow as spiritual people.
This evil inclination, or Satan, provides friction. Can you imagine a world with no friction, no resistance? Think about a car, how does it go? It is the friction between the tires and the road that allow the car to make progress, to go forward. Now, to the tires the friction is not necessarily a positive thing, the friction slowly destroys the tire, and yet without the friction, the tire is worthless.
If there is no resistance to overcome, we have no environment for growth. When we come up against an obstacle, either we crash into it and fall (definitely a negative experience – the evil inclination) or you have to climb over it, and by climbing over these obstacles in life, we develop our spiritual muscles, so to speak. If we never exercise our muscles, we atrophy. So these forces in the world, these experiences, no matter how difficult or uncomfortable, are positive and important.
To reiterate, in the Jewish bible, everything was created by G-d, both good and evil and everything is under G-d’s control. Only one force, not two, whereas, in Christianity Satan is not under the control of G-d but is rather, a competing force against G-d. Christian theology makes Satan so powerful that he is given the title, “the god of this world.”
This sets up a situation in Christian theology whereby Jesus must come and accomplish something to help us get out of the difficult situation – to overcome Satan, since he is at war not only with G-d, but with us. However, Judaism teaches that what is to be overcome is not Satan, but the “satan” in our path, the obstacle which has been put there for our growth.
At last we get down to the nub of it for Yamit. And he gets it dead wrong.
The truth is that “what would have saved us many centuries of grief” would’ve been for Rebbe Aqiva & Bar Kokhba to have continued what was a legitimate War of National Liberation against Rome — an undertaking which had had the full support of ALL sectors of Judea (including the followers of Christ, up till that point) — instead of HIJACKING that worthy venture, as they surely did, and declaring Bar-Kokhba to be ‘Mashiakh,’ in a highly divisive “War for Mashiakh.”
In doing so, they lost not only the support of the Christian Jewish community,
but also the support of the overwhelming bulk of the Judean Rabbinate [only Gershom, Akha and Aqiva himself endorsed it], yet which HAD supported the War of National Liberation,
as well as the support of the Sanhedrin, which likewise HAD supported the War of National Liberation.
The War of National Liberation was winnable.
And was being won; the early Judean victories were significant, and extraordinary,
and were moreover giving real hope to other captive peoples and restive nationalities throughout the Empire
— right up until the moment of Aqiva’s fateful, public declaration (while pointing to the thus-far-successful Bar-Kokhba), “Zeh haMelekh haMashiakh.” [“This is the King, the Messiah.”]
From that point forward, things began to fall apart.
Whenever possible, always avoid dividing your forces [see also for reference, Custer, Gen. George Armstrong, et al.]
Indeed.
Lotsa shakin’ & dancin’, but still no straight answer to a fair question.
Yes or no?
Irrelevant.
I repeat Dawg’s question: Yes or no?
As evidenced by this?:
Nonsense.
His mission included his death, and he knew it — and he accepted that from Day One.
This was by no means the only time that enemies sought his blood, but like most of those other instances, it was not yet time — so he simply absented himself. (It is only when he is given a very specific piece of news that he realizes, and says, that “It’s time.”)
Doesn’t say he ‘ran away.’
Nor does the TONE of his discourse in that passage suggest anything on the order of distress or anxiety on the part of somebody even slightly fearful for his personal well-being. (Re-read the excerpt for yourself, and look for that.)
So say you.
That does not of itself make it so.
Only after Justin Martyr; viz., mid-2nd century.
Not before.
In any case, as I’ve already pointed out, this is not a reflection on the speaker of the words, but rather a reflection on the gentile (i.e., post-Judean) Church — which exploited the words to its own self-serving & slanderous ends.
A dinner fork can be used as a weapon.
Does that make dinner forks evil?
In prison a plastic toothbrush can be refashioned in such a way as to be capable of killing a man in a matter of seconds.
Should we ban toothbrushes? at least, in prison?
Yeah, sure, but don’t be stingy with the imagery, Yahnkeleh; shmeer it on thick with a heavy hand: “go into Bnei Brak on Shabbat Yom Kippur, and eat freshly fried, crunchy bacon, dripping fat all over the sidewalk in front of a synagogue (maybe even walk inside with it).”
Translation:
This is what our guy YAMIT would like to believe (and what he would like you all to believe) is what Christ did. But no, it is NOT, in fact, at all what Christ did.
You won’t have the moral or intellectual authority, Yamit, to be making such demands — on YoursMostTruly, or on anybody else — until you start seriously holding yourself to the same standard.
And, quite candidly speaking, I’m not holding my breath in that department.
This is an excellent article about the Christian Rights support of Israel. I am a Tea Party Patriot, and it speaks for me…http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/will-the-tea-party-back-israel/?singlepage=true
sense.com says:
May 24, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Shy Guy being a wise guy and trying to keep up the division by quoting very divisive scriptures.
Yamit 82 says: Quite right: sense.com Not fair of shy to quote divisive scriptures. Why don’t you publicly reject or expunge them, in the name of unity of-course ?
ShyGuy was quoting a scripture out of context. Jesus was not speaking to all Jews – He was speaking to none other than the leaders of religion (this time Jewish Pharasaic religion) who in the name of religion wanted him killed because of His religious teaching. The Jews who Jesus referred to as “the synagogue of Satan” and “those who say they are Jews but are not” were late first century C.E or early 2nd century C.E Jews who were at that time persecuting the Jewish and Gentile Christians. Jesus would have the same words to say about the 4th,5th, 6th and….. Christians who persecuted and even killed Jews in the name of religion.
A lot of hate is spread and evil is committed in the name of religion. Jesus never taught hatred of nor violence against unbelievers merely because of their unbelief – neither did Moses – yet the Pharisees wanted to have Jesus killed in the name of religion. Mohammed and the Pharisees and the religious Jews who persecuted those who believed in Jesus in the 1st century C.E, and the Christians who incited the killing of Jews (all in the name of religion) – they are all from the devil, they do the works of the devil and are the synagogue/church/mosque of Satan.
If you’d bother to study the context of Jesus’ words you will discover that that is what He was saying. He certainly was not speaking to “Jews” but to specific religious people who committed evil in the name of their religion and who happen to be Jews – religious leaders from His own people who regarded Him as a threat to their power via religious authority over the people, and wanted Him killed. He knew they were plotting to have Him killed.
But typical of all religious people who like to sow hatred in the name of religion, the passages were quoted by shyGuy out of their historical context and used to sow division and discord – which is exactly what Christians did with those same passages from around the late second century C.E onwards.
Well, I’m clear of the religious conversation. I believe in live and let live…unless you’re into beheading people to achieve a world caliphate.
But I did want you to know, Yamit, that I did Google cold fusion. If the Italian guys have harnessed the process, then, yes, it would be very promising, indeed. I did get the impression that they may be charlatans, though. I hope that’s not the case.
Cheap energy that the Elite could figure out a way to make expensive, would be wonderful…
Regarding Palin. Perhaps no one can solve the problems facing us. But someone with trustworthy principles, who will genuinely attempt to repair them, is preferable to the liars of both Party’s that have brought us to this point.
Kufar Dawg
See Zealotry
/a>
I assumed nothing about you other than you are a christian apologist at the least. Re: Christians persecuted by Rome in the first centuries CE? My theory is they were really Zealot Jews who refused the authority of Rome see KiTos
War
The Kitos War (115–117): mered ha’galuyot or mered ha’tfutzot, translation: Rebellion of the exile) is the name given to the second of the Jewish-Roman wars. Major revolts by diasporic Jews in Cyrene (Cyrenaica), Cyprus, Mesopotamia and Aegyptus spiralled out of control resulting in a wide spread slaughter of Roman citizens and others by the Jewish rebels. The rebellions were finally crushed by Roman legionary forces, chiefly by the Roman general Lusius Quietus, whose nomen later gave the conflict its title, as “Kitos” is a later corruption of Quietus. Read More
Remember early Christian were anti Jewish and pro Rome: They acted as shtinkers (Roman snitches against Jews fighting the Romans)
“Render unto Caesar…” is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
Many early Christian were targeted by the Jews for their traitorous acts against the Jews. Since they were pro Roman I doubt that Rome saw them as a threat. Zealot Jews were a threat and that’s why the Flavians invented Christianity in-order to pacify the rebellious Jews. It finally worked.
I assumed nothing about you other than you are a christian apologist at the least. Re: Christians persecuted by Rome in the first centuries CE? My theory is they were really Zealot Jews who refused the authority of Rome see KiTos
War
The Kitos War (115–117): mered ha’galuyot or mered ha’tfutzot, translation: Rebellion of the exile) is the name given to the second of the Jewish-Roman wars. Major revolts by diasporic Jews in Cyrene (Cyrenaica), Cyprus, Mesopotamia and Aegyptus spiralled out of control resulting in a wide spread slaughter of Roman citizens and others by the Jewish rebels. The rebellions were finally crushed by Roman legionary forces, chiefly by the Roman general Lusius Quietus, whose nomen later gave the conflict its title, as “Kitos” is a later corruption of Quietus. Read More
Remember early Christian were anti Jewish and pro Rome: They acted as shtinkers (Roman snitches against Jews fighting the Romans)
“Render unto Caesar…” is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
See Zealotry
/a>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry
Many early Christian were targeted by the Jews for their traitorous acts against the Jews. Since they were pro Roman I doubt that Rome saw them as a threat. Zealot Jews were a threat and that’s why the Flavians invented Christianity in-order to pacify the rebellious Jews. It finally worked.
Yamit – I figured it was also – I still wanted to say what I said to him – Shabbat Shalom!
You’re assuming I’m Christian. Of course, the Christians were the ones being ruthlessly persecuted and murdered for those first few centuries in the CE.
Can’t we all just get along?…Haaaaaaaa!!!
Yoni I suspect our friend Dumb Guy is just Hymie. He has been using the same lines for over 5 years. He has so many Tells I can usually pick him up after one or two comments.
Dumb guy 82 – they “respond”, you do know the meaning of that word, don’t you? You just don’t like their message. The least you could do is be honest about it.
Have you also noticed the huge increase in xtians that come onto a Jewish site and push their theology down our throats? I sure have. The world doesn’t want us to have a state, apparently it doesn’t want us to have a website either.
Don’t read if you don’t like it.
Ted,
The only way you will be able to have “Israpundit is not the place to have Christian/Jewish disputations” is to ban Yamit82 and Shy Guy. They are the antagonists that constantly stir up debate including in this particular post where you requested their be no debating.
I like Israpundit and have given up reading the replies because of these two guys.
You own the ball. If people will not play by your rules you can send them home or back to their mother’s basement where they can sit all day typing condemnations into their computers of everyone who is not like them. (if we were all like them we would be living free off the backs of all the Israelis who are working – of course if we were all like them no one would be working or serving in the military).
What imagery a Lunatic claiming divinity, running for his life from a mob and hiding in mortal fear for his life. He must have been fleet afoot like doing a .09 hundred to get away from such a mob. ( I call them good Jews who saw him for what he was, a scoundrel, liar and complete nutcase). Funny no Christian sees any anomaly with his behavior.
Of-course he was specifically addressing whom ever he was addressing but the message was universally applicable to all Jews and that’s how the Church understood it to this day.
Who was he speaking to and what was their sin? If the message and accusation were not meant for all Jews who rejected J I’m sure it would not have been included in the Gospels, especially john. The the Passion Christians love so much is based on John 8.
“On another note, I’ve noticed you seem to criticize some Jews, are you saying Yeshua didn’t have that right as well?”
My criticism has nothing to do with me personally. I make no claims of divinity or prophesy. I do not set myself up as final arbiter of anyone’s soul or next world disposition. I would never go into Bnei Brak on Shabbat and eat ham sandwiches in front of a synagogue. This is essentially what your j guy did. Then to blame the mob for their reaction amounts to blood libel. BK should have wiped out all of the traitorous Christians, it would have saves us many centuries of grief. Appears that Jews then like now were much to tolerant for their own good. Punishment: 19 centuries of pogroms, inquisitions and holocausts.
Quit using stupid simplistic sophistry on me stick to the Texts in context. Like you like to say “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”.
I am no believer in Peace and look at the prospects of war to work somehow to our advantage. We’ll see?
Russians are never quiet and Zhirinovsky is a colorful nut, quiet mad. He too believes in lakes of fire but his are man made (in Russia).
@ Yamit, Unfortunately Both our countries our heading in the wrong direction for peace. Obama will stay on the side of the arabs and congress will support Israel, This will only divided our people on both sides and cause internal strife in the US. Israel on the other hand will be to worried about the arab push to care what America is doing. We will end up supporting Israel in the future though, But watch the U.N. in sept. they will declare a p.l.o. state with the 67′ borders and Israel won’t stand for that. Then the real fun begins. I hope your bunker is secure my friend. p.s. Why is Russia so quiet? *long pause* Or are they..