Judaisms Core

[Ehav4Ever]

Thank you, please tell also, to what is that anticipation based on?

Sorry to bombard you with videos, but here are two videos that give the sources.

 

[GoodAttention]

It could. It all depends on what the history of the region tells us. Rabbi Mosheh ben-Maimon 1138–1204 CE (known as the Rambam) in his book Moreh Nevuchim wrote that the Torah would be better understand when additional archeological and historical information about past cultures if found. This has been completely the case.

Thus, there are some situations where when speaking of Kasdim we are talking about a particular ethnic group that once existed. There are times where "modernly" the language carries the name of the culture that the language came from. It could be doubtful that 4,000 years someone came up with a name for their language. It is possible that outsiders may have called what they spoke based on their name for the people who spoke it.

These are all elements of historical study to understand how peoples who are now long gone, and in many cases left no clear description of thier linquistics or culture saw the world they lived in.

I believe the Kasdim are the Khasas people, part of the ancient Aryan tribes at the time of Abraham that lived from Kashmir to Darjeeling along the Himalayan mountains. These particular people, whilst considered noble and royalty, became "outcast" because they no longer held to the Vedic teachings. They engaged in activity such as eating meat, drinking alcohol, and marrying their brother's wives if she became a widow, all considered acts that only "low-born" people would do.

 

[dybmh]

It doesn't stop the symbolism of the serpent from being meaningful.

You're welcome to continue in your gnostic pursuit without me. When you've discovered how to change water into wine, please send me the YouTube video demonstrating it.

I'm done with this discussion. Desperation has compromised the opportunity for rational conversation.

 

[dybmh]

I think the method is not crucial

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.

 

[metis]

Actually, it is clear why the plural is used.

No, it's still not clear according to the differing interpretations as this question was never settled conclusively and it is impossible to know now what the original intent was.

 

[metis]

AFAIK Orthodox Judaism is as subset of Rabinnical Judaism, which goes back to the Pharisees. This should help explain the aversion to anything Christian.

Jesus was of the Pharisee Tradition.

 

[Ebionite]

You're welcome to continue in your gnostic pursuit without me.

Gnosis is knowledge, and knowledge is relevant to the remedy provided by the righteous servant.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy Elah, I will also forget thy children.
Hosea 4:6

He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:11

 

[Ebionite]

Jesus was of the Pharisee Tradition.

The tradition that he condemned?

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Matthew 15:1

[Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Matthew 15:7-9

 

[Ebionite]

Thus, taking the above into account one can address the actual text. The word (נתתיך) can be translated into English as "I will give you...." or "I will make you...." Either one works in translating, yet one is required to know that the statement (נתתיך אלהים) "I will give you strong / having power / powerful" or "I will make you strong / having power / powerful." is connected and then (לפרעה) "to Pharaoh" even one could say, "in the perception of Pharaoh."

The expression of power by Moses in the court of Pharoah is described in verses 8 to 12, where Moses' rod becomes a serpent. The symbol of the serpent relates to healing:

And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
Numbers 21:9

And to the crucifixion:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
John 3:14

 

[metis]

The tradition that he condemned?

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Matthew 15:1

[Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Matthew 15:7-9

"Family disputes" tend to be the nastiest. Maybe read this: Pharisees - Wikipedia

If one knows what both the mainline Pharisees and Jesus believed in, the match is obvious. However, my guess is that most Christians aren't aware of this.

 

[Ebionite]

So, this is my major issue with the Christian translations of the so-called "New Testament." In most cases, "theos" refers to a divine elohim, a type of divine magistrate, and not to the sacred tetragrammaton. The term "the Lord" is related to the Hebrew term "Adonai," which is always used for human lords. This relationship is only partially disrupted by one of the interpretations of John 14:10, 20, supported by a few Trinitarian formulas.

There's a similar theme in Judaism where HaShem is substituted for YHWH based on an expansive interpretation of the fourth commandment of Exodus 20.

 

[dybmh]

Gnosis is knowledge, and knowledge is relevant to the remedy provided by the righteous servant.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy Elah, I will also forget thy children.
Hosea 4:6

He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:11

Have a good shabbos, if you observe it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

No, it's still not clear according to the differing interpretations as this question was never settled conclusively and it is impossible to know now what the original intent was.

No, it is very clear from the most ancient and authorative understandings of the Hebrew langauge of the text. Of course if one wants to try to insert a "modern" conept to a thousands of years old text - without a Mesorah or better yet ignoring the Mesorah that exists in ancient Jewish communities - then yes someone can interpret something that is known with a foreign concept. Or, someone can say because they lack a Mesorah they personally don't know.

 

[Ebionite]

No, it is very clear from the most ancient and authorative understandings of the Hebrew langauge of the text. Of course if one wants to try to insert a "modern" conept to a thousands of years old text - without a Mesorah or better yet ignoring the Mesorah that exists in ancient Jewish communities - then yes someone can interpret something that is known with a foreign concept. Or, someone can say because they lack a Mesorah they personally don't know.

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

 

[TantoGreenberg]

If you think the core of Judaism is the rejection of Christ, I think you're missing something.

Christ is completely irrelevant to Judaism.

Exactly. Christianity is irrelevant to Judaism. The last line of the Tanach is neither "Vol.1" nor "To be continued." Neither is it "The Old Testament." It's the Hebrew Tanach, period. BTW. "Bible" is a Latin label, not a part of the name.

Regardles of what the Christian Scriptures contain "Jesus" simply isn't relevant. Neither are the stories found in the Christisn Scriptures relevant.

 

[TantoGreenberg]

I don’t think that assessment of Judaism is accurate. Jews may reject or even ignore Christ, but it certainly doesn’t appear the core of Judaism revolves around the rejection of Christ. That doesn’t make sense to me.

For us, the Christian Scriptures are no more relevant, no more authoritative, than the writings if Shakespeare.

 

[TantoGreenberg]

For us, the Christian Scriptures are no more relevant, no more authoritative, than the writings if Shakespeare. The rejection of the Jesus figure is but a drop in the bucket. The differences are way beyond that. For example for us there us no vicarious atonement for sin. Neither is sin forgiven by blood. The animal sacrifices in the temple were only for accidental or unintentional sins. For example "I forgot to give the blessing for food before eating, and even that can be remedied as soon as I remember that forgot.

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"

 

[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…

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

 

[TantoGreenberg]

^ this is this dangerously beyond ignorant ...

That might well be the Christian belief, but the whole of Christisnity is foreign to us. No man-gods, no blood atonement for intentional sins, nobody except the injured party can forgive me.
We're lightyears apart.

 

[InChrist]

For us, the Christian Scriptures are no more relevant, no more authoritative, than the writings if Shakespeare.

I understand that. That’s the reason I don’t think the OP makes sense to say that the core of Judaism revolves around the rejection of Christ.