JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
it's not rocket science to notice the (for lack of a better word) racist aspect of that, really... but I guess while idols are forbidden, strawmen are not ^^
What's racist about it?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
it's not rocket science to notice the (for lack of a better word) racist aspect of that, really... but I guess while idols are forbidden, strawmen are not ^^
I don't know if you realize this, and I noticed it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the thread (except for briefly and indirectly), but Jews don't reject Jesus solely because of his heretical teachings. Everything the New Testament says about what Jesus said, did, and how he behaved could be entirely true. In fact, the entirety of the gospels could be true and it wouldn't matter because, and pay close attention to this:
Jesus still would not be considered the Messiah. Everything written about Jesus in the New Testament could be 100% true. And it still wouldn't matter. Why?
Because there is a very specific definition of what the Messiah should be, and Jesus does not fit it. Tanakh gives, while maybe not as specific a definition, an image of what the Messiah will be that Jesus does not fit. In fact, he's not even close.
You say that you came to belief that Jesus is Messiah after long and careful study, I'd be genuinely interested in knowing what you studied because it was in the course of my study of the Bible (OT/NT) that I left Christianity. Not because of the gentile image of Christianity, but because the idea that Jesus is the Messiah is fundamentally incompatible with what Tanakh presents. And I made that conclusion before I was "tainted" by any Rabbinic teachings.
This, ultimately, is the reason that Jews reject Christianity and Messianic Judaism. This is why it is offensive when those who are not even the slightest bit educated about Jewish practice call themselves Jews.
I think this here is what, perhaps, we all need to focus on. What you believe is between you and God. Heretical or not, it is something for you to sort out with Him. If you are born a Jew, then you are a Jew regardless of how you believe or how you practice (at least as far as current understanding is concerned). If you practice Torah, then that's even better.
The fact that you believe in something that, in and of itself isn't heretical, is inconsequential. What matters most is that you follow Torah.
Now, given your rejection of Rabbinic Judaism, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "follow Torah" because I would argue that one could not aptly follow Torah without Rabbinic opinion on certain halakha. And while Jesus did say not to do as the pharisees do, he did say to obey "all that they teach you, for the sit in Moses seat." whatever that means.
Speaking of strawmen - what a pathetically ignorant statement!If you are born a Jew, then you are a Jew regardless of how you believe or how you practice (at least as far as current understanding is concerned). If you practice Torah, then that's even better.
it's not rocket science to notice the (for lack of a better word) racist aspect of that, really... but I guess while idols are forbidden, strawmen are not ^^
What the heck did that Moabite Ruth ever do for you? Oh, wait, I forgot that the great-grandkid seemed to turn out OK (except, perhaps, for that Bathsheba/Uriah incident) ...
You could, and do, say all manner of things which is, of course, your right.I could also say that one disobeys Torah by going with what Rabbis say.
Perhaps Levite can explain what this passage from the Talmud means, Baba Mezia 114b:4-5, this is not one of those fake verses from those anti-Jew sites, this is an actual verse that says "Only ye are men", in comparison of Jews to gentiles.
Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi'a 114
" only ye are designated 'men'."
What's that all about? Is that a mistranslation? What's the meaning? Is this a misunderstanding of Ezekiel 34:31?
You could, and do, say all manner of things which is, of course, your right.
What it is not is Judaism, and portraying is as such while blathering about blood purity is deeply insulting and disgraceful.
You clearly missed the reference to blood purity -- which is rather odd considering how you hold it to be of such importance.You just love to say "You're insulting" without actually discussing ANYTHING I actually mention.
No doubt the result of a blood impurity ...Meanwhile, you don't even think Moses wrote the Torah.
What's wrong with Ruth? She was a ger tzedek.Considering that Ruth completely clashes with the ending of Ezra (strangely no one wants to discuss the ending of Ezra, multiple dodges on that one so far, strangely), there's no way of proving that Ruth is describing the true lineage of David except for.....Rabbinical tradition. Meanwhile, you have no problem denying that Moses wrote the Torah, but you'll assume Ruth should be indisputably canonical and considered true without question.
No doubt the result of a blood impurity ...
What's wrong with Ruth? She was a ger tzedek.
Also, what exactly is conflicting in Ezra. I haven't read it in awhile, but are you talking about the sending away of foreign women?
You clearly missed the reference to blood purity -- which is rather odd considering how you hold it to be of such importance.
Speaking of strawmen - what a pathetically ignorant statement!
I know exactly what you stand for. I appreciate the fact that you do so openly and crassly. It increases the likelihood that people will distinguish between what you represent and Judaism.Did you not get what I said?
Notice the part where I said that Ruth clashes with the ending of Ezra? Notice that this subject has been continuously dodged everytime I brought it up to anyone? Ruth's authenticity is a subject of controversy, that's why the Talmud went to the lengths to say "A moabite, not a Moabitess", which completlely violates the specific commandment for the sons to not marry the daughters.
I know exactly what you stand for. I appreciate the fact that you do so openly and crassly. It increases the likelihood that people will distinguish between what you represent and Judaism.
But wouldn't her conversion make it aright? As with marrying foreign women, and using that as basis to discredit Ruth, wouldn't you also have to discredit King David and Solomon, due to their love for foreign women?
Meanwhile its okay for you, who puts "Judaism" as your religion, to openly reject that Moses wrote/scribed the Torah. Nice.
I know exactly what you stand for. I appreciate the fact that you do so openly and crassly. It increases the likelihood that people will distinguish between what you represent and Judaism.