Why do Gentiles assume they should follow the ten commandments?

[Jayhawker Soule]

The DSS authors for whatever reason seemed to have a different base of texts and beliefs from their texts than the post-dark age Masoretes.

That statement is at best shallow and grossly misleading. The "DSS authors" had a pluriformity of texts including those designated 'proto-Masoretic.' Furthermore:

... the earliest Qumran finds dating from the third pre-Christian century bear evidence, among other things, of a tradition of the exact copying of texts belonging to the Masoretic family, that is, the proto-Masoretic texts.

... It appears that during the last three pre-Christian centuries many texts were current in Palestine; in other words, this period was characterized by textual plurality. Although this textual plurality was characteristic for all of ancient Israel, it appears that in temple circles there existed a preference for one textual tradition, i.e., the texts of the Masoretic family (see pp. 28-33).

- Tov, pp 190,191

You would benefit from reading Tov and, perhaps, Schiffman.

 

[Shermana]

My point was that the texts themselves were in heavy circulation to the point that the DSS authors at Qumran held and painstakingly scribed copies of them. There was obviously some major acceptance of them at the time or that wouldn't have been the case. Also, I was referring to things like the "Community rule" for their beliefs. When I said "post dark age Masoretes" I was referring to the post dark age Masoretes. Not proto.

And the DSS authors were in different and varying camps and factions. We don't know which ones went with which texts, but that's irrelevant to the point, the point is that the "Apocryphal" texts had a lot of currency in the pre-dark age proto-Masorete beliefs.

Thanks for the book references though. I'll definitely be checking out Schiffman.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My point was ...

Your point was carefully masked by your ignorance of the DSS material. It's interesting that you dismiss Tov.

 

[Harmonious]

I don't think Jesus meant to not seek monetary compensation. When he said "You have heard" he didn't mean to say "You have heard some false and wrong story", he meant to say "You are interpreting it wrong".

Okay. I'm not sure why he would have to say so, as I don't believe any Jewish court ever took this literally.

I'm not saying it originated with him anymore so than Isaiah and Jeremiah's and Ezekiels' rebukes originated with them. We don't know if they had taken this reactionary "eye for an eye" literal policy or not by that time.
We have no way of knowing either way.

You know... The people who transmitted the Mishna were pretty good at explaining when there were differences that were made and why.

I'm pretty sure that if anyone in Jewish legal authority was doing it, we would have heard from someone besides the gospels.

This begins a whole another issue for another thread I suppose, but I believe Jesus was the incarnation of the Highest Angel, who in the Book of Enoch (which was disavowed by Rabbinicsts but apparently well circulated and kept by the DSS before them) serves as a sort of Gatekeeper.

A gatekeeper of prayers is antithetical to the way Jews understand prayer happens.

Even Jews who believe that angels carry the words of prayer to the Heavenly Throne, and judge them on the way, don't need to stop and consider such angels.

The idea that Jesus would have been an angel who said such a thing makes him an arrogant angel. Angels (as demonstrated by the angel who fought with Jacob) don't care to be acknowledged for their work. Jews say a passing "Hello" to them on Friday night, but that's it.

The idea that Jesus as an angel (which I'm not necessarily granting as fact) announced that "no one gets to God but through him" makes him an arrogant angel. And since my belief system doesn't regard angels as having their own freedom of will, this almost proves that Jesus was no angel.

Whatever Jesus was supposed to be, a god, an angel, a man... That very sentence already blows any credibility he might have had out of the water.

Where? In emergency situations like pulling your donkey out of a ditch?

All over the place. People make mistakes. People fall prey to temptation. People make errors in judgment.

People sin by transgressing the forbidden. People sin by omission.

If one sees that they have done wrong (and it doesn't matter much which that thing is) and attempt to fix it, if it in fact can be fixed, they can be forgiven.

I'm not sure I know enough about specific laws regarding animals on Shabbat to properly address the donkey in the ditch, but it seems to be a major point to you. I'm not really sure why.

I don't think I understand what you're saying, unless you're saying that Jesus wasn't carving out exceptions either, which is funny because I have to explain to gentiles often that Jesus wasn't nullifying the Sabbath with his exceptions for emergencies like pulling your donkey out of a ditch.

Oh, good. So you don't seem to be one of THOSE type of Christians.

I don't understand what it is that you believe, but if we seem to agree on this point, we don't need to belabor the point.

You know... Torah law has mitigating circumstances of all kinds. I REALLY don't get why this donkey in the ditch is such a major sticking point for you.

I also don't think I understand what your point is here either. The details in the commandments are to tell us how Heaven wills us to live, what are you saying? Of course there will be mitigating circumstances, that's what Jesus was saying, so long as its not done outside the framework of the Law, as many "Christians' like to think Jesus said the Law itself is undone. I totally agree that each situation is judged according to how one handled it. For instance, honoring your parents is not always a viable option especially in modern days, especially in Reform families that don't teach Torah to begin with.

I'm glad we have another point on which we agree.

This concept I believe has Rabbinical and Mystical basis, including in some of Chassidism and Kabalah, that we must attain perfection to achieve a presence with God in heaven.

You are making a serious mistake in interpretation.

We must WORK to attain perfection. Always. But nowhere does it say that we must ATTAIN perfection.

It says in the Ethics of the Fathers, "It is not upon you to complete the task, but neither are you free to abandon it." (2:16)

It is our job to always strive to do more, to reach higher, to do better. But it is understood that we will never actually REACH perfection, as only God is perfect.

This is also addressed in the aforementioned apocryphal texts to a degree. If you don't think that obeying the Law has to do with achieving perfection, I don't even think the Rabbis agree with you there. This is a reason why I believe (as do many Jews and is in found in Kabalah) in reincarnation. It's not too far off from the Eastern idea of Samsara.

Again, the Torah version of this is not a concept of perfection that means "every last thing was done properly," but that a more mystical understanding of the word is meant.

You might see words to the effect of "perfecting one's self," but it doesn't mean that anything is actually "perfect," but "closer," or even better, "close enough."

Please prove that he actually dismissed a "Jot or tittle" of the Law. Thanks. I have countered your examples so far. What do you have left?

Oh, good heavens. I'll go through and make up the list again, if you need me to.

Off the cuff, however... Having the students pick grain on Shabbat was pretty not good. I want to know why these people were so far from a town that they felt they could not ask for an invitation to someone's home. I want to know why they felt the need to pick grain, which would necessitate a whole BUNCH of transgressions of the Sabbath just to make it vaguely edible.

The answer Jesus gave was nonsensical. Trying to call King David out for eating the Shewbread and saying that this was a comparable thing so that the students could just as easily ignore the fact that they were in a field on Shabbat, and picking grain...

You know, I would have given Jesus more credit if he would have answered the question in an earnest fashion. When they asked why they were picking grain on Shabbat, a useful answer would have been, "We haven't eaten in days, and we didn't want to inconvenience the people in the town." That would have been not only a respectful answer, it would have been a valid answer.

Instead, the answer given was all about who was the master of the Sabbath, an answer that in no way answered the question.

Telling people they should not bury their parents but follow him instead was telling people to ignore honoring their parents.

Do you really want me to go through it and pull more? I can, if you really want me to.

Was it all supposed to be done in one generation? The process has been happening since the days of the Zionists. Is the Messiah supposed to pick up the ones who didn't go or is he supposed to make the process start happening?

Even if the process takes decades, the guy who gets the credit will be the leader who gets the results. Or, will be the guy who is acknowledged to "light the fire" of sorts to get reluctant Jews to make the move back to Israel.

The fact that there are more Jews outside of Israel than inside of Israel is proof enough that the Messiah hasn't come. The fact that there is war in the world is proof that the Messiah hasn't come. The fact that all Jews aren't Orthodox is proof that the Messiah hasn't come.

There is a LOT that needs to happen. And it might not happen all at once. But at the time that it all comes together, the Jewish leader who provides the impetus for it to happen will get the credit, and he will most probably be the Messiah.

Again, this is a whole subject for a detailed debate on an appropriate thread.

Probably.

 

[Harmonious]

Please show where it says it had to be Paternal and not Maternal.

Because the king has to come from the Tribe of Judah, and women don't pass on tribes. Women CHANGE tribes, based on who they are married to.

Men come from the tribe they were born to, even if it means they don't have a tribe.

Jesus, whether you think his biological father is God or a Roman soldier, wasn't a Jewish man whose lineage traces back to King David via his father.

And no, no matter how much an adoptive father loves his child, he cannot pass on his tribe to his son. This is simple Jewish law, and that was covered in Numbers. This isn't even mental gymnastics.

Why? Because of your strawman interpretations?

Because regardless of what you believe Jesus to be, whether a god, or an angel, or a prophet, the fact is that he is irrelevant to the basic theology of Torah life.

Even if he IS an angel, which I don't grant, he is of far less importance to me than, say, Gabriel, or Metatron, or any various "satan" out there.

Some of the things Jesus had to say about divorce are rather distressing, and against Torah law. He said that people who even THINK thoughts of sin have ACTUALLY sinned.

There are MANY things that make it clear to me that any true belief in a use of Jesus is pure heresy, even if it isn't as bad as the belief that Jesus is a "face of god".

Then you wouldn't like what the Talmud often says either, talking about people being boiled in dung in hell and such.

The people being spoken of were long dead when the comment was made. And if you know the passage, then you know it was part of a dream or a vision Onkelos had before he converted to Judaism.

I'm not sure what you had in mind by bringing this image.

Quote exactly.

Sure thing.

Leviticus 19:17 - You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your fellow, but you shall not bear a sin on his account.

This vers prohibits us from embarrassing others even when privately delivering rebuke. Rebuke must be delivered in a tactful manner that will not cause shame. (Erchin 16b)

If you shame someone in public, the crime is so severe that it is punishable by the loss of the World to Come. (Bava Metzia 59a)

(This section of text is from Guard Your Tongue, page 19, under Prohibitions Among the 31 Commandments Relating to Evil Speech.)

Quote the cruelty and quote where he didn't follow Torah, with your examples countered in consideration.

The whole passage with the "Canaanite woman" in Matthew. This was, as far as I'm concerned, completely unforgivable.

The destroying of the fruit tree because it didn't spontaneously produce fruit out of season. During wartime, a time when sieges are important to offensive positions, Jews are permitted to cut down trees to take away the sources of timber, but not fruit trees.

If that is the case during wartime, when circumstances might even seem to mitigate the response, Jesus having a temper tantrum because the tree didn't produce fruit out of season was unnecessarily mean.

He often speaks in riddles, and calls his followers simpletons for not catching his logic. Even if he IS right, and they were simpletons (or whatever epithet meaning less than brilliant), it was hurtful for Jesus to have said so, and a sin for him to have said so.

It is a sin to use words to hurt people. Even if they weren't hurt, because they "understood" where he was coming from, it was a sin for him to say so.

If you really need me to hunt down the verses to show all of this, I will. But I think the stories are familiar enough.

Please explain in detail why he was so crass and what he should have said. Do you think "brood of vipers" is so much worse than what the Rabbis have said about others?

Yup. From where I read it, the name calling was gratuitous and vicious. The words didn't prove a point. They were just mean.

Heck, you should read what they wrote about him?

Considering some of the things he did, and what people have done in his name, I'm really not surprised.

Are they allowed to say some of the nastiest things possible about him and "Christians" in your logic?

Yup. He turned Jews away from Torah. More Jews have been abused harshly if not killed outright in Jesus' name for "not believing", and people have made him into an idol. Perhaps your version of belief in him isn't as bad as others.

There are good reasons for people to have said what they did about him. If it wasn't about him personally, it certainly was about the effects that were born from what he did years, centuries, and millennia afterwards.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I had the opportunity to visit the Jewish ghettos of both Venice and Rome recently. Don't get me started.

 

[Shermana]

Because the king has to come from the Tribe of Judah, and women don't pass on tribes. Women CHANGE tribes, based on who they are married to.

Please show where it says this in the Tanakh, and what it has to do with being a physical descendent of David. I believe that's all the text says on the issue.

Men come from the tribe they were born to, even if it means they don't have a tribe.

Explain how that works.

Jesus, whether you think his biological father is God or a Roman soldier, wasn't a Jewish man whose lineage traces back to King David via his father.

Please prove this.

And no, no matter how much an adoptive father loves his child, he cannot pass on his tribe to his son. This is simple Jewish law, and that was covered in Numbers. This isn't even mental gymnastics.

Of course its mental gymnastics. You have no actual scriptural basis.

Because regardless of what you believe Jesus to be, whether a god, or an angel, or a prophet, the fact is that he is irrelevant to the basic theology of Torah life.

Because you said so? Do you not notice the pattern of not actually backing your bold assertions?

Even if he IS an angel, which I don't grant, he is of far less importance to me than, say, Gabriel, or Metatron, or any various "satan" out there.

Great.

Some of the things Jesus had to say about divorce are rather distressing, and against Torah law. He said that people who even THINK thoughts of sin have ACTUALLY sinned.

Even in Jeremiah it says that marrying a woman after she's remarried is bad because she's "defiled". There are some indications of interpolation on this issue judging by Matthew 19:b.

There are MANY things that make it clear to me that any true belief in a use of Jesus is pure heresy, even if it isn't as bad as the belief that Jesus is a "face of god".

Great. Perhaps you'd like to actually address some that I haven't countered and shown to be strawmen.

The people being spoken of were long dead when the comment was made. And if you know the passage, then you know it was part of a dream or a vision Onkelos had before he converted to Judaism.

Got a link for this opinion?

I'm not sure what you had in mind by bringing this image.

What don't you get?

Sure thing.

Leviticus 19:17 - You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your fellow, but you shall not bear a sin on his account.

Quite an interpretation issue of "not bear a sin on his account".

This vers prohibits us from embarrassing others even when privately delivering rebuke. Rebuke must be delivered in a tactful manner that will not cause shame. (Erchin 16b)

A perfect example of where Talmudic authority makes claims that aren't necessarily indicated by scripture.

If you shame someone in public, the crime is so severe that it is punishable by the loss of the World to Come. (Bava Metzia 59a)

If that's the case, there are a LOT of Jews and Rabbis that are losing their share. Especially Israelis. Another great example of what I was talking about how Talmud adds to Torah what's simply not there.

(This section of text is from Guard Your Tongue, page 19, under Prohibitions Among the 31 Commandments Relating to Evil Speech.)

That isn't in the Torah of course.

The whole passage with the "Canaanite woman" in Matthew. This was, as far as I'm concerned, completely unforgivable.

Why? The context is that Canaanites are "slaves of slaves". Is that not shaming to call them "Slaves of slaves"? Are you saying Moses is unforgivable?

The destroying of the fruit tree because it didn't spontaneously produce fruit out of season. During wartime, a time when sieges are important to offensive positions, Jews are permitted to cut down trees to take away the sources of timber, but not fruit trees.

He didn't really destroy it. He simply caused it to not produce fruit anymore. A bit of a difference.

If that is the case during wartime, when circumstances might even seem to mitigate the response, Jesus having a temper tantrum because the tree didn't produce fruit out of season was unnecessarily mean.

I think Jesus was making an example with a physical parable.

He often speaks in riddles, and calls his followers simpletons for not catching his logic. Even if he IS right, and they were simpletons (or whatever epithet meaning less than brilliant), it was hurtful for Jesus to have said so, and a sin for him to have said so.

If you're concerned about Jews insulting each other, I got news for you....don't go to Israel!

It is a sin to use words to hurt people. Even if they weren't hurt, because they "understood" where he was coming from, it was a sin for him to say so.

Where exact;y in the Torah does it say to not use words to hurt people? The example you used isn't very clear cut, you had to use a Talmudic opinion that isn't necessarily supported by the text. You should see the things that the Talmud says about Jesus!

If you really need me to hunt down the verses to show all of this, I will. But I think the stories are familiar enough.

There's a reason I said quote it.

Yup. From where I read it, the name calling was gratuitous and vicious. The words didn't prove a point. They were just mean.

Well that's your opinion.

Considering some of the things he did, and what people have done in his name, I'm really not surprised.

People have done bad things in the name of every religion, does that mean the religion condones it? I don't see anything he did that was that bad. Context is king. Strawmen get burned down.

Yup. He turned Jews away from Torah.

Where? How? Who? You mean Paul?

More Jews have been abused harshly if not killed outright in Jesus' name for "not believing", and people have made him into an idol. Perhaps your version of belief in him isn't as bad as others.

What has been done in Jesus's name has as much to do with Jesus as the Zealots who slaughtered Greeks in Cyprus during the Rebellions against Rome in the Kitos war to Moses.

There are good reasons for people to have said what they did about him. If it wasn't about him personally, it certainly was about the effects that were born from what he did years, centuries, and millennia afterwards.

Okay, so as long as there's justification, it's okay to completely ignore all the rules you said about how to talk to people and about name calling and harsh words. Got it. By your logic, would the families of the slaugtered Greek civiliaans be justified in condemning Moses due to the actions of a few Zealots?

 

[Levite]

We must WORK to attain perfection. Always. But nowhere does it say that we must ATTAIN perfection.

It says in the Ethics of the Fathers, "It is not upon you to complete the task, but neither are you free to abandon it." (2:16)

It is our job to always strive to do more, to reach higher, to do better. But it is understood that we will never actually REACH perfection, as only God is perfect.

Again, the Torah version of this is not a concept of perfection that means "every last thing was done properly," but that a more mystical understanding of the word is meant.

You might see words to the effect of "perfecting one's self," but it doesn't mean that anything is actually "perfect," but "closer," or even better, "close enough."

QFT.

This is incredibly key. Judaism is a religion of surprising pragmatism with regard to human limitations and fallibilities. It seeks to create a way of life that is both doable and comfortable for the average Jewish person, and also prods them gently toward self-improvement.

To ever expect true perfection of any kind from a human being is profoundly unreasonable, since it is an expectation that can never be achieved. We hold that God knows and accepts our limitations-- having, after all, created us this way-- and His expectations are given accordingly.

 

[Harmonious]

[FONT=&quot]There is too much here, and I'm not even sure I'll do this point by point. I may not cover everything.

Please show where it says this in the Tanakh, and what it has to do with being a physical descendent of David. I believe that's all the text says on the issue.

Really? You know, the whole "scepter shall not be removed from Judah" thing? And King David was the first king of Israel from the Tribe of Judah. (King Saul was from Benjamin.)

Father to son. That IS how dynasties work.

Are you serious about not being clear on this?

Explain how that works.

A Jewish man whose father is a Cohen will be a Cohen. A Jewish man whose father is a Levi will be a Levi. A Jewish man whose father is from the tribe of Benjamin will be from the tribe of Benjamin.

A man who is a convert to Judaism doesn't have a tribe when he gets here. He is a beloved Jew, but he doesn't belong to a tribe.

Please prove this.

If Jesus' biological father wasn't from the tribe of Judah, as the rule that applies to every other Jewish man in existence, Jesus wasn't from the tribe of Judah.

If you believe in the virgin birth, God certainly wasn't descended from King David.

A non-Jewish man, even if he was descended, wouldn't be counted, because only Jews get tribal affiliation.

No matter how you slice it, unless you honestly believe that Jesus was fathered by a Jewish man, Jesus cannot be considered from the tribe of Judah.



Are you telling me that you haven't read the passage concerning the daughters of Zelphchad? If you are, go and read it. It is in Numbers, and starts at 26:33.

It explains much. Once you have read it, get back to me.

Because you said so? Do you not notice the pattern of not actually backing your bold assertions?

Not "just because I said so." I've lived all my life.

Before I became Orthodox, Jesus was nothing but a curiosity from the beliefs of my non-Jewish neighbors. Once I became Orthodox, my Rabbis were a bit hostile about him, but by and large, he was nothing but a curiosity. The belief in him caused untold pain and suffering in all kinds of people, but few suffered as much as the Jews, who were specifically persecuted because "we rejected him."

There is no part of my life that is made better by the existence of Jesus.

In any of the learning that I've done about Jewish law and Jewish philosophy, the only time Jesus comes up is when I talk to Christians. There was that bit in Jewish history when we covered the Second Temple, and Jesus was honestly not more than a footnote.

I think that of the in depth learning I've done over the years, if Jesus was at all useful, he would have come up as something more than a footnote.

But you know... If you want to argue belief, that is pointless. You believe one thing, I believe another. Nothing we say can actually CHANGE that, so pointlessly saying "Because you said so?" only proves that you can't be man enough to say "So our belief systems don't seem to match up."


[/FONT]

 

[Harmonious]

[FONT=&quot]

Got a link for this opinion?

You brought up the passage from the Talmud. Obviously you know where you got it from. You find it.

In context... The story was about when Onkelos was converted (dude - he was MENTIONED by name, including that he was the son of Hadrian), he asked in the dream or vision various leaders who he met in the world to come whether or not he should convert. Nebuchadnezzar, who was eternally boiling in water, said to stay far away from the Jews. He tried to overpower the Jews and destroyed the Temple, and look what happened to him.

He came and saw Titus, who was being eternally boiled in urine, and asked the same question. He mentioned what he had done, destroying the Second Temple, and that he should stay away from the Jews.

By the time of Hadrian, it was at least a couple hundred years after the destruction of the Temple, so we can safely say that Jesus was dead. (Or, if you must... At least he was killed once, never mind the resurrection.) So, when Onkelos asked Jesus about whether or not he should convert to Judaism, (and yes, he was being boiled eternally in feces,) he said quite desperately that he absolutely should convert to Judaism, as the Jews had the real truth. He tried to cut corners with it, and he regretted it. If he would have done right by the Jews and taught Torah properly... Yes, he highly recommended that Onkelos convert to Judaism.

That is the passage in a nutshell. You would have seen that, if you did more than just see that "Jesus was spoken about badly."

Since the story probably happened once the spread of Christianity was a bit more far flung, and there was cause for Jews to resent what Christians were doing to Jews in Jesus' name, the story in Agadita represented more of that.

So yes. Jesus was long dead by the time the story was mentioned in the Talmud.

What don't you get?

Your point in bringing up the image of "people being dunked in dung in hell." You obviously brought it up for some purpose.

I don't know why you mentioned it.

[/FONT]

 

[Harmonious]

[FONT=&quot]

Quite an interpretation issue of "not bear a sin on his account".

Yup. It counts quite heavily in the learning about "guarding one's tongue from evil speech."

A perfect example of where Talmudic authority makes claims that aren't necessarily indicated by scripture.

Of COURSE it's not in scripture. Torah doesn't talk about the World to Come.

This is one of those things that God told Moses, and was handed down through the ages.

If you don't believe it, bully for you. No one said you had to believe in the Torah perspective on anything.

If that's the case, there are a LOT of Jews and Rabbis that are losing their share. Especially Israelis.

Apparently. That was a serious concern when the Chofetz Chaim wrote his works, corralling the laws of evil speech to make them easier to learn.

It's been a problem. One that is probably the continuing cause of the Jewish exile even now.

That isn't in the Torah of course.

:slap:

Of course it's not. It is in a book, which has in it a collection of laws on "guarding one's tongue from evil speech", and since I didn't come up with it (as I learned this particular law from this book), I cited my source.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

[/FONT]

 

[Harmonious]

[FONT=&quot]

Even in Jeremiah it says that marrying a woman after she's remarried is bad because she's "defiled". There are some indications of interpolation on this issue judging by Matthew 19:b.

I'd be far more impressed if you showed me where in Jeremiah it says so.

Marrying a woman after she's been divorced... I want to see where Jeremiah says that said woman is defiled.

Why? The context is that Canaanites are "slaves of slaves". Is that not shaming to call them "Slaves of slaves"?

No. It is not. Canaan, son of Ham, WAS a slave, as God proclaimed him so in His curse.

In a passage describing why God didn't want Abraham to have his son Isaac marry from these people, it mentioned a nation of people. No individuals were harmed emotionally when God spoke this command to Abraham.

Even though his servant Eliezer was a Canaanite man, Abraham was not as crass as to say, "You are a slave from a slave race, and so no, your daughter will never marry my son."

Abraham made Eliezer promise to visit Bethu'el, to look for Rebecca for a wife for Isaac, without casting aspersions or humiliating Eliezer in any way. He was a trusted servant, being paid to do a task.

Later, after the Exodus, it mentions the sins that the people were committing, further explaining why Jews should not have anything to do with the Seven Canaanite nations.

By the time the Ten Tribes were exiled, all of the other peoples in the area were displaced. So, no one knew who was from where, and the whole "people descended from this town of Canaanite people" was no longer in effect.

But if a human being came to ask for help, and this person was personally humiliated and humbled to the point of the woman needing to "play the game" in order to get the assistance she sought in the first place... That is cruel and evil.

Are you saying Moses is unforgivable?

No.

He didn't really destroy it. He simply caused it to not produce fruit anymore. A bit of a difference.

Not really. It was a functionally dead tree because Jesus had a temper tantrum, because a tree did not act outside of the realm of nature.

That was just mean.

I think Jesus was making an example with a physical parable.

Regardless, it was still plain mean.

[/FONT]

 

[Harmonious]

[FONT=&quot]

If you're concerned about Jews insulting each other, I got news for you....don't go to Israel!

You know... I never said that each and every Jew was a paragon of virtue. But then again, it isn't each and every Jew who is central to my belief system.


[/FONT]

 

[Harmonious]

[FONT=&quot]

Where exact;y in the Torah does it say to not use words to hurt people?

I hope you will allow me to use the collection of verses in "Guard Your Tongue", where I spent time learning this. The collection isn't "The Torah," but it mentions verses that are.

The commentary explains how JEWS understand these verses. If you don't wish to accept our interpretation, that's up to you.

Leviticus 19:16
You shall not go about as a talebearer among your people.

This is the prohibition dealing specifically with evil speech and gossip mongering. Evil speech is the term used for a derogatory or damaging statement. Gossip mongering is the term used for a report that someone has spoken or acted against the listener. Both are prohibited even when true. Just as a peddler goes from house to house selling his wares, so too, a habitual gossip goes from person to person picking up and leaving behind tidbits of derogatory information about others.

Exodus 23:1
You shall not utter a false report.

This verse is also rendered as "You shall not accept a false report." This prohibition bans the speaking or accepting of evil speech.

Deuteronomy 24:8
Take heed concerning the plague of Tzara'at.

It is explained that this verse refers to evil speech which is (or was at one time) punishable by the infliction of Tzara'at. (Tzara'at is often but wrongly and badly translated as "leprosy." It is not. Leprosy is a physical illness. Tzara'at is a sickness that was caused only by a religious malady, and was treated with spiritual means.)

Leviticus 19:14
Before the blind do not put a stumbling block.

This verse prohibits us from placing a spiritual stumbling block in the path of others. If someone causes another to sin, he violates this prohibition. By speaking or listening to evil speech, you not only sin yourself, but also cause others to transgress.

Deuteronomy 8:11
Beware lest you forget Hashem, your God.

This is the prohibition against being conceited. One who ridicules others is generally motivated by feelings of superiority. If he were aware of his own faults, he would surely not deprecate others.

[/FONT]

 

[Harmonious]

Leviticus 22:32
You shall not profane My Holy Name.

We are warned not to cause a profanation of God's name. There are a number of aspects to this prohibition. If a person commits a transgression without deriving physical benefit from it, it is considered a revolt against God and a profanation of His Name. Speaking evil speech is in this category.

Another aspect of the profanation of God's Name involved in evil speech is the laxity shown towards this commandment.

(Yes, you have figured out that Jews have a problem with this commandment. The Chofetz Chaim, whose work this adaptation is based off of, figured this out long before any of us were born.)

Leviticus 19:12
You shall not hate your brother in your heart.

If you act in a friendly manner towards someone in his presence but speak against him behind his back, you violate this prohibition. This prohibition refers only to concealed hatred. When you openly tell someone about your dislike for him, you do not transgress this prohibition, but are guilty of not fulfilling the commandment of loving a fellow Jew. (Assuming this is talking about Jews, as the book's target audience is Jews. Still, the love can most definitely be shared with others.)

Leviticus 19:18
You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children. of your people.

If you are angry at someone because he refused to grant you some favor and in revenge you speak evil speech about him, you have violated these two prohibitions, in addition to having spoken evil speech. For recalling that person's refusal to render you assistance, you are guilty of bearing a grudge. For slandering him, you are guilty of taking vengeance.

Deuteronomy 19:15
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin.

In a Jewish ecclesiastical court, in a case against a person in a non-financial matter, two witnesses are necessary to bring testimony. Therefore, if only one person brings
testimony, it does no good - it only ruins the reputation of the person it is spoken about. That is the nature of this prohibition.

Exodus 23:2
You shall not follow a multitude to do evil.

If you join a group to speak or hear evil speech, you violate this prohibition.

Numbers 17:5
You shall not act similar to Korach and his company.

This verse prohibits us from maintaining disputes. (You know that cute scene in the beginning of "Fiddler on the Roof," where Tevya mentions the disagreement over whether one man sold another a horse or a donkey? By starting the whole mess up all over again, that is a relatively harmless example of this prohibition. The usual examples of the implications of this verse are usually a lot more serious.)

Leviticus 25:17
You shall not wrong one another.

This verse forbids us to say anything that will insult or anger another person. Some examples of this would be:

1) reminding a person about his previous misdeeds.
2) embarrassing someone for his family background (mentioning it for legal purposes is one thing. Simply tossing it around to embarrass the person is forbidden. )
3) ridiculing someone for his lack of Torah knowledge
4) insulting someone for his lowly status (like that Canaanite woman)
5) asking someone how he would answer a certain question when you know that he is not competent to reply.
If you relate evil speech to others in the presence of the victim, besides being guilty of speaking evil speech, you violate this prohibition.


Leviticus 19:17
You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your fellow, but you shall not bear a sin on his account.

This verse prohibits us from embarrassing others even when privately delivering rebuke. Rebuke must be delivered in a tactful manner that will not cause shame.

If you shame someone in public, the crime is so severe that it is punishable by the loss of the World to Come.



Exodus 22:21
Any widow or orphan shall you not afflict.
If you speak evil speech about widows or orphans in their presence, no matter what their social or financial position, you violate this prohibition.


Numbers 35:33
You shall not pollute the land wherein you are.
This verse forbids us to flatter a wrongdoer. If you know that Reuven dislikes someone, the correct thing to do is to admonish (gently) Reuven for his hatred. By speaking evil speech to Reuven about his enemy in order to find favor in his eyes, you violate this prohibition.


Leviticus 19:14
You shall not curse the deaf.
The verse forbids us to curse others with God’s name. (Any of them.) It applies even to a deaf person. All the more so are we forbidden to curse someone who is able to hear. If you are speaking evil speech about someone in anger, you are apt to curse him.


There are more, but I think that’s enough to be going on with.

 

[Harmonious]

There's a reason I said quote it.

Perhaps in another post. But before I do, please remind me of which stories I’m quoting. I will, but I’ve said a lot between when I first mentioned it and now.

Well that's your opinion.

I’m glad you think so. However, the more I read that passage, I couldn’t see any constructive criticism in it. Maybe you can show me HOW that passage was in any way more useful than an insult-fest against Rabbis, elders, and whoever else seemed to come under the gun there.

People have done bad things in the name of every religion, does that mean the religion condones it?

Couldn’t say. However, I can tell you that for centuries, Christianity was considered synonymous with “these people are going to persecute us, or exile us, or kill us just because.”
Was it Jesus’ fault? No, but you can hardly fault people for believing so when the last words you hear before you are painfully killed involve “for the sin of not believing in Jesus our savior”…

I don't see anything he did that was that bad.

I’ve mentioned LOTS of things he did that were bad. Not as bad as the people slaughtering Jews (and others) in his name, true. But he did MANY things that were bad.

Where? How? Who? You mean Paul?

No, Jesus. I told you about Shabbat and other things.

Okay, so as long as there's justification, it's okay to completely ignore all the rules you said about how to talk to people and about name calling and harsh words. Got it.

Not really. If people are specifically mentioning how Jesus said that the Jews are evil because of whatever it was he said (he’s particularly nondiscriminant in his insults against Jews in general in John), and took them to heart…
Yeah. It pretty much was Jesus’ fault.

 

[roberto]

According to the OT, Judaism is God's "brand." According to Matthew and the early church (no offense to my Jewish friends) Xy is God's true brand.

Are you following your own brand, then? Because both Judaism and Xy are about the community -- not the individual.

Nope, you get coffee but coffee is sold in various brands. I grow my own coffee in the backyard.

 

[Shermana]

[FONT=&quot]Yup. It counts quite heavily in the learning about "guarding one's tongue from evil speech."

Of COURSE it's not in scripture. Torah doesn't talk about the World to Come.

This is one of those things that God told Moses, and was handed down through the ages.

If you don't believe it, bully for you. No one said you had to believe in the Torah perspective on anything.

Apparently. That was a serious concern when the Chofetz Chaim wrote his works, corralling the laws of evil speech to make them easier to learn.

It's been a problem. One that is probably the continuing cause of the Jewish exile even now.

:slap:

Of course it's not. It is in a book, which has in it a collection of laws on "guarding one's tongue from evil speech", and since I didn't come up with it (as I learned this particular law from this book), I cited my source.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

[/FONT]

I don't understand why you'd think I'm being obtuse, and then you say "one doesn't need to follow the Torah perspective" while citing a non-Torah Talmudic perspective. In all your examples you've shown twisted interpretations of how to condemn Jesus for his words that aren't at all in correct context, I fail to see how those would actually apply, and when asked for examples you simply say you gave MANY examples when in fact you didn't, and then you said that it's okay to make such comments when it's justified!!! So I could just as easily say Jesus was justified.

No, Jesus. I told you about Shabbat and other things.

You did? I thought I was quite clear that Jesus did not break Shabbat whatsoever, where did you prove me wrong when I pointed out that even Rabbis today allow life saving surgery on Sabbath? Do you think picking grain and eating it on the spot on Sabbath is prohibited? It's not exactly chopping wood and carrying a heavy load. So if you want to insist that you've proven Jesus did even break the Torah and teach other Jews to do so, you'll have to do more than just insist.

Leviticus 25:17
You shall not wrong one another.

This verse forbids us to say anything that will insult or anger another person. Some examples of this would be:

Which translation are you using? It is to not oppress or take advantage of another person. If you don't believe me, the word can be used in noun form for "oppressor". Perhaps Levite can give his take on whether it means to "spread bad feelings" or "oppress/take advantage of/unduly dominate".

I will feed your oppressors with their own flesh, I

Isaiah 49:26

[FONT="]Regardless, it was still plain mean. [/FONT]

The poor fig tree, I'm sure it was crying and complaining to all the trees that day how bad Jesus treated him. His sap boiled with anger. The Olive Trees sighed with grief. It was so mean of Jesus to use the fig tree as a physical demonstration of his parables.

I think my work is done here. If you want to discuss and debate this in detail I'd suggest you make a specific thread, until then you haven't really demonstrated how Jesus fits the criteria for breaking the Torah without having to rely on Talmudic sources to begin with. Hence my original point. The bait worked apparently.

 

[Levite]

until then you haven't really demonstrated how Jesus fits the criteria for breaking the Torah without having to rely on Talmudic sources to begin with.

I don't know why Harmonious ought to not rely on Talmudic sources. Oral Torah is still Torah.

 

[Shermana]

I don't know why Harmonious ought to not rely on Talmudic sources. Oral Torah is still Torah.

That kinda goes into what I was saying earlier that the Talmudic version of Judaism is not necessarily the same as pre-Talmudic Ancient Judaism, there's simply no way of proving that it's the same beliefs. We only know that the ancient Israelites had the written Torah and we have some Midrash and extracanonical writings, many of which I go by such as "Pseudo-Philo". Such is worthy of discussion on another, specified thread.