Messianic Jews vs. Reality

[Shermana]

Considered heretics by the Rabbis. They and their successors decide who is and is not heretical. As for the Reform movement, yes, part of the problems that halachic Judaism has with it are akin to the issues that were had long ago with the Hellenics. But at least the Reform leadership is working on the issues, and trying to arrive back at a place anchored in Rabbinic tradition, and not cut themselves off from the Oral Torah and its fruits.

The Reform are trying to get back with Rabbinical Oral Torah? On what planet exactly? Got a link that shows this movement back to Rabbinicism? Did "Reconstructionism" change its "Reconstruction" to be more Rabbinical these days? Regardless, the Rabbis can call me a heretic all they want, it's like Catholics calling Protestants "UnChristian". Maybe they should trademark the word "Judaism" and "Jewish" if they feel offended by various Torah-obedient groups calling themselves "Jewish" or using "Judaism". If Judaism = Rabbinicism, then you have to apply the same standard to Reform and Conservative UNTIL they are officially in line with Rabbinical standards. Now please prove that the Reform are "Trying to arrive back at a place anchored in Rabbinic tradition". A link on any emerging trends would be great for backing your claim here. As far as I'm concerned, Messianics tend to be far more Torah obedient.

Gittin 57a.

Please quote the exact verse here or give the verse number where it says Akiva abandoned Bar Kokhba as Moshiach, note that this is apparently written 5 centuries after the fact, and you are saying something about "authentic sources"? A link would be great like the one I presented.

All Jews, everywhere; and that also includes throughout the ancient borders of the Land of Israel. Free of foreign subjugation and at peace with ourselves and the world.

So why can't it be a long unfolding process again? What Jews today are under "foreign subjugation" that are completely unable to leave or fulfill their lives as they wish? Explain.

Even for non-trinitarians, Jesus is still the prophet of a proscribed religion.

And what exactly were the reasons that it was proscribed? How do they match up in comparison to what he actually taught? Many prophets were killed and persecuted for what they spoke of in the Tanakh as well.

That is often discussed in halachic literature, and is usually up to the rabbis of the day; but all are clear that heresies that endanger the welfare and survival of the Jewish People are beyond the pale, including those which promote apostasy.

Not exactly very specific.

There is nothing from the era of Jesus' life, written in Hebrew or Aramaic, recording his words without pretension to divinity, addressed only to Jews and not to non-Jews-- since it is unlikely in the utmost extreme that Jesus would have taught to non-Jews. If there were, as I said, it would still likely be heretical, but it might not be apostatic.

Yet its okay to use Talmudic references written 5 centuries after the fact? I do believe that Jesus did not teach to Non-Jews, it even says "do not go to the gentiles". The issue of Pauline Christianity and his Epistles is a well discussed one on this forum, which we can get into here if you like. So I ask again, with consideration to the Jewish Christian writings, how do we know the records we have of his words are NOT authentic? Why can't it be scribed/translated/written in Greek? We don't even have Aramaic and Hebrew writings about pretty much anything in the Jewish world in that time period. Do we?

The Torah had been canonized for 500 years by the time Jesus showed up.

Oh really? Says who? The Dead Sea Scrolls say otherwise, but as you said the Essenes were "heretics". But the Talmud also calls Sirach "Scripture". What now?

I don't need to defend its reliability:

Maybe on the discussion boards you don't.

Ezra did that for us. Likewise, I need not defend the rest of the canon of the Tanakh.

This is a debate board, you make claims, you back them or you forfeit your argument.

The entire rest of the Jewish People accept its reliability, beginning with the Rabbis of the Talmud. It is the texts of a heretical preacher, adopted into the canons of another religion, that must be subject to skepticism.

Presumptive Circular reasoning.

Unless a draft is found in which Jesus does not make pretensions to divinity, and does not teach Torah to non-Jews, accepting them as followers, and other such things no Jewish teacher of the time would have done, then even if the authors of the gospels were Jewish by birth, they were still apostates.

Jesus specifically said "Do not go to the gentiles". It's quite common to confuse Pauline doctrines with what Jesus taught, this makes up a huge bulk of my arguments with so-called "Christians" on this board alone. As for pretensions to Divinity, that's another story which involves differing interpretations of John. Nowhere in the Synoptics however are these pretensions. Only in the disputed book of John, which is heavily interpolated to begin with.

Give me a break....

Maybe on the discussion boards I would.

Yes. Plenty. Any copy of Mikraot Gedolot will get you some, and some can even be found in the Bar Ilan database. But I don't have time to translate: perhaps, like other serious scholars of the text and its commentaries, you might want to learn Hebrew and Aramaic to read them.

You're not just arguing with me, you're posting publicly. If you don't want to back up your claims or take the time to post what you need to validate your claims, that's your problem, not mine.

Either would do.



No, there isn't. Torah is Torah. It includes the Written and the Oral Torahs both in one. They are indivisible, two halves of a whole.

That's your opinion, and I presume the common Rabbinical opinion. However, the "Oral Torah" is up to debate, even the Rabbis in the Talmud don't agree with each other.

No, that's a modern opinion. I give them inspiration because they are clearly holy words. If you're looking for modern theology on this, I recommend reading Rabbi Elliot Dorff.

I agree that the Torah is "clearly holy words", but I'd like to see some PAST Theology, not recent modern ideas, that Moshe did NOT scribe the full Torah. How you can imagine this as squaring with Rabbinical thought is beyond me. You'd think denial of Mosaic authorship of the Torah would be up there with any other "apostasy".

You might want to actually read the commentaries, or at least the original text, before deciding what it means.

Commentaries are just that, commentaries, and they are often in contradiction to other commentaries. In this case, it sounds like it ignores the very context of the situation of a gentile graveyard to begin with. It says "Only ye are designated men", now if you want to say it means something other than what it says at face value, that's fine, but I'd call anything that tries "damage control".

It stands to reason: if they had converted, there would be no problem. It shouldn't be surprising: intermarriage is a problem today, too: apparently none of the thousands of women and men involved in those today want to convert, either. So clearly...it happens.

So you're adding something to Torah that's not there, it should have specifically said "Do not let your sons marry their daughters...unless they convert". Otherwise, I'll take what's written as it is. You can add and subtract to Torah as you (And the Rabbinicists) will, but to act as if it's 100% defacto truth as a point of argument will not fly in objective debate. You've never seen a man marry a woman who converts, but doesn't REALLY convert and ends up leading the man astray? Maybe it should have said "Do not marry their daughters unless they convert and prove that they really, really want to follow the whole Halacha". Additionally, we are allowed to take wives from virgins captured in war. Were we to only take ones that agreed to convert? Is that implied too?

That is the implication of the verse, yes.

You are welcome to your opinion of what you think the "Implication" of the verse is, as I am welcome to my opinion to consider it "adding and subtracting to the Torah". If you want to believe that NONE of the women in Ezra wanted to convert, you're welcome to your belief. If you want to believe that the Torah was IMPLYING something that's not written, you are welcome to your belief.

First of all, that is not what am segulah means in Deuteronomy. It means "a nation set apart [i.e., for a purpose]." And the verse in Isaiah has nothing to do with anything. It's part of a series of verses that proclaim God's uniqueness and supremacy: we are included in "the nations," lest we think we are His equal.

[/quote]

That would be going against the general context of Isaiah, you're welcome to your opinion, but I thought "nations" is usually referring to the FOREIGN nations. And I don't know you'd define being his "treasured people" as something other than holding a higher place to Him.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

That has nothing to do with its authenticity or the scholarly disputes about its origins. You don't need the book of Ruth for David to exist, all it is, is an account by an Anonymous author (some say Samuel) of who they think was his lineage. How valid is the entire line of Davidic kings if there's corruption of the blood? Either way, this does not square its total clash with the ending of Ezra, or the fact that the commandment specifically says to not let your sins marry their daughters.

Let me spell this out for you. If you throw out David, you throw out Jesus too, him claiming to be "son of David". If you don't get that, maybe you should follow some tribal religion of, say, England, instead.

 

[Shermana]

Let me spell this out for you. If you throw out David, you throw out Jesus too, him claiming to be "son of David". If you don't get that, maybe you should follow some tribal religion of, say, England, instead.

Let me spell it out for you, you don't need the book of Ruth to have David be the King.

 

[Rakhel]

Let's make this very simple.
Ezra happened after Ruth, David and Solomon.
Ezra happened after the return from Babylon
Ezra happened after Jewish men had married Persian women and worshiped the Zoroastrian god.
Ezra happened after the Tribes of Israel forgot who and what they were.

What happened before Ezra does not contradict what happened after Ezra.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Let me spell it out for you, you don't need the book of Ruth to have David be the King.

Yet you contradict yourself when you say you want to dismiss David and Solomon for having foreign wives. You can't dismiss someone then accept them at the same time. You can't argue from both sides of a detail. Either David is relevant, despite the foreign wives, or he isn't because of them. Take a position. Stop emulating the crayfish.

 

[Zardoz]

Hey, did you guys and gals happen to notice not one but two mod posts in this thread?

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Hey, did you guys and gals happen to notice not one but two mod posts in this thread?

Yeah, and in my eyes, I didn't violate any of the rules cited. The emulation of a crayfish statement is a Southern reference, when one tries to walk around an issue without walking forward, or "crawfishin". The suggestion to follow another tribal religion was sincere, not a troll, flame, or bullying measure. If anyone can't seem to look into what is actually said, **** them.

 

[Zardoz]

Ahem. That was just a general request, and not in regards to anything in particular.

I raised my children as Jews. With a full Jewish education. Not as any flavor of Messianic or Ebionite anything.

What they make of Yeshua, is up to them. I predict they won't follow in my footsteps. I have my reasons for thinking this.

 

[Shermana]

Yet you contradict yourself when you say you want to dismiss David and Solomon for having foreign wives. You can't dismiss someone then accept them at the same time. You can't argue from both sides of a detail. Either David is relevant, despite the foreign wives, or he isn't because of them. Take a position. Stop emulating the crayfish.

Did David take foreign wives? I must have missed that part, I'll have to re-read. It specifically says that Solomon abandoned the Lord and fell out of favor. His offspring from his Jewish wives, that's another story. You'll have to explain what part about David being "relevant" you mean exactly. And what did you mean that "I want to dismiss David" anyway? Are you saying by dismissing Ruth I'd be dismissing David? See the link below about the commonly held belief that the geneology is added by a Redactor. It's not a correct syllogism to say that by Dismissing Ruth I'm dismissing David. That's like saying by dismissing the geneology in Luke I'm dismissing David.

If anyone can't seem to look into what is actually said, **** them.

This alone sounds like a rule violation, and right to a Mod too!

The suggestion to follow another tribal religion was sincere, not a troll, flame, or bullying measure

Even if its sincere, you're basically saying "Don't even follow a Torah based religion", you can sincerely believe an inflammatory comment you know.

 

[Shermana]

Let's make this very simple.
Ezra happened after Ruth, David and Solomon.
Ezra happened after the return from Babylon
Ezra happened after Jewish men had married Persian women and worshiped the Zoroastrian god.
Ezra happened after the Tribes of Israel forgot who and what they were.

What happened before Ezra does not contradict what happened after Ezra.

There is no evidence that Ruth was written before Ezra, we don't even know who wrote Ruth. The tradition that its written by Samuel is just that, a tradition. Its authorship has been contested and disputed in the scholarly community, my opinion that it was written as a reaction to Ezra is not a unique one, or uncommon. We don't know if the Jewish men in Ezra married Persian, Edomite, Moabite, or Ammonite or Babylonian wives, or what they believed, or if they refused to convert. Basing your argument on speculation and presumption as if its matter of fact doesn't really work in objective debate. You can say its POSSIBLE that every single one of the gentile wives refused to convert, but you'd be reading something into Ezra that's not really there.

Here's a book I hope to buy a copy of one day that discusses much of the scholarly review on Ruth. The link should open to page 216 where it discusses The idea that a redactor added the geneologies linking it to David. Trust me, I am not the first to think up this dissenting opinion.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eeCSyiTV_QgC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=Book+of+Ruth+spurious&source=bl&ots=2AIx9fmwl8&sig=GuCsGIMJqxOgoEXDLMpAib1INJ0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lYfyTq-JM-iLiAKhuMmIDg&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Book%20of%20Ruth%20spurious&f=false

 

[Rakhel]

so you like taffy huh? how far do you intend to stretch this just to prove that you are worshiping the right religion and everyone else is wrong?

 

[Shermana]

so you like taffy huh? how far do you intend to stretch this just to prove that you are worshiping the right religion and everyone else is wrong?

I don't understand the relevance of this comment. Please explain in reference to what I said what you're trying to say, with quotes. This is a debate board. Someone says something, I respond. If you don't want to respond to my arguments and facts and links, you might like the discussion boards better.

If you don't want to discuss the scholarly claims about Ruth, just say "I don't want to discuss what the scholars say about Ruth" and drop it. If you don't want to discuss the OP like I tried to stick to originally until this became a (hostile) issue about "Messianic Judaism" altogether rather than Ethnic Jews claiming to be Messianic Jews, drop it. If you want to attack my position, be prepared to defend your own. I'm here to defend my position, that's why we're here on the debate boards and not the discussion section! As far as I'm concerned, I'm just backing up my position with arguments, facts, and links.

 

[Rakhel]

You reject Ruth because it contradicts with Ezra, because some scholar says it was written after Ezra. You say it is not a new idea, but you have only mentioned one person, other than yourself, who has come up with the idea.

You seem to think, based on your posts, that like most atheists, Judaism didn't begin until Ezra came into the picture. This contradicts not only Judaism, but Christianity.

You don't wish to read commentaries that disagree with you, but will read commentaries that you do agree with.

You say the Davidian line is corrupt because of all of the women that weren't Jewish, but are willing to buy into the prophesies that make Jesus your messiah.

You have pulled taffy, my friend. You have pulled on everything that makes both Judaism and Christianity what they are, and have deemed them invalid. You are so far outside the box, that I'm not even sure you know what you are looking at.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here's a book I hope to buy a copy of one day ...

You don't wish to read commentaries that disagree with you, but will read commentaries that you do agree with.

He has not read the book. He is a literalist who rejects textual criticism and redactional analysis excepts for the bit and pieces that he finds convenient.

Ask him if he thinks her methodology is sound. His brand of opportunist quote-mining is intellectually dishonest at best.

 

[Rakhel]

He has not read the book. He is a literalist who rejects textual criticism and redactional analysis excepts for the bit and pieces that he finds convenient.

Ask him if he thinks her methodology is sound. His brand of opportunist quote-mining is intellectually dishonest at best.

he has already provided me with his answer. Asking would be redundant.

 

[Shermana]

You reject Ruth because it contradicts with Ezra,

Yes.

because some scholar says it was written after Ezra.

Multiple scholars.

You say it is not a new idea, but you have only mentioned one person, other than yourself, who has come up with the idea.

The book mentions MANY scholars. As for this "rejecting textual criticism", I'd like to know where Jay gets this notion from that I entirely reject Textual criticism except for "bits and pieces". Especially considering my arguments about New Testament canon. For someone who denies that Moses wrote the Torah, he has no problem believing that Ruth is valid despite its source being anonymous. I can only wonder why. As for "opprotunist Quote mining", I'd like to know what exactly I quote mined, and how what I said was out of context and why what I quoted doesn't hold weight for debate.

You seem to think, based on your posts, that like most atheists, Judaism didn't begin until Ezra came into the picture. This contradicts not only Judaism, but Christianity.

If you don't want to debate the actual specifics, try the discussion forums. But as for "Judaism", I believe Rabbinicism came centuries after Ezra. The Torah and the Dead Sea Scrolls and "Ancient Israelite religion", I believe existed long before. I don't think you are understanding my argument or you are deliberately straw manning.

You don't wish to read commentaries that disagree with you, but will read commentaries that you do agree with.

\

There's a difference between "wishing to read a commentary" and discussing the specifics and facts from each side of the argument. Are you willing to discuss the commentaries and arguments I am presenting? Doesn't look like it. If you have something you'd like to present to the table, feel free.

You say the Davidian line is corrupt because of all of the women that weren't Jewish, but are willing to buy into the prophesies that make Jesus your messiah.

Where did I say the Davidian line is corrupt exactly? I'm not the only person who says that the Geneology to David was a later interpolation. Do you find it aggravating that someone may present such an idea?

You have pulled taffy, my friend. You have pulled on everything that makes both Judaism and Christianity what they are, and have deemed them invalid. You are so far outside the box, that I'm not even sure you know what you are looking at.

[/quote]

That's a nice way of saying you don't want to discuss the other side of the argument. I hope you're prepared to call the scholars in question "out of the box" as well. That's fine. But of course it's okay to deny Mosaic authorship of the Torah. Why don't you explain what exactly "pulling Taffy" is and why my arguments are invalid exactly.

 

[Rakhel]

Yes.
Multiple scholars.
The book mentions MANY scholars. As for this "rejecting textual criticism", I'd like to know where Jay gets this notion from that I entirely reject Textual criticism except for "bits and pieces". Especially considering my arguments about New Testament canon. For someone who denies that Moses wrote the Torah, he has no problem believing that Ruth is valid despite its source being anonymous. I can only wonder why. As for "opprotunist Quote mining", I'd like to know what exactly I quote mined, and how what I said was out of context and why what I quoted doesn't hold weight for debate.

If you don't want to debate the actual specifics, try the discussion forums. But as for "Judaism", I believe Rabbinicism came centuries after Ezra. The Torah and the Dead Sea Scrolls and "Ancient Israelite religion", I believe existed long before. I don't think you are understanding my argument or you are deliberately straw manning.

\

There's a difference between "wishing to read a commentary" and discussing the specifics and facts from each side of the argument. Are you willing to discuss the commentaries and arguments I am presenting? Doesn't look like it. If you have something you'd like to present to the table, feel free.

Where did I say the Davidian line is corrupt exactly? I'm not the only person who says that the Geneology to David was a later interpolation. Do you find it aggravating that someone may present such an idea?

That's a nice way of saying you don't want to discuss the other side of the argument. I hope you're prepared to call the scholars in question "out of the box" as well. That's fine. But of course it's okay to deny Mosaic authorship of the Torah. Why don't you explain what exactly "pulling Taffy" is and why my arguments are invalid exactly.[/quote]
You make my head hurt.
I explained where you were pulling taffy and why your arguments are invalid.
You said, in this thread, that the Davidian line was corrupt. No I am not going to dig through this thread just to satisfy some power trip you may have. If you can't remember what you wrote, then that is your fault. Not mine.

 

[Shermana]

You make my head hurt.
I explained where you were pulling taffy and why your arguments are invalid.
You said, in this thread, that the Davidian line was corrupt. No I am not going to dig through this thread just to satisfy some power trip you may have. If you can't remember what you wrote, then that is your fault. Not mine.

[/quote]

No you didn't really say why my arguments are invalid or why the scholars I brought up in question don't matter. You merely complained in a way that didn't actually disprove anything I said. It's not a matter of me remembering what I wrote, you made accusations, you just don't want to back them up. I think you accuse "desire to debate" with "power trip".
\
I challenge ANYONE reading to effectively show how you actually disproved what I said, or if you even addressed what I said in a debate-worthy way. I will give two frubals over two days.

All I'm doing is preesnting arguments, facts, and links. If you don't want to actally debate against the specifics of my claims or present your own links and "commentaries", that's not my problem. It's not a "power trip" to want to debate effectively. You made accusations against me, you don't want to back them up. You said my argument is invalid, but your case against my argument is what's invalid. You even made it out like only one scholar says what I'm saying, when the book I cited has MANY scholars saying this. You're attacking me for merely presenting the general Scholarly concensus on the matter. I posted a link and the page number where it goes into detail. You made straw man arguments against my own accusations. I never said the Davidian line was corrupt, YOSI said that I said that. There's a reason you don't want to quote me. It"s YOUR burden of proof, not mine. It's not a matter of me not remembering what I said. I could just as easily say you are violating a rule by misrepresenting what I said. I may have IMPLIED that according to RUTH, David may be invalid, and I don't think I hinted at that yet, I only said that the geneology at the end of David, according to the book I presented which details MANY scholarly views, says the geneology is a later forgery.

I didn't "not remember" something I said, I never said it. I may have IMPLIED it through the general line of my argument though. Meanwhile, it seems none of you want to actually address the specifics of my own claims. Feel free to continue to ignore my argument, but remember, this is a Debate board. I don't think I ever actually said David was invalid. YOSI said that that I said that.

 

[Rakhel]

You don't remember what you wrote, that's your problem, not mine.
And if you can't see how what you are writing is contradictory(I never said invalid, you did) to even Messianic Judaism, then again that is your problem, not mine.

 

[Shermana]

You don't remember what you wrote, that's your problem, not mine.
And if you can't see how what you are writing is contradictory(I never said invalid, you did) to even Messianic Judaism, then again that is your problem, not mine.

It's hard to remember something that I didn't actually write. And accusing me of saying something I didn't may be a violation of the rules. With the same time you take to reply, you could just as easily go through the pages and quote me. But I'm guessing you'd rather spend the same time going on the attack again then actually backing your accusation.

And what I'm saying is NOT contradictory to Messianic Judaism.

You're simply arguing against a straw man based on a false accusation.