Judaism - True or False Religion?

Ya know.. what is funny.. some of those non-christians know the christian bible a heck of a lot better than some christians.It has been already been shown to you in exquisit detail that claims you made about what Jesus said about the Jews has been totally misintepreted by you. I notice when you make a claim, you don't bother to even quote the chapter/verse, or try to look at it in context.Frankly, with the way that you have unable to look at and respond to the
various parts of the bible that you claim had Jesus proclaiming Judaism a 'false religion' doesn't make me confident in your abiltiy to read anything in contextThis message has been edited by ramoss, 02-16-2006 08:50 PM

I think what I said is so obvious that you ought to just know that Judaism continues to practice the same nitpicking burdensome additions to the Law Jesus was condemning. I am waiting for an orthodox Jewish friend to get back to me on the rules for the Sabbath. He's taking his time for some reason.I struggled through all those talmudic references and found perfectly good, though not exact, references to what I was talking about and what Jesus was denouncing in Matthew 23. Not exact, but the spirit of the thing is obvious, and being a stickler for the letter is the same problem I'm talking about anyway.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-16-2006 09:07 PM

That may be true for a few, but by and large devout fundie Christians tend to study the Bible on a daily basis for life so as to become familiar with corroborating scriptures on any given Biblical subject. This is what is frustrating for us who've made a lifetime of serious study of the book in debating those who simply google a given Biblical subject or look up something for the first time. For the most part, they are not fully apprised on cross examination of correlating texts relative to the subject as well as other factors needful for understanding.Then there's the spiritual discernment which only comes via the Holy Spirit which becomes an integrated part of true believers. Jesus and the apostles said a lot about this aspect of spiritual understanding.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

quote:

---

but by and large devout fundie Christians tend to study the Bible on a daily basis for life so as to become familiar with corroborating scriptures on any given Biblical subject. This is what is frustrating for us who've made a lifetime of serious study of the book in debating those who simply google a given Biblical subject or look up something for the first time.

---

And that is what we are trying to bring out concerning this claim about Judaism.Simply googling a talmud subject or looking up something for the first time concerning Judaism isn't going to give you the understanding that Jesus had or current Jews have concerning their own religion.Do you feel that Jesus was condeming Judaism as false or just certain religious leaders as hypocrites?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Many do, yes. However, I notice that many who 'study' bible on a daily basis (or claim to), often base their arguements based on one or two lines, then try to corrolate those one or two lines with one or two lines from another book/passage that isn't talking about what the first passage was talking about.What you get is a bunch of sound bites that reinforces what the preconceptions are, rather than understand what is written in each passage to begin with.

John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."Now I know there is some doubt as to whether the words originated with Jesus, or whether they were intended as commentary by John, with Jesus' discourse ending with verse 15. If the words in vs. 16 were written by John, and the Gospel, as many believe, was written years after Jesus' death (and resurrection), then it arguably reflects development in Christianity as a religion for the Gentiles, not just the Jews. If, however, we believe that Jesus spoke the words in verse 16, we have the problem of them seeming to contradict Matt. 15:24 quoted above.I think it makes more sense to say that Jesus did not speak the words in John 3:16, and that they are a comment added by John (or the writer of John's Gospel, if that was in fact someone else) years later, after Christianity had begun to spread to the Gentiles.This message has been edited by DeclinetoState, 02-27-2006 12:29 PM

The prophecy of the Messiah was for the whole world from the very beginning. There are plenty of references to the inclusion of the Gentiles both before and during the Abrahamic dispensation. But when Jesus says He was sent to the house of Israel alone, He meant that literally -- He preached to them, He did not go out to the Gentiles. Actually I'm not sure there wasn't a bit of irony or tongue in cheek about how he said this, really, as He did go into Gentile lands to some extent. Some Gentiles came to Him and He didn't turn them away, and gave hints that they were of His household too, but overall He stayed within the expectations of the Jews.It was in fact hard for the apostles to begin taking the gospel out to the Gentiles because the Messiah was such a Jewish thing in their minds. They hung around Judea a long time -- until persecution finally scattered them, and specific calls of God led them to particular Gentiles and finally Paul understood that this was to be his own mission. It took a while to dawn on them that the gospel had been intended for the entire world from the beginning.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-23-2006 01:06 PM

quote:

---

Not exact, but the spirit of the thing is obvious, and being a stickler for the letter is the same problem I'm talking about anyway.

---

So, what you are saying here is that you are not taking the Bible at it's literal, word-for- word meaning, but instead taking this section in the general "spirit" in which it is writeen and are interpreting it in a way that makes sense to you.Is that an accurate description of what you are doing here?

I believe that since Jesus said that He came to fullfill the Law rather than abolish it, He was exposing the hypocrisy of the intentions behind the actions rather than just the ridiculousness of the actions themselves.IMHO, anyway!

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

I think you may be setting up a false dichotomy here somehow. The "spirit" of a reading is not necessarily "general" or in any way neglectful of the word-for-word meaning of the text. I will have to think about exactly what this means sometime. Right now I'm stealing a moment from my work, so I hope later.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-23-2006 03:38 PM

The issue that Faith is confronting is one that confronts many Bible translators, especially translators of modern versions, who often get criticized by KJV Only supporters and others who believe only a literal translation of the Hebrew and Greek is justifiable.I think anyone who translates the Bible should not be condemned if their goal is to make it understandable and clear up confusion about difficult passages, especially in either the Old Testament law or in the epistles.

One problem that causes is that the translation will be promoting the theology of the person doing the translation. They might not be giving the best translation for the intentions, but only what their predetermined interpretation would be (to reinforce their theology).

That follows a theme that I have perceived in a number of different passages in the New Testament. That interpreation complements my interpreation of what the story about 'Praying in the closet, and not out in public to show everyone how pious you are. I didn't think Jesus literally meant in the closet. I think he was saying the motivation to pray was to give praise to god , and not to have a public show on how pious you are.

But can't that be said about even a "literal" translation? The simple fact is that no translation or version of the Bible will make everyone happy.Getting back to the original topic, I'm sure there are many passages in the OT of Christian Bibles that Jews dislike; though whether those have any bearing as to the truth or falsity of the Jewish religion is something I can't address.

That is the exact point.. Translation is interpretation. Yes, there are a number of 'translations' of the Old testament that are not correct.
When a christian is doing a translation of the Jewish texts, they tend
to look at the "old testament" as something that is predicting Jesus, and chose words to try to emphasis that (including some out and out mistranslations and lies, such as Psalm 22, and isaiah 7:14).When you see a translation from the Hebrew by modern Jewish scholars, you get ones that will de-emphase any connection with Christainity.The personal bias of the translator comes through.And, if it is exactly literal, there is the problem that the cultural
meaning does not come through. The culture and the preassumptions of the people of 2500 years ago will give a different meaning to the words. The people of the time had different slang than we do, and had a different set of basic assumptions. Those too make a difference.That is why I like that Jewish method of study. They look at the texts, look at the various commentary about what it means, and then debate it. They reconise that there is no one answer to many of the questions, and therefore, no one way it 'right' or 'wrong'.