• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Judaisms Core

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Sorry, I disagree with that. I think he had and also better understanding of what is truly God's will. But, please give one example of where Jesus shows he had opposite will to God?
You don't have to agree with it. As a Christian of coiurse you would have to beleive that.

What I am telling you is that we Jews don't hold by your claim about Jesus. Again, I expressed earlier - you are talking about the theological claim made by Christianity by way of the NT. We Jews don't agree that such a person ever existed and instead there was a "historical Jesus" who was probably named yeshu or yeshua who bore only slight resemblances to the stories you have in the New Testament. Thus, what I stated from a Jewish perspective should be clear enough to state that we won't see eye to eye on this. You simply have to accept that Jews who know Hebrew, Aramaic, Tanakh in Hebrew/Aramaic, Middle Eastern history, and are not going to become Christians - because the Torah that we read given at Mount Sinai by Hashem commands us not to. Again, I know from the start you will not agree to this based on your understanding of the English Christian bible and NT philosophy.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
This scripture indicates to me that it was so:

When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. When she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's [wife]. If the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;
Deut. 24:1-3
Your understanding is based on an English Christian perspective that is foreign to the Hebrew text. The above does not have anything to with the example that the New Testament claims.

Again, to restate what I wrote. Further, the Torah never claims that "anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” That statement, and that claim is an invention of the authors of the Jesus story.
 

dybmh

ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
In the Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel 28:13, elohim is used with a plural verb. The witch of Endor tells Saul that she saw elohim ascending

Metis, listen to yourself. The witch of endor uses it as a plural. The witch, Metis. The WITCH.

Metis, Witches are not to be emulated according to the Torah.

If you compare this to the vision of Jacob? Jacob's ladder? You'll see Jewish monotheism emerging. The witches, pagans, see them as gods, elohim. The Jew sees them as angels, messengers, who are only and always doing the will of the one and only God of Abraham, Isaac, and ... Jacob.

Please let me know that you understand what I've written here?
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
I understood it fine. Vowels have been used to corrupt the text in Genesis 16:12:
Of course you have this personal interpretation. This is the claim of the Ebionites. Even if you disagree with the "sytem of vowel markings" if you were trying to read the text out loud you would end having to create your own Ebionite style vowels that you received from previous generations of Ebionites. If such previous generations existed and actually left you with how to pronounce the text.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
In the original meaning of the word, I think Jesus is correct.
Again, that is your concept as a Christian. I am not telling you to change your Christian concept. Just telling you that we Torah based Jews are basing our concepts on the Hebrew Torah, in Hebrew.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
I don't see any meaningful difference to this:

Now Yahweh said to Abram, "Get out of your country, and from your relatives, and from your father's house, to the land that I will show you.
Genesis 12:1
That is because you are not considering what it meant for Avram ben-Terahh to leave his family. I.e. Jewish sources are clear that he was living in an environment that was not keeping the 7 mizvoth / the Noachide laws. He had no mitzvah to stay with his parents who did not keep the 7 mizvoth. Besides, according to Jewish sources Avram ben-Terahh didn't leave until his father had passed away and had been buried.

Edit - Correction, what I wrote in the red above is incorrect.


Correction to the above, what I wrote in red Avram ben-Terahh, not being a post Torah at Mount Sinai Jew, was commanded to leave his father to take up the Torah of his time. He is considered the model of conversion to the Torah. That is not in any way similar to the NT story I quoted. The Jewish man in that story, being the sone of Jewish parents, is required to respect and them and take care of their need. Because the Torah at Mount Sinai was given after Avram ben-Terahh once can't apply the direct command that Hashem to Avram, specifically to do.

If it Christianity it is acceptable logic for a person to abandon his parents for what someone claims to be a mission and burying them is not acceptable in Christianity that is something outside of the Hebrew Torah that Jews received and something else.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
So, do I understand correctly, it is more important to bury dead than do good?

“‘Follow me.’ But the man replied, ‘Lord, first let me go and bury my father.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God’” (Luke 9:59-60).

The priority is to do our religious duty which God Almighty has commanded. That duty, as written in the Torah, is to bury the dead, not to preach and convert. In order to change this, it would require another event of a magnitude equal or greater than the Exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Sinai.​
If you can locate something, anything, written in the Torah, which directs, or even implies, that a Jewish person needs to "proclaim the Kingdom of God"? That would be very useful in regard to the argument Ehav is making. I am saying this with nothing but love and affection in my heart.​
Please explain how is this against the Torah?

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

There's several ways to show that this is anti-Torah. The best example, in my opinion, is Hannah. She did not need Christ to come to The Father. But, really, if this statement is true, literally true, then each and every prophet prior to Jesus' earthly ministry are false. That's why this verse is against the Torah. There are 2 ways to reconcile it.
1) It's not literal at all. It's hyperbolic. It's exaggerated for effect.
2) Jesus is speaking only to the ones which were present in the room and no one else.
Please explain how is this against the Torah?

Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it. (Mark 11:13-14)

This one should be simple. It is prohibited per Moses to destroy a fruit tree out of spite. Deuteronomy 20:19. And I would also argue, it's a very poor example for a minister of God. Leviticus 19:2: "You shall be holy like I, Jehovah, am holy". Destroying the fruit tree? Which God Almighty is blossoming is not holy like Jehovah. It's the opposite.​
Please explain how is this against the Torah?

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
I agree this is a grey area. The argument that is made about this, that I am aware of, is: Jesus has become a stumbling block for the blind. That is prohibited. Leviticus 19:14. I think you'll find that there is commentary which flips this into a positive? I'm not sure what you think of that commentary. There is so much variance in the interpretation of the Greek scriptures. Some, I have seen praising Jesus, as the stumbling block for the Jews. They cheer him on. "Yes! There! Jesus is a stumbling block for the Jews!" And they applaud. This is not OK.​
Isaiah? 5:20? "Woe to those who flip-flop" like this. A stumbling block is bitter, not sweet. Being a stumbling block for the Jew? It's anti-Torah.​
Please explain how is this against the Torah?

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:21)
This is a grey area as well. I understand what is meant by it, but, if it is understood literally? This is witch-craft. They are buying their way into heaven. They are attempting to subvert God's will and replace it with their own. Elsewhere, I hope we agree, Jesus is teaching the the Christian to petition: "THY will be done, heavenly Father". THY will. If this verse is read in isolation or interpreted literally, the aspiring Christian is being lead astray. It stops being a petition for THY will, and it becomes a sort of recipe for MY will to be done. And that is the root of idol worship and witch-craft.​
Please explain how is this against the Torah?

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first. (Matthew 19:28-30)

This one is tricky. The fault is in the middle. "for MY sake". That's a no-no. Leviticus 10:3. Glory goes to Jehovah, ONLY. There's nothing wrong with approaching the Lord, but it must be done in the right way. This is wrong. Verses like this are reasons why people confuse Jesus with God Almighty.


I sincerely, hope this explanation was clear. God bless you and yours,

 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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…
I don't personally know many Jewish people, but the ones I do have never brought up Jesus to me. Are you perhaps referring to Rabbi Tovia Singer? He does spend a lot of his time refuting Christianity.
 

GoodAttention

Well-Known Member
That is because you are not considering what it meant for Avram ben-Terahh to leave his family. I.e. Jewish sources are clear that he was living in an environment that was not keeping the 7 mizvoth / the Noachide laws. He had no mitzvah to stay with his parents who did not keep the 7 mizvoth. Besides, according to Jewish sources Avram ben-Terahh didn't leave until his father had passed away and had been buried.

Non-Jewish/Pagan interpretation

The verses you quote describe a very dynamic point in time in Harran. The importance of this city as a melting pot of people should be appreciated.

Note the translation “your country”, and compare this to the origin and dispersion of the Amorites, covering the area God had promised Abraham. The reference is therefore to the Amorite people, and Abram considered a leader amongst them.

“Your relatives” is in reference to the Hurrian people. This can be considered if Nahor is a reference to the Naharin, the Egyptian name for the Hurrian people. The Hurrians later influenced the Hittites.

The reference of Jerusalem’s father being an Amorite and mother a Hittite could be explained as such.

I disagree Terah did not hold the Noahide laws. There is no reason to consider the man who took Abram out of Ur Kasdim, a very important journey to be taken, should be seen in such a way. We should then consider Nahor II to also maintain such a custom, yet Abram seeks his brother for a wife for Isaac.

I would also argue if Terah did not hold even Noahide laws, it would be a great digression to even describe “Terah’s/fathers house” in the scriptures at all.

I would argue Abram could never leave his family, and to consider as such is insulting. With Sara by his side and God watching over him, a righteous patriarch never could.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Metis, listen to yourself. The witch of endor uses it as a plural. The witch, Metis. The WITCH.

Metis, Witches are not to be emulated according to the Torah.

If you compare this to the vision of Jacob? Jacob's ladder? You'll see Jewish monotheism emerging. The witches, pagans, see them as gods, elohim. The Jew sees them as angels, messengers, who are only and always doing the will of the one and only God of Abraham, Isaac, and ... Jacob.

Please let me know that you understand what I've written here?
Please read this:
The Witch of Endor (Hebrew: בַּעֲלַת־אֹוב בְּעֵין דּוֹר baʿălaṯ-ʾōḇ bəʿĒyn Dōr, "mistress of the ʾōḇ in Endor") is a woman who, according to the Hebrew Bible, was consulted by Saul to summon the spirit of the prophet Samuel. Saul wished to receive advice on defeating the Philistines in battle, after prior attempts to consult God through sacred lots and other means had failed. However, what is summoned, whether the actual ghost of Samuel or a spirit impersonating him, delivers a prophecy of doom against Saul and his army, who are defeated. This event occurs in the First Book of Samuel;[1]it is also mentioned in the deuterocanonical Book of Sirach.[2]...
 

dybmh

ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Please read this:
The Witch of Endor (Hebrew: בַּעֲלַת־אֹוב בְּעֵין דּוֹר baʿălaṯ-ʾōḇ bəʿĒyn Dōr, "mistress of the ʾōḇ in Endor") is a woman who, according to the Hebrew Bible, was consulted by Saul to summon the spirit of the prophet Samuel. Saul wished to receive advice on defeating the Philistines in battle, after prior attempts to consult God through sacred lots and other means had failed. However, what is summoned, whether the actual ghost of Samuel or a spirit impersonating him, delivers a prophecy of doom against Saul and his army, who are defeated. This event occurs in the First Book of Samuel;[1]it is also mentioned in the deuterocanonical Book of Sirach.[2]...

What is the point you are trying to make? Are you denying that she was a necromancer? Are you denying that she is not practicing Judaism?

That she is a woman is irrelevant.

Metis: Genesis 3:5. The serpent? Elohim in that verse is conjugated plural as well. I think there's other examples ... searching ... Yes! Laban. The assembly at the golden calf. That's a better example. The prohibition of graven images. The other nations. Jezebel.

The gender doesn't matter. What matters is: is the speaker a positive role model? Are we Jews supposed to emulate the serpent's speech?
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous; because I don’t seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.
John 5:30
The prophetic texts associated with the righteous servant (Isaiah 53 and Psalm 35) are inconsistent with Pharisee (Pauline) doctrine.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Of course you have this personal interpretation. This is the claim of the Ebionites. Even if you disagree with the "sytem of vowel markings" if you were trying to read the text out loud you would end having to create your own Ebionite style vowels that you received from previous generations of Ebionites. If such previous generations existed and actually left you with how to pronounce the text.
No, a heuristic for pronunciation can be developed from early Hebrew texts which predate the Ebionites.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
There's several ways to show that this is anti-Torah. The best example, in my opinion, is Hannah. She did not need Christ to come to The Father. But, really, if this statement is true, literally true, then each and every prophet prior to Jesus' earthly ministry are false. That's why this verse is against the Torah. There are 2 ways to reconcile it. 1) It's not literal at all. It's hyperbolic. It's exaggerated for effect.2) Jesus is speaking only to the ones which were present in the room and no one else.
Another interpretation is that Yeshua (Jesus) is referring to Elohim with his 'I am' claims.

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John 8:58
 
Last edited:

dybmh

ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Another interpretation is that Yeshua (Jesus) is referring to Elohim with his 'I am claims.

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John 8:58

Read Isaiah. You'll find that Jesus loves Isaiah. That's where you'll find reference to "I AM".
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Read Isaiah. You'll find that Jesus loves Isaiah. That's where you'll find reference to "I AM".
Other texts indicate a connection to prophecy:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
John 10:34-36

I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Psalms 82:6-7
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Non-Jewish/Pagan interpretation

The verses you quote describe a very dynamic point in time in Harran. The importance of this city as a melting pot of people should be appreciated.

Note the translation “your country”, and compare this to the origin and dispersion of the Amorites, covering the area God had promised Abraham. The reference is therefore to the Amorite people, and Abram considered a leader amongst them.

“Your relatives” is in reference to the Hurrian people. This can be considered if Nahor is a reference to the Naharin, the Egyptian name for the Hurrian people. The Hurrians later influenced the Hittites.

The reference of Jerusalem’s father being an Amorite and mother a Hittite could be explained as such.

I disagree Terah did not hold the Noahide laws. There is no reason to consider the man who took Abram out of Ur Kasdim, a very important journey to be taken, should be seen in such a way. We should then consider Nahor II to also maintain such a custom, yet Abram seeks his brother for a wife for Isaac.

I would also argue if Terah did not hold even Noahide laws, it would be a great digression to even describe “Terah’s/fathers house” in the scriptures at all.

I would argue Abram could never leave his family, and to consider as such is insulting. With Sara by his side and God watching over him, a righteous patriarch never could.
I think the first part of your comment may be directed at someone else. I don't see the connection with what I wrote.
 
Top