The OT = UGH

[nazz]

Certain things were more about respecting Sanctity. Not everything was about barbarity, though most were. As I said in my edit, many cultures had ideas of taboos on holy days and during rituals, that if you broke this aura of holiness on that day, you would deserve death. You'd have to really imagine the situation in context to understand it as an outsider.

I understand it just fine. And I would say putting people to death for that is what is truly barbaric.

 

[Shermana]

I understand it just fine. And I would say putting people to death for that is what is truly barbaric.

What alternative deterrent would you propose for such a highly important, highly sacred law to make sure it didn't go on? Floggings? Jail time? Or are you just against a deterrent against this law altogether?

PS I'm not exactly saying the law itself doesn't have some "barbarism" as one in modern liberal culture might call it. I just think it's not necessarily a "Bad" barbarism.

 

[Levite]

We have no idea if they "Changed the meaning" from what it originally meant at the time, anymore so than if we know Rabbi Akiva changed the meaning to place the mantel temporarily on Bar Kokhba.

Apparently enough people were willing to work with this "Changed meaning" that it wasn't deemed too fringe.

Rabbi Akiva was willing to believe Bar Kochba was the moshiach because he was fighting Rome, to try and free us from rule, and potentially to be able to rebuild and rededicate the Temple and Jerusalem.

Jesus apparently was uninterested in fighting Rome, and if he was interested in purifying the priesthood and rededicating the Temple, he had a funny way of showing it. Or we know nothing about it, because nothing survived about it.

 

[Shermana]

Rabbi Akiva was willing to believe Bar Kochba was the moshiach because he was fighting Rome, to try and free us from rule, and potentially to be able to rebuild and rededicate the Temple and Jerusalem.

Jesus apparently was uninterested in fighting Rome, and if he was interested in purifying the priesthood and rededicating the Temple, he had a funny way of showing it. Or we know nothing about it, because nothing survived about it.

The point is that there was not necessarily an "Original" idea of the Messiah that matches what the current idea of it is. Besides, I don't see what was "Funny" about the way the Gospels depict Jesus doing it.

 

[Riverwolf]

When did Might stop making right all of the sudden?

Since nerds took over the world.

 

[Levite]

The point is that there was not necessarily an "Original" idea of the Messiah that matches what the current idea of it is. Besides, I don't see what was "Funny" about the way the Gospels depict Jesus doing it.

The point is that while certain aspects of messianism have changed, one thing that has always remained constant, and which there is no reason to suppose was any different at that time, is the idea of the moshiach freeing us from the rule of non-Jewish governments. Jesus never fought anyone, and if he did, it's been kept a pretty good secret.

And as for his supposed care for the corruption of the priesthood, how does knocking over a few money-changer stalls and sacrificial-animal seller stalls, and inconveniencing all the people who came to fulfill the mitzvot of sacrifice have thing one to do with purifying a priesthood corrupted by the influence and wealth of a corrupt puppet king and his nobles?

 

[nazz]

What alternative deterrent would you propose for such a highly important, highly sacred law to make sure it didn't go on? Floggings? Jail time? Or are you just against a deterrent against this law altogether?

PS I'm not exactly saying the law itself doesn't have some "barbarism" as one in modern liberal culture might call it. I just think it's not necessarily a "Bad" barbarism.

I do.

 

[Shermana]

The point is that while certain aspects of messianism have changed, one thing that has always remained constant, and which there is no reason to suppose was any different at that time, is the idea of the moshiach freeing us from the rule of non-Jewish governments. Jesus never fought anyone, and if he did, it's been kept a pretty good secret.

Where exactly does the text indicate that the Messiah mentioned (who is different from the one mentioned in 44-45, who is obviously Cyrus), will lead a military overthrow of the government?

Funny I don't remember seeing that part on any lists of Messianic requirements. You'd think the Messiah already arrived in 1948.

And as for his supposed care for the corruption of the priesthood, how does knocking over a few money-changer stalls and sacrificial-animal seller stalls, and inconveniencing all the people who came to fulfill the mitzvot of sacrifice have thing one to do with purifying a priesthood corrupted by the influence and wealth of a corrupt puppet king and his nobles?

Jesus was preaching to refrain from sin and hypocrisy and to engage in repentance and stop figuring out ways to twist the Law to avoid performing obligations to the welfare of the people, you know the whole Spiel.

As for the moneychanger episode, right before he does this, he does exactly that, accusing them of being robbers and thieves and abusing widows and orphans, perhaps however his point was that the Temple was being used as a money-making operation. Now animal sellers surely had a right to sell, but right on the Temple grounds was an insult, in his eyes, and proof that the priesthood were allowing corruption for sake of profit. It says he forbade "Any merchandise" from being sold in the courtyards. I can easily see how this would be his way of making a statement for them to think about in regards to keeping the temple as a "House of prayer". Now as to why he'd call them a "Den of thieves", the general sentiment is that they were overcharging and gouging based on the location. Do you not see that as incredibly insulting to the purpose of the Temple? To charge people obscene rates for animals on the Temple grounds itself?

 

[roger1440]

Rabbi Akiva was willing to believe Bar Kochba was the moshiach because he was fighting Rome, to try and free us from rule, and potentially to be able to rebuild and rededicate the Temple and Jerusalem.

Jesus apparently was uninterested in fighting Rome, and if he was interested in purifying the priesthood and rededicating the Temple, he had a funny way of showing it. Or we know nothing about it, because nothing survived about it.

The cleansing of the Temple and the rebuilding of the Temple is one in the same in the canonical gospels. The Temple is cleansed with the very word of God. Anything unholy is banished from the Temple. All four of the canonical Gospels give an account of the cleansing. Jesus was not an interior decorator. He did not go in there to give it a new paint job or vacuum the joint. The Gospels paint a picture of Jesus throwing the furniture around like a raving lunatic. This is a metaphor. No structure made with brick and mortar can confine God. King Solomon knew this.

"But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!” (1Kings 8:27)

God dwells in the hearts and minds of those who confide in him. The gold crate that contained the jar of old moldy bread, Moses‘s magic stick and the two rocks with words on them are more than likely metaphors. The bread represents the word of God feeds the spirit. Aaron’s staff represents the power and strength of God and the tablets represents God’s word endures forever. It would seem to reason, the metaphorical contents of the Ark would need to be housed in a metaphorical Temple.


“A few years ago I had asked a Jewish co-worker the same question. He was a pretty smart guy. He had a Doctorate in philosophy. After I had asked him he looked at me, shrugged his shoulders and said, “I don’t have it.” A short time later I had asked a second Jewish co-worker the same question. The man wasn’t well educated. I didn’t think he would give me much input on the subject. His answer wasn’t what I had expected. It took me by surprise. He told me, “The Ark is in every Temple.””
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/theological-concepts/153394-where-ark-covenant.html

All four of the Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple, (70 AD)

 

[CMike]

The point is that there was not necessarily an "Original" idea of the Messiah that matches what the current idea of it is. Besides, I don't see what was "Funny" about the way the Gospels depict Jesus doing it.

They are the same prophesies. They are the same ideas.

Jesus was pretty far from fulfilling the prophesies.

One of the prophesies was that the temple in jerusalem will be rebuilt and stand forever. However, shortly after he was executed by the romans, the temple was destroyed.

The opposite of the prophesies happened during jesus' time.

 

[CMike]

Where exactly does the text indicate that the Messiah mentioned (who is different from the one mentioned in 44-45, who is obviously Cyrus), will lead a military overthrow of the government?

Funny I don't remember seeing that part on any lists of Messianic requirements. You'd think the Messiah already arrived in 1948.



Jesus was preaching to refrain from sin and hypocrisy and to engage in repentance and stop figuring out ways to twist the Law to avoid performing obligations to the welfare of the people, you know the whole Spiel.

As for the moneychanger episode, right before he does this, he does exactly that, accusing them of being robbers and thieves and abusing widows and orphans, perhaps however his point was that the Temple was being used as a money-making operation. Now animal sellers surely had a right to sell, but right on the Temple grounds was an insult, in his eyes, and proof that the priesthood were allowing corruption for sake of profit. It says he forbade "Any merchandise" from being sold in the courtyards. I can easily see how this would be his way of making a statement for them to think about in regards to keeping the temple as a "House of prayer". Now as to why he'd call them a "Den of thieves", the general sentiment is that they were overcharging and gouging based on the location. Do you not see that as incredibly insulting to the purpose of the Temple? To charge people obscene rates for animals on the Temple grounds itself?

People travelled great distances and needed to purchase animals to sacrifice with money.

It's also called supply and demand. No one had to buy sacrifices there.

They were probably were wondering who the psycho was having a temper tantrum.

 

[CMike]

You, Levite and I all see the NT as untrue, inaccurate, and not authentic. Since it is all those things, then how do you know there was ever even a guy called Jesus? And how do you know that he tried and prove to the world that he was the Messiah?

I have no reason to believe he didn't exist.

I don't recally anything in our scriptures that says he didn't exist.

Do you have any information that he didn't exist?

 

[StarryNightshade]

I have nothing to add to the debate itself, but I will say that I find Judaism to be, in many ways, a wonderful religion. The philosophies found within, the emphasis on community, Kabbalah, etc.

There have been many times, including very recently, where I found myself researching Judaism extensively with the intent of possibly converting. So what stops me? Many passages from the Torah/"OT".

I always try to read religious/spiritual scriptures within the context of when they were written, but with as much good I can find in the Torah, I also find many despicable, barbaric passages as well. I then find myself in a dilemma: can I truly be part of a religion that I find in many ways to be beautiful, but ignore many of the Torah's violent, out-dated verses and passages? Is that intellectually or spiritually ingenuous?

 

[Sleeppy]

I have nothing to add to the debate itself, but I will say that I find Judaism to be, in many ways, a wonderful religion. The philosophies found within, the emphasis on community, Kabbalah, etc.

There have been many times, including very recently, where I found myself researching Judaism extensively with the intent of possibly converting. So what stops me? Many passages from the Torah/"OT".

I always try to read religious/spiritual scriptures within the context of when they were written, but with as much good I can find in the Torah, I also find many despicable, barbaric passages as well. I then find myself in a dilemma: can I truly be part of a religion that I find in many ways to be beautiful, but ignore many of the Torah's violent, out-dated verses and passages? Is that intellectually or spiritually ingenuous?

You'd be better off without a book, or a classification. The Torah can give you the perceptions of other men in the realities they partook of, but God gave you a perceptive ability and a reality slightly different.. And definitely more immediate.

 

[CMike]

I have nothing to add to the debate itself, but I will say that I find Judaism to be, in many ways, a wonderful religion. The philosophies found within, the emphasis on community, Kabbalah, etc.

There have been many times, including very recently, where I found myself researching Judaism extensively with the intent of possibly converting. So what stops me? Many passages from the Torah/"OT".

I always try to read religious/spiritual scriptures within the context of when they were written, but with as much good I can find in the Torah, I also find many despicable, barbaric passages as well. I then find myself in a dilemma: can I truly be part of a religion that I find in many ways to be beautiful, but ignore many of the Torah's violent, out-dated verses and passages? Is that intellectually or spiritually ingenuous?

I think most people don't understand the context and meaning and don't take the time to find out.

For example, the Torah has the death penalty mentioned several times.

However, the criteria in the Torah makes it so difficult to impose that it's next to impossible to carry out.

A jewish court that hands out the death penalty once in 70 years is considered a bloodthirsty court.

So the question is why the contradiction? Why so much death penalty but at the same it makes nearly impossible to impose?

The answer is that G-D is saying that they are serious sins.

The way you learn about it, is by asking jews who know what they are talking about, questions regarding what the Torah is saying.

The Torah is complicated and can be learned at increasing complex levels.

 

[Sleeppy]

I think most people don't understand the context and meaning and don't take the time to find out.

For example, the Torah has the death penalty mentioned several times.

However, the criteria in the Torah makes it so difficult to impose that it's next to impossible to carry out.

A jewish court that hands out the death penalty once in 70 years is considered a bloodthirsty court.

So the question is why the contradiction? Why so much death penalty but at the same it makes nearly impossible to impose?

The answer is that G-D is saying that they are serious sins.

The way you learn about it, is by asking jews who know what they are talking about, questions regarding what the Torah is saying.

The Torah is complicated and can be learned at increasing complex levels.

How serious was Aaron's crime, in comparison to the Israelites he had led into idolatry?

 

[CMike]

How serious was Aaron's crime, in comparison to the Israelites he had led into idolatry?

I'm not G-D so I can't really judge, but Aaron was known as a peace maker.

Moses was known to be more firm than Aaron.

Aaron's crime was more going along with the crowd and not wanting the conflict.

 

[nazz]

I think most people don't understand the context and meaning and don't take the time to find out.

For example, the Torah has the death penalty mentioned several times.

Several? It's all over the place.

However, the criteria in the Torah makes it so difficult to impose that it's next to impossible to carry out.

Not in the Written Torah but only in the Oral which cannot be determined to be part of any original law.

A jewish court that hands out the death penalty once in 70 years is considered a bloodthirsty court.

According to the Pharisees.

The way you learn about it, is by asking jews who know what they are talking about, questions regarding what the Torah is saying.

I know the party line. I'm interested in the truth.

 

[CMike]

Several? It's all over the place.



Not in the Written Torah but only in the Oral which cannot be determined to be part of any original law.



According to the Pharisees.



I know the party line. I'm interested in the truth.

Obviously not.

Another non Jew who thinks he knows Jewish scripture better than the Jews.

It's rather frustrating and irritating:

 

[Shermana]

People travelled great distances and needed to purchase animals to sacrifice with money.

It's also called supply and demand. No one had to buy sacrifices there.

They were probably were wondering who the psycho was having a temper tantrum.

Should supply and demand be a factor in determining price gouging rates at the Temple? You see no problem with that? You think that's charitability being demonstrated right at the Temple courtyard?