ha‘almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant"

[Jayhawker Soule]

During his time, parthenos meant virgin.

Except when it didn't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is exactly what the Essenes were doing at Qumran during the same milieu.

 

[gnostic]

He is not translating anything. He is using the Greek Old Testament, the scripture used by Hellenistic Jews and Christians of the day. During his time, parthenos meant virgin. He is using an interpretive method common to his time. He reads the Old Testament passage in terms of what is going on in his present day. This is exactly what the Essenes were doing at Qumran during the same milieu. It may be offensive to our rational, but was perfectly acceptable to them.

I really don't think you know what you are talking about, LXX70.

At Qumran, there is a scroll on the Book of Isaiah, known as the Great Isaiah Scroll, with a designation - 1Qlsa.

If the Essenes did write that scroll, then they didn't rely on the Greek LXX (Septuagint), because this scroll was written in Hebrew, not Greek.

If the Qumran scroll was written in Hebrew, then why on earth would possess the Essenes to use the Greek parthenos, when they don't need to?

Matthew may have used a copy of LXX, and relied on Greek translation in his quote of Isaiah 7:14, but the Qumran scroll of Isaiah didn't rely on Greek translation, which debunk your claim.

 

[CG Didymus]

What some people say isn't what it's in the Torah.
When it can mean anything, then it means nothing.

That's the thing, even among those that claim to take the Bible literal, there is already multiple interpretations. The big conflict is how fundy Xtians take it. They find the devil, hell, Jesus, the trinity, etc, "literally" there. They use Isaiah in several places to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. By making the Torah and the rest of your Scriptures lead to Jesus, they make your writings and your beliefs mean nothing. Which is weird. The "OT" is literally true to them and is "God's" Word, yet it has been replaced by a better truer word of God? So I'm with you and respect what you believe about your own writings. My contention is with the Xtians that say it is the Word of God and then change it to say and mean what they want.

 

[LXX70]

I really don't think you know what you are talking about, LXX70.

At Qumran, there is a scroll on the Book of Isaiah, known as the Great Isaiah Scroll, with a designation - 1Qlsa.

If the Essenes did write that scroll, then they didn't rely on the Greek LXX (Septuagint), because this scroll was written in Hebrew, not Greek.

If the Qumran scroll was written in Hebrew, then why on earth would possess the Essenes to use the Greek parthenos, when they don't need to?

Matthew may have used a copy of LXX, and relied on Greek translation in his quote of Isaiah 7:14, but the Qumran scroll of Isaiah didn't rely on Greek translation, which debunk your claim.

Maybe you should have read the first post. I didn't refer to the Qumran text of Isaiah at all. My point is that Matthew uses the same interpretive method used at Qumran, in their sectarian texts. It is called the pesher method. It is found in 1QpHab, the commentary on Habakkuk found in Cave 1 in 1947, along with the Damascus Document and others. It is similar to what Roman Catholic scholars have referred to as sensus plenior, or fuller sense. It is the idea that there is a surface meaning to a text, but also a secondary meaning, which might only be available to those who have "ears to hear and eyes to see." The primary definition of the word parthenos is virgin, and in the New Testament that is certainly its meaning in every passage. Just pick up a copy of Baur-Arndt-Gingrich and turn to page 627 and read the entries. Very few of their examples from Greek literature could mean otherwise.
Did the LXX represent the Hebrew well? Probably not. And historic-critically, we know this. Matthew (the book) possibly knew that as well, as to the surface meaning. But when Matthew picks it up and uses it with his interpretive method, it fits well into his understanding of Jesus and makes perfect sense to him in its "fuller meaning."

 

[CMike]

Originally Posted by Sleeppy
4) Mary had a father. He and his fathers were of David; of Judah. Mary was married to Joseph, of David; of Judah. Their son, like Joseph, was of Judah.

Jesus was the tribal lineage of his biological father.

If the father was unknown then he would be in the general population.

Hi Mike, Right, the Scriptural writings are clear that the 12 "tribes" were designated by the names of the 12 sons of Jacob. There was not a "Dinah tribe".(neither are we told of any other daughters).

At the time of these five "daughters" inquiring concerning their inheritance, the "tribes" had not crossed over to began to process of inhabiting the land. And Yes, GOD said, not only, were they entitled to an inheritance, but gave other criteria which would be used in the Jubilee process of returning to the land.(As seen in the case of Naomi.---and Ruth was Accepted into that Tribe by being the wife of a son and by more importantly---Making the CREATOR GOD her GOD .

The story of the daughters only had to do with inheritance, nothing more.

It has nothing to do with jesus unless when Mary's father died, she had no male siblings, and she was afraid of the money going to the uncle.

The daughters did get the inheritance, because they were "siblings"/children of their father.

Originally Posted by Sleeppy
4) Mary had a father. He and his fathers were of David; of Judah. Mary was married to Joseph, of David; of Judah. Their son, like Joseph, was of Judah.

Mike, there was no "tribal general population"---just the Twelve, as named. That "mixed multitude" who stood with "all the assembled" at the foot of Mt Sinai were a part of whichever "tribe" they "sojourned"---and were subject to the same instructions/laws heard by that assemblage or given by Moses from GOD.

Other than the actual tribe tribes, jews were classified as kohen (priest), Levite (assistant priest) or Israelite (general population). That classfication went by the father as well.

Mike, While Mary was espoused to Joseph and he took her to wife prior to the birth of Jesus, Mary and the Child were then of Joseph's "tribe".

Jesus's actual father(as proclaimed by the Angel to Mary and by an Angel to Joseph in a dream) was the Holy Spirit of GOD.

Well since G-D is not a descendent of David, then jesus wasn't a descendent of David, and that is yet another prohesy he didn't fulfill.

"irrelevant"? Yes, in the sense, that Jesus was the "Son of GOD". He wasn't born by the seed of man, but by the "seed of the woman" and of the "almah/virgin" who called HIS Name "Immanuel"/GOD with us. Just as was prophesied those thousands of years ago.

Also, Jesus, who was sent by GOD and taught and performed those acts HE did under the direction of GOD was free to choose the "tribe" to which He should belong----with your assumption.

Almah is a young woman, betulah is a virgin.

The messiah will be a mortal human being. That is yet another reason that jesus is the christian god and has no signficance to jews.

 

[CMike]

Hi Mike, "Self claim"??? Not by any stretch of the imagination. They rejected Jesus because it was prophesied they would.

Obviously the jews had to refect jesus is a god.

The real G-D said to trust only him and anyone else is a false god.

Perhaps the greatest sin a jew can committ is to worship a false god.

Jesus taught in the temple and everywhere the truths of the WORD of GOD given by Prophets and written, but the people only listened to the "written writings of the scribes and Rabbis"("traditions and commandments written by men) rather than to writings of the prophets for their correction.
""And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me".

You mean the people only listened to what G-D told them to lesson to and not to a false prophet who was challenging what G-D said

Wow, how appalling.

/sarcasm off.

And those things included all the false gods which the Israelites repeatedly were guilty of setting up altars and high places to worship".

The worst sin a jew can committ is to worship jesus. That is known a idol worship.

If Jesus was false, then Why did they have to resort to fase witnesses to convict in their courts prior to taking Jesus to Pilate? Also. there were multiple times the Jewish leaders had tried to kill Jesus before Jesus acknowledged that the time had come for the Crucifixion(as per scriptures and ritual events).(HE was the prophesied---(symbolic)Passover Lamb.)

Those are false stories.

The romans didn't need witnesses or courts.

As Levite said the way Romans dealt with keeping order is killing anyone who mildly annoyed them.

There is no prophesy of a "passover lamb" in the Torah.

Also, jews didn't try and kill them.

These are made up stories to get christians to hate jews.



However, there would be no NT without the OT being the foundation.
All are free to choose and be witness to what is pleasing to them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Almah is a young woman, betulah is a virgin.

The biblical betulah (בתול&#1492 usually rendered "virgin," is in fact an ambiguous term which in nonlegal contexts may denote an age of life rather than a physical state. Cognate Akkadian batultu (masculine, batūlu) and Ugaritic btlt refer to "an adolescent, nubile, girl." That the woman who is so called need not necessarily be a virgo intacta is shown by the graphic account in a Ugaritic myth of the sexual relations of Baal with the goddess Anath, who bears the honorific epithet btlt (see Pritchard, Texts, 142). Moreover, in an Aramaic incantation text from Nippur there is a reference to a betulta ʾ (בתולת&#1488 who is "pregnant but cannot bear" (Montgomery, in bibl. 13:9, p. 178). The male counterpart to betulah in the Bible is often baḥur (בָּחוּ&#1512, "young man," e.g., Jeremiah 31:12 [13] and Amos 8:13 (cf. Joel 1:8, where a betulah moans for her bridegroom); and the word betulah interchanges with the somewhat synonymous age term ʿ almah (עַלְמָ&#1492, which also describes a young woman. Thus, in Genesis 24:16, 43, Rebekah is first called a betulah and then an ʿ almah. (Exactly the same interchange of the two words appears in a Ugaritic text.) ʿ Almah, despite a two-millennium misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14, "Behold a young woman [LXX:παρθένοσ, "virgin"] shall conceive and bear a son," indicates nothing concerning the chastity of the woman in question. The only way that the term "virgin" can be unambiguously expressed is in the negative: thus, Sumerian and Akkadian, "undeflowered," and Akkadian, "not experienced," "unopened," and "who has not known a male." The description of Rebekah (Gen. 24:16), who is first called a betulah, "young woman," and then "whom no man had known" (cf. Judg. 21:12), is similar. In legal contexts, however, betulah denotes a virgin in the strict sense (as does batultu in certain Akkadian legal contexts).

- source

Carry on ...

 

[CG Didymus]

Quote:
The biblical betulah (בתול&#1492 usually rendered "virgin," is in fact an ambiguous term which in nonlegal contexts may denote an age of life rather than a physical state. Cognate Akkadian batultu (masculine, batūlu) and Ugaritic btlt refer to "an adolescent, nubile, girl." That the woman who is so called need not necessarily be a virgo intacta is shown by the graphic account in a Ugaritic myth of the sexual relations of Baal with the goddess Anath, who bears the honorific epithet btlt (see Pritchard, Texts, 142). Moreover, in an Aramaic incantation text from Nippur there is a reference to a betulta ʾ (בתולת&#1488 who is "pregnant but cannot bear" (Montgomery, in bibl. 13:9, p. 178). The male counterpart to betulah in the Bible is often baḥur (בָּחוּ&#1512, "young man," e.g., Jeremiah 31:12 [13] and Amos 8:13 (cf. Joel 1:8, where a betulah moans for her bridegroom); and the word betulah interchanges with the somewhat synonymous age term ʿ almah (עַלְמָ&#1492, which also describes a young woman. Thus, in Genesis 24:16, 43, Rebekah is first called a betulah and then an ʿ almah. (Exactly the same interchange of the two words appears in a Ugaritic text.) ʿ Almah, despite a two-millennium misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14, "Behold a young woman [LXX:παρθένοσ, "virgin"] shall conceive and bear a son," indicates nothing concerning the chastity of the woman in question. The only way that the term "virgin" can be unambiguously expressed is in the negative: thus, Sumerian and Akkadian, "undeflowered," and Akkadian, "not experienced," "unopened," and "who has not known a male." The description of Rebekah (Gen. 24:16), who is first called a betulah, "young woman," and then "whom no man had known" (cf. Judg. 21:12), is similar. In legal contexts, however, betulah denotes a virgin in the strict sense (as does batultu in certain Akkadian legal contexts).

- sourceCarry on ...

Then Mr. Christian replied,

"But G-d told the 70 or 72 to translate the word almah to parthenos. And since G-d is not the author of confusion, then that must be the true meaning and intent of G-d, that the young girl who was born 700 years later, and probably immaculately concepted herself, was indeed a virgin in the strictest sense of the word. Perhaps, it was Isaiah that misquoted G-d when G-d first told him the prophesy about the birth of the future Messiah. So when he told King Ahaz the sign, he was supposed to make it clear that the girl was a virgin, the sign wasn't to happen for 700 years, she was to be impregnated by the Holy Spirit so as to avoid the taint of sin passed on by the male, and so the child could clearly be not only the Messiah but also G-d in the flesh. So, fortunately, G-d cleared things up when he told Matthew the correct story. Now does anybody, especially the Jews, have any excuse for not believe that Jesus is God and the Messiah? And, the only reason he apparently didn't fulfill any of the Messianic prophesies is because he's coming again and will do them then? So does that clear it up?"

And Jayhawker puts his hand to his forehead and just shakes his head.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But G-d told the 70 or 72 to translate the word almah to parthenos.

Such a great Guy, always going out of his way to talk in the vernacular of the day. As Victor P. Hamilton noted in his NICOT commentary on the Genesis 34:3 and the 'rape' of Dinah:

It is interesting to note that the LXX renders Heb. na'arah, here translated maiden, as parthenos[/u], even after Dinah has had sexual congress. This use shows that parthenos may refer to a marriageable young woman, rather than to a virgo intact. In fact, parthenos is derived fro par ("past") and then ("growing"), that is, a young woman who has ceased to grow. She is, therefore, adult and marriageable.

:beach:

 

[gnostic]

Then Mr. Christian replied,

Who's this Mr. Christian?

 

[sincerly]

Absolute nonsense.

That's your conclusion/witness. Are you as sure concerning how it measures up to HIS/GOD'S Judgment?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's your conclusion/witness. Are you as sure ...

Concerning my judgment of your understanding? Absolutely sure.

 

[CG Didymus]

Who's this Mr. Christian?

He could have been me. I "converted" back in '74 and really tried to be a "good" Christian for three years. It was real and it was good until I started questioning and doubting. And then, when my supposedly "good" Christian friends started doing drugs and women, I took a real hard look into exactly what we were supposed to be believing. As you well know, some of it is pretty farfetched. But Mr. Christian doesn't care. He goes to church and does the best he can. He doesn't have to be perfect, because he knows Jesus loves him and already forgave him of all his sins. He's going to heaven regardless of a few slip ups now and again, because he believes the right things and that's all that matters. But to doubt? That's bad. To question? God forbid.

So therefore, no matter what you say, or a what a Jew says, or even what some "christians" say (especially the liberal kind), you guys are all wrong. The Bible says it (more or less), and he believes it (the way he was taught to believe it) and it's already settled in his mind, because to doubt is not from his god but from his god's enemy, the adversary... the one that has to eat dirt and crawl on his belly.

But you know, if it really made sense I'd love to believe. But, it just doesn't. Like with your question the seed of the woman is Jesus? To quote one of my favorite posters "Absolute nonsense!"

Keep asking the tough questions Gnostic, you're the best.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by CMike
Not that it's connected but yes the Torah was meant to be taken literally.

Taking literalism to the extreme, some people say it didn't rain until the flood and that people and animals were vegetarians. For some Christians, they read Mark 16:18 and dance with rattlesnakes and drink poison. So there has to be a point where literal sounding statements can't be taken literally, like the one about plucking your eye out for lusting.

Hi CG D, the problem isn't taking GOD'S instructions and admonitions to liberal, but in taking man's interpretations and conclusions to liberal. GOD was right---the serpents conclusions were wrong. And "lust' lead to disobedience. Eve "saw". Had she considered that plucking out and being blind instead of lusting for those self gratifications, She may would have made a different decision.

"Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy GOD". Doing so is a foolish move and one not in agreement with the scriptures.

But, to relate it back to the op, I agree with you--Isaiah taken literally doesn't add up to Jesus. Yet, some Christians say they take the Bible literally and still find a way to change the words, change the meaning, and leave off the verses after 7:14 to come up with it being a prophesy about Jesus? What is going on? It's crazy to hear Christians tell you what your Scriptures really mean. I'm sure you've dealt with this all your life, but how can both Jews and Christians look at the same Bible and take a "literal" interpretation of it and go in opposite directions?

The Story of mankind's and earth's origins and what happened then and the Restoration of that which was lost covers the entire Bible(OT and NT). Gen.3:15 is a part of the first rebellion and that rebellion of mankind has fluctuated between GOD'S professed peoples since Eden.
Ahaz was in rebellion with GOD while professing to serve GOD as Scripture informs one who has looked.
Since GOD knows the hearts and minds of all, one can be assured that Ahaz understood Gen.3:15---the seed of the woman---not of a man would produce a "HIS heel". Nor was Ahaz ignorant of GOD'S dealings with Abraham. Nothing is impossible with GOD. Therefore, would Ahaz believe GOD in being his protector. No, he didn't and the Son of Isaiah(by the prophetess) fulfilled the sign concerning Assyria.

GOD is not a myth nor is the prophecies given by GOD.
But, all can believe that which tickles their mythical loving fancy.

Oh, never mind, I just remembered, the NT is to be taken more literal than the "old" covenant. So when Matthew says that a virgin would give birth to God's son, who is really one and the same as The God, then that is to be taken literally regardless of what the Hebrew Scriptures seem to say.[/quot e]

Or one can remember that all of reality that one actually visualizes is from the biggest myth---the "Big Bang" which occurred from nothing.

 

[CG Didymus]

Originally Posted by CMike
Not that it's connected but yes the Torah was meant to be taken literally.



Hi CG D, the problem isn't taking GOD'S instructions and admonitions to liberal, but in taking man's interpretations and conclusions to liberal. GOD was right---the serpents conclusions were wrong. And "lust' lead to disobedience. Eve "saw". Had she considered that plucking out and being blind instead of lusting for those self gratifications, She may would have made a different decision.

"Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy GOD". Doing so is a foolish move and one not in agreement with the scriptures.

Okay, let's suppose the Bible is literally true. How did you come by your interpretation of what's written in it? Because CMike takes it literal also and comes up with a completely different interpretation. Who taught you to think about the Bible and God the way you do? It was people. People you trust but not everybody trusts them. What is wrong with the Jewish interpretation? What's wrong with those "other" Christian interpretations? It's your Biblical opinion versus theirs. Why is yours the only one that is right?

And that's the problem, those other people think their way of believing is just as good or even better than yours. You put out decent answers, but they aren't the only answer. If we're going to allow fudging with the words then who's right? The original verse can be made to mean almost anything. Oh, but then we're not taking it literally; we're changing the words to get it to say and mean Jesus when the original intent could have been something totally different. So how can I trust Christians when they are making a few "minor" changes to the literal, original (and who knows if that was even original?)Hebrew text?

The writing is vague. The language was vague. It can and does have multiple interpretations. Is pregnant, will be pregnant, will be pregnant 700 years later but not be a man but by the Holy Spirit to keep her virgin status intact? You know if I didn't care, I wouldn't be here asking and questioning. I'd really like to know. But, I'm not going to listen to one side and not the other. I want your story and I want the other Christians' stories and I especially want to hear the Jewish side of the story.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Okay, let's suppose the Bible is literally true. How did you come by your interpretation of what's written in it? Because CMike takes it literal also and comes up with a completely different interpretation. Who taught you to think about the Bible and God the way you do? It was people. People you trust but not everybody trusts them. What is wrong with the Jewish interpretation? What's wrong with those "other" Christian interpretations? It's your Biblical opinion versus theirs. Why is yours the only one that is right?

And that's the problem, those other people think their way of believing is just as good or even better than yours. You put out decent answers, but they aren't the only answer. If we're going to allow fudging with the words then who's right? The original verse can be made to mean almost anything. Oh, but then we're not taking it literally; we're changing the words to get it to say and mean Jesus when the original intent could have been something totally different. So how can I trust Christians when they are making a few "minor" changes to the literal, original (and who knows if that was even original?)Hebrew text?

The writing is vague. The language was vague. It can and does have multiple interpretations. Is pregnant, will be pregnant, will be pregnant 700 years later but not be a man but by the Holy Spirit to keep her virgin status intact? You know if I didn't care, I wouldn't be here asking and questioning. I'd really like to know. But, I'm not going to listen to one side and not the other. I want your story and I want the other Christians' stories and I especially want to hear the Jewish side of the story.

Oh no, don't do that man. Because it's not the same story. It should never have been made the same story.

 

[Levite]

Okay, let's suppose the Bible is literally true. ...and I especially want to hear the Jewish side of the story.

For the record, CMike's view is a center-right Orthodox view. Non-Orthodox Jews, and most Modern Orthodox Jews, do not subscribe to complete literalism as a viewpoint. And my guess is that even CMike is being a little hyperbolic in his use of "literal," since there are numerous instances in traditional Jewish practical interpretation where we go by the text as the Rabbis of the Talmud teach and interpret it, not as the plain, surface meaning of the Biblical text might seem to indicate.

 

[sincerly]

Jesus was the tribal lineage of his biological father.

If the father was unknown then he would be in the general population.

Other than the actual tribe tribes, jews were classified as kohen (priest), Levite (assistant priest) or Israelite (general population). That classfication went by the father as well.

Mike you "beat around the bush" with the same stuff which is suppose to be truth to deceive. There was no "general population". The "tribe tribes" were the Israelites according to their "tribe/one of the other eleven". Yes, Levi's "tribe" did take the positions of "priests and "Levites/assistants".
All who "sojourned with the children of Israel" and desired to have GOD as their GOD were associated in the tribe of their choosing(in whose "land they found themselves" but NOT of the Tribe of Levi.

Originally Posted by Sleeppy
4) Mary had a father. He and his fathers were of David; of Judah. Mary was married to Joseph, of David; of Judah. Their son, like Joseph, was of Judah.

Well since G-D is not a descendent of David, then jesus wasn't a descendent of David, and that is yet another prohesy he didn't fulfill.

GOD was the originator(Father) of all the peoples of the earth, therefore, David's Father by creation and Jesus' father by HIS mother's marriage to Joseph, who was of the linage of David.
Yes, Jesus fulfilled all the Prophesies concerning HIM including Isa.7:14.

Almah is a young woman, betulah is a virgin.

And Young women remain "virgins" in the culture of the GOD fearing Israelites until marriage OR they and the Male are stoned(unless they are "taken to wife.") Isn't that scriptural??

In witnessing for GOD doesn't on need to consider "These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." ???

The messiah will be a mortal human being. That is yet another reason that jesus is the christian god and has no signficance to jews.

Mike where is the context for that conclusion??

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi Mike, "Self claim"??? Not by any stretch of the imagination. They rejected Jesus because it was prophesied they would.

Obviously the jews had to refect jesus is a god.

The real G-D said to trust only him and anyone else is a false god.

Perhaps the greatest sin a jew can committ is to worship a false god.

Mike, Jesus came as the Messiah as well,(Daniel specified the time table. the wise men sought HIM at that specified time and Herod sought to have him killed. Yes, Isaiah 53:3, "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not."---- HE was rejected on both counts. You are free to carry on a false belief.
Not only did the Nation of Israel have a long vacillating relationship between the Creator GOD, but,also, with the gods of the nations about them. At the Time of Jesus, they were holding the "traditions and commandments of the "fathers" in greater esteem than those of GOD.
Their rejection of Jesus was NOT because Jesus was disobeying GOD'S Laws, but because HE rejected those "traditions and commandments which were contrary to those presented by GOD.

Yes, that was what Jesus was doing; presenting the real GOD to the people and those who heard HIS teachings were thrilled that HE taught the TRUTH rather than the truths mixed with those erroneous doctrines by the scribes and pharisees.

It appears that most of the Jewish people have made "Israel" their GOD, just as they had the "bronze serpent" so many years ago.

Originally Posted by sincerly
Jesus taught in the temple and everywhere the truths of the WORD of GOD given by Prophets and written, but the people only listened to the "written writings of the scribes and Rabbis"("traditions and commandments written by men) rather than to writings of the prophets for their correction.

In the upper room following HIS resurrection HE Said, ""And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me".

You mean the people only listened to what G-D told them to lesson to and not to a false prophet who was challenging what G-D said

Wow, how appalling.

/sarcasm off.

The worst sin a jew can committ is to worship jesus. That is known a idol worship.

And the gods of the nations were NOT?? If GOD was still the GOD of the Israelites(alone as you believe) then nothing would stop them from building the temple and returning to those sacrifices which were accepted when GOD Truly lead and defended them against their enemies.

However, we both know that Moses was right---"Ye are a stiff-necked people".