The OT = UGH

[CMike]

What's frustrating and irritating is your trashing another faith. So perhaps a taste of your own bitter medicine is in order.

You assume I am a non-Jew. Your assumption happens to be correct but I am quite knowledgeable of Judaism and Torah as I learned from Jews. I know the party line as I used to parrot it to some extent myself.

If you would like a list of references to the death penalty in the Written Torah I'll be glad to provide it but you should already know I am speaking the truth.

The procedures for a trial in a capital case are not found in the Written Torah and you should already know this is the case. The only stipulation is that there be at least two witnesses.

There is no objective evidence the Oral Torah was given to Moses along with the Written Torah. The Sadducees, who were religiously more conservative than the Pharisees, rejected the claim, as did the later Karaites, and it is also contradicted by the Written Torah itself. You should know this.

The saying about applying the death penalty more than once in 70 years was actually a criticism of the Sadducees.

You really should know all these things and I think you do. If not you should become better acquainted with your own religion.

Levite already stated this but their is the written law and the oral law, both of these make up the Torah.

Whether you accept the oral law or not is really not relevant.

It's part of judaism.

And of course there is objective evidence that the oral law was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. I videotaped the whole thing. Just send me $100 and you'll see.

 

[CMike]

Hmm, no response. How unsurprising.

I did response.

Sometimes I can't answer in 3.000000435464 seconds.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

...I am not sure how that would work.

Yahweh, the malevolent deity of meatspace. (OT)

El Elyon, the benevolent deity of spirit-space. (NT)

As you can see here, even the Canaanites separated the two, all before the historical Yahwism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion#Pantheon

 

[nazz]

Levite already stated this but their is the written law and the oral law, both of these make up the Torah.

Duh, that is what I said!

Whether you accept the oral law or not is really not relevant.

Of course I don't. I'm not Jewish. But I see no evidence to support the claim it was given to a guy named Moses on top of some mountain by some god.

But even if it were the other point was that the instruction for conducting trials for capital crimes is contained in the oral not written Torah. Again you must surely know this.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

From what I've read, Gnostic Christians believed that the god of the OT and the god of the NT were separate entities.

While that's sort of true from what I've heard about the Gnostics, I thought (from what I was told) the Gnostic Christians generally don't like the OT or the NT?

 

[nazz]

What difference should it make where the laws of trying capital cases? Written Torah or Oral Torah, it's all Torah.

It makes a difference if you are going to claim that those detailed rules that make a conviction in a capital case nearly impossible were the practice of the ancient Israelites.

The Tzedokim (Sadducees) and Karaites were heretics. Their opinions count for nothing.

IYO. As an outsider their opinions count to me and I think they make some good points.

I have studied the sugiyot in the Gemara where we learn about the infrequency of the death penalty. There was no mention of Sadducees. And the sugiyot chiefly concern Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon, who lived in the second century, well after the decline in power and pervasiveness of the Sadducees. They would have little reason to criticize Sadducees, since there were few Sadducees left in the Sanhedrins or Jewish government at that time.

Well it was an Orthodox Jew who told me it was used as criticism against the Sadducees. But you know what they say about Jews and their opinions However it makes perfect sense since the Sadducees rejected the validity of the Oral Law. So without that it would be much easier to convict someone of a capital offense.

 

[nazz]

While that's sort of true from what I've heard about the Gnostics, I thought (from what I was told) the Gnostic Christians generally don't like the OT or the NT?

I'm a Gnostic and I like both. But clearly there is much to criticize in both testaments.

 

[dantech]

But I see no evidence to support the claim it was given to a guy named Moses on top of some mountain by some god.

Bit of a long read, but if you feel like it, here you go...
http://www.morashasyllabus.com/class/Jewish Law IV.pdf

Look at the two examples he shows in TEXTUAL REFERENCES if you want to shorten your read:

Devarim 12:21 – The procedure for the slaughter of livestock is found in the Oral Torah only.
​

​

​

When the place chosen by God to carry His name
is far away, you may slaughter your cattle and​

sheep that God has given you

​

​

in the manner that​

I have commanded you​

​

​

​

​

. You may then eat them​

in your cities according to your heart’s desire.

​

​

כי ירחק ממך המקום אשר יבחר ה’ אלקיך לשום שמו
שם וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך אשר נתן ה’ לך כאשר
צויתך ואכלת בשעריך בכל אות נפשך​

​

​

.

If slaughter is to be performed in ​

​

​

the manner that I have commanded you, where is it that these commands​

are written? Such instructions are found nowhere in the Written Torah. This must be reference to an oral

tradition that existed already at the time of the giving of the Torah.
​

​

2. ​

​

​

Kuzari 3:35 – Without the Oral Torah, one does not know the procedure of kosher slaughter.​

What is the act of ritual slaughter (of animals)?

Perhaps it is merely stabbing or killing in any
manner? And why is slaughter performed by
non-Jews forbidden? Why is slaughter different
from skinning and other actions associated with
it?
​

​

ומה ענין הזביחה ושמא היא נחירה או הריגה סתם בכל
דרך שהיא? ולמה נאסרו זבחי גוים? ומה בין זביחה
להפשט ולשאר המלאכות התלויות בה?
ii. Construction of the ​

​

​

Mishkan (Tabernacle)​

1. ​

​

​

​

​

Shemot 26:30 – Though God showed Moshe how to construct the Mishkan, those details are​

not recorded in the Torah.

​

​

​

​

You are to erect the tabernacle according to its

rules, as you were shown on the mountain.
​

​

וַהֲקֵמֹתָ אֶת הַמִּׁשְכָּן כְּמִׁשְפָּטוֹ אֲׁשֶר הָרְאֵיתָ בָּהָר:
Again, God is referring to instructions that were originally given orally – further evidence of the existence of​

an Oral Torah.​

 

[dantech]

I'm a Gnostic and I like both. But clearly there is much to criticize in both testaments.

If you had to pick one subject to criticize in the Torah, which would it be?

 

[CMike]

Bit of a long read, but if you feel like it, here you go...
http://www.morashasyllabus.com/class/Jewish Law IV.pdf

Look at the two examples he shows in TEXTUAL REFERENCES if you want to shorten your read:

Also when it says that G-D gave the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai, the word Torah is plural, to include the 2nd Torah (the oral law).

 

[CMike]

Duh, that is what I said!

Of course I don't. I'm not Jewish. But I see no evidence to support the claim it was given to a guy named Moses on top of some mountain by some god.

But even if it were the other point was that the instruction for conducting trials for capital crimes is contained in the oral not written Torah. Again you must surely know this.

So what?

 

[nazz]

Bit of a long read, but if you feel like it, here you go...
http://www.morashasyllabus.com/class/Jewish%20Law%20IV.pdf

I'll try to check that out if and when I have time.

Look at the two examples he shows in TEXTUAL REFERENCES if you want to shorten your read:

I remember debating the first one a long time ago but don't recall what my argument was anymore.

As to the second there seems to me to be tons of detailed information given regarding the construction of the Mishkan given in Exodus 26-27 for example.

Anyway my point is not that there were no laws in ancient Israel that are not recorded in the Bible but rather that it cannot be shown that the current version of the Oral Torah was given in full at Mt. Sinai. I think it developed slowly over time.

 

[Pegg]

The NT contradicts the Torah, which to me represents the ultimate connection to God. I can't believe in both as truth, using my logic.

If they did contradict, i would agree with you. But i havnt found that to be the case.

 

[Pegg]

More important than what wonders a person claiming to be a prophet can do, or whether they manage to make a correct prediction, what qualifies someone as a true prophet is whether they urge the people to greater adherence to Torah and mitzvot, or whether they urge the people to do things not permissible or forbidden by Torah.

Presuming the gospel accounts have any accuracy, which is by no means something settled to many of us, Jesus taught heresy at least, and those who came after him taught apostasy. Whether or not he predicted Jerusalem's fall is entirely irrelevant next to the terrible significance of what he and his followers taught to Jews as "torah."

What do you think of the book of Hosea? He is told to marry a woman who was a prostitute. She even bore an illigitmate child while the wife of Hosea and God did not require that she be put to death for adultery.

I dont believe that God does 'require' that we adhere to the mosiac law. otherwise, why would he instruct his prophet to do something like that??


What God wants is 'mercy and not sacrifice' as the torah says. But the mosiac laws do not offer mercy....they are a prescription of penalty/punishment when someone does not live up to Gods righteousness. If a person lives by Gods righteousness, what need does he have of the mosiac law?

 

[Flankerl]

So Hashem went through all the trouble to give us four books about the dos and donts but all he wanted to say was "i wonder if they will get that its all just a joke"?

Thats your religious belief? Seriously?

 

[CMike]

What do you think of the book of Hosea? He is told to marry a woman who was a prostitute. She even bore an illigitmate child while the wife of Hosea and God did not require that she be put to death for adultery.

I dont believe that God does 'require' that we adhere to the mosiac law. otherwise, why would he instruct his prophet to do something like that??


What God wants is 'mercy and not sacrifice' as the torah says. But the mosiac laws do not offer mercy....they are a prescription of penalty/punishment when someone does not live up to Gods righteousness. If a person lives by Gods righteousness, what need does he have of the mosiac law?

Because you have ZERO understanding of the mosiac law.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Because you have ZERO understanding of the mosiac law.

But to be fair, I doubt that your or anyone else has much of an understanding, either.

By that, I mean that if you went back in time to the original writers of the mosiac law, sat with them around their campfire, and discussed their intent and practice... they would wind up chasing you off with a broomstick for your heresy.

Just my opinion, but I think I can prove it as soon as we invent the time machine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Tzedokim (Sadducees) and Karaites were heretics. Their opinions count for nothing.

Insightful ...

 

[Levite]

What do you think of the book of Hosea? He is told to marry a woman who was a prostitute. She even bore an illigitmate child while the wife of Hosea and God did not require that she be put to death for adultery.

I dont believe that God does 'require' that we adhere to the mosiac law. otherwise, why would he instruct his prophet to do something like that??

Different commentators approach Hosea differently. Some say that he was a specific exception, commanded by God directly for the single instance of being a demonstrative lesson to Israel. Others say that Hosea's entire story is metaphorical, and there was, in fact, no literal woman named Gomer bat Diblayim.

I tend to agree with this latter interpretation, since the name is clearly a pun, since the word gomer is never otherwise used as a name for either gender, and means literally, "to finish," but idiomatically, "to climax" or "to ejaculate." And diblayim is an ancient slang term for "breasts." And likewise, the names of the children, Lo-Ruchama and Lo-'Ami translate roughly as I Have No Compassion For Her and He Is Not My People. These names are nothing anyone would ever name a child, and, as you point out, marrying a prostitute is not done, much less giving adulteresses a free pass: it stands to reason that the whole thing is a parable.

What God wants is 'mercy and not sacrifice' as the torah says. But the mosiac laws do not offer mercy....they are a prescription of penalty/punishment when someone does not live up to Gods righteousness. If a person lives by Gods righteousness, what need does he have of the mosiac law?

Mosaic laws only appear merciless if they are read relentlessly literalistically, in the absence of the Oral Torah. Which is not how they're supposed to be read.

It's not that God wants mercy without service ("sacrifice" being a metonymy for all kinds of service): He wants both. It's only if you're going to choose to be a sinner and flout a bunch of the commandments, better you choose the ones that don't directly harm other human beings. God can take one's bad behavior, but other people should not be made to suffer one's wickedness. A good Jew tries to follow all mitzvot, both "ethical" and "ritual," or at least struggles to follow as best they can.

Because ultimately, the mitzvot are not stuff you do just because God says so, or just because, coincidentally, some other form of ethics also says such and such an action would be a good idea. The mitzvot are holistic: an interconnected and intersupporting system of spiritual discipline, to develop consciousness, spiritual awareness, empathy, thoughtfulness, and so on. They all serve a purpose, even if that purpose might seem elusive to start with.

 

[Pegg]

So Hashem went through all the trouble to give us four books about the dos and donts but all he wanted to say was "i wonder if they will get that its all just a joke"?

Thats your religious belief? Seriously?

no, my belief is that a righteous person does not need such laws if they are truly righteous.