Judaisms Core

[TantoGreenberg]

I find it odd that the core of Judaism still seems to revolve around the rejection of Christ. Why do they give Jesus all that power? Why don’t they just go about their business and worship their God? I don’t believe in Buddha, but the rejection of him isn’t the center of my beliefs. Hmm… is there something deeper? Makes me wonder…

, gnome

 

[TantoGreenberg]

For clarification, take a look at Deut 4:2 as well as the 1st commandment.

, gnome

 

[InChrist]

During Temple days one couldn't rob someone then make a burnt offering to atone for the robbery.
By vicarious atonement it is meant only the sinner mat atone for his sins. Nobody except the sinner and we must beg forgiveness from the person we sinned against. I must go to the person I robbed and ask his forgiveness. Of he refuses to forgive me, I must try again.
Back to the Jesus issue, unlike the Romans, or the Greeks, or even the Egyptians, we don't have any "man-gods"

That is an interesting point, although I don’t think Paul, Peter, John, and the other Jewish apostles or any of the first believers in Jesus Christ considered Him to be a mythical man-god. Rather from their perspective Jesus Christ was God who entered into the human condition, becoming flesh to save His creation. The NT shows that Peter, Paul and others openly condemned the false gods of Rome and Greece, in contrast they followed a real, historical Person whom they came to know was God, the Creator.


“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” 2 Peter 1:16


Of course, I realize this is irrelevant from your perspective. Just sharing mine.

 

[TantoGreenberg]

To get a feel for Judaism and how it differs from Christianity, you really need to read an English translation of the original Hebrew and Aramai, and not an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the original. JPS is good. Or Google "Chabad.org and search for your topic of interest, e.g. Deut 4:2

 

[TantoGreenberg]

To get a feel for Judaism and how it differs from Christianity, you really need to read an English translation of the original Hebrew and Aramai, and not an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the original. JPS is good. Or Google "Chabad.org and search for your topic of interest, e.g. Deut 4:2

In another post I mentioned Rabbi Tovia Singer, a very knowledgeable and authoritative. Orthodox Rabbi. He addresses the Christianity vs Judaism issues. He's on YouTube. Contrasts the relevant scriptures, chapter and verses. Those are the only issues he addresses. Highly recommended.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I guess the question here is whether or not the tradition is consistent with the text. For example in these verses the speaker is Elohim, but to the people it would appear that Moses was speaking.

So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.
And Elohim spake all these words, saying,
Exodus 19:25-20:1

The challenge that some may face it that by reading in "English translation" you are relying on someone's tradition after the tradition, possibly w/o realizing it.

By reading it in Hebrew, one knows that:

1. Ancient Hebrew written texts did not have vowels or punctiation marks so it is clear that w/o a (מסורת) mesoreth one cannot even read the text, let alone understand it.
2. Hashem intended Torah based Jews to read the Torah using a (מסורת). This is described through the entire text of Devarim by Mosheh ben-Amram.
3. When one studies each oral and written (מסורת) that was preserved in Hebrew, Aramaic, Judeo-Arabic, Judeo-Persian, and Yiddish from the most ancient Jewish communities it is clear that they understood clearly why (אלהים) is in the plural in relation to Hashem and when not in relation to Hashem.
   • This is even reflected in descriptions in modern day lexicons and such when dealing with shoresh of the word.

Now concerning Shemoth (Ex.) 19:20-25, it is clear by way of (מסורת) and who was speaking. The differences in (מסורת) is in the order in which a) Hashem spoke directly to Benei Yisrael, b) at what point Mosheh ben-Amram repeated what was said, c) in which manner, in nevuah, Hashem spoke to Benei Yisrael [one statement all at once w/o break], or d) first two mitzwoth, Benei Yisrael overwhelmed - ran away, Mosheh ben-Amram was seen by Benei Yisrael talking to Hashem and Mosheh ben-Amram repeated what Hashem stated. Given that all of this took place in nevuah it is clear, based on Hashem's own words Shemoth 20:18 that Mosheh ben-Amram was not the source of what was being said.

In terms of the mesoreth as to why Mosheh ben-Amram made a repetition the following may help.

 

[Ebionite]

Ancient Hebrew did not have vowels or punctiation so it is clear that w/o a (מסורת) mesoreth one cannot even read the text, let alone understand it.

Bollocks, vowels are a late addition to the text. You're attempting to own the interpretation.

Hashem intended Torah based Jews to read the Torah using a (מסורת). This is described through the entire text of Devarim by Mosheh ben-Amram.

Where are your facts?

When one studies each oral and written (מסורת) that was preserved in Hebrew, Aramaic, Judeo-Arabic, Judeo-Persian, and Yiddish from the most ancient Jewish communities it is clear that they understood clearly why (אלהים) is in the plural in relation to Hashem and when not in relation to Hashem.

Elohim is plural in verse 1 because the term encompasses YHWH and Moses. The singular אלהיך is used in verse 2 because YHWH is identifying himself.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Bollocks, vowels are a late addition to the text. You're attempting to own the interpretation.

Watch your language young man. There is no need for such vulgar Brittish langauge here.

You didn't read what I wrote - or you didn't understand it. Of course the system of "written" vowels came later. Prior to the "written" system of vowels Israelis / Jews learned how to read Hebrew from "drum roll" oral tradition. I.e. the only way to read and speak ancient Hebrew - which had no written vowels markings / symbols - was to have been taught "orally" how to pronounce the words correctly. Otherwise, words with different meaning that shared the same spelling could never have been read or spoken because the consonants would in written form would have not been enough to distinquish between them. The vowel markings were created, as an innovation of the system of writting, based on oral tradition of how to pronounce Hebrew. Someone who actually knows Hebrew would understand this.

Even in the modern day, most books and newspapers here in Israel where I live are produced w/o vowel points. Thus, one has to have been taught how to read it and pronounce. For example, the only way any Jew in any period of history would be able to read the bellow is if they were orally taught by another Jew who already had been taught orally by a previous Jew so on and so in history.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Where are your facts?

Right below are a few, but there are more. I have bracketed the specific sections.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Elohim is plural in verse 1 because the term encompasses YHWH and Moses. The singular אלהיך is used in verse 2 because YHWH is identifying himself.

That sounds like your personal tradition. The same as with the Paul issue, you are welcome to having your personal tradition of what you think the text you are reading means.

 

[1213]

And that is possibly the most important difference between Judaism and Christianity, right? For Jews, the method as written in the Torah is Crucial, capital 'C'. Otherwise any charlatan, wonder-working, illusionist can show up proclaiming the law doesn't matter any more.

So, in Judaism God can't anoint anyone?

Do you think Jesus says the law doesn't matter any more?

 

[dybmh]

So, in Judaism God can't anoint anyone?

That's not what I meant.

What you call "annointed in spirit" or "anointed by God" I would not use the word 'anoint', because, anoint'= oil. Instead, in my mind, and I could be wrong... I call it, "indwelling of spirit". That would be a manner in which God anoints some in Judaism without oil.

Did I explain that well?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Do you think Jesus says the law doesn't matter any more?

From the perspective of most Jews, the historical Jesus probably didn't say half or most of the stuff the New Testament authors claimed and especially not most of the interpretations linked to various early Christianities based on the church fathers.

It is like saying - at the most, one can say that there was a Jew who lived at some point during the 2nd Temple period who was used as the "inspiration" for some of the New Testament authors to create their stories for the NT. Yet, historically there are some problems with the accounts in the NT and theologically if there was actually a Jew who said some of the stuff the gospel authors claim Jesus stated - he was completely off base against the Torah in some critical areas and in some small areas he was normative with the practices of his generation.

Essentially, in English you could say that the historical inspiration for the Jesus stories was someone who was looking to destroy the Jews of his generation directly by trying to contradict the Torah's judicial requirements and indirectly by trying to incite the Roman authorities who were occupying the region at the time.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I find it odd that the core of Judaism still seems to revolve around the rejection of Christ. Why do they give Jesus all that power? Why don’t they just go about their business and worship their God? I don’t believe in Buddha, but the rejection of him isn’t the center of my beliefs. Hmm… is there something deeper? Makes me wonder…

Actually, our CORE has nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus was a nice Jewish man, but he is pretty irrelevant to Jewish teachings. The CORE of Judaism is obedience. Consider that in the Tanakh, the word "law" is written about 200 times. Compare this to the word faith, which appears only 50 times, or belief, which is even more rare.

Traditionally, any Jew who converts to any foreign religion, whether it is Christianity, Hinduism, or Islam, is considered apostate.

However, it is true that conversion to Christianity is treated with extra hostility. This is because for the last 2000 years, Jews have suffered forced conversions, harassment, persecution, and even death at the hands of Christians. No other group has sought to harm us over such a long period of time or to this degree. I've met Jews who tell me stories of their Zayde being a child and hiding in the cupboard while Cossacks wearing crosses and shouting "Christ Killer!" have murdered their parents. Keep in mind that Hitler made use of Christian antisemitism, and that in fact most Nazis were Christians. For these reasons, a Jew who converts to the religion of our persecutors is rather seen as a traitor to his people.

I fully acknowledge that most (not all) Christians reformed from this after the holocaust. But historically, antisemitism has come in waves. Just because things have been pretty good recently doesn't mean the tables won't turn again. IOW it will take more than 80 good years to gain our trust back.

And honestly, given the attacks on Jews and synagogues today, it looks like the pendulum is indeed swinging back to persecution.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Bollocks, vowels are a late addition to the text. You're attempting to own the interpretation.

That's what he just said. In order to know what vowels to pronounce, we have to rely on the information passed down orally. However, having these ancient texts translated into another language is a far greater problem to correct understanding. There are just so many things that really don't translate.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Why’d the Talmud keep getting rid of the parts of Jesus in new additions? I mean, if they never gave Jesus a thought then why cave in?

Actually, the reality is that this is not true. The challenge you face, w/o knowing Hebrew and Aramaic, is that you don't know what editions of the Talmud actually exist. For example, most "English" additions of the Talmud are based on Talmudic texts that were in the possesion of Jews in Europe. Yet, there are additions of the Talmud that come from the Middle East which are not the source of most English translations.

Again, it cannot not be stated enough. The Jesus of the NT is not discussed in the Talmud. Instead, there are few minute discussions about several individuals named yeshu who lived at various periods and did things that "potentially" were what early Christian writers used as their basis for the NT.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, in Judaism God can't anoint anyone?

Do you think Jesus says the law doesn't matter any more?

Jesus taught that even the smallest part of the law would be in effect "until heaven and earth pass away." Paul, OTOH, undermined the law. He taught for example that eating meat sacrificed to idols and keeping the Shabbat were really at the discretion of the believer, and that circumcision was not important. This is why so many of us say that Christianity (which calls keeping the law "legalism" and "judaizing") is really the product of Paul, not Jesus.

 

[1213]

...Instead, in my mind, and I could be wrong... I call it, "indwelling of spirit". That would be a manner in which God anoints some in Judaism without oil.

Ok, thank you. I think that is how Jesus was "anointed".

 

[1213]

...if there was actually a Jew who said some of the stuff the gospel authors claim Jesus stated - he was completely off base against the Torah in some critical areas

Please give one example.

Essentially, in English you could say that the historical inspiration for the Jesus stories was someone who was looking to destroy the Jews of his generation directly by trying to contradict the Torah's judicial requirements and indirectly by trying to incite the Roman authorities who were occupying the region at the time.

Please explain why do you think so?