Chat about Hebrews/Judaism

[rosends]

Regarding original sin?

If so - the idea that mankind is fallen away from God because of Adam and Eve in Genesis. It appears that is no longer the line of thinking - but that we need only "apologize" and we are okay.

That may be your thinking but that doesn't make it anyone else's

God killed animals to make coverings for the first 2 humans after the first sin

Really? Can you show me where he killed anything? Remember, he had just created the world Ex Nihilo and now you think that the only way he can make skins is by killing? That's not in my text.

- meaning He performed the first animal sacrifice Himself.

Why do you assume that any killing of an animal is a sacrifice?

Now, under the claim that animal sacrifices cannot be performed because of the destruction of the Temple, no more sacrifices just repentance.

Who makes that claim?

However Abraham and more performed sacrifices outside a temple - regardless of it was before it's time. I don't see the Lord instructing Israel to stop sacrificing.

Then you aren't reading the text. After the location was identified, we were commanded not to give sacrifices in a state of impurity or outside of that location. Since we can't access the location and are in a state of impurity, we cannot give sacrifices. Can you show me otherwise?

 

[rosends]

I do not assume it is like my understanding. My assumption is my head might explode if I heard His name

But scripture does reference His Name a lot.

Actually, it only references the word "shem" and its various forms. But that word doesn't simply mean "name" -- it also means "label" and other associated ideas.

 

[CLee421]

That may be your thinking but that doesn't make it anyone else's

Really? Can you show me where he killed anything? Remember, he had just created the world Ex Nihilo and now you think that the only way he can make skins is by killing? That's not in my text.

Why do you assume that any killing of an animal is a sacrifice?

Who makes that claim?

Then you aren't reading the text. After the location was identified, we were commanded not to give sacrifices in a state of impurity or outside of that location. Since we can't access the location and are in a state of impurity, we cannot give sacrifices. Can you show me otherwise?

He was done with His creation work at that point. For Him to create skins would conflict with that.

Simply that He did so right after a sin, and made a "covering" which is literally what the animal sacrifices were. A covering for sin but not a solution.

 

[CLee421]

Actually, it only references the word "shem" and its various forms. But that word doesn't simply mean "name" -- it also means "label" and other associated ideas.

That's intriguing. Regardless it asks us if we know His Name AND His Son's name. Making it a specific reference to a form of identification.

 

[rosends]

He was done with His creation work at that point. For Him to create skins would conflict with that.

You assume that the skins were made then and there and not that they had been created already, anticipating a situation of need. Judaism doesn't agree with that line of thinking in general.

Simply that He did so right after a sin, and made a "covering" which is literally what the animal sacrifices were. A covering for sin but not a solution.

So you are using the word "covering" and deciding that the two situations are identical because you have an English word in common. That's very nice. Not exactly textual because 3:21 doesn't say "covered" but "clothed" (vayalbishem) which is not used when discussing sacrifices.

 

[rosends]

That's intriguing. Regardless it asks us if we know His Name AND His Son's name. Making it a specific reference to a form of identification.

Sure, in a rhetorical passage as that source I linked to explains.

 

[Shaul]

Do you say except not simply because of the things already documented on Jesus?

And Paul Mark and Matthew were Jewish correct? Luke was a Greek Doctor who interviewed folks and wrote what he wrote.

Paul was an apostate. Which Matthew do you mean? If you are referring to the ersatz author of the Gospel according to Matthew, we don’t really know who that was. From that Gospel it is apparent that the author was pretty illiterate of Hebrew scripture. He made some elementary errors in reading comprehension of the Tanakh.

 

[CLee421]

You assume that the skins were made then and there and not that they had been created already, anticipating a situation of need. Judaism doesn't agree with that line of thinking in general.

So you are using the word "covering" and deciding that the two situations are identical because you have an English word in common. That's very nice. Not exactly textual because 3:21 doesn't say "covered" but "clothed" (vayalbishem) which is not used when discussing sacrifices.

Well we see Him creating living plants and animals. Genesis says all the things He was being pleased to create. "It was good" ... Sure he could have created them but that is adding to the text not taking from it. Clothing for the first sinners isn't exactly good either, eh?

Regarding the word translation yes you are correct - however I still see the connection. After that we see Adam and Eve apparently teaching children what a sacrifice to the Lord is - Abel's was a slaughtered lamb and it pleased the Lord.

 

[CLee421]

Paul was an apostate. Which Matthew do you mean? If you are referring to the ersatz author of the Gospel according to Matthew, we don’t really know who that was. From that Gospel it is apparent that the author was pretty illiterate of Hebrew scripture. He made some elementary errors in reading comprehension of the Tanakh.

Paul was an apostate because He began to follow Who he came to believe as the Messiah. Gave up all his comforts for it. That does say something. I'm not familiar with Matthew's errors. One reason I'm here- to get any input possible.

 

[Shaul]

I MET MESSIAH (Jewish Testimonies) - ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry

For reference. Anyone see this site before?

I prefer the ones here under testimonials,
https://outreachjudaism.org/category/videos/#

 

[Shaul]

Or maybe, they manufactured excuses for failure.

55 Old Testament Prophecies about Jesus | Jesus Film Project

(About 5 of which are word for word straight out of Psalm 22)

How do we know that the prophecies it didn't fulfill were not false prophecies? Even prophets being sent by God, are still humans. The occasionally misunderstand what they see (wrong prophecy), or have their own axe to grind (adding prophecies).

The minor stuff? It's minor stuff.

Read the Gospels. Carefully. It becomes all too clear why they got rid of Jesus, and declared him a fake.

Because he called them on their hypocrisy.

What if I went to a church and made them look bad in front of their followers? The priest would surely try to ruin me. They might talk to people in the town to undermine my business, or they might resort to dirty tricks.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 27:45-28:15 - English Standard Version

They put him on a cross, he dies, the temple curtain is torn, the dead are raised, they put him in a cave with heavy guards, but he overturns a heavy stone and an armed guard, and we get this exchange.

Oy gevelt! “The Jews” didn’t make up excuses about Jesus of Nazareth not fulfilling the messianic prophecies, they simply used the scriptures. It is the scriptures that show that he isn’t the moshiach.

The curtain was torn? According to the Christian “New Testament” that may be. But according to Roman historical accounts it wasn’t. It was intact until Titus committed a blasphemy with it in 70 C.E. (At which time it didn’t rip from top to bottom but was cut across its bottom.)

 

[Shaul]

Paul was an apostate because He began to follow Who he came to believe as the Messiah. Gave up all his comforts for it. That does say something. I'm not familiar with Matthew's errors. One reason I'm here- to get any input possible.

Or he was an apostate for completely selfish reasons. By his own testimony he condoned murder. It is demonstrable that he lied, too. Lots of people give up everything to follow lies. That proves no great thing.

 

[CLee421]

Are you really just going to spit verses and ask me to explain each one because you figure that your understanding is the primary and correct one?
So David is apparently God's son.
Well, there's also

Exodus 4:22

And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the L-rd: "Israel is My son, My firstborn."

Hosea 11:1

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.

and also

I Chronicles 22:9--10

Behold, a son shall be born to you [David],...his name shall be Solomon....He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.

I'm "really" just having a back and forth with ideas.

The verse in Psalms does not appear to accurately represent David. Especially the last lines. That's all.

 

[CLee421]

He was

Or he was an apostate for completely selfish reasons. By his own testimony he condoned murder. It is demonstrable that he lied, too. Lots of people give up everything to follow lies. That proves no great thing.

He was condoning murder of followers of Jesus... everyone in the Hebrew Bible has their sins revealed. Need we base their merit of being people of God on that?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Paul was an apostate. Which Matthew do you mean? If you are referring to the ersatz author of the Gospel according to Matthew, we don’t really know who that was. From that Gospel it is apparent that the author was pretty illiterate of Hebrew scripture. He made some elementary errors in reading comprehension of the Tanakh.

Paul was not an apostate. I read the Gospels then read Acts right after. There is a clear progression of thought, of how people came to specific conclusions. The Church became more Gentile as a result of Peter. As a result of Paul, it retained its Jewish roots because Paul repeatedly counts himself among Pharisees. Paul was a bridge between the Jews and the Romans.

Paul: Apostle or Apostate - Jews for Jesus

 

[CLee421]

Sure, in a rhetorical passage as that source I linked to explains.

It's rhetorical - but every line regarding Who God is/what He does is still literal/true. Are you saying the last lines about a Name are then a type of fantasy?

 

[Rival]

They did.

They didn't. This notion that the Jews would randomly reject the moshiach for no good reason other than selfishness is asinine, especially during a time when many would have loved to see him given the Roman yolk. And this last reason is, probably, one good one why the followers of Jesus desperately wanted him to be moshiach - because they simply wanted to believe it, given their circumstances.The truth is, Jesus fulfilled all of none of the prophecies - a fact which Christians immediately recognised, so they invented, out of absolutely nowhere, this notion of a second coming so he can come back and, uh, have another go. Jesus did not reunite the lost tribes, reign as a king, bring Israel peace or any of the specified things. And he's not coming back to do it either.

 

[Tumah]

What do you make of this please?

Proverbs 30:4
Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Who has cupped the wind in the palms of His hands?
Who has wrapped up the waters in His cloak?
Who established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is his Son’s name?
Surely you know!

Who went up to heaven and descended?

"G-d rises with the trumpet blast (Psa. 47:6)"
"and G-d descended on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19:20)"​

Who gathered the wind in his fist?

"In whose hand is the soul of every living thing and the spirit of every fleshly man(Job 12:9-10)"​

Who bound water with his garment?

"He binds up waters in His thick clouds (Job 26:8)"​

Who has established all the ends of the earth?

"G-d kill and enlivens (1 Sam. 2:6)"​

What is his name?

"And my Name, YHWH (Ex. 3:3)"​

And what is his son's name?

"My son, my firstborn, Israel (Ex. 4:22)"​

 

[Tumah]

The King the Jews wait for - sounds like what Jesus will be when He returns.

Why do you think that?

Why do Jews not believe the writings of Paul and Mark - Matthew - Luke .. etc?

There doesn't seem to be any reason why we should. Most of the bits that I get linked, seem to be fabricated with the intent of encouraging the unlearned masses in revolt against the Rabbinic leaders through fallacious argumentation. There are plenty of examples of this. It seems like a straightforward way to gain converts: use logical fallacies on ignorant people to make the other side look bad and exaggerate the positive (or perceived to be positive) concepts of your cult.

While it might make for exciting reading, that in itself doesn't seem like a reason to believe that these authors are writing with any sort of authority.

but what prophecies must be fulfilled by the Messiah?

The person who gains the title Messiah, is the one who leads us into the Messianic Age. You can find a lit of relevant prophecies about the Messiah and the Messianic Age here. If those prophecies haven't been fulfilled, then we are not in the Messianic Age, and by extension, the Messiah has not come.

Just asking as I go - it says the Moshiach will come when the Jews are "worthy of redemption.." I don't understand how anyone could ever be worthy of God- much less an entire nation at once. Even when He was present with the Hebrews in fire or smoke or light - there was always complaining or complications.

What you've done here is quite odd. You quoted "worthy of redemption" but then switched it to "worthy of G-d". Is there any reason for that?

Where does it say in the Torah that God will send the Messiah when some level of worthiness is obtained?

Isa. 60:22 "in it's time, I will hasten it". These are two contradictory statements: if it's 'it's time', then it hasn't been 'hastened', it's on time and vice versa. From here we discern that there are two possible time periods for the Messiah to come, (1) "in it's time" - the originally intended time for the Redemption; and (2) "I will hasten it" - an earlier time which presumably needs some justification to occur - that being our worthiness or particular lack thereof.

 

[Flankerl]

These are all statements meant to be studied and explored, not taken literally, because (IMHO) it is in the study and discussion that prove ourselves worthy, not in the relying on simple answers and twiddling our thumbs, waiting.

Same of course with Tikkun Olam. The Moshiach might actually not show up if we better the world. But that doesn't mean it's futile or not good. Quite the contrary.

The letters are often written to Jews, not "Christians" .. by (mostly) Jews - Christian is a name that was given by others later to them/groups.

As far as I understand it by the time these letters were written the early Judeo-Christian community had already broken off the Jewish community and was openly preaching to the Gentiles.
Though that is largely irrelevant because the split happened and todays Christians have very little in common with the earliest followers of this Jesus.

Regarding your "yeah I doubt that's the reason" ... what are you suggesting.?

You are a Christian. Thus Christian writings have theological importance to you and non-Christian writings don't.
Same for me just with Jewish writings.

I MET MESSIAH (Jewish Testimonies) - ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry

For reference. Anyone see this site before?

Missionary work is against the rules of RF.