Political Crossfire Forums

[uzi]

John wrote: uzi4ufriend wrote: So?

Are you telling me that according to your interpretation, that means I should go out and look for a face for god???

Please explain.

Does this mean I should go and find an image of god that suits me?

Isn't it kind of dangerous. I mean, someone might decide that a certain image of Jesus is the only true image of Jesus and start worshiping a statue. Kind of like Catholicism. (not that there's anything wrong with that, it just wouldn't follow the Jewish interpretation) I may as well build a golden calf and get it over with.

It means you should personally, through prayer, seek out the face of God. What is so hard to understand about that? It doesn't say Seek out Rashi. :lol:

We don't claim that Rashi is god. You seem to be saying that if a Christian sees a picture that suits him of Jesus he can pray to that image. After all he's just looking for god.

Well, that might work for Christians, but it doesn't work for Jews.

I have no problem with that. You have your religion we have ours, just don't go explaining to us what meaning we should 'see' in certain parts of the bible. It is clear that we see things quite differently.

It's funny how you mention Rashi insinuating idol worship when every church I've ever been in has so many to choose from...

[John]

Quote: We don't claim that Rashi is god. You seem to be saying that if a Christian sees a picture that suits him of Jesus he can pray to that image. After all he's just looking for god.


That's kind of a childish understanding of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Jesus Christ as he is described in the NT. As in who He was and WHAT He represented is the "Face of God".

[psholtz]

uzi4ufriend wrote: We don't claim that Rashi is god. You seem to be saying that if a Christian sees a picture that suits him of Jesus he can pray to that image. After all he's just looking for god.

Well, that might work for Christians, but it doesn't work for Jews.
I don't think it should work for *real* Christians either, but you're correct insofar as it seems to work for the millions of pagan idolators out there who pass themselves off as *Christians*..

What you're describing is idolatory, and it's something that's always bugged me about orthodox Christianity..

[Duchifas]

Quote: It's funny how you mention Rashi insinuating idol worship when every church I've ever been in has so many to choose from...

Funny, the ones I've been to didn't have even one! Although, it may have to do something with the fact that these were old church buildings converted into synagogues. :shock:

Actually, I've been to a real church once for my friend's wedding. Did you know? Men and women sitting together!!!! :lol:

[psholtz]

uzi4ufriend wrote: 2)i) Are you still going on about that Greek translation??? Look the best scientific test you could do, is take a random selection of passages from an older text and compare it with what we have today. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved just that. Given a random sample of passages from different parts of the Hebrew bible, every passage from the bible was exactly the same, to the letter! (And I really don't care about texts that don't belong in the bible so you can save yourself some time arguing that some poem that doesn't belong in the bible doesn't appear in the bible.)
Yes, I am still talking about the Greek Text, b/c I just did a "scientific" test in a post above on this thread and you (predictably) proceeded to ignore it. If you can answer the question I posed about the accuracies of the Masoretic Text, I'm sure you'll be able to set us all at ease.

Also, I'm not quite certain what the Dead Sea Scrolls "proved".. If you have some evidence indicating that they "prove" the authenticity of the Masoretic Text, I'd love to see it.

Quote: 2)ii) Now I wonder why certain quotes from the NT don't show up in the OT??? Could it be that the guys who wrote the NT didn't copy it accurately?
That's one explanation. The other explanation is that the Masoretic Text itself changed. We're trying to figure out which explanation is correct.. :wink:

Quote: I can't believe you guys can hold a tome of the Talmud in your hands and not be amazed by the genius not only of the things said in it, but how it is all connected. No wonder Christians could burn books throughout history.
Care to cite some of the "genius" of the Talmud?

[psholtz]

Duchifas wrote: Before dissing the Talmud, your competence in which is severely limited due to the simple fact that you don't read hebrew and aramaic, please re-read again my exchange with John about double standards and literal translations.
Are you trying to tell me that if I read the Talmud in Hebrew, the bit about Gentile sex slavery magically goes away? :?

[uzi]

psholtz wrote:
I don't think it should work for *real* Christians either, but you're correct insofar as it seems to work for the millions of pagan idolators out there who pass themselves off as *Christians*..

What you're describing is idolatory, and it's something that's always bugged me about orthodox Christianity..

Good for once we agree. But I would have to ask you the same thing. Do you have an image of Jesus Christ in your mind? Do you pray to some image of Christ that you picked up somewhere, or do you avoid thinking of Christ in physical terms?

psholtz wrote: That's one explanation. The other explanation is that the Masoretic Text itself changed. We're trying to figure out which explanation is correct..

That's actually very open minded of you. There is no reason for one theory to be more likely than the other unless we present more proof.
I for one believe that the methods by which a Jewish bible is copied is sufficient proof.

You might not agree. That's fine, I don't have any particular need for you to believe what I believe.

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: Before dissing the Talmud, your competence in which is severely limited due to the simple fact that you don't read hebrew and aramaic, please re-read again my exchange with John about double standards and literal translations.
Are you trying to tell me that if I read the Talmud in Hebrew, the bit about Gentile sex slavery magically goes away? :?

If one could read the Talmud in Hebrew, one would perhaps see what it actually says. Perhaps that could move one to the next stage of trying to understand what the Talmud says, including Talmudic methods and the context, without which the Talmud is incomprehensible to a reader. That, in turn, could possibly lead one to not misquoting it or taking it something out of context.

Now, until and unless a person knows at least the very basics of Talmudic study and method, and has had some practice at it, there is no point whatsoever in discussing what it says, whether about gentile sex slavery or alien child labor.

Since you are in IT field, I will give you a helpful analogy of what the conversation would be like -- it would be like talking in Java or C++ to a 1st grader from Namibia. He neither understands the methods, nor the context, nor does he even understand the language. And he has probably never seen a computer in his life. Try it, tell us if it works.

[Secondary Oak]

Duchifas wrote: Since you are in IT field, I will give you a helpful analogy of what the conversation would be like -- it would be like talking in Java or C++ to a 1st grader from Namibia. He neither understands the methods, nor the context, nor does he even understand the language. And he has probably never seen a computer in his life. Try it, tell us if it works.
And if it's Perl he could really get the wrong idea from the "submit or die" phrases.

Sorry, couldn't resist :-D

[cap'n queasy]

uzi4ufriend wrote: John wrote: Duchifas wrote: In case you missed it, cap'n, John is agreeing with me that the NASB is, at least in this important case, not as literal as it could be. Apparently, the team of experts at NASB adds their own "insight" into hebrew.

At which point I only feel it to be proper to take your statement and urge you to take your own advice

Duchifas Duchifas Duchifas…………

Being half right doesn’t make your point a valid point.

And cutting certain parts out of what I said and not presenting that actual MEAT of the point just shows that you are willing to be dishonest or that you didn’t get my point to begin with.

Here, go over what I said again…


The name Adonai, translated "Lord" (only the "L" capitalized), occurs approximately 300 times in the Old Testament. It's interesting to note that it is almost always used in the plural possessive form meaning "My Lords". This, once again, confirms the concept of The Trinity as found in the name "Elohim". Also consider the fact that this same word is used of men approximately 215 times in the Old Testament and is predominantly translated as "master". Note, however, that, when used of men, it is always used in the singular form.

Now let’s really think about what’s going on here. David is talking about the Father God (YHVH) telling the Son ('adown’) to “sit at My right hand. Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet”. As we have seen Adonai is always in the plural form when referring to GOD as a whole…..but in this case we have one person of the Trinity speaking to another. Therefore IF the word Adonai was used in its plural form, it would incorrectly mean that there are two Gods (Two Trinities). This is NOT the case. There is only ONE God, so when YHVH address the Son, the proper word to use would be “adown”.

So actually I would have to agree with you that “lord” (lower case) would be a more literal translation. Because Lord (Capitalized) is the word used for Adonai, which is a word that represents the Trinity as seen in the word adon in its plural form. But I can understand why the English translation chooses to capitalize the word because your average reader couldn’t understand that point without first having an insight into Hebrew.

Sometimes being TOO literal can cause the translation to be incorrect when transferring to another language....as in this case. It would be like translating Adonai as Lords, or Elohim as Gods, it wouldn't be quite correct in English.


I don't see you complaining that Elohim should be literally translated as "Gods". Why is that? BECAUSE the context of the text would render that translation INCORRECT, even though it's LITERAL.



Elokim is just the plural of majesty. I wouldn't start basing my whole belief structure on this. It certainly doesn't hint at a duality, or a trinity or however many parts you ascribe to god. Though I'm sure there are other interpretations for this. (plus the verbs are singular) Are you basing your whole faith on conjecture???

I still think if the whole point of the bible was that god is a trinity, god would be referred to as 'the trinity'. The bible is very specific, it doesn't beat around the bush, even if sometimes it is not easy to understand.

cap'n wrote something about murder and kill being the same. I can give you a clear answer as to which one is mentioned, it says Razach (murder) period. Read the ten commandments again, it's very clear and very specific. Why couldn't it say 'the trinity'?

If you say that we were suppose to look for the meaning and finally reach the conclusion that god is made up of a spirit a man and a father, why the hell do you stop there. I can name a half dozen other names and titles that god goes by. Why don't we count all of them and get a polygon god and just go and call it polytheism, since the main point is how many parts god is made up of.

BTW neither of you has told me whether you have an image of Jesus in your mind. I for one can't imagine how you could think about that guy without getting an image in your mind. (a man made image)
Now even if you believe that Jesus makes up 1/3 of god it is still a false image you pray to. Isn't it? You're giving god an image, and most likely a false one. How do you rationalize that?

jewishencyclopedia.com


So what is the difference betwen murder and kill?

I think a better translation into English would be: Thou shalt not commit homocide.

homocide is the killing of a human being. Are you saying that there is a certain group of people who it is alright to kill? I don't think there is any way one can kill another human being and it not be a sin on your soul.

Heck, calling someone a fool is a sin.

The purpose of the dispensation of the Law is to make us aware of sin, and so many people make dubious qualifications of this type to try to avoid this
awareness, so they can act in a manner that suits their worldly aims.

Warfare is wrong yet is necessary for survival sometimes but I seriously doubt God wants people to think they can participate in the types of atrocities of war that are necessary for victory and just think it is all hunky dory.

He wants you to be cognizant of the effects of your actions, and if the effect is sin, to be thankful for Christ Jesus dying on the Cross to propitiate the sins of those who follow the Lord.

Of course if you do not accept that Jesus is the Anointed One who sacrificed Himself to propitiate outr sins and you don't have a temple to make sacrifices in to propitiate your sins, I can see your problem and why you need to try to convince yourself that things that you might want to or think you need to do are not sinful.

Good luck with that. You're going to need it.

[psholtz]

Quote: If one could read the Talmud in Hebrew, one would perhaps see what it actually says. Perhaps that could move one to the next stage of trying to understand what the Talmud says, including Talmudic methods and the context, without which the Talmud is incomprehensible to a reader. That, in turn, could possibly lead one to not misquoting it or taking it something out of context.
This is silliest thing I've ever heard.. A Greek isn't going to tell me that I can't understand Plato just b/c I'm reading a translation.. A German isn't going to tell me that I can't understand Goethe just b/c I'm reading a translation. I will grant that I may get a more "authentic" taste of those texts by reading them in the original tongue, but I can still get the general gist of what's going on by reading a translation. And there may be subtle nuances in the Hebrew that don't come through unless you have a solid grounding in Hebrew, like the difference between Elohim and Adonai (to name one of many).. but we're not talking about subtle nuances here, we're talking about something quite blatant: whether or not the Talmud advocates sex slavery..

You can't keep hiding behind Hebrew and saying "ooo... if only you *really* understood Hebrew, then everything would magically fall into place".. That's lame, and I hazard to say that it's false, and I hazard to say that I (or someone else) did master Hebrew well enough to know what's going on, you'd manage to come up w/ some other excuse.. and if it's not false, and if you do claim to understand Hebrew as well as I'm sure you do, then perhaps you could explain some of these deep mysterious Hebraic concepts (in your own words) in a way that we could all understand...

Jesus, after all, was quite good at that(!).. :wink:

Duchifas wrote: Since you are in IT field, I will give you a helpful analogy of what the conversation would be like -- it would be like talking in Java or C++ to a 1st grader from Namibia. He neither understands the methods, nor the context, nor does he even understand the language. And he has probably never seen a computer in his life. Try it, tell us if it works.
To take your analogy a bit further, let's suppose that God is the computer, and the programming language we use is the respective "language" we use to communicate w/ God (whether that be Hebrew or Latin or English or what not else). In the first place, your example of a first grader who hasn't even seen a computer is offmark, since every one privy to this discussion at least (a) assumes the existence of a God; and (b) assumes some means of coming into greater knowledge or awareness or communication or relationship or whatever you want to call it, of that God... Which is to say, we've all seen the computer.

Or... in other words, we're all competent programmers, each in our respective language.

Next, are you saying that just b/c you speak C++ and I speak Java (<- although for the record, I really hate Java and haven't used it in over 5 years! :lol:), that we can't understand each other? Or better yet, that we can't translate each of our programs into an agnostic pattern language like UML and communicate w/ each other? After all Java and C++ both share similar concepts of data typing, object structure, methods, etc... just like there are many shared concepts among the world's major religions..

[psholtz]

Secondary Oak wrote: Duchifas wrote: Since you are in IT field, I will give you a helpful analogy of what the conversation would be like -- it would be like talking in Java or C++ to a 1st grader from Namibia. He neither understands the methods, nor the context, nor does he even understand the language. And he has probably never seen a computer in his life. Try it, tell us if it works.
And if it's Perl he could really get the wrong idea from the "submit or die" phrases.

Sorry, couldn't resist :-D
Now that's funny! :lol:

Haven't used Perl in almost 10 years, but ... it's still funny(!)

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: We don't claim that Rashi is god. You seem to be saying that if a Christian sees a picture that suits him of Jesus he can pray to that image. After all he's just looking for god.

:lol: No one prays to an image of Jesus. They pray to God.

Christianity is not idolatry.
Rabbinical Judaism, however, is a religious tradition that has produced a work around method that avoids what the Scriptures clearly say.

Do you think it is a coincidence that God destroys the Temple every time Israel screws up?

It's happened three times. Seems like Israel would try to look at the Scriptures a little more closely to see what God is saying to us.

Things will be getting hot again shortly. IMHO. Best to make sure you are correct because this is the last chance.

The Anointed one will have His way, as it says in Psalm 2 and throughout the scriptures.


You are following a religious book that tells you it is OK to kill, rob, enslave and molest people, just so long as they are Gentiles, because Gentiles are animals. This contradicts the scriptures, not compliments them.

That is the work of Satan if you ask me.

I am asking you to reconsider this position before it is too late.

[uzi]

psholtz wrote: This is silliest thing I've ever heard.. A Greek isn't going to tell me that I can't understand Plato just b/c I'm reading a translation.. A German isn't going to tell me that I can't understand Goethe just b/c I'm reading a translation. I will grant that I may get a more "authentic" taste of those texts by reading them in the original tongue, but I can still get the general gist of what's going on by reading a translation. And there may be subtle nuances in the Hebrew that don't come through unless you have a solid grounding in Hebrew, like the difference between Elohim and Adonai (to name one of many).. but we're not talking about subtle nuances here, we're talking about something quite blatant: whether or not the Talmud advocates sex slavery..

You can't keep hiding behind Hebrew and saying "ooo... if only you *really* understood Hebrew, then everything would magically fall into place".. That's lame, and I hazard to say that it's false, and I hazard to say that I (or someone else) did master Hebrew well enough to know what's going on, you'd manage to come up w/ some other excuse.. and if it's not false, and if you do claim to understand Hebrew as well as I'm sure you do, then perhaps you could explain some of these deep mysterious Hebraic concepts (in your own words) in a way that we could all understand...

Jesus, after all, was quite good at that(!)..

I know Duchifas will enjoy replying to this, but I just have to.

We're not saying a translation can't be good or even mostly accurate, we're saying you should learn more before dismissing something. Well, I guess I should just speak for myself. You can enjoy reading Goethe in English, but I wouldn't go telling a German who read the original that Goethe couldn't write for s**t after reading one page of some translation.

psholtz wrote: Care to cite some of the "genius" of the Talmud?

It's in Hebrew. And it would require more effort than I'm willing to invest just to satisfy your curiosity. I'm not an expert, I just found it to contain a lot of wisdom. It would be like a first grader trying to explain trigonometry to another first grader. From the little I understood I can see that I need to learn a lot more before I dismiss it. But since I had someone who could explain it to me, I found isolated parts of the Talmud which I did understand to be quite fascinating. If you are interested in learning more you're welcome to go and read in it preferably with a Rabbi who can explain how to even approach it.

It's like you asking me to cite what I think is genius in Shakespeare. I just found anything I've read to be very inspiring and well thought out (in the Talmud, I mean. ).

I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm not the one dismissing it. Imagine if someone would come to you and say that after reading one page in one translation of one of Shakespeare's plays, he didn't see what's genius about it. Or say something like "I don't find it very well written, and I think the English speaking world is making a lot of noise over nothing," or should I say, much ado about nothing...

Wouldn't you tell such a person, go and read a whole play, or two, or three before you dismiss it? And we're not talking about just some playwright who wrote for entertainment. Just an iota of respect wouldn't hurt.

If you believe that you know enough about it to dismiss it then I can't help you. I'm not going to try and persuade you. And I'm sure that most Germans would tell you that you haven't read Goethe until you've read him in German.

cap'n wrote: Do you think it is a coincidence that God destroys the Temple every time Israel screws up?

It's happened three times.


How many temples have there been?

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: This is silliest thing I've ever heard.. A Greek isn't going to tell me that I can't understand Plato just b/c I'm reading a translation.. A German isn't going to tell me that I can't understand Goethe just b/c I'm reading a translation.

Talmud is no Goethe and no Plato. Even if you did know Hebrew, you wouldn't get 90% of it, without understanding the methodology.

Also, along the lines of what uzi said, nobody doubts your ability to read Plato and Goethe and then discuss it with Germans and Greeks.

However, if you claim to have that ability after reading a few translated pages of either.......that's something else.

Quote: I will grant that I may get a more "authentic" taste of those texts by reading them in the original tongue, but I can still get the general gist of what's going on by reading a translation.

Look at the discussion above. I would never in my life deny that by reading the NASB translation, people can get the "general gist" of what's going on. That's not too demanding. The problem with the general gist approach, however, is that you can mistranslate one word and read three into where there is only one. Get it?

Not that anyone would do that intentionally.

Quote: And there may be subtle nuances in the Hebrew that don't come through unless you have a solid grounding in Hebrew, like the difference between Elohim and Adonai (to name one of many).. but we're not talking about subtle nuances here, we're talking about something quite blatant: whether or not the Talmud advocates sex slavery..

Dude! The subtle nuance you mention is precisely one of the basis of Christianity's departure from Judaism. Doh!

Quote: You can't keep hiding behind Hebrew and saying "ooo... if only you *really* understood Hebrew, then everything would magically fall into place".. That's lame, and I hazard to say that it's false, and I hazard to say that I (or someone else) did master Hebrew well enough to know what's going on, you'd manage to come up w/ some other excuse.. and if it's not false, and if you do claim to understand Hebrew as well as I'm sure you do, then perhaps you could explain some of these deep mysterious Hebraic concepts (in your own words) in a way that we could all understand...

What do you think I was doing in this thread? I was explaning the simple Hebrew. I did my job, but I can't force someone to undestand.

Quote: Jesus, after all, was quite good at that(!).. :wink:

Umm, Jesus is one of the last people on earth that I personally would want to emulate. ;)

Quote: To take your analogy a bit further, let's suppose that God is the computer, and the programming language we use is the respective "language" we use to communicate w/ God (whether that be Hebrew or Latin or English or what not else). In the first place, your example of a first grader who hasn't even seen a computer is offmark, since every one privy to this discussion at least (a) assumes the existence of a God; and (b) assumes some means of coming into greater knowledge or awareness or communication or relationship or whatever you want to call it, of that God... Which is to say, we've all seen the computer.

Or... in other words, we're all competent programmers, each in our respective language.

Next, are you saying that just b/c you speak C++ and I speak Java (<- although for the record, I really hate Java and haven't used it in over 5 years! :lol:), that we can't understand each other? Or better yet, that we can't translate each of our programs into an agnostic pattern language like UML and communicate w/ each other? After all Java and C++ both share similar concepts of data typing, object structure, methods, etc... just like there are many shared concepts among the world's major religions..

Thank you for proving my point. I am sure that half the people reading this post without programming background have no clue what you are talking about, and I am too lazy to figure it out. :)

cap'n wrote: Rabbinical Judaism, however, is a religious tradition that has produced a work around method that avoids what the Scriptures clearly say.

You just can't let a post go by without making a fool of yourself, can you?

I showed, very clearly, that your beloved NASB avoided, in one extremely important instant, what the Scriptures said.

And now you still keep bashing something that you know very little about?

And on top of that, cap'n, show a little more respect to Rabbinical Judaism. As I pointed out to you on many occasions, the Rabbis that you so dislike, are the ONLY reason that you have your bible today. They were the ones who painstakingly preserved it, often at the expense of their lives, for at least the first thousand years of its existence.

Without the Rabbis and their Rabbinical Judaism, today you would have neither Genesis, nor Exodus, nor Leviticus, nor Numbers, nor Deuteronomy, now Joshua, nor Isaiah, on and on and on.

So if you can't express a lilttle well-deserved appreciation and gratitude to the Rabbis, at least have the decency to refrain from insulting them.

[Duchifas]

Secondary Oak wrote: Duchifas wrote: Since you are in IT field, I will give you a helpful analogy of what the conversation would be like -- it would be like talking in Java or C++ to a 1st grader from Namibia. He neither understands the methods, nor the context, nor does he even understand the language. And he has probably never seen a computer in his life. Try it, tell us if it works.
And if it's Perl he could really get the wrong idea from the "submit or die" phrases.

Sorry, couldn't resist :-D

:lol:

[John]

Duchifas wrote: I showed, very clearly, that your beloved NASB avoided, in one extremely important instant, what the Scriptures said.


No you didn't.

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Duchifas wrote: I showed, very clearly, that your beloved NASB avoided, in one extremely important instant, what the Scriptures said.


No you didn't.

Oh, yeah, I am sorry, let me put on my "political correctness" hat:

Rather than providing a literal translation, the "team of experts" at NASB provided their readers with an "insight."

Better?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: How many temples have there been?

I'm counting the Tabernacle, destroyed at Shiloh by the Philistines, the first temple destroyede by the Babylonians, and the second temple destroyed by the Romans.






Quote: And on top of that, cap'n, show a little more respect to Rabbinical Judaism. As I pointed out to you on many occasions, the Rabbis that you so dislike, are the ONLY reason that you have your bible today. They were the ones who painstakingly preserved it, often at the expense of their lives, for at least the first thousand years of its existence.

Whatever, I merely told the Truth, you were the one throwing out insults.

I don't dislike them, I think they and you are wrong. The description of the supposed fate of Jesus in Hell in the Talmud leads me to believe that it is doubtful that some of this writing was given to Moses. Though, possibly some was. I have read more than a few pages of this writing and it is plain that some of it is just plain wrong, not to mention not based on Scripture.

I may be a Cuthean but at least I am not like Amalek, who sees the Hand of God and calls it "natural phenomena".

Anyway I'm not trying to run down the Talmud, but to spread the Good News.

BTW calling the Trinity polytheism is wrong, because the scriptures mention God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son which Psalm 2 identifies as the Anointed One, so I would be more careful about insulting the Scripture given by the Holy Spirit.

And calling followers of the Messiah idolators is pretty insulting , as well, so there you have it.

I insulted no one, but merely stated the Truth, that Christ Jesus is the Anointed One.

Yes, Rabbi's preserved the Scriptures in the Septuagint, but they also changed them, even selling a version they believed was wrong to the Catholic Church.

So I would say that some teachers are good and teach the truth and some like Rebbe Scheerson, say some pretty questionable things. And in English too, I might add.

[Duchifas]

Quote: So I would say that some teachers are good and teach the truth and some like Rebbe Scheerson, say some pretty questionable things. And in English too, I might add.

A lot of things are questionable, particularly when one doesn't know what he is talking about.

Now, if you don't mind, here is something from a person who we ALL can agree knew what he was talking about. This is what President Reagan had to say about Rabbi Schneerson. Apparently, cap'n, you and Mr. President have viewed the good Rabbi a bit differently:











http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=142535