• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who Or What Is Israel?

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Genesis 32:28

28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.




Does Genetics Only Determine Who Israel Is?

Obviously not. Was Ruth genetically a Jew? Was Rahab genetically a Jew?

Do you Beleive that there is a Spiritual Israel?

Not really... any more than there is a spiritual or non-spiritual Christian.

Do you agree that Elohim/God has Ordained Spiritual Israel and Fleshly Israel?

Not really. If you are a carnal Christian you are still a Christian... just carnal. None of it "ordained" - it is a condition of the heart. IMV

What does it mean to have the Israeli Trait of Power With Elohim/God and With Men?

Have no idea what you are asking. Are you saying that Jewish people did not have any trait of power?
 
Last edited:

Phin

Member
That's not true. If you quote the verses from Jeremiah, I will show you how it is false. If you don't quote them, then I'll know you are making a baseless assertion.

Thank you,
I'm not using Jeremiah I'm using Romans. What verses are you talking about in Jeremiah? I'm not familiar with that one.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I'm not using Jeremiah I'm using Romans. What verses are you talking about in Jeremiah? I'm not familiar with that one.

Oh. Never mind then. If it's from Romans then it's just plain and simple identity theft.

It would be like a Satanist writing a book, opening a temple, calling itself "True Christianity". Or "Spiritual Christianity" where the "Spiritual" part was about conjuring demonic "spirits" and working magic and causing mayhem, etc... But they run around calling themself "Spiritual Christians" which is confusing for people. But they don't care. They stole the name Christian and no one can really stop them.

It's the same thing right?
 

Phin

Member
Oh. Never mind then. If it's from Romans then it's just plain and simple identity theft.

It would be like a Satanist writing a book, opening a temple, calling itself "True Christianity". Or "Spiritual Christianity" where the "Spiritual" part was about conjuring demonic "spirits" and working magic and causing mayhem, etc... But they run around calling themself "Spiritual Christians" which is confusing for people. But they don't care. They stole the name Christian and no one can really stop them.

It's the same thing right?
I take it you hate Christianity?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I take it you hate Christianity?

No. I love Christianity. I find the idea of "spiritual israel" repugnant. It's identity theft. I am not a fan of theft, especially identity theft. Do you think it's OK? If someone stole your name and got a credit card and ran up a debt and it went to collections, would YOU be happy?

Maybe, in theory a Christian would turn the other cheek to identity theft? If that's you position, then I guess it would be OK for the Satanist to do what they want to do and trick people into thinking that it's Christianity? They could, you know, tell people the names of the demons are angels. And the magic was some form of faith healing. All of it a lie of course, but, they could steal the name, steal the symbols, ( like the matza that was posted in this thread ) and then put on a show, fooling people and no one would know.

Regarding the author of Romans, If I recall, Chapter 2 has a remarkable flip-flop in it. The author seems very confused to me. It doesn't match anything that resembles Word of God prophecy to me, but, it is making dramatic changes to the Hebrew bible.

Naturally as a Jewish person I am opposed to an author and a religion coming to make unauthorized changes to my religion and then claiming MY name.

But I generally have very little problems with Christianity if it is applied in a reasonable manner. And most Christians seem to be reasonable people. They don't believe in literally drinking Jesus' blood or literally eating Jesus' flesh. They don't think a person can literally ask for anything in Jesus' name and get it for the glory of the father. They understand that Jewish people have a different religion and a different way that is not wrong. They understand that our approach to scripture is more precise, and we have higher standards for fullfillment of prophecy.

When Christianity is applied that way, I love it. I love the ideas when they are applied in a reasonable way. I mean, all the good stuff is in Judaism too. I don't like twisting the Hebrew bible, looking for loop holes, and escape routes like a criminal, or ways to steal MY name and get away with it. Would you like it if I did that to you?

Where's the golden rule at a time like this?
 

Phin

Member
No. I love Christianity. I find the idea of "spiritual israel" rupugnant. It's identity theft. I am not a fan of theft, especially identity theft. Do you think it;s OK? If someone stole your name and got a credit card and ran up a debt and it went to collections, would YOU be happy?

Maybe, in theory a Christian would turn the other cheek to identity theft? If that's you position, then I guess it would be OK for the Satanist to ddo what they want to do and trick people into thinking that it's Christianity? They could you know, tell people the names of the demons are angels. And the magic was some form of faith healing. All of it a lie of course, but, they could steal the name, steal the symbols, ( like the matza that was posted in the thread ) and then put on a show, fooliinng people and no one would know.

Regarding the author of Romans, If I recall, Chapter 2 has a remarkable flip-flop in it. The author is clearly confused to me. It doesn't match anything that resembles Word of God prophecy to me, but, it is making dramatic changes to the Hebrew bible.

Naturally as a Jewish person I am opposed to an author and a religion coming to make unauthorized changes to my religion and then claiming MY name.

But I generally have very little problemm with Christianity if it is applied in a reasonable manner. And most Christians seem to be reasonable people. They donn't believe in literally drinking Jesus' blood or literally eating Jesus' flesh. They don't think a person can literally ask for anything in Jesus' name and get it for the glory of the father. They understand that Jewish people have a different religion and a different way that is not wrong. They understand that our approach to scripture is more precise, and we have higher standards for fullfillment of prophecy.

When Christianity is applied that way, I love it. I love the ideas when they are applied in a reasonable way. I don't like twisting the Hebrew bible, looking for loop holes, and escape routes like a criminal, or ways to steal MY name and get away with it. Would you like it if I did that to you?

Where's the golden rule at a time like this?
I don’t know much about the Jewish faith, do you guys believe the whole Old Testament is scripture?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I don’t know much about the Jewish faith, do you guys believe the whole Old Testament is scripture?

Almost all questions of this form are answered on a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum there is a specific answer. Then on the other end of the spectrum is another answer. Then there's a general answer. And many many answers in particular. This can be confusing and frustrating for people who are not used to it or are wanting simple straight forward answers. However! I can help.

In general, all Jewish people are going to object to changes being made to the text itself. We all want there to be meticulous scribes doing perfect letter to letter reproduction of a Torah scroll. This way we have no changes being made to the words, the spacing, the embellishments on the scroll itself.

However, when it comes to "believing it is scripture", The answer is, about 50/50 in America consider it in part Holy in some way. Of the 50% that consider it Holy, I would say around maybe 15% consider it scripture in the form of Word of God prophecy.

Now, it gets complicated. For those 15% The first 5 books are considered the strongest revelation. That means each letter, stroke, blank space on the parchment is coming directly from God. It is like super-duper Holy. Then the prophets are lesser revelations. Some parts are Word of God prophecy, but they are also stories, visions, dreams, etc. Not the same thing as Moses receiving the first five books. Then there's another class of books called "the writings". These are lesser still. I put the book of Psalms in a different category altogether, I consider it simply something else. It's in a class all it's own. But most of those 15% consider it lesser revelation. So Proverbs, and Job, for example. Those are considered lesser revelations. Still important. Still inspired but, not the same.
 

Phin

Member
Almost all questions of this form are answered on a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum there is a specific answer. Then on the other end of the spectrum is another answer. Then there's a general answer. And many many answers in particular. This can be confusing and frustrating for people who are not used to it or are wanting simple straight forward answers. However! I can help.

In general, all Jewish people are going to object to changes being made to the text itself. We all want there to be meticulous scribes doing perfect letter to letter reproduction of a Torah scroll. This way we have no changes being made to the words, the spacing, the embellishments on the scroll itself.

However, when it comes to "believing it is scripture", The answer is, about 50/50 in America consider it in part Holy in some way. Of the 50% that consider it Holy, I would say around maybe 15% consider it scripture in the form of Word of God prophecy.

Now, it gets complicated. For those 15% The first 5 books are considered the strongest revelation. That means each letter, stroke, blank space on the parchment is coming directly from God. It is like super-duper Holy. Then the prophets are lesser revelations. Some parts are Word of God prophecy, but they are also stories, visions, dreams, etc. Not the same thing as Moses receiving the first five books. Then there's another class of books called "the writings". These are lesser still. I put the book of Psalms in a different category altogether, I consider it simply something else. It's in a class all it's own. But most of those 15% consider it lesser revelation. So Proverbs, and Job, for example. Those are considered lesser revelations. Still important. Still inspired but, not the same.
Interesting, thanks for the reply.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Not because of genetics. Anytime you use the word "genetics/Genetics" it is FALSE. Not TRUE.

Pmfji. But this is a crucial point in the discussion. You point out that to be a member of the House of Jacob one needs to be conceived in the womb of a woman who's already a member of the House of Jacob (or convert). Right off the bat we have the question of whether the first male member of the House of Jacob had a mother who was of the House of Jacob? If so, how did his mother become a member of the House of Jacob? If not, how did he become a member of the House of Jacob (without a mother of the House of Jacob)? He can't convert until the House of Jacob is built to be indwelt.

You said it's not genetics. But if a Gentile woman converts such that she becomes a member of the House of Jacob, her womb is converted too so that all off her offspring, atheists and all, down to the end of time, are fancied Jewish. This is an amazing feat that seems to trump genetics up and down. If it's not genetics, what is it that's passed on through the womb of the Jewish woman such that nothing under heaven can interfere in the transfer of this thing ---i.e., membership in the House of Jacob?

Lastly, why is it that if a man converts to Judaism neither his testicles, nor what's in them, gets converted, as was the case with the ova of the woman convert? Why is it that every single one of the ova of a Gentile woman convert gets converted to being of the House of Jacob immediately after she converts, and yet not one single solitary poor little ole sperm cell is affected if a Gentile man converts even if the sperm cell seeks the blessing with tears?



John
 
Last edited:

DNB

Christian
Genesis 32:28

28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.




Does Genetics Only Determine Who Israel Is?

Do you Beleive that there is a Spiritual Israel?

Do you agree that Elohim/God has Ordained Spiritual Israel and Fleshly Israel?

What does it mean to have the Israeli Trait of Power With Elohim/God and With Men?
Israel, in the Old Testament, were those born genetically from Israeli parents ( a father actually), the tribe being determined by the father also. Proselytes could obtain the Jewish heritage by devotion and ritual.
But an Israeli could be rejected from the nation by their blasphemous words or behaviour.

Ultimately, God is the Father of all nations, and the Law does not necessitate that those who uphold it actually love God. Therefore, being an Israelite is a matter of faith and trust in God, not just observing rituals that pertain to the flesh. And this is where the wisdom of the New Testament supersedes that of the Old Covenant, verifying, therefore, its divine auspices.

It was Abraham's faith that deemed him to be righteous, as it was with Noah also, who didn't even have the mark of circumcision.
Love for God is the only authentic form of gaining His favour, and when one acts in faith that God is good and wise will receive His approbation. The acceptance of His Messiah as the Saviour, declares one's faith in God's holiness, wisdom and mercy.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Lastly, why is it that if a man converts to Judaism neither his testicles, nor what's in them, gets converted, as was the case with the ova of the woman convert? Why is it that every single one of the ova of a Gentile woman convert gets converted to being of the House of Jacob immediately after she converts, and yet not one single solitary poor little ole sperm cell is affected if a Gentile man converts even if the sperm cell seeks the blessing with tears?

. . . at its best, philosophy is intellectual reverse engineering, methodically dismantling bad habits of thought that sustain intellectual pandemics and replacing them with better thinking tools.​
Daniel Dennett, I've Been Thinking, p. 383.​

Taking Dennett's statement seriously can help us make sense of concepts that at first glance appear to make no sense at all. If we methodically reverse-engineer rituals, symbols, and ideas, we often see that they're build to last; their engineering is point blank brilliant. Take the fact that when a Gentile woman converts to Judaism, according law and practice, her ova are all converted (or transformed) too. It's literally impossible after her conversion for a Gentile woman who's become a Jew to give birth to a non-Jew.

To reverse-engineer this amazing fact, we need to also know that unlike the woman convert, if a man converts, none of his semen gets converted. In complete contradistinction to the conversion of the woman, none of the man's reproductive apparatus gets converted. They all remain Gentile even though he's converted to Judaism? Proof is in the pudding: None of his offspring will be Jewish because he's converted, not a single one. Only if his wife's ova are already Jewish will he ever have Jewish offspring. That's an utterly amazing fact.

If someone should question the idea that though he's converted to Judaism, his reproductive seed get left behind (in contradistinction to the woman convert), his seed and delivery mechanics all remaining Gentile after the converstion, we need only note that if his Jewish wife divorces him and marries a Gentile male who would never dream of converting, their offspring (his ex-wife and the Gentile husband) will be no less Jewish than the offspring of her and her former ---Jewish---husband. If the man who converted to Judaism marries a Gentile woman who refuses to convert, none of their offspring will be Jewish though he is.

With these religious truism in place, and everything so far is in fact true, our reverse-engineering must ask the logical question associated with the foregoing, which, the question, though it's never been answered well, is part and parcel of disassembling all the parts to see what we have before us before we reassemble them.

Only the "seed of the woman" --the ova of a Jewish woman---transfers Jewish-ness. And since you can't convert to Jewish-ness before you have it to convert to, you clearly need to have Jewish-ness before conversion to it is possible. So how does the first Jewish woman become Jewish so that she can start transferring that blessing to her offspring? The first Jewish woman can't be a convert since there's nothing to convert to if she's the first. And since the seed of the man's serpentine flesh is always Gentile, even after he converts, there's no way in hell he can father the first Jewish woman? So who's the first Jewish woman? And how does she become Jewish?

Believe it or not, there's a ridiculously simple answer to these questions if we simply accept the legitimacy of the existence of all the parts and then put them back together in a logical, scientific, theological, sequence.




John
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
born genetically from Israeli parents ( a father actually )

:thumbsdown:


The wives of the patriarchs converted prior to marriage.

And it's matrilineal descent.

It's a little difficult to see it but here are the verses:
Deuteronomy​
7:3​
ולא תתחתן בם בתך לא־תתן לבנו ובתו לא־תקח לבנך׃​
And you shall not make marriages with them; your daughter you shall not give to his son, nor his daughter shall you take to your son.​
7:4​
כי־יסיר את־בנך מאחרי ועבדו אלהים אחרים וחרה אף־יהוה בכם והשמידך מהר׃​
For they will turn away your son from following me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy you speedily.​

Please notice: The law says "they will turn your son from following me:". They means in both cases above.

Case 1: Your daughter is given to his son. Who is "your son" who is not following anymore? It's the offspring who is considered Israel. In this case "your son" is the grandchild. Therefore, the child born from the Jewish womb, regardless of the father, is Jewish ( In the House of Jacob, aka Israel ).

Case 2: His daughter shall you take to your son. Who is "your son" who is not following anymore? It's literally "your son". The status of the offspring are irrelevant because they are not born to a Jewish womb, regardless of the father.

In either case, the status of the father is irrelevant. That's the law. Matrilineal descent.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I don’t know much about the Jewish faith, do you guys believe the whole Old Testament is scripture?
The Hebrew version of the Tanakh, which is roughly the same group of books as teh Protestant Old Testament but in a different order" is scripture to us -- it is made up of the Torah (Law, first five books), Prophets, and Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, etc.). In addition to the Tanakh, we also have the Oral Torah (the Talmud) and the writings of the sages, such as Rashi, Maimonides, Nachmanides, etc. A person cannot simply read the Old Testament and think they understand Judaism.

At the risk of overgeneralizing, I would say that most religious Jews do not give equal weight to all the books in the Tanakh. The Torah is supposed to be those words that God spoke to Moses, so it has the highest authority. Prophets merely wrote things they received in dreams and visions, so less authority. The writings are less even than that -- you would not want to base theology on the Psalms.

Much of the difference is interpretational. For example, Christians believe the serpent in the Garden was Satan, but Jews do not. Chrisitans think Isaiah 53 is about the messiah, Jews say it is about Israel. You get the idea.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Almost all questions of this form are answered on a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum there is a specific answer. Then on the other end of the spectrum is another answer. Then there's a general answer. And many many answers in particular. This can be confusing and frustrating for people who are not used to it or are wanting simple straight forward answers. However! I can help.

In general, all Jewish people are going to object to changes being made to the text itself. We all want there to be meticulous scribes doing perfect letter to letter reproduction of a Torah scroll. This way we have no changes being made to the words, the spacing, the embellishments on the scroll itself.

However, when it comes to "believing it is scripture", The answer is, about 50/50 in America consider it in part Holy in some way. Of the 50% that consider it Holy, I would say around maybe 15% consider it scripture in the form of Word of God prophecy.

Now, it gets complicated. For those 15% The first 5 books are considered the strongest revelation. That means each letter, stroke, blank space on the parchment is coming directly from God. It is like super-duper Holy. Then the prophets are lesser revelations. Some parts are Word of God prophecy, but they are also stories, visions, dreams, etc. Not the same thing as Moses receiving the first five books. Then there's another class of books called "the writings". These are lesser still. I put the book of Psalms in a different category altogether, I consider it simply something else. It's in a class all it's own. But most of those 15% consider it lesser revelation. So Proverbs, and Job, for example. Those are considered lesser revelations. Still important. Still inspired but, not the same.
That’s a very informative reply! It would be tremendously helpful if you could write the “preface” for the Old Testament for Christian Bibles that represents this general approach to scripture.
 

Phin

Member
The Hebrew version of the Tanakh, which is roughly the same group of books as teh Protestant Old Testament but in a different order" is scripture to us -- it is made up of the Torah (Law, first five books), Prophets, and Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, etc.). In addition to the Tanakh, we also have the Oral Torah (the Talmud) and the writings of the sages, such as Rashi, Maimonides, Nachmanides, etc. A person cannot simply read the Old Testament and think they understand Judaism.

At the risk of overgeneralizing, I would say that most religious Jews do not give equal weight to all the books in the Tanakh. The Torah is supposed to be those words that God spoke to Moses, so it has the highest authority. Prophets merely wrote things they received in dreams and visions, so less authority. The writings are less even than that -- you would not want to base theology on the Psalms.

Much of the difference is interpretational. For example, Christians believe the serpent in the Garden was Satan, but Jews do not. Chrisitans think Isaiah 53 is about the messiah, Jews say it is about Israel. You get the idea.
Thank you for that response, it was very helpful.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
That’s a very informative reply! It would be tremendously helpful if you could write the “preface” for the Old Testament for Christian Bibles that represents this general approach to scripture.

thank you, my friend.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Believe it or not, there's a ridiculously simple answer to these questions if we simply accept the legitimacy of the existence of all the parts and then put them back together in a logical, scientific, theological, sequence.

The answer to the question of who the first Jewish woman is, how her seed is Jewish, and why the male convert can't affect Jewish offspring, is as simple as it is scientifically and theologically correct. The woman and her seed are the default human archetype. Every woman, all ova, are Jewish, every single one of them. There are no Gentile maidens (virgins). A woman only becomes a Gentile if she cohabitates with a non-Jewish male and mother's his offspring. She is a Jew, and all her ova are Jewish, until she, and her ova (the so-called "seed of the woman"), are contaminated with the seed of the male. The seed of the male transforms the Jewish woman, all women, to a Gentile, as it transforms the Jewish ova in her womb to Gentile.

The ancillary reality of this truism is that while every woman is Jewish until she cohabitates with a male (all female virgins are Jewish), all males, virgin or otherwise, are born already contaminated with the toxic-masculinity represented by the concept of the "Gentile," which "Gentile," is best represented by the masculine genitalia. Therefore, for a male to convert so he can become a Jew, he must cut and bleed the emblem of his toxic-masculinity, the Gentile organ, the male genitalia, which is the undeniable deliverer of toxic-masculinity (resulting in the yetzer hara and or the original sin nature). The serpentine flesh is the conduit through which all Gentile existence flows. And this is so much the case that even after a "ritual" ("ritual" being juxtaposed against "real") conversion of the male to Jewishness, he still can't affect Jewish offspring. That's left wholly to the "seed of the woman" which in all cases is Jewish.

But if all women are Jewish until they cohabitate with a man, and if all men are Gentile by default and no fault of their own, then how can Jewish offspring ever be born since men can't father Jews even if they've symbolically ("ritually" not "really") eliminated (brit milah) the Gentile organ that is their serpentine genitalia? Every time a Jewish maiden (all female virgins) cohabitates with a male her ova will be contaminated with the seed of the male since even if she cohabitates with a Jewish male, he has only "ritually" marked his serpentine flesh for extermination. He hasn't actually cut all the way through to the bone of the truth of what the ritual means.

Who, therefore, can save humanity from the fact that what Judaism delivers in its amazing and gracious brilliance, is left dangling as emblems, religious rituals, and signs, none of which "really" affects the fact that the "seed of the man" is in all cases toxic, while the "seed of the woman" is in all cases Jewish, such that the only salvation from death, disease, want, and all that comes with it, is in the "seed of the woman," the Jewish seed, before it's contaminated with the toxic-masculinity that comes from all masculine seed be the deliverer Jew or Gentile?

What if the "seed of the woman" could develop before the husband, Jewish or otherwise, contaminated it? And what if, though it seems impossible, this "seed of the woman" that develops without being contaminated with toxic-masculinity was a male (parthenogenesis generally produces females)? Would this be the first "real" versus "ritual" Jewish male in the history of humanity? Would he be the "reality" signified by the "ritual" removal of the serpentine flesh (brit milah)? Would this be the "seed of the woman" found in Genesis 3:15 and labeled the savior of humanity? And if not, why not?




John
 
Last edited:
Top