[/color]
No, I don't think you do. I don't think you have read or studied ancient Judaism enough to know how important Israel was in defining Judaism.
Oberon.. Judaism has its roots in ancient history, but Judaism DOES NOT change, rather it evolves. It is an identity. Just like my identity has not changed from the time I was born but rather I have evolved as a person, so the Jewish Identity has not changed, but rather it has evolved. They are still called by the same calling card from the VERY beginning 
.. Gen 49.
The whole reason the eunuch metaphor exists in Isaiah is because the land of Israel was the land of the Jews (the word Jew meant Israelite). So if they were no longer in Israel, they were cut-off from Yahweh. Isaiah reassures them that if they keep the commandments of Yahweh, they won't be cut-off.
Isaiah is a book that reassures a certain People that they have not been cut off from the Word of God (and CERTAINLY not God Himself) no matter where they are. The reality is, NO ONE is cut off from God ... only that they may be cut off from the People and Isaiah *specifically* speaks to the reassurance of those that are.. even to those who were born in the *state* of Diaspora.
I am beside myself to know how anyone can be cut off from God if they are living?
Sorry, Oberon... I am not one who takes up arguments about God's existence because I DO see clearly how those who say there is no God are foolish in speech. Even those who are unaware of the presence of the Creator of the heavens and earth are foolish to say "there is no god" for anything that leads a person becomes their god. Still, even those who are led by the gods of their own mind are not NOT in the presence of God Who gives Life.
This, too, is testified of in Isaiah 45.. I didn't put the specific verses because I am curious if you are really a scholar and reading these things for your ownself. If so, you will be able to point the verses out TO ME... plus, it is a gorgeous chapter and who am I to deprive you of reading such Beauty just to get a point across?
Jesus, using the word in a totally different way, doesn't say anything about the diaspora, because he was IN ISRAEL and Jews had been back there for centuries, ever since the babylonians had been defeated by the persians.
Yes he does.. why do you think there is the reference to Divorce prior to what he says about the Eunuchs? It is the same "bill of Divorce" spoken of in Isaiah and you agree Isaiah ***IS*** speaking to Diaspora. Again, I question your claims of higher knowledge. You have not at all the ability to read within the Context of a Word.. rather you are only ever able to read words. The latter is going to be useless if you hope to go anywhere in life regarding your choice of scholarly studies.
The eunuch reference in Isaiah is about being cut-off from God. That's why it ends with the reassurance that one can NOT be a eunuch by keeping Yahweh's laws. The person still won't be in Israel, but they also won't be eunuchs, because they won't be cut-off from god. The metaphor isn't about being cut-off from the land, but from Yahweh.
*sighs* only the awareness of God.. again.. not actually cut off from God.
The words "Jew" meant "resident of Judaea."
Okay.. again, Genesis 49 has a passage that speaks to this Light (from the beginning, mind you.. not changing, only evolving in our understanding, remember?).
What does this have to do with anything? Judaism radically changed after the last destruction of the temple, and study of the Torah replaced to a large extent the temple and the land. The land became less and less important over the centuries, although it has been and still is to many people.
:no:
The Land is NOT less important to the People, Israel. And the Land has even testified to this by coming back to Life when the People returned. Isaiah testified to this happening.. gosh! You keep claiming to have studied it and yet I am having a REALLY hard time believing you, else you would not have asked what it has to do with anything. It has everything to do with the topic of the Title you gave to this thread. If you only knew
None of this has anything to do either with Isaiah or with Jesus' eunuch logion. Isaiah addresses desperate people who think that god has abandonded them, that they are "cut-off" from God.
A People.. a Nation.. what is a People/Nation without a home? Do you really not see the ignorance that is clearly showing in what you are stating?
Jesus advocates celibacy.
No, he doesn't.
You are still trying to make the two come together simply because of one word, even though the point of both passages and the evalutation of eunuch is opposite.
No, I am not basing it on one *w*ord... rather one Word because after all, as Jesus stated, "HEAR, O Israel; the Lord our God is ONE Lord." That's found in Mark 12..
If Jesus is saying that the Lord, Israel's God, is ONE Lord, then the Word is not suddenly going to be different (else the People will be consumed by confusion).... Malachi 3:6. Do you not see how Jesus plants yet ANOTHER key in Mark 12 as to how his teachings are to be deciphered? Notice too the evolution for the People in that passage of Mark 12 regarding the conversation between him and the *scribe.* Come on Oberon.. THINK!
No, but I now know you will read whatever you want into whatever you want, regardless of what the text says. That much is clear.
Really? Since it is so clear that I am reading it how I want, then you must know what it is I want. So tell us all Oberon.. what is it I want? When you really KNOW what I want based on how I am reading it, then you and I will not be debating these particular topics anymore. :yes:
You are combining to seperate passages in matthew that are unrelated. Morever, you still have failed to deal with the idea that the eunuch metaphor in Isaiah refers to feeling cut-off from Yahweh, and reading that into Matthew involves Jesus saying that "you should choose to be cut-off from yahweh." Doesn't make sense.
It is ONE God who is ONE Lord over this ONE People Oberon and thus it is ONE Word that is being spoken.
I have already given several examples of celibate Jews, even of a rabbi, in my response to Ben Masada.
(oh.. and BTW, it was to ME that you tried to make the claim of a man having an honorary title as being an example of a celibate rabbi... had you known anything of the man you were trying to cite as an example, perhaps you'd have a bit more wisdom to understand what you barely can even grasp basic knowledge of)
Only Jesus doesn't recommend actually cutting it off. The eunuchs who have actually been castrated are the second category. Jesus talks about a third category who metaphorically are eunuchs because the don't cut their "ahem's" off, they just don't use them.
You can't be serious! Don't tell me you have studied the gospel accounts and the Tanakh when you make such statements as the above.
And *I* am reading whatever it is I want to regarding his teachings? Even in just ONE verse, you fail to be consistent and certainly you fail to be professional regarding your interpretation. So part of it is to be taken *literally* and part of it *metaphorically* and yet you fail to given anything that ties this interpretation specifically to the teachings of Jesus.
At least mine is wholly metaphorical and wholly consistent with the Torah; and in fact with the whole of the Tanakh and EVEN based on the same interpretation of the testimony of Isaiah; PART OF the VERY SAME writings he claimed those who taught from them would be considered great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19). You agree with my interpretation of Isaiah's idea of Eunuch and you can see the claim CLEARLY attributed to Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19, and yet you still insist to interpret his use of Eunuch a couple of different ways neither of which can be supported by anything that is "tied" to his teachings. Given his own claims and that you agree with me of Isaiah's interpretation, I have a rock solid platform for which I am claiming my interpretation of his teaching on the Eunuchs to be based on.
Strange, strange, strange!!!
Oberon, how do you post these statements of yours without feeling at all stupid given that you have no problem to let everyone know your background of education? *that* is truly the accomplishment that you have failed to share with the rest of us.
