The Right Scoop
One worries about this generation, are these the ones that will keep this economy going, paying taxes when we are old and retired? and these are the ones that will preserve this nation's ideals, spread democracy, be a light for the world? and these are the ones that will teach my children and grandchildren not only academically but will for them pretend to be a moral example???
Actually, the event isn't being put on by administrators. Though they have received some sponsorship by the university, Sex Week is entirely organized by students. Furthermore, Sex Week isn't just targeted to college students, but to graduate students, as well (who are more likely to have children with whom they wish to talk about sex).
A repeating motif here is that salvation can only be found in Jesus. I would suggest that if you believe that God is perfect, that you must question the concept that 2,000 years ago he sent his son to die for humankind's sins and that everyone who did not (and does not) accept that belief is condemned to spend eternity in hell. So those who were born in China or Africa are doomed to spend eternity in hell because they never heard of Jesus? And those who live righteious lives but do not accept Jesus, they too must spent eternity in helll? But someone who accepts Jesus in his heart and then uses his "sword" in bloodshed (to quote one of the posters here) to kill Jews (as happened in the middle ages again and again), or to burn crosses on the lawns of blacks who dared to seek equality, he resides in the Kingdom of Heaven forever?
There are many beautiful teachings in Christianity but the concept that there is only one way to heaven is a belief that has caused more suffering than can be justified by any truly religous person. Instead of spending so much time trying to convince others to accept your vision of God, I suggest you focus on making sure that you are living up to your own religion's deepest most cherished values. And if you conclude that you are and that your religious beliefs compel you to convert others, then you will, I trust, understand why I, as a Jew, find you scary and a bigger threat than the "lefties" teaching college kids about how to enjoy sex. Becauuse the logical extension of what they are doing will lead to peoople having better sex lives. The logical extensio of what you are preaching will lead to another Holocaust (and if you think I am exaggerating, look back at our friend who kept referring to the religoius requirement to use your sword to accomplish God's will).
As for whether a Jew can be a Jew and still believe in Jesus, that is a complicated question. Of course, born of a Jewish mother, you are part of the Jewish people your whole life. But being of Jewish birth does not make everything you say "Jewish" or consistent with Jewish law and tradition. One cannot accept Jesus as the Messiah and still claim a voice within the Jewish community no more than a man who has left the priesthood can offer a comment about the Church and expect his statement to have the same weight as an active priest.
And as for whehter Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of the "Old" Testament, I like what the Talmud has to say on a similar topic. If you are planting an Olive Tree (remember Olive Trees take at least 20 years to bear first fruit) and you hear people shouting The Messiah has arrived (or returned), finish planting your tree and then go check out the story.
I will continue to plant real seeds of wisdom and good deeds that do not require acceptance of Jesus into my heart and if Jesus does in fact return I trust that my acts of good deeds will bear fruit because I cannot believe that any God would punish a good man based on his refusal to accetp a religion that had killed and persecuted his People for 2,000 years in his name.
I urge you to worry less and "belief" and more about actually showing compassion and kindness and tolerarance in how you live. For your acts speak far more loudly than your words.
It is sad to see such a mix up of facts and misunderstandings of both sects. You would rather quote the Talmud that cannot agree with itself than the Scriptures that are in full agreement.
I wish I had the time to correct the factual errors in your post starting from the beginning. However, I am in the midst of another discussion. Maybe when that one tidies up a bit.... But if you really want to get a leg up, you may want to reread the Scriptures. Just by reading your post, one can see you need to brush up on Torah, the Prophets and the need of the Messiah.
Shalom
It is very telling that you dismiss my reliance on the Talmud based on the fact that "it can't agree with itself." I think the beauty of the Talmud is the recogintion that disagreeemnt and debate is not to be feared or mocked but is to be appreciated. Judaism incorporates disagreement into its very fabric recognizing that there is no one way to understand the Torah and that each understanding offers something valuable and unique. Indeed, the concept of their being just one "answer" is clearly rejected as evidenced by the story of the Rabbie Eleizer who disagreed with his colleagues about whether a particular stove was kosher. When the majority of the rabbis there found agaisnt his view, he could not control himself. He knew he was right. So he called out that the walls of the study hall should fall in if he was right. And they started to fall in but one of the rabbis quoted a verse from Torah that made clear that stones cannot decide the law. So the walls stopped falling. Back and forth it went until Rabbie Eliezer said "If I am right, let God Himself tell you so." And a voice came from Heaven and said, "Why do you dispute Rabbi Eliezer? The law is as he says in every account." And the head of the Sanhedrein responded that "What right do you have to intervene? "It is not in heaven" to make these determinations quoting Torah ( a verse in Numbers if I recall correctly).
The point of the story is that the Jewish God thinks that the process by which we arrive at decisions is more important than reaching a correct answer on a very technical ritual question that has no practical impact on anyone.
I would suggest that the real difference between your view of Christianity and my view of Judiasm is that your view does not allow for the possiblity that anyone but you can be right. When the Pope said the Jews did not kill Jesus, apparently from what you say above, he was wrong because you imply that the Romans did not kill Jesus but the Jews did. You imply that my understanding of salvation being reserved for only "ture believers" to be wrong. But the Church's positon on salvation is clear -- only Baptised folks can enter heaven. (Hence the need to save a baby over the mother in childbirth -- we need to save the baby's from eternal hell by baptising it.) If you disagree with that teaching of the Church that is fine but then I guess allthe Popes who were touched by the Holy Spiirit misheard. And if you agree with this teaching then you stlll need to respond to the question of how a perfect God can create a world where some by virtue of the birth have no chance to accept Christ because they have never heard of him.
Indeed, the focus on missionizing comes from this dellema. But the byproduct has been more emphasis on belief than conduct. To many innocents have been killed in the name of God because of your focus on belief instead of conduct.
Can't we agree that more important than these theoretical discussions is how we treat our neighbor? Whether we give money to charity? Whether we try and be kind to strangers? Whether we try and be honest in our business dealings? And I can't imagine you would say that only those who accept Jesus are in fact honest or kind or charitable.
I do not intend to continue this discussion as I believe my time will be better spent doing good deeds than debating issues which only serve to divide people and not bring them togehter. I believe true holiness is expressed by finding ways to bridge gaps by reaching out in kindness than reaching out to convince someone else they are wrong.
This is so sad and disturbing, you would rather argue over non-life threatening stuff than God's Word which is Life. Instead of putting up a strong Torah argument that Yeshua is not the Messiah, you hide behind persecutions that happen eons ago. GROW UP.
So what? Christians are persecuted in Israel for their beliefs and do you see me hiding behind it. Christians throughout the world as well are being persecuted for their faith. Your going to try to argue that every Jew practice the Torah perfectly and never belittled or persecuted a Christian? I thought Jews were tougher than this, but I guess I am wrong. You don't know the Scriptures, you don't know history, what do you know?
The Crusades were not due to any religious aspects whatsoever. If you knew your history, you would be aware that it was the Byzantine Empire that asked for the help of Europe to hold off the Islamic militants on their way. It was about land, it was about one upping the Byzantine orthodox. Was there religious overtones, yes, but it had nothing to do with Christianity.
You err with Abraham, not surprising but reread the first book. God's covenant with Abraham came way before YHWY spoke with Abraham regarding Sodom. Abraham was credited with righteousness because he believed (faith) in what YHWY said. Again, your lack off understanding the Scriptures should greatly bother you. You should be greatly disturbed to be lied to all your life by Jewish teachers who claim that arguing is the thing that makes you a Jew. A true Israelite will be one who knew his Scriptures and well enough to make sensible arguments instead of trying to hide behind history and stories that have no eternal value.
By the way: Your friend claimed that he could not believe the exclusiveness of Christianity through the proclamation of the words of Yeshua. One question: how many Jews are allowed to stand before the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant? Sounds pretty exclusive to me.
Like ReadyForAct2, this will be my last post, as I too have better things to do. But as a parting shot, I submit the following:
1. You completely miss the point of the story (which is actually one of my personal favorites), which is that the argument and the decision making process are more important, and more enjoyable, than the decision that is ultimately reached.
This is a belief that is so central to the Jewish People that I would consider it nearly inseparable. There have been papers written about Jewish argument as a form of sociability. "Jews love to argue" is a trope appearing in many films, books, comics, and other media, including the works of Woody Allen, Monty Python's "The Life of Brian", Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, Seinfeld, Big Bang Theory, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and many others. There is even a saying "Two Jews, three opinions".
It is also a belief that I fully subscribe to, ingrained into me by many years of Hebrew school and Jewish summer camps (Reconstructionist, just in case you were wondering).
2. A short, in no way comprehensive or complete list of atrocities committed by Christians against the Jews.
The Spanish Inquisition.
The Spanish Expulsion.
The Crusades, during which it's estimated that at least 10,000 Jews in Europe were killed, constituting between a quarter and a third of the Jewish population. To quote the Crusaders of Rouen, ""we desire to combat the enemies of God in the East; but we have under our eyes the Jews, a race more inimical to God than all the others".
Countless accusations of blood libel.
Countless pogroms.
Over 350 separate massacres of Jews by their Christian neighbors during the various Bubonic Plague epidemics that swept Europe. Jews were repeatedly blamed as the cause of plague, accused of acts such as poisoning wells. Zurich expelled all of its Jews. In a single day in 1349, 2000 Jews were burnt to death in Strausborg. Basel built a special structure on an island in the Rhine, put all 4000 of its Jews inside, and burnt it to the ground, then proceeding to forbid Jewish residence for the next 200 years. In Mainz, Germany, at least 6000 Jews were incinerated. Much of this took place at the behest of the Brethren of the Cross, also called the Order of Flagellants. Whenever a town heard that the Brethren were coming, they would commence with pogroms. When that didn't happen, the Brethren themselves would immediately go to the Jewish quarters and loot and murder.
While we're on that subject, Jews have been regularly blamed for diseases including but not limited to bubonic plague (as just mentioned) and typhus (in 1892, after a minor outbreak occurred in the Jewish neighborhood of New York City, Jews exclusively were subjected to much more exacting standards and inspection before they were allowed to immigrate).
Furthermore, the uncountable instances of Jews being called Christ-killers, and persecuted and murdered for this supposed deicide.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Am I implying that all Christians are evil, or that all Jews are righteous and pure-hearted? Of course not. That would be absurd. Equally absurd, however, is the claim that all evangelical Christians have the best interest of the Jewish People at heart, and that every member of the Democratic party is a scheming murderer laughing gleefully as Jews "march towards their own destruction".
3. It is accepted among Jews that there are two kinds of false prophets. The first is the one who claims to be a prophet in the name of idolatry. The second is the kind who claims to be a prophet of the God of Israel, yet declares that any commandment made by God no longer applies.
It is important to note that, even if this prophet should appear to have supernatural or divine powers, that they are to be regarded as a false prophet if they declare that any of God's commandments are no longer valid. See Deuteronomy 13:2-4, and Deuteronomy 18:21-22 for how we are to know if a prophet is truly one who speaks the word of God.
4. What did Abraham do to be righteous in God's eyes? I'm not entirely sure why you're asking this, nor what it has to do with anything, but I'll answer it anyway because it ties into something I said earlier. What did Abraham do that so impressed God? He ARGUED. With GOD. What else would you expect from the father of the Jewish People?
God came to Abraham and said that he was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, because there were no righteous people left in the cities. Abraham asks God if he would spare the cities for the sake of 50 righteous men. Then 40. Then 30, and 20, and finally 10. Abraham directly argued with God, getting God to agree to spare two cities worth of wicked men for the sake of 10 righteous ones.
Incidentally, this is also why Noah wasn't offered the covenant while Abraham was. When Noah was told that God was going to drown the entire world, he didn't question or second guess.
So, now that all of that is out of the way, I'm done here. I have more interesting arguments to engage in.
Great, you come here to the comment thread, trying to throw Christianity under the bus and I quote "I do not intend to continue this discussion as I believe my time will be better spent doing good deeds than debating issues which only serve to divide people and not bring them together." Yet, you are the one who decided to make it your goal to stick your nose into something you continue to demonstrate a lack of knowledge and rejection of what is truth.
Your story is sadly asinine and demonstrates the folly of modern Judaism and its rejection of YHWY. You want to put your faith in a book of men who cannot even agree on the color of the sky, but reject Scripture whose author is G-d, himself. That is your choice.
You want to cling to the Left because they are only teaching about sex? You are so naive. You think that it is the Christian that caused the Holocaust? It is the Left that hates your Jewishness and everything you supposedly stand for. It is the Left that started the Holocaust, ignored it when it came to light, and now encouraging the teaching that it never existed and is just a figment of someone's imagination. It is the Left that is in bed with those whose sole desire is to throw the Jews in the water to drown. It is the Left who are laughing at you as you continue to vote and support the very policies that will bring the Jewish people to their demise. It is the Left that despises your very existence. Hey, if you want to continue to believe in the lies, that is your choice as you rather reject the Truth in Scripture.
It was the Christian that put their necks on the line to hide the Jews. It is the Evangelical Right that politically supports that Jews have the right to life, the right to having their own state, the right to defend the existence of Jewish culture. It is the Evangelical Right that continues to donate large sums of money in support of the Jews to their own detriment. Granted, we have Luther at the end of his life write some terrible things about the Jews. You have those who stoned Stephen and the Sanhedrin that authorized the killing and the persecution of Christians. Both histories have their flaws, even today Christians are not allowed to practice their faith in Israel. Yet, I do not hold that against you or the Jewish faith.
I could care less what the Pope says or what he thinks. Your righteousness just will not measure up to anything but condemnation from YHWY. According to Scriptures, We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (Isa 64:6 ESV) וַנְּהִי כַטָּמֵא כֻּלָּנוּ וּכְבֶגֶד עִדִּים כָּל־צִדְקֹתֵינוּ וַנָּבֶל כֶּעָלֶה כֻּלָּנוּ וַעֲוֹנֵנוּ כָּרוּחַ יִשָּׂאֻנוּ Just in case you wanted the Hebrew text (I will acknowledge that my Hebrew is extremely weak).
What work did Abraham do to be righteous in God's eyes? What did Abraham do to be justified? I know that it is silly questioning since you will have to read the Scriptures. By the way, maybe you and BenTheJew can get together and figure out what "iniquities" mean in the book of Isaiah, especially in the verse I quote and chapter 53? It would seem that the two of you joining together may help bring some much needed sense and clarity to what you are trying to say. Then again, I have been accused of wishful thinking.
Side note: You want to know who is responsible for the death of Yeshua....all who sin and fall short of the Glory of G-d.
Society's ethics have changed since the writing of the Bible but do you really believe Jesus's morals were any different then as his morals are today, I don’t think so? The Bible along with being the word of GOD can also be seen as a historical record of the society Jesus lived in those times. Slavery was practiced back then and it was recorded in the Bible, just because there are stories and references to slaves in those times in the Bible does not mean we all should run out and get ourselves some slaves. Jesus would be my example to fall back on in this situation and I have to ask; how many slaves did Jesus own, hmmm? I don't see that as an attempt to rewrite the Bible and I think it is too bad you would think that. Because of my morals I will however never find myself in the position of thinking I have the right to own another human being. Sounds to me you still may have a lot of reconciliation of basic morals in your future and have been caught up where quite a few folks are stumbling today and that is the confusion between morals and ethics. Ownership of slaves is a societal ethics issue and not a spiritual moral issue. I would look to Jesus as THE example and attempt to walk in his foot prints.
In the IT world we have a saying that describes our country at this point in time:
garbage in = garbage out
In the IT world we have a saying that describes our country at this point in time:
garbage in = garbage out
Frankly RS they would probably wonder what country were they in? America would be far from consideration.
Then it would be followed by absolute refusal to believe it was America.
Pretty sad.
Why not have kegs of beer, some drugs, and let the kids take their clothes off and get after it. Finally, invite the parents so they can see what progressives do to destroy the culture of this country and watch their kids get after it! Of course I do not wish this but these people are purely evil and sick!
The article doesn't even have the right website, let alone any of the other facts. It isn't run by the University, groups of all religions (and yes, atheist and secular ones too) are holding events, and the funding sources gotten from the Maroon were already shown to be incorrect--if one would just read the comments placed by the students actually involved!
You can hold whatever beliefs you have about this sort of thing, but know that this is an effort on behalf of people of all religious beliefs and academic backgrounds, and focuses on discussing the role of sex in any setting. It is a nonjudgement event that promotes safety and communication first, and that everyone can run his or her sex life (or lack thereof) the way they want to.
Please get the information and understand what is happening before making so many assumptions!
It is sponsored by the University, the participants are using University buildings to house meetings, so don't try to quibble about whether it is "run by the University" or not. The University clearly sanctions the event. Your crap about "promoting safety and communication" is just blather to try and justify something that is out of line. There is absolutely no reason to have a gathering at a university where all manner of sexual deviance is celebrated. Nobody is "making assumptions". Everybody knows what is going on, and it is not some benign academic conclave as you try to pretend.
Sponsorship implies much more than what the University is doing. The University is not actively financing the event or anything. The group is allowed by University policy--which says that group events may not be discriminated against unless there is recognizable harm in holding it--to have events in its buildings because it is going through a student-run organization, and in this way only it is supporting it. Other departments are donating health resources in order to ensure that students who have gone to the events can go to the proper places if they want to follow up with sex-related topics (get more information on safe sex, get tested, find counseling, etc.). There is nothing wrong with the University making sure that its students know its resources--in fact, I applaud them.
Things are going to happen. It's college, after all. "Sexual deviance" is not being "celebrated"; rather, it's being recognized, and the students have made a decision that discussing and knowing how to be safe and communicative is more important than letting things go on in the shadows. No one is forcing people to do something they don't like. By making it an open topic, they are trying to reduce accidental pregnancies, STIs, injuries, and deaths that occur from people not understanding how to navigate their inherently human desires. Sounds extremely responsible of them to me.
Also, the University of Chicago by no means the first University to hold this event--but it's great to see that they are doing it now. If you know anyone from the University of Chicago, particularly the College, you know how much the student body loves knowledge of all areas. If you see the descriptions of most of the events, as well as the goals outlined by the team, you will see that they echo the values of the University and its yearn for knowledge quite well.
Are you implying that the claim that God created us in his image and wants us to live a certain way is "scientifically valid"? I'm honestly not sure.
I'm confused. You're arguing that people shouldn't be educated about sex, because "information about sex is easy to find", yet you want to deny that information to precisely the type of people who would most benefit from it?
Right! Godly, moral living as God intended those He created in His image is so far off based in comparison to what you want to call scientifically and socially valid information is in itself, a completely biased, uneducated statement.
Good, honest, information with citation to more scientifically and socially valid information IS hard to find. And it can be hard to parse out from the fakes that just tell people that sex is bad until after marriage regardless of faith, gender, etc. It can be hard to recognize bias when it might becoming from someone with a title.
Oh, are they going to teach this in the "religion based events"
"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness."
(1 Thessalonians 4:3,7)
Actually, yeah. They will be bringing up relevant bible quotes and discussing their role in modern day society. The speakers are also reverends/rabbis/etc., i.e.-leaders in their spiritual fields. Respected ones.
Please scroll down to my response to your last post. I have started to just reply to the last post that has a reply button which was mine. So, I am giving you this message so you may know that I did respond and it should be just below yours.
Shalom.
I am replying to my own post just so it will follow yours and help with the train of thoughts for both of us. Readyforact2's concerns though interesting are not paramount to this specific discussion. When I have time, I may respond to him, though his arguments are inherently weak. Here we go....
1) I guess it is good to know that you have the final authority to claim someone being Jewish since it can only be claimed by blood or conversion. I would ask then if you also denounce all Jews who claim to be atheists. They have got to be worse than I, right? At least, I believe in YHWY. I have that going for me and I do believe the Scriptures are divine. Does that not make me a better Jew than an atheist? If not, why not? I have never stated that any person could claim to be a Jew, nor would I. Readyforact2's concerns though interesting are not paramount to this specific discussion.
2) Let's review the background of this question. First, you claim that Yeshua cannot be the Messiah because we all know that the City of David is Jerusalem and not Bethlehem, where he was born. I responded and stated that Micah the prophet, one from the book of the Twelve states that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. I followed that up with the question regarding this prophecy in which, do you believe the Scriptures that state that the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem. Please note, that I did not mention the name of Yeshua, but of the Messiah. So, please address the question of the actual birthplace of the Messiah. Do you believe that the Scriptures are correct in claiming that Bethlehem is the birthplace of the Messiah?
3) Fellow Jews were thinking of stoning Yeshua because of blasphemy. The blasphemy was that Yeshua made himself equal to YHWY in their words. So, why did they not stone him according to the Law? What prevented them from doing this? You cannot argue the Romans since Jews stoned Stephen to death. So, why were they unable to stone a man for one of the highest committed sins of blasphemy?
4) The analogy you use is wrong. What YHWY has done is nothing like Apple trying to sell the improved model. You seem highly interested in keeping torah in verse 34 to mean the old covenant. Though, it is clear from verse 32 that the old covenant is regulated to the eternal trash heap. No good Jew would separate Torah from Mosaic Law. Since Torah and Mosaic Law are identical. What is the old covenant? It is Torah found in the Books of Moses. Essential YHWY has ripped to shreds the old covenant, the old Torah, the old Mosaic Law. It does not exist anymore. He did not chip the paint off of it and put a new finish on it. He obliterated it. The Torah in verse 34 is directly related to verse 31 and not 32.
You state, "However, given the fact that God does not refer to a new Torah, but merely a new covenant, we are meant to interpret it as a new covenant to abide by the rules of an already existent agreement." The problem here is that the Old Covenant is Torah. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that the old covenant was only instruments of recording, it is much more than that. If the old covenant which is torah is no longer working, then a New Covenant must have a new Torah.
Now, I will add this caveat, just because it is new, does not mean that it does not have any similarities with the old, meaning that the Ten commandments are still the Ten commandments (please note that Jesus upheld and spoke about these commandments). Have you ever wonder by what means YHWY is able to write Torah on the hearts and minds of His people? What had to change to make Him able to do just that? He cannot go against His own character.
In our previous posts, we both acknowledged that individual responsibility for sin will be playing a far greater role. Interesting to note though if you want to keep the old Torah, that this previous statement is false, because if it is a window dressing than the verses before 31 are a lie. In the Mosaic Law the nation and people are tied together. What grieves my heart is that you do not see the need for a Messiah at all. If we bear responsibility for our own sins, how can any of us be rescued from YHWY's righteous judgment. Your friend's argument does not work since no where in Scripture does our good works work in apposition to our bad works. In fact, Isaiah (please note that I have only used the NT in regard to referencing the attempted stonings and the stoning of Stephen. I have only used the "Hebrew" Scriptures in our discussions) clearly states that our good works before YHWY are like filthy rags, not very promising if we are placing our faith in a "scale system" of salvation.
Though I did only allude to Is 53, you did not actually answer my question as to what were the "iniquities" refer to? By the way, I find it quite interesting that Is. 53 does not mention Israel or Jacob at all. The idea that Isaiah is referencing a nation in this chapter does not hold water to the context. The person being spoken of here is singular not plural. Even if it was possible to think that it was not talking of a single man, Israel never lived up to nor is living up to such a standard as to bear anyone's iniquities and would be contrary to what you were trying to argue what Jer. 31 is speaking about. Again, you cannot argue that Is 53 is talking of a nation and at the same time argue that Jer. 31 is arguing for individual responsibility.
Wrapping up, I am looking forward to whether you accept Micah's prophecy regarding the birthplace of the Messiah, what means has happen that G_d is now able to write His Law on the people's hearts and minds. On top of that, since one cannot divorce covenant from torah, what does New Covenant mean if it is replacing the Mosaic Law.
Shalom
Yes I did. I also saved them for my own personal perusal. Yours too. I had to sit on myself to not respond but the reading was fascinating.
Yes I saw what RACK was attempting and I think I walked him away from that tactic. This whole subject opened up a great conversation. Did you see the comments from BenTheJew? Then PuritanD71? I loved it, even the possibility of helping the door swing a little wider for someone to accept Jesus as their Savior is such a rush and the possibility of one of those folks being one of his beloved Jewish folks is even more exciting.
What you just received from RACK is the standard progressive response to discredit the Bible and Christians. I'm sure you heard Hollywood espouse it quite a bit.
TL;DR, unless you really, really care.
In the order they were asked:
0) There is no question 0, but I'd appreciate if you'd scroll down to a comment made by "ReadyForAct2". It is clearly intended to be a response to our argument, and the fact that it was mistakenly attached to the wrong place should not mean it gets ignored.
1) In agreement with the sentiment expressed by ReadyForAct2, I'm going to make the claim that I don't NEED scriptural support to make a declaration that you're not a Jew, anymore than anyone above us needed scriptural support to claim that JG wasn't a real Christian. While you may be born of Jewish parents, and will thus be a member of the Jewish people until you die, that doesn't automatically make everything you say consistent with Jewish values.
I can make the claim that you are not a Jew based on the things you say, including but not limited to: The "Old" Testament doesn't count aymore. Jesus was the Messiah and he died for our sins.
You're going to say that a Jew is anyone who says he is, or some other such nonsense. But let's take a look at a comparison. Are you familiar with the Punk subculture? The Punk movement doesn't have a set of entry requirements, or any sort of "laws", but they have ideals and values. Therefore, if you wear business suits every day, listen to nothing but Mozart, and get all of your political information from Fox News, nobody in the Punk movement will take you seriously, regardless of how loudly you shout that you're a punk.
Another example that you'll no doubt be much more familiar with: If I claim to be a Republican, but believe in big government, higher taxes, separation of Church and State, support socialized healthcare, and get all of my information from MSNBC, it doesn't matter how much I call myself a Republican. I'm going to be called a RINO by anyone and everyone who considers themselves to be a true Republican.
2) Do I acknowledge that the Messiah was born in Bethlehem, just as the Scriptures foretold?
Well...that's kind of a silly question isn't it? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS THE MESSIAH! He sounds like a really great guy, and he said lots of really great things, did lots of really great things, and is purported to have done lots of really impossible things. He sounds like a really cool guy, and it's a shame that he died so horribly. But I don't think he was the Messiah.
Why not? Since this is basically turning into a disputation anyway, I'm going to quote Nahmanides' argument made at the dispuation of Barcelona in 1263. Nahmanides, if you'll recall, is one of the only men who can be argued to have won a disputation, having done so after asking the king of Barcelona for permission to speak freely, and arguing so convincingly that the king awarded him a monetary prize. Indeed, his argument was so convincing that the disputation was called off by the judges when they realized the direction the debate was taking, and he was exiled from the city for the rest of his life.
Anyway, Nahmanides:
"[... it seems most strange that... ] the Creator of Heaven and Earth resorted to the womb of a certain Jewish lady, grew there for nine months and was born as an infant, and afterwards grew up and was betrayed into the hands of his enemies who sentenced him to death and executed him, and that afterwards... he came to life and returned to his original place. The mind of a Jew, or any other person, simply cannot tolerate these assertions. If you have listened all your life to the priests who have filled your brain and the marrow of your bones with this doctrine, and it has settled into you because of that accustomed habit. [I would argue that if you were hearing these ideas for the first time, now, as a grown adult], you would never have accepted them."
Agreed.
3) I honestly don't see what this has to do with anything. I'm not entirely sure what incident you're referring to, as there are two. But in both of them, Jesus was committing acts of blasphemy. Stoning a man they perceive to be a blasphemer was by no means an uncommon event. Unless you can elaborate on why it matters, I'm not going to pay more attention to this question.
4) Now let's look at Jeremiah 31:27-34 again. At this risk of making this post even more criminally long than it is, I'm going to simply copy-paste the entire translation from the King James Bible into here, so that we can parse it sentence by sentence together, as is done in my University of Chicago humanities classes. I hope using a method associated with so blasphemous and heretical a university doesn't undermine the validity of my argument.
27 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will plant the kingdoms of Israel and Judah with the offspring of people and of animals.
(Fine. Nothing to say here.)
28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the Lord.
(Again, no problems here. God is declaring he'll be a bit kinder from now on. We can both agree about that, right?)
29 “In those days people will no longer say,
‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
(And here we go. Jeremiah is in the position of having to defend God against a very harsh accusation. Namely, that the current people of Israel and Judah are suffering for the sins of their fathers. Ezekiel also has to defend against the same accusation, as you pointed out. Jeremiah admits that this charge is accurate, when he acknowledges that the destruction of the kingdom is occuring because of the sins of Manasseh, as seen in Jeremiah 15:4. Jeremiah's defense against this claim is that in the future, this will no longer be the case. How will it be different? That follows next.)
30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.
(Jeremiah says that rather than people suffering for their fathers' sins, everyone will die for his own sins. The key part of this verse is "everyone will die for their own sin". Again, this directly contradicts the idea of Jesus, who claims to have died for the world's sins, that all may experience eternal life.)
31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
(Now then, I have to correct your misconception about this passage. I acknowledge that Adonai says he will make a new covenant. He explicitly refers to a new covenant. I can't deny that. But he continues.)
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]”
declares the Lord.
(This explains why a new covenant is needed. The new covenant is not needed because God saw anything wrong with the old one. The new covenant is needed because "they broke my covenant.")
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
(Again, to reiterate, the specific Hebrew text is "Natati et-torahti bekirbahm". Again, literally, "I will put MY TORAH in their inward-parts". Note that God does not refer to this as a NEW Torah. Simply as HIS Torah.
If God had meant to say that an entirely new set of laws would apply, he would have surely said so.
The way you are interpreting this new covenant is, to use an example, the way Apple wants you to feel when they release the iPhone 5. "Introducing the new iPhone 5. Come and get one, because it's new and better than the iPhone 4S." So you go to the store, and exchange your current phone for a new one, making a new contract with new rules.
That's not an interpretation that's supported by the preceding text, nor by the context of the passage. Here's why.
The new covenant was rendered insufficient because God saw that the people of Israel and Judah were not truly following the rules of the Torah in their hearts, but simply going through the motions. In this sense, they had broken the covenant.
So a new covenant is established, in which he will put the Torah in their minds and hearts, rather than on slabs of stone, as you correctly pointed out.
However, given the fact that God does not refer to a new Torah, but merely a new covenant, we are meant to interpret it as a new covenant to abide by the rules of an already existant agreement.
Rather than the cell phone exchange that you compare it to, I see a different comparison.
Suppose you have a family plan for your cell phone. You get a certain number of minutes, and a certain amount of data each month, and your entire family has to share it.
However, suppose that your family uses so much data, and talks so long on the phone that there are no minutes left for you.
So you go to the store, and make a new contract with your carrier. You'll keep your phone and abide by the same terms of the old contract, except it'll be your responsibility to abide by the terms, and you won't be punished for the irresponsibility of others.
Thus, my interpretation is supported. It's a renewal of the old covenant, in which the Israelites follow the laws of the already existant Torah, except that they will be held accountable for themselves, rather than each other. Also, regardless, we can know that this covenant has not yet come to pass, based on what comes next.)
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
("No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me"
You know what that phrasing makes me think of? Missionaries. And rightly so, for what do missionaries do, other than go from door to door and say "Know the Lord"?
Had this covenant come to pass, missionaries would not be needed, because all would know the Lord. However, missionaries are undeniably a thing that exist and still happen, and Christians will argue they are a thing that is still needed.)
So, I feel I've made my argument regarding Jeremiah as fully as I possibly can, and now I'm going to move on.
5) Isaiah does speak of a suffering servant. I would normally do what I just did with Jeremiah, but this post is already absurdly long, and I can't spend all of my time parsing Bible verses because I have all of my University of Chicago homework to do.
So I'll just quote Nahmanides' argument from the Disputation of Barcelona again, since it's only 3 sentences:
Nahmanides:
'Friar Paul claimed: "Behold the passage in Isaiah, chapter 53, tells of the death of the messiah and how he was to fall into the hands of his enemies and how he was placed alongside the wicked, as happened to Jesus. Do you believe that this section speaks of the messiah?
I said to him: "In terms of the true meaning of the section, it speaks only of the people of Israel, which the prophets regularly call 'Israel My servant' or 'Jacob My servant.'"'
Sorry, but there is no reply button on your last comment. I do see that you refrain from answering the other three questions. I will restate them for you: 1) What Scriptural support do you have in declaring who is and who isn't a Jew? 2) Do you acknowledge taht the Messiah's birth was in Bethlehem just as the Scriptures foretold? 3) Why did fellow Jews pick up stones to kill Yeshua?
Now that is out of the way, lets look at Jeremiah 31, specifically ""Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jer 31:31-33 ESV).
What surprised me about this is that you skipped verse 32, why? Does it not fit with your arguments? Notice that it says that this covenant that YHWY is giving is not like the covenant of old. This is not a renewal as you suggest, but it is a NEW one. What covenant is YHWY speaking of in verse 32 if not the Mosaic one?
I agree context is everything and yet you left out verse 32. The verses previous are speaking that there will no longer be national judgment but individually. The proverb was apparently common (cf. Lam. 5:7; Ezek. 18:2); the negation of the proverb (they shall no longer say) means that no one will suffer for the sins of others, for national rebellion against God will cease. Why will this happen, because (ground) God is instituting a New Covenant, the will bring to bear more personal responsibility.
Isaiah speaks of one who takes upon our iniquities, what are these? The Messiah will bear the sins of His people, who will have God's Torah written on their hearts not on slabs of stones. This is a new Torah, a new covenant, because (ground) of the failure of Israel to keep the old, Mosaic Covenant. Jer. 31 is part of a celebration, a part of rejoicing that YHWY is doing a new thing.
Again, let's continue to look towards the Scriptures for they do clearly point to the Messiah, that being Yeshua. I look forward to your answers to the questions above.
Shalom,
You claim that the idea of Jeremiah 31:31 is that a new covenant replaces the old one. But you neglect Jeremiah 31:29-30:
“In those days people will no longer say,
‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge."
Specifically: "EVERYONE WILL DIE FOR THEIR OWN SIN". This directly contradicts the basic idea of Jesus dying for my sins, your sins, or ANYONE'S sins apart from his own.
Once we take that into account, the claim that the Mosaic covenant is somehow overwritten is further undermined by what comes next.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God," - J 31:33.
If you'll look at the Hebrew (which I did), the specific phrasing is (transliterating to the best of my abilities) "Natati et-torahti bekirbahm". Literally "I will put my TORAH in their inward-parts".
That, in conjunction with the fact that God has renewed his covenant many, many times with the Jewish people, makes it hard for me to believe your claim that Jeremiah's prophesied covenant in any way overwrites or nullifies the previous ones, or even that it refers to Jesus.
Ben,
Where does the Scriptures state what you are suggesting? You have no Scriptural support for such a declaration as to who is and who isn't Jewish. The idea behind Jeremiah 31:31 is that if God is going to have a new covenant, then the old is replaced, discarded. That old covenant is the Mosaic covenant, the one in which the Torah is found. The old is replaced with a better covenant, the new one.
Do you acknowledge that the Messiah's birth was in Bethlehem just as the Scriptures foretold?
Here is another question for you. Why did Jews pick up stones to kill Yeshua?
Your portrait of what was decided is in error on top of the fact that Paul did not make any decision but the council of Jerusalem that included all who followed the only Jew that was able to follow the Law perfectly.
Ben thanks for your reply, the Jewish people are GOD's beloved and chosen people and Dogma / legalism was washed away with the blood of Jesus on that Cross at Calvary. The Roman Catholic Church is a conglomeration of Pagan rituals and Christian worship, Protestantism has thousands of different sects with little tweaks here and there to set "Their belief" apart from one another. It is said that every church built is a perfect church then the door is opened, the first human being walks across the threshold of that perfect church and it is all downhill from there. The one thing they have in common is the belief of Jesus is our Savior. We are human and we have a tendency to seek what we perceive as safety in dogma / legalism, we point our fingers and snarl at the other folks who are different from us and we try to change anything that holds us back from our desires. Peter and Paul debated the issue of conversion and thank goodness Paul won the debate allowing us unwashed masses to be saved. It is all history, it all happened, Jesus was real, he is the Son of God, he died for all of our sins, we all can go to heaven BUT we need to accept him as our savior. Everything else is meaningless and is a distraction.
They stopped being Jewish when they accepted a false Messiah.
They stopped being Jews right about the time when Paul declared that belief in Jesus was the only part that mattered. Up until then, Christian Jews maintained the belief that Jesus was the Messiah, but that observance of the Torah was still a necessity.
When Paul decided that the only important part was acceptance of Jesus, and that Torah observance was irrelevant was the moment when they stopped being Jews.
Peter and Paul stopped being Jewish when they began worshiping a man who, as I have said, did none of the things the Messiah is supposed to do. Just as the followers of Bar Kokhba lost their way, and the followers of Shabbetai Tzvi.
And I did read Isaiah 50-56, and Jeremiah 31. And I'm going to let people who are far more eloquent and knowledgeable about the rest of the bible do the talking for me, rather than ramble for 10 paragraphs and basically quote them.
See:
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:is-jeremiahs-qnew-covenantq-jeremiah-3131-34-a-prophecy-fulfilled-by-the-new-testament&catid=51:jeremiah&Itemid=493
and
http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=313:isaiah
How did the first Jewish Christians stop being Jewish? How is it that Yeshua was born in the direct lineage of David, observed all Jewish festivals, Holy days and observances, as did the other Jews who followed Him, but stopped being Jewish? They still had their Jewish heritage, and blood. One does not stop being Jewish when they follow Messiah.
The Bloodline of the mother is what carries on the Jewish lineage- and Mary was a decedent of David. Jesus fulfills every prophecy made in the Old Testament. I hope you will consider looking up all of the Messianic prophecies in the Old, and compare them with Jesus' life, death and resurrection.
Just as He fulfilled the old prophecies of His first coming, as the suffering servant, He will also fulfill the rest of them when He comes as the Lion of Judah. The Isaiah prophecy which you refer to above hasn't come to pass yet.
Sorry, but please tell me when Peter or Paul stop being a Jew. Where is that in Scripture? You do not seem to understand that one does not stop being a Jew when they follow Yeshua. Many a Jew followed false Messiahs without losing their Jewishness but when we follow the real one we lose it. That makes no sense. Yes, I can be a Puritan and a Jew. You need to first understand what Puritanism is, to see it fit. By rejecting Yeshua, you reject the Scriptures, rejecting God and His word.
You err in regard to the City of David. Micah 5:2 clearly states that the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem. Reread your Scriptures.
I am willing to continue forward with you, but will wait for your answer from my previous comment regarding Jer. 31 and Isaiah 50-56.
If you're Puritan, as is suggested by your username, you can't be Jewish. The two are mutually exclusive.
Also, by definition, Jews do not acknowledge Yeshua as the Messiah. Yes, his followers were Jews at first. But right around the point where they declared him to be the Messiah, they stopped being Jewish.
Let's go through this one point at a time.
What is the Messiah supposed to do?
For one thing, he's supposed to bring about world peace.
"They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift sword against nation and they will no longer study warfare." (Isaiah 2:4)
And yet now many wars have there been since the Crucifixion?
Secondly, where was the Messiah supposed to be born? The city of David. While Bethlehem is supposedly where David was born, the City of David refers to Jerusalem.
Next, it is specified that the Messiah will be descended from King David on his father's side. This is rendered directly impossible by the claim that Jesus is the son of God and a woman. You will make the claim that Joseph is a descendent of King David, but that's a cop out. It is clear that the bloodline is the important part, and the bloodline doesn't continue from Joseph to Jesus. If anything, James has a far better claim to being the Messiah.
Yes, there are Jews for Jesus, but it is accepted by every other sect of Judaism that I know of that Jews for Jesus are not true Jews. And this isn't a "No True Scotsman" argument. By accepting Jesus, they literally exclude themselves from being considered Jews.
Being Jewish, myself, I must state that you error greatly in your understanding of Christianity and the Torah. If you knew your "Bible", you would acknowledge that Yeshua is the Messiah, fulfilling all prophecies found in the Law and Prophets.
Jews were the first Yeshua followers and they were the ones who understood that the Mosaic covenant is no longer in effect, but set aside with the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31. I would encourage you to read Jeremiah 31 and Isaiah 50 - 56. I will pray that YHWY will open your eyes and you will see that Yeshua is the Messiah.
"God and the Bible do not change, what is written is GOD's Word, that Word is not to be changed and is as relevant today as the day it was written."
I'm sorry. I just wanted to point out, as a Jew, that your entire bible is based on the idea that you can pick and choose the pieces of MY Bible that are "correct", and throw out anything that you don't like. Homosexuality is a sin, but eating pork is just fine. Rape and slavery are wrong, but wearing clothes made of nylon and cotton at the same time is just fine.
Even though God rested on the SEVENTH day, i.e. Saturday, THE SABBATH DAY (trust me, I know. I sing the relevant verse every Friday for the kiddush), you decided to change it to Sunday.
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
— Exodus 20:8-11
The TEN COMMANDMENTS! You can't get much closer to the direct word of God than those, can you? Keep and remember the Sabbath day. Great job.
God specifically commanded that Abraham and all of his household servants, and all of his descendents get circumcised, but this gets thrown out as well! Why? Because in the early days of Christianity, there was much conflict over whether it should be a subsect of Judaism (meaning to become Christian you would have to become Jewish first), or a religion in its own right (meaning you could skip Judaism entirely), and it was decided that it would be easier to convince the pagans to convert to Christianity when you didn't require them to cut off part of their penis.
Seriously, this post completely ignores the entire idea of dogma. Isn't that exactly why Catholicism has a Pope? To make sure that the religion stays relevant and functional in the face of changing times? Furthermore, didn't the leaders of the early Catholic Church regularly hold councils to decide what was to be considered "canon" and what was not? i.e. the divinity of Christ, the validity of the Trinity, and even whether certain books counted, such as the Gospel of Judas?
Then let me lend you this and you can do with it as you will. Jesus is waiting patiently for you to get over your anger, angst, hand wringing, pouting whatever earthly and human emotional issue you have to deal with and is waiting at the door for the moment you reach out and accept him as your savior. When and if you do is a matter of your free will and would have absolutely no value if there wasn't such a thing as free will. When you do reach out and are baptized in his name there will be a huge celebration in Heaven as on earth because you are valued highly by the One who created the entire universe. Now just a small amount of advice which I hope you heed; blaspheming God and his word will earn you no favors in this world or the next, so please be very very cautious when refer to God and his word.
I have read it. I used to quite a pious little Christian. Then I grew up, graduated from my kid's Bible to the real thing. And I read it. And it was a good story. Drama, action, love, hate, war, etc, I was fascinated. But I didn't believe it. I still read it from time to time, but I also read Harry Potter and I don't believe in Hogwarts.
What I type took the literal interpretations of the Bible and apply them to our modern world. The same thing you are doing. You just don't like the parts that I picked.
Try one from Luke 6
"But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked"
Now we go down the path of the silly who have not read the Bible to understand exactly what Jesus died for on the cross. Sad really that you would take the time to spew such venom but not take the time to actually read the Bible for if you had taken the time you would know what you just typed is completely wrong and projected out of ignorance. Real Eyes, Realize, Real Lies, please read the Bible.
Do you eat pork of any sort? Shave? Have pierced ears or other parts? Do you find the idea of rape reprehensible? What about Slavery? Murder? The Bible condones the last three and prohibits the first three.
I'm guessing that you don't kill people the bible would consider a "witch". I am pretty sure that you don't own slaves. And I would hope that you don't agree with raping a woman to make her your wife.
Just like I bet you find bacon, or pulled pork, or ribs tasty. Can appreciate a clean shaven man and think some people look good with ear piercings.
Trying to say that modern Christians do or can follow the exact rules in the Christian Bible is just lying. (Another sin)
"They will be bringing up relevant bible quotes and discussing their role in modern day society." There is always the attempt to make GOD fit what we want him to fit as in your comment "Modern day society." God and the Bible do not change, what is written is GOD's Word, that Word is not to be changed and is as relevant today as the day it was written. We are the ones who change and we pout and throw fits like little spoiled children when the Word inconveniences our wants and desires. I have only one thing to say about that, tough, grow-up, straighten up, fly right, hit the books, work hard, get good grades and get a job. Quit filling your life with this nonsense and work on becoming a responsible adult. I guess that was more than one thing huh. ;-)
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.