On reading the Torah literally

[cnorman19]

Some insist that the Hebrew Bible (which Christians call "The Old Testament"), and particularly that most central and ancient part of it called the Torah, the five Books of Moses which contain the foundation of all the rest -- is self-evidently intended to be read literally, as a message given directly by God to humans which is not to be questioned or "interpreted" in any way. But even the most cursory examination of the text reveals that that approach is quite literally impossible, even if one accepts the Divine origin of the Torah; the Bible itself does not allow it -- and as it happens, that approach has never been taken by anyone other than Christians of relatively modern times. Indeed, those who wrote or edited the final version of the Torah themselves never intended it to be so used.

The reason for that fact, and the proof of it, is simple and clear: There was never only a written Torah. There were always two; a written Torah and an oral Torah, each dependent upon and coexisting with the other.

(The following is from The Jewish Virtual Library, one of the few really reliable sources online for information on Jewish history and teachings. Some emphases have been added in boldface)

ORAL LAW (Heb. תּוֹרָה ש�ֶבְּעַל־פֶּה), the authoritative interpretation of the Written Law (*Torah, which is the text of the *Pentateuch) which was regarded as given to Moses on Sinai, and therefore coexistent with the Written Law. This view of the Oral Law was a fundamental principle of the rabbis. The Written and Oral Laws constitute together "two that are one." "It is related that a certain man stood before Shammai and said 'Rabbi, How many Torahs have you?' The rabbi replied 'Two – one written and one oral'" (ARN1 15, 61; cf. Sif. Deut. 351). There is a strong and close bond between the Written Law and the Oral Law, and neither can exist without the other – both from the dogmatic point of view and from that of historical reality. The Oral Law depends upon the Written Law, but at the same time, say the rabbis, it is clear that there can be no real existence for the Written Law without the Oral. The need for the positing of the existence of the Oral Law is inherent in the very character and nature of the Torah. The statutes of the Written Law could not have been fulfilled literally even in the generation in which they were given, since "that which is plain in the Torah is obscure, all the more that which is obscure" (Judah Halevi, Kuzari, 3, 35; cf. Moses of Coucy in Semag, introduction: "For the verses contradict and refute each other," and "the statements in the Written Law are vague"). Even those statutes of the Torah that appear to be clearly formulated and detailed contain more that is obscure and requires explanation than what is manifest and understandable. The reasons given for this are many and various. The Written Law contains contradictions (cf., e.g., Deut. 16:3–4 with 16:8), and there is a lack of clarity and definition: The law "he shall surely be put to death" (Ex. 21:12 et al.) does not state whether by stoning, burning, or some other method not mentioned in the Torah. "And ye shall afflict your souls" (Lev. 16:31) does not indicate whether it means by mortification of the body through ascetic practices, by fasting, or in some other manner. The prohibition against doing work on the Sabbath does not specify the nature of work (see below). "And if men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart and yet no harm follow… But if any harm follow…" (Ex. 21:22–23) does not make it clear whether the "harm" refers to the woman or her embryo. Dimensions and quantities are not given, e.g., in the precepts of leket, *shikhḥah, and *pe'ah, or *terumah (the priestly portion), etc. Individual laws are given without any indication of whether the law is confined to that particular case or whether it is to be regarded merely as an example of a category of laws, e.g., the law that a slave goes free if his master destroys his eye or his tooth (Ex. 21:26–27).

There are lacunae, and laws which are not explicitly stated but to which mere passing reference is made (thus the only reference to the laws of sale and acquisition is the prohibition against overreaching – *ona'ah); there is no reference to the laws of marriage, while the law of divorce is mentioned only incidentally in connection with the injunction that a man may not remarry his divorced wife after she has remarried and become divorced again (Deut. 24:1–4); the Torah enjoins that one sentenced to be flogged may not have more than the fixed number of lashes inflicted (Deut. 25:1–3), but nowhere does it specify which transgressions involve the punishment of a flogging. From the above it seems clear that it was impossible for life to be regulated solely in accordance with the Written Law ("and I should like someone to adjudicate between two litigants on the basis of the weekly portions, Mishpatim [Ex. 21–24] and Ki Teẓe [Deut. 21:10–25:19]" – Judah Halevi, Kuzari, 3:35). It may even be inferred from the Written Law itself that immediately after it was given there already was difficulty in understanding it. Thus, e.g., it is apparent that until he heard it explicity from God, Moses did not know what the penalty was for the transgression of gathering wood on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32–35; cf. Sif. Zut. 15:34: "Eliezar b. Simeon says: Moses did not know that he was liable to death, nor did he know how he should be executed, as can be inferred from the reply given: 'And the Lord said unto Moses: the man shall be put to death,' i.e., he is liable to death; how shall he put to death? He [God] replied: by stoning"; cf. also the case of the blasphemer in Lev. 24:10–23). As stated above, there is no definition in the Pentateuch of what constitutes work in connection with the Sabbath (or the Day of Atonement), only some of the things forbidden being explicitly mentioned (plowing, reaping, kindling fire). Furthermore, in connection with the desecration of the Sabbath, in one and the same verse (Ex. 31:14) two different punishments – death and *karet – are given. From the point of view of its judicial literary form, the Written Law is in fact no different from other early Oriental statutes which never exhausted or aimed at exhausting all the details of the laws given.

If, therefore, the statutes of the Torah could not be properly understood in the generation in which it was given, how much less could it be understood by later generations? In addition to this consideration, it was a fundamental doctrine of the rabbis that the Torah was given by God for all time, that it would never be exchanged for another Torah and certainly never rescinded, and that it provided for all possible circumstances which might arise at any time in the future. Nevertheless, in practice, changing conditions – social, economic, etc. – raised many new problems, as well as the question of their solution in accordance with the Torah. The new situations and spheres of human activity which arose, for which the Written Law did not provide, could not be ignored. In fact, from the beginning the Written Law was the basis of authority of the Oral Law for the future (Deut. 17:8–11 and see below). It can thus be regarded as a historical fact that the Oral Law existed not merely from the moment the Written Law was given (and in this sense it is correct to say that the Written and Oral Laws were given together to Moses at Sinai), but it may even be maintained that the Oral Law anticipated the Written Law, as the Written Law not only assumes the observance of the Oral Law in the future but is in effect based on its previous existence. Since the written law relies – by allusion or by its silence – on statutes, customs, and basic laws not explicitly mentioned in it (marriage, divorce, business; see above), these statutes are ipso facto converted into a part of the Oral Law.

The impossibility of the Written Law existing without an Oral Law can also be demonstrated from Jewish history. The development of the Oral Law can be traced throughout the books of the Bible, especially in the prophets and the hagiographa, in the Jewish literature of the time of the Second Temple (Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, in Jewish Hellenistic *literature, and in the early Targums of the Bible), the talmudic literature and the rabbinical literature throughout the generations (see *Halakhah). Even the dissenting sects outside normative Judaism, as long as they did not abandon Judaism completely, did not maintain the Written Law without an Oral Law: the *Sadducees possessed a "Book of Decrees – who were to be stoned, who burnt, who beheaded, and who strangled" (the scholium to Megillat *Ta'anit); the Judean desert sect developed, especially by means of biblical exegesis, a most ramified halakhah which has survived in its works (in particular in the Damascus Covenant, the Manual of Discipline and other works; see Dead Sea *Scrolls); and a most ramified halakhah also developed among the *Karaites. In the relationship of the Written to the Oral Law there exists a kind of paradox, both interesting and characteristic. From the dogmatic point of view the Oral Law has its basis in, and derives its validity from, explicit verses in the Written Law, but at the same time the Written Law itself obtains its full validity and its authority for practical halakhah from the Oral Law. The Written Law in fact establishes the authority of the Oral Law by laying down that "if there arise a matter too hard for thee, thou shalt turn unto the judge that shall be in those days," and "according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall declare unto thee from that place… According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee shalt thou do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, neither to the right hand, nor to the left" (Deut. 17:8–11). Yet it follows precisely from those very verses themselves that it is the Oral Law itself which determines what the halakhah of the Written Law is in practice, including the true meanings (as distinct from the theoretical philological meanings) of those very verses (Deut. 17:8–11) themselves.

Furthermore the Oral Law lays down explicitly that from the moment of the giving of the Written Law – "from Heaven," at Sinai, but in the language of men and to men – it is handed over absolutely to the judgment of the human intelligence of the scholars of the Oral Law, who accept the "yoke of the kingdom of Heaven" but give halakhic ruling according to their understanding ("henceforth no prophet can innovate anything" – Sifra, Be-Ḥukkotai, 13:7; cf. Shab. 104a), since "it is not in Heaven" (TJ, MK 3:1, 81d; BM 59b – based upon Deut. 30:12). Though indeed this rule was not accepted without protest, yet those who objected belonged to the fringes of Judaism, and it was not they who determined the halakhah. The Oral Law is able to circumvent the Written Law (see TJ, Kid. 1:2, 59d). In consequence of this provision, Maimonides, following the talmudic sages, ruled that "in an emergency any bet din may cancel even the words of the (written) Torah… in order to strengthen religion and to prevent people from transgressing the Torah. They may order flagellation and punish for breach of law, but such a ruling may not be effected permanently. Similarly, if they see a temporary need to set aside a positive precept, or to transgress an injunction in order to bring many back to religion, or in order to save many Israelites from grief in other matters, they may act in accordance with the needs of the time; just as the physician amputates a hand or a leg in order to preserve the life, so the bet din may rule at some particular time that some precept of the Torah may be transgressed temporarily in order that it may be preserved" (Yad, Mamrim 2:4). Then the sages rightly maintained that the Oral Law is the major and the main part (i.e., both in quantity and quality) of the Torah. "The Holy One made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of that transmitted orally" (Git. 60b; cf. TJ, Pe'ah 2:6, 17a: those given orally are beloved"). The Oral Law, which is well-nigh sovereign in relation to the Written Law, is the "mystery" (μνστή�ιον) of the Holy One (Tanḥ. Ki Tissa 34, et al.; though the sources speak of the *Mishnah, it is certain that the whole oral law is intended) because of the essential nature of its being given orally. It is this nature of the Oral Law – that it was given orally – that determines its vitality and organic development; it is not immutable and fossilized but alive and evolving. This vitality, however, could only be preserved in words not fixed in writing and in a binding and unchangeable form but in words developing continually and unceasingly. As mentioned, the Sadducees had a book of decrees in writing which was their "Oral Law" (the scholium to Meg. Ta'an.), and therefore according to their outlook the whole of the Torah too was "prepared in writing" (Kid. 66a – according to early printed versions and Haggadot ha-Talmud, Constantinople, 1511, 56d), i.e., the written word obligates. The Pharisees, however, claimed that the distinguishing feature and authority of the Oral Law is embedded in the fundamental rule (Deut. 31:19), "put it in their mouths" (the scholium to Meg. Ta'an.). The Oral Law was handed over to the sages, by means of whose words it is fixed and evolves from generation to generation. It is this nature and this sovereignty that are the real will of the Written Law, which was given on the basis that it be explained by means of the Oral Law. This, apparently, is the reason that although there is a disciple who expounds "more than was spoken to Moses at Sinai" (ARN2 13, 32), yet "even what a distinguished disciple will rule in the presence of his teacher was already conveyed to Moses at Sinai" (TJ, Pe'ah 2:6, 17a; cf. Meg. 19b and SEZ 2:171 "Surely both the Bible and Mishnah were communicated by the Almighty"). The meaning of all these and of similar sources is that from the point of view of its functional essence, the whole of the Oral Law was given to Moses at Sinai, since "the Torah itself gave the sages a mind to interpret and to declare" (Sif. Num. 134; cf. "matters not revealed to Moses were revealed to Akiva" – (Tanḥ. B. Num. 117; for its true meaning cf. Men. 29b – the aggadah of Moses entering the yeshivah of *Akiva – "and he did not know what they were saying," not even a detail of a halakhah given to Moses at Sinai). Even the Holy One repeats, as it were, a halakhah as spoken by the sages (PdRK, ed. by D. Mandelbaum (1962), 73, et al.).

There is much more at the site concerning the attitudes and approaches of the other two major movements in Judaism, Reform and Conservative; but the above is an excellent explanation of the Orthodox approach, which should put an end to discussions about the "literal" or "verbatim" reading of the Torah, unassisted by any "interpretation." Such a thing is clearly rendered impossible by the nature of the text itself; and indeed, Jewish tradition and teaching -- from the time of the giving of the Torah, never mind the later editing and redaction of the text into its final form -- has never, as in not ever, held that such a reading is even possible.

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Final Warning

DI, treading on the edge of being uncivil and attacking personally is unwise because it risks stepping over -- as you have done in several posts recently.

Debate the issues honorably. Do not demean people or their beliefs

What a silly religion.

Are you even capable of debate at all?

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Goat]

But even the most cursory examination of the text reveals that that approach is quite literally impossible, even if one accepts the Divine origin of the Torah; the Bible itself does not allow it

I agree with the above observation 100%.

This is precisely why I reject the entire Hebrew mythology as nothing more than cultural myths, rumors, and superstitions.

For me, it's extremely easy. The bible must be either the verbatim word of God, or it could not have come from any God. Especially not a God who demands that we must abide by his "LAW" or his rules, or even his "morality".

Why is this the case?

Well, it should be obviously I would think.

If there exists a God who is going to pass moral judgments on us in any way, then we need to know that the moral standards of that God are. Otherwise how are we suppose to pass HIS moral judgement?

My position is simply this:

If each individual person needs to push their own personal subjective morality onto the "Holy Book" that supposedly contains this God's moral laws and requirements of us, then how can that even begin to make any sense?

If we need to "interpret it" based on what we personally feel to be moral then that flies in the very face of a God who has laid down moral standards or laws that we must follow, or even satisfy in any way.

Moreover, if we need to subjectively interpret the Bible based on our own personal sense of morality, then from whence are we obtaining our morality? Certainly not from the Bible since we would be pushing our own morality onto the Bible via our own personal subjective interpretations.

Therefore, as far as I can see, the only rational conclusion that makes any sense at all is that the book was never inspired by any judgmental God who demands that we must follow HIS LAWS and HIS sense of morality.

~~~~~~

I hold this same position with Christian Fundamentalists. I actually AGREE with them that the Bible must necessarily be the inerrant verbatim literal word of God, or otherwise it's meaningless and cannot be the directives of any God.

It truly is an ON/OFF type of deal.

It's all or nothing. Either these are the moral laws, directives, and moral standards of our creator, or they aren't. And if they aren't then trying to cling to them under the claim that we need to push our own subjective morality onto them by ignoring what they literally say and pretending that they actually reflect our own personal sense of morality via some twisted abstract contortions is, quite frankly, utter nonsense.

So if the Jews don't take the Bible to be the literal word of God (which is apparently what they do indeed claim), then as far as I'm concerned they have quite literally rejected what the Bible has to say.

We can then conclude that the Jews literally don't believe in their own Bible.

That sounds like a pun, but as far as I'm concerned it's the absolute truth.

I don't question that modern Jews do this. I also don't question that the ancient Jews could not have followed all these utterly absurd commandments and directives perfectly literally either. I agree it's impossible.

And therefore, my conclusion is that these ancient myths clearly didn't come from any supreme being. They are clearly nothing more than superstitious writings, possibly even used for political agendas, etc.

They never came from any God. Especially not a judgmental God who is going to hold us to all these absurd directives literally.

As far as I'm concerned that's obvious.

What the modern Jews might believe doesn't help these ancient myths one iota.

And as far as I'm concerned that's the only point that needs to be made.

It seems so very odd to me that you like telling modern Jews how they should read their own scriptures, and insisting that your viewpoint on how to read it is the right and proper way. I think it is the business of the people living in modern times to look at the scriptures in their modern viewpoint, and not be beholden to a 3500 year old viewpoint. Although it's good to understand where they were coming from, it's hardly imperative that their viewpoint is followed.

I mean, it could be worse. You could take an unknown quality, and make things up and mystical valuation on unknown, which is basically the logical fallacy known as the 'argument from ignorance.'

[Divine Insight]

It seems so very odd to me that you like telling modern Jews how they should read their own scriptures, and insisting that your viewpoint on how to read it is the right and proper way. I think it is the business of the people living in modern times to look at the scriptures in their modern viewpoint, and not be beholden to a 3500 year old viewpoint. Although it's good to understand where they were coming from, it's hardly imperative that their viewpoint is followed.

I mean, it could be worse. You could take an unknown quality, and make things up and mystical valuation on unknown, which is basically the logical fallacy known as the 'argument from ignorance.'

The scriptures speak for themselves.

I don't accept the claim that modern Jews "own" the scriptures. They didn't write them.

The most famous Jew in all of history clearly held the scriptures verbatim to every every jot and tittle.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If this is such an absurd thing for a Jew to say, then the Jews should have a very clear-cut case against Christianity that no Jew could deny.

So why is it then that so many Jews have converted to Christianity over the centuries?

I would suggest that the tiny fraction of "Jews" that actually held out against Christianity would then be the minority. So what we see as the "Modern Day Jews" would then just be those who rejected the teachings attributed to the most famous Jew in all of History, Jesus himself.

It makes no sense to proclaim that every "jot and tittle" of the law shall stand if the idea is that no Jew takes this stuff literally. To proclaim that every jots and tittle must hold requires that they be taken literally.

Moreover, many scholars have actually proposed that Matthew himself most likely made up that claim about Jesus and that Jesus himself never even said it. But this is even worse evidence against the Jews not taking this stuff literally. After all, if Matthew felt that he needed to make this up to satisfy the Jews need for the Old Testament Law to be retained in every jot and tittle then clearly the Jews that Matthew was attempting to impress were clearly very strong literalistic. Otherwise it would not be important to try to convince them that Jesus upheld every jot and tittle of the law.

I think "Modern Day Judaism" has very serious problems on this particular issue.

[cnorman19]

Ah, more untutored and uninformed willful ignorance on display. What a surprise....

The scriptures speak for themselves.

No, they don't. That was the subject of the OP of this thread.

Are you still posting stuff long after it's been discredited and debunked? Apparently so.

I don't accept the claim that modern Jews "own" the scriptures. They didn't write them.

Here's yet another news flash, known to all Jews, but not, it appears, to you: We've never claimed that we do. In Jewish teaching, the fact that the Torah was given at Mount Sinai, outside of the land of Israel, was intended as a reminder that the Torah was the property of ALL humans, and not that of the Jews only.

That's in The Jewish Study Bible and Judaism for Dummies, but of course you've never bothered to pick either of them up...

The most famous Jew in all of history clearly held the scriptures verbatim to every every jot and tittle.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Now this is really funny, on TWO counts:

First, making an argument -- ANY argument -- about the Jewish religion by reading from the New Testament is pretty hilarious all by itself. Why not the Qu'ran? Why not Das Kapital? After all, Marx was a Jew too....

I think I'll save the second reason for later, though it's too funny to keep secret for long.

If this is such an absurd thing for a Jew to say, then the Jews should have a very clear-cut case against Christianity that no Jew could deny.

If you'll read over the OP again -- if you ever read it the first time, which is hard to believe -- you'll find an explanation of that very concept, and in detail. THAT saying of Jesus wasn't particularly absurd; but some of his OTHER teachings....

So why is it then that so many Jews have converted to Christianity over the centuries?

"So many?"

Are you kidding, or do you just not know about this?

Never mind. Why do I bother to ask? How much you know -- or, more properly, how little -- should be clear to everyone by now. THAT was what we call a "howler."

I would suggest that the tiny fraction of "Jews" that actually held out against Christianity would then be the minority. So what we see as the "Modern Day Jews" would then just be those who rejected the teachings attributed to the most famous Jew in all of History, Jesus himself.

Nice try. The "tiny fraction" of Jews who "held out against Christianity" were the MAJORITY of Jews at the time, and still are. Most first-century Christians came from Greek culture and the Roman world. But you didn't know that, either, did you?

Remember all those letters that Paul wrote? The Christian churches he wrote to weren't in Judea, and they were written in Greek, not Hebrew.

(I've written elsewhere about why Jews didn't -- and don't -- accept Jesus as our Messiah. That ship sailed about 2,000 years ago, and it's hardly worth the time to go into it here -- that would be just another red herring.

It makes no sense to proclaim that every "jot and tittle" of the law shall stand if the idea is that no Jew takes this stuff literally.

And once again -- who, exactly, ever said that "no Jew takes this stuff literally"? Hmm? I certainly didn't. We can if we want to. Many do, especially the Orthodox.

To proclaim that every jots and tittle must hold requires that they be taken literally.

No, it doesn't. Read the OP again. And try to pay attention.

Moreover, many scholars have actually proposed that Matthew himself most likely made up that claim about Jesus and that Jesus himself never even said it.

"Many scholars"?

Name them. Give your sources.

I thought you sneered at Biblical scholarship -- it's all just a desperate effort to deny what the text says, right?

But this is even worse evidence against the Jews not taking this stuff literally.

Funny how EVERYTHING works in your favor. If he said it, it's evidence for your ideas; if he DIDN'T, it's even BETTER evidence....

What is there to say but "LOL!"

After all, if Matthew felt that he needed to make this up to satisfy the Jews need for the Old Testament Law to be retained in every jot and tittle then clearly the Jews that Matthew was attempting to impress were clearly very strong literalistic. Otherwise it would not be important to try to convince them that Jesus upheld every jot and tittle of the law.

But of course, if Matthew was making stuff up to please the Jews -- not likely in this case, as we'll see in a moment -- then there must not have been all these masses of Jews flocking to worship Jesus, as you apparently think.

This is silly. In the first century, very few Jews had ever even heard of Jesus, and most of those who had weren't buying his snake oil. Sorry about that, but it's all on the record. Links and book references on request -- I probably don't have more than a couple of dozen or so, all from recognized scholars, Jewish, Christian and atheist.

I think "Modern Day Judaism" has very serious problems on this particular issue.

I think YOU have some very serious problems on this issue.

Here's the second reason this is incredibly funny:

You've never read the rest of Matthew 5!

Sorry, DI. Jesus didn't read the Torah literally, either. In that chapter he goes BEYOND the Torah and teaches things that plainly aren't in the Bible, and he says so. "You have heard it said.... But I say unto you..." And you know what? That's not teaching the Torah literally, either! One reason he got in trouble in Judea and the Galilee was precisely because he taught stuff that wasn't in the Bible! What do you think "He taught with authority, and not as the scribes" MEANT? Why do you think they tried to STONE him in Nazareth?

I ask again -- are you sure you've actually READ this book? I find it AMAZING that you didn't know all this!

One of the big problems the Jews of his day had with Jesus, and that the Jews of today still do, is that he taught so much stuff that's just not in there -- like God having a literal, physical, biological SON, for starters; his being "one with the Father," i.e., God Incarnate; that we are all SINNERS, born in sin and doomed to Hell; that we therefore all need a Savior to SAVE us from our SINS; and that BELIEF in HIM will SAVE us.

You do know, don't you, that NONE of that is in the Hebrew Bible? NONE OF IT?

Really. Making any kind of argument at all about Judaism, whether ancient or modern, beginning from Jesus is about as silly as it gets. The NT means as much to Jews, then and now, as The Gallic Wars or Moby Dick.

Maybe you should stop parading your willful ignorance and go read a book on the subject. Then you could at least get the BASICS right.

Oh, and I haven't failed to notice how you've totally ignored and refused to acknowledge all my observations and arguments in my last post -- exactly as predicted.

Keep it up. This is really getting entertaining! Who's your next authority on Judaism? Mohammed? Maybe Jerry Falwell? How about Wile E. Coyote?

[Goat]

It seems so very odd to me that you like telling modern Jews how they should read their own scriptures, and insisting that your viewpoint on how to read it is the right and proper way. I think it is the business of the people living in modern times to look at the scriptures in their modern viewpoint, and not be beholden to a 3500 year old viewpoint. Although it's good to understand where they were coming from, it's hardly imperative that their viewpoint is followed.

I mean, it could be worse. You could take an unknown quality, and make things up and mystical valuation on unknown, which is basically the logical fallacy known as the 'argument from ignorance.'

The scriptures speak for themselves.

I don't accept the claim that modern Jews "own" the scriptures. They didn't write them.

The most famous Jew in all of history clearly held the scriptures verbatim to every every jot and tittle.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If this is such an absurd thing for a Jew to say, then the Jews should have a very clear-cut case against Christianity that no Jew could deny.

So why is it then that so many Jews have converted to Christianity over the centuries?

I would suggest that the tiny fraction of "Jews" that actually held out against Christianity would then be the minority. So what we see as the "Modern Day Jews" would then just be those who rejected the teachings attributed to the most famous Jew in all of History, Jesus himself.

It makes no sense to proclaim that every "jot and tittle" of the law shall stand if the idea is that no Jew takes this stuff literally. To proclaim that every jots and tittle must hold requires that they be taken literally.

Moreover, many scholars have actually proposed that Matthew himself most likely made up that claim about Jesus and that Jesus himself never even said it. But this is even worse evidence against the Jews not taking this stuff literally. After all, if Matthew felt that he needed to make this up to satisfy the Jews need for the Old Testament Law to be retained in every jot and tittle then clearly the Jews that Matthew was attempting to impress were clearly very strong literalistic. Otherwise it would not be important to try to convince them that Jesus upheld every jot and tittle of the law.

I think "Modern Day Judaism" has very serious problems on this particular issue.

Funny, I never knew that Matthew was part of the Jewish scriptures.

Sorry, but your quoting the New Testament to tell Jewish people what they should believe is more than a little ironic, considering you bash Christianity too. The approach you are taking to the Jewish Scriptures is what a fundamentalist Christian would.

Christain and Muslims have been telling Jews what they should believe for 2000 years. That hasn't stop the Jewish faith from taking their own path.

[Divine Insight]

It seems so very odd to me that you like telling modern Jews how they should read their own scriptures, and insisting that your viewpoint on how to read it is the right and proper way. I think it is the business of the people living in modern times to look at the scriptures in their modern viewpoint, and not be beholden to a 3500 year old viewpoint. Although it's good to understand where they were coming from, it's hardly imperative that their viewpoint is followed.

I mean, it could be worse. You could take an unknown quality, and make things up and mystical valuation on unknown, which is basically the logical fallacy known as the 'argument from ignorance.'

The scriptures speak for themselves.

I don't accept the claim that modern Jews "own" the scriptures. They didn't write them.

The most famous Jew in all of history clearly held the scriptures verbatim to every every jot and tittle.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If this is such an absurd thing for a Jew to say, then the Jews should have a very clear-cut case against Christianity that no Jew could deny.

So why is it then that so many Jews have converted to Christianity over the centuries?

I would suggest that the tiny fraction of "Jews" that actually held out against Christianity would then be the minority. So what we see as the "Modern Day Jews" would then just be those who rejected the teachings attributed to the most famous Jew in all of History, Jesus himself.

It makes no sense to proclaim that every "jot and tittle" of the law shall stand if the idea is that no Jew takes this stuff literally. To proclaim that every jots and tittle must hold requires that they be taken literally.

Moreover, many scholars have actually proposed that Matthew himself most likely made up that claim about Jesus and that Jesus himself never even said it. But this is even worse evidence against the Jews not taking this stuff literally. After all, if Matthew felt that he needed to make this up to satisfy the Jews need for the Old Testament Law to be retained in every jot and tittle then clearly the Jews that Matthew was attempting to impress were clearly very strong literalistic. Otherwise it would not be important to try to convince them that Jesus upheld every jot and tittle of the law.

I think "Modern Day Judaism" has very serious problems on this particular issue.

Funny, I never knew that Matthew was part of the Jewish scriptures.

Sorry, but your quoting the New Testament to tell Jewish people what they should believe is more than a little ironic, considering you bash Christianity too. The approach you are taking to the Jewish Scriptures is what a fundamentalist Christian would.

Christain and Muslims have been telling Jews what they should believe for 2000 years. That hasn't stop the Jewish faith from taking their own path.

I personally feel that the part about jots and tittles in Matthew is indeed of great significance in THIS STUDY.

Do the Jews live in a vacuum?

As far as I'm concerned any religion that refuses to look outside of their own tiny box is already doomed to closed-mindedness.

Matthew is the ONLY place we find a reference to these "jots and tittles" being supported by Jesus. There is no other mentions of this anywhere in the Christian Gospels.

Biblical "Scholars" (the people that Charles claims have STUDIED the Bible and should know what they are talking about) are in very strong agreement that the Gospel of Matthew was aimed specifically toward the Jews in an attempt to convert them to Christianity.

So what kind of "Biblical Scholar" not question this?

Why should it be important to the Jews that every jot and tittle of the Law be upheld until the end of time if they aren't obsessed with literalism?

The mere fact that this appears ONLY in a Gospel that was specifically designed to be aimed at the Jews is, IMHO, quite telling.

Why would the Jews ignore this piece of worldly information? Do they have something against the rest of the world that they are only concerned with their own little "BOX"?

~~~~~

When I was a Christian I was open to all human knowlege. This is what ultimately led me to belief that Jesus was most likely a mystic-minded Jew who was probably well-educated in Mahayana Buddhism. That scenario fits "PERFECTLY".

Yet, if I had remained in a sealed "Christian Box" where I refused to even look outside of the Christian pigeonhole I would have never seen this larger picture.

If the Jews insist on remaining in a closed box then who could ever help them? And more importantly why should anyone care what they think if they are going to insist on being so closed-minded?

The above statement is in no way meant to be derogatory. But seriously any argument in support of a religion that refuses to even consider human history in general is an extremely weak argument.

If the Jews insist on living in a closed "Cultural Box" why should anyone who is on the outside of that box even care?

[Divine Insight]

Sorry, DI. Jesus didn't read the Torah literally, either. In that chapter he goes BEYOND the Torah and teaches things that plainly aren't in the Bible, and he says so. "You have heard it said.... But I say unto you..." And you know what? That's not teaching the Torah literally, either! One reason he got in trouble in Judea and the Galilee was precisely because he taught stuff that wasn't in the Bible! What do you think "He taught with authority, and not as the scribes" MEANT? Why do you think they tried to STONE him in Nazareth?

I ask again -- are you sure you've actually READ this book? I find it AMAZING that you didn't know all this!

You jump to the most utterly absurd conclusions Charles.

I am WELL AWARE that Jesus taught things that aren't in the Old Testament. In fact, precisely the chapters you are referring to here I have used repeatedly on these forums in arguments with Christians in support of my position that Jesus didn't even agree with the teachings of the Old Testament and rebuked many of them specifically, just as you have pointed out here.

I'm not supporting that there is anything consistent or believable about the Christian New Testament in detail. In fact, I'm personally convinced that Jesus was actually a "mystic-minded Jew" who embraced the philosophy Mahayana Buddhism, and that's where he got most of his material. Certainly NOT from the Old Testament.

I also believe that Matthew totally made up the claim that Jesus even supported that every jot and tittle of the Old Testament Law should be upheld. I believe that was entirely a fabrication of Matthew in an effort to appease the Jews that he was trying to convert to Christianity.

It doesn't make sense that Jesus would specifically rebuke teachings of the Old Testament and replace them with teachings more in line with the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism, and then turn back around and proclaim that every jot and tittle of the Old Testament must be held to law.

I reject Christianity. As far as I'm concerned it's mostly false rumors and extremely superstitious exaggerations or outright lies.

However, if a person is going to STUDY the BIBLE they need to look at all this garbage.

Is the Christian New Testament a collection of blatant self-contradictions?

IMHO, absolutely!

But it still qualifies as writings and rumors from this time period. Like it or not.

So if you're going to STUDY the BIBLE you can't hide your head in only Jewish propaganda. You've got to look around and see what other people were saying too. Whether Jesus even existed or not, SOMEONE wrote the book of Matthew, etc. And these authors must have had some sort of motivations for writing the things they wrote.

So you can't just ignore these things just because you don't "believe" in Christianity.

I don't believe in Christianity either. But if you're going to claim to know something about the BIBLE you had better include this in your BIBLE STUDY.

[cnorman19]

A good-faith offer of truce:

You have probably received the same PM from Zzyzx that I have.

I've deleted my last post on this thread as a gesture of sincerity. I'll end this here if you will, and give you the last word.

I'm VERY tired of these exchanges -- it's no fun at all to "debate" when "debate" isn't really taking place, for all the reasons I've stated earlier.

I'll stand by every word I've said on all these threads, but I'll agree to go no farther in these disputes if you'll agree to do the same.

Leave it here, and let us have, as we have been advised, peace; and just agree to leave each other alone and "agree to disagree" on these matters.

I'm OK with that if you are.

Charles

[Goat]

It seems so very odd to me that you like telling modern Jews how they should read their own scriptures, and insisting that your viewpoint on how to read it is the right and proper way. I think it is the business of the people living in modern times to look at the scriptures in their modern viewpoint, and not be beholden to a 3500 year old viewpoint. Although it's good to understand where they were coming from, it's hardly imperative that their viewpoint is followed.

I mean, it could be worse. You could take an unknown quality, and make things up and mystical valuation on unknown, which is basically the logical fallacy known as the 'argument from ignorance.'

The scriptures speak for themselves.

I don't accept the claim that modern Jews "own" the scriptures. They didn't write them.

The most famous Jew in all of history clearly held the scriptures verbatim to every every jot and tittle.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If this is such an absurd thing for a Jew to say, then the Jews should have a very clear-cut case against Christianity that no Jew could deny.

So why is it then that so many Jews have converted to Christianity over the centuries?

I would suggest that the tiny fraction of "Jews" that actually held out against Christianity would then be the minority. So what we see as the "Modern Day Jews" would then just be those who rejected the teachings attributed to the most famous Jew in all of History, Jesus himself.

It makes no sense to proclaim that every "jot and tittle" of the law shall stand if the idea is that no Jew takes this stuff literally. To proclaim that every jots and tittle must hold requires that they be taken literally.

Moreover, many scholars have actually proposed that Matthew himself most likely made up that claim about Jesus and that Jesus himself never even said it. But this is even worse evidence against the Jews not taking this stuff literally. After all, if Matthew felt that he needed to make this up to satisfy the Jews need for the Old Testament Law to be retained in every jot and tittle then clearly the Jews that Matthew was attempting to impress were clearly very strong literalistic. Otherwise it would not be important to try to convince them that Jesus upheld every jot and tittle of the law.

I think "Modern Day Judaism" has very serious problems on this particular issue.

Funny, I never knew that Matthew was part of the Jewish scriptures.

Sorry, but your quoting the New Testament to tell Jewish people what they should believe is more than a little ironic, considering you bash Christianity too. The approach you are taking to the Jewish Scriptures is what a fundamentalist Christian would.

Christain and Muslims have been telling Jews what they should believe for 2000 years. That hasn't stop the Jewish faith from taking their own path.

I personally feel that the part about jots and tittles in Matthew is indeed of great significance in THIS STUDY.

Do the Jews live in a vacuum?

No, but when it comes to what Jews think and how they study their own religion, they do not rely on Christian scriptures. It is just like Christians don't use the Koran when they study the Christian scriptures, and the Muslims don't use the Vedas to study their religion.

So, no, what the writer of the Gospel of Matthew says about Torah is not significant to the Jews.

Why do you think it would?

As far as I'm concerned any religion that refuses to look outside of their own tiny box is already doomed to closed-mindedness.

That is not relevant to how the Jewish people view their own scriptures. Particularly from a group that specifically as an axe to grind against them.

It seem sort of arrogant to tell Jews on how they should believe, and how they should approach their own religion. Come to think of it, it is arrogant to do the same thing to Christians, to Muslims, to Hindu's or what ever. It doesn't mean that the other religions aren't looked at.. it is just that the core based principles for that religion are up to that religion to study and interpret, and choose on how they wish to follow their own religion.

Why is it so important to you to tell Jewish people in specific on how they should follow their own religion? I mean, didn't you even reject the very passages you are trying to impose on the Jewish faith?

[Divine Insight]

I mean, didn't you even reject the very passages you are trying to impose on the Jewish faith?

I'm not trying to "impose" anything on the Jewish faith. They are more than welcome to believe whatever they so desire.

All I'm saying is that if they are going to try to "justify" their beliefs to the rest of the world then I'm not buying into their "justifications".

That's all.

I'm not trying to tell them what to believe, or even what they "should" believe.

All I'm doing is pointing out that their "apologetic arguments" to defend the rationality of their "faith" to others doesn't fly in my book.

That's all I'm saying.