Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Vesayen]

That was intentional heh.

[trev]

Ben Kenobi, your posts on the Torah are accurate and reflect my opinion on those verses also. Well done.

[Vesayen]

I can be of the opinion that Apolyton is in fact a message board about gourmet cooking, but that really does not change what Apolyton actually is.

I really do not want to be disrespectful to Christians and I sure as heck do not want to begrudge any Christians their faith, but as I explained, none of those verses talk about Jesus(except one which as I said-could loosely be interpreted as the second coming.... maybe).

Your religion stands on its own without pulling parts of the Torah apart and saying "Ah! This proves it!" but really, it does not. The reflex is to take any possible evidence of ones own faith and say it is a testament but in t his case it is not there, nor is it really even needed. If none of those verses prophecies Jesus(and none do), does that negate your faith or the legitimacy of Christianity in your eyes, even one iota?

[Jon Miller]

Veayen..

Christians have had different interpretations of some of the OT verses since before there were Christians.. (where Christians was denoted sometime in Paul's career)

read the NT to see..

with all the number of Rabbi's to look at, and the different interpretations some of them see (and I have read enough posts by LotM to see that that is common..), why can't you see that some Jews had similiarly different interpretations (than you) of some OT verses

Basically, I can see different inpretations (Jewish, Christian, others) (and different variations of 'liberal' and 'conservative' of those), but you can't?

Jon Miller
(I am not asking if you believe that is the correct interpreation, I am asking if you can see it)

[Ben Kenobi]

No actually, it does not. The snake is well, a snake. Really. Since Jews don't believe in hell we SURE as hell don't believein Satan. The word "saa tan"(spelling it phonetically) comes to mind as far as I can think of, twice in Jewish literature. Once in Job and I forget the other time. He is an angel, no real special distinguishing role. No angel really takes any prominent role in Judaism at all, the only non human focus is on G-D. The snake is, a snake. The authors of the text believed the snake was, a snake, so, its a snake.

I don't doubt the word refers to a snake or a serpent. The real question is whether the snake or serpent is Satan in another form. I was told that Satan means 'accuser' in hebrew, and while there are a number of different names, the accuser tag comes from Job where Satan accuses Job.

Have you actually read the passage you are reffering to? There is no context, no refference to a specific individual. Where the hell are you drawing a specific descendant from? Could you quote the specific line because I can not even imagine where you are getting it from..... Really, I want to see the line your reffering to which makes you think it is reffering to ANY specific individual, let alone Jesus....

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head
and you will strike his heel.

First off, snakes don't talk. I would be interested in seeing how you explain Eve's temptation without the talking snake. This is why it makes more sense to see the snake as Satan in a different form.

The he is the specific descendent, this prophecy that the snake/ satan will be crushed by a descendent of Eve.

No, the nature of the world changed after Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden. There were no carnivors in Eden, the lion lay with the lamb etc. This line is reffering to part of the change in the natural world, one specific change, that snakes will be a menace to men, so men are going to kill them when they are able.

Then how do you explain the talking snake? Could snakes talk back in this day? What about the whole problem of evil? These are all left unsolved by your claim that the snake is just a snake.

It is not the job of the "Jews" to redeam the world. The world is not an evil place and may not even need saving. A quote from numerous Hebrew prayers is(I am paraphrasing) "Forgive me G-D, for in despair I said all mankind was evil".

Interesting, so you feel that the only heaven here is an earthly one? What do you make of folks who were translated to heaven, Enoch or Elijah in Kings?

I realise that the specifics of the afterlife and eschatology are not very clear in Judaism, but there are a significant number of Rabbis who would disagree with you hear about the evil in the world.

It is every individual persons job to redeam themself. I think there is a clash of ideology here though. When you say redeam, you mean redeam from hell.... which as a Jew has never made sense to me, since your god throws you there by virtue of the fact that he set up the system....

It's like asking a drowning man to rescue himself. We need someone firmly on the bank who can pull us out of the water. We cannot save ourselves anymore then we can stop ourselves from sinning against one another.

Actually, God doesn't throw us there automatically, we make the decision that we would rather have other earthly pleasures in our lives then heavenly treasures with God. And our reward is eternal seperation from God.

When Jews say redeam, obviously they are not reffering to hell since there is no hell, they are usually refering to a life more pleasing to G-D/self improvment. A sin is bad BECAUSE IT IS BAD, not because of the punishment and you should avoid sining BECAUSE it is INHERANTLY bad, not because of any reward or punishment.

Agreed. However, sin also damages your relationship with God, and the question I have for you is do you believe that we can entirely avoid sin? This is why we need God's help since we cannot save ourselves.

Does the world need redeaming? Maybe, maybe not.

Interesting. What do you make of Paul's analysis that the one without the law who shows that the law is written on his heart through his actions can be justified while the Jew who has the law who acts contrary to the law cannot?

So can Jews with limited means redeam the world? No.
Is it their job to redeam the world? Not really.

Jews are supposed to live good lives and hope others follow example, no one ever "reamds" anyone but themselves and no outside force, even G-D is needed for that.

So why bother with God at all? If you can live a perfectly good life without him, it doesn't make sense to burden yourself by following his commands.

Actually no, Jews are blessed in themselves. Jews are like a whoring, alcoholic husband who keeps leaving his wife to go to the bar. G-D forgives us anyway because we made a deal and he knows we'll come home sorry eventually. G-D can punish us even if we are blessed.

True, God will not fail to keep his promise. But they are not blessed because they are Jews they are blessed because they are God's people. It's like that alcoholic husband, he isn't blessed because of being a lout, he is blessed because of the wife to whom he has married. See what I mean?

How does your response show the covenant of Israel is actually "Jesus"?

Good question! Yes you are right that the promises to Abraham were to become the father of a great nation, but some of the promises, as we go into later on have not yet been fulfilled. The Mosaic code limits the relationship to God as one between Israel and God, as you so put it, there is no requirement that Jews bring others into the fold.

You are right that it isn't the purpose of Jews to bring others from outside, but to preserve, to serve as an example for others. The Christians are the ones who are supposed to reach out and encourage people to be with God.

Now in order to fulfill his promises to Abraham requires a Messiah who is either if you believe the Christians, yet to come, or if you believe the Jews, has not yet arrived. Christ is the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, that his children will fill the earth.

Your reading with the conclusion already found. This is not a “prophecy” of Jesus. It needs context. It needs detail. Is there ANY reason for you think this refers to Jesus, except that you want it to? All Jews are descended from Isaac and Jesus was a Jew, besides that, there is not a single thing showing that this is Jesus, heck it could be the Lebuvache Rebe(sp?), he is a Jew who was also a descendant of Isaac(by default). How about all the other messiahs floating around in the second temple period? Is there a single scrap of evidence which points to Jesus?

There is this thing called his death and resurrection. There are other prophecies, Malachi, etc that are needed to be fulfilled by the Messiah that Christ fulfills.

How can Jesus be the fulfillment of a COVENANT? It is not a prophecy G-D is referring to in this instance, but a promise. G-D is saying I have a deal with the Jews, forever. How can you have a fulfillment of such a deal, which is the existence of Jesus? That is like saying “Okay the terms of the contract say we will pay you $15.00 at the end of January. I am going to go paint your house now, to end the contract.” Er no…. that is not the same contract.

That's what eschatology is about, the ending of the world. The fulfillment of these promises will be seen when Christ returns to end the world as we know it now. This is how such a promise can be fulfilled.

Ask 5 Jews, get several dozens answers, none of them particularly certain. Judaism says worry about now and tomorrow, when/if Meshiach comes, we’ll worry about that then.

This line is CLEARLY not referring to Jesus because the individual or group described, never killed the Moabites. Unless you want to delete that line, because it does not fit?

I am saying that Israel will be elevated for once and for all over her historical enemies when Christ returns.

I guess I forgot that the Torah was actually adlibs or a soduko puzzle, where you play with the parts till it fits.

Hey, I just quote the Messianic prophecies. It's the Jews who decide, this passage will be fulfilled by the Messiah.

Your claim was that the Torah prophecise Jesus. How exactly can you use the Torah as evidence if that event has not happened yet? We’ll talk about this one when Jesus is still not here in another 2,000 years(Apolyton will last that long, right?)

As you said earlier, 'we do not know the hour or the day.' We could debate all day about whether all the messianic prophecies have been or will be fulfilled by Christ. What I have clearly shown is that the Torah does refer to the Messiah.

This is not a description of Judah ruling all the nations. Judah is NOT supposed to rule all the nations. Only G-D can tell the Nation of Israel when to go to war, they can’t do it themselves(not to be confused with the modern secular state of Israel which has no divine endorsement, though I wish it well). This is saying that once Judah rules, it will not cease to rule “till it comes to whom it belongs”. The Jews were not kicked out of Israel by secular powers, it only happened because G-D let it happen. The rulership of Israel went to who it belonged for that time, G-D gave the land away to non Jews when he kicked the Jews out of Israel.

Indeed, God will come to rule over everything. Which is what I tried to say earlier.

Once again, no specific or even vague reference to Jesus. Judah may have lasted the longest and makes up most Jews today, but isn’t Jesus’s father from the tribe of Levi?

Ah, now we have to go through the Gospels.

Judah and his brothers,

Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,

Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,

Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
and Jesse the father of King David.

And so on all the way down to Joseph.

Matt 1:1-17

Hell it is irrelevant. At the time, tribe membership went through THE FATHER. Each blessing is a description of the tribe and their offspring. Jesus had no father, so he could not of been a member of the tribe of Judah, now could he?

Well here's your choice Vesayen. If you sincerely believe that Jesus' father was not Joseph, then you must believe that Jesus' father was God himself.

Are you sure this is the argument you want to make?

Because they don’t. Because your copies don’t match up to ours(nor do they even match up with each other) and we can prove ours predate yours.

From what I can see, the passages read the same, even if they are slightly different. Everyone else can read them and gage for themselves the fact that they are very similar, which should serve to corroborate both of our translations arrived through different means.

I am quite pleased by your scrutiny, it has served me great comfort to see how similar they are.

Ridiculous. Lets apply that same idea to a line of text a handful of lines up. A handful of lines it up it says you will not suffer a witch to live. Does that mean we will not suffer a SPECIFIC witch to live, and after we suffer that one, we can suffer the rest and never kill more witches?

Read that sentence again. 'Suffer a witch to live,' means that you shall not permit even a single witch to live within Israel.

I will bring a prophet, means just that a prophet.

He tell us to not keep Kosher, to violate Shabat, that HE is god incarnate, he challenged the authority of the high priest-a system which had G-Ds support.

What is clean is what comes out of the mouth rather then what goes into the mouth. The idea is not to reject Kosher, but reject the fact that one can in fact be clean just for respecting Kosher. Going beyond the law as everything else Christ says.

So,yes. Jesus tells us to throw out the law and follow *HIM*(“I am the way” sound familiar?), when a handful of lines up we are reminded(for the zillionth time in the Torah) to follow no one but G-D. This message is repeated a ridiculously, entirely overly redundant number of time sin the Torah. While this line may say a prophet will come(one prophet? Okay.

Yes, he also says that he comes not to abolish the law but to fulfill the law. Most of his teachings go beyond the standard of conduct established by the Mosaic code.

Who says its Jesus? Even then, I still fail to see why we limit it to one), there are other warnings in the Torah to be careful of men claiming to be prophets and even goes further in other places to warn that people who show sorcery other miracles should not be followed because of that, we are then reminded again that “I am the lord your G-D and you will have none before me.”

Indeed, 'by the fruits you shall know them.' Whether Christ is the fulfillment of the prophecy or not is the second half of the debate. The first half is establishing what exactly are the prophecies about the Messiah.

We will know, the proof will be so abundantly obvious that no one can possibly deny it

Indeed, yet Christ says, a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign, yet none will be given except the sign of Jonah.

I agree with you that his second coming shall be as you say, except by then it will be too late, our fate shall be sealed. The real issue is whether there is one coming of the Messiah or two, and Jewish tradition is not settled on this, especially given the suffering servant.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Veayen..

Christians have had different interpretations of some of the OT verses since before there were Christians.. (where Christians was denoted sometime in Paul's career)

read the NT to see..

with all the number of Rabbi's to look at, and the different interpretations some of them see (and I have read enough posts by LotM to see that that is common..), why can't you see that some Jews had similiarly different interpretations (than you) of some OT verses

Basically, I can see different inpretations (Jewish, Christian, others) (and different variations of 'liberal' and 'conservative' of those), but you can't?

Jon Miller
(I am not asking if you believe that is the correct interpreation, I am asking if you can see it)

Interpretation needs some basis. There is no basis for me to see it..... too much is left out.

I don't doubt the word refers to a snake or a serpent. The real question is whether the snake or serpent is Satan in another form. I was told that Satan means 'accuser' in hebrew, and while there are a number of different names, the accuser tag comes from Job where Satan accuses Job.

It could be accuser, or tester. I can not think of a single place in the entire Torah where a being is named, and they are in fact reffering to another. I could be overlooking one, but I can't think of it. When you talk about Jacob, you say Jacob(Or Yisrael... he was renamed). When you talk about Moshe, you say Moshe. When you talk about Aron, you talk about Aron. Why call it a snake, if it is fact, Satan? Why not call it Satan? When every other person who is discussed in the Torah is reffered to by their actual name, why call him the snake, especially when he is such a collosaly important person?

Heck... i'd make this more complicated but this would derail into a new thread..... Jews do not believe in hell, they do not believe in lucifer. A lengthy historical analysis can show WHERE the idea of "satan" comes from for the Christian religion, when which concepts were integrated, from who and where. It can not possibly refer to satan since well, a long enough historical analysis would show the Christian idea of satan is a construct, that it is not real.

First off, snakes don't talk. I would be interested in seeing how you explain Eve's temptation without the talking snake. This is why it makes more sense to see the snake as Satan in a different form.

Snakes don't have legs either, now do they? Yet this snake was forced to crawl in the dust, implying it had legs before. The snake was physically changed. The physical form of most life in the world was changed, there were no carnivores before either.

The he is the specific descendent, this prophecy that the snake/ satan will be crushed by a descendent of Eve.

Well, how do you know this is Jesus? What is the context to say "Jesus" in this passage? Where IN THIS PASSAGE or the ones near it, is there any indication the person reffered to here, is Jesus?

Your claim is that this passage prophecises Jesus. I want to know how you know it is Jesus?

No, the nature of the world changed after Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden. There were no carnivors in Eden, the lion lay with the lamb etc. This line is reffering to part of the change in the natural world, one specific change, that snakes will be a menace to men, so men are going to kill them when they are able.

Then how do you explain the talking snake? Could snakes talk back in this day? What about the whole problem of evil? These are all left unsolved by your claim that the snake is just a snake.

Snakes could talk back then, or at the least, this one could. The natural world changed after the expulsion from Eden.

If you want to ask me the source of "evil", I could give you hundreds of answers. None of them are particularly relevant-new problems caused by the lack of a source of evil in this passage, do not in any way affect the status of Jesus being the one prophecised.

My personal opinion? I think this question is enormously complicated and I am proboably wrong. However, what is evil? Is evil things which G-D hates? Define that, then i'll give my opinion... even then i'm almost definatley wrong. This is another difference in Jewish and Christian ideology. We do not see the world as filled with "evil" and(and the next part varies in Judaism) something which neccesarily needs divine redeaming.

It is not the job of the "Jews" to redeam the world. The world is not an evil place and may not even need saving. A quote from numerous Hebrew prayers is(I am paraphrasing) "Forgive me G-D, for in despair I said all mankind was evil".

Interesting, so you feel that the only heaven here is an earthly one? What do you make of folks who were translated to heaven, Enoch or Elijah in Kings?

How I feel is irrelevant, I have absolutley no basis to know. The Torah does not describe "heaven". If it is a place of eternal rewards? Who knows. In Judaism the afterlife where G-D is, is not called "heaven" but Olam-Habah which literaly translates to "The Next World". Some dead go there, G-D is there-thats about it. The expanded Jewish literature describes some but really, most of it is just fanciful poetry-nothing useful.

I couldn't tell you anything else. All I could tell you is what is important is how we act here, for no reason that it is important to make this world the best we can.

I realise that the specifics of the afterlife and eschatology are not very clear in Judaism, but there are a significant number of Rabbis who would disagree with you hear about the evil in the world.

Disagree in what way? That the world is inherantly evil and filled with sin? I really don't think that many Rabis would disagree with me on that one.

It is every individual persons job to redeam themself. I think there is a clash of ideology here though. When you say redeam, you mean redeam from hell.... which as a Jew has never made sense to me, since your god throws you there by virtue of the fact that he set up the system....

It's like asking a drowning man to rescue himself. We need someone firmly on the bank who can pull us out of the water. We cannot save ourselves anymore then we can stop ourselves from sinning against one another.

Actually, God doesn't throw us there automatically, we make the decision that we would rather have other earthly pleasures in our lives then heavenly treasures with God. And our reward is eternal seperation from God.

Except in your analogy, the same person who saved you, also threw you into the river. He makes the system, he makes the rules, he makes us, he puts us into the system knowing what our every choice will be before we are even born, then punishes us for making the choices he knows we will make..... Call it predetermination but well... yeah. This is not a Jewish view so much as it is mine. Free will may exist but from the perspective of G-D, it can't since he is omniscient. He knows your going to hell before he even makes you.

When Jews say redeam, obviously they are not reffering to hell since there is no hell, they are usually refering to a life more pleasing to G-D/self improvment. A sin is bad BECAUSE IT IS BAD, not because of the punishment and you should avoid sining BECAUSE it is INHERANTLY bad, not because of any reward or punishment.

Agreed. However, sin also damages your relationship with God, and the question I have for you is do you believe that we can entirely avoid sin? This is why we need God's help since we cannot save ourselves.

You can not entirley avoid sin, not really. Even one of the greatest Jews, Moshe Rabeinu, went contrary to G-Ds orders on occasion. Abraham was once an idolator. King David(who may be the anscestor of the Meshiach) had an affair with a woman then had her husband killed so he could marry her. I'd go on to list the sins of the greatest Jews.... The greates Jews are all sinners-some of them even commited majors sins. They also all repented.

You have to be sorry and try to commit yourself to not do that conduct again, thats it.* Sin is not a "thing" which is stuck to you like dirt, where only G-D can hose you down. "Saving" yourself from sin implies a punishment like hell, or negative consiquences for yourself. Save yourself, from what, in what way? From distancing yourself from G-D? Only you can close the gap by coming back to him.


*There are a few exceptions which are complicated.... i'll leave them off. The complications however occur rarley enough that the overwhelming majority of humanity will never encounter them. It is mostly technical stuff.

Does the world need redeaming? Maybe, maybe not.

Interesting. What do you make of Paul's analysis that the one without the law who shows that the law is written on his heart through his actions can be justified while the Jew who has the law who acts contrary to the law cannot?

Not really relevant to the topic at hand but i'll answer anyway heh .
Non Jews have an easier way to not sin. They have way less possible sins to comit. I would in this case, agree with Paul(partly). Paul is saying that a non Jew who does not know the law but has it in his heart, is doing good in G-Ds view. A Jew however who knows the law but does not observe it, is not doing good in G-Ds view. If I interpeted the passage correctly, I can not imagine how I could disagree.

I'd go one further to say that a Jew who observes the letter of the law but is mean to his neighbors, is not doing as good as a Jew who ignores most of the ritual observances but is kind and charitable to his neighbors.

Paul is working through an opression complex to spread his message. He wants to spread this message "Yeah, well THOSE PEOPLE say your not good enough for G-D, yeah, THOSE PEOPLE say that! Yeah well you know what? Your better! Yeah, thats right!" etc.

Except no one is or was saying that.c

So can Jews with limited means redeam the world? No.
Is it their job to redeam the world? Not really.

Jews are supposed to live good lives and hope others follow example, no one ever "reamds" anyone but themselves and no outside force, even G-D is needed for that.

So why bother with God at all? If you can live a perfectly good life without him, it doesn't make sense to burden yourself by following his commands.

For a non Jew? You don't need to follow the ritual observances of the Torah. You never did. The only thing G-D expects of non Jews is to treat his fellow man well-they do not even need to acknowledge his existance. They can even worship other G-Ds. One of the few laws expected of non Jews is to not practice idolotry but really, i'd call that a cultural bias which snuck its way in.... the noahkide laws(laws for non Jews) are not in the Torah, but the oral Torah.

You are under ABSOLUTLEY no obligation to bother with G-D, at all. Whatever happens when you die, you'll be absolutley fine if your good to your fellow man.

Now you could also worship G-D and follow his laws to Jews out of respect and gratitude but really there is absolutley no need, no implied or unimplied compulsion.

Jews have something a little extra. G-D does not hold the father accountable for the conduct of his parents... except in this case. G-D made a deal with the Jewish people. We have to stick to the deal. Not because of any punishment if we do not, but because our fathers made a deal and we don't want to let them, or G-D down. There is also gratitude and respect, gratitude for the many gifts in the world, for existance and respect for G-D since he made the deal and included you in it.

I am not even sure G-D exists, but if he does, I really don't want to let him down. My umpteenth anscestor made a deal with him and I don't want to let him, all the people between Abraham and my own parents down. Plus, G-D is the man(I'd never admit this to my Rabi, or well anyone I know heh, but my most frequent prayer outside of religious services is something along the lines of "G-D, your the man". I think he knows how I feel) and if he is real I feel a sense of gratitude and the least I can do is follow the laws he gave.

I really am glad you asked the question because I am happy to answer it.

This really is one of the fundamental, ideological splits between Judaism and Christianity. You think that G-D demands some sort of observance from most of the world, or that lack of such observance has a bad consequence.... not really, not anything beyond the most basic "do not steal or kill" laws which make their way into most societies anyway.

Actually no, Jews are blessed in themselves. Jews are like a whoring, alcoholic husband who keeps leaving his wife to go to the bar. G-D forgives us anyway because we made a deal and he knows we'll come home sorry eventually. G-D can punish us even if we are blessed.

True, God will not fail to keep his promise. But they are not blessed because they are Jews they are blessed because they are God's people. It's like that alcoholic husband, he isn't blessed because of being a lout, he is blessed because of the wife to whom he has married. See what I mean?

Its hard to explain and not neccesarily important at the moment.... unless you want to continue on this topic?

Edit: For the first time in my history on Apolyton a written post I tried, exceeded the maximum length..... see part 2 right below.

[Vesayen]

Part Deus!

How does your response show the covenant of Israel is actually "Jesus"?
Good question!

I am glad I am asking the right questions

Yes you are right that the promises to Abraham were to become the father of a great nation, but some of the promises, as we go into later on have not yet been fulfilled. The Mosaic code limits the relationship to God as one between Israel and God, as you so put it, there is no requirement that Jews bring others into the fold.

Keep in mind the mosaic code, is for Jews..... who says there is no relationship between G-D and non Jews? I couldn't tell you what that is, G-D never told us.

You are right that it isn't the purpose of Jews to bring others from outside, but to preserve, to serve as an example for others. The Christians are the ones who are supposed to reach out and encourage people to be with God.

As per my long explination right above, we do not think people neccesarily need to reach out to G-D. Be good to your neighbor, thats enough.

Now in order to fulfill his promises to Abraham requires a Messiah who is either if you believe the Christians, yet to come, or if you believe the Jews, has not yet arrived. Christ is the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, that his children will fill the earth.

The promise to Abraham is not a promise of a meshiach or a "redemption" of the world. Where do you see that? I do not see where in the covenant to Abraham it implies a redemption or a meshiach.

There is this thing called his death and resurrection. There are other prophecies, Malachi, etc that are needed to be fulfilled by the Messiah that Christ fulfills.

Yes but we are not discussing them are we, we are discussing the specific passages you brought up . I asked for context to point to JESUS as the individual described.

How can Jesus be the fulfillment of a COVENANT? It is not a prophecy G-D is referring to in this instance, but a promise. G-D is saying I have a deal with the Jews, forever. How can you have a fulfillment of such a deal, which is the existence of Jesus? That is like saying “Okay the terms of the contract say we will pay you $15.00 at the end of January. I am going to go paint your house now, to end the contract.” Er no…. that is not the same contract.

That's what eschatology is about, the ending of the world. The fulfillment of these promises will be seen when Christ returns to end the world as we know it now. This is how such a promise can be fulfilled.

The covenant does not in any way speak of the end of the world.... in fact it is an undending covenant with him and his anscestors. The covenant never ends. It is with his children. How can the covenant be undending and extend to his children, if at some point the world ends and ther are no more children? If anything the covenant speaks of the fact the world WILL NOT end... which is one thing I can at least say all Jews agree on. There will be no apocalypse, no destruction of the world.

Ask 5 Jews, get several dozens answers, none of them particularly certain. Judaism says worry about now and tomorrow, when/if Meshiach comes, we’ll worry about that then.

This line is CLEARLY not referring to Jesus because the individual or group described, never killed the Moabites. Unless you want to delete that line, because it does not fit?

I am saying that Israel will be elevated for once and for all over her historical enemies when Christ returns.

Yes, but in this instance... in this line... besides the other lengthy reason I explained, Jesus never beats the moabites! The individual(s) described here, beat the moabites. Jesus did not beat the moabites. Can't be him.

Your claim was that the Torah prophecise Jesus. How exactly can you use the Torah as evidence if that event has not happened yet? We’ll talk about this one when Jesus is still not here in another 2,000 years(Apolyton will last that long, right?)

As you said earlier, 'we do not know the hour or the day.' We could debate all day about whether all the messianic prophecies have been or will be fulfilled by Christ. What I have clearly shown is that the Torah does refer to the Messiah.

Yes, but your claim is that these lines refer to the coming of Jesus(part one, or part deus-I heard the sequel will have awsome special effects btw). Based on existing evidence, that does not seem to be the case. If you are depending on future evidence to proove your claim... well to proove the claim based on that evidence, we have to wait for it, now do we? As it stands, there is no evidence POINTING TO JESUS in this instance, or most of the other instances highlighted.

Once again, no specific or even vague reference to Jesus. Judah may have lasted the longest and makes up most Jews today, but isn’t Jesus’s father from the tribe of Levi?

Ah, now we have to go through the Gospels.

See comment directly above. If you want to use quotes from the Torah as proof of prophecy, the details have to be within the same text or else their source is questionable. The gospels can not provide evidence of prophecy in the Torah, it has to stand on its own merits.

Hell it is irrelevant. At the time, tribe membership went through THE FATHER. Each blessing is a description of the tribe and their offspring. Jesus had no father, so he could not of been a member of the tribe of Judah, now could he?

Well here's your choice Vesayen. If you sincerely believe that Jesus' father was not Joseph, then you must believe that Jesus' father was God himself.

Don't you laugh at me , that was clever! Jesus's BIOLOGICAL FATHER was not Joseph and membership in a tribe, went by your birth father(this changed, eventually). How can Jesus be a member of the tribe of Judah if his biological father, is not from Judah?

Ridiculous. Lets apply that same idea to a line of text a handful of lines up. A handful of lines it up it says you will not suffer a witch to live. Does that mean we will not suffer a SPECIFIC witch to live, and after we suffer that one, we can suffer the rest and never kill more witches?

Read that sentence again. 'Suffer a witch to live,' means that you shall not permit even a single witch to live within Israel.

I will bring a prophet, means just that a prophet.

Oh really? How do we know? All of the preceding passages refer to general codes of conduct, what to do in an instance which will occur multiple times. Some of them even refer to the singular, such as in this case, but are clearly meant to be plural, as the occurances they describe can happen repetadly. Why should this one be any different? It says "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him". So if it happens twice, we should not listen to him?

What is clean is what comes out of the mouth rather then what goes into the mouth. The idea is not to reject Kosher, but reject the fact that one can in fact be clean just for respecting Kosher.

Not for Jews. Jews have to watch it going both ways. Non Jews only need to watch on the way out.

Indeed, yet Christ says, a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign, yet none will be given except the sign of Jonah.

Jewish tradition holds that when the Meshiach comes, EVERYONE will know. We'll know, it will be so abundantly clear it will be undenidable, really-no one will deny it. This is not an issue really, there will be a sign greater then the one at Sinai.

I agree with you that his second coming shall be as you say, except by then it will be too late, our fate shall be sealed. The real issue is whether there is one coming of the Messiah or two, and Jewish tradition is not settled on this, especially given the suffering servant.

The Meshiach need not even be a person, it could be a group, or even just an ideology, it might not even be mystical.

That was a long ### post so I am not even thinking of running it through a spell checker and if one person comments on the numerous typos I proboably made.... i'll cover you in fire and brimstone ><

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Ok this should be interesting. You accusing me of not looking at the context?

That, and making it up as you go along.

You can retrofit any sequel providing you have the original text to work from.

After all, it's difficult to write a sequel to 'Gone With The Wind' if you don't have the original novel itself.

Now as Christianity began as just one Jewish heresy out of several, you can bet your bottom shekel that the devisers of the 'new' faith were familiar with the tenets and texts of Judaism- not least because they were themselves Jews!

To prove the 'legitimacy' of Yeshua all they had to do was make sure their writings and their leader's words echoed or fitted in with previous prophetic statements.

It happens in television serials and comics all the time...


Your 'Mosaic prophecies' of the Christian Messiah are so vague and indeterminate that they could be used to serve any interpretative purpose- just like Nostradamus's ramblings.


You really should write a book- you could call it 'Gullible's Travels'- because if you think this lot of fanciful special pleading holds any (holy water) you're gullible in extremis day-o.

[Ben Kenobi]

Snakes don't have legs either, now do they? Yet this snake was forced to crawl in the dust, implying it had legs before. The snake was physically changed. The physical form of most life in the world was changed, there were no carnivores before either.

Still doesn't touch on the problem of evil. It's really my main point, the introduction of evil on the world is one of the fundamental points behind this whole passage of Genesis. Your interpretation would ignore this point.

Well, how do you know this is Jesus? What is the context to say "Jesus" in this passage? Where IN THIS PASSAGE or the ones near it, is there any indication the person reffered to here, is Jesus?

Your claim is that this passage prophecises Jesus. I want to know how you know it is Jesus?

Christ's death and resurrection, as he died as the perfect atonement for sin. As such, he crushes the power of death over us once and for all.

If you want to ask me the source of "evil", I could give you hundreds of answers. None of them are particularly relevant-new problems caused by the lack of a source of evil in this passage, do not in any way affect the status of Jesus being the one prophecised.

My personal opinion? I think this question is enormously complicated and I am proboably wrong. However, what is evil? Is evil things which G-D hates? Define that, then i'll give my opinion... even then i'm almost definatley wrong. This is another difference in Jewish and Christian ideology. We do not see the world as filled with "evil" and(and the next part varies in Judaism) something which neccesarily needs divine redeaming.

And that is part of my point. One of the reasons why you believe this to be so, is because of how you interpret this passage. They two contribute to one another.

I would greatly disagree with your statement here that Jews do not see the world as filled with evil, from my standpoint, there is great diversity in Jewish teachings.

How I feel is irrelevant, I have absolutley no basis to know. The Torah does not describe "heaven". If it is a place of eternal rewards? Who knows. In Judaism the afterlife where G-D is, is not called "heaven" but Olam-Habah which literaly translates to "The Next World". Some dead go there, G-D is there-thats about it. The expanded Jewish literature describes some but really, most of it is just fanciful poetry-nothing useful.

That's rather dismissive. I've heard that also translated as Paradise.

I couldn't tell you anything else. All I could tell you is what is important is how we act here, for no reason that it is important to make this world the best we can.

So we should expect earthly rewards for our deeds?

Disagree in what way? That the world is inherantly evil and filled with sin? I really don't think that many Rabis would disagree with me on that one.

That is the fundamental divide between the earth or kosmos and heaven. How do you explain all the evil things that go on in the world?

Except in your analogy, the same person who saved you, also threw you into the river. He makes the system, he makes the rules, he makes us, he puts us into the system knowing what our every choice will be before we are even born, then punishes us for making the choices he knows we will make..... Call it predetermination but well... yeah. This is not a Jewish view so much as it is mine. Free will may exist but from the perspective of G-D, it can't since he is omniscient. He knows your going to hell before he even makes you.

Actually, we choose to jump into the river ourselves.

As for the rest of your point, this is a long, long question. I'm not a Calvinist, I'm what the Christians would call an antinomian, I believe that God knows all the choices that we can make, but that the choices are made by us that determine which path we choose to follow.

You have to be sorry and try to commit yourself to not do that conduct again, thats it.* Sin is not a "thing" which is stuck to you like dirt, where only G-D can hose you down. "Saving" yourself from sin implies a punishment like hell, or negative consiquences for yourself. Save yourself, from what, in what way? From distancing yourself from G-D? Only you can close the gap by coming back to him.

Repent to whom? The people you have harmed? The only difference between what you have said here and what Christians teach is that Christians see God as the third party of the transaction who is also grieved by our sins.

Non Jews have an easier way to not sin. They have way less possible sins to comit. I would in this case, agree with Paul(partly). Paul is saying that a non Jew who does not know the law but has it in his heart, is doing good in G-Ds view. A Jew however who knows the law but does not observe it, is not doing good in G-Ds view. If I interpeted the passage correctly, I can not imagine how I could disagree.

Interesting. You should really read Romans at some point. You will probably find it very helpful.

You are under ABSOLUTLEY no obligation to bother with G-D, at all. Whatever happens when you die, you'll be absolutley fine if your good to your fellow man.

That squares with what I was taught. However, those who are aware of the law are obliged to follow the law, whether they are Jew or Gentile.

I am not even sure G-D exists, but if he does, I really don't want to let him down. My umpteenth anscestor made a deal with him and I don't want to let him, all the people between Abraham and my own parents down. Plus, G-D is the man(I'd never admit this to my Rabi, or well anyone I know heh, but my most frequent prayer outside of religious services is something along the lines of "G-D, your the man". I think he knows how I feel) and if he is real I feel a sense of gratitude and the least I can do is follow the laws he gave.

No shame in that Vesayen, there's a passage that says that a honest word in private is worth many long winded passages in public.

This really is one of the fundamental, ideological splits between Judaism and Christianity. You think that G-D demands some sort of observance from most of the world, or that lack of such observance has a bad consequence.... not really, not anything beyond the most basic "do not steal or kill" laws which make their way into most societies anyway.

I'm not seeing much of a divide here, other then the fact that Christians see themselves as obligated to follow the same laws (for the most part), as the Jews are obligated to follow, and extend the same freedoms to those who are unaware of the law.

[Ben Kenobi]

Keep in mind the mosaic code, is for Jews..... who says there is no relationship between G-D and non Jews? I couldn't tell you what that is, G-D never told us.

God created each and everyone of us. Acts I believe has the point where God opens up the mission to Gentiles as well as Jews.

As per my long explination right above, we do not think people neccesarily need to reach out to G-D. Be good to your neighbor, thats enough.

Christians would cite the Great Commission, a command that doesn't appear in the Old Testament as a sign that they are to go out and spread the word in addition to living holy lives. Two forms of testimony.

The promise to Abraham is not a promise of a meshiach or a "redemption" of the world. Where do you see that? I do not see where in the covenant to Abraham it implies a redemption or a meshiach.

All nations will be formed through you. I don't see how that could occur through natural means.

Yes but we are not discussing them are we, we are discussing the specific passages you brought up . I asked for context to point to JESUS as the individual described.

You won't find that in the Torah. Matthew pretty much is the Gospel to the Jews, in that he begins with the geneology and moves on through various prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ.

The covenant does not in any way speak of the end of the world.... in fact it is an undending covenant with him and his anscestors. The covenant never ends. It is with his children. How can the covenant be undending and extend to his children, if at some point the world ends and ther are no more children? If anything the covenant speaks of the fact the world WILL NOT end... which is one thing I can at least say all Jews agree on. There will be no apocalypse, no destruction of the world.

True, existence will not end with the world, and thus the promise will not be broken to Israel. Just the world in which we know will pass away.

Yes, but in this instance... in this line... besides the other lengthy reason I explained, Jesus never beats the moabites! The individual(s) described here, beat the moabites. Jesus did not beat the moabites. Can't be him.

Not yet. Never claimed he has already fulfilled that passage.

Yes, but your claim is that these lines refer to the coming of Jesus(part one, or part deus-I heard the sequel will have awsome special effects btw). Based on existing evidence, that does not seem to be the case. If you are depending on future evidence to proove your claim... well to proove the claim based on that evidence, we have to wait for it, now do we? As it stands, there is no evidence POINTING TO JESUS in this instance, or most of the other instances highlighted.

There is evidence, Christ is a prophet from Israel, born of the line of Abraham, Isaac, and born of the tribe of Judah.

This is not proof that the messiah is Christ, just parts of the Torah that have already been fulfilled. There are other messianic prophecies elsewhere, but your specific challenge was to look for prophecies within the Torah fulfilled by Christ.

See comment directly above. If you want to use quotes from the Torah as proof of prophecy, the details have to be within the same text or else their source is questionable. The gospels can not provide evidence of prophecy in the Torah, it has to stand on its own merits.

Bull. Evidence of Christ is in the gospels. The prophecies themselves will be in the Torah.

Don't you laugh at me , that was clever! Jesus's BIOLOGICAL FATHER was not Joseph and membership in a tribe, went by your birth father(this changed, eventually). How can Jesus be a member of the tribe of Judah if his biological father, is not from Judah?

Then who is Jesus' father if not Joseph?

You just said I cannot submit evidence from the Gospels, yet here you are relying upon the testimony of the Gospels, in that they say that Joseph was the adoptive father of Christ.

Oh really? How do we know? All of the preceding passages refer to general codes of conduct, what to do in an instance which will occur multiple times. Some of them even refer to the singular, such as in this case, but are clearly meant to be plural, as the occurances they describe can happen repetadly. Why should this one be any different? It says "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him". So if it happens twice, we should not listen to him?

As you said the second time, we will not really have the choice to listen or not to listen. That will be it.

A prophet like me. Gee, sounds a bit like Christ, no?

Not for Jews. Jews have to watch it going both ways. Non Jews only need to watch on the way out.

So how is Christ denying the law in applying a higher standard of conduct?

Jewish tradition holds that when the Meshiach comes, EVERYONE will know. We'll know, it will be so abundantly clear it will be undenidable, really-no one will deny it. This is not an issue really, there will be a sign greater then the one at Sinai.

What is this sign of Jonah Vesayen?

There will be a sign, I agree, just disagree with the number of times the messiah will come.

The Meshiach need not even be a person, it could be a group, or even just an ideology, it might not even be mystical.

Well, go argue with your orthodox brothers on that one.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Still doesn't touch on the problem of evil. It's really my main point, the introduction of evil on the world is one of the fundamental points behind this whole passage of Genesis. Your interpretation would ignore this point.

The Problem of Evil is a very difficult for Christianity.

Simply put, the existence of evil disproves the existence of the Christian god, as defined by orthodox doctrines. That is, a supreme being who is pefect, all-merciful, loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Still doesn't touch on the problem of evil. It's really my main point, the introduction of evil on the world is one of the fundamental points behind this whole passage of Genesis. Your interpretation would ignore this point.

But there is no need for the snake to be Satan.
This pasage could also be interpreted that animals, just as humans, had a free will and snakes (or rather, as single snake) chose to tempt Eve and, after it became known by god, was punished accordingly (as well as all of her species), just as Adam and Eve were punished because they didn´t resist the temptation.

No need for a personification of Evil here. People (and obviously animals as well) are able to commit good and bad deeds, but if they do bad things it finally gets known by god who then punishes them.
And there is no excuse in saying that it was someone others idea and he "just" persuaded me to do so.

That´s what I would read from Genesis.
The story stands on its own without a need for a personification of evil like SATAN to appear and take a role in it, you only need to assume that animals have a free will.
Snakes commit a sin because they choose to do so and are punished, humans commit a sin and are punished as well
(and even without snakes or [some kind of permanent adversary to g-d like] SATAN around, humans seem to be capable to do evil things on their own throughout all of the old testimony )

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The Problem of Evil is a very difficult for Christianity.

Simply put, the existence of evil disproves the existence of the Christian god, as defined by orthodox doctrines. That is, a supreme being who is pefect, all-merciful, loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal.

You arn'et familiar with Theodicy?

JM

[Robert]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The Problem of Evil is a very difficult for Christianity.

Simply put, the existence of evil disproves the existence of the Christian god, as defined by orthodox doctrines. That is, a supreme being who is pefect, all-merciful, loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal.

You've read too much books. you see the world and it's problems as some kind of a theoretical puzzle with somewhere a perfect solution.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CyberShy
somewhere a perfect solution.

God?