Post 1: Tue Jun 16, 2015 11:54 pm
Who exactly are the "Modern Day Jews"?
Like this post
|Cultural Ownership" of the Hebrew Scriptures dating clear back to the first 5 books of the Old Testament, what the Jews call the "Torah".
But who are these modern day Jews and what linage are they claiming?
The Christian Bible portrays a very precise picture of ancient Judaism during the Roman Occupation. It portrays the Pharisees as being in Charge of the Jewish Temples and being the Jewish "Chief Priest". They were clearly recognize by the Jewish culture well enough to be the ones who interact with the Roman Authorities.
But the "Modern Day Jews" want no part of being associated with those pharisees and Jewish Chief Priest who were in charge of the Jewish Temples.
So who do they lay claim as their ancient lineage of Judaism?
They certainly can't lay claim to being followers of Jesus. Moreover, Jesus himself was protesting against Orthodox Judaism. Not only that but the information we have concerning Jesus has Jesus supporting every jot and tittle of the Jewish Law which Modern Jews refuse to take literally.
So if they can't lay claim to having a lineage to Jesus, and they refuse to have lineage to the Pharisees, (a form of Orthodox Judaism that no Modern Day Jew would support) then who exactly do they claim as their lineage to these ancient times?
I don't see where they have a well-defined group to identify with even back to the days of Jesus much less beyond that to the days of the Torah.
So where is there any merit in their claim to have cultural lineage clear back to the Torah?
Who are these people?
They can only have been a more modern day uprising. And therefore they cannot lay claim to being able to speak to the issue of what "ancient Jews" might have actually believed.
They certainly have no business trying to lay claim to the Torah as "Their Scriptures" like as if they have some special connection to those ancient cultures.
The Modern Day Jews aren't anymore closely related to those ancient Jews than most other people. And certainly not in terms of how they believed. It's pretty clear from the actual writings in the ancient scriptures that the authors of those scriptures believed they spoke for some God. They either believed it, or fraudulently claimed it to be sure because that's what's actually written in those scriptures.
The Modern Jews apparently don't like what is literally written in the ancient scriptures and would prefer to imagine alternative "non-literal interpretations".
But where is there evidence for any lineage back to any actual ancient groups that felt that way?
Even Jesus demanded that every jot and tittle of the scriptures must stand until heaven and earth pass.
The Pharisees were also pretty obviously quite hard-nosed about demanding that laws be upheld. So much so that they called for the crucifixion of Jesus on charges of blaspheme or apostasy.
So who do the modern day Jews claim as their ancestral group?
And why wasn't that group even mentioned in Christian theology?
Where are the records that document how this unknown group actually believed?
I personally don't see where the modern day Jews even have a claim to any direct linage to their own past in terms of this specific religions paradigm.
If they can't claim the Pharisees, and they can't claim Jesus, then who's left to claim? Some lesser-known obscure group?
If that's the case, then where is there any merit in claiming a strong lineage clear back to the days of the Torah. Obviously if modern day Jews were nothing more than a lesser-known off-shoot of the Orthodox Judaism of the Pharisees then they can't lay claim to being strong enough to reach clear back to the Torah in terms of scriptural "authority".
Question for Debate:
Who exactly do the Modern Day Jews claim to be decedents of in terms of claiming the rights to "Religious Scriptural Authority".
My position is that they have no credible claim that can be dated back to the Torah. In fact, I can't see where they have any credible claims dating back even to the time of Jesus.I see Jews today proclaiming authority and basically "
Post 2: Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:53 am
Like this post
From the OP:
Not unlike the Christian who ain't proud of that Westboro bunch.
Naw, that's the Christians, and that Westboro bunch, I reckon.
I'm kinduva Jew myself, in that I respect their history and struggles, and how so many of 'em seem like good folk.
The very minute they set to frettin' it, or trying to live in its accord the best they can.
Unless they sit in on the meetings where they discuss their deal, like they've done for the past two thousand some odd years.
Sure they can.
Those scriptures are my scriptures too, if'n I set great stock in 'em.
But the meetings. The meetings.
And somewhere along the way they set to thinking maybe it's best if we realize what we've actually got - writings by men, and how 'bout that.
'Cause they don't take those writings literally.
As one who was taught the Bible was the "literal word of God", I admit I sometimes mistake my own understanding for that of others.
The Cambrian explosion?
I have little reason to doubt that a group that has historically been so put upon wouldn't have them an oral history, considering how much book burning there's been.
And the Jews disagreed with 'im, insofar as they consider Jesus a "Christian".
Ancient Jews, only like so many families, they've got 'em some of their own they disagree with.
'Cause Christian theology ain't about being a Jew, it's about being a Christian, and theologizin' on it from there.
In their oral histories.
'Cause it's changed.
I see little problem with calling myself a Jew (though I'd never do it 'officially'), where I respect and admire their ability to endure hardships I struggle to even comprehend.
'Cept for those who've studied their history, traditions, and all such as that. Which is why I can't officially call myself a Jew.
Ancient Jews, Jews from a few hundred years ago, Jews from last week, and Jews from today.
They're not unlike other groups; they argue with one another about this or that bit of theology, but in the end, they recognize their own like atheists recognize our own.
See previous comments.
I submit that where we study on the ancients, where we attempt to live by their laws (to the extent we find acceptable), and where we attempt to do as they say, well there we go, we're as ancient as them.
I propose it's a bit off to try to tell the Jews who is one, 'cept to note here I am, a-tellin' 'em I'm one.
Is a Jew someone who was born to a Jew? I, personally, say no (gee Joey, don't that seem a bit self-serving). That's my jewish take on it. But what I can't do, is deny that someone who tries to learn the ways of Judaism, but maybe they get it wrong, well they can't be 'em one.
Your argument seems to be with your own definition of what it takes to be a Jew. That said, and if it not be deemed offensive, you're being "Jewish" in the sense you're arguing about what it takes to be a Jew. Though they seldom argue along those lines, arguing their scripture, and their understanding of it, is kinda what makes 'em Jews.
I can dig the idea of "well you don't follow all the laws it says in the book". But that fails to recognize the oral traditions and interpretations of those laws, rulings which date so far back as to be perhaps unrecognizable here today.
To deny Jewish history and tradition is to deny Judaism ever existed.
Post 3: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:30 am
Like this post (1): JoeyKnothead
|This is what happens when you try to learn about Judaism by studying the New Testament…
As noted in an earlier post:
We do, of course, lay claim to the manner in which we read and understand it, as ALL groups who use the Bible do.
Jews are not a “race,” and they are no more a “family” than a “race,” for the simple reason that Jews have welcomed converts to the Jewish faith from the very beginning. The VERY beginning; The servants of Abraham himself are generally considered the first “converts” — he circumcised them, the oldest sign of the oldest Covenant — and there have been many since. The most famous convert in the Bible is Ruth the Moabite, who was an ancestor of King David. The obvious result would be that most Jews would have ancestory from the ancient Middle East, with some admixture of European, African and West Asian genes from the various groups among whom they lived and accepted converts.
And this has been proven in DNA studies. From Wikipedia:
There is also research which confirms that the Cohanim, that is, Jews who claim to be descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses, and who historically have been identified as the Priestly line (though the Jewish religion has not had actual priests since the fall of the Temple, the lineage is still recognized and carries certain ceremonial and traditional responsibilities) — actually ARE so descended:
From that same site:
In other words, the Jews are descended from the people they say they are descended from; Ancient Middle Eastern Arabs and Palestinians, with some admixture of other bloodlines from conversion among the people among whom we have lived over the centuries — exactly as would be expected, and exactly as Jewish tradition maintains.
Once again, you are not only wrong, but WILDLY wrong. From The Jewish Virtual Library (emphasis added):
The Sadducees were in charge of the Temple, not the Pharisees. They were, by the common people, considered traitors in that they were collaborators with Roman occupiers — or, as you put it, “the ones who interact with the Roman authorities.”
Nonsense, and for two reasons. First, it’s right there in black and white, known to every Jew: the Pharisees were the spiritual and intellectual ancestors of modern Judaism, which is sometimes called “Pharisaic Judaism” even today ; and the Chief Priests were Sadducees, not Pharisees. The New Testament has garbled these facts of Jewish history to the point where it does not even note that Jesus was a Pharisee himself, opposed to the Sadducees and their corrupt Temple group. Remember his throwing the moneychangers out of the Temple?
The Pharisees believed in studying in their local villages, in buildings called synagogues, and to a large degree, they ignored the Temple rites and rituals. Jesus spoke in synagogues. He was a Pharisee himself — but the NT doesn’t seem to know that.
This has been discussed on this forum before: see here.
One must remember that the NT — ALL of it — was written under the influence of Paul of Tarsus. His letters are the oldest documents in the NT, predating the Gospels, all of which were written by Paul’s followers.
Paul may not even have been Jewish — but even if he was, he was drastically out of touch with the Judaism of his time. I’ve written on that elsewhere, but for the moment, one example will do: To Paul, the Law — the Torah — was a burden, something that brings death and not life, something under which humans suffer and face condemnation. In the context of the Jewish religion of his or any other time, that’s ludicrous. Pick a Psalm; the Law is “a guide to our path and a lamp to our feet,” God’s most precious gift, which Jews treasured above all others.
Paul was culturally more Greek than Jewish, which of course is why Christianity has more to do with Greek religion than Jewish. The GREEK gods has literal sons and daughters, remember? Zeus and Hercules, and however many more (Zeus was a randy old goat, in the myths)? Paul spoke to Greek audiences, since the Jews rejected his teachings, and therefore most Christians, even in the first century, were Greeks and Romans, and not Jews.
This is what happens when you read the New Testament to find out about Judaism (and it’s not like I’ve never told you that before). That would be roughly like reading the writings of the Ku Klux Klan to find out about the Civil Rights movement. By the time the NT was written, the Jews were the enemy — Matthew 27:25 is the most notorious example, but there are many others.
The Jews of the ancient Near East, as has been proven by DNA research (see above).
Of course not. Glad you got THAT right, at least. But that makes one wonder — why on Earth would you look to followers of Jesus to learn about Jews?
No. He was protesting against the Sadducees and their corruption and collaboration with the Romans.
And as I’ve pointed out in another post, that’s nonsense too. Jesus himself did not read the Torah literally, and did not preach a literal obedience to its commands — as proven in that same chapter, Matthew 5, where the “jot and tittle” remark is found.
Do you even know what that means? The “jot and tittle,” in Greek, refer to small diacritical markings in Hebrew that denote vowels, since Hebrew has none. Jesus was saying that the written Torah will always remain the same; he was NOT saying that it must all be followed mechanically and literally, as shown by his remarks immediately after that one.
Nonsense, as already proven.
If you discount and dismiss the traditions and even the written records of the Jewish people themselves — and there are very many, virtually all of them still extant — you might end up anywhere, depending on your own prejudices, assumptions, and agenda. That has apparently been the case with your own “analysis” here. It’s so wrong it’s laughable — and quite literally, too; my initial reaction on reading this post was a hearty belly laugh. The Pharisees were in charge of the Temple? Really? That’s like saying that Martin Luther King was head of the FBI.
Again, obvious nonsense — based on nothing at all but your own misinformation, ignorance of Jewish history and documents, and your own apparent desire to discredit and demean the Jewish religion.
Except that our people wrote them, which no one disputes; that our people have revered and studied them for centuries, leaving hundreds of volumes of detailed commentary and discussion, which no other culture has; and that all that study and commentary continues and is constantly added to, to this day.
As has been established elsewhere, the concept of a traditional and binding interpretation of the Torah was there from the very beginning, and is in fact required and supported by the Torah documents themselves. The idea that the Torah came, indirectly to be sure, from God is NOT in conflict with the idea that those documents and commands must be understood and applied, not only in their own time, but for all times to come. Claiming “fraud” is more than a little extreme, and certainly isn’t justified by your willfully ignorant “analysis” and prejudices.
A straight-up falsehood, proven to be a pejorative distortion earlier.
The Talmud. The Responsa. The commentaries of Nachmanides, Rashi, Maimonides, and many others. It’s all there, dating back to the first century CE and earlier — and if you count the rest of the Hebrew Bible, which constantly refers back to the Torah, there is your “evidence” dating back to before the Babylonian Exile and the destruction of the FIRST Temple.
All of which is apparently very easy to dismiss and ignore, especially when you have no idea that it even exists.
No, that would be the Sadducees — the chief priests and “scribes” of the Temple. That’s about as basic as it gets, in CHRISTIAN history. Truly astonishing that you could be THAT wrong.
See above, for all of it.
Honestly, DI, the more you pontificate and fulminate about the history of Judaism and the Jews, the more ignorant you prove yourself to be, and the more ridiculous you look. Maybe you should stop trying to peddle this nonsense. There are people here who know better, and there are many more than one.
See above. MY position is that this is all pure fantasy, based on nothing at all — more or less as usual. Except that that is more than a mere "position" -- it's a provable, and now proven, FACT.
You're just digging that hole deeper and deeper, and this is the deepest hole yet. You're not going to be able to ignore this ridiculous post and pretend you've never said any of this, as you have so many others here.
Maybe it's time to stop. Ya think?
Post 4: Wed Jun 17, 2015 11:58 am
Like this post
Exactly. It's just another modern day clique not unlike the atheists at all.
Except the atheists don't lay claim to having the sole authority to know how to interpret ancient scriptures better than anyone else.
In other words I'm exactly RIGHT!
All you've done here is verify my position that the Jews are totally confused and self-disagreeing, and have a history of being so.
Therefore where does the arrogance come from when they start preaching to non-Jews that non-Jews don't understand the scriptures as well as they do, and that they are the only ones who can understand how ancient Jews thought clear back to the days of the Torah even?
Obviously this claim holds no water at all.
Evidently anyone can take a guess at what these ancient people might have been thinking, and the Modern Day Jews have no special insight into it.
According to the link you have just posted the the Jews have traditionally been extremely confused and divisive on their own religious beliefs.
This link you have provided SEALS MY CASE!
And finally where were these Sadducees and Essenes?
Why weren't they recognized as being "Chief Priests" and being in charge of Temples back in the days of Jesus? Why is there no mention of them during these historically important time period?
The problem I have with the "Modern Day Jews" in terms of their religious position is that they have an extremely contradictory position.
On the one hand they claim to be in a cultural position to be able to say precisely what the "Ancient Jews" were thinking and how they viewed these ancient scriptures.
Yet on the other hand, they acknowledge that even during the times of Jesus the Jews were extremely divisive and confused over how to think of these scriptures and they couldn't even agree with each other.
They can't have it both ways.
Either they can point to a consistent history where all Jews were consistent in how they viewed these scriptures, or they have no choice but to confess that their entire religious culture has always been indecisive and in strong disagreement even among themselves over how to view these ancient scriptures.
Apparently the latter is the truth.
Therefore no modern day Jew has any support for telling any non-Jew how ancient scriptures that date clear back to the Torah should be viewed or understood.
I don't see where you have done anything but SEAL MY CASE.
The Jews have no better understanding of these ancient scriptures than anyone else. Their guess isn't any better than any other guess. And their very own history proves it.
They have been self-divisive just like all these other Abrahamic Sects. They are no different from the Christians or Muslims in this regard.
Post 5: Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:20 pm
Like this post
By the way, this is a pretty profound claim.
If what you say here is right then it was the Sadducee Chief Priests who demanded the crucifixion of Jesus, and not the Pharisees, because the Christian New Testament clearly states that it was the "Chief Priests" who called for this from Pilate.
Unless you are attempting to claim that Christianity could be THAT WRONG.
But it seems to me that if Christianity was that wrong the Jews would have never even allowed it to gain any foothold at all.
In other words, you would need to be claiming here that the Christian New Testament is nothing but absolute provable outright lies.
And if the Jews had a case for that back in a day I think they would have been more effective in renouncing the entire Christian Gospels, not to merely reject that Jesus was the messiah, but they would have been able to argue that the rumors don't even make sense in terms of who was in charge of the temple and what they called for.
Clearly there are some major problems here.
I don't think you can just sweep the Pharisees under the carpet that easily.
It was the Pharisees that Jesus was arguing with, not the Sadducee. So why would the Sadducee call for the crucifixion of Jesus?
It seems to me that you are demanding that Christianity has things so absolutely wrong that they have turned all of history on its head. And the Sadducee (whom you claim were in charge of the temples and were the respected religious authority of the time) just sat back and allowed that to happen?
That's highly unlikely Charles.
Post 6: Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:38 pm
Like this post
I don't see where I'm the one digging any hole.
If your claims are true then according to you the Christian New Testament is the most outrageous historical lies ever told.
Apparently that would need to be true for your claims to be true.
Where do you stand on Jesus?
Do you believe that Jesus even existed? Apparently you do since you claim that Jesus himself was a Pharisees.
Do believe that Jesus was crucified? If so, who do you believe called for the crucifixion of Jesus, and who carried out that crucifixion?
Because according to you the Pharisees didn't have the Authority since you claim that the Sadducee were in charge of the Temple and interacted with the Roman Authorities.
If that's the case then the Christian New Testament is nothing but a pack of historical lies. Never mind any supernatural or divine claims.
Is that your claim?
And if the Christian New Testament is that obviously false historically, then how in the world did it ever gain any respect or foothold? Even to the point where many Jews themselves have converted to Christianity.
Why would any Jew convert to a religious scam that is so obviously dead wrong even on historical points?
Post 7: Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:49 pm
Like this post
If you can prove this claim then you can prove that the Christian New Testament is nothing but a pack of historical lies, thus proving that Christianity is necessarily false.
On the other hand, if you can't prove this claim they you obviously have nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion here.
Post 8: Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:11 pm
Like this post
THIS IS A BLATANT FALSEHOOD AND A PERSONAL ATTACK.
NO ONE has ever said this. I myself have said ONLY that those who have actually STUDIED Biblical scholarship and Jewish record, e.g. the Talmud, understand the Scriptures and Jewish views of them better than someone who NEVER HAS. [Nothing was EVER said about Jews vs. non-Jews, but I have no doubt that you'll still be trying to sell that bill of goods in your future posts.
Since no one ever made that claim, it doesn't have to.
Please quote from the link where you find this confirmation -- and while you're at it, please show where your wildly erroneous claims and historical howlers are supported as well.
There were plenty of mentions.
Start with the New Testament you claim to have studied to learn about Jews: Look at Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18-27; Mark 14:53; Luke 20:27; John 11:48-50; John 15:1; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:17; Acts 12:1-2; Acts 23:8.
If that's not enough, there are numerous references to the Sadducees (and to the Essenes) in Flavius Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews and his Jewish War. Josephus's writings were nothing if not contemporary; he was born circa 37 CE, lived through the destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of the Second Temple in 70, and died at the end of the first century.
"No mention"? Well, none that YOU knew of, obviously.
That's not a "cultural position," and it's not a "claim." That knowledge comes from Jewish documents that extend over more than two thousand years.
As I've already shown you.
Once again; merely ignoring and contradicting a DOCUMENTED FACT is not "refuting" it. Where are YOUR sources, YOUR evidence, that proves YOUR (ludicrously erroneous and willfully wrong) "position"?
And you're blatantly mischaracterizing and falsifying the whole of first-century Jewish history, all to support your wholly laughable CLAIMS, which have already been proven false. There were two major "parties" in the first century, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and we now know, through the Dead Sea Scrolls, that there was a third, a tiny splinter group called the Essenes. Trying to pretend that that amounted to chaos and universal disagreement is as ridiculous as saying the American system of government has been chaos and universal disagreement and confusion for the last century because we have the Democrats and the Republicans.
Really, your transparent efforts to distort and falsify actual history in the service of your pet hobbyhorses is astonishing.
As if ANY religious, political or even cultural group could point to "a consistent history where all were consistent in how they viewed" ANYTHING. Again, you are demanding perfection and absolute unity, where none has EVER existed in ANY group other than some tiny cults and private clubs.
The existence of more than one point of view is not catastrophic, as you seem to wish were true.
These demands and pontifications are ineffably silly -- and you have the incredible chutzpah to talk about JEWS being "arrogant"? Whoo!
No; it's your fantasy. As usual.
Except for the records of the Talmud, the rest of the Hebrew Bible, the commentaries from medieval and earlier rabbis, and all the rest -- as I've already shown you, and as you've ignored and refused to acknowledge -- again, more or less as usual.
Again, no one ever said that. There are very many Gentile scholars who have actually studied the history and documents of the Jews who have as good an understanding of these matters as any rabbi. Once again, you're arguing against a made-up position that no one here has ever taken. Don't you get tired of having to make up your opponents' positions so you can argue against them?
Sheer nonsense. Show me a respected and respectable reference or a link that supports your extreme hyperbolic claims -- if you can.
That other religious groups have different factions is obvious, but then so does every group I've ever heard of. My SCHOOL DISTRICT has different groups supporting different programs. Even the major political parties in the US have different factions with differing priorities.
But the Jews, you know, have only three major branches after almost four thousand years -- and we all still affirm each other as Jews and support each other.
Your attempt to use the natural differences in human opinions to show that "anyone can take a guess at what these ancient people might have been thinking" and that "the Jews were extremely divisive and confused over how to think of these scriptures and they couldn't even agree with each other" is intellectually dishonest and deceptive in the extreme. Two major groups and one minor one do not equal "extremely divisive and confused."
Give it up, DI. You're getting into "repeated unsubstantiated claims" territory.
Last edited by cnorman19 on Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post 9: Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:19 pm
Like this post
|Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]
Once again; simply negating and denying what I've shown you isn't really "debating." It's merely exhibiting determined and obstinate DENIAL.
As for Jews I've mentioned before; most Jews had never heard of Jesus, and therefore had little interest in "refuting" Christian mistakes in the New Testament; and when Christianity did really take hold, it was in Greek cities and not in Israel or the Jewish communities in Europe, Africa and Asia.
Who's "sweeping the Pharisees under the rug"? I've given you historical references and FACTS. If you prefer to cling to the NT, that's your privilege -- but then I guess you'd have to accept the historical accuracy of the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and all the various miracles performed by Jesus and the disciples as well. Do you REALLY want to maintain that the NT is a historically accurate document that can't be disproven by other secular sources?[
Post 10: Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:21 pm
Like this post
The Sanhedrin was made up of a plurality of sects, much like the US congress or the Kenesset. The Sadducees just happened to be to controlling sect. Can you provide a reference that says that any particular sect was the one that convicted Yeshua?