Questions about Judaism

[Judean Zealot]

Well, I'm creating this thread primarily because I like to ramble, but also because naturally a fella likes to talk about his passion, which in my case is Jewish law and theology. I will try to source my responses from the Bible and Talmud and also link to Maimonides (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides), who has authored the most comprehensive compendium of Jewish law to date.

Ask away! :P

[Left Now]

Here is an honest suggestion my friend,these types of threads are not so much popular among people here,but anyway:

Does any Jew necessarily needs to be circumcised by religious authorities or it is just a stereotype?

[Judean Zealot]

Here is an honest suggestion my friend,these types of threads are not so much popular among people here
I know, but what do I have to lose? Worse comes to worst nobody will ask.

Does any Jew necessarily needs to be circumcised by religious authorities or it is just a stereotype?
Well, technically speaking, every Jewish male must be circumcised by his father at eight days of age (Talmud, Kiddushin, chapter 1).

However, as in many other obligations, the obligation can be fulfilled through a proxy, following the ruling that "A man's proxy is like one's self", and as such, the father can fulfill his obligation by allowing someone else to do the circumcision.

A legalism arises at this point, however. A proxy is only valid to fulfill the obligation of another if the obligation is potentially applicable under particular circumstances to the proxy himself. In our discussion, that would mean that all Jews are able to be proxies for circumcision, as they would be obligated in it themselves were they to father male children. Non Jews, however, would never be obligated to circumcise their own children, and as such cannot be used as a proxy to fulfill a Jew's obligation.

As such, any Jewish adult may perform a circumcision, but not a gentile. However, if the gentile went ahead and did it, we don't require a second circumcision.

Here's Maimonides. You'll want to see paragraph 1.

http://m.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/932327/jewish/Milah-Chapter-Two.htm

[phuckphace]

what exactly is the theological "weight" of the Torah vs. the Talmud? the way I understand it is that the Torah is considered the literal word of God and the Talmud is a rabbinical supplementation of it? kinda like the Qur'an + the Hadith?

[Left Now]

what exactly is the theological "weight" of the Torah vs. the Talmud? the way I understand it is that the Torah is considered the literal word of God and the Talmud is a rabbinical supplementation of it? kinda like the Qur'an + the Hadith?

I am completely sure that they are not like Quran + Prophet-line quotes.

[Stronk Serb]

Is it possible to get a divorce? Miedieval rulers in Europe could get it if they asked the Pope/Patriarch and were on good terms with him.

[ndrwmxwll]

how ethnically jewish do i have to be to be considered a jew, both in law and theology? or does it not even matter since everyone living in my family was raised either christian/catholic or atheist? id assume thered be many answers to these but u seem pretty booklearned

[Judean Zealot]

what exactly is the theological "weight" of the Torah vs. the Talmud? the way I understand it is that the Torah is considered the literal word of God and the Talmud is a rabbinical supplementation of it? kinda like the Qur'an + the Hadith?

The Torah (The 5 Books) is directly transmitted by God to Moses, and although minor variations have crept in over the 3000+ years since then, on the whole the Torah we have now is exactly that of Moses. What you are calling the Torah, however, is only a fraction of what was transmitted to Moses. Take a look at the 5 Books. Without any commentary it is vague and at times even contradictory (a fact which leads Protestant Christians and Reform "Jews" to come out with some very silly interpretations). The reason for that is because the written Torah is only meant to be a reference to the already received laws, something like notes to a highly technical lecture. If you haven't heard the lecture, you cannot possibly understand the notes. It's the same with the Torah. Originally only the Torah was allowed to be put into writing, and the rest had to be transmitted orally. Any questions were adjucated by the Sanhedrin, and their decision was binding forever.

This system continued until the turmoil and religious/cultural oppression in Judea and Galilee following the Bar Kochba rebellion. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt) At that point, the teaching of the Torah was repressed by Rome, and it appeared that the Oral Law (and by extension, the interpretation of the written Torah) would be lost. Rabbi Judah the Prince (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_the_Prince), however, compiled the Mishnah (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah), which was a brief synopsis of the Oral Tradition, to more easily facilitate learning. The Mishnah also discussed the many Rabbinic Laws that had been enacted over the millenia, as well as the disagreements that arose between the various academies over the past two centuries.

Following the decline of the Palestinian academies, the main centers of Jewish scholarship transferred to Babylon, to the academies of Sura (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sura_Academy), Pumbeditha (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumbeditha), and Neharde'a (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehardea). Finally, about a century and a half later Rabina (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravina_II) and Rabbi Ashi (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rav_Ashi) compiled the Talmud (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud), which was a tremendous commentary on the Mishnah and explains all the laws and their legal underpinnings, and the manner in which they are derived from the original Written Torah. The Talmud was further enhanced on for about a century, and all subsequent Jewish legal scholarship has been based on the completed Talmud.
Is it possible to get a divorce? Miedieval rulers in Europe could get it if they asked the Pope/Patriarch and were on good terms with him.
Divorce is completely permissible in Judaism. It is permitted explicitly in Deuteronomy 24 and has an entire Tractate of Talmud about it's laws.
how ethnically jewish do i have to be to be considered a jew, both in law and theology? or does it not even matter since everyone living in my family was raised either christian/catholic or atheist?

This is a rather politically loaded question, but the Talmud's conclusion (Kiddushin, 4th chapter) is quite clear. Anyone can join Judaism, but it is impossible to 'jump ship'. If one's mother was born a Jew or converted, that person is bound to all the same laws as regular Jews, and cannot absolve himself. Even if a woman converted to Christianity 500 years ago, any matrilineal descendants of hers are Jews just like myself.

[kryptonite]

Here is an honest suggestion my friend,these types of threads are not so much popular among people here,but anyway:

Does any Jew necessarily needs to be circumcised by religious authorities or it is just a stereotype?


I'm not Jewish, but I know a bit about this thanks to a few Jewish friends.

Like said, if the baby was circumcised in the hospital, it's good to go. No "second circumcision" required, then again, such a thing would be utterly painful and lead to more problems later in life...but anyway, from what I heard, very very few Jewish people in the USA actually have a Bris, which is the ceremony. Officially, an elder of the religion (maybe a rabbi, maybe not, IDK) is supposed to come to the house on the eight day, say a few blessings and prayers, circumcise the baby, then there's a big party. I've heard that women are allowed to leave the room if they so desire. If the baby's health prevents it on day eight, a delay is allowed.

HOWEVER, like I said, very few Jewish people in the USA (I've heard half of one percent of all USA jews) actually do this...most are circumcised in a hospital where they have a restraining board and a bit better healthcare than at a house.

It seems like there are a lot of people in the USA who were raised Jewish, but don't uphold the customs or worship at a temple on a regular basis, etc. Someone I know fits this description and she said it wouldn't really matter to her if her b/f was circumcised or not...but she said that if someone was "really" Jewish, they'd probably only date another Jewish person and that guy most likely would be circumcised.

Apparently, there's a part of Judaism that speaks against unnecessary pain. A number of Jewish members are opting not to circumcise. They'll do the whole cermony, but maybe cut off a piece of a carrot or something.

There's also a part of the ceremony which uber-conservative (traditional) Jewish people do which involves oral suction...yes, you read that right...of the circumcision mark in order to remove the blood. It's called "metzitzah b'peh" and is very rare... New York City government came to some sort of deal with their local rabbis about this. Yes, the baby can get herpes...it does happen.

(How this isn't illegal is anyone's guess.)
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.644138



Here's a few other links you may want to look at.
http://www.beyondthebris.com/
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/even-in-israel-more-and-more-parents-choose-not-to-circumcise-their-sons-1.436421
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/178356/alternatives-to-circumcision
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

[Judean Zealot]

I'm not Jewish, but I know a bit about this thanks to a few Jewish friends.

Like said, if the baby was circumcised in the hospital, it's good to go. No "second circumcision" required, then again, such a thing would be utterly painful and lead to more problems later in life...but anyway, from what I heard, very very few Jewish people in the USA actually have a Bris, which is the ceremony. Officially, an elder of the religion (maybe a rabbi, maybe not, IDK) is supposed to come to the house on the eight day, say a few blessings and prayers, circumcise the baby, then there's a big party. I've heard that women are allowed to leave the room if they so desire. If the baby's health prevents it on day eight, a delay is allowed.

HOWEVER, like I said, very few Jewish people in the USA (I've heard half of one percent of all USA jews) actually do this...most are circumcised in a hospital where they have a restraining board and a bit better healthcare than at a house.

It seems like there are a lot of people in the USA who were raised Jewish, but don't uphold the customs or worship at a temple on a regular basis, etc. Someone I know fits this description and she said it wouldn't really matter to her if her b/f was circumcised or not...but she said that if someone was "really" Jewish, they'd probably only date another Jewish person and that guy most likely would be circumcised.

Apparently, there's a part of Judaism that speaks against unnecessary pain. A number of Jewish members are opting not to circumcise. They'll do the whole cermony, but maybe cut off a piece of a carrot or something.

There's also a part of the ceremony which uber-conservative (traditional) Jewish people do which involves oral suction...yes, you read that right...of the circumcision mark in order to remove the blood. It's called "metzitzah b'peh" and is very rare... New York City government came to some sort of deal with their local rabbis about this. Yes, the baby can get herpes...it does happen.

(How this isn't illegal is anyone's guess.)
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.644138



Here's a few other links you may want to look at.
http://www.beyondthebris.com/
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/even-in-israel-more-and-more-parents-choose-not-to-circumcise-their-sons-1.436421
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/178356/alternatives-to-circumcision
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

Oral suction is done by certain segments of the population, but some of the most traditional segments of the Jewish community (including my own family) do not do it directly, but via a tube, which eliminates the health risk. However, 99 percent of Orthodox Jews have a formal brit, and not in a hospital.

The Jewish groups who don't circumcize are Reform or Conservative "Jews", and I absolutely do not consider their belief system to be even remotely related to Judaism. They are pretty much social clubs who sell out to whatever notion is currently trending.

[tonymontana99]

Are you with JIDF?

[Judean Zealot]

Are you with JIDF?

That's not exactly a religious question, but no. Unfortunately there are family circumstances which require me to seek a deferral.

Edit: What? I thought you meant the IDF but your other post in the UN thread...

[Horatio Nelson]

Who was Jesus to you? (You being Judaism, or you personally, whatever you prefer) I'm genuinely curious.

[Judean Zealot]

Who was Jesus to you? (You being Judaism, or you personally, whatever you prefer) I'm genuinely curious.

A charlatan, heretic, and (apparently) an ignoramus.

[Horatio Nelson]

A charlatan, heretic, and (apparently) an ignoramus.

Noted.

Thoughts on King Solomon?

Does the Jewish Bible end with Malachi? (I've never read one)

[Judean Zealot]

Thoughts on King Solomon?

Actually a rather complex figure. On the one hand, he ruled over a kingdom entirely at peace (King David having pacified the surrounding nations), and did much to develop it's grandeur. At the same time, that grandeur and diplomatic prowess was built on the backs of the people, who were taxed and conscripted strictly. This was one of the primary causes for the disastrous schism between the kingdoms of Judah and Israel after his death.

He doesn't appear to have been much of an aggressive leader, with much of his bloody succession either commanded by his father or instigated by his mother.

He also displays the highly admirable trait of desiring wisdom above all else, and is clearly devoted to God. However, this quality leads to his very downfall as he attempts to rationalize his way out of God's commandments not to have too many wives or horses, which 1) erodes the morality of the royal house and allowing idolatry a foothold and 2) gives Egypt a diplomatic foothold in Judah, which culminates in the Egyptian sacking of Jerusalem during Rehoboam's reign.

In summary, he was a good and just ruler who's more subtle (albeit destructive as well) faults are highlighted by Scripture. I think he represents the inherent frailty of even the most nobly inclined men.

Does the Jewish Bible end with Malachi? (I've never read one)

Chronologically, yes, although in the book it precedes Psalms, Job, Ruth, Esther, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and Chronicles.

[phuckphace]

favorite Jewish political leader and why? (historical king or modern PM, doesn't matter)

[Judean Zealot]

favorite Jewish political leader and why? (historical king or modern PM, doesn't matter)

Gideon is my all time favorite. He went against the prevailing mindset of his town and wrecked the local idol, at great risk to his life.

He had an army comprised strictly of the most refined men.

He snuck into the Midianite camp himself, and didn't send somebody else to do the grunt work.

He used sheer wits to defeat an enemy much larger than his.

He avoided civil war from disgruntled tribes, in contrast to Jephtah who under similar circumstances massacred the tribe of Manasseh.

He punished those Jews who refused to aid his army in pursuit of the defeated Midianite kings.

He refused to take political credit for his victory, like some Biblical Cincinnatus or Washington. Although that proved to be a mistake, it reflects his noble idealism.



King David, Bar Kochba, and Avraham Stern (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Stern) all get honorary mention.

[Left Now]

A charlatan, heretic, and (apparently) an ignoramus.

Whoa,whoa,whoa!

Seriously?


Which book is Eve and Adam's story in it?And what is Judaism's stance on miracles?

[ndrwmxwll]

the Talmud's conclusion (Kiddushin, 4th chapter) is quite clear. Anyone can join Judaism, but it is impossible to 'jump ship'. If one's mother was born a Jew or converted, that person is bound to all the same laws as regular Jews, and cannot absolve himself. Even if a woman converted to Christianity 500 years ago, any matrilineal descendants of hers are Jews just like myself.

cheers for the answer. so if the relation is not matrilineal, im thoroughly gentile?

and hypothetically what if a woman converted to judaism and had descendants, but after hundreds of years all traces and knowledge of the religion in the family was totally lost. are they still intrinsically jewish?

[Judean Zealot]

Whoa,whoa,whoa!

Seriously?
Sure!

If he was the fellow the Christians claim he was, he claimed to be part of a godhead. He also claimed to be the Messiah, a concept Christianity has horribly twisted. And besides, it's not like the Jews owe the church anything.


Which book is Eve and Adam's story in it?And what is Judaism's stance on miracles?

Adam and Eve is in the beginning of the Book of Genesis.

And could you flesh out your second question a little better? Miracles in what sense?


cheers for the answer. so if the relation is not matrilineal, im thoroughly gentile?
Yup.

and hypothetically what if a woman converted to judaism and had descendants, but after hundreds of years all traces and knowledge of the religion in the family was totally lost. are they still intrinsically jewish?
Yes, in the sense that they would not need any conversion. However, in such a case they are not liable for any transgressions they make, as they never had the opportunity to learn.

[Vermilion]

Do you think it's right to force a religion on a child that may want nothing to do with it ? is it right to circumcised a boy who has no say or choice ?

[Judean Zealot]

Do you think it's right to force a religion on a child that may want nothing to do with it ? is it right to circumcised a boy who has no say or choice ?

Absolutely. We force children to do many things for their own benefit, such as schooling and character development. If it's the truth, why shouldn't it be imposed?

[Vermilion]

Absolutely. We force children to do many things for their own benefit, such as schooling and character development. If it's the truth, why shouldn't it be imposed?

Cos it's a child that has no beliefs. And you force them to copy you. You don't give them the choice of choosing a religion. You only show one religion.

[Judean Zealot]

Cos it's a child that has no beliefs.
And you force them to copy you. You don't give them the choice of choosing a religion. You only show one religion.

I'm not seeing why this is wrong, presuming my beliefs are true. Choosing a religion is not like choosing a detergent, you don't just casually browse the supermarket for a religion. It's not, as liberals like to insist, a matter of choice. It is an obligatory duty.

As the child grows up and develops intellectually, it is the parents' and teachers' responsibility to ensure that the child be given answers, and that his knowledge of Judaism be broadened and deepened.

[phuckphace]

Jesus was a charlatan and a heretic, I get that part, but I'm curious what made him an "ignoramus"?

[Judean Zealot]

Jesus was a charlatan and a heretic, I get that part, but I'm curious what made him an "ignoramus"?

Well, if he claimed to be God and asserted that that would be proved by miracles, he might have taken a peek at Deuteronomy 13:1-5
1 If a prophet or someone who has dreams arises among you and proclaims a sign or wonder to you, 2 and that sign or wonder he has promised you comes about, but he says, ‘Let us follow other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us worship them,’ 3 do not listen to that prophet’s words or to that dreamer. For the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul. 4 You must follow the Lord your God and fear Him. You must keep His commands and listen to His voice; you must worship Him and remain faithful to Him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he has urged rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the place of slavery, to turn you from the way the Lord your God has commanded you to walk. You must purge the evil from you.

Also, and more relevant to the real Jesus, who probably did not lay claims to divinity, is his mockery of the Pharisees and the claims he brought against them.

[phuckphace]

Also, and more relevant to the real Jesus, who probably did not lay claims to divinity, is his mockery of the Pharisees and the claims he brought against them.

so in other words, Jesus' assertions of divinity were fabricated by his later followers in the centuries after his death?

[Judean Zealot]

so in other words, Jesus' assertions of divinity were fabricated by his later followers in the centuries after his death?

That's what I think. Jesus, like many others in his times, merely laid claims to being Messiah. That's all that his contemporary chroniclers, like Josephus Flavius, ascribe to him, and Josephus would've definitely mentioned something so shocking as a claim to divinity.

I might add that this is a rather mainstream opinion among historians.

[Uniquemind]

That's what I think. Jesus, like many others in his times, merely laid claims to being Messiah. That's all that his contemporary chroniclers, like Josephus Flavius, ascribe to him, and Josephus would've definitely mentioned something so shocking as a claim to divinity.

I might add that this is a rather mainstream opinion among historians.

While I agree with your view, as a Christian, I also disagree with the tone of how most modern scripture is read and taught especially among Protestant Christians , and their various offshoots, and even in Catholicism.


Like I always thought Jesus stayed away from directly making a claim of being part of the Godhead. He might've been, but zipped his lips because he knew he'd be violating the scripture.

Also a point of debate regarding "follow other Gods which ye have not known" isn't the main counter to that from Christians, that > but it's not a foreign God it's the same God so that OT line of scripture isn't a successful counter.

[Judean Zealot]

Also a point of debate regarding "follow other Gods which ye have not known" isn't the main counter to that from Christians, that > but it's not a foreign God it's the same God so that OT line of scripture isn't a successful counter.

That's simply begging the question. Regardless of how he justifies the worship of a man, he is still teaching of a God who is different than the Absolute Cause of all causes. He is teaching a doctrine that divides God and compartmentalizes one of those portions in a human body. That is "gods ye have not known". That he considers himself to be the God we have always worshipped doesn't truly give his claim any superiority over other idolatry.

Proof to this is the story of the golden calf. When the Israelites said "These are your gods, Israel, who have redeemed thee from Egypt" they were making precisely the same claim. They weren't saying that the calf was a different God than YHVH, they were saying that "the God who took thee out of Egypt" was somehow symbolized or in essence the golden calf. Yet that was clearly idolatry.

[Uniquemind]

That's simply begging the question. Regardless of how he justifies the worship of a man, he is still teaching of a God who is different than the Absolute Cause of all causes. He is teaching a doctrine that divides God and compartmentalizes one of those portions in a human body. That is "gods ye have not known". That he considers himself to be the God we have always worshipped doesn't truly give his claim any superiority over other idolatry.

Proof to this is the story of the golden calf. When the Israelites said "These are your gods, Israel, who have redeemed thee from Egypt" they were making precisely the same claim. They weren't saying that the calf was a different God than YHVH, they were saying that "the God who took thee out of Egypt" was somehow symbolized or in essence the golden calf. Yet that was clearly idolatry.

That's why Jews reject the trinity then, because it's symbolism is too close to what they understand or interpret as idolatry.

Therefore we reach an impasse at what is called the "leap of faith".

[phuckphace]

I remember reading somewhere that Jewish scribes would bathe themselves before and after writing the name "YHVH", can you confirm this?

also, I read somewhere else that the little-described Urim and Thummin devices may have been a "yes/no" die-like affair that God would direct to respond to inquiries from the high priest. what's the scoop on that?

[Judean Zealot]

I remember reading somewhere that Jewish scribes would bathe themselves before and after writing the name "YHVH", can you confirm this?
It always must be written (in Hebrew) with great reverence. The ritual immersion though is only a mark of the most pious.

also, I read somewhere else that the little-described Urim and Thummin devices may have been a "yes/no" die-like affair that God would direct to respond to inquiries from the high priest. what's the scoop on that?

In classical Jewish tradition they were a plate inserted into the high priest's breastplate. When asked a question, the letters written on the breastplate gems (of the names of the 12 tribes) would illuminate to spell out a message.

I'm going to check up some books by my lunch break though, and I'll let you know if anybody gives an alternate tradition/interpretation.

Edit: Scratch that last paragraph, phuckphace. I got lazy. :P

[kryptonite]

Oral suction is done by certain segments of the population, but some of the most traditional segments of the Jewish community (including my own family) do not do it directly, but via a tube, which eliminates the health risk. However, 99 percent of Orthodox Jews have a formal brit, and not in a hospital.

The Jewish groups who don't circumcize are Reform or Conservative "Jews", and I absolutely do not consider their belief system to be even remotely related to Judaism. They are pretty much social clubs who sell out to whatever notion is currently trending.

Yeah, we *basically* are agreeing... with the Orthodox Jews being such a small percent, a non-Jew like myself has to wonder just how few people have the formal brit...it can't be all that many. It really does seem like a lot of them just opt for the "hospital version."

Still, the mouth down there? Maybe I don't "get it" because I'm not Jewish, but that still seems a bit odd.

Total number of baby boys born this year...minus everyone who will keep their foreskin, minus everyone non-Jewish, minus everyone not Orthodox Jew...it's gotta be a relatively small number.

For example, the CDC says about 3.93 million babies born in the USA in 2013 -- and that includes girls.

Apparently, there are about 5.7-6.8 million Jewish people in the USA as of 2013.


And yeah, there certainly do seem to be a lot of people who "claim" to be Jewish, but don't keep kosher, don't do any Passover or any other holy rituals, etc... and yeah, I'm sure a lot of "follow the trend" type are the celebrities.

[Judean Zealot]

Yeah, we *basically* are agreeing... with the Orthodox Jews being such a small percent, a non-Jew like myself has to wonder just how few people have the formal brit...it can't be all that many. It really does seem like a lot of them just opt for the "hospital version."

Still, the mouth down there? Maybe I don't "get it" because I'm not Jewish, but that still seems a bit odd.

Total number of baby boys born this year...minus everyone who will keep their foreskin, minus everyone non-Jewish, minus everyone not Orthodox Jew...it's gotta be a relatively small number.

For example, the CDC says about 3.93 million babies born in the USA in 2013 -- and that includes girls.

Apparently, there are about 5.7-6.8 million Jewish people in the USA as of 2013.


And yeah, there certainly do seem to be a lot of people who "claim" to be Jewish, but don't keep kosher, don't do any Passover or any other holy rituals, etc... and yeah, I'm sure a lot of "follow the trend" type are the celebrities.

As I understand it approximately 25 percent of affiliated Jews in America are Orthodox. Of course, there are many American Jews who are entirely unaffiliated.

It is noteworthy to point out that the Reform and Conservative movements are shrinking rapidly due to assimilation and intermarriage, while the Orthodox community, especially the ultra-orthodox, are steadily growing.

[Microcosm]

Judean Zealot,

How do you respond to the claim that Daniel 24-27 predicts the coming of Jesus? (https://carm.org/does-daniel-9-24-27-predict-jesus)

I'm an agnostic, but I want to see what you think of that prophecy.

Also, just as a comment, and I hate to sound like an atheist here, but don't you think it's a bit much to "presume" that your religion is true like you said earlier? Like, maybe in Israel it's okay because the community generally agrees on that, but I just don't see why it makes much sense to merely presume that your religion is true universally when there's no definite evidence that it is(given there is some evidence in scripture in such, but there's also a lot of evidence in scripture that it isn't true when compared to historical evidence). I don't intend to have a debate on the truth of Judaism here by asking this necessarily, but rather what makes you so sure I guess.

[Judean Zealot]

Judean Zealot,

How do you respond to the claim that Daniel 24-27 predicts the coming of Jesus? (https://carm.org/does-daniel-9-24-27-predict-jesus)

I'm an agnostic, but I want to see what you think of that prophecy. Like all the other "proofs" the Christians bring from scripture, it is a complete misrepresentation. Here is the Christian translation:

"Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. [25] Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. [26] And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined. [27] Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate," (Dan. 9:24-27, NKJV).
There are a number of very important mistranslations in this paragraph. I will treat a number of them. The first, and the most important, is the word "Messiah", which the Christians say refers specifically to some sort of major figure who will fix the whole world, which they say must be their god. The problem is that the word Messiah (the Hebrew mashiah) means nothing more than "anointed", or "chosen" one. We find this word all over the place, in particular in regards to King Saul (II Samuel 2:16), and even more notably, King Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1). The same root is also used as both an adjective (anointing oil, for example) and a verb (to anoint Aaron) in over 75 places. Interestingly, even Jerome translated all of these instances as annointed except over here in Daniel. I think the reason is obvious. Bottom line, the concept means nothing more than someone or something chosen by God to accomplish something.

Also, 'to annoint the Most Holy' is a blatant misrepresentation of the words 'Holy of holies', which is referred to everywhere as an area in the Temple in which the Ark of the Covenant was stored.

The other mistranslation is less egregious, and I don't really think there is a way to prove one way or the other, is in verse 26 'and not for himself'. The Jewish translation is 'and will have nothing less for himself'.

Also, many words have been unnecessarily inserted. As such, here is the newly corrected translation.

"Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of holies. [25] Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until the annointed prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, despite troublesome times. [26] And after the sixty-two weeks an annointed one shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined. [27] Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate," (Dan. 9:24-27, NKJV).

And now for some context. This prophecy is a development on Jeremiah's, and as such the count of seventy sevens begins from the destruction of Jerusalem. The first seven sevens end with Cyrus, who, as earlier mentioned is God's 'annointed' to allow the initial return to Judea. This occurred 52 years after the destruction, midway between 7 sevens and 8 sevens. Then come a long period of 62 sevens (434 years) in which Jerusalem is rebuilt, albeit in troubled conditions. This is the period of time in which we have the opportunity to establish a full Torah ruled kingdom to ensure our "eternal righteousness etc". At the end of this period, between 69 and 70 sevens, our failure to follow God's word will cause the Romans to cut off the annointed one, which is the institution of the high priesthood, also called annointed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. And finally at the end of 70 sevens Jerusalem will be once more destroyed, and the Romans will establish a pagan abomination on the temple mount.

I'm going to answer your second question sometime later, as writing this has kind of worn me out.

Edit: Microcosm, here you go.

Also, just as a comment, and I hate to sound like an atheist here, but don't you think it's a bit much to "presume" that your religion is true like you said earlier? Like, maybe in Israel it's okay because the community generally agrees on that, but I just don't see why it makes much sense to merely presume that your religion is true universally when there's no definite evidence that it is(given there is some evidence in scripture in such, but there's also a lot of evidence in scripture that it isn't true when compared to historical evidence). I don't intend to have a debate on the truth of Judaism here by asking this necessarily, but rather what makes you so sure I guess.

Why do I believe? That's actually a very good question, and as such I actually took the time to properly think this over and formulate a thorough answer.

I think we can divide this question into two parts, the first being why do I believe in the classical God as He himself (in the function of the Cause of all causes), and why do I understand this God to have a purpose, and secondly, why do I believe that that purpose is the fulfillment of the Torah, as opposed to any other religion or philosophical deism.

So to start off with the basics of question number one, I believe in an Absolute Cause primarily on account of the atemporal cosmological argument (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/) employed by both Maimonides and Aquinas. On a secondary level, I view the revised temporal cosmological argument (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/) of William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga's version of Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument (http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/) to be perfectly sound as well. And lastly, although I find the various teleological arguments (such as Intelligent Design theory) inconclusive, they do seem to point to a metaphysical existence of a creator, and as such it can be combined with Craig's Kalam argument to arrive at the conclusion of God-as-creator (although admittedly not to God-as-Absolute-Being). I might add that I've read various atheistic philosophers, ranging from the brilliant Bertrand Russell to the puerile nitwit Richard Dawkins, and I am not particularly troubled by any of their arguments at this point in time.

I believe that it arises from the Being of this Absolute to bestow perfect goodness onto creations, as it is the natural end of the good to bestow good.

Now we arrive at the second part of the question, why do I believe that the Torah is that goodness that God intends for His creation?

Before we approach Judaism I would like to treat the other religions. I should mention here that I have in the past studied a number of these quite seriously (like, as seriously as I now study Judaism) and as such I am quite aware of their doctrines. Now we may begin. I would divide the foreign religions into three categories: the atheistic, the pagan, and the Abrahamic.
The atheistic is primarily Buddhism, and as such is in general pushed away by the above cosmological argument. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge the concepts of Samsāra and dukkha are irreconcilable with a Maximally Great being.

The pagan religions, including Druidism, Shamanism, and certain strains of Hinduism, are typified by their anthromorphic representations of divinity and essential limitations on the qualities of the divine. That in itself makes them unworthy of veneration. As a matter of fact, even if it was proved that Zeus exists and he hangs out on Mount Olympus hurling lightning bolts at people, I still wouldn't worship him, as his lack of Absoluteness would characterize him as just another cause in a chain leading back to the Absolute.

And finally, the Abrahamic religions: Christianity and Islam (this is leaving aside the objections I have to the trinity, which I consider idolatrous). My rejection of these two is actually fairly simple: both of them claim their authority from the Torah, and both are trying to usurp the position of the Jewish religion. I am simply unconvinced that God rejected the nation he has chosen for eternity, and the laughable errors the Christians make when trying to prove their leader's divinity only reinforce that impression.

The only belief system that I consider a viable alternative is Deism, and indeed, that is probably just about the ideal belief system for a gentile. However, I would make two points in favor of the Torah and the Jewish religion's validity.

First and foremost is from the law itself. With the two philosophical schools I embrace, the Platonists and the Roman stoics, I find the Torah's laws to be so perfectly crafted and just that even were the revelation of Sinai to be absolutely refuted tomorrow, I would still follow Jewish law just as closely as I do today. It is clear to me that the law is by far the most just and in sync with the nature of man, and as such is always, even without revelation, the 'will of God'.

The second point I would make to support the Covenant between the Jewish people and God is one from history. The history of the Jew is unparalleled in all the annals of man. I would like to begin with a rather famous piece by Mark Twain:

"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.
His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine and abstruse learning are also very out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world in all ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself and be excused for it. The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they were gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, and have vanished.
The Jew saw them all, survived them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert but aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality? "

To put Twain into perspective. How many nations that the Assyrians and Babylonians conquered remained as an entity? Where is Ammon? Where is Moab? How many nations in Alexander's empire retained their distinct national identities and gods? How many nations in the Roman Empire kept their distinctiveness? Where are the Gauls? Does anybody worship the gods of Carthage? How many nations have been scattered throughout the world for 1900 years, subjected to countless massacres, edicts of conversion, expulsion, repression, and discrimination and yet have still rebounded every time, and have now returned to their ancestral ground as a single nation? The assimilated Jew ought to realize that there is something unnatural about the Jewish people and their destiny. For just as we have survived the past 3000 years, so will we survive the next 3000 years.

[Microcosm]

Judean Zealot,

Very well said. Thank you for the carefully thought out response.

The Torah says that God "rested" on the seventh day. I have a few questions.

Why did it take an absolutely great and powerful God seven days to create a universe? Furthermore, why did he have to rest on the seventh day?

Do you believe the Jewish laws which tell the Jews to put gays to death are justified? Can you explain how they're justified without relying on the divinity of the law?

It would seem to me that killing anyone is essentially an unjust thing. Therefore, how can an entirely just God command such a thing?

Also, why doesn't God help starving kids in Africa? They need his help more than many of the Jews.

Why does God favor the Jews? Isn't that favoritism with no basis to do so? An entirely just God wouldn't just pick a race of people and favor them without good reason, and I see nothing particularly special about Jews other than their historical importance. The Europeans had way more historical influence on the world. Why the Jews and not them?

Doesn't it seem more likely that the reason he favors the Jews is because the Jews created him rather than the other way around?

I hope I'm not offending you, but these feel like pretty legit questions and they're quite commonly asked among skeptics.

[Porpoise101]

To put Twain into perspective. How many nations that the Assyrians and Babylonians conquered remained as an entity? Where is Ammon? Where is Moab? How many nations in Alexander's empire retained their distinct national identities and gods? How many nations in the Roman Empire kept their distinctiveness? Where are the Gauls? Does anybody worship the gods of Carthage? How many nations have been scattered throughout the world for 1900 years, subjected to countless massacres, edicts of conversion, expulsion, repression, and discrimination and yet have still rebounded every time, and have now returned to their ancestral ground as a single nation? The assimilated Jew ought to realize that there is something unnatural about the Jewish people and their destiny. For just as we have survived the past 3000 years, so will we survive the next 3000 years.
Haha it is us Indians, the Chinese, and the Jews who have preserved their ancient cultures. [emoji113] *high five*

[Judean Zealot]

I would like to preface my response with the point that all of these questions essentially rely on a misunderstanding of the nature of the Divine, and that setting the record straight will bring us halfways to the answer. Maimonides writes many pages on a notion known as negative theology, wherein it is demonstrated that God is so absolutely simple and beyond all creation the He himself cannot be directly described in any term. Kindness, anger, thought, movement- these are all attributes that indicate some degree of limitation or deficiency in their subject, and as such cannot be properly said of God.

So what then, can we and do we (throughout the Bible and other sacred texts) mean when we describe God or anthromorphise His qualities? Maimonides, in his 'Guide to the Perplexed', 1:58 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp068.htm) explains as follows: Although we cannot truthfully describe God as He is, we can describe it as he's not, i.e. 'God does not contain the independent quality of cruelty' and 'God does not contain the independent quality of kindness'. The second way we can describe God, and this is what I'm focusing on here, is not to describe him in relation to Himself, rather in relation to His management of the universe. So when we say 'God is angry', we don't mean that God is angry as you or I get angry- God has no passions. What we mean is that God is interacting with the world in a manner comparable to an angry man. The same goes for the statement 'God loves the just'. We don't mean that God loves as you or I love- God has no passions. What we mean is that God is interacting with the just in a manner comparable to a man who loves somebody. And as such we approach the statement 'God rested on the seventh day'.


The Torah says that God "rested" on the seventh day. I have a few questions. I will say this straight away: God did not take a nap. He interacted with His creation as an artist does to a finished work: he rests from further creation. So too God 'rested' from the creation of the world, and adds no more to it. "There is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:3). Our rest on the seventh day is a symbol and a reminder to us that God has created the entire universe, and there is no true power besides Him.

Why did it take an absolutely great and powerful God seven days to create a universe?

It is absolutely within God's power to instantly create an entire universe ex nihilo, but that is not the way we are taught by the Torah God interacts with the world. God does not act outside of the nature he created. Both Nahmanides (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahmanides) and Gersonides (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gersonides) agree with me on this matter, and they both give a hylemorphic (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism) account of the creation of the world, wherein the ex nihilo aspect of creation was limited only to the very first instant, in which He created Prime Matter, and from there proceeded to naturally form the physical and ontological universe as we have it today. If you think deeper into it, that is the meaning of the seventh days rest: that God does not subsequently do anything that he did not create during that first instant. So what about miracles? So the Talmud, and more clearly, Maimonides, both state that any miracle ever done was not in reality 'unnatural'. Rather, God created a dormant mechanism within nature itself to be activated to produce these miracles when the time comes.

Here is Nahmanides's account of the creation:
And now hear the correct and clear explanation of the Scripture. The Holy One, blessed be He, created all of the creations from absolute nothingness. There is no word in the sacred tongue (Hebrew) which implies creation ex nihilo except for the word ברא (which is the word employed in the first verse). And there is nothing extant in the heaven above or the earth below which arises directly from the nothingness. Rather, he created ex nihilo a very abstract element, one which holds no actuality, but it is a generating force, prepared to assume form, and to transfer from potentiality to actuality. This is the first element, which the Greeks know as hyle. And after the hyle He did not create (ברא) anything, rather he formed (יצר) and did (עשה), for it was from this that he generated all and dressed it in forms and established them...
And in this (hylic) creation, which was like a tiny point with no actuality, all the creations of heaven and earth were created...

That being said, I personally take the view that in keeping with the theme of God voluntarily acting within the nature he has created, the cosmos themselves were formed in a fully natural sense, that is, I would assume that the natural processes by which physicists and biologists explain the construction of universe from pre-existing materials, holds true. I understand the six days of Genesis to be referring to six stages of upwards graduation, in which man, the greatest creation is ontologically last: the 'culmination' of creation.

You should just know, however, that I have just given you the tip of the iceberg on an extremely profound concept, you will need to think it through deeply to really appreciate it.

Do you believe the Jewish laws which tell the Jews to put gays to death are justified? Can you explain how they're justified without relying on the divinity of the law?
Well, I can definitely defend the prohibition against homosexual sex on rational grounds, the reason in a nutshell being that it is hedonistic to engage in the pleasure of sex in a manner inconducive to it's actual productive nature, which is quite obviously reproduction. In addition, consent notwithstanding, I consider it to be a disgrace to use the human body for unnatural ends, just for one's pleasure. I would equate it to producing pornography in that sense.

In regards to the proscribed punishment, I think it important to point out the circumstances under which the death penalty is invoked (for any crime: adultery, sabbath violation, idolatry etc). There have to be two witnesses who inform the offender before the crime that "What he's doing is sin X and is punishable in a court of law by Y". The offender must verbally respond "I don't care" and immediately after that commit the crime. If any of these conditions are not fulfilled the Sanhedrin may not execute, and the matter is deferred to the civil authorities, who deal with it as they see fit. As I understand it, the punishment is not so much for the crime as for the brazeness with which it was committed and the subversiveness which it causes. In that light, the death penalty is most definitely warranted.

It would seem to me that killing anyone is essentially an unjust thing. Therefore, how can an entirely just God command such a thing?

Because the entirely just God created a world in which falsehood exists (which we'll discuss later in this post), and as such it is the duty of the just to extirpate it. Killing a man is not inherently unjust. It is generally unjust de facto, but there are times when it is just. If a man threatens to rape your daughter, and death is the only way to prevent him, than it is your duty to do so.

Also, why doesn't God help starving kids in Africa? They need his help more than many of the Jews.
You're bringing up the problem of evil here. However, before I address that, I would address the error implicit in the last sentence. That God "chose" the Jews is in no way material. The "choseness" of the Jews is that we have the privilege of having an additional duty in the form of 613 commandments. We have the privilege of being God's messengers. This has got nothing to do with physical goods. As a matter of fact, the Jews have just about the most downtrodden history of any nation. Yet we are still chosen and the most fortunate nation in the world because we have the tremendous opportunity to perfect ourselves and through that be God's tool for realizing the world's potential.

I think though, that regarding the problem of evil you should craft a more detailed and thorough post laying out your precise form of the question, as it would make my responding to you both easier on me and more thorough for everyone reading this.

Why does God favor the Jews? Isn't that favoritism with no basis to do so? An entirely just God wouldn't just pick a race of people and favor them without good reason, and I see nothing particularly special about Jews other than their historical importance. The Europeans had way more historical influence on the world. Why the Jews and not them?

Doesn't it seem more likely that the reason he favors the Jews is because the Jews created him rather than the other way around?

Let's recall here how God favors us. Not physically, we've had just about the roughest history possible. He favors us by giving us the Law, and enabling us to be truly free and truly happy, for only the just man is truly rich or free. The reason for this is close to what you're saying in the end, albeit not how you intended it. We were chosen for our lofty goal by God because of the Patriarch Abraham. He alone of his generation recognized God, and he alone passed it down to his son Isaac, who passed it down to Jacob. Because we chose to follow God, He chose to entrust us with the purpose of the universe's existence. I should note, as you're reading this, read it in light of what I've written earlier about negative theology.

I hope I'm not offending you, but these feel like pretty legit questions and they're quite commonly asked among skeptics.

It takes a lot more than honest questions to get me angry. :D

[Microcosm]

You're responses have been great. Thanks for this.

I think though, that regarding the problem of evil you should craft a more detailed and thorough post laying out your precise form of the question, as it would make my responding to you both easier on me and more thorough for everyone reading this.

God can do anything, yet he doesn't help people in need. I guess this could be explained by saying that God has no passions, though.

I'm not really sure how else to go into detail on it, but it's just that he could do something to help them, but he doesn't.

[Judean Zealot]

You're responses have been great. Thanks for this.



God can do anything, yet he doesn't help people in need. I guess this could be explained by saying that God has no passions, though.

I'm not really sure how else to go into detail on it, but it's just that he could do something to help them, but he doesn't.

I will start off this discussion by saying the famous (and true) stoic maxim that "nothing bad can happen to the just man".

The physical body and the pleasures of the flesh are not the reason for our existence. This entire world is like a corridor leading to a ballroom; one should employ his time in the corridor and prepare himself to enter the ballroom. The soul is the reason for our existence, and only when it is separated from the body can it truly enter the "ballroom" of enlightenment (code name- paradise).

Anything that happens to us can be used to make us stronger in our virtue, because every state of existence in this world offers up some challenges, and every challenge strengthens the virtue of the person who overcomes it. The very existence of our body is a challenge, never mind illness or poverty. Yet riches is also a challenge: how will one use his money? Will he use it frivolously and sink into decadence and sloth, or will he use it moderately, and use the remainder to assist those who need existence? Being smart is also a test: will he become arrogant and condescending to those of more limited intelligence, or will he remember that he owes all of his talents to God?

Every situation in life, whether comfort or pain, illness or health, poverty or riches, comes with it's own challenges. The virtuous man would be happy when he gets dealt a more difficult test, does that not exercise his virtue, and make him stronger? Just as an athlete happily goes through pain and sweat to run a marathon, so too does the virtuous man delight in the pain that refines his virtue.

As such, nothing bad can happen to the virtuous man, as the more difficult his situation the more fortunate he will consider himself, and rightly so. He realizes what his goal in life is and he uses the difficulties set in his path as a tool to accomplish that.

The only one that something bad can happen to is an unjust man, and in truth, even being wealthy or famous is bad for the unjust man, as he will use whatever state he is in to distance himself from virtue, which is the greatest of all good.

Everything that happens to us is good, whether illness, poverty, or death, as every one of them can be used to bring one closer to Virtue. When I look around, I see no evil, save for that which is caused by man himself.

---

This does not fully answer all the possibilities, but it is definitely a good start.

[eric2001]

Roses are redish, violets are blueish, if it wasn't for Jesus we'd all be Jewish.
;)

[Porpoise101]

I have a question. In Judaism is God feminine, masculine, or all? In Hinduism (my religion) there is Devi who represents the femininity of God and the universe, so I am wondering if the Jewish God has a similar aspect or is gender neutral.

[Left Now]

I have a question. In Judaism is God feminine, masculine, or all? In Hinduism (my religion) there is Devi who represents the femininity of God and the universe, so I am wondering if the Jewish God has a similar aspect or is gender neutral.

I think in Judaism,like Islam,God has no physicality and gender cannot even be referred to it.Am I right?

[Judean Zealot]

I have a question. In Judaism is God feminine, masculine, or all? In Hinduism (my religion) there is Devi who represents the femininity of God and the universe, so I am wondering if the Jewish God has a similar aspect or is gender neutral.

Absolutely neutral. There is no body nor quantifiable attribute which one can even describe God as.

In the Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) there is such imagery, but it is not referring to God himself. I am highly suspicious of the Kabbalists for this very reason, among other borderline idolatry.

[Microcosm]

Judean Zealot,

How do you respond to Isaiah 7:14 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+7:14) allegedly foretelling the coming of Jesus?

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

That page says that the word "virgin" is more accurately translated as "young woman," so I'm guessing that's where the fallacy lies.

[Judean Zealot]

Judean Zealot,

How do you respond to Isaiah 7:14 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+7:14) allegedly foretelling the coming of Jesus?



That page says that the word "virgin" is more accurately translated as "young woman," so I'm guessing that's where the fallacy lies.
You're drunk on Christian prophecies, brah. :P

First of all, that proof, and it's a rather famous one, is one of the silliest I've ever seen Christians bring. I mean, just look at the context. Here is the whole chapter 7:

1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it. 2 Now the house of David was told, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim"; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind. 3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman's Field. 4 Say to him, 'Be careful, keep calm and don't be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood--because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 "Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it." 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: " 'It will not take place, it will not happen, 8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. 9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah's son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.' " 10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights." 12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test." 13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin is with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah--he will bring the king of Assyria." 18 In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the distant streams of Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River--the king of Assyria--to shave your head and the hair of your legs, and to take off your beards also. 21 In that day, a man will keep alive a young cow and two goats. 22 And because of the abundance of the milk they give, he will have curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey. 23 In that day, in every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand silver shekels, there will be only briers and thorns. 24 Men will go there with bow and arrow, for the land will be covered with briers and thorns. 25 As for all the hills once cultivated by the hoe, you will no longer go there for fear of the briers and thorns; they will become places where cattle are turned loose and where sheep run.

It's talking about the Assyrian menace and how Hezekiah's reign will see their destruction and usher in a period of tranquility unparalleled since the schism between Judah and Israel.

Yes, you are also correct about the word הָעַלְמָה meaning 'young woman' and not 'virgin'. I can prove that as well. The root of the word (עלם) appears several times in the Bible, and in none of it's appearances indicates virginity. As a matter of fact, in two places it most clearly is shown from the context to mean 'young woman'. The most damning example comes from Proverbs 30:
“There are three things that are hidden from me,
and a fourth that I do not understand: the path of an eagle in the sky, the path of a snake on a rock, the path of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a young woman. This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I have done no wrong.’

The word for young woman here is the same: בְּעַלְמָה. Of course, the Christians translate that to mean 'maiden' as well, but that is clearly out of context. The verse is talking about things that leave no mark and as such cannot be proven, like the path of an eagle in the sky or the path of a ship at sea. 'The way of a man with a maiden', though, most definitely does leave a mark, and as such defeats the entire analogy. If that doesn't suffice to convince the skeptic, then we can bring another example comes from I Samuel (17:56), where King Saul inquires about David's identity:
And the king said, "Find out whose son this young man is."The word for 'young man' here is הָעָלֶם, which is simply the masculine form of the word הָעַלְמָה. So unless you somehow find some sexual connotation in that verse, it is clear that the root עלם implies 'youth' and not 'virginity'.

[Microcosm]

Judean Zealot,

Yeah I just saw that one when I was looking through the bible the other day and thought I'd get your input.

Thanks for the response.

[phuckphace]

what's up with those Reform Jews? I take it they're the equivalent of the Episcopalians who dropped everything from Scripture except the feel-good parts & are totally chill with gay marriage and PC whatever else?

[Judean Zealot]

what's up with those Reform Jews? I take it they're the equivalent of the Episcopalians who dropped everything from Scripture except the feel-good parts & are totally chill with gay marriage and PC whatever else?

Even worse. Last I knew they had rabbis who were atheists!

They are not a part of Judaism, and neither are the so called "conservative" Jews. Part of me just wishes they would fade away into Christianity and stop muddying the name of our religion as some warm and fuzzy liberal manifesto.

[phuckphace]

oh my lel. yeah it's pretty awful to look at, like the Episcopalian lesbian "bishops" with rainbow frocks. at that point why not just drop the pretense already and become atheist?

[Judean Zealot]

oh my lel. yeah it's pretty awful to look at, like the Episcopalian lesbian "bishops" with rainbow frocks. at that point why not just drop the pretense already and become atheist?

They like to take the feel-good stuff of their Jewish "heritage", but just without the pesky duties.

This (http://m.startribune.com/new-jewish-prayer-book-for-rosh-hashanah-and-yom-kippur-updates-language-on-women-gay-marriage-doubt/326709571/) is but one of the positively repulsive innovations by these clowns.

[phuckphace]

They like to take the feel-good stuff of their Jewish "heritage", but just without the pesky duties.

This (http://m.startribune.com/new-jewish-prayer-book-for-rosh-hashanah-and-yom-kippur-updates-language-on-women-gay-marriage-doubt/326709571/) is but one of the positively repulsive innovations by these clowns.

lol @ Ayn Rand on the left

I guess this is part of that phenomenon I mentioned in the megachurch thread where most churches (and temples too I guess) are devolving into tax-free social clubs

[Judean Zealot]

lol @ Ayn Rand on the left

I guess this is part of that phenomenon I mentioned in the megachurch thread where most churches (and temples too I guess) are devolving into tax-free social clubs

Just a note: the proper term for a Jewish house of worship is Synagogue (the hellenized version of Bet Knesset, or 'house of gathering'). The term 'temple' is reserved exclusively for the Temple of Jerusalem (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_in_Jerusalem). The early reform movement in Germany struck out any references to Israel, Jerusalem, sacrifice, and the Temple from their prayer books, on the grounds that "Berlin is our Jerusalem" (lol). For the same reason they began to call their synagogues 'temples', in order to marginalize the destroyed Temple.

[Left Now]

Just a note: the proper term for a Jewish house of worship is Synagogue (the hellenized version of Bet Knesset, or 'house of gathering'). The term 'temple' is reserved exclusively for the Temple of Jerusalem (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_in_Jerusalem). The early reform movement in Germany struck out any references to Israel, Jerusalem, sacrifice, and the Temple from their prayer books, on the grounds that "Berlin is our Jerusalem" (lol). For the same reason they began to call their synagogues 'temples', in order to marginalize the destroyed Temple.

The same term in Arabic and Farsi,the Knesset,although in Farsi it is Kanise.Arabian Arabs and Jews are considered close relatives right?I mean comparing to other ethnicities.Because we call both "Sami" (Semitic).Also Arabic and Hebrew are called Semitic Languages.

[Judean Zealot]

The same term in Arabic and Farsi.Arabian Arabs and Jews are considered close relatives right?Because we call both "Sami" (Semitic).

Yeah. The colloquial Syrian term for synagogue is k'nees.

[Judean Zealot]

Bump. (Sorry about that, mods :P)

[DriveAlive]

I was taught that Jews do not believe in the heaven or hell concept and this idea is rather interpreted from the Talmud. Is there any truth to this?

[Judean Zealot]

I was taught that Jews do not believe in the heaven or hell concept and this idea is rather interpreted from the Talmud. Is there any truth to this?

Well, the Talmud is authoritative in traditional Judaism. The idea is not explicitly discussed in Scripture, but the Talmud derives it from both a system of Biblical exegesis as well as the Platonic arguments in it's favor.

[DriveAlive]

Well, the Talmud is authoritative in traditional Judaism. The idea is not explicitly discussed in Scripture, but the Talmud derives it from both a system of Biblical exegesis as well as the Platonic arguments in it's favor.

So is there still a sect of the Jewish population that does not believe in heaven or hell? The practicing Jews I know don't believe in heaven or hell.

[Judean Zealot]

So is there still a sect of the Jewish population that does not believe in heaven or hell? The practicing Jews I know don't believe in heaven or hell.

I would put It 'reward and punishment' for the soul after death.

The only significant contemporary Jewish sects that don't believe in this are Reform and Conservative "Judaism" (I cringe to call them Jewish denominationally, they're not (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3221925&postcount=52)).

I would love to go head to head with a theologically informed reformer on here but they pretty much don't exist. Oh, well.

[TapDancer]

Okay, so this might be less to do with Judaism itself, but I feel that you would probably know the answer. It's my understanding that Jews (or at least those that reside in Israel) must commit to either one or two years of military service. Why is that? And if you are a Jew but you don't live in Israel, do you still have that obligation to your country of residence, or? I'm sorry if I seem ignorant, but when I undertook Studies of Religion in school, they didn't even mention Judaism (which really annoyed me because it's a major world religion so how is it not relevant?! Instead we only studied Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Australian Aboriginal spirituality. Like, what the hell?!)

[tonymontana99]

Well, I'm creating this thread primarily because I like to ramble, but also because naturally a fella likes to talk about his passion, which in my case is Jewish law and theology. I will try to source my responses from the Bible and Talmud and also link to Maimonides (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides), who has authored the most comprehensive compendium of Jewish law to date.

Ask away! :P

What do you think of the amount of jews in high-profile positions in the government and media in the United States? Do you believe in the international jewry and the conspiracy to overthrow the goyim and cause the destruction of the west?

[Judean Zealot]

What do you think of the amount of jews in high-profile positions in the government and media in the United States? Do you believe in the international jewry and the conspiracy to overthrow the goyim and cause the destruction of the west?

I think the Jews have been so successful in whatever countries they lived in due to the fact that for the past 2000 years pretty much every Jew was literate. Our religion is study-based, and even those who have thrown off their religion over the past 3 centuries have retained that culture of education and achievement.

If I answer your second question 'yes' than I would be admitting the existence of such a conspiracy, and if I answer 'no' you'll think I'm just a shill who's part of the conspiracy. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

But seriously, why would we even want such a thing? Right now we only have the Palestinians under our rule, and look how much trouble they're causing. You think we want 7 billion more?

[tonymontana99]

I think the Jews have been so successful in whatever countries they lived in due to the fact that for the past 2000 years pretty much every Jew was literate. Our religion is study-based, and even those who have thrown off their religion over the past 3 centuries have retained that culture of education and achievement.

If I answer your second question 'yes' than I would be admitting the existence of such a conspiracy, and if I answer 'no' you'll think I'm just a shill who's part of the conspiracy. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

But seriously, why would we even want such a thing? Right now we only have the Palestinians under our rule, and look how much trouble they're causing. You think we want 7 billion more?

Interesting. Some of you guys are alright, don't go to Gaza tomorrow.

[Judean Zealot]

Okay, so this might be less to do with Judaism itself, but I feel that you would probably know the answer. It's my understanding that Jews (or at least those that reside in Israel) must commit to either one or two years of military service. Why is that?
Israel has a mandatory draft law for all it's Jewish citizens. The reason is fairly simple- we have been in a state of intermittent war for the past 70 years (technically we are still at war with Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and others, not to forget the various militias such as Hamas). The reason why only Jews are subject to the draft is common sense, considering that we're at war with most of the Arabs and the vast majority of non Jewish Israelis are Arabs. Nonetheless, if a non Jewish Israeli wants to serve he absolutely can- the Druze for example serve as soldiers and officers in the army.

And if you are a Jew but you don't live in Israel, do you still have that obligation to your country of residence, or?
If you are not an Israeli citizen, even if you are Jewish, you have no obligation to serve. Nonetheless, the army takes many foreign Jewish volunteers annually. Non Israeli non Jews cannot volunteer.

I'm sorry if I seem ignorant, but when I undertook Studies of Religion in school, they didn't even mention Judaism (which really annoyed me because it's a major world religion so how is it not relevant?! Instead we only studied Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Australian Aboriginal spirituality. Like, what the hell?!)

I always found it curious how little focus was placed on Judaism as opposed to both Christianity and Islam, considering as both of these religions infer their validity from Jewish scripture. Well, it's not like I care to much.

[Judean Zealot]

C'mon boys and girls. I need MOAR CHALLENGE!

[phuckphace]

what's your view on the "shabbos goy" practice? I presume it's more of a diaspora/American thing.

[Judean Zealot]

what's your view on the "shabbos goy" practice? I presume it's more of a diaspora/American thing.

It's a legal loophole. To summarize, on the Sabbath we are prohibited from all sorts of things, notably lighting fires (which in principle includes igniting electricity). Everything must be prearranged. Now, say somebody accidentally forgot to turn off the light in his bedroom on Friday, and now is stuck. Or say you realized that you left the fire on the stove top too high, and all your food tomorrow will be burnt.

In a very specific range of cases there is an available loophole to get a gentile (who is not committing any prohibition, as they are not commanded to keep the Sabbath) to flip the switch (or whatever) for you. In most cases this is prohibited, but there are limited circumstances in which this is permissible due to necessity.

It's a legal loophole to get out of a scrape, no more and no less.

[Vlerchan]

Less religious because I don't know enough about Judaism to ask questions.
Do you believe there's a Jewish nation? What characterises it?
If so, can any person [of the Jewish faith] join this Jewish nation?
There's argument that Biblical Israel is the template that modern[ist] nationalism founds itself from. Thoughts?
Thank you.

[Judean Zealot]

Less religious because I don't know enough about Judaism to ask questions.
Do you believe there's a Jewish nation? What characterises it?
If so, can any person [of the Jewish faith] join this Jewish nation?
I believe in the existence of a Jewish nation centered around a shared duty. That is ultimately the most meaningful form of a nation, and transcends any other accidental aspects that may divide them- it is the ultimate unifier. That duty applies equally to all those who are directly resultant of a person who has formally accepted that responsibility (ie matrilineal descent), in a sort of inverted version of Patria Potesta. This is not a genetic nationalism, as ultimately anybody in the world can accept the same duties of Judaism and be just as much a member of the nation as I am (see Ruth 1:16 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ruth+1&version=KJV)).

I do not believe in any ethnic "Jewish Nation", for the simple fact that being drawn from a particular DNA pool over two millenia ago is hardly significant enough to warrant a shared nationality between a secular American Jew, an Ethiopian Jew, and myself. As a matter of fact, I am probably genetically speaking closer to the Palestinians than I am to an Ethiopian Jew. DNA is incidental, and bears no relevance to the moral makeup of the nation.

Nor do I believe that the modern state apparatus defines Judaism as a nation, considering as for the two millenia prior to the State of Israel's establishment the identity of a Jewish nation was well grounded in our mutual traditions.

I will add though the acknowledgement of another, more arbitrary definer of Jewishness, the identification as such by others. This sort of 'we're Jewish because the world won't accept us as one of them' declined in popularity with the enlightenment, but owing to the trauma of the Holocaust and the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict such an attitude is more prevalent than ever. I consider this sort of identification legitimate, if a little bit shallow. But ultimately I view the Jewish nation as being unified by their shared duty to God. On might not acknowledge those duties, but that doesn't make him not a Jew, it merely makes him an unfaithful Jew.

There's argument that Biblical Israel is the template that modern[ist] nationalism founds itself from. Thoughts?
There are three elements of modern nationalism which I would identify as separate phenomena: chauvinism, the purpose of the State, and the individual's relation to the State.

I don't count in the romanticism of history, because I don't see how the exploits in Judges are any different than, say, the ballads of Cuchulainn (Although the case can be made that sacred writ played a greater social role in Europe's formation than did Celtic legends).

Chauvinism itself ought to be divided into two classes, ethnic and social. Of the ethnic variety I don't believe Biblical Israel is a suitable template, considering as we find in the books of Samuel and Kings all sorts of nationalities- Edomites, Arabs, and even Amalekites- who were accepted into Jewish society and integrated.

Social chauvinism, on the other hand, was rife in Biblical Israel, from the Deuteronomistic commandments to obliterate the Canaanite religion, to the frequent derogatory epithets against the 'uncircumcised' in Judges and Samuel, on a scale unparalleled in the ancient world until the advent of the Helots. As a matter of fact, even the nationality 'Hebrew' draws it's name from 'Ibri, or 'from the other side'. I believe ancient Israel is the first example of an 'us vs them' mentality, probably on account of the Jews unique monotheism and purity laws.

The other two aspects I'll deal with some other time, and I'll mention you when I'm done.

[sqishy]

What significance/etc does the Moon have in Judaism?

[Judean Zealot]

What significance/etc does the Moon have in Judaism?

Well, the entire Jewish calendar is lunar based, with an extra month added in every number of years to balance out the discrepancies between the solar and lunar calendars.

Mystically speaking, the moon represents both the people of Israel and the divine presence on account of it's waxing and waning- even when the Jewish people seem to be waning, they will ultimately rise again.

[phuckphace]

so about the Dome of the Rock and the hypothetical Temple 3.0: how is that going to work? I'd imagine if the Israelis said "screw it" and bulldozed it down, it would more than likely set off the world's biggest chimpout in history. I presume the temple prophecies account for the Muslim problem in some way? not really familiar with this.

[Judean Zealot]

so about the Dome of the Rock and the hypothetical Temple 3.0: how is that going to work? I'd imagine if the Israelis said "screw it" and bulldozed it down, it would more than likely set off the world's biggest chimpout in history. I presume the temple prophecies account for the Muslim problem in some way? not really familiar with this.

Honestly, I don't know either what will happen. There are prophecies that talk of tremendous wars and our enemies flesh disintegrating but prophecies are far too cryptic to really understand.

The dome will have to go though. We should've pressed our victory in 1967 and done all this then- we would've gotten away with it. As I've said in a previous thread: Vincere scis, Iudea, victoria uti nescis.

But given the current national character of Israel, I doubt that the government will do anything anytime soon.

[phuckphace]

Judean Zealot - flesh disintegrating sounds like a nuclear war. good times yo

"Y-Chromosomal Aaron" and the Kohan lineage - do you view this as compelling evidence for Moses and Aaron being real historical figures as opposed to national myths?

[Judean Zealot]

Judean Zealot - flesh disintegrating sounds like a nuclear war. good times yo
Unlike those Christian prophecy nuts, I hope that's not what it means. Either way, that comes from the last chapter of Zachariah.

"Y-Chromosomal Aaron" and the Kohan lineage - do you view this as compelling evidence for Moses and Aaron being real historical figures as opposed to national myths?

I honestly don't spend much time on historicist examination, as far as I'm concerned it's the teachings I focus on. Although I have theories it's kind of a secondary interest.

I'm not an expert on DNA haplogroups, but the little bit I know suggests that the shared haplogroup is pretty good evidence of shared ancestry. That doesn't quite prove the whole narrative, but it does discount the Welhausen/Graetz type of theory that the priests weren't even a clan.

I just don't like the people who think that that proves everything ever said about the priests. It's like the Christians who spam garbage like "OMG Josephus mentions Jesus of Nazareth it must be that the only begotten son of God lived in Judea in the first century". Although I believe the historicity of most Biblical accounts (barring those that are intended as allegory), I wouldn't be intensely disturbed were they untrue.

[phuckphace]

Judean Zealot

okay I know you literally just said you don't care about historicist shit which I totally understand, but bear with me here :P SCIENCE! says there is no archaeological evidence that suggests the Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt for 400 years. has there been a formal response to that, or are some elements of that story taken as allegorical? if the latter, I have to wonder if the "400" might be related to other symbolic numbers you see like 40 and 40,000.

any time it comes up it's always in the context of HAHA THE BIBLE IS MADE UP, QED so you could say I need a non-fedora explanation

[Judean Zealot]

Judean Zealot

okay I know you literally just said you don't care about historicist shit which I totally understand, but bear with me here :P SCIENCE! says there is no archaeological evidence that suggests the Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt for 400 years. has there been a formal response to that, or are some elements of that story taken as allegorical? if the latter, I have to wonder if the "400" might be related to other symbolic numbers you see like 40 and 40,000.

any time it comes up it's always in the context of HAHA THE BIBLE IS MADE UP, QED so you could say I need a non-fedora explanation

The number 400 begins with Isaac's birth. In any event, I don't understand that to be allegory. The story of Israel in Egypt was fully agreed on by the Egyptians themselves 2000 years ago, by writers and priests such as Manetho (although the narrative he gives is rather different).

The Ipuwer papyrus is also pretty cool, and I've found the skeptical interpretation rather unconvincing, so there's that.

I might add here that of all ancient documents, the bible is the only one consistently asserted, without any proof, to be false.

[sqishy]

Well, the entire Jewish calendar is lunar based, with an extra month added in every number of years to balance out the discrepancies between the solar and lunar calendars.

Mystically speaking, the moon represents both the people of Israel and the divine presence on account of it's waxing and waning- even when the Jewish people seem to be waning, they will ultimately rise again.

I didn't know about the second part - thanks for asking!

[Arkansasguy]

A charlatan, heretic, and (apparently) an ignoramus.

What should have been done with him?

I might add that this is a rather mainstream opinion among historians.

It's also a mainstream opinion among historians that the Torah was written by multiple authors over several centuries. I don't think you want to take the opinion of secular historians for granted.

Regardless of how he justifies the worship of a man, he is still teaching of a God who is different than the Absolute Cause of all causes. He is teaching a doctrine that divides God and compartmentalizes one of those portions in a human body.

This is a mischaracterization of Christianity. Christianity teaches that each person of the Trinity is fully God, not a third of God. And Jesus's human body and soul were were of a human nature which he, the second person of the trinity, assumed onto himself, not a part of the divine nature itself.

If Jesus's claim were true, it would be right to worship him, no?

[Judean Zealot]

What should have been done with him?

Well, the proscribed punishment is stoning, but apparently the Romans beat us to it.


It's also a mainstream opinion among historians that the Torah was written by multiple authors over several centuries. I don't think you want to take the opinion of secular historians for granted.
I don't take anyone's opinion for granted. Certainly not secularists. If you go back, you'll see that my primary argument was based on other factors.

In any event, I completely agree that the Torah was written in increments. As a matter of fact, so does the Talmud. There is some truth to the documentary hypothesis, but there are also things that they got very wrong, out of ignorance.



This is a mischaracterization of Christianity. Christianity teaches that each person of the Trinity is fully God, not a third of God. And Jesus's human body and soul were were of a human nature which he, the second person of the trinity, assumed onto himself, not a part of the divine nature itself.
Although Christianity does not divide God in essence, they do divide God by relations, such as that relation 1 is not relation 2, and neither of them are relation 3, but all of the relations are properties of the essence 4. The ascribing of properties to a necessarily simple Essence is already to deny that simplicity that necessarily exists. Morever, this independent relation of the Son is independent to such a degree that it can transubstantiate flesh and blood in an entirely unique manifestation, such as that the Son can address the Father.

Yet even were that not a problem, and we would grant the plausibility of trinitarian doctrine, the primary issue with Christianity would be their claim that a man has assumed the person of the Son, and demands to be worshipped. How is that different from the golden calf? There as well, they weren't saying that the calf was a separate god who had taken them out from Egypt- they had just formed it! They were saying that the calf was a manifestation of YHVH Himself, that transubstantiated in this calf is the God who took them out of Egypt and that in the absence of Moses they would connect to God via the transubstantiated calf. Yet they still deserved the death penalty for idolatry.

If Jesus's claim were true, it would be right to worship him, no?

If a circle was square, would it be a square?

[Arkansasguy]

Well, the proscribed punishment is stoning, but apparently the Romans beat us to it.

And were they right to kill him? Were the Jewish leaders right to ask them to.

I don't take anyone's opinion for granted. Certainly not secularists. If you go back, you'll see that my primary argument was based on other factors.

While Josephus certainly is a better authority than modern historians, he still wasn't actually there, as his disciples were.

In any event, I completely agree that the Torah was written in increments. As a matter of fact, so does the Talmud. There is some truth to the documentary hypothesis, but there are also things that they got very wrong, out of ignorance.

You don't believe Moses wrote the first five books of the bible?

Although Christianity does not divide God in essence, they do divide God by relations, such as that relation 1 is not relation 2, and neither of them are relation 3, but all of the relations are properties of the essence 4. The ascribing of properties to a necessarily simple Essence is already to deny that simplicity that necessarily exists. Morever, this independent relation of the Son is independent to such a degree that it can transubstantiate flesh and blood in an entirely unique manifestation, such as that the Son can address the Father.

God is simple in that he is indivisible. And I fail to see how it is contrary to divine simplicity to ascribe properties to God. He is loving, just, etc. no?

Yet even were that not a problem, and we would grant the plausibility of trinitarian doctrine, the primary issue with Christianity would be their claim that a man has assumed the person of the Son, and demands to be worshipped. How is that different from the golden calf? There as well, they weren't saying that the calf was a separate god who had taken them out from Egypt- they had just formed it! They were saying that the calf was a manifestation of YHVH Himself, that transubstantiated in this calf is the God who took them out of Egypt and that in the absence of Moses they would connect to God via the transubstantiated calf. Yet they still deserved the death penalty for idolatry.

You have it backwards, a man did not assume the person of the Son, rather the Son assumed the nature of a man.

And asking how it's different is like when people were asking you how you know your religion is true rather than some other religion. It's certainly a valid question, but it's not an actual point in itself because the answer would be that it is true because XYZ. The difference would be that one was true and the other wasn't.

Also, it is unfitting and absurd to say that God would incarnate as something made by men. The golden calf was made by men, Jesus was made by God.

If a circle was square, would it be a square?

That's different. That's a direct logical contradiction.

[Judean Zealot]

And were they right to kill him? Were the Jewish leaders right to ask them to.
Yes.



While Josephus certainly is a better authority than modern historians, he still wasn't actually there, as his disciples were.
That's just begging the question of the apostles' reliability.


You don't believe Moses wrote the first five books of the bible?
He wrote most of it, but he based off of earlier Jewish writings.



God is simple in that he is indivisible. And I fail to see how it is contrary to divine simplicity to ascribe properties to God. He is loving, just, etc. no?
No. We cannot ascribe to God individual traits, as He cannot be said to be wise as a man is wise, or kind as a man is kind. Google 'negative theology'.

The trinity makes God ontologically divisible.



You have it backwards, a man did not assume the person of the Son, rather the Son assumed the nature of a man.
I know that. I'm addressing the idea that a man can get up and declare his own divinity and be believed.

And asking how it's different is like when people were asking you how you know your religion is true rather than some other religion. It's certainly a valid question, but it's not an actual point in itself because the answer would be that it is true because XYZ. The difference would be that one was true and the other wasn't.

Let me ask you a question: do you believe that idolatry is self apparently false?

Also, it is unfitting and absurd to say that God would incarnate as something made by men. The golden calf was made by men, Jesus was made by God.
And Mary.



That's different. That's a direct logical contradiction.

So is the notion of Necessary Being being the same as one of it's contingencies.

[Arkansasguy]

Yes.

The numerous illegalities of the trial notwithstanding?


That's just begging the question of the apostles' reliability.

It's not as if they had anything to gain by lying.

He wrote most of it, but he based off of earlier Jewish writings.

Fair enough.


[QUOTE]No. We cannot ascribe to God individual traits, as He cannot be said to be wise as a man is wise, or kind as a man is kind. Google 'negative theology'.

Again you have it backwards. God is not wise as a man is wise, rather a man might be wise as God is wise (in an extremely limited and finite way). He contains in himself the perfection of all good qualities. Good in the world is a reflection of God's goodness.

Is God good?

The trinity makes God ontologically divisible.

No. As I said before, it is nor as if the Father is a third of God, the Son is a third of God, and the Holy Spirit is a third of God. Rather, each is fully God, they are not divisible because they are all one substance, none could be without the others.

And here's a question, would you say God is only one person?


I know that. I'm addressing the idea that a man can get up and declare his own divinity and be believed.

If he gets up from his grave to do so, it makes it a bit more believable.

Let me ask you a question: do you believe that idolatry is self apparently false?

It's not self-evidently so, although the wrongness of it can be shown through philosophy.

And Mary.

While she accepted God's will, she did not actually participate by act in Jesus's conception.

So is the notion of Necessary Being being the same as one of it's contingencies.

Jesus's human nature is not the same as his divine nature.

[phuckphace]

I've been meaning to ask about the exact differences between the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim in die Judenfrage thread, thx 4 reminding me

?? :D

[Judean Zealot]

Arkansasguy

I'm sorry, I totally forgot about this thread for a while. Are you willing to resume the conversation.
phuckphace

The word Ashkenaz means (in ancient and medieval Hebrew) Germany, and the word Sepharad means Spain. Generally speaking, the term Ashkenazi refers to those Jews from Northern and Eastern Europe, while the term Sephardic is used to refer to those Jews who come from Spain, North Africa, and the middle east.

There are many cultural differences, and among Talmudists there is a degree of competition regarding legal method, but there are no fundamental doctrinal difference between the two groups.

[Arkansasguy]

Arkansasguy

I'm sorry, I totally forgot about this thread for a while. Are you willing to resume the conversation.

Yes.

[Judean Zealot]

Arkansasguy

Before we begin I just want to clarify two postulates which I am working with. If you have what to add to that say it now.

1) The doctrine of the trinity is a mystery (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm), unprovable by philosophy or any other method of human understanding. It's acceptance hinges solely on the truth of it's revelation.

"Trinitas est fidei mysterium sensu stricto, unum nempe e mysteriis in Deo absconditis, « quae, nisi revelata divinitus, innotescere non possunt ».53 Deus utique quaedam Sui Esse trinitarii vestigia in Suo creationis opere reliquit et in Revelatione Sua decursu Veteris Testamenti. Sed intimitas Eius Esse, ut Sanctae Trinitatis, ante Incarnationem Filii Dei et missionem Sancti Spiritus, constituit mysterium soli rationi et etiam fidei Israel inaccessibile."

2) Should it be demonstrated that by the preexisting Mosaic law it's revelation has not occurred or is not binding, it is, on the contrary, a heretical and idolatrous doctrine, and ought to be shunned by all those who believe in the Cause of causes.

[Arkansasguy]

Arkansasguy

Before we begin I just want to clarify two postulates which I am working with. If you have what to add to that say it now.

1) The doctrine of the trinity is a mystery (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm), unprovable by philosophy or any other method of human understanding. It's acceptance hinges solely on the truth of it's revelation.

"Trinitas est fidei mysterium sensu stricto, unum nempe e mysteriis in Deo absconditis, « quae, nisi revelata divinitus, innotescere non possunt ».53 Deus utique quaedam Sui Esse trinitarii vestigia in Suo creationis opere reliquit et in Revelatione Sua decursu Veteris Testamenti. Sed intimitas Eius Esse, ut Sanctae Trinitatis, ante Incarnationem Filii Dei et missionem Sancti Spiritus, constituit mysterium soli rationi et etiam fidei Israel inaccessibile."

Correct. While it is consistent with reason it is not provable through pure reason. Any method of proving its truth requires "Jesus was telling the truth" as a logical step.

2) Should it be demonstrated that by the preexisting Mosaic law it's revelation has not occurred or is not binding, it is, on the contrary, a heretical and idolatrous doctrine, and ought to be shunned by all those who believe in the Cause of causes.

No. While if the Christian revelation was false or had not happened, there would be no reason to believe in the Trinity, this would not be a positive proof of Unitarianism.

[Judean Zealot]

Correct. While it is consistent with reason it is not provable through pure reason. Any method of proving its truth requires "Jesus was telling the truth" as a logical step. I should also point out that it is not comprehensible by reason either. See the above linked catechism (251):

"...Hoc faciens, fidem non submisit sapientiae humanae, sed sensum novum, inauditum, his dedit vocabulis, quae exinde ad significandum etiam destinabantur mysterium ineffabile quod infinite omne id superat, quod nos modo humano intellegere possumus."

No. While if the Christian revelation was false or had not happened, there would be no reason to believe in the Trinity, this would not be a positive proof of Unitarianism.

I should've been clearer. While you are right that lack of revelation wouldn't, in and of itself, disprove said doctrine, it would still make it's assertion at best a grievous perversion of true faith, particularly if accompanied by a doctrine that belief in this unprovable and incomprehensible "mystery" is in fact necessary for salvation.

It would be analogous to me claiming that all of God's works are done through the medium of invisible unicorns, and "Extra unicornum nulla sallus". Surely to claim such an unfounded doctrine without revelation is heretical as a perversion of the true faith! And if you think about it, a trinitarian doctrine sans revelation is even worse than the unicorns, as it dares to make unfounded claims on the nature of God Himself.

[Arkansasguy]

I should also point out that it is not comprehensible by reason either. See the above linked catechism (251):

"...Hoc faciens, fidem non submisit sapientiae humanae, sed sensum novum, inauditum, his dedit vocabulis, quae exinde ad significandum etiam destinabantur mysterium ineffabile quod infinite omne id superat, quod nos modo humano intellegere possumus."

Correct. While true statements about the Trinity can be made, it cannot be understood in itself by man on Earth.

I should've been clearer. While you are right that lack of revelation wouldn't, in and of itself, disprove said doctrine, it would still make it's assertion at best a grievous perversion of true faith, particularly if accompanied by a doctrine that belief in this unprovable and incomprehensible "mystery" is in fact necessary for salvation.

It would be analogous to me claiming that all of God's works are done through the medium of invisible unicorns, and "Extra unicornum nulla sallus". Surely to claim such an unfounded doctrine without revelation is heretical as a perversion of the true faith! And if you think about it, a trinitarian doctrine sans revelation is even worse than the unicorns, as it dares to make unfounded claims on the nature of God Himself.

Certainly to claim that a non-revealed Trinity must be believed in for salvation is manifestly absurd. Claiming that it is true, without revelation, would be absurd in a negative sense, in that it would be baseless.

[Judean Zealot]

Certainly to claim that a non-revealed Trinity must be believed in for salvation is manifestly absurd. Claiming that it is true, without revelation, would be absurd in a negative sense, in that it would be baseless.

So to slightly modify my second postulate, would you agree that if we can demonstrate the invalidity of the revelation, that would make it's assertion sinful and subversive?

[Arkansasguy]

So to slightly modify my second postulate, would you agree that if we can demonstrate the invalidity of the revelation, that would make it's assertion sinful and subversive?

To falsely assert a revelation would certainly be subversive. Arguing it as a speculative opinion, I'm not sure about.

It would of course, be a heresy against Christianity to hold that the Trinity can be demonstrated through natural theology, but that position being heretical is dependent on Christianity being true. Aside from it being against specifically Christian dogma, I can't see how it would be heretical to otherwise argue that the Trinity existed.

[Judean Zealot]

To falsely assert a revelation would certainly be subversive. Arguing it as a speculative opinion, I'm not sure about.

It would of course, be a heresy against Christianity to hold that the Trinity can be demonstrated through natural theology, but that position being heretical is dependent on Christianity being true. Aside from it being against specifically Christian dogma, I can't see how it would be heretical to otherwise argue that the Trinity existed.

I would say that making unfounded and undemonstrable claims about God is, in and of itself heretical.

[Arkansasguy]

I would say that making unfounded and undemonstrable claims about God is, in and of itself heretical.

It's foolish, but I don't see how it is heresy in and of itself.

P.S. Is it being heresy specifically a premise of the point you were going to make?

[Judean Zealot]

P.S. Is it being heresy specifically a premise of the point you were going to make?

Nah, it being subversive to the integrity of the faith is more than enough.

[Arkansasguy]

Nah, it being subversive to the integrity of the faith is more than enough.

Then proceed.

[Living For Love]

Sorry if you have already answered this, I've only skimmed through the whole thread. (:

1. Do you honestly believe you have been chosen by God?

2. How do Jewish people ask for forgiveness for their sins?

[Jinglebottom]

Does Judaism consider some animals to be ritually impure? If so, could you name the species? I'm curious.

[Judean Zealot]

Sorry if you have already answered this, I've only skimmed through the whole thread. (: Don't worry about that, just ask, and if I posted about it I'll direct you to it. :)

1. Do you honestly believe you have been chosen by God?

Yes, although the concept of "chosen" probably isn't what you think it is. I'm going to copy paste things that I've written on the subject here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3216371&postcount=41).

"That God "chose" the Jews is in no way material. The "choseness" of the Jews is that we have the privilege of having an additional duty in the form of 613 commandments. We have the privilege of being God's messengers. This has got nothing to do with physical goods. As a matter of fact, the Jews have just about the most downtrodden history of any nation. Yet we are still chosen and the most fortunate nation in the world because we have the tremendous opportunity to perfect ourselves and through that be God's tool for realizing the world's potential...

Let's recall here how God favors us. Not physically, we've had just about the roughest history possible. He favors us by giving us the Law, and enabling us to be truly free and truly happy, for only the just man is truly rich or free. The reason for this is close to what you're saying in the end, albeit not how you intended it. We were chosen for our lofty goal by God because of the Patriarch Abraham. He alone of his generation recognized God, and he alone passed it down to his son Isaac, who passed it down to Jacob. Because we chose to follow God, He chose to entrust us with the purpose of the universe's existence."


2. How do Jewish people ask for forgiveness for their sins?

In two of our three daily prayers there is a specific part in which we pray for forgiveness, but real repentance is personal, between man and God. Traditionally, there are three steps to repentance.

1) Regret: The person must truly regret doing the sin, and reflect on the spiritual harm caused by his rebellion.

2) Confession: The person must speak out his sins before God. One can do so in whatever style or language suits him.

3) Repentance: One must sincerely resolve to never do the sin again. The Talmud says that the highest degree of repentance is when a person, faced with the circumstances of his original sin, overcomes the temptation and resists repeating the sin.

Does Judaism consider some animals to be ritually impure? If so, could you name the species? I'm curious.

There are many animals we are prohibited to eat, and those animals become impure after their death. Speaking very generally, any animal that does not have both split hooves and chews it's cud is forbidden. Any fish that doesn't have both fins and scales is forbidden as well. Birds are more complex, but as a general rule carnivorous birds are prohibited.

[Living For Love]

"That God "chose" the Jews is in no way material. The "choseness" of the Jews is that we have the privilege of having an additional duty in the form of 613 commandments. We have the privilege of being God's messengers. This has got nothing to do with physical goods. As a matter of fact, the Jews have just about the most downtrodden history of any nation. Yet we are still chosen and the most fortunate nation in the world because we have the tremendous opportunity to perfect ourselves and through that be God's tool for realizing the world's potential...
But you do understand that God is constantly protecting Israel (the nation itself) and the Jews, right?

In two of our three daily prayers there is a specific part in which we pray for forgiveness, but real repentance is personal, between man and God.
How can you have an intimate relationship with God if he's Holy and you're a Sinner?

[Judean Zealot]

But you do understand that God is constantly protecting Israel (the nation itself) and the Jews, right?

Not necessarily, in the sense of physical protection. In the past, when we forgot God, we've been punished so as to turn us back to God. It would be absurd to maintain that physically speaking the Jews have some sort of extra protection.


How can you have an intimate relationship with God if he's Holy and you're a Sinner?

You're thinking in terms of Christianity and it's doctrine of "original sin". We don't believe that. We believe that man is a hybrid of body and soul, and that body can become totally sanctified by raising itself up to serve God. One need not have sins, and even if one has sinned, sincere repentance can rectify his soul.

[phuckphace]

Judean Zealot - I once heard during a lesson at Pastor Bob's Bible Emporium (to paraphrase) that there's literally a divine deflector shield around Israel and if a major power were to, say, launch a nuclear ICBM your way, God would ensure that it fizzles out before detonating :lol3:

not a question, obviously, just thought you'd enjoy a chuckle while we're on the subject.

[Living For Love]

You're thinking in terms of Christianity and it's doctrine of "original sin". We don't believe that. We believe that man is a hybrid of body and soul, and that body can become totally sanctified by raising itself up to serve God. One need not have sins, and even if one has sinned, sincere repentance can rectify his soul.
But in the past, the Jewish people used to give animal sacrifices to God in order to have their sins forgiven. Why don't they do it any more?

[Porpoise101]

Do Jews believe that other gods exist beyond the God of Abraham? Do they think it is exclusively for them and that other peoples can have their own inferior ones?

[Judean Zealot]

Judean Zealot - I once heard during a lesson at Pastor Bob's Bible Emporium (to paraphrase) that there's literally a divine deflector shield around Israel and if a major power were to, say, launch a nuclear ICBM your way, God would ensure that it fizzles out before detonating :lol3:

not a question, obviously, just thought you'd enjoy a chuckle while we're on the subject.

Lol. I mean, it's not like we haven't lost our statehood before.

But in the past, the Jewish people used to give animal sacrifices to God in order to have their sins forgiven. Why don't they do it any more?

We don't bring sacrifices anymore because the Temple of Jerusalem is destroyed, and since the time of Solomon we have been prohibited from sacrificing anywhere but the Temple. God willing, when we rebuild the Temple the sacrifices will resume.

In any event, the sacrifices weren't meant as a replacement for repentance. They were a symbolic accompaniment, and a person was supposed to think about how it really should be him getting slaughtered instead of the animal, among other things.

Do Jews believe that other gods exist beyond the God of Abraham? Do they think it is exclusively for them and that other peoples can have their own inferior ones?

Absolutely not. There is but one God, and He is the God of everything. There is absolutely no power but God.

Arkansasguy, I haven't forgotten about you.

[phuckphace]

Judean Zealot - as I understand it, some Jews want OT-style animal sacrifices and others say a grain offering will do. I take it you're in the former camp?

[Judean Zealot]

Judean Zealot - as I understand it, some Jews want OT-style animal sacrifices and others say a grain offering will do. I take it you're in the former camp?

The book of Leviticus itself allows for grain offerings for the poor, but there are certain sacrifices, such as the daily offerings, the sabbath and holiday offerings, and the paschal lamb that are invalid if one doesn't bring the proscribed animals. Like everything else in Judaism, the sacrifices are subject to a complex and thorough legal system.

And I highly doubt that anybody who actually wants the Temple rebuilt (read: not secularists, conservative, or reform) would have any qualms about the animal sacrifices.

[Judean Zealot]

I'm going to try and revive this thread. We've had some interesting discussions on here.

[sqishy]

Judean Zealot

Hopefully this hasn't been mentioned before in this thread - what role does the Kabbalah and its associated Tree of Life have for you / your practices?

[Judean Zealot]

Judean Zealot

Hopefully this hasn't been mentioned before in this thread - what role does the Kabbalah and its associated Tree of Life have for you / your practices?

I avoid Kabbalah - in general I am leery of mysticism and anthromorphic representations of God. I believe there is wisdom in the texts, but its practitioners have managed to make quite a hash of it. Perhaps sometime in the future I will revisit it, but in the meanwhile it means nothing to me.

[sqishy]

I avoid Kabbalah - in general I am leery of mysticism and anthromorphic representations of God. I believe there is wisdom in the texts, but its practitioners have managed to make quite a hash of it. Perhaps sometime in the future I will revisit it, but in the meanwhile it means nothing to me.

I had the impression that it wasn't anthropomorphic at all, but alright.
Some time in the future then.

[Judean Zealot]

I had the impression that it wasn't anthropomorphic at all, but alright.
Some time in the future then.

The entire Kabbalistic aesthetic is built on describing God via imagery of the human body and eros. Hardly appropriate for the masses.

[sqishy]

The entire Kabbalistic aesthetic is built on describing God via imagery of the human body and eros. Hardly appropriate for the masses.

I was taking it from the Ain and the triple veil of the negative and so on - maybe I'm looking at the tree itself rather than argued consequences for it in society; I do prefer the abstract more sometimes.

[Judean Zealot]

I was taking it from the Ain and the triple veil of the negative and so on - maybe I'm looking at the tree itself rather than argued consequences for it in society; I do prefer the abstract more sometimes.

I don't even recognise the English terms - the Aramaic remains the traditional mode of transmission.

The entire notion of Parzuf, which forms the basis of the Zohar and Sefer Yezirah is anthromorphic.

[phuckphace]

anthropomorphic portrayal of deities has always bugged me for some reason. perhaps it's that it makes the deity look like an invented superhero onto which its creators projected human qualities - obviously a real deity who transcends everything isn't going to have limbs or eyeballs or wear a bindi or whatever.

the monotheistic, amorphic view of God is appealing to me because of its universality, which contrasts with the views of some other religions which have clear idiosyncratic cultural motifs.

[Judean Zealot]

anthropomorphic portrayal of deities has always bugged me for some reason. perhaps it's that it makes the deity look like an invented superhero onto which its creators projected human qualities - obviously a real deity who transcends everything isn't going to have limbs or eyeballs or wear a bindi or whatever.

the monotheistic, amorphic view of God is appealing to me because of its universality, which contrasts with the views of some other religions which have clear idiosyncratic cultural motifs.

I don't know. I myself don't have such trouble with polytheistic/anthromorphic literary motifs such as Hesiod's Theogony, the Bhagavad Gita, or for that matter, Tolkien's Illúvatar - Valar cosmology, so long as they are translated into various manifestations of the Supreme Cause. I wouldn't have a problem with the Zohar per se, but the fact that reams of commentaries have been churned out, very few of which bother to integrate the imagery into the essential concept, irks me.

[Vlerchan]

What's the modern view, generally speaking, towards both Monarchical and Republican rule?

[Microcosm]

Is slavery justified in the Jewish faith?

I realize modern Jews would likely be against slavery, but it seems that God's allowance of people to own slaves would provide a providential endorsement of slavery and, by extension, justify it's practice.

[Meron]

Do you agree that Islam and Judaism are close to each other? Why?

[Judean Zealot]

What's the modern view, generally speaking, towards both Monarchical and Republican rule?

I'll speak here first of the religious discourse, because frankly, the popular discourse is (as usual) rather unstimulating.

Well, the Bible is pretty monarchical when you look at it (although 1 Samuel 8 seems to have a pretty anti-monarchical tone, and many of the prophets are fiercely critical of the ruling classes), and seems to assert a divine right to the Davidic Dynasty. Over time, however, this model has been incrementally modified. By the Talmudic times, local governance was interpreted as the polis and was roughly speaking Republican, and the monarchy was strongly constrained by the Sanhedrin, who were a clerical aristocracy, (ideally) chosen on the basis of merit. Maimonides took the deconstruction of the monarchy further by seriously weakening the exclusive right of the Davidic Dynasty, which brings us now within striking distance of the institution of national monarchy itself. Political interest waned until the advent of Zionism. After the founding of the state, a number of prominent books were written, by Isaac Herzog (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_HaLevi_Herzog) and Eliezer Waldenberg (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Waldenberg) respectively, as well as articles by many other rabbis. The most Republican book, of course, was Herzog's (who was formerly the chief rabbi of the IRA), where he made the radical claim (at the time) that Theocratic Republican national government, complete with the enfranchisement of women and gentiles, was fully compatible with Jewish law. While he never actually assailed the monarchy in ideal (that would've caused a major scandal among the ultra orthodox), he dismisses it as impracticable in modern times - which I suspect is a cover for an actual rejection of the idea.

Socially, the far right heirs to Lehi and the ultra-orthodox support the reinstitution of the monarchy (although the ultra-orthodox insist on waiting for Elijah the Prophet to return from heaven - good luck on that!). The modern orthodox support republicanism (standard western democracy style), but with no serious attention to Jewish law, of which they are largely ignorant.

Is slavery justified in the Jewish faith?

The Bible sanctions it, but that doesn't mean that it's ideal. I would assert that such a thing was necessary in the bronze age, but now that we've advanced it would be morally reprehensible and forbidden.

Consider what Maimonides says about sacrifices here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp168.htm). And mind you, sacrifices are a central part of the Five Books of Moses, and yet he still rejects them.

Do you agree that Islam and Judaism are close to each other? Why?

They are extremely similar, for two main reasons. The first is that we agree on the absolute incorporealty of God, and that no image or allegory can properly represent Him. We agree that he is absolutely simple, and will never impregnate a woman. We agree (at least Sunnis) that God is directly accessible to each and every individual, without needing saints or any other man to serve as an intermediary.

In addition, both Islam and Judaism have laws regulating all areas of life, what to eat, what to wear, how to speak, and so much more besides.

[PlasmaHam]

You are quite knowledgeable, I do respect Jews for knowing their stuff. I am a Christian, and personally find your claims against Christianity flawed. However, seeing that there have been about 10 Christianity vs. Judaism questions, I won't go into that.

I have a deep interest in the Old Testament personally. I find that too many Christians simply ignore it, despite the fact that much can be learned from it. From reading this thread, I do agree with your interpretation more or less of the Old Testament. I have Jewish ancestry, so I do know a bit about Jewish culture but I am still lacking. Here are a few questions I could think up regarding a Jewish perspective.

Do Jews believe in the plurality of God? If so, is it similar to the trinity or something completely different?

Do you believe in a Messiah that will bring military victory to Israel, like the Jews did with Bar Kochba? What are you looking for in the Messiah, what verses do you use regarding choosing a messiah?

What is your favorite book of the Bible?

What do you believe happened to the Ark of the Covenant? If it still exists, where might it be and would it still be a dwelling place for God?

What name do the Jews use to define God? Yahweh, Jehovah, I AM, or just plain God; which is more commonly used for Jews and why?

Why do Jews stress the Torah over the other books?

[Judean Zealot]

Do Jews believe in the plurality of God? If so, is it similar to the trinity or something completely different?

We absolutely do not. In that sense we are far closer to Islam than Christianity. Some thinkers have thought along trinitarian lines, but those views are rejected by the vast majority of Jews.

Do you believe in a Messiah that will bring military victory to Israel, like the Jews did with Bar Kochba? What are you looking for in the Messiah, what verses do you use regarding choosing a messiah?

In the matter of the messiah I generally follow Maimonides' account. He views the messiah as a leader who will defeat the enemies of the Jewish people, not for power or empire, but so that we have the liberty to establish a free and virtuous state in the holy land. I agree with him in the sense that the messianic age is ideally one of physical security and virtue, but I disagree with him about the messiah being necessarily a single person. I view the advent of the messianic age as the result of a cumulative national effort spanning generations. Although we currently have the trappings of independence, I fear it will be very long indeed before we achieve that requisite just society.

Interestingly, Maimonides (who believes the messiah will be an individual) writes that it is impossible for us to know who the messiah is. If he accomplishes the victory and establishes a just society then we know he was the messiah, but we cannot know in advance.

What is your favorite book of the Bible?

I cannot choose between Isaiah and Job. Both are, in the Hebrew, absolutely marvelous and poetic works. I find Isaiah to be more passionate and inspiring, whilst Job is solemn yet soothing.

What do you believe happened to the Ark of the Covenant? If it still exists, where might it be and would it still be a dwelling place for God?

Legend has it that King Josiah hid it, so I wouldn't know. I can't say I understand God using the ark as a resting place quite as you do. It's not the wooden box which causes the glory of God to manifest itself, rather the inspiration that the people would gain from its symbolism was the Divine Presence on earth. Now that it is gone and not inspiring anybody, I doubt it bears any inherent sanctity.

What name do the Jews use to define God? Yahweh, Jehovah, I AM, or just plain God; which is more commonly used for Jews and why?

We absolutely never pronounce the name YHVH. Even its vowelisation is unknown (a-eh comes from a rather dubious Greek transliteration, and e-o-ah comes from the way it was written in Hebrew several centuries ago). When praying or reading the Bible we pronounce it Adonai, which means 'my master', and informally we say either God or HaShem ('the name').

Why do Jews stress the Torah over the other books?

Well, for starters, it contains the law.

[Porpoise101]

What do you know about the Jews from India? In Cochin where my family is from, there used to be a Jewish quarter. It is largely abandoned now since many have moved to Israel, but have you met any of them? My cousin who lives in India says that there is still a marginal community left and that she went to school with one.

[Judean Zealot]

What do you know about the Jews from India? In Cochin where my family is from, there used to be a Jewish quarter. It is largely abandoned now since many have moved to Israel, but have you met any of them? My cousin who lives in India says that there is still a marginal community left and that she went to school with one.

There were three primary groups of Indian Jews. The most ancient are the Cochin Jews, who were in India for well over a millennium. They were supplemented over time with mercantile Jews from other parts of the diaspora, the most notable waves being from Spain in the 15th century and Baghdad in the 19th. And then you have the Bene Menashe, who were generally not recognised by the other Jewish communities as Jewish until the State of Israel decided otherwise.

I don't know any of the Cochin Jews personally, but I know several (Baghdadi) families from Bombay and Calcutta.

[Just JT]

This might be a little off topic, but I was wondering...I was told that either on the Jewish sabbath or on a particular time of day or something, Jews are not allowed to use any for,mod technology. For example, as I had learned this, this person was on an elevator, but could not push the button for the flood he needed. He had wo wait till the door opened on the floor he needed.

I might be off on a couple details, but could you explain this for me so I understand it better and what this is all about and why?

Thank you
JT