Talk Elections

This is a copy of Xahar's thread on Islam.  Anyone who has any questions about Judaism is welcome to come here and ask questions, hopefully I'll have the answer or another fellow Jew will answer for me :)

Sorry, but what exactly is the question?

Why would Hitler or Stalin spend eternity in heaven?

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I believe that as long as someone repents their sins before they die, then they spend eternity with God.  So, to clarify, Hitler and Stalin would not spend eternity with God unless they repented.  God has said that He will forgive anyone, so long as they repent.

So what happens to the unrepentant?

I honestly don't know.

Why don't you believe Jesus is the Messiah? He has all of the qualities of one.

From a Jewish standpoint, he has none of the qualities. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=68847.0

That's a pretty loaded question.

Yeah, but it's an easy one to answer.

I mean that's what I don't get about Judaism...Christianity and Islam...say whatever else you'd like about them, you can kinda get why it pays to be a Christian (or in some circles, uphold the spirit of jesus taught even if you aren't one) or to be a Muslim (or as Xahar has pointed out, a reverant person of the book)...you get rewarded, and if you aren't, there are consequences...

as for Judaism, there doesn't seem, other than the cultural/nationalistic aspects, to be a reason why one should be jewish in faith as opposed to anything else...it seems everyone ends up in the same place, and even that God doesn't award perks to His people...

I might be totally off base, but thats what i've seen thus far from your explainations (and don't worry too much, I get similar explainations from my jewish friends.)

Sorry I can't give a more detailed answer; it's a question I've always had too.

I think that God has had a different covenant with each people, which each people are (is?) expected to follow. If you're a Jew, not following Judaism is sinning?

I've never known my religion to have much concern with heaven/hell/afterlife. I believe one rabbi said that the focus of Judaism is to live the current life. Then again, i'm reform, so my beliefs are rather liberal. I can answer some questions too!

Sweet!  Another Reform Jew! :)

How is it loaded? I just want to know why. I never seriously got that one.

If you look at the link I provided in my previous response, you'll notice that Jesus did not perform any of the requirements to be a Jewish Messiah.  That is why we do not believe he is the Messiah.

You could argue that in effect he fufilled some of those promises, but it doesn't matter. Just be oepn too Jesus a little. It isn't like he is bad.

We don't believe that Jesus was at all bad; just that he wasn't the Messiah.  And no, you cannot argue that he fulfilled some of the promises, since not one of them has come true.  Also, the Messiah is supposed to be a man, not the Son of God.

The Roman Empire did fall, with Arian Chrisitans, so in effect Jesus caused it. Israel is now a modern state thanks to Chrisitans.

Well...i saw the post you wrote about the supposed requirements for the Hebrew messiah, and the only question I can raise is, how literally does one have to take those requirements...

But, the fall of Rome was not some sort of Christian revolution, it was a large variety of factors.  Also, none of the other requirements have been fulfilled as of yet.


We take these requirements literally, word for word.

You are like Fundies, lol.

Which is interesting that you'd take such a strict standard with that, yet take many elements in the torah as allegory...

I mean its not a simple matter of, on one hand the book states a historical fact and on the other is allegory and thus you can take the facts word for word

you have prophecy on one side, facts on another, and allegory (genesis etc) on yet another...

Why must you take the prophecies word for word?

Orthodox Jews take the entire Torah literally, although they may consider some details differently.  For example, I don't think they believe the world was created in 6 24 hour days.

Judaism is usually viewed as a race by many Orthodox Jews, rather than a religion. It it not evangelical, and Judaism is not supposed to be a religion people join. Although conversion is permitted, it is not promoted. Reform Jews believe it is more of a religion, but still it is not evangelical, but rather the literal idea of a Jew is not as precise.

For example if child A has a Jewish mother and a Christian father, but is raised as a Christian, then an Orthodox Jew would tend to consider child A a Jew, even though child A believes in Christianity because a Jew cannot lose their identity. However a Reform Jew will tend to believe that child A is a Christian.

If child B has a Christian mother and a Jewish father, and is raised as a Jew, then that child is considered Jewish by Reform Jews, but not a Jew in the Orthodox community because child B is not born of maternal Jewish heritage.

(i'm child B, so I'm Reform...)

I'm a Reform Jew, though both of my parents are Jews, and my mother was raised as a Conservative Jew.

I have had a lot of contact with jews and jewish culture, I've always enjoyed it.

My grandmother is a bloodline jewess, but she was raised a lutheran and converted to Catholism.

I like the intellectual side of it, which is sorely lacking in Christianity. But I love ham/bacon/prescuito and seafood... and especially dislike the idea of a scalpel. So no deal.

Just FYI, the word Jewess is no longer in general usage.

I know, but it still gets used around the family.

Interesting. I felt like I was reading Mein Kampf.

Yes, I have a question. What precisely is Conservative Judaism?

I really think that you have to be looking to be offended to have assumed that.

Maybe if it was some stranger, but I think PolNut's mistake was honest.

Unfortunately, nobody notices when I exaggerate for humorous effect. :'(

Oh, sorry :P

Long day.

I know what you mean. ;)

More stringent than Reform, less than Orthodox.

This Judaism's just right! (I was raised Conservative)

BTW - My grandmother... before she started to forget who she was, always referred to herself as a former jewess.

But when I'm with my jewish friends I don't tend to use that word.

I feel like bumping this thread.

Good.  My opinion of Judaism has cratered in six months.  I now strongly support banning gefilte fish.  Since I don't know what that looks like, I'm just going to go ahead and ban all fish.

Why has your opninion cratered?  I agree about the fish, btw.

I have a complex mathematical algorithm.  It takes my current opinion of Lorne Michaels, subtracts what I'll call the "Wolf Blitzer Index," and divides that by the number of times my dad has used conversational Yiddish incorrectly this month.

Interesting.

I'll admit that I still haven't figured out how to work in the Sammy Davis, Jr., effect.  For obvious reasons, that throws the whole thing out of whack.

Indeed.  Don't forget Mel Brooks and Larry David.

Positive overall. But I still personally think they missed the proverbial boat.

()

That's the most angular fish I've ever seen!  It's an abomination.

     I have mixed feelings about Judaism. Most people I know that are Christian or Muslim I consider to be good friends. As far as Jews go, half of them are good friends & half of them are blood enemies.

     As far as the religion itself goes, I have no real opinion about it. One of the advantages of being Atheistic. ;)

And I still think you guys jumped the proverbial gun.

     & I still think both of you guys are on the proverbial wild goose chase.

So say you.

Question:

A friend of mine and myself passed by this Jewish temple in my neighborhood, once.  I'm fairly certain they are Conservative.  She wanted to go in and take a look, but I didn't think that was such a good idea.  She said that she couldn't see why they would mind us going in to look at the place, after all, she reasoned, Catholic Churches allow don't mind.

Me knowing that that's not exactly the way the world works again stated that I didn't know what the custom was and thought it would be a bad idea for us to just pop in.

Any thoughts?

As far as I know, they wouldn't have minded, although if you entered the Sanctuary, they may have required you to wear a Kippah, and if it was Orthodox, you and your friend would've had to be on the opposite sides of the room (since services are gender split).

Thank you.

Anytime :)

As Ben said, they would probably make you wear a head covering in the Sanctuary, but otherwise, Temples/Synagogues tend to be very open as long as you aren't obviously dangerous.  I wouldn't suggest popping into an Orthodox one, just because you'd stand out so thoroughly and the Orthodox tend to be a pretty insular bunch, but Reform and Conservative congregations are usually not only willing but eager to interface with the outside world.  After all, those are the branches of Judaism that value blending in with the Gentile world and take great pains to avoid seeming alien or unwelcoming.

It might not have helped that I had just eaten bacon and cheese before we passed it.  :)

But I ate it at a Jewish owned bagel place... go figure.

The Venn diagram of Judaism as an ethnicity versus a religion always fascinates me, since I feel the vibes very faintly as an near atheist "WASP." Where does ethnicity and 'tribalism" end and religion begin, or visa versa?

If I am a conservative Jew, what am I politically?

Heh

Seriously now, I am a Jew, but I seem like I practice less of my religion every day.  I used to go to Shabbat services every day, but now I just go to Temple on high holidays.  Keeping Kosher has been tough for me, but I still do it just because I know I would be letting my family down and would feel extremely guilty if I stopped.

A lot of it has to do with laziness, I say.

Nice joke.

Seriously, though, probably a hawkish socially-and-economically-moderately-liberal Democrat who doesn't want his kids to be gay or his daughter to have an abortion but doesn't want those banned.

Change it to moderately-conservative Republican, and you're right on the money. ;) 

Really? It shouldn't be too hard.

Depends on how strict you are.  My friend doesn't eat shellfish or pork, but she says she can't do the no meat/milk thing, because it's too hard to remember.  There are a lot of laws, so it gets easier the more lax you are.

Not mixing dairy products and meat in a meal is intense.  My friends who do it have to constantly be on their watch.  A chicken caesar salad isn't kosher!

Also, having to make sure any animal you eat was bled.  That guarantees that you can only be comfortable buying meat from the kosher butcher.

Most people I know who are serious about keeping kosher end up becoming at least functional vegetarians, because it simplifies everything.

Exactly.  And I have to separate my silverware and plates in according to if they are meat or dairy.

My friend tried doing that for a while, but she says the rest of her family, especially her younger sister weren't able to do it.

     Ah yes, milk & meat. If I were Jewish, I would convert to something else as soon as possible because of that. I couldn't imagine life without cheeseburgers. :P

...Are they good?

*waiting for obvious response*

     . . . Depends on the cheeseburger. ;)

Well when you are a jew you are suppose to have a light inside of you and each time you sin the light gets dimmer. And you only have one time of year to0 repent.

If you are a jew but dont exactly follow all the 300 sum laws you are not sinning. Basically as long as you respect your parents and follow the right morals you are a good jew.

     What is this time of year that you repent? I know that Atheists repent on April 15. ;)

Do you find BLT Bagels ironic?

PiT (The Physicist)
 It is called Yom Pippur.

Falafel with bacon is awesome.  Mega-awesome.

     I assume you still repent on April 15 as well, right? ;)

It's Yom Kippur, not Yom Pippur, and this year it's October 8-9.

yup it is so fun. whoo hoo!!!

     What else do you do on Yom Kippur?

ya starve.

     Sounds fun. :P So it's like Ramadan (aside from being only one day)?

yup.every religion is always based off one another.

     Well, Judaism & Islam are both Semitic religions, so it's not surprising that they would have similarities.

I think alll religions do. People just try to think they are diff.

     Some religions are more similar than others, though. Christianity has more in common with Islam than it does with Zen Shinto methinks.

But they are all based on being polite and to respect others.

     Depends on who those "others" are. No one up until about 200 years ago has really had any desire to respect the underprivileged.

to some degree there is always respect wether it is noticed or goes unnoticed.

     Tell me how much respect you see in the news story mentioned in this topic (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=80632.0).

That is not humanly. Jeez. Religions do not say to harass someone do they?

     Usually, no. Hinduism's attitude towards the undercaste is pretty terrible though. Not to mention that rather fascist interpretations of Christianity & Islam have arisen.

Correct, all Holy Books are full of peace and love and all religions are the exact same in this regard.  Honor Killings don't happen.  "God Hates Fags" doesn't happen.  The inquisition didn't happen.  Only black people were lynched.

wow, this discussion has been truly enlightening :p

But seriously though, what's the deal with the snippy snippy? That's genital mutilation of the unconsentable in my books.

A life without shrimp, crabs, clams, mussels, raw oysters or pork chops & apple sauce doesn't seem like much of an enjoyable life. :P

     That & no cheeseburgers are the two main reasons that I would hate it if I were Jewish.

well yeh I see. sucks for boys. he he.

     Easy for you to say. You're not a boy. :P

Yup!!!! does not effect me hence the heheheheheh!!!!!!!!

Female circumcision is quite prevalent among many ethnic groups in Africa, so hehehe right back at you :p

Please get out of my thread :P

     For some reason, I doubt many of those ethnic groups are Jewish. :P

While you're here, dcunited15, what's with the "chow chow" signature?

     She's going to the Sierra Nevada for a few days to bond with her mother. I would assume it refers to the breed of dog, but I never asked her.

hehe

doesn't make it more or less right in my books.

And I don't have a problem with my lack of a foreskin. :)

Not to make the (inappropriate) comparison, but evidently many/most of the FGM-practicing Africans "don't have a problem" with it either.  That's the danger of ethical decisions made on personal/cultural preference.

Oh, of course. But there are plenty of worse things to combat.

Depending on where your antecedent's going there, I might disagree strongly, or agree lukewarmly.  I'm going to assume you're not downplaying FGM, so it's probably the agree one.  :P

My opinion is that FGM is one of the greatest cultural horrors outside of genocide today.  It may not be the worst, but it's up there.  I think male circumcision and lesser forms of female genital cutting are unethical, but not at the same level.  That doesn't mean they should continue, but they probably shouldn't be the focus of limited resources.

Yeah, FGM is certainly a problem. I agree there.

Considering FGM is often performed for perverted sexual purposes (for the man) and can lead to profuse bleeding and infection and is often performed with the passive or even active consent of the mother/women in the family then yes it is worse than MGM

However I have issues with MGM too particularly as it seems to be carried out for no reason other than habit. However I can't imagine men suffer as a result and of course as circumcision can help alleviate erectile problems.

Of course, I'm not circumcised so I don't know the experience of having it done.

Very few people in the West do. I was 2 days old when I had it done.

     As I recall, it's about 60% in the United States, & about half of that in the Western United States. I myself am not circumcised. Circumcision has become much less common in Canada, the UK, & Australia in recent years.

Well to be fair those ladies lose the ability to enjoy sex and they live in a society that doesn't take kindly to the women folk bitching about things.  Boys circumcised can still enjoy sex and if we really didn't like it much, we have the freedom to bitch about it and make it stop.  The two aren't even close to being the same thing.  Calling what they do to these little girls "circumcision" would be like calling a hysterectomy a prostrate removal.

edit-the last line was funky

That's why I said a comparison would be "inappropriate."  Lumping FGM together with male circumcision, or lesser forms of female genital cutting, serves no purpose whatsoever.  They're totally different physiologically.  My point was that "I don't have a problem with it" is not an ethical defense.  After all, in Africa, not only is FGM "not a problem" to most people (men and women alike), not being mutilated is a social Scarlet Letter.  In fact, FGM apologists argue that this alone justifies the practice -- marriage is more important in the culture than sexual enjoyment or choice, so assuming it's done with sterile instruments, FGM is "OK."

I didn't really mean to equate the different procedures, just the moral calculus.  I think that's concerning enough on its own.

Ahh, gotcha.

Africa is not even a developed country. America and Europe are developed and they don't do that. I guess the developed countries that have an established religion are identical to one an other.

     ??? The United States is identical to England? Or to France?

In the sense that we are all developed.

     All developed countries are the same in that they are developed? What a daring hypothesis.

OK maybe but they are economically they are.

     In what sense economically?

In the sence of what we produce and how we have jobs and good education.

     I see what you're getting at now.

good.

here is a good question.

why are Christan's so mean to Jews if they are suppose to be nice to everyone?

     Explain. Are you talking about Jewish stereotypes or what? Many Christians adore the Jews (chosen people of God).

As a crude cut at it, Jews are off the radar screen for "Christians" at the moment, and Muslims on it, along with some the usual suspect secular humanists, but the latter is old news. In short you are referring to a rather pronounced waning rather than waxing phenomenon. JMO.

Pit, pascel thinks jews are not the choosen people of god. He started having a fit. I asked him what was so bad and he went on a rant. It was crazy. And people get meaner to me when I say I am jewish.

     He's French. Most of the most fervent French-bashers, according to him, are Jewish. That aside, who exactly gets meaner to you when you say that you're Jewish?

lets see ben, India, spenser  and some people you don't know, they are friends of my moms.

Anti-Semitism in America usually has to do with Jews' apparently disproportionate power and wealth compared with their size in the population.  Like Torie says, outward anti-Semitism, especially from Christian sources, is on the decline.

Traditional anti-Semitism has to do with a deep-rooted problem in Christianity: the Jews rejected Jesus, plotted to kill him, and handed him over to the Romans.  Early Christians asked themselves, "If Jesus was the Son of God, the long-foretold Messiah, why would God's own Chosen People reject him?"  This question led to a deep-seated conviction among early Christians that the very existence of Jews was an argument against their religion.

well, if they were truly asking that question, they needed only to read their bibles for the answer:

Rom 11 "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! ...Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved."

So, God hardened the heart of the Jews thus leading to their rejection of Jesus, which enabled salvation to be preached to the Gentiles.  Once all the Gentiles who are to be saved are saved, then God will unharden the heart of the Jews so that they will then accept Jesus and thus salvation will come to Israel.

It can't get any more clear cut than that.

"early Christians" didn't have a NT, jmf.

as if the Gospel can't be preached from the OT?!...if they didn't have Paul's letter to the Romans, they at least had the OT which was the basis for Paul's letter:  The story of Joseph takes up the last 15 chapters of Genesis...so the dude is quite important.

Where the sons of Jacob rejected by God because they rejected Joseph?  Not at all, rather it was because of their rejection that Joseph was sent to the Gentiles to provide salvation to the Gentiles, and, after he provided salvation to the Gentiles, he then also provided salvation to the sons of Jacob who had rejected him.

you cited Romans...


and are you saying the Law of Moses was still valid in the interval between the death of Jesus and the compiling of the NT?

huh?!

yes, I cited Romans...and Romans cites the OT...and I stated that the Gospel can be preached out of the OT...

...all of which has nothing to do with the fact that the Law of Moses was superceded by the New Covenant at the moment of Christ's death upon the cross.

my issue came from you citing a passage in the NT and saying that early Christians should have "read their bibles" when no such "bibles" existed at the time.  it's a slight inconsistency is all.  I'm not disputing the the fact that the NT is rooted in the OT.

ok, I intially didn't know how "early" you meant by "early Christians"

the phrase usually refers to Christianity between the crucifixion and the First Council of Niacea.  much like "Bolshevist Russia" refers to the period between the October Revolution and the formation of the Soviet Union.  the NT wasn't even fully compiled for a few centuries after the Council, though some / a lot of the texts that would eventually would find their way into the NT were floating around for those who knew where to look.

Is somebody whose mother is Jewish always considered a Jew, or do they have to make a decision to accept the law to become Jewish?

If the mom is Jewish they are a Jew, but not considered one in the temple. Not till they get baptized. Basically they are not going to get a botmitzah or batmitzhah until they are baptized.

The Orthodox consider anyone who's mother was a Jew a Jew.

basically. If the mom is Orthodox the child will have been baptised since she or she was one.

We don't have baptism.

huh I don't understand your statment.

Jews don't practice baptism.  They practice a water cleansing ritual, mivkah, but it's not equivalent.  More similar is the hand-washing practices, which in the Bible used the same word as "baptism."  They're still not the same thing, though.

I laughed. I'm so sorry.  At least the word "baptism" was used rather than "christened"...

thank you I couldn't quit get it off the tip of my tongue.

o...k...

:P

Circumcision would be an equivalent, no? Or at least, it would've. It's done too early for that purpose these days.

The proximity of these two comments...  :) 

And on that note, good night, ladies and gentlemen!

LOL.

Eh, sort of.

Circumcision isn't a purification ritual; it's a covenant.  There's an inherent element of purification ritual to a covenant, being that it brings one into the religious fold.  But baptism is symbolic of washing away; circumcision is meant as a mark, a theological contract/cattle brand of sorts.

The only similarity is in infant baptism, in that both are both consent-free inductions into religious membership done on the very young.  You could argue that both pertain to the covenant with God, but really what ritual doesn't?  Their meaning is different, and they're not equivalent.  Besides, baptism applies to both sexes, so it can't really be a direct replacement.

Just something I was wondering: are there any Orthodox or Conservative Jews on the forum?  I'm Reform, and I'm pretty sure the other Jews are as well.

Raised Conservative. Not a "religious" though

I'm a conservative Jew.

To be precise, I would be something of a "Reconservadox".  I drive on Shabbat, keep strict Kosher, go to a Reform temple, and usually go to temple on Shabbat and high holy days.

That is an interesting mix.  I'm something like that too; I place more emphasis on Halakha than Reform Jews; I believe in a Messiah, which Reform Jews don't; but I don't keep Kosher, I don't go to temple as often as I'd like, and other things.

Whats a Bris like?

reminds me of:

Phil 3:4 If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

 7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Pressing on Toward the Goal
 12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

Hypothetically, if a man is already circumcized and converts to Judaism, what happens then?

Ouch!

1) repentance (to turn towards obedience to the word of God)

---

2) baptism

---


3) having the blood of Christ applied to your heart by the receiving of the Holy Spirit

---

Acts 2:36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

 37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

 38Peter replied, "1) Repent and be 2) baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. 3) And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

have you been on Pluto the last 2000 years?  you seem totally unaware of the claims of Christianity.

i've never heard of a Christian teaching stating that the old testament was NOT written prior to the new testament

---


Christianity claims to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament, so OBVIOUSLY it is influenced and based upon the Old Testament. 

In fact, every New Testament doctrine I have read has its basis in the Old Testament.  So much so, I could use the Old Testament exclusively to preach Christianity, which is exactly what the Apostles did.

it was to show how Christianity fulfilled spiritually what the physical circumcision had foreshadowed.

If it's jmfcst, assume that any religious conversation is a lot more about Christianity than whatever is actually being discussed.

For you, that was a decent attempt at humor.  It might actually have been funny...

...except for the fact ALL the scriptural based portions of Judaism are about nothing but Christ.

John 5:39 "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me"

You're right!  Biblical scripture is much funnier.  Sincerest apologies.

relax, I wasn't saying you weren't funny, just that your humor isn't

You know, we can go on with this repartee forever, but at the end you're still an old guy.

old?  ok, but I'm still cooler and better looking...and, I might add, the chicks dig me.  :)

I really should call it a night, but...

jmfcst's argument, or, rather, Saint Paul's argument is that Jesus of Nazareth completed the Laws of Moses.  By His sacrifice, he absolved man of rites like circumcision and dietary restrictions.

EDIT:  So therefore the entire purpose of the Hebrew Scriptures would, in jmfcst's logic, be pointing to the coming of Jesus.  See Moses' prediction of a prophet like himself, Isaiah 52, etc.

I think that that's a silly way to read the Bible, but...

lol. Children. *shakes head*
Wasn't Jesus a jew?

freddy adu bids you adieu

actually, Jesus used the argument long before Paul:

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

just like the quote from Jesus I previously listed:

John 5:39 "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me"

My big problem with people claiming the Hebrew Bible justifies the Christian Bible is that the authors of those books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc.), knew the audience they were writing for, and so they could have very easily written something in order to fit the whole story.  It's a big problem that none of these people actually knew Jesus; I could write a biography of Mark Warner after everyone who knew him was dead, and claim that he's the Messiah by making events fit with the Hebrew Bible, and nobody could contradict me.

Alright but do you deny all the events? I think that religion exists but it has to do more with the mind than the facts.

but what makes it the same stuff?

no I am just trying to ask questions so you cover what you mean. Sorry I lead you otherwise.

Yes, I deny the events about Jesus in the Christian Bible actually happened, at least the messianic events.  Perhaps some of the quotes attributed to him were his, but not much more.

the quotes are probably the things least likely to be correct

Actually, R' Gamliel's best student went on to be the greatest advocate of Jesus' teachings.

This particular student of R' Gamliel was NOT part of any backlash, rather this particular student was Christianity's biggest enemy until Jesus stepped into his life one day and changed his whole destiny.

Saul of Tarsus, of the Tribe of Benjamin, student of Gamliel and better known as the Apostle Paul

I've got a question for the Jews here: do any of you read the Talmud much?  I keep trying to read it, but I haven't found a good copy yet.

There are a couple of good translations out there, but it'll cost you quite a bit. It's very difficult to study it yourself, even with an English translation. Can you read Hebrew?

I can read it, but not translate.  I'll need an English translation.

I only meant can you read Hebrew. Translating wouldn't help you much anyway, since the Talmud is written largely in Aramaic (although they are very similar), and also, even if you could translate the Talmud, you'd still probably find it impossible to understand.
There are a couple of complete translations. The Soncino edition, which I believe is actually available online, and the Schottenstein edition. The Schottenstein edition is far superior, and is even used by people very experienced in Talmud study.
If you have no experience at all, then I wouldn't advise you to start with it on your own.

So, what would be your advice?

It depends what you want exactly. Do you want to study it seriously? Just look at bits of it to see what it's all about?

Eventually, I want to study it seriously.  For now, though, I want to just get my feet wet, so to speak.

Well, it's hard to say what you should do... If you don't mind me asking, are you orthodox, reform or conservative?

I belong to a Reform synagogue, and consider myself Reform, but I have views that belong to all three groups.

I really don't know what to say. I've studied the Talmud since I was 8 years old, and all I can say is that to really understand what the Talmud is can take quite some time and intensive studying. It's not as simple as just opening up somewhere and reading through a few lines. Of course, you can do that, but I have no idea what you should go for.

Thanks anyway.

For a line-by-line translation of the Talmud a good company is ArtScroll. It includes the literal translation along with the way it should be read to make sense using commentaries. It is slightly confusing at first to follow what is what, but if you are really interested that would be your best bet. I've used it to help me study the Talmud and it's put together very comprehensively.

Hope this isn't too late.

Thanks; of course not :)  What denomination are you in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud seems a reasonable place to start.

I consider myself Conserva-dox, combination between the two. I went to Jewish private school through high school but I am not the most religious. Granted, there are many things I feel guilty about doing still and cannot bring myself to do, while others I am more comfortable breaking. In short, it's complicated.

But I've had my fair share of experience learning the Torah and Talmud with commentaries and all. I'd say for almost any Jewish scripture ArtScroll would be the way to go. But I should warn you, very expensive. Like, I don't know how they get away with charging that much but, hey, it's religion. Can't do anything about it.

There is also a vast wealth of information online. It may be to your benefit to go to Torah.org and check around there for information on sources for learning. I'm sure they have something up there or you can contact them for information. I know they have an "Ask a Rabbi" email thing to get information about laws and learning.

I have the ArtScrool Tanakh, which is a great edition.  Torah.org is pretty impressive, and I look forward to using it.  Thanks for your help :)

The Schottenstein Edition I mentioned earlier is from Artscroll (Mesorah). It is extremely good, but very big (75 volumes, I think). Each normal sized tractate is like 3 volumes. It's also very expensive, like purple state said (over $35 a volume, I think).

Fast day today. One of six in the year.

And what a joyous one it is.

Why?

But isn't that the point? It's not a fast day because of something happy. The opposite, it's a fast day because of sad events that happened  today.

are you "allowed" to drink water?

Bump.

What are the remaining fast days?

Till when? There's Ta'anit Esther on the 13th of Adar, i.e. under 2 months. After that, not including Ta'anit Bechorot, the next one is in 6 months.

That would be great, thank you :)

Thank you :)  Being Reform, the only time fasting is really followed is on Yom Kippur, so I didn't know about the others.

Not all ultra-orthodox are so careful about the other fasts. People who follow the ways of the Brisker Rav are usually very lenient when it comes to fasts other then Yom Kippur and Tisha'a B'Av.

Well, Briskers would definitely label themselves ultra-orthodox.

How is the following prophecy, which combines the kingship and the priesthood under a single person, going to be fulfilled under the Law of Moses when Moses stated the king must be from the line of David and the priest from the line of Levi?

It's actually not so simple it's talking about the Messiah. Rashi (the 'king' of Jewish commentators on the Bible and Talmud) and others bring two explanations for these verses. They say the simple way of understanding the prophecy is that it's talking about the second Temple, and referring to Zerubabel (sp?). However, they do also bring the way you've understood it, that it's referring to the Messiah.

This has nothing to do with your question, though. The answer to your problem is simple: Verse 13 is clearly speaking about two separate people, as can be seen from the last part of the verse 'between the two'. Your problem stems from the fact that the translation from the Hebrew you have is inexact. The correct translation of the part referring to the priest is "and the priest will be on his throne" - i.e. referring to a second person, and this explains the ending of the verse.
Basically, the earlier descriptions in the verse start off with "V'hu" which translates as "it is he" or "and he will". However the description about the priest starts off with "V'haya" which translates as "and there will be".

ok, accepting your translation for V'haya...and keeping with the Messiah timeframe...


what is a priest doing sitting on a "throne"?  and why is a priest sitting on a throne being connectted with the Messiah?

Rashi explains the 'throne' here means the 'throne of the priestship' (i.e. it's referring to the high priest). This could be understood literally, but more likely means the "position", and not an actual throne. The prophecy is saying that the most powerful man after the king, which is the high priest will not fight with the Messiah, that there will be harmony between them.
Other early Jewish commentators (from 500+ years ago) explain that the translation here is not that the priest will sit 'on' his throne, but it means will sit 'in front' of his throne (the Jewish word "Al" used in this verse can have either meaning). They go on to explain that the high priest will see himself as subservient to the Messiah, and therefore there will be peace - i.e. the high priest won't try to fight the Messiah.

I'd just like to stress, that if you look through the whole prophecy it's clear it's not referring to the Messiah, but to Zerubabel. Even the commentators who say the alternative explanation of it referring to the Messiah qualify it by saying that it's not the real meaning of the verse, but is just another 'hidden' meaning behind the words. A bit similar to what Jews believe about all prophecies given in the bible - that even prophecies given about those times can all have other, hidden, meanings, and can all refer to later events.

thanks for the input...

I agree it is referring to the High Priest

is there any other place in scripture which ties the High Priest to a throne, whether literally or symbolically?

---


agreed, prophecies can be literally applied to one person and symbolically applied to the overall plan of God

I can't think of any other place off-hand. I'll have a think about it, and ask some others better-versed then me in scripture.

Out of interest, as a Christian, how do you understand the prophecy? When was the part about the priest (whether you understand it as being the same person as the Messiah or not) ever fulfilled? Or is it only going to be fulfilled by the second coming of Jesus?

I see you posted through a cell phone, which I sometimes do....


It goes back to the supremacy of the book of Genesis, the blueprint of God’s plan, and the time period predating the Law of Moses (covenant of Mt. Sinai).

The original biblical precedent for the King of Jerusalem, and the original biblical precedent for a priest of God, is one in the same person, Melchizedek (Gen 14:8 ).  In Melchizedek is the precedent, and the only example, of a priest sitting on a throne:


Judaism understands that Messiah will rebuild the temple of God, for even the whole tabernacle Moses introduced was merely a copy of the origin pattern: “See that you make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” (Ex 25:40)

And, yes, I believe Christ has already been handed the high-priesthood, not on the requirement that he be descended through Levi, but on the Genesis precedent that he has no genealogy, just as Melchizedek, the biblical precedent, had no recorded genealogy yet was greater than Abraham.

And Jesus didn’t enter into only a pattern of the true tabernacle, rather he entered into the true tabernacle that is in Heaven…and offered not the blood of a lamb, but his own blood, and not once a year, but once and for all, for the forgiveness of sins.

I see. But if Jesus has both positions, what does the last part of the verse, about harmony between the two, mean?

I don't understand your question...how could there not be harmony between the High Priest and King if Jesus holds both positions?

basically, both the king and high priest are forerunners of the one messiah

Ah, I think I get you - you're understanding it as meaning harmony between the two positions. Is that correct?
I didn't think of that meaning. I was thinking it meant harmony between the different people holding the two positions.
If you do mean like I think you mean, do you not find the phrase 'harmony between the two' slightly wrong? Doesn't it sound more like it's refering to two separate people?

well, isn't everything "slightly wrong" when using symbolism?...just like in your own interpretation where the priest sitting on a throne is not literal but rather symbolizes that it is referring to the High Priest.

so there is a little play in both our interpretations:  your interpretation takes the two people literally as two separate people while leaving "sitting on a throne" symbolic...my interpretation takes "sitting on a throne" literal while leaving the two separate people symbolic.

But, if we ignore the slight "errors" involved in both our uses of symbolism, we're still left with the fact that the only other reference to a priest and a throne was the Genesis' Melchizedek

Here is a big one: on the salvation of humanity.

Judaism seems to hold that the righteous of all origins will convert to Judaism at the gate of Heaven because such will be the nature of the righteous. God is merciful enough to recognize that those who had no opportunity to be Jews are not at fault for that. Judaism is the reward for righteousness, and someone like Raoul Wallenberg is in Heaven and is a Jew. Would it be fair to send a righteous person where the Nazis are instead of with those that he tried to rescue?

The evil people of all origins have no chance at Heaven, even if they were devout Jews on the surface. Their anti-human deeds are abominations before God, and the unrighteous could never appreciate Heaven, anyway. Out of sight and out of mind, so there is no chance of a Jew in Heaven -- that includes Sir Winston Schulberg (originally Churchill) or the former Christian X of Denmark (who goes under a different name, for obvious reasons) -- having the questionable pleasure of watching any tortures inflicted upon Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, or the like. 

Such does not hold for most of Christianity or Islam. Suppose that a righteous Hindu sacrificed his life to save multitudes of  Christians or Muslims from horrific death. Would Christianity of Islam have Heaven awaiting him? That's not so clear, and according to some theological interpretations the consequence of believing in the wrong gods is eternal damnation. But note well that Christian doctrine holds that a person of utter evil who repents on the threat of death can get cheap grace that might not be available to someone whose chance ended when some SS "soldier" released Zyklon-B pellets into a gas chamber. Some Khmer Rouge mass-murderer actually converted to Christianity before he went on trial and contended that he would go to Heaven because of his resolute new faith.

Because of my Christian background, I have used the threat of Hell in some arguments, but only in extreme cases, as with a neo-Nazi or a Stalinist: "Do you really want to go where the Nazis/Stalinists are?" Any place full of Nazis or Stalinists would be Hellish, as would a place full of thieves, addicts, vandals, and rapists. I must ask this: can a Just and Loving God forgive believing in Him the wrong way, believing in the wrong set of supernatural realities, accepting the wrong Prophets or Savior, or believing in nothing? I would think so.

I think that the promise of Judaism of salvation to the Righteous of all nations is far more generous than any other that can be associated with any other tradition. I think that it is also the best that humanity can hope for, and at least as good as any.   

 

You are correct that Jews believe that the righteous of all nations will merit Heaven, but I don't think you are right in saying they will 'convert' to Judaism.
You have to remember there is a big difference between (Orthodox) Judaism and most other religions: Orthodox Jews believe that Judaism is not just a religion, rather Jews are Jews by birth, and are Jews whether they want to be or not, whether they believe in Judaism or not. Or even whether they are saints or the biggest mass-murderers. This explains the belief that Heaven is not limited to Jews and Hell is not limited to Non-Jews.
The 'path to salvation' according to Judaism is not being Jewish, it is being righteous. This is also why Judaism does not encourage conversion. If you go to a Rabbi and ask to convert, he'll tell you to not bother, but just live your life as a good person.

Bumping back to the first page.

Why do you keep doing that? :P

Posts: 16963

The next couple of days quite important in the Jewish calendar. Ta'anit Esther tomorrow, followed by Purim. Those of you who live near Orthodox areas will probably notice a lot of partying going on.

Only after a nice day of non-partying. Jews perfected the "calm before the storm" idea.

I hope everyone had a happy Purim!

Please explain some of these quotes from the Talmud:

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

Talmudic Doctrine: Non-Jews are not Human

The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals, and specifically dehumanizes Gentiles as not being descendants of Adam. Here are some of the Talmud passages which relate to this topic.

Kerithoth 6b: Uses of Oil of Anointing. "Our Rabbis have taught: He who pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over gentiles (goyim) or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating to cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: "Upon the flesh of man (Adam), shall it not be poured (Exodus 30:32]); and cattle and vessels are not man (Adam).

"Also with regard to the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt, since after death one is called corpse and not a man (Adam). But why is one exempt in the case of gentiles (goyim); are they not in the category of man (Adam)? No, it is written: 'And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are man" (Adam); [Ezekiel 34:31]: Ye are called man (Adam) but gentiles (goyim) are not called man (Adam)."

In the preceding passage, the rabbis are discussing the portion of the Mosaic law which forbids applying the holy oil to men.

The Talmud states that it is not a sin to apply the holy oil to Gentiles, because Gentiles are not human beings (i.e. are not of Adam).

Another example from tractate Yebamoth 61a: "It was taught: And so did R. Simeon ben Yohai state (61a) that the graves of gentiles (goyim) do not impart levitical uncleanness by an ohel [standing or bending over a grave], for it is said, 'And ye my sheep the sheep of my pasture, are men (Adam), [Ezekiel 34:31]; you are called men (Adam) but the idolaters are not called men (Adam)."

The Old Testament Mosaic law states that touching a human corpse or the grave of a human imparts uncleanness to those who touch it. But the Talmud teaches that if a Jew touches the grave of a Gentile, the Jew is not rendered unclean, since Gentiles are not human (not of Adam).

From Baba Mezia 114b: ""A Jewish priest was standing in a graveyard. When asked why he was standing there in apparent violation of the Mosaic law, he replied that it was permissible, since the law only prohibits Jews from coming into contact with the graves of humans (Adamites), and he was standing in a gentile graveyard. For it has been taught by Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: 'The graves of gentiles [goyim] do not defile. For it is written, 'And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men (Adam)' (Ezekiel 34:31); only ye are designated men (Adam)."

Ezekiel 34:31 is the alleged Biblical proof text repeatedly cited in the preceding three Talmud passages. But Ezekiel 34:31 does not in fact support the Talmudic notion that only Israelites are human. What these rabbinical, anti-Gentile racists and ideologues have done in asserting the preceding absurdities about Gentiles is distort an Old Testament passage in order to justify their bigotry.

In Berakoth 58a the Talmud uses Ezekiel 23:20 as proof of the sub-human status of gentiles. It also teaches that anyone (even a Jewish man) who reveals this Talmudic teaching about non-Jews deserves death, since revealing it makes Gentiles wrathful and causes the repression of Judaism.

The Talmudic citation of this scripture from Ezekiel as a "proof-text" is specious, since the passage does not prove that Gentiles are animals. The passage from Ezekiel only says that some Egyptians had large genital organs and copious emissions. This does not in any way prove or even connote that the Egyptians being referred to in the Bible were considered animals. Once again, the Talmud has falsified the Bible by means of distorted interpretation.

Other Talmud passages which expound on Ezekiel 23:20 in this racist fashion are: Arakin 19b, Berakoth 25b, Niddah 45a, Shabbath 150a, Yebamoth 98a. Moreover, the original text of Sanhedrin 37a applies God's approval only to the saving of Jewish lives (cf. the Hesronot Ha-shas, Cracow, 1894).

The reason this sounds funky is because of the semantics that occur when writing in the original hebrew/aramaic.

The Talmud is not saying non-Jews (Goyim) are not humans, nor is it saying that they shouldn't be considered as such. However, there are different ways of saying man in hebrew. In this case, the Talmud is saying that in cases when the term "Adam" is used to describe man in scripture, it is in reference to Jews, as is extrapolated by the similar use in the verse from Ezekiel. This simply means that, because there was a case when Adam could only have been referring to Jews, we bring the term to specifically refer to Jews.

To sum up, Jews are referred to as "Adam" while non-Jews are referred to using different language meaning the same thing. It is difficult to tell because of the translation though. I hope this clears things up.

Purple State is 100% right. I was about to post the exact same thing till I saw he got here first. I've studied the Talmud for years, and it is a very common sort of analysis used with hundreds of words, i.e. to say that the choice of a certain word to describe something only refers to a limited subset of the full meaning of the word. In this case the Talmud is saying that the Hebrew word "Adam", although in translation is referring to any "man", is used in the Torah to refer only to Jews. Other words, when used, for example "Enosh", refer to any man, even non-Jews.

I'd just like to point out the utter stupidity of websites like the one you bring complaining about the Talmud. Firstly, basically all problems like this can be explained easily by anyone with a true knowledge of the talmud, and secondly, the Talmud was written thousands of years ago, and even if all the complaints they make are true, was still far ahead in matters of race, sex etc. then was common at the time!

Well, that's the best Stark has.

Happy Passover everyone!

Happy Shavuot tonight. While I don't plan on staying up all night learning, I hope those that do enjoy their night and the rest of the holiday.

I don't plan to stay up all night, but I'll be up later than usual, reading.  I haven't decided what to read, although I'll probably read Ruth.  Any other suggestions?

Numbers 33 has a nice compilation of the travels of the Jews between Egypt and Mt. Sinai.

Thanks.  I'm also going to read Exodus 20, for the Decalogue.

you're supposed to pull an all-nighter to celebrate?

Yes.  You stay up all night studying Torah, Talmud, etc.

Oh, much to still learn about my religious observance.

Well, I missed both fast days during July, which is irritating.  I'm going to try extra hard, though, to make all the remaining ones.

Happy Rosh Hashanah everyone!  Leshana Tova :)

Today I had a bagel to celebrate.

I have a bagel everyday, but today's was celebratory

right back atcha!

Yom Kippur starts in just over an hour; last pre-fast meal for me soon.  I wish everyone here an easy Fast, and a thoughtful Day of Atonement.

Happy חֲנֻכָּה‎, everyone!

Shavuot (and my own confirmation) are fast approaching!  Only 9 more days!

You staying up to read Ruth?

I might, actually.  It depends on how much work I have that night after the Confirmation Service.

Happy Rosh Hashanah everyone!  Leshana Tova :)  Here's to 5771!

It's now Yom Kippur; hopefully everyone will have a thoughtful Day of Atonement and an easy fast.

Good luck, Ben.  I'm glad I don't have to put up with all that stuff anymore, but nonetheless...

If I've offended anyone here this past year, sorry.

"I'm glad I don't have to put up with all that stuff anymore" kind of suggests that if he was, he isn't, no?

Well, to be fair one can be a Jew and not "Jewish".

Alcon said it.  I'm an ex-Jew.  I'm a nothing, now.

Passover 2011 is less than a month away!

And Passover 2011 has started!

been reading parts of the Talmud, its amazing how Judaism became a religion that has to attempt to dissect and add instructions to the nth degree so that the instructions themselves become the center of focus.  no wonder Jesus had problems with all that it became.

The funny thing is that Jews now go to great lengths to find loopholes in those instructions.

Not amazing at all.  Judaism could not have survived as a Temple-centric religion after the destruction of the Second Temple.  Both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism found a substitute for the Temple.  For one it was the Body of Christ, and for the other it was the Body of the Law. Unless your theology is a hyper-supersessionism that posits that there are no further prophecies for the Jews to fulfill as Jews, then there must be some mechanism for Judaism to survive.

Uh huh.  Sure.

So, why don't Jews sacrifice lambs anymore?

 

but Christianity found a substitute BEFORE the Temple was destroyed, which is one of the reasons why Jesus was thought to be a heretic.  but I wasn't talking about nonTempleCentric religion, rather I was talking about all the details involved in the oral tradition even as it relates to parts of the law that dont have anything to do with the Temple.

example:  the scripture might say, "dont eat strangled animals", and Judaism will turn that command into a whole system of a supposed single proper way to kill an animal and include a long list of instructions the scripture said nothing about.

If, hypothetically, God had said, "Dont wear the color green, "  the Talmud would have a set of 50 instructions on how you're to wear the color blue and wallow around in and glorify the 50 rules of wearing blue it had created and pat each other on the back for abiding by the 50 rules of the color blue, when all God said was,  "Dont wear the color green. " 

This is why Jesus had so many problems and squabbles with what Judaism had turned into to
.
---

 

well, if I can be blunt in order to save time: for prophecy to be fulfilled, the Jews had to reject Christ.  And Judaism is probably going to have to revert back to Temple worship, which means there is a bunch of very heavy stuff that is going to have to happen to the Jews - they're going to have to be convinced the Messiah has come, but it will be a false Messiah - the antiChrist.  But the Jews will understand they have been deceived by the antiChrist and will realize they missed the true Messiah, Jesus and will turn and accept Christ and God will forgive them:

Zechariah 12:10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son."

Revelation 1:7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen.

Rom 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

That's why Satan always wants to destroy the Jews - for if there are no Jews, prophesy can not be fulfilled.

So, as long as there isn't a third temple...there can't be an apocalypse right?  Thats an absolutely necessary condition?

well, I never turn endtime interpretation into hard doctrine, for endtime prophecy is the single area of scripture that will be more understood as time goes on:

Daniel 12:4,9
But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”...“Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end."

But I am about 99% convinced that the pre-trib theory is wrong (not that it impact your temple question), and I am 95% convinced that the references to the Temple during the endtimes is in reference to a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.
But I am not going to split hairs over either issue.  In fact, probably the majority of my church is pre-trib, which is partly the fault of my pastor, who isnt pretrib yet couches much of his teachings in a way that is accommodating to different views.

About a dozen of so years ago I was conducting an endtime study series in our church, and I laid out about 3 or 4 of the competing points of view (pre, mid, post trib, etc) and pointed out the strengths and weaknesses of each, not knowing our church was majority pretrib.  And my series received so much opposition I went to my pastor perplexed because I thought what I was teaching was in line with what he believed and taught, and the conversation went something like this:

pastor:  "I also am all but completely convinced the pretrib rapture is wrong, rather I believe that the church will undergo persecution by the antiChrist, and that the antiChrist will be seating in Jerusalem proclaiming himself to be God prior to the rapture."

me:  "and that is exactly how I perceived your understand based on your sermons.  But how can I sit and listen to your sermons and hear one thing, and others sit and listen to the exact same sermons over the years and hear something completely different?!"

pastor: "because I purposely present it in a way that is accommodating to different views"

me: "[but that is dishonest and you're a coward for not making clear what you believe is true]"

pastor:  "no, rather is wise to be vague when discussing a subject not worth splitting hairs over, after all, it isnt a salvational issue"

LOL.  And, I must admit, he is right.

We can't without the Temple.


That is one of the most ridiculous distortions of the Talmud I have ever heard, including the anti-Semitic stuff that's been passed around.  There is nothing of that in the Talmud - it is a codification of decisions, not the rules for the sake of rules that you claim it to be.  If you're going to try and be subtly anti-Semitic, try to be more subtle.

How is this antisemitic? As you say, these are decisions that were based on the law? Interpretations of law (Human or divine) are bound to have meandering arguments and particularly so in the middle ages. Catholic medieval philosophical arguments; typified by scholasticism, were frequently ridiculous. The most infamous example being- how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? I don't think that pointing out that many of these arguments were mundane and cumbersome is in any way anti Catholic.

You seem to be presuming antisemitism. I respectfully think you need to put it back in the deck.

In modern day Israel you would get arrested for trying that. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3699301,00.html)

Well, the Talmud does try some degree of interpretation that ends up tangential at best to the original rule, most famously by making Exodus' command not to boil a baby goat in iits mother's milk into a prohibition of mixing meat and dairy.

You’re confusing rejection of the oral traditions of Judaism (not agreeing with all the clutter of the religion) with anti-Semitism (racism against Jews).  But it is possible to reject Judaism and still be a Zionist in support of the Jewish people

I get the impression that if jmfcst had been born Jewish, he'd be a rabid Karaite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite

(They're pretty obscure nowadays)

I've never seen (or heard of) them in my life.

Thanks for the information.  It was rather interesting and something I had no knowledge of.  :)

They were a big deal in the Medieval era.  Not so much since. 

Rosh Hashanah begins tomorrow night!

Why are Jews so well represented in Congress, yet we've never had a Jewish president?

Why are Jews so well represented as the heads of our various professional sports (3 of 4 are Jewish), yet rarely play them?

Yom Kipper or whatever that is is tomorrow. That's a Jewish holiday, right?

I actually have a (probably quite stupid) question: what is the 'official' line of judaism on converts from other religions? And how do the various communities look on the issue?

They're to be discouraged.  If someone really, really wants to convert, he goes into discussion with a Rabbi and gets put on the path to join, with extensive discouragement along the way.  Really, most of the people that convert to Judaism are people that marry in to the faith.

What's the Jewish stance on the Apocrypha?

Why are so many comedians Jews?

It is utterly irrelevant to us.  We don't recognize it, use it, anything.  For that matter, there really isn't such a thing as Jewish Apocrypha.  Most of the Apocrypha was written well after the Jewish Canon was set; there wasn't as much of a discussion as there was in the Christian World.

yeah, it's our most important holiday of the year. Day of Atonement.

I hope you had an easy fast; I sure did :)

But it has the Hannukah story in it, so why do you celebrate it if you don't recgonize the book that contains its story?

Because the Maccabeean Revolt is an actual historical event and Hannukah's observance is extensively discussed in the Talmud?

there is a humongous difference between a prophetic book (that even books like Judges and and Kings are considered to be) and a book that is considered to be a historical book.

Happy Passover!

Happy Passover.

Happy New Year!

I have two questions: first, when does the Sabbath end for you?  I'm an Adventist and it always ended at sunset for us.  We had a Rabbi visit our church once and she said something about it ending when there are three stars visible in the sky.  Could you explain this discrepancy, please?

Second: With Rosh Hashanah going on right now, people keep referring to it as "the Jewish New Year."  I had always believed this until a man at my church said that the New Year began the week before Passover.  Which is it?  I know Rosh Hashanah is like the anniversary of Creation, but could you explain this also please?

PS: I am a proud Judeophile, so it might surprise you that I am asking these questions!

Firstly, the Jewish day (and therefore the Sabbath) goes from sunset to sunset. I think the Rabbi may have been using metaphors, because I've never heard that. Secondly, it is the Jewish new year, as in the anniversary of creation, and it was the new year at Rosh Hashanah, not the week before passover.

A guy from my church said that the new year began the week before Passover.  And would Jews sacrifice animals again if the Temple were rebuilt?  Granted it's unlikely, but still...

Rosh Hashanah is the switchover on calendar years, but it's the "first day of the seventh month," leading to centuries of jokes about Jews being the only people stiff-necked and obstinate enough to start their year in the seventh month rather than the first.  Passover is about half a year removed from Rosh Hashanah, so maybe it's the resetting of months (not sure here)?


As far as animal sacrifice goes, the answer is yes, it would hypothetically be practiced in a hypothetical Third Temple (along with the return of a hereditary priestly caste), but very few actual Jews would go along with it and it would probably lead to a schism in the faith.

About how many do you think would go along with it? 144,000? ;)

I'd say the Hasidim, and that's about it. Possibly some of the ultra-orthodox.

It's almost Passover!

Have a blessed Passover Ben.

Thanks JCL

Let me guess -- out of sight and out of mind. Probably in contrast to Schadenfreude that some Christians suggest, a ringside seat to watch torments inflicted upon such types as Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein.

In the summer of 1980 I was in Hell -- Dallas that year. On a day on which that the  temperature reached 113F I made the flippant remark to a Jewish co-worker that I had just seen Hideki Tojo. Or was it Benito Mussolini? I was saving Stalin for 114F, but I had gone through a series of Wild West outlaws, gangsters, dictators, and war criminals. The co-worker didn't get it, and it wasn't for a lack of intelligence or ability to appreciate grim humor. So there is no Hell in Judaism? If any people has villains to condemn, it is the Jews.  

I once engaged a Nazi sympathizer (a piece of work -- a Holocaust denier and a horrible hypocrite on European-Arab relations... the sort who loved Palestinians as fighters of his nemesis Israel but didn't want them living in Europe or the Americas) on a now-defunct Forum and eventually got him into a discussion of Dante's Inferno in which I challenged him to contemplate what eternity would be like for people even worse than the well-characterized sinners of Dante's time. Dante Aligheri could have never contemplated Nazis, Stalinists, the Khmer Rouge, and Ba'athists. Maybe one could imagine Karl Marx (at least to conservatives of the 20th Century) being consigned to the peculiar torment that Dante allotted to Mohammed for "tearing the world apart with his heresy". I could imagine Nazi hanging judge Roland Freisler dangling forever on piano wire from a meat hook as was the sentence that he imposed upon those that he convicted of the July 20 plot. But such takes no imagination.  

But ignore the sensory insult and deprivation... I asked him whether he wanted his soul to be around those souls who betrayed, lynched, tortured, robbed, beat, and murdered people. Sulfurous smells, hunger, thirst, and general ugliness are less ominous to me than being around the grossly-unjust. Maybe I would get some grim satisfaction out of seeing Josef Goebbels getting his lies pushed back into his mouth as lye, with predictable effects. But I wouldn't want to see such for long. "Out of sight and out of mind" is best for all.

Performances of operatic collaborations between Shakespeare and Mozart would be a fitting eternal reward for the righteous.

Good question. Not that I would predict that our next President will be Jewish, but you-know-who has forcefully shattered the near-WASP lock on the Presidency.

JFK? :P

Good point. Obama is a BASP, not much different from the other "near WASP"s like Reagan.

To be fair Martin van Buren and Dwight Eisenhower technically didn't fulfill the A & S in WASP.

Sorry about the bump, but Scott and I were talking about creation in another thread and he claimed that Jewish people, even the most Orthodox Jews, don't believe in a literal 6-Day-Creation and fall of man.

Is that true, my Jewish friends?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Modern_day_Orthodox_Jewish_views

Wikipedia is your friend, friend. :P

Nice try Scott, but I want an actual Jew to chime in with his facts/opinions.

So the information I provide is irrelevant/wrong because I'm not Jewish?  Uh, alright...

Reform Jews do not accept a literal definition of the Creation account found in Genesis.

That's obvious, givin the orgins and ideals of Reform Judaism (ie: Scripture is irrelevent and you're a Jew as long as your mother is) but do Conservative and Orthodox Jews accept Genesis 1-11 as facts?

Another discussion board I frequent has a poster who is both a practicing astrophysicist and a Haredi Jew living in Israel. 

He would accept Genesis 1-11 as metaphorical, except that he also insists using the word "Genesis" means you're talking about the horrible Christian Bible which is nothing at all like the Torah, because it's full of mistranslations by ill-meaning Greeks and completely ignores the Oral Torah, which makes it clear that duh, of course it's metaphorical.

Hmmmm, imagine what would happen if I ever talked to this guy...

You guys would probably agree on some stuff. Like disliking Jews who only call themselves Jewish as an ethnic thing.

Another fun fact: he supports gay marriage now.  Put that in your stereotype and smoke it.  :P

Yeah, the Rabbinic commentary is pretty helpful to read, for things like this, and to see how Jews in the 1st and 2nd centuries interpreted the Torah.  Very illuminating.

Well I shouldn't make assumptions but if a Haredi it's quite likely that he holds to the view that those born into Judaism have to follow all these rules and those who aren't don't, basically two standards (so of course Reform Jews are not "true" Jews), and I doubt would show much consideration to any Jews that opted to convert to something else, or really respect anyone's right to convert to something else than what they were born into. It's a common attitude amongst a lot in "the East" (you know in India, the Hindu extremist parties actually want to ban conversion), Islam and very conservative Jews. So if he does feel that way, the disagreement would be much worse.


So how did he come to that? Also what does he think of intermarriage? Being opposed to religious intermarriage for any reason is a really sore spot to me for reasons that I've talked about before, it kind of hits home a little.

Yeah, religiously scholarly Orthodox Jews would be the first people to reject stuff based on literal interpretation of the Bible because the Bible is only half of the story (and not even the most important half) compared to the Talmudic intellectual tradition that accompanies everything.  Judaism does not have a sola scriptura attitude towards the Hebrew Bible.  Creationism etc. are the product of Protestant Christianity's attempts to make the book the entirety of religion and the belief that any person can interpret the scripture for him or herself.  The Ortodox Jewish perspective is that even the Hebrew Bible itself is incomplete without Rashi's commentary.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shnayim_mikra_ve-echad_targum

Happy Rosh Hashanah y'all!  Le'shana Tova!

And Happy Rosh Hashanah back to you Ben.

Oh?

Karaite Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism)

Granted, the Karates aren't numerous, nor are they quite as literal minded as some evangelical Protestants, but they certainly are the closest approximation to Protestantism in Judaism.

Just how different are the Jewish texts and the "Old Testament"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

Well, the Jewish Bible is the Tanakh, which is an acronym (the T stands for Torah, the N for Nevi'im or Prophets, and the K for Ketuvim or writings) and the Tanakh is assembled in that order.  Thus, the Jewish Tanakh has a different order of its books than a Protestant New Testament (and, as the poster above me mentioned, the Catholic Old Testament has a number of books that aren't in either the Jewish or Protestant Old Testament).  The main difference between a Jewish Tanakh and a Protestant Old Testament is the ordering of the books and that there's a general idea that the Torah is more important than everything else in the canon.

That said, Jewish canon doesn't end with the scripture itself, and the thousands-year old commentaries on commentaries on commentaries has a sort of secondary canonical power itself.  The first layer is the Mishnah, which is a compilation of rabbinic commentary and interpretation from ~100 BCE to ~200 CE.  The Gemara, a set of discussions on the Mishnah written between ~200 CE, to 500 CE, is the next level down.  The Mishnah and the Gemara are together known as the Talmud, a document about 5 times as long as the Tanakh itself.

In addition, there are various non-canonical but elucidating rabbinical myths called the Midrash that serve to explain various Bible stories.  The Book of Exodus says that Moses has a speech impediment?  The Rabbis invented a Midrash explaining why he did: young Moses, in his Prince of Egypt days, was offered a choice between grabbing a golden idol or a bundle of burning coal.  He touched the coal instead of the idol, then, as children do, touched it to his mouth, burning his tongue.  The Midrash are explicitly non-canonical but the better ones are quite famous and are treated as semi-canonical anyway.

Big bump.

Today is Tisha B'Av, an important (fast) day in memory of the destruction of the Second Temple (and Jerusalem). Tzom kal, Jewish Atlasians!