Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Discussions of Faith
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10-27-2019, 10:24 PM
cbn620's Avatar
cbn620 cbn620 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Fresno County
Posts: 5,414
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Virtually every Christian before the 1800s believed in supersessionism, not dispensationalism; even the old Protestant churches did not immediately reject every tenet of Church teaching. Dispensationalism really ratcheted up with the propagation of the Schofield reference Bible, and it became the more politically correct position for Christians to take after WW2 and this resurgent, what I would call Israelophilia of the modern era.



Most of the people we refer to as Jews in the western world are Ashkenazim who have a genetic admixture with Europeans. Jews worldwide be they Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, or any others, do not profess the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They don't even keep the faith of the Sanhedrin at the time Jesus died. The Biblical Judaism died and modern rabbinical, Talmudic Judaism took its place. The second temple was destroyed. No third temple has been built. The Church is the new Israel and the people who believe in Christ are God's people regardless of their race, as despite our differences all men are equal in dignity before God. So we have a group of people who are only tangentially related, by several degrees of separation, from the religion of the Bible, even that which preceded the New Testament, but there are some who claim because of that geographical location, or some limited genealogy, some fragment of DNA, these people have some persistent, imperishable, special position that never changed? Jesus said not to be concerned with this very sort of thing.


Quote:
Matthew Chapter 8

8 And the centurion making answer, said: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof: but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed.
9 For I also am a man subject to authority, having under me soldiers; and I say to this, Go, and he goeth, and to another, Come, and he cometh, and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10 And Jesus hearing this, marvelled; and said to them that followed him: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel.
11 And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven:
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
13 And Jesus said to the centurion: Go, and as thou hast believed, so be it done to thee.
And the servant was healed at the same hour.
Quote:
John Chapter 4

12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
13 Jesus answered, and said to her: Whosoever drinketh of this water, shall thirst again; but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him, shall not thirst for ever:
14 But the water that I will give him, shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting.
15 The woman saith to him: Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come hither to draw.
...
20 Our fathers adored on this mountain, and you say, that at Jerusalem is the place where men must adore.
21 Jesus saith to her: Woman, believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father.
22 You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know; for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him.
24 God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.

St Paul specifically mentions genealogies as to be avoided for matters concerning the faith:



Quote:
1st Timothy Chapter 1
4 Not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies: which furnish questions rather than the edification of God, which is in faith.
The passage in my signature also gives us teaching about the remnant. There is a new remnant just as Elias was referring to in his time, St. Paul makes the comparison to the Church, for those who were so concerned that Christ had called people to something that seems to be a departure but is a fulfillment, yet they cling to ways of idolatry and have bowed their knees to Baal. We can see when we read the Old Testament and New Testament an enormous amount of typology. St. Paul says he himself was born a Jew, so it's not like the Jews/Hebrews are a condemned people. Some of them were chosen by the grace of God to lead a new remnant. Others have had every opportunity to follow.



Quote:
3 Lord, they have slain thy prophets, they have dug down thy altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the divine answer to him? I have left me seven thousand men, that have not bowed their knees to Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace.
__________________
AVE · CHRISTVS · REX
S.MARIA · MATER · DEI · O.P.N.
ROM. XI:III-V


Last edited by cbn620; 10-27-2019 at 10:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-28-2019, 6:56 AM
Kokopelli's Avatar
Kokopelli Kokopelli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: "the drop edge of yonder"
Posts: 2,536
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbn620 View Post
Most of the people we refer to as Jews in the western world are Ashkenazim who have a genetic admixture with Europeans. Jews worldwide be they Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, or any others, do not profess the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They don't even keep the faith of the Sanhedrin at the time Jesus died. The Biblical Judaism died and modern rabbinical, Talmudic Judaism took its place. The second temple was destroyed. No third temple has been built. The Church is the new Israel and the people who believe in Christ are God's people regardless of their race, as despite our differences all men are equal in dignity before God. So we have a group of people who are only tangentially related, by several degrees of separation, from the religion of the Bible, even that which preceded the New Testament, but there are some who claim because of that geographical location, or some limited genealogy, some fragment of DNA, these people have some persistent, imperishable, special position that never changed? Jesus said not to be concerned with this very sort of thing.


St Paul specifically mentions genealogies as to be avoided for matters concerning the faith:



The passage in my signature also gives us teaching about the remnant. There is a new remnant just as Elias was referring to in his time, St. Paul makes the comparison to the Church, for those who were so concerned that Christ had called people to something that seems to be a departure but is a fulfillment, yet they cling to ways of idolatry and have bowed their knees to Baal. We can see when we read the Old Testament and New Testament an enormous amount of typology. St. Paul says he himself was born a Jew, so it's not like the Jews/Hebrews are a condemned people. Some of them were chosen by the grace of God to lead a new remnant. Others have had every opportunity to follow.
Revelation 7

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.

8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

And those are just the one's that were sealed.
__________________
“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” - Ronald Reagan
"God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best." - Voltaire
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-28-2019, 12:53 PM
cbn620's Avatar
cbn620 cbn620 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Fresno County
Posts: 5,414
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is that meant to contradict something I've said? Everyone can be justified, God's grace is freely given and the response to grace is faith and then works. People who call themselves Jewish today can be saved. And so can any multitude of nations, which is what it says in the 9th verse of the same chapter you are quoting from. Not to mention is the reading here into the future, to the end of the world. There are two possible ways of viewing it: 1) of the people who rejected Christ there are those who came to believe 2) God can save who he wishes, he has bound us to the sacraments but cannot be bound by his own. It could be a mixture of both here. But with the language of "sealed" I think in this case it would be more about the former than the latter. But I see nothing in this passage that contradicts supersessionism.
__________________
AVE · CHRISTVS · REX
S.MARIA · MATER · DEI · O.P.N.
ROM. XI:III-V

Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-28-2019, 1:51 PM
CVShooter CVShooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 714
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Meh, religions change. Like all living things, even ideas have to adapt to changing environments or risk extinction. Judaism is a classic example. Judaism today isn't the Judaism of Jesus. Jesus's Judaism wasn't the Judaism of David. David's wasn't that of Moses. Moses's wasn't the same as Abraham. It's a testament to the people and culture that they change, not that they stay the same.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-30-2019, 2:49 AM
cbn620's Avatar
cbn620 cbn620 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Fresno County
Posts: 5,414
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CVShooter View Post
Meh, religions change. Like all living things, even ideas have to adapt to changing environments or risk extinction. Judaism is a classic example. Judaism today isn't the Judaism of Jesus. Jesus's Judaism wasn't the Judaism of David. David's wasn't that of Moses. Moses's wasn't the same as Abraham. It's a testament to the people and culture that they change, not that they stay the same.

They didn't really change though, not through all of the valid covenants of God that extend from proper Judaism through Christianity. We have dogma and doctrine that have been defined and set in stone. Lower levels of teaching and theological opinions can change, but higher levels of teaching and divine revelation do not. Have a look at this, full disclosure it is written from the Catholic perspective which is what I can deal in:




In addition, for us it's not as if the Old Testament, and the various covenants God made with man were mistakes so God just made new ones. Noahide, Abrahamic, and Mosaic law were not all just reset buttons. Similarly Christian law was not just a do over. All of these involved new revelation by God. My Church can show in everything it does a fulfillment of the law, directly fulfilling all of these. We can show typology between the Old and New Testament to further demonstrate these points. Those covenants were either all fulfilled one after the other resulting in Christianity, or resulting in Judaism. Or they ended along the way somewhere. Or they never began and it was all a lie. But it can't be all of these things at once.

To go further, if you insist on calling it an evolution and not a fulfillment then we can work with that terminology for the sake of argument. One is the true evolution, or the approved change, while the other evolved into something else entirely, it changed into the wrong thing by deviation from the truth. By the law of the excluded middle, modus ponens, et al, the two cannot both be true. If you want to make the case for one, or for none at all, that is fair, but it is post-modern and wishy-washy to say well didn't they all just change? Does any one particular view matter? Aren't they all the same? Does anything really mean anything?

The flag has to be planted somewhere, otherwise you essentially believe nothing. I learned this the hard way when I was coming of age. It led me to simply reject everything. I hope and pray that does not happen to you.
__________________
AVE · CHRISTVS · REX
S.MARIA · MATER · DEI · O.P.N.
ROM. XI:III-V


Last edited by cbn620; 10-30-2019 at 2:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-30-2019, 9:34 AM
CVShooter CVShooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 714
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbn620 View Post
They didn't really change though, not through all of the valid covenants of God that extend from proper Judaism through Christianity. We have dogma and doctrine that have been defined and set in stone. Lower levels of teaching and theological opinions can change, but higher levels of teaching and divine revelation do not. Have a look at this, full disclosure it is written from the Catholic perspective which is what I can deal in:




In addition, for us it's not as if the Old Testament, and the various covenants God made with man were mistakes so God just made new ones. Noahide, Abrahamic, and Mosaic law were not all just reset buttons. Similarly Christian law was not just a do over. All of these involved new revelation by God. My Church can show in everything it does a fulfillment of the law, directly fulfilling all of these. We can show typology between the Old and New Testament to further demonstrate these points. Those covenants were either all fulfilled one after the other resulting in Christianity, or resulting in Judaism. Or they ended along the way somewhere. Or they never began and it was all a lie. But it can't be all of these things at once.

To go further, if you insist on calling it an evolution and not a fulfillment then we can work with that terminology for the sake of argument. One is the true evolution, or the approved change, while the other evolved into something else entirely, it changed into the wrong thing by deviation from the truth. By the law of the excluded middle, modus ponens, et al, the two cannot both be true. If you want to make the case for one, or for none at all, that is fair, but it is post-modern and wishy-washy to say well didn't they all just change? Does any one particular view matter? Aren't they all the same? Does anything really mean anything?

The flag has to be planted somewhere, otherwise you essentially believe nothing. I learned this the hard way when I was coming of age. It led me to simply reject everything. I hope and pray that does not happen to you.
Funny. The Roman Catholics are one of the prime examples of change/evolution, though certainly over long periods of time and usually far too late. The only difference between how the Church changes and how people change is really just rationalization. Most people say, "I changed my mind." The pious say, "God has shown me." The Church says, "It has been revealed to us." It's all cheap talk for seeing a clear need to change or to describe an emotional pull.

How exactly a religion started by a Palestinian Jew became so much like Hellenistic state religion with philosophical roots owing more to Plato than Moses is nothing if not a huge change/evolution to meet the demands of an empire & gain wider acceptance. Let's just hope that some of the latest chatter about relaxing the celibacy laws gets further traction. If that's not a change that needs to happen yesterday, I don't know what is.

I respect caution on change. In fact, I respect conservatism simply because it is resistant to change. Our culture is, in my opinion, obsessed with the new. Yet time is the biggest indication of an idea's fitness. If people have believed something for a long time, I find that far more convincing than anything new.

But, being frank here, a couple thousand years or even six thousand years is a wink of time in our evolutionary history -- a mere 2-3% of our time as homo sapiens at best (far less if you count the other hominid primates). These "new" ideas of monotheist Gods, saviors and prophets haven't yet proven themselves as good for our species. In fact, they may yet be a contributor to our extinction. Time will tell. And because I won't be around to find out if I'm right, I don't think being right is all that useful. So it's not really worth arguing about. It's just a thought.

Reject everything? Hardly. I don't mind a little post-modern deconstructionism. To a point, it serves as a good reminder of the BS we feed ourselves at the interests of institutions. But rather than "planting my flag," as you put it, with a set of doctrines, I prefer to "plant my flag" with my community -- family, clients, neighbors, non-profits I work with, etc. I don't have to agree with them -- spiritual matters least of all. But we can help each other. That, to me, is far more meaningful than any institutional code of beliefs.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-30-2019, 3:15 PM
socal m1 shooter's Avatar
socal m1 shooter socal m1 shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 349
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Bertrand Russell, the famous atheist, popularized the observation that “people would rather die than think, and, in fact, they do.” Almost a hundred years ago he put that it one of his books; how much more true of humanity is that today?

As I observed in a different thread, you’re at least as narrow as the Christians you are disagreeing with, or attacking, saying, in effect, “it’s so intolerant and narrow to think that there is just one way to God, you’re quite wrong, but my opinion is right.” Unfortunately, almost everyone excels at ignoring the obvious, just like it is self-refuting to say, “doctrine is unimportant” (that statement is itself a doctrine), or “there are no absolute truths” (that statement is itself an absolute).

Mankind is made to worship, and we all worship something. As William Temple famously observed, “your religion is what you do with your solitude.” If a person wants to know what they worship, they should look at what they spend time on, because every idol demands a sacrifice. I think it is safe to say that syncretism is part of human nature.

I heard a Tim Keller message on Ecclesiastes 2 (“The Professor’s Disillusionment”), in which he made a very trenchant observation regarding what this book teaches about “life under the sun,” a worldview that he describes as “optimistic agnosticism.” This perspective, more or less, is the modernish notion that there probably is no God, and there is no way to know either way; we’re products of evolution, and this life is all there is (no Heaven or Hell), religion is largely meaningless superstition, but it still makes sense to believe in right and wrong, moral truths, human dignity, human rights, and that life still has some meaning. And the key point he is making is that the teacher, the professor, of Ecclesiastes is demolishing that optimistic agnosticism in chapter 2.

He cites some modern sources on this, like Sartre, who wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sartre, Existentialsm Is A Humanism
[If] God does not exist, and that it is necessary to draw the consequences of his absence right to the end. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain type of secular moralism which seeks to suppress God at the least possible expense. […]
The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that “the good” exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote: “If God did not exist, everything would be permitted”; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself.
Keller uses as an illustration an old Mutt & Jeff cartoon, where Mutt makes a huge pile of stones in the road and places a lantern on top. When asked why he put the huge pile of stones in the middle of the road, he replies, “to hold up the lantern.” But why do you want to hold up the lantern? “So drivers will see the stones and not hit them.” In other words, Mutt isn’t looking at the whole of it, he justifies the stones with the lantern and the lantern with the stones, and his thinking is stupid and circular, which is why the cartoon is entertaining.

People do the same thing. They look at individual parts of their lives and constantly assess, why do this, or what good is that, but they refuse to look at the whole. If someone asked another to go and stand at a particular location— say, a street corner— for ten minutes at a particular time and date, no one would be willing to do that without knowing the reason why, or what good it was. They do this with every part of their lives, but they refuse to do it with the whole of their life. Keller comes right out and says, “If your origin is insignificant— you come from nothing— and your destiny is insignificant— you’re going to nothing— have the guts to admit, your life is insignificant.”

In other words, “what does a man get for ALL his anxious toil under the sun?” Look at the whole, don’t be like Mutt.
__________________
WTB extractor for S&W 659, and magazines for S&W 1076. Please PM if you have one or more to sell.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:36 AM
CVShooter CVShooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 714
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socal m1 shooter View Post
Bertrand Russell, the famous atheist, popularized the observation that “people would rather die than think, and, in fact, they do.” Almost a hundred years ago he put that it one of his books; how much more true of humanity is that today?

As I observed in a different thread, you’re at least as narrow as the Christians you are disagreeing with, or attacking, saying, in effect, “it’s so intolerant and narrow to think that there is just one way to God, you’re quite wrong, but my opinion is right.” Unfortunately, almost everyone excels at ignoring the obvious, just like it is self-refuting to say, “doctrine is unimportant” (that statement is itself a doctrine), or “there are no absolute truths” (that statement is itself an absolute).
You're only partly right about me. I'll say that I think a lot of folks on this board are dead wrong about the details of their own religious history. They know the myths (the explaining stories) but not the facts nor how those myths evolved to what they are today. Most of what people seem to know is only what they have been told by folks on the inside or by crazed opponents, like Dawkins, who see absolutely nothing of value at all. Neither seems like a healthy, constructive way to view religion, in my opinion. I have to chuckle at your "self-refuting" statements, though. Yes, that is logical. But it's not based in the real world. I find most truth to be found in paradox -- two opposing ideas held in tension rather than resolved in a logical, neat little package. Logic is useful but it is also extremely limited. I encourage you to start learning about the limits of knowledge. The problem of induction is a good place to begin.

But I don't feel that I'm necessarily right on my own religious ideas either. The only thing I can say confidently on my own religious ideas is that they are harmless to you whether I'm right or wrong. And that is a useful ideology in a country founded on religious freedom.

Religion and spirituality is as old as humanity. I believe that it is simply a part of our nature to be religious, at least to an extent. If you feel that I am a die-hard atheist, you are mistaken. A true atheist wouldn't bother engaging in discussions about religion at all -- there would be nothing to discuss. Makes you wonder about guys like Dawkins -- is he simply like the homophobic gay man? Makes me wonder if there's a painful story about his personal religious history there somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-02-2019, 9:14 PM
krb krb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: The Valley
Posts: 721
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CVShooter View Post
Not to dispute your conclusion in the least. But Jesus didn't even speak Hebrew, nor did most of the Judeans of his day. They spoke Aramaic, which is more Phoenician than Jewish. Aramaic is still in use today, though a different form of it. As a matter of fact, I had the pleasure of speaking with a Syrian Orthodox minister last summer at Mono Hot Springs. He spoke to his father and daughter in Aramaic. As a side note, it always made more sense to me to allow the clergy to marry and have kids -- Roman Catholics really messed that one up. Likewise, Greek was the language more commonly used among the Romans for trade and business vs the legal use of Latin. Languages sometimes follow a "minority rule" pattern. For example, if 5 Germans, 2 Frenchmen, 10 Japanese and 1 American meet for coffee, they'll probably all speak English -- the one language they all hold in common.

Hebrew was a dead language for thousands of years -- learned only through the reading and reciting of old Jewish texts. Herzel and the early Zionists revived the language -- reverse engineering it, so to speak, for a modern age. Before them, nobody spoke Hebrew in casual conversation for thousands of years. It was only something they read for religious instruction.

Again, not to dispute your point. There's no reason I can see to try and separate Ashkenazi Jews from the Palestinian Jews of the first century and earlier. Seems more like somebody just trying to promote an agenda.
Hebrew has been in use for thousands of years. The Torah is written in Hebrew and we know that the current Torah we use is identical to that used thousands of years ago. This was confirmed I think in the 1960's with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls - fragments of scrolls from antiquity that essentially was identical to that used today. Our prayers have been unchanged since the Men of the Great Assembly which was also thousands of years ago. So while yes, the common language was Aramaic, the Torah of antiquity and the Torah of today, the Torah that all Jews read and spoke, has always been Hebrew.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-02-2019, 9:21 PM
krb krb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: The Valley
Posts: 721
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbn620 View Post

Most of the people we refer to as Jews in the western world are Ashkenazim who have a genetic admixture with Europeans. Jews worldwide be they Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, or any others, do not profess the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They don't even keep the faith of the Sanhedrin at the time Jesus died. The Biblical Judaism died and modern rabbinical, Talmudic Judaism took its place. The second temple was destroyed. No third temple has been built. The Church is the new Israel and the people who believe in Christ are God's people regardless of their race, as despite our differences all men are equal in dignity before God.
In what way do you think the Jew of the 21st century practices differently than the Jew of Moses' time? (Our Patriarchs were alive before the Torah was given, but tradition tells us they discovered G-d's laws and were essentially fully Torah observant). Certainly our standards of Kashrus evolved but we practice Shabbos the same way as did Moshe Rabbeinu and every Jew from then until now. Laws of family purity the same. Chagim the same. In what way do you think the modern practicing Jew practices different than the Jew of Moshe's time?

As regards the Church being the new Israel, I don't know enough about Christianity to know what Christians say, but there is no support in the Torah and no support in Judaism for a new people replacing the Jewish people as G-d's chosen, the light unto the nations. We are all servants of G-d, but every single one of us each has a different role, just as all peoples have a different role.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 11-02-2019, 9:56 PM
socal m1 shooter's Avatar
socal m1 shooter socal m1 shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 349
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krb View Post
[…] In what way do you think the modern practicing Jew practices different than the Jew of Moshe's time?
It was mentioned upthread but ignored: seeing as how David’s great-grandmother was from Moab, and Solomon’s mother was probably a Hittite, how did the Jews come to hold that Jewishness is passed through the mother?
__________________
WTB extractor for S&W 659, and magazines for S&W 1076. Please PM if you have one or more to sell.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-03-2019, 10:40 PM
krb krb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: The Valley
Posts: 721
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socal m1 shooter View Post
It was mentioned upthread but ignored: seeing as how David’s great-grandmother was from Moab, and Solomon’s mother was probably a Hittite, how did the Jews come to hold that Jewishness is passed through the mother?
Easy. Their mothers were Jewish. They converted. In fact there’s a whole book about it. The book of Ruth. We read it every year for shavuos. She is the Moabite. It was through her that we learn when a Moabite may not concert into the Jewish faith it is the Moabite and not the moabitess. Why is that? Because he did not greet you in your travels and travails. It shows a nature so contrary to our forefather Abraham that they cannot be allowed in. Ingratitude is one of the deadliest poisons in Judaism. Many rebelled against considering David to be a legitimate king for this reason. So why is this limited to men and not women? Women at that time were expected to be modest and not to go
Out and greet strangers. This was the job of the men. So this display of ingratitude and baseless hatred could therefore only be attributed to the men and not the women.

For anyone interested the artscroll series of books is fascinating. If you want an in depth explication of Torah that includes deep commentary look up artscroll anything book series. The artscroll stone chumash (Torah) is amazing. I’m currently reading the majesty of bereishis by rabbi Scherman and I think everyone here will find it fascinating. Deep discussions, not kindergarten level stories.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:13 AM
CVShooter CVShooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 714
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krb View Post
Hebrew has been in use for thousands of years. The Torah is written in Hebrew and we know that the current Torah we use is identical to that used thousands of years ago. This was confirmed I think in the 1960's with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls - fragments of scrolls from antiquity that essentially was identical to that used today. Our prayers have been unchanged since the Men of the Great Assembly which was also thousands of years ago. So while yes, the common language was Aramaic, the Torah of antiquity and the Torah of today, the Torah that all Jews read and spoke, has always been Hebrew.
A dead language is not necessarily out of use. It is simply one that is not living in the modern world, adopting new words with new times or part of everyday conversation. In that sense, Hebrew was dead for a very long time. The same could be said for Latin from about the dark ages of Europe (after the fall of Rome) until today. It's locked in its time, failing to live with the people today and adapting itself to the lives of living people. It was the early Zionists (1940s, I believe) who resurrected Hebrew from its simply liturgical use to a full-blown language again. Modern Hebrew lives. Ancient Hebrew is dead. There was a VERY long gap from the time that Hebrew actually worked as a living language until the time that the Zionists revived it. Jews of Europe spoke the languages of their local communities (Russian, German, etc.) and/or some hybrid of Hebrew and the local languages, such as Yiddish. Yiddish, of course, is not Hebrew. It's a blend of Hebrew with other European languages. I recall that some devout Jews thought that Hebrew was too sacred a language to use in everyday conversation (liturgical only). The early Zionists, of course, were too secular to care much about such things.

The fact that we know how little the texts changed from the earliest to latest manuscripts confirms that it was dead. Nothing living is preserved in-tact. There is not one single language alive today that was the same 1000 years ago. Living languages age just as people and cultures age. We can say that Yiddish was a natural evolution of Hebrew for a disbursed culture, post diaspora. The characters are Hebrew. But words, verb endings, grammatical structure, etc. are, arguably, more European than Hebrew.

My Ulpan instructor, whenever we said something in Hebrew that she didn't understand or that didn't quite make sense, would say, "What is this? This is Yiddish. It makes no sense. Try again." Those early Zionists had to strip a lot of Yiddish from the language to get it to work as a living language again. Even so, modern Hebrew still has to borrow from Yiddish, along with many other languages. I had one professor in Jerusalem (modern Israeli history), who argued that Hebrew is still a dead language simply because new words still come from other languages. That's a little extreme but he has a point.

Last edited by CVShooter; 11-04-2019 at 10:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:25 AM
krb krb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: The Valley
Posts: 721
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CVShooter View Post
A dead language is not necessarily out of use. It is simply one that is not living in the modern world, adopting new words with new times or part of everyday conversation. In that sense, Hebrew was dead for a very long time. The same could be said for Latin from about the dark ages of Europe (after the fall of Rome) until today. It's locked in its time, failing to live with the people today and adapting itself to the lives of living people. It was the early Zionists (1940s, I believe) who resurrected Hebrew from its simply liturgical use to a full-blown language again. Modern Hebrew lives. Ancient Hebrew is dead. There was a VERY long gap from the time that Hebrew actually worked as a living language until the time that the Zionists revived it. Jews of Europe spoke the languages of their local communities (Russian, German, etc.) and/or some hybrid of Hebrew and the local languages, such as Yiddish. Yiddish, of course, is not Hebrew. It's a blend of Hebrew with other European languages. I recall that some devout Jews thought that Hebrew was too sacred a language to use in everyday conversation (liturgical only). The early Zionists, of course, were too secular to care much about such things.

The fact that we know how little the texts changed from the earliest to latest manuscripts confirms that it was dead. Nothing living is preserved in-tact. There is not one single language alive today that was the same 1000 years ago. Living languages age just as people and cultures age. We can say that Yiddish was a natural evolution of Hebrew for a disbursed culture, post diaspora. The characters are Hebrew. But words, verb endings, grammatical structure, etc. are, arguably, more European than Hebrew.

My Ulpan instructor, whenever we said something in Hebrew that she didn't understand or that didn't quite make sense, would say, "What is this? This is Yiddish. It makes no sense. Try again." Those early Zionists had to strip a lot of Yiddish from the language to get it to work as a living language again. Even so, modern Hebrew still has to borrow from Yiddish, along with many other languages. I had one professor in Jerusalem (modern Israeli history), who argued that Hebrew is still a dead language simply because new words still come from other languages. That's a little extreme but he has a point.
Hi. Yiddish is essentially German, written in Hebrew. My point though was not that Hebrew was used in common language since Moses' time. My point is the Torah was given by G-d to Moses in Hebrew, the language of the creation of the universe. The Jewish people knew and understood biblical Hebrew from at least then until now, contiguously, with no interruption. Every Jewish male was educated in Torah, and scholarship and education, in contradistinction to nearly every other culture, was the currency of the land. That is to say, Hebrew has been in continuous use by all Jews from the time we left Egypt until today, uninterrupted. Was it used as the common language? Probably for some significant part of that time. I'd have to look that up. Did it have a word for television? Not until the Zionists decided to modernize it. But Hebrew has been spoke continuously for 4,000 years. The Torah we use today is identical to the Torah given at Sinai (again - see Dead Sea Scrolls) and this has been the foundation and bedrock of the Jewish people for 4,000 years.

That was my point - Hebrew has been in continuous use in prayer and in Torah study for 4,000 years. There has never been a time this was not so. Was it used as a common language? As you mentioned Aramaic was for a time the common Middle Eastern language. Modern Hebrew is simply an updating for modern times the language my people has known since antiquity. The Torah is written in Hebrew. David, the sweet singer, wrote in Hebrew. The Prophets' writings are in Hebrew. And the Zionists updated the language to fit modern times. That is all.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-04-2019, 1:29 PM
socal m1 shooter's Avatar
socal m1 shooter socal m1 shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 349
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krb View Post
Easy. Their mothers were Jewish. They converted. [...]
I appreciate the quick response. Your response prompted me to search a bit, and I have to admit, I was quite surprised at the number of various answers that are out there to this question. I'll make an attempt to answer your question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by krb View Post
[…] In what way do you think the modern practicing Jew practices different than the Jew of Moshe's time?
I've made it plain, I'm not Jewish. But I read some commentaries from a Messianic Jew, including one work which he labored over many years, and your question jogged my memory.

In this book-- I'm happy to provide a more specific citation if you are interested-- the author describes the transition that took place from Biblical Judaism to Rabbinic Judaism. From what I read, a school of rabbis had arisen after the return from the Babylonian Captivity. This rabbinic school was the Sopherim, and their intent was to put a fence, so to speak, around the 613 commands of the Mosaic Law, to keep people from violating Torah commandments. In other words, people might break the fence-- traditions created by the Sopherim-- but not the Torah commandments.

As an example of their logic, he provides a command given to Moses (Exodus 23, et al.)-- namely, "You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk"-- and explains the fences that were created to protect this commandment.

The writer explains:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruchtenbaum, from "Yeshua, The Life of Messiah..."
In all probability, this law was given to avoid a Canaanite practice. When a goat gave birth to its firstborn kid, the Canaanites would take the kid away from its mother, milk the mother, and then boil the meat of the kid in the milk of the mother as a firstfruits offering to Baal. Jews were not to practice that kind of idolatry, and so they were not to seethe a kid in the milk of its mother. God gave that commandment to Moses around 1400 B.C. A thousand years later, in 400 B.C., there were no Canaanites around anymore. No one was boiling kids in the milk of the mother goat anymore. In the school of the Sopherim, the question arose: How do we make sure we never, never, never, ever, ever, ever boil a kid in the milk of its mother? That is where the pilpulistic logic began to work. Suppose you eat a piece of meat, and with the meat, you drink a glass of milk. It is possible that the meat is from the young of the animal that produced the milk you are drinking. As you swallow both the meat and the milk, it mixes in your stomach, and you seethe a kid in the milk of its mother. Thus a new law came into being: a Jew cannot eat meat and dairy at the same meal; they need to be separated by about four hours.

However, the pilpulistic logic went even further. Suppose at noon you choose to eat a dairy meal. You take a plate, and from this you eat some cheese. After you eat the cheese, you may wash and scrub the plate thoroughly, but there might be a tiny speck of cheese still left on the plate that you did not see. In the evening, you choose to eat meat and you place the meat on the same plate from which you ate the cheese earlier in the day. The meat might pick up that tiny speck of cheese. No matter how remote, it just might be possible that the cheese you had at noon was made from the milk of the mother of the baby goat you are eating later in the day. As you swallow this tiny speck of cheese with the meat, you seethe the kid in the milk of its mother and again violate the Torah. Thus another new law came into being: All Jews must have two sets of dishes; one is to be used for dairy products and one for meat products. If one accidentally uses the wrong dish for the item eaten, the dish must either be destroyed or given to a Gentile, but no Jew may eat from that plate again! To each of the 613 commandments God gave to Moses, the Sopherim issued multiple new rules and regulations. This process began around 450 B.C., and finally ended in the year 30 B.C. Normally, it was passed from rabbi to rabbi, and it is said to have lasted from Ezra the scribe to Hillel. With Hillel came the end of the Sopherim.

Then came a second school of rabbis called the Tannaim. The Tannaim looked upon the work of the Sopherim and decided that there were still too many holes in this fence. They conitinued the process of establishing new rules and regulations from 30 B.C. until A.D. 220, the period from Hillel to Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi. However, the principle of operation changed. The principle of the Sopherim was, "A sopher may disagree with a sopher, but he cannot disagree with the Torah." The principle of the Tannaim was, "A tanna may disagree with a tanna, but he cannot disagree with a sopher." That meant that from 30 B.C., shortly before Yeshua [Jesus] arrived, all the thousands of rules and regulations passed down by the Sopherim became sacrosanct and of equal validity with Scripture. In order to validate to the Jewish audience why the laws of the Sopherim were equal to the laws of Moses, the rabbis came up with a teaching that all Orthodox Jews believe and teach to this very day: What really happened on Mount Sinai was that God gave Moses two laws. The first law is called the Written Law, which contains the 613 commandments that Moses actually penned in the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. However, God also gave Moses a second law, which is called the Oral Law because Moses did not write all of its commandments down; he merely memorized them. By memory, they were passed down to Joshua, who then passed them down to the judges, who then passed them down to the prophets, who then passed them down to the Sopherim. In fact, the Oral Law was not written down for about six centuries, and a great part of the work of a rabbi consisted of memorization. By the third century A.D., fewer and fewer people were around to memorize all these laws, so in A.D. 220, the rabbis finally wrote them down at the order of Judah Ha-Nasi, the patriarch in the land. This ended the period of the Tannaim.

Then came a third school of rabbis called the Amoraim, plural for amora, an Aramaic term meaning "teacher" or "interpreter." They looked upon the work of the Tannaim and declared, "There are still too many holes in this fence." They continued the process of establishing new rules and regulations until about A.D. 500, but they changed their principle of operation. Their principle was, "An amora may disagree with an amora, but he cannot disagree with a tanna." Thus, all the rules and regulations of the Tannaim also became sacrosanct, having equal validity with Scripture.

The work of the Sopherim and the Tannaim together is now called the Mishnah. The work of the Amoraim is called the Gemara. The two works together (Mishnah plus Gemara) comprise the Talmud. The Mishnah was written in Hebrew, and it averages about 1,500 pages in small print. The Gemara was written in Aramaic and is the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
So on the basis of this account, it would seem that modern Judaism differs in more than a few respects from the Judaism practiced by Moses.
__________________
WTB extractor for S&W 659, and magazines for S&W 1076. Please PM if you have one or more to sell.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-04-2019, 3:47 PM
CVShooter CVShooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 714
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krb View Post
Hi. Yiddish is essentially German, written in Hebrew. My point though was not that Hebrew was used in common language since Moses' time. My point is the Torah was given by G-d to Moses in Hebrew, the language of the creation of the universe. The Jewish people knew and understood biblical Hebrew from at least then until now, contiguously, with no interruption. Every Jewish male was educated in Torah, and scholarship and education, in contradistinction to nearly every other culture, was the currency of the land. That is to say, Hebrew has been in continuous use by all Jews from the time we left Egypt until today, uninterrupted. Was it used as the common language? Probably for some significant part of that time. I'd have to look that up. Did it have a word for television? Not until the Zionists decided to modernize it. But Hebrew has been spoke continuously for 4,000 years. The Torah we use today is identical to the Torah given at Sinai (again - see Dead Sea Scrolls) and this has been the foundation and bedrock of the Jewish people for 4,000 years.

That was my point - Hebrew has been in continuous use in prayer and in Torah study for 4,000 years. There has never been a time this was not so. Was it used as a common language? As you mentioned Aramaic was for a time the common Middle Eastern language. Modern Hebrew is simply an updating for modern times the language my people has known since antiquity. The Torah is written in Hebrew. David, the sweet singer, wrote in Hebrew. The Prophets' writings are in Hebrew. And the Zionists updated the language to fit modern times. That is all.
I'll mostly agree with you here. But it's kind of a moot point. Just because Latin hasn't changed for a couple thousand years doesn't mean that it is somehow "pure" so much as dead & sterile. I'd say the same for ancient Hebrew. It's also part of my beef with Biblical translations like the New King James Version, where nobody ever, in the entire history of humanity, ever spoke or wrote in a language known as New King James. The original King James Version was fantastic because it was currently in use by people at the time it was written, apart from its scholarship (incredible for its day). But New King James is just an oddball translation based on no known language at all. Maybe it's not as bad as a translation into Middle Earth Elvish or Klingon. But it's the same kind of idea -- what's the point?

I won't bother to debate whether or not the Torah was handed down by a divine being or not -- that's a question of faith. Either you take it or leave it. But it makes sense that IF it was handed down by G-d, that he would do so in a language that was actually spoken at that time. That, to me, doesn't make Hebrew special in any way other than it was what was the most expedient at the time. If Jews feel a cultural bond with the language, then, that is certainly legit. But it doesn't make the language magical any more than the type of ink used to write it or the mineral composition of the tablets given to Moses.

The continued use of dead languages for transcription is incredibly important for the legal context of any religion. Languages change over time. As we know, the word "bad" could mean completely different things between depending on the context and time period (think 1955 vs 1985). Locking in the word choices narrows the scope of possible meanings. It's partly why we still don't update the US Constitution to modern language. Instead, we leave it alone and then revise our interpretations of that static document. Judaism is, of course, the poster child for legalistic traditions.

If you want to believe that Hebrew is special or magical, go for it. But there are far simpler explanations that make more sense to me. Just as a side point, I certainly appreciated how grammatically simple it is. It made even Latin-based languages seem overly complicated. Christians spend a lot of time on Greek but I feel most of them would be better served learning Hebrew. It's much easier and closer to what Jesus knew and spoke anyway.

Last edited by CVShooter; 11-04-2019 at 3:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-04-2019, 6:04 PM
krb krb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: The Valley
Posts: 721
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CVShooter View Post
I'll mostly agree with you here. But it's kind of a moot point. Just because Latin hasn't changed for a couple thousand years doesn't mean that it is somehow "pure" so much as dead & sterile. I'd say the same for ancient Hebrew. It's also part of my beef with Biblical translations like the New King James Version, where nobody ever, in the entire history of humanity, ever spoke or wrote in a language known as New King James. The original King James Version was fantastic because it was currently in use by people at the time it was written, apart from its scholarship (incredible for its day). But New King James is just an oddball translation based on no known language at all. Maybe it's not as bad as a translation into Middle Earth Elvish or Klingon. But it's the same kind of idea -- what's the point?

I won't bother to debate whether or not the Torah was handed down by a divine being or not -- that's a question of faith. Either you take it or leave it. But it makes sense that IF it was handed down by G-d, that he would do so in a language that was actually spoken at that time. That, to me, doesn't make Hebrew special in any way other than it was what was the most expedient at the time. If Jews feel a cultural bond with the language, then, that is certainly legit. But it doesn't make the language magical any more than the type of ink used to write it or the mineral composition of the tablets given to Moses.

The continued use of dead languages for transcription is incredibly important for the legal context of any religion. Languages change over time. As we know, the word "bad" could mean completely different things between depending on the context and time period (think 1955 vs 1985). Locking in the word choices narrows the scope of possible meanings. It's partly why we still don't update the US Constitution to modern language. Instead, we leave it alone and then revise our interpretations of that static document. Judaism is, of course, the poster child for legalistic traditions.

If you want to believe that Hebrew is special or magical, go for it. But there are far simpler explanations that make more sense to me. Just as a side point, I certainly appreciated how grammatically simple it is. It made even Latin-based languages seem overly complicated. Christians spend a lot of time on Greek but I feel most of them would be better served learning Hebrew. It's much easier and closer to what Jesus knew and spoke anyway.
Hi. One last response - independent of whether or not Hebrew is the language through which G-d created material existence, and independent of whether or not G-d gave the Torah ... The Torah was written in Hebrew I think we agree around 4,000 years ago (when Egypt was the dominant world power and the Jewish people was born), it was used as a language by the Jewish people at that time,* and continued through to the first Temple (King David wrote Tehillim/Psalms in Hebrew). It has been studied and used continuously by Jews from then until now. There has always been an oral Torah.** The written Torah was forbidden from being transmitted orally and the oral Torah was forbidden from being transmitted in written form. This restriction continued until Roman times. In Roman times we were persecuted and tortured and murdered such that there was a real concern that the oral Torah would be lost as the sages were murdered. Rabbi Yehudah the Prince was of sufficient wealth, power, and scholarship that he authorized the oral Torah to be written. This was extremely controversial. The point of the oral Torah was that it must be transmitted orally so that a Master transmitted it to the student to avoid any misunderstanding. The concern then - and this is actually related to a contemporary similar issue not relevant here - was that if it were written it would be liable to misinterpretation. This is the Talmud.

*At the time of the Exodus, G-d prepared to free the Jews and destroy the Egyptians. The angels proclaimed how can you destroy these and not those? These worship idols and those worship idols. The Jewish people were separated from the Egyptians by three things - throughout the enslavement they maintained their dress, their names, and their language. The importance of this is beyond this discussion. But the point was that Hebrew was the spoken language of the Jews at that time and continued at least until the first Temple's destruction. Even further back, in the Joseph saga, Hebrew played a pivotal role. The brothers spoke freely in front of Joseph because no gentile spoke Hebrew. They spoke freely knowing that the Egyptian viceroy could not understand them.

**That the oral Torah - the Talmud - exists and must exist is logically clear. The Torah says you shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk. Well that is the easiest law to obey. It obviously means more, but what exactly? If it means to separate milk and meat, what does that mean? Not cook with? Not eat with? Probably a better example is tefillin. The written Torah talks about Totafos but what does that mean? It does explain it. It is necessary to have an oral Torah to explain it. A better example would be an eye for an eye. In all the years we had a Sanhedrin there is not a single time an eye was taken out. If that is the case - why is it there? If the Jews knew that was not permitted why the commandment? The oral Torah is necessary to explicate the laws.

Finally there is no such thing as a Messianic Jew. What you are talking about is a Christian. Christians who proselytize found they could convert few Jews. As far from the practice of Judaism some may have fallen, deep inside, a Jew knows he cannot convert. Thus was born "Messianic Judaism." It is Christianity designed to convert Jews but must be covered up and disguised as an open Christian is unlikely - at least until recently - to entice a Jew.

I typed too much to address the other part... I'm tired... Will try to address that too if I remember.

Nice conversation so far.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-05-2019, 10:07 AM
CVShooter CVShooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 714
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krb View Post

Finally there is no such thing as a Messianic Jew. What you are talking about is a Christian.
Hahahaha! Loved that one. Seriously - I'm not being sarcastic in any way here. That's the best kind of horse sense I've seen on this board in a long time. Cheers to you, my friend!
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-09-2019, 9:11 PM
krb krb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: The Valley
Posts: 721
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CVShooter View Post
Hahahaha! Loved that one. Seriously - I'm not being sarcastic in any way here. That's the best kind of horse sense I've seen on this board in a long time. Cheers to you, my friend!
Thank you! For a long time, Christians have tried to convert Jews. Almost regardless of how much his observance has lapsed, most Jews are repelled by attempts at conversion. Consequently, recognizing this, Christians who seek to convert Jews realize they cannot come on openly and so they created such false organizations as “Jews for Jesus,” and “Messianic Judaism.” This was to get the nose of the camel under the tent so to speak.

While we have the Ten Commandments in common, the underlying philosophy of Judaism and Christianity is not the same. I recall a conversation in this section of Calguns about the role of Satan.

Not only did G-d create this existence but he continuously recreates it. That is to say, this existence is a series of instances of re-creation that gives the illusion of continuous objective reality. Everything that exists - not only your computer, your car, and your body - but even time and space - exists only from moment to moment at G-d’s will. There is no objective reality outside of G-d’s will. The idea that there could be any power that opposes G-d’s will is ludicrous in Judaism. The idea that there is an angel who has even the tiniest amount of power independent of G-d’s constant creation of the angel is ludicrous.

Satan is G-d’s agent. Satan is His servant. His job is to tempt us to sin. When we fail and fall his job is to deliver the report to the Heavenly Court. At the right time his job is to prosecute us with the evidence he arranged. And at the right time he is the angel of death and he removes us from this world. He is more like a coach. He pushes and pushes and pushes. But our job is to succeed and to do G-d’s will. If we had no temptation, how could we receive a reward? If you have no coach telling you to work harder, how hard can you work? In the absence of darkness, of what use is light? We need temptation in order to resist it, to do G-d’s will. It is because of Satan, because of the yetzer hara, that our decisions can result in merit. Without Satan, without temptation, of what use is it to be good?

Now it is said at the end of days, the Satan will be sacrificed (slaughtered). Why, if he is only doing his job? Because his job is to tempt us openly. He is to show us something forbidden and tempt us to take it. But he goes beyond that. He “colors” that which is forbidden to make it appear holy. If he put something I should not do in front of me and makes it look delicious, I should know it is forbidden and not take part. For example perhaps you just bought a delicious hamburger and you are hungry and you can’t wait to eat it. You see a homeless person who is obviously hungry. You know you can just eat later and he is hungry now. Satan is who tells you that you work hard, you earned your money, and the other person is in his situation because he made bad choices so you deserve the hamburger not him. The truth is, you have more than enough blessings, the homeless person has few, and a righteous person would give the hungry man his hamburger.

But he tricks us into thinking what is forbidden is allowed or even holy and that is beyond his job description. For that he will be punished.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-11-2019, 8:30 PM
socal m1 shooter's Avatar
socal m1 shooter socal m1 shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 349
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

No offense, but your post has little to do with the OP.

Too, you're entitled to your opinion regarding Messianic Jews, but to be direct, it comes across as dismissive, not respectful. I have no interest in being quarrelsome or offensive, but when I see these testimonies, they do not strike me as a bunch of people who have been deceived by some Christian conspiracy, as you paint it.













I don't think you can view these testimonies and disagree.
__________________
WTB extractor for S&W 659, and magazines for S&W 1076. Please PM if you have one or more to sell.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 11-11-2019, 9:26 PM
socal m1 shooter's Avatar
socal m1 shooter socal m1 shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 349
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

There are many. Do they strike you as people who have been hoodwinked or tricked? I don't see that at all.







__________________
WTB extractor for S&W 659, and magazines for S&W 1076. Please PM if you have one or more to sell.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-13-2019, 9:10 AM
REDdawn6 REDdawn6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mentone Ca, 92359
Posts: 2,452
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Jesuits !!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-13-2019, 4:08 PM
CVShooter CVShooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 714
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krb View Post
While we have the Ten Commandments in common, the underlying philosophy of Judaism and Christianity is not the same. I recall a conversation in this section of Calguns about the role of Satan.
...
The idea that there is an angel who has even the tiniest amount of power independent of G-d’s constant creation of the angel is ludicrous.

Satan is G-d’s agent. Satan is His servant. His job is to tempt us to sin. ...Satan is who tells you that you work hard, you earned your money, and the other person is in his situation because he made bad choices so you deserve the hamburger not him. The truth is, you have more than enough blessings, the homeless person has few, and a righteous person would give the hungry man his hamburger.

But he tricks us into thinking what is forbidden is allowed or even holy and that is beyond his job description. For that he will be punished.
This just makes me smile. No-nonsense, BS-proof, worthy of Jesus himself (who was, as we know, a very devout Jew). I might disagree with a detail here and there but overall, we're in agreement. Well put!

There's a reason why Paul was hand-slapped by James (made to go through purification rites & prove his Jewishness) and arrested shortly thereafter. Paul's Jesus was not Jesus of Nazareth. He was the Christ -- something totally different. A Hellenized Jesus figure. After all, Paul never met Jesus, unless you count his hallucination (I don't). The whole account of Paul meeting Jesus is straight out of Monte Python: "Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government." Can we all agree that megalomaniacs having hallucinations of people long since executed in public is no basis for divine authority? Please? Don't worry -- I'm not holding my breath for that one. I suspect that few Protestants on this board could agree with that request.

Last edited by CVShooter; 11-13-2019 at 4:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-13-2019, 7:18 PM
krb krb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: The Valley
Posts: 721
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socal m1 shooter View Post
No offense, but your post has little to do with the OP.

Too, you're entitled to your opinion regarding Messianic Jews, but to be direct, it comes across as dismissive, not respectful. I have no interest in being quarrelsome or offensive, but when I see these testimonies, they do not strike me as a bunch of people who have been deceived by some Christian conspiracy, as you paint it.













I don't think you can view these testimonies and disagree.
There is no basis for belief in Jesus from the Torah. “Messianic Judaism” is essentially “Jews for Jesus,” which is Christians who want to convert Jews. Jews who succumb to the message are poorly educated and have no understanding of Judaism and thus can be convinced. An educated Jew - a Torah observant Jew - a Jew who understands Judaism - is not the target. It is horrible, but most Jews in this country are poorly educated as regards Judaism - they grew up in secular homes and their only connection is doing a good deed for the community as a requirement to have a lavish Bar Mitzvah. It’s not even that they rebel against the Torah... THEY NEVER LEARNED IT. It’s not like they are angrily throwing away their heritage. They knew nothing of it, and so as they say “if you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.”

These are secular Jews (ie not Torah-observant) who never had an understanding of their heritage and so never knew what they abandoned. They are not BAD people - they are ignorant and to be pitied that there was a treasure chest under their bed but they never knew about it and so abandoned the house, never knowing its value.

Very sad.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-13-2019, 7:30 PM
krb krb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: The Valley
Posts: 721
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socal m1 shooter View Post
No offense, but your post has little to do with the OP.

Too, you're entitled to your opinion regarding Messianic Jews, but to be direct, it comes across as dismissive, not respectful. I have no interest in being quarrelsome or offensive, but when I see these testimonies, they do not strike me as a bunch of people who have been deceived by some Christian conspiracy, as you paint it.













I don't think you can view these testimonies and disagree.
Having now watched several of these (not all of them - it’s not a good use of my time) - what they all have in common is not a single one of them had any Jewish education and not a single one of them talked about how they were raised in Jewish observance, or had even a modicum of Yiddishkeit in the home. You totally made my point - thank you!

Every one of them was secular, not Torah-observant, and was ignorant of what Judaism is. They were exposed to a philosophy dedicated to conversion or prosyletization (?) especially of Jews and they succumbed. Again - no one with a Jewish education, no Torah observant Jew would fall for this because the Messiah of Christianity is foreign to Judaism. In Judaism, action is the thing, not belief. Is there judgment based on your thoughts? To some degree. But you are judged nearly completely on your actions. Our writings are clear as to what it looks like when the Moshiach comes. It is in I think Yeshiahu (Isaiah) - Man will bend his sword into plowshares. The lion will lie down with the lamb. King Moshiach will bring not only spiritual peace but world peace. I don’t read the news anymore but last I read we don’t have world peace.

Observant Christians are frequently the best friend of the Jew. But the Christian worldview is very different than the Jewish worldview. By no means am I saying it is bad - but it is very different. And there is no real basis for the Christian worldview in the Torah. Ergo, any educated Jew, any Torah observant Jew, will find no resonance, not attraction in Christianity. Jews with no education sadly, Jews with little external attachment to Torah, sadly, will find themselves lost and adrift - more commonly in secularism but yes in Christianity as well. These are the examples you gave.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-15-2019, 8:45 AM
CVShooter CVShooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 714
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krb View Post
Having now watched several of these (not all of them - it’s not a good use of my time) - what they all have in common is not a single one of them had any Jewish education and not a single one of them talked about how they were raised in Jewish observance, or had even a modicum of Yiddishkeit in the home. You totally made my point - thank you!

Every one of them was secular, not Torah-observant, and was ignorant of what Judaism is. They were exposed to a philosophy dedicated to conversion or prosyletization (?) especially of Jews and they succumbed. Again - no one with a Jewish education, no Torah observant Jew would fall for this because the Messiah of Christianity is foreign to Judaism. In Judaism, action is the thing, not belief. Is there judgment based on your thoughts? To some degree. But you are judged nearly completely on your actions. Our writings are clear as to what it looks like when the Moshiach comes. It is in I think Yeshiahu (Isaiah) - Man will bend his sword into plowshares. The lion will lie down with the lamb. King Moshiach will bring not only spiritual peace but world peace. I don’t read the news anymore but last I read we don’t have world peace.

Observant Christians are frequently the best friend of the Jew. But the Christian worldview is very different than the Jewish worldview. By no means am I saying it is bad - but it is very different. And there is no real basis for the Christian worldview in the Torah. Ergo, any educated Jew, any Torah observant Jew, will find no resonance, not attraction in Christianity. Jews with no education sadly, Jews with little external attachment to Torah, sadly, will find themselves lost and adrift - more commonly in secularism but yes in Christianity as well. These are the examples you gave.
It may help some people to know that "Jewish" is a very broad description. Jewish can mean: Ethnicity, Culture, Religion (and there are many sects of Judaism that interpret things very differently) and none of these necessarily means anything about being Israeli. Not all Jews are Israeli. Not all Israelis are Jews. Plenty of Israelis are Jewish by ethnicity but not by religion or even culture. And the culture of Jews can vary greatly between, for example, Ashkenazi vs Sephardi vs Yemeni Jews. "These people" (Israelis) are a mix, to be sure.

If we're just discussing Israelis, we also have to include Palestinian Muslims (plenty of sects there), Palestinian Christians (yes, there are many Palestinian Christians living in Israel), Mormons, Druze... The list is very long. All could be Israelis by nationality but not Jewish.

Chasing a rabbit here -- It may surprise American Protestants to know that the Muslim leaders (one family) in Israel still hold the keys (or did in 1999) to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The church is divided into 6 sections for 6 of the main sects of Christianity (none of which are Protestant). The Muslims still hold the keys because of how much fighting the Christians have done among themselves over the centuries, especially around Easter Sunday. If tensions rise, the Muslim leadership intervenes & locks everybody out until folks can cool off. Yes, it's the Muslims who have helped to keep the peace among Christians for centuries! I say this in hopes that helps some folks get better perspective on whether Islam is somehow inherently violent. In my stay in Israel, I have never been given such kindness and hospitality by complete strangers than I did by Palestinian Muslims. Even the famed "Southern Hospitality" of our country pales in comparison. And here in the States, I stopped by a local mosque when I was in college to inquire about learning Arabic. Within an hour, the Imam introduced me to a kind man of very humble means, who invited me to his house, put a book in my hand and started me on the alphabet. When I asked if he charged, he said I could pay him whatever I could afford. I wish I could have stuck with it -- good folks.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-16-2019, 10:55 AM
socal m1 shooter's Avatar
socal m1 shooter socal m1 shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 349
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krb View Post
Having now watched several of these (not all of them - it’s not a good use of my time) - what they all have in common is not a single one of them had any Jewish education and not a single one of them talked about how they were raised in Jewish observance, or had even a modicum of Yiddishkeit in the home. You totally made my point - thank you!

Every one of them was secular, not Torah-observant, and was ignorant of what Judaism is. They were exposed to a philosophy dedicated to conversion or prosyletization (?) especially of Jews and they succumbed. Again - no one with a Jewish education, no Torah observant Jew would fall for this because the Messiah of Christianity is foreign to Judaism. In Judaism, action is the thing, not belief. Is there judgment based on your thoughts? To some degree. But you are judged nearly completely on your actions. [...]
May I ask, what precisely and specifically do you mean by "Torah-observant?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by CVShooter View Post
It may help some people to know that "Jewish" is a very broad description. Jewish can mean: Ethnicity, Culture, Religion (and there are many sects of Judaism that interpret things very differently) and none of these necessarily means anything about being Israeli. Not all Jews are Israeli. Not all Israelis are Jews. Plenty of Israelis are Jewish by ethnicity but not by religion or even culture. And the culture of Jews can vary greatly between, for example, Ashkenazi vs Sephardi vs Yemeni Jews. "These people" (Israelis) are a mix, to be sure.

If we're just discussing Israelis, we also have to include Palestinian Muslims (plenty of sects there), Palestinian Christians (yes, there are many Palestinian Christians living in Israel), Mormons, Druze... The list is very long. All could be Israelis by nationality but not Jewish.

Chasing a rabbit here -- It may surprise American Protestants to know that the Muslim leaders (one family) in Israel still hold the keys (or did in 1999) to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The church is divided into 6 sections for 6 of the main sects of Christianity (none of which are Protestant). The Muslims still hold the keys because of how much fighting the Christians have done among themselves over the centuries, especially around Easter Sunday. If tensions rise, the Muslim leadership intervenes & locks everybody out until folks can cool off. Yes, it's the Muslims who have helped to keep the peace among Christians for centuries! I say this in hopes that helps some folks get better perspective on whether Islam is somehow inherently violent. In my stay in Israel, I have never been given such kindness and hospitality by complete strangers than I did by Palestinian Muslims. Even the famed "Southern Hospitality" of our country pales in comparison. And here in the States, I stopped by a local mosque when I was in college to inquire about learning Arabic. Within an hour, the Imam introduced me to a kind man of very humble means, who invited me to his house, put a book in my hand and started me on the alphabet. When I asked if he charged, he said I could pay him whatever I could afford. I wish I could have stuck with it -- good folks.
There is a reason the Apostle's Creed contains the phrase "I believe [...] in the holy catholic church..."

In the sense it is used here, catholic simply means "relating to the church universal." It doesn't mean the Roman Catholic Church, which-- to be direct-- many Protestants view with skepticism. Why is that included in the creed? Very briefly, because the fall of man caused alienation-- alienation from God, alienation from fellow humans, alienation from ourselves-- and even though modern Americans have a hard time with that, partly because our culture (we celebrate and value the individual), it is in there to claim the promise that saving faith makes it possible for believers to be reconciled to themselves, and to others, and to God. It is very deliberately included.

It is a separate issue why so many carry the Name of God, as Prager puts it, sinfully. The video embedded below will clarify that reference.

But this thread keeps drifting. The OP asked whether Ezekiel 37 pertains to the state of Israel that came into existence in 1948.

__________________
WTB extractor for S&W 659, and magazines for S&W 1076. Please PM if you have one or more to sell.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:40 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.