[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What do you think would happen if the Christian owners of that Bed&Breakfast had respected the rest of the teachings from the Bible and turned away a recently married pair of divorcees?

What would happen if they were turned away? Nothing. Because divorcees don't tend to be militant assholes like a lot of gays here do (think Perez Hilton), thus divorcees would have hit the travel tavern up the road instead of making a big histrionic show about it all. End of story.

Do divorcees come with a forehead tattoo saying "I'm a divorcee" these days like some kind of bizarre parallel to Russian prison tattoo culture?
How would B&B couple have known unless told? How do you know they wouldn't kick divorcees out too? (it seems to be your assumption that they wouldn't - how do you know they wouldn't?)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Okay, your call. You really piqued my curiosity though. There's basically nothing you could say that could cause me to block you. I know you don't recognize the eternality of the Torah. Unless you were to do something like call Jews the spawn of the devil or some such, I'm fine with just about anything else.

Let's just say I believe you put a little too much faith in men.
And that's all you're getting.

[Kerrigan]

Here is my take on this:

Homophobia is ingrained into humanity, regardless of religion.

Christianity (the protestant, Calvinist flavor, to be precise) has actually produced societies that tolerate homosexuality at unprecedented levels.

Gays are still being hanged in the Muslim world, murdered in Africa, persecuted in China . . . meanwhile, in the right-wing of the most conservative country in the West, Elton John is singing at Rush Limbaugh's wedding and Dick Cheney is speaking out about gay rights.

The reality, as I see it, is that the Christian ethic of love (God's word is written on the heart) has created an incredible level of tolerance for gays, which all modern people would agree is a good thing.

Now, the question remains: Will God forgive gays if they're buggering around? Who knows. Like adultery, you have to keep your fingers crossed, and not judge anyone else in the meantime.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Here is my take on this:

Homophobia is ingrained into humanity, regardless of religion.

Christianity (the protestant, Calvinist flavor, to be precise) has actually produced societies that tolerate homosexuality at unprecedented levels.

Gays are still being hanged in the Muslim world, murdered in Africa, persecuted in China . . . meanwhile, in the right-wing of the most conservative country in the West, Elton John is singing at Rush Limbaugh's wedding and Dick Cheney is speaking out about gay rights.

The reality, as I see it, is that the Christian ethic of love (God's word is written on the heart) has created an incredible level of tolerance for gays, which all modern people would agree is a good thing.

Now, the question remains: Will God forgive gays if they're buggering around? Who knows. Like adultery, you have to keep your fingers crossed, and not judge anyone else in the meantime.

That makes some sense to me. What is your take on the other sexual issues listed?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Christianity (the protestant, Calvinist flavor, to be precise) has actually produced societies that tolerate homosexuality at unprecedented levels. ... The reality, as I see it, is that the Christian ethic of love (God's word is written on the heart) has created an incredible level of tolerance for gays, which all modern people would agree is a good thing.

It is the decline of religion that has allowed this tolerance. I can't imagine why you credit Calvinism as the cause.

[Snow-i]

On the contrary lpk

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Your argument about shrimp only works if you completely ignore the fact that no Christian is bound to Old Testament law. Anyone who thinks they are is quite simply mistaken. The whole point of Christianity was to wash away all the rules and regulations of the OT.

So, we're left with the New Testament...

This is completely, utterly false. Paul wrote that Gentile Christians were not bound to the ritual requirements of Judaism, but they most definitely must adopt the ethical standards of the Jews. (In Corinthians, Paul demands the expulsion of a Greek couple where a man married his father's ex-wife, even though Greeks permitted that. The Torah said it was not permitted, and Paul insisted on it.) I know you're fond of the "two laws" thinking, but it isn't "biblical."

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm talking "this is a clitoris, it feels nice when you rub it" level. That's an exact quote (I didn't get an exact quote about the gayness but let's just say it sounded like they were prepping everybody for felching lessons the year after).

Yes. "Clitoris". Six-year-olds.

Children should most definitely taught the word "clitoris," just like we teach them penis and vagina. I can't understand what your problem is about this.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Even though that's impossible because the Torah is eternal and not subject to revision. Even the gospels have Jesus attest to that in some form, like in Matthew 5:17 and proceeding through a number of verses. It is claimed Jesus said that the Torah is in effect as long as the heavens and earth exist "until all is fulfilled" (and I would argue that assuming an historical Jesus existed he almost certainly didn't say "until all is fulfilled). The gospel has him say that whoever teaches another to transgress the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and follows the commandments will be called great. And does he not go on to say in verse 20 that unless your righteousness exceeds the Pharisees and the teachers of the law you will not enter the kingdom of heaven? He says that without indicating at all that this only applies to before his supposed fulfillment.

It's important to remember that Matthew is not very reliable as a historical witness. Matthew was writing as a time when Christianity was breaking away from Judaism, and he was trying to prevent that from happening. He puts those words in Jesus' mouth for that reason. It can't be regarded was historical fact. The historical Jesus wouldn't have placed ritual Torah requirements on Gentile "God-fearers" because other Jews of the time didn't expect it of them either.

Do you know where those requirements from the Jerusalem Church originally came from? If not, you may want to do some research on that. Here's a hint: The Torah is eternal and not subject to revision, but no one ever said it applies to non-Jews. There is a different standard for the rest of the world, and it's attested to in the Christian Bible by the quotation above.

Exactly.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Let's just say I believe you put a little too much faith in men.
And that's all you're getting.

Okay. That's. . . vague, but at least we're getting somewhere. Hmm. What could you mean by that. . . .

I put my faith in the Torah, Navim and Ketuvim - TaNaKh - a.k.a. the Hebrew Scriptures. Most Christians do as well, if only to the extent that they believe in the accuracy and sanctity of the Hebrew Scriptures. I have faith in the unbroken chain of Torah from Mount Sinai to today, and that includes faith in the Talmud, which contains the Oral Torah of detailed instructions for daily living that Moshe received at Mount Sinai, as recorded much later in the Mishna, and its associated history and interpretation (the Gemara).

I also have faith in the sages, rabbis and other religious leaders of my people down through the generations. G-d commands me to abide by their teachings and not to turn away from them. I accept the teaching that my people were chosen by G-d to show the other nations of the world the G-dly path and to encourage by example the rest of the world to follow Him.

I have that kind of faith. But it's strange to say that I have too much faith in men. I have total faith in G-d's communications found in the TaNaKh. It is Christianity that places its faith in men by utterly rejecting the eternal Torah - G-d's highest, direct communication to mankind - in favor of the inconsistent testimony of various authors (none of whom are even called prophets) about an alleged crucified savior who could not save himself from death, let alone anyone else.

[besson3c]

chosen by G-d

Pat, I would like to solve this puzzle... Chosen by God!

Duh duh duh dudh duh dunder deerrr

WHEEL OF FORTUNE!!!

[besson3c]

All of this Jewish stuff makes me hungry for a nice falafel and some hummus.

Big Mac, do you wear a Jewish hat and have your hair all curly? I'm just trying to picture what you look like.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Pat, I would like to solve this puzzle... Chosen by God! WHEEL OF FORTUNE!!!

Ha ha, but you already made that lame joke before in a different thread, besson. It doesn't bother me that you enjoy doing that, so I don't know why you bother. I know you're annoyed by my hyphenation of divine appellations, but that is the convention of Torah observant Jews so it's just what I do. I don't know why you want to derail your own thread, though.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

All of this Jewish stuff makes me hungry for a nice falafel and some hummus.

It would be wild if your curiosity led you to travel to Israel, got you exposed to the religion, and then you end up as a convert to Judaism.

Big Mac, do you wear a Jewish hat and have your hair all curly? I'm just trying to picture what you look like.

Yes, I usually wear a yarmulke (although sometimes I substitute a baseball cap, but for a while now I've been covering my head nearly all the time), and yes I have very curly hair. I also wear glasses (yes, typical), and I have been letting my beard grow out for a while despite my mother's disapproval (sometimes I break down and trim it but no longer want to at all for religious reasons).

Actually, here's a pic of someone I resemble:



That reminds me. . . Did I ever tell you guys about the time when I went with friends into an Israeli night club briefly in Tiberias and saw my doppelganger? There was an employee who I absolutely swear looked like he could have been my long lost twin. I should have gotten a picture with him, but unfortunately I was too shy to bother him while he was working. Crazy. I may be going back in the next few months, and if I do I'd like to stop by the club to see if he's still there.

[besson3c]

Awesome!

I'm not bothered by you spelling God as G-d, I just think it's really ****ing weird, but whatever... You probably think that my affection towards Wheel of Fortune and Jeff Goldblum and other such things is weird too, so...

I rather enjoy Wheel of Fortune, so seeing G-d just reminds me of Wheel of Fortune and makes me happy. I just felt like sharing. I'm glad you don't mind!

Do you like me?

[Big Mac]

Sure, I like you besson. You do get on my nerves at times, but you seem like a nice guy and a decent person overall (although misguided in various respects), and you're a character around here. You really think my hyphenation is really farking weird, huh? I don't particularly know why, it's just a tiny substitution of one letter for a hyphen because I abide by the writing conventions of my people and also want to show my reverence for the divine. I honestly think many things you write are much weirder, but it's good to have variety around here, right?

[besson3c]

Hug me?

[Big Mac]

Sure, I suppose a virtual hug doesn't hurt (no homo).

Night.

[Laminar]

This thread went weird.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

It is the decline of religion that has allowed this tolerance. I can't imagine why you credit Calvinism as the cause.

You're actually illiterate, aren't you? Kerri stated:

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Christianity (the protestant, Calvinist flavor, to be precise) has actually produced societies that tolerate homosexuality at unprecedented levels.

Likewise:

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Children should most definitely taught the word "clitoris," just like we teach them penis and vagina. I can't understand what your problem is about this.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

"this is a clitoris, it feels nice when you rub it"

Are they teaching them the word "clitoris"? No, they're teaching them masturbation. Six year olds.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Okay. That's. . . vague, but at least we're getting somewhere. Hmm. What could you mean by that. . . .

I put my faith in the Torah, Navim and Ketuvim - TaNaKh - a.k.a. the Hebrew Scriptures.
...
I also have faith in the sages, rabbis and other religious leaders of my people down through the generations.

That's what I mean.
I put my faith in God. Period.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

an alleged crucified savior who could not save himself from death, let alone anyone else.

Methinks you're kind of missing the point of the whole thing. Not surprising, since the fat old politicians in the temple in 36 ADish that you put faith in missed the point too.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's what I mean. I put my faith in God. Period.

That's a wonderful thing to say, and I'm very happy for you for possessing the strength of your convictions to such a degree that you say you believe you put your faith in G-d only. But in truth, Doofy, if you are a Christian the fact that you are means that you don't believe just in G-d in a very restrictive sense. (For if you only believed in G-d and nothing else, you'd be a believer in some very simplified form of monotheism.) I'm surprised that you imply you don't have faith in the Hebrew Scriptures. Do you have faith in the Christian texts, or does that also not fall under your rule of having faith in G-d alone? Because if you have faith in the L-rd you must rest that faith on the basis of some learning about Him, and that learning had to come from somewhere, either texts or traditions or both. It seems like you put faith in the Christian Testament, which is clearly contradictory and riddled with errors. Paul had a very clearly biased agenda of wanting to insert himself as a towering figure in a new compromise Judeo-heathen religion. The canonical gospels conflict with each other; basic facts are changed from book to book. And they aren't written for the sake of truth but rather for the evangelizing of the new religion. I don't know a possible reason why you would favor those books over the Hebrew Scriptures. I put in my trust in what my people received from G-d through Moshe on Mount Sinai and in the other Hebrew prophets.

Yes, I have faith in the leaders of the nation of Israel, as the Torah commands me to. At minimum the only faith I need to have in that regard is that they accurately transmitted the TaNaKh. And I have no reason to have any doubt that they did just that. It would take too long to try to summarize the transmission of the texts, but you can look it up if you're interested. Moreover, The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Torah and the Septuagint are three different textual sources that provide checks independent of the established Jewish authorities on the overall accuracy of the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Samaritan text and the Dead Sea Scrolls both come from communities hostile to the established Jewish power base in Jerusalem. And yet they don't differ much at all in terms of substance. Yes, those sources sometimes differ with the Masoretic in various minor details, but very rarely are those details at all important to core aspects of theology. (For example, the Samaritan Torah's ten commandments had inserted a command to give offerings as Mount Gerzim, and there's a commandment pertaining to monogamy, but that's about it.) In other words, even if you take the most variant reading of Hebrew scriptural works versus the Masoretic Hebrew (Jewish canonical) versions, that amount of variation is still never going to add up to anything close to supporting an alien and incompatible theology like Christianity.

Methinks you're kind of missing the point of the whole thing. Not surprising, since the fat old politicians in the temple in 36 ADish that you put faith in missed the point too.

Jewish leadership in the 1st Century wasn't a cabal of fat old, bllind, bearded Jewish men with gigantic, ugly hook-noses as the Jew-hating Christian stereotype enjoys painting them. I'm not saying that's the type of stereotype you have in mind, Doof, but that's the kind of stereotype I envisioned based on your words. The Pharisees (who the masses followed btw) weren't corrupt, evil scoundrels as the anti-Jewish authors of the Christian texts often like to insist. Their leaders were very pious men like Rabbi Hillel, who despite extreme poverty came to study in Israel and eventually unseated the previous leadership of the major Torah academy through the force of his intellect. Jews respect superlative Torah knowledge and defer to it when they see it, even if it comes from humble sources. The gospel authors had to put a lot of "daylight" (to borrow a political term) between Judaism and Christianity to make it easier for the masses to embrace the latter, so they chose to do so by demonizing the Pharisees and Jews generally and blaming them for the death of their "savior" (who, if he did exist in some historical form, died at the hands of the Romans along with so many other Jews). And note also that it was not the Pharisees (the rabbis) in charge of the Temple and Sanhedrin at the time but rather than Sadducees and the Roman installed Sadducean High Priest Caiaphas. The Pharisees very much opposed the Sadducees, but the gospels deceptively make the Pharisees the major enemy.

[Big Mac]

As for the point of the whole thing, no I'm honestly not missing it. The fact is, with all due respect, I think I have a much better vantage point to be able to accurately account for the phenomenon of Christianity based on my knowledge of texts, history and the Jewish and Christian zeitgeist, if you will. From a macro perspective G-d allowed Christianity to prosper because it is a flawed vehicle but one that is effective in spreading a substantial amount of Torah truth to the non-Jewish world. From an historical standpoint Paul, who was either a very Hellenized Jew or perhaps a failed convert to Judaism who wanted to return to the Roman religion of his roots, wanted to make himself a star in a new religion and saw a golden opportunity to do so. At the same time the Jerusalem "Church" under James remained quite Jewish and apparently regarded Jesus as nothing or more less than the human messiah who (in their opinion) would be returned to the living to finish his work and usher in the Messianic Era/kingdom of G-d.

In referencing the Jewish zeitgeist I want to briefly discuss a powerful force in Judaism that most likely was instrumental to the development of Christianity as a corruption of Judaism. It is not at all surprising that a charismatic, non-conformist teacher could inspire a lot of Jewish devotion even after death. Assuming an historical Jesus, he must have been very different from the later Christian portrayals. The historical version may have clashed on some level with the rabbis, but he could not have said the many anti-Jewish things that come from the mouth of gospel Jesus. Many righteous Jews were crucified by the Romans, and Jesus' followers must have regarded him as a righteous victim as well. Now there is the phenomenon of veneration of teachers in Judaism. In one section of the Talmud students give explanations for why their respective rabbis are Mashiach. It was natural to venerate one's rabbi to such a level as to say about him that he was Mashiach. It was also natural for great rabbis of that era to greet one another by saying, essentially "Hello to the face of G-d," since a Jewish face is likened in a loose way to the face of the divine. That was not uncommon. Moreover, although it's a minority view, there are some opinions that say Mashiach can come from the dead, but that's a complicated topic. (The majority view is, in contrast, that Rabbi Akiva, the greatest rabbi of his generation, rejected the man he thought was Mashiach, Bar Kochba, when Bar Kochba's rebellion against Rome was crushed and Bar Kochba killed. In turn, though, some Jewish branches make a distinction between being killed as in a war and dying naturally.) There is also the teaching that a truly righteous Jew (Tzadik in Hebrew) is "more alive in all worlds including this one after death than in life). Putting these factors together, it's not difficult to see how a fringe group and even a not-so-fringe group could believe that their venerated teacher and martyr could be so highly exalted that the following could be said of him:

A. That he is or will be the Messiah;
B. That he has divine characteristics (because as I said before Jews as the chosen people believe in that aspect in ourselves to varying degrees);
C. That it is okay to let this belief be known to others and even to forcefully argue for it and seek to expand the followers of said figure;
D. That the righteous teacher must be correct if he offered prophecies or foretold an imminent coming of the messiah because of a doctrine among followers that the word of their leader is truth and will come to pass;
E. That his followers are only being tested in their faith and will soon be vindicated;
F. That he is either still alive in this world after a physical death, that he never died but only appeared to have died, or that he died physically and will be resurrected to finish his campaign and usher in the Messianic Era. . .
G. That he as the leader of the entire generation and as the Messiah, is the "Moses of his generation," in some ways even superior to Moses because he will bring the Torah and worship of G-d to all the nations;
H. In this position as the "Moses of his generation," he has a special link to G-d that other Jews have a need to connect with in order to achieve the highest levels of divine service, just as the people needed Moses to receive the Torah and to "interface" with G-d more directly on their behalf.

Any of that look familiar? I'm not saying that each and every one of those factors were involved because we know very little about the pre-Christian Jesus movement, but I can see how all of those things could apply. Such beliefs and teachings are not peculiar to the early Christian movement. If you look at Chabad (an Chassidic Orthodox Jewish stream that I've mentioned recently) after the "ostensible" passing of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, you can see in the modern era how these types of traits can develop around a beloved Jewish leader. In the case of Chabad, the Rebbe really stoked expectations of an imminent Messianic Era and strongly implied that he was Mashiach. Also, letter H on my list is very important because that kind of teaching is also found in Chabad. When I first learned it while reading the Rebbe's discourses I had a lot of trouble with the concept because the language he used made it sound as if he were claiming to be an intermediary between the rest of Jewry and G-d. I reread the discourse a number of times and reflected on its meaning until realizing that the Rebbe was not claiming to be an intermediary but something just short of that. It is my view that a more extreme variation of that theme found in Christianity has Jesus claim in the gospels that no one gets to the Father except through him.

But I digress. When Paul came to the Jerusalem "Church" saying that he wanted to spread the Jesus movement to the non-Jewish world and wanted to do so by promoting Jesus as the savior and lord of mankind, the Church initially wasn't interested but relented as long as Paul carried with him the prohibitions that you Doofy referenced previously, against idolatry, adultery, sexual perversion and the like; as I said before they had a source they drew from for those prohibitions, a source you probably won't like finding out about if you haven't yet. As time went on the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus as a messiah in the Jewish sense either left the movement to return to Judaism when their hopes for Jesus did not materialize, went underground, or were subsumed by the larger non-Jewish Christian movement of Paul. And as the movement matured into the gospel era and beyond, the Jesus of Christianity was merged in large part with heathen man god myth, and he was progressively deified, although not completely (I would argue) even by the establishment of the Christian canon. Rome, which had persecuted early Christians, begun embracing it as an almost irresistibly powerful tool to both unite the empire and simultaneously further degrade and humiliate the conquered Jews by turning the movement of a failed messianic Jewish character into a crude synthesis of Roman/heathen man-god mystery cults with a Jewish veneer. This worked to Rome's advantage also because it could help stem the not insignificant tide of Roman conversion to Judaism. (For proof of that trend's effect, take a look at the recently published genetic studies showing the link between Ashkenazi Jews and Italians, which obviously resulted from some non-trivial amount of Roman proselyte intermarriage with the European Jewish population.) After that Christianity was made the official religion of Rome, and the open debate over Jesus' deified status was settled by way of vote at the meeting of Christian leaders convened by Constantine at the First Council of Nicea all the way in 325. The rest is history.

[Doofy]

You might as well stop typing, Biggie. I ain't taking any notice.

[besson3c]

Doofy: do you like Jewish people?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Doofy: do you like Jewish people?

I can't answer that without more information Bess. Please supply.

Q) How big are their boobs?
Q) Are they going to shut up while I watch 24?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You might as well stop typing, Biggie. I ain't taking any notice.

Aww, just when things were starting to get very interesting. You may want to read it because personally speaking I'm proud of this work I'm doing.

I started typing those replies in response to you, Doofy, but at a certain point I was inspired to flesh the posts out just for my own purposes. Now I think I want to write a book on the subject because I think I have some really unique insights to share with the world. Seriously.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I can't answer that without more information Bess. Please supply.

Q) How big are their boobs?
Q) Are they going to shut up while I watch 24?

I'm just trying to catch you in the act, but I'm failing. First you defend Jeff Goldblum (who is a Jew), and now you don't admit to secretly hating them.

Do you secretly hate Canadians?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Aww, just when things were starting to get very interesting. You may want to read it because personally speaking I'm proud of this work I'm doing.

I didn't say I hadn't read it. I said I ain't taking any notice of it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you secretly hate Canadians?

Again, same questions:

Q) How big are their boobs?
Q) Are they going to shut up while I watch 24?

Plus two:

Q) They're not going to make me listen to Celine Dion, are they?
Q) Have they got Kristin Kreuk's phone number?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Again, same questions:

Q) How big are their boobs?

Haha... You didn't say they had to be female boobs! Doofy likes man boobs! I got you so bad!

[Big Mac]

Come on, guys, someone post something new (and substantive) before I go offline for Shabbos. We've got a few hours. . .

[besson3c]

Big Mac: I'm actually curious about learning more about Judaism just for my general education. Be forewarned that I will probably be a frustratingly stubborn audience if your motivation is to persuade me of the righteousness of any particular religion, the subject of this thread alone provides ample clues here (that's just where I'm at right now, and this isn't to suggest that this would be your intention either), but if you are cool with some matter-of-fact Judaism for dummies sort of teachings that are a little less dry than the Wikipedia, I would certainly be a captive audience!

I don't think I'm alone in saying that Jewish stuff is just generally pretty foreign to me. Make me less ignorant! This would also require starting at a very basic level, you'll have to dumb down what you say sort of like teaching Grandma all about the Mac

[besson3c]

And before any of you lay into me for having strong opinions while being ignorant, to that I would say that I think it's pretty natural to sort of sum up stuff without knowing all of the intimate details. For instance, many people here have low opinions of Linux or Windows despite not knowing the exact history of these operating systems, what programming languages and techniques are used, how the different libraries and frameworks interact with each other, etc. You just know that it "isn't for you", like I, for now, believe that most religions and sexual issues are just a bad match for me based on my definition of "messed up" - for me.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Big Mac: I'm actually curious about learning more about Judaism just for my general education. Be forewarned that I will probably be a frustratingly stubborn audience if your motivation is to persuade me of the righteousness of any particular religion, the subject of this thread alone provides ample clues here (that's just where I'm at right now, and this isn't to suggest that this would be your intention either), but if you are cool with some matter-of-fact Judaism for dummies sort of teachings that are a little less dry than the Wikipedia, I would certainly be a captive audience!

Glad to read of your interest, besson. I'm impressed to know you're receptive to learning more about the subject. My intent is certainly not to compel you into believing anything. Although I am definitely writing content of a persuasive nature, what I've written so far is for Christian believers and believers of other faiths, not for agnostics or atheists.

I don't think I'm alone in saying that Jewish stuff is just generally pretty foreign to me. Make me less ignorant! This would also require starting at a very basic level, you'll have to dumb down what you say sort of like teaching Grandma all about the Mac

Okay, I don't really know where you want me to start necessarily. Jews and Jewish topics have had a lot of media exposure of varying forms and quality, so I don't know what baseline you're at in terms of your knowledge and conceptions. A lot of what's in the media about Judaism is only partially true and sometimes outright false, so I guess you should list what you're interested in learning more about and I can fill in details.

I did give a very good general impression of life in an Orthodox Jewish community in this thread, one that you're not likely to see in too many other places or find out about for yourself unless you spend time in one.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And before any of you lay into me for having strong opinions while being ignorant, to that I would say that I think it's pretty natural to sort of sum up stuff without knowing all of the intimate details.

I won't jump to criticize you for not having knowledge of Judaism unless your words on the subject appear willfully and abusively ignorant to the point of malice. Otherwise I'll be very forgiving, unlike in other areas where we've conversed at times.

You just know that it "isn't for you", like I, for now, believe that most religions and sexual issues are just a bad match for me based on my definition of "messed up" - for me.

That's fine. I realize that you have a number of fundamental issues with religion. Even if I were ever able to convince of the correctness of the Jewish approach to the sexual issues that concern you (a big hurdle), the much more Herculean task would be to overcome your skepticism and desire for empiricism in all areas of study, to convince you that religion can have a rational dimension, and that fundamentally there is a Creator. But again I'm not trying to make you into a believer. We can just chat about religious topics with both of us knowing that I'm a believer and you're a non-believer.

[Chongo]

since this is "ask Big Mac a question day" I have a few.
If the the group of rabbis that codified what would be the "official texts" back in the day rejected any books that did not have a hebrew original, why do Jews celebrate Hanukah? (some of the Septuagint has since been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls BTW)

Is modern rabbinical Judaism of Pharisee or Sadducee philosophy?

What is the mainstream jewish thought on who or when the Messiah will come.

If you were alive in 1948, what side of the fence would you have been on? (ie No state of Israel without the Messiah)

If I think of anymore...

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

since this is "ask Big Mac a question day" I have a few.

Awesome. Your questions rock, Chongo, and I still have some day left to answer them in.

If the the group of rabbis that codified what would be the "official texts" back in the day rejected any books that did not have a hebrew original, why do Jews celebrate Hanukah? (some of the Septuagint has since been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls BTW)

Good question. It's not a matter of language, though. Portions of Daniel are in Aramaic instead of Hebrew, as you may know. The TaNaKh canon was established more based on the factor of chronology and the era of the last ancient Prophets. More specifically, the Hebrew canon was decided upon during the period of the Knesset HaGedolah - The Men of the Great Assembly - a highly distinguished group which included the final full prophets of the ancient era (such as Chaggai, Zechariah and Malachi) plus the greatest non-prophet authorities. The last living member of the Assembly was Shimon HaTzaDIK (Simeon the Righteous), the last great High Priest. The Great Assembly under the prophets and Simeon extended from 410 BCE to 310 BCE. (According to Wikipedia at least the Assembly continued for centuries after that, but it was under the guidance of the prophets in that period; the events I'm describing in the next sentences happened in that period.) Anyway, the four most important things the Assembly did were to set the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, transmit to the next generation the Oral Torah, begin to establish formalized prayers (a process that would continue for centuries), and "seal the gates of prophecy" i.e. to close off the full level of prophecy because they knew the era of full prophecy was coming to an end and they chose to act to seal it until the Messianic Era instead of letting it be potentially abused.

(I say the full level of prophecy because even though that era ended with the last prophets of the Great Assembly, according to Judaism the great rabbis of the Talmud (if not later generations as well) had access to lower levels of prophecy, specifically the "Heavenly Voice" that would inform them of important divine instructions on occasion. A crude analogy I can draw is to think of the Heavenly Voice as an infrequent divine text message in comparison to full prophecy which would be a divine phone call. That's another much more remote reason why I reject the mere notion of Christian or any other type of supersessionism - Judaism's great rabbis still had direct access to advice from Heaven centuries after the Prophets, which guided our sages in various areas.)

But to finish answering the original question, because the canon was sealed by 300 BCE, books that came afterward just weren't going to be part of the Hebrew Scriptures. Without the Prophets there would be no way to objectively validate whether any newer book should be accepted or not. But in addition to that, the books that were accepted were written by prophets (or in the case of Daniel, one very close to being a prophet), but with the last full prophets no longer alive future books wouldn't be on the same level of holiness as the ones authored with the prophetic spirit. The books of Maccabees doubtlessly have a lot of good information in them, but they were too late in origin to be validated by prophets and therefore included.

The reason why Jews celebrate Chanukah is because while we don't accept Maccabees as canon we still have our own records and those non-canon sources of information that tell us what happen and why it was important. Chanukah is celebrated as a rabbinic holiday, and some details about it are mentioned in the Talmud. Another reason why we as Jews don't do much with the Maccabees texts even as non-canonical sources is because while the Maccabees were righteous initially, they did not maintain their high level of achievement; their descendants caused great destruction in Jewish society. We celebrate their initial victory over Temple corruption and the miracle that occurred with the oil, but we don't glorify them like those texts do. Other sources can explain these aspects better than I can while I'm rushed right now, but that should be a decent summary. (I'll try to expand on it in the next days.)

Is modern rabbinical Judaism of Pharisee or Sadducee philosophy?

Rabbinic Judaism is a continuation of what was called Pharisaic Judaism, but it's a really fine distinction being made there. And truthfully I have to do more research on that transition myself. According to what I've read on the subject, though, the Pharisees were really only prominent as a group that identified as such when they were locked in conflict with the Sadducees. After the destruction of the Second Temple the Sadducees were destroyed given (among other reasons) that they did not accept the Oral Torah and were completely dependent as Jews on the Temple system. With their end the factionalism also ended, and the rabbis had control. They did not want to be associated with the destructive factionalism of the previous age and thus stopped using the Pharisee label to refer to themselves. Also, I think it's important to point out that the Exile communities who did not return to the Land of Israel with Ezra had their exilarchs and rabbis and their schools that functioned on their own while those in the Land dealt with Roman persecution and factional battles. I therefore doubt that rabbis outside of the Land ever took on the Pharisee moniker, although that's just an educated assumption on my part right now that isn't backed up by any research.

What is the mainstream jewish thought on who or when the Messiah will come.

Mainstream religious Jews or mainstream Jewish thought in general? I'll assume the former, and I'll say three things about that: 1) Religious Jews pray daily for Mashiach's coming and expect him to come at any time; 2) Basing myself at least on the Orthodox sources I'm plugged into, there is increasing consensus that Mashiach's arrival is imminent. I can say that multiple branches of Orthodoxy, some of which are far part on very fine points of religious Judaism, are starting to reach the same conclusion that we are literally right around the corner. I'm talking about an Orthodox continuum that stretches from Chabad and other Chassidic branches, to more "conventional" Ashkenazi-Haredi branches and all the way to Sephardic-Haredi - I've seen rabbis from all those streams agreeing that we are very close. They have some very contrasting expectations about how the prophecies will be fulfilled, but they agree we're nearly at the end of this very lengthy, bitter Exile and right near Redemption.

If you were alive in 1948, what side of the fence would you have been on? (ie No state of Israel without the Messiah)

In 1948? Most definitely religious Zionist as I am today. In 1928 perhaps I would have had a different opinion, but post-Holocaust there's absolutely no question that fighting for survival in Israel would be far preferable to perishing in ovens and mass graves. You're very knowledgeable to bring up the messianic link that many demanded for returning to the land. Prior to the War of Independence quite a large percentage of rabbis believed in the view that we had to await Mashiach before returning to Eretz Yisrael. (It's a somewhat complicated subject as to why they believed that, which I can get into in the future if you're interested.) But post-1948 almost all rabbis who had thought otherwise now recognized we could return. Some still objected to the state because of its left-wing secular government, but that became a minority view. Today those who still believe no Land without Mashiach are a tiny fringe - most notoriously represented by Neturei Karta.

And Big Mac sitting in here in the very comfortable exile of Southern California wishes he could put his money where his mouth is and go home already, but he also has faith that HaShem will place him where needs to be.

If I think of anymore...

Just let me know. See you tomorrow night, MacNN.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

... I want to briefly discuss ...

Ba hahahaha.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And Big Mac sitting in here in the very comfortable exile of Southern California wishes he could put his money where his mouth is and go home already, but he also has faith that HaShem will place him where needs to be.

And by that you mean: you couldn't really return because the reality would probably dampen the fantasy.


That's the comment my wife invariably makes to me when she hears North American Jews make this statement. She tends to feel Israel just ends up getting fondly mythologised as "the homeland" but people won't admit that they would never actually return permanently - because living there is a lot, lot different than going "back" to visit for a couple weeks.

I'm from an area of Canada that has a similar issue. People leave to go elsewhere to live but fondly talk about The Rock and visit whenever possible... for a couple weeks. They might talk about moving back permanently, but it'll never be more than talk.

greg

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

That's the comment my wife

WHERE WAS THE THREAD?

[Chongo]

A few more Q's
I know it's a minor feast, but why celebrate Hanukah? Is there a source other than the Septuagint?

Thoughts on Josephus?

Is Karaite Judaism the Jewish equivalent of Protestantism? (sola scriptura)

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And by that you mean: you could really return because the reality would probably dampen the fantasy. That's the comment my wife invariably makes to me when she hears North American Jews make this statement. She tends to feel Israel just ends up getting fondly mythologised as "the homeland" but people won't admit that they would never actually return permanently - because living there is a lot, lot different than going "back" to visit for a couple weeks.

Are you Jewish as well, out of curiosity? She's right to an extent, to be sure. There are people who try to make Aliyah - declaring that to be their intention - only to be back home in Exile a year later. Life in Israel can be hard, due in large part to the still far too Socialistic taxation model they use (Israelis who come to the US think this is a paradise tax wise by comparison), and I also assume in part because of the disenchantment of new immigrants over the political situation there.

However, it is my goal to make Aliyah, hopefully before Mashiach, but I know one way or another that's where I want to end up because I firmly believe Jews are not meant to be permanently exiled from our land. We're either going to go with no urging of our own accord, or we're going to be led out of exile when G-d leads us stragglers back home from all the lands where we currently still reside. It's obvious to me, though, that those who worked and sacrificed directly to gain and maintain Jewish sovereignty over the land before the Messianic Era will receive rewards that those of us who are to wait until we're beckoned home won't receive.

Besides all that though, when I've spent time in Israel I've have experienced the very strong desire to stay and it make it my home. I know that under certain circumstances it would be very easy for me to do so.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

A few more Q's. I know it's a minor feast, but why celebrate Hanukah? Is there a source other than the Septuagint?

Some. As I mentioned before Talmud tractate Shabbat contains the laws and some details of Chanukah. I'm also sure there are other very old rabbinic texts that covered the subject in ancient times. Orthodox Jews do read at least 1 Maccabees for its history. It's too bad that the apparently once extant Hebrew or Aramaic version of the text that was known to the Church disappeared.

Thoughts on Josephus?

He was an impressive historian who provides us with great information on 1st Century Israel topics. Modern archeologists have been able to verify a lot of his writings on various subjects that were taken as myth in previous generations. If you're wondering about the extended reference to Jesus, I believe it has pretty conclusively been shown that those lines were a later Church copyist's interpolation, although to its credit that change may have helped save the text overall by making the work important enough to the Church for it to be maintained throughout the centuries.

Is Karaite Judaism the Jewish equivalent of Protestantism? (sola scriptura)

You can make that analogy to the extent that Karaite Judaism is sola scriptura, but not to the extent of analogous levels of popularity. Protestantism swept through the Christian world and quickly came to rival Catholicism in adherents and political power. Not so with Karaite Judaism, which is a tiny a minority. It gained some traction early on in its development (founded in the 9th Century) and grew to perhaps 10% of world Jewry by the 10th Century; Karaite Jews made important contributions to the detailed textual study of scripture. But in modern times its a small minority movement of perhaps 30,000 people.

If only in terms of doctrine of reliance on the written text only, it's clear that Karaite Judaism is a throwback to the Sadducees. (But unlike the Sadducees, Karaite Jews function without a Holy Temple, obviously.) Although I have some very limited amount of sympathy for the Karaite position, one simply cannot as a religious Jew throw out all the religious knowledge accumulated over thousands of years and just rely on the Hebrew Scriptures alone. There are too many examples to explain them all here, but I'll provide some details. Primarily, there are many aspects of observance referred to in passing in the Written Torah that are not sufficiently explained to allow one to carry them out without some external source of corresponding details. Even though ancient Tefillin, Jewish prayer boxes that are clearly alluded to in the Written Torah, have been found in Israeli archaeology, Karaites apparently reject Tefillin because without the rabbinical explanation they lack the concrete knowledge of them by just basing themselves on the Written Torah alone. Another example are cases in the Torah where G-d talks about a commandment and then tells the people to follow it as they will be shown to do, but the specific details of what they were shown are not transmitted in the Written Torah, or for that matter, in the Prophets. Kosher slaughter is one such specific example. Orthodox Jews know how to do it because the rabbis maintained the explanation that came originally from Moshe at Sinai, but Karaite Jews either rely on independent family tradition or no tradition at all in that regard. The specific laws of conduct on Shabbat and what constitutes melachot (labors) are not defined in the Written Torah, but performing labor is prohibited by it and punishable by death. Again, without the rabbinical record Karaites don't have specific understanding of these very important areas.

Another point that I like to make about the relationship between the Torah and the Talmud is a parallel I draw to the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and statutory law on the one hand and legal history, case law and administrative regulations on the other. (It's not a perfect analogy, but it is one that I find helpful.) The Written Torah is in this analogy equivalent to the Declaration, the Constitution and statutory law. It's the foundational history, law and statutes that we live our lives in accordance with. In some areas it's specific enough for us to rely on without any external information, but in others it's not as specific. The Talmud, meanwhile provides tons of detailed religious historical information, the case law of how the Written Torah was applied throughout history, expanded understanding of Torah verses, and the regulatory details that we were taught at Sinai but which were not contained in the Written Torah. The Talmud also contains the teaching of religious logic and rules of interpretation that shows how Torah rulings in unique or new very specific situations are derived.

Now just as it would be ridiculous for a lawyer to argue in court that it is permissible to throw out everything in our legal system except for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution because that would mean throwing out hundreds of years of Congressional statutes, administrative regulations and judicial precedent, so too it is ridiculous to throw out the Talmud and other compendiums of Jewish knowledge that are outside of the Written Torah just because of a desire to rely only on the Written Torah for everything.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Are they teaching them the word "clitoris"? No, they're teaching them masturbation. Six year olds.

No they aren't. They'll say something like "don't touch your penis/clitoris in public."

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

From a macro perspective G-d allowed Christianity to prosper because it is a flawed vehicle but one that is effective in spreading a substantial amount of Torah truth to the non-Jewish world.

It would have been a lot more sane if -o- spoke to every culture instead of just the Hebrews. I mean, expecting the world to follow the advice of people who deny themselves the divine taste of the bacon double-cheeseburger just isn't gonna happen.

BTW, my spin on the G-d thing as -o- isn't a joke. In Hebrew, the name of god was written with four consonants, but in Greek, it was written with four vowels: IAOU (or sometimes all five vowels as IAOUE). You can even sound out "eye-ah-oh-eh," very similar to yahweh. Since Christianity's original bible was the Greek Septuagint, Christians should only write -o- instead of G-d.

It is my view that a more extreme variation of that theme found in Christianity has Jesus claim in the gospels that no one gets to the Father except through him.

It is my belief that Christianity has utterly misunderstood this line from the Book of John. The writer only intended to say that everyone will meet Jesus as the judge on judgement day, since 1 Enoch says the Son of Man will judge all, not -o- directly. It *certainly does not* mean that only Christians go to heaven.

But I digress. When Paul came to the Jerusalem "Church" saying that he wanted to spread the Jesus movement to the non-Jewish world and wanted to do so by promoting Jesus as the savior and lord of mankind, the Church initially wasn't interested but relented as long as Paul carried with him the prohibitions that you Doofy referenced previously, against idolatry, adultery, sexual perversion and the like; as I said before they had a source they drew from for those prohibitions, a source you probably won't like finding out about if you haven't yet. As time went on the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus as a messiah in the Jewish sense either left the movement to return to Judaism when their hopes for Jesus did not materialize, went underground, or were subsumed by the larger non-Jewish Christian movement of Paul. And as the movement matured into the gospel era and beyond, the Jesus of Christianity was merged in large part with heathen man god myth, and he was progressively deified, although not completely (I would argue) even by the establishment of the Christian canon. Rome, which had persecuted early Christians, begun embracing it as an almost irresistibly powerful tool to both unite the empire and simultaneously further degrade and humiliate the conquered Jews by turning the movement of a failed messianic Jewish character into a crude synthesis of Roman/heathen man-god mystery cults with a Jewish veneer. This worked to Rome's advantage also because it could help stem the not insignificant tide of Roman conversion to Judaism. (For proof of that trend's effect, take a look at the recently published genetic studies showing the link between Ashkenazi Jews and Italians, which obviously resulted from some non-trivial amount of Roman proselyte intermarriage with the European Jewish population.) After that Christianity was made the official religion of Rome, and the open debate over Jesus' deified status was settled by way of vote at the meeting of Christian leaders convened by Constantine at the First Council of Nicea all the way in 325. The rest is history.

Gotta disagree with a lot of this.

Jesus' Godhood was established well before Nicea, since it was written in the Book of John, which was written around 90-120 AD. And Nicea wasn't about Jesus' divinity at all, it was about the Arian controversy. Arians definitely believed Jesus was God.

There probably was a lot of intermarriage between Jews and Italians, but there was probably a lot of Jewish conversion to Christianity, too.

I'm not gonna argue the man-god myth here again, so let's just disagree about it and forget it.

As for the debate between Paul and James (or the Jerusalem Church), it really wasn't about Gentile converts becoming Jews. That's a mistake which comes from Acts, which just isn't historically accurate here. No one in the Jewish world required Gentile god-fearers to becomes Jews. The debate was really about whether Jewish Christians like Paul and Peter were required to observe Jewish rituals and customs. For instance, Paul and Peter were "eating" with Gentiles, which means they were celebrating the eucharist together. That was a big no-no among Jews. Gentiles could attend Jewish rituals, but not as equals, but rather Gentiles were separated from Jews in the same way males were separated from females. But Paul and Peter believed in the end of such distinctions, "neither Jew nor Greek, male and/nor female," which required that all Christian rituals be egalitarian in nature. When Peter was put on the spot by envoys from James, he backed down, but Paul refused and stood up against James. Over all, Paul (and Peter) believed that Jewish Christians were free of Torah ritual obligations, and the source of that probably comes from Jesus, who was also a critic of many Jewish ritual practices. For instance, Jesus ate with the ritually impure and with sinners, so Paul's position is a lot closer to Jesus than James here. Overall, James' church was "more Jewish" possibly to avoid the kind of harassment Jesus encountered by Pharisee, or perhaps because James was very much like a Pharisee. James may be trying to "tone down" the radicalism of Jesus' teaching. Regardless, James' ways were not sufficiently orthodox, and he was stoned to death.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

He was an impressive historian who provides us with great information on 1st Century Israel topics. Modern archeologists have been able to verify a lot of his writings on various subjects that were taken as myth in previous generations. If you're wondering about the extended reference to Jesus, I believe it has pretty conclusively been shown that those lines were a later Church copyist's interpolation, although to its credit that change may have helped save the text overall by making the work important enough to the Church for it to be maintained throughout the centuries.

This is what our text of Josephus says about Jesus:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

This is what most historians believe was the original words of Josephus:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

This sounds very much in line with what a non-Christian might say, but the extra stuff makes no sense in Josephus' mouth. The word "Christians" was probably "Nazarenes" as well. It's interesting to note that Pilate executes Jesus "suggestion of the principal men amongst us," which is rather different than the gospel accounts, where the Jewish elders bully Pilate with accusations of being against Caesar. Josephus is certainly more correct: Jesus was probably crucified because he was critical of the temple establishment, run by the house of Annas, and Annas and Pilate were very good buddies that co-ruled Judah with mutual interests in mind.

[lpkmckenna]

One more comment about Josephus: for centuries, Jews and Christians refused to believe in Josephus' stories of mass suicide by Jews to avoid capture and slavery. Only recent excavations proved it for them once and for all. Jews really did kill their wives and children and themselves to escape enslavement. We don't know if this behaviour occurred only during the Roman-Jewish war, or much earlier also. But this does prove that religion can erase history if it wants to.

[Snow-i]

Link?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

WHERE WAS THE THREAD?

lulz good eyes, i slipped up there

[ebuddy]

I love how the same people who insist that religion is a human construct, indict religion for human nature. Human nature is messed up in many manners of thought, not exclusive to sexuality, war, genocide, etc... nor are these characteristics exclusive to religious peoples.

Of course, many assumptions abound to suggest that perhaps one way is "messed up" when in fact the other may be.

Perspectives.

[olePigeon]

LOL @ people quoting Leviticus.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I love how the same people who insist that religion is a human construct, indict religion for human nature.

I don't indict religion for human nature, religion indicts itself by justifying human cruelty as "God's will."

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

One more comment about Josephus: for centuries, Jews and Christians refused to believe in Josephus' stories of mass suicide by Jews to avoid capture and slavery. Only recent excavations proved it for them once and for all. Jews really did kill their wives and children and themselves to escape enslavement. We don't know if this behaviour occurred only during the Roman-Jewish war, or much earlier also. But this does prove that religion can erase history if it wants to.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Link?

Which part: they fact that the suicides happened, or that they were denied to have happened?

[Snow-i]

Both