Ask an Orthodox Jew

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

So...

Ask an Orthodox Jew, i.e. me.

Be well!

ssv

[On My Way]

Hi

What seperates and Orthodox Jew from being just plain Jewish?

If I worded that right.

Thanks






edited for typo

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi On My Way!

You asked:

What seperates and Orthodox Jew from being just plain Jewish?

A Jew is anyone whose biological mother was a Jew or who had an orthodox conversion. It's that simple.

While many/most "Reform", "Conservative" and "Reconstructionist" Jews are undoubtedly Jews much of what they believe and practice is not Judaism. Traditional, normative, historical Judaism is orthodox (orthodoxy being a far broader spectrum than many non-Jews, and many non-orthodox Jews, seem to realize; see http://www.jewfaq.org/movement.htm#US for a good summary on orthodoxy & the other, so-called, "movements" within Judaism). The Reform, Conservative & Reconstructionist "movements" are newfangled movements that developed either in Europe or North America, partly in reaction to the Enlightenment. They have junked so many core Jewish beliefs and, in effect, make it up as they go along, influenced by whatever happens to be trendy at the moment & taking care to be "politically correct". This is Judaism??!! I grew up, as I like to say, de jure Conservative but de facto nothing. I looked at what the Conservative movement offered & was thoroughly underwhelmed & unimpressed. Orthodox Judaism is all-encompassing and supplies a deep emotional commitment & spiritual food for the soul. Orthodox Judaism believes that the Torah (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy; our most basic scripture) comes from God (who dictated it to Moses); the Reform movement does not. The Conservative movement tries to straddle a middle ground that does not exist. If one does not believe that the Torah is from God, then what's the point? Judaism is not, and never has been, an everyone-for-him/herself religion. Orthodoxy recognizes that there is a certain set of core beliefs that are immutable & which serve to bind all Jews everywhere, much as they have for thousands of years. Mine is a faith with rules, with authority & structure & with discipline. (Orthodox) Judaism is not a make-it-up-as-you-go-along faith & never has been. Rather than mold the faith to fit the individual, we believe that it is the individual who must mold him/herself to fit the faith. The late former Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, Lord Immanuel Jakobovitz (of blessed memory) once said that a faith which demands nothing is worth nothing.

Howzat?

If I worded that right.

That's pretty good!

Be well!

ssv

[On My Way]

That is what I was looking for

So do you follow the Laws to the letter in this day and age?

as directed in Leviticus?

I'm not going anywhere with this I'm just curious

Thanks

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi On My Way!

You posted:

That is what I was looking for

I'm glad I could help!

So do you follow the Laws to the letter in this day and age? as directed in Leviticus?

Because there is no Temple (and for other reasons as well), the order of offerings (I don't care for the mistranslation "sacrifice" for the Hebrew word korban, which actually is a cognate of a root meaning "to approach" or "to draw near/close to"), as well as other Torah precepts which are dependent on the Temple & a fully functioning Aaronic priesthood (such as accepting tithes, administering the bitter waters to a suspected adultress, 7th and Jubilee years, etc. etc.) are temporarily suspended .

The order of offerings on a regular basis ceased in CE 70, when the Romans destroyed the Second Temple. It was briefly reinstituted during the Bar Kokhba revolt against Rome (in CE 132-135, see http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/Kokhba.html ). There are vague hints that it may have been reinstituted for an even shorter period during the brief reign of the Roman Emperor Julian ("the Apostate") in CE 361-363 (see http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=716&letter=J&search=Julian). It probably was reinstituted for a short time after CE 614, when the Sassanid Persians captured Jerusalem from the Byzantines & turned the city over to us. But this interlude came to an end when the Byzantines retook the city a few years later. Since then, nada.

As our very great medieval sage Maimonedes (see http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/rabbis/rambam.htm) puts it:

“In the future, the King Messiah will stand up and restore the Davidic monarchy...build the Temple, gather the dispersed of Israel, and restore all the laws as they were in former times: offerings, sabbatical and jubilee years as they are commanded in the Torah."

Howzat?

I'm not going anywhere with this I'm just curious

No problem!

Be well!

ssv

[On My Way]

Thanks

[Aineo]

The order of offerings on a regular basis ceased in CE 70, when the Romans destroyed the Second Temple. It was briefly reinstituted during the Bar Kokhba revolt against Rome (in CE 132-135, see http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/Kokhba.html ). There are vague hints that it may have been reinstituted for an even shorter period during the brief reign of the Roman Emperor Julian ("the Apostate") in CE 361-363 (see http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... rch=Julian). It probably was reinstituted for a short time after CE 614, when the Sassanid Persians captured Jerusalem from the Byzantines & turned the city over to us. But this interlude came to an end when the Byzantines retook the city a few years later. Since then, nada.

Now I have a couple questions. What replaced the "burnt offerings" in the practice of Orthodox Judaism, and why does the absence of the Temple mean sabbatical and jubilee years are no longer observed?

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

On My Way, you posted:

Thanks

You're welcome!

Aineo, you posted:

What replaced the "burnt offerings" in the practice of Orthodox Judaism...

We learn from Numbers 6:7 ("When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to commit a trespass against the Lord, and that soul be guilty; then they shall confess their sin which they have done...") that the confession of one's sins must be verbal. However, while such confession may be in the presence of others (whether in public prayer in synagogue or in the Temple), it is to God & to God alone. When a penitent brought this or that offering in the Temple (and as we will do when the Temple will be rebuilt as we believe it will be, hopefully soon!), while the priest officiated over the offering & witnessed the ceremony, the penitent's confession was not to him but to God.

Please let me clarify something. The order of Temple offerings was merely one part of the process whereby a Jew could repent of his/her sins; by itself, isolated, bringing an offering was insufficient. Since the order of offerings is, to our sorrow , temporarily suspended, we must rely, for the time being, on the other steps of the process.

What are the other steps of the process? Hosea 14:2-3 (read in synagogue on the Sabbath between Rosh Hashannah and Yom Kippur) says:

Return, O Israel, unto the Lord your God; for you have stumbled in your iniquity. Take with you words, and return unto the Lord; say unto Him: 'Forgive all iniquity, and accept that which is good; so will we render for bullocks the offering of our lips.

...and why does the absence of the Temple mean sabbatical and jubilee years are no longer observed?

Egad, I've got to edit my posts better.

While the Sabbatical (7th) year continued to be observed in 2nd Temple times (aspects of it are observed even today), full observance of the Jubilee year was suspended even before the First Temple was destroyed. The Sifra (http://tinyurl.com/bs3l5) cites Leviticus 25:10's reference to, "unto all the inhabitants thereof," and says that, "from the time that the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh were exiled the Jubilee was discontinued." The precepts of the Jubilee, however, inspired our Sages to legislate various provisions regarding landholdings in the Second Temple period. As the Encyclopedia Judaica says, this rabbinical legislation, "exercised a decisive influence, which accounts for the fact that in the last generations of the Temple period and for a considerable period afterward, most of the land in the country was not in the hands of large landowners but remained in the possession of smallholders."

See http://www.ou.org/chagim/shmitah.htm, http://tinyurl.com/79tqd & http://members.aol.com/lazera/AmEchad/shmita.html.

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv

[Aineo]

Leviticus 17:11-13
11'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' 12 "Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.' 13 "So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. NAS

2 Chronicles 29:24
24 And the priests slaughtered them and purged the altar with their blood to atone for all Israel, for the king ordered the burnt offering and the sin offering for all Israel. NAS

Maybe I should have phrased my question a bit differently. The burnt offerings were to atone for sin; what replaces this aspect of the Torah?

As to the sabbath rest for the land, wasn't the Babylonian captivity the result of the Jews not observing the sabbath rest for the land over the preceding 490 years?

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi Aineo!

For a Jewish take on Leviticus 17:11-13, see http://www.jewishpassion.com/documents/pt_leviticus_17_11.html.

You asked:

The burnt offerings were to atone for sin; what replaces this aspect of the Torah?

Like I said in my previous post, given the temporary absence of the order of offerings, we must rely on the other parts of the process in which a Jew can repent & achieve atonement. This is mainly prayer and sincere confession to God (as per both Numbers 6:7 and Hosea 14:2-3), fasting on Yom Kippur (http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday4.htm), giving to charity (although we mustn't, of course, think that we can, in effect, bribe God) and reconciling with those whom we have wronged.

As to the sabbath rest for the land, wasn't the Babylonian captivity the result of the Jews not observing the sabbath rest for the land over the preceding 490 years?

You're referring to Jeremiah 34:14-17.

Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, saying: 'At the end of seven years you shall let go every man his brother that is a Hebrew, that has been sold unto you, and has served you six years, you shall let him go free from you'; but your fathers hearkened not unto Me, neither inclined their ear. And you were now turned, and had done that which is right in Mine eyes, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbour; and you had made a covenant before Me in the house whereon My name is called; but you turned and profaned My name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom you had let go free at their pleasure, to return; and you brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids. You have not hearkened unto Me, to proclaim liberty, every man to his brother, and every man to his neighbour; behold, I proclaim for you a liberty, says the Lord, unto the sword, unto the pestilence, and unto the famine...

We observe as much of the pertinent laws as we can now & eagerly await the coming of the Messiah when will observe them in full.

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv

[Aineo]

Christians erroneously claim that Rabbinic Judaism came up with novel, non-Biblical measures to deal with atonement after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Actually, it wasn't Talmudic innovation at all- the Bible anticipated the possibility of the cessation of sacrifices. When King Solomon finally laid the finishing touches on the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he inaugurated it with a moving dedication speech (I Kings 8; II Chronicles 6). In this lengthy speech of almost 50 verses, you will notice that Solomon doesn't speak about sacrifices at all! This omission would be strange if the most crucial part of the Temple were the sacrifices. Actually, the central focus of the Temple was the Holy Ark (Exodus 25) containing the Torah. The Temple was first and foremost a symbol of G-d's presence and revelation to the Jewish people (I Kings 8:13, Exodus 25:8).
http://www.jewishpassion.com/documents/ ... 17_11.html

The Tabernacle preceded the Temply by hundreds of years and the Ark of the Covenant not only contained the Law it was also topped with the mercy seat upon which the Yom Kippur blood sacrifice was sprinkled to atone for the national sins of Israel. So although I do understand that sincere confession of sin is pleasing to God, He also required sacrifices (which admittedly may be the wrong term), which Solomon offered in abundance as recorded in 1 Kings 8.

You're referring to Jeremiah 34:14-17.

I was referring to:

2 Chronicles 36:20-21
20 And those who had escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, 21 to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete. NAS

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi Aineo!

Yes, God does require offeribgs. However, since He has seen fit to punish us by temporarily taking away the offerings, we are forced to make do with prayer, repentance & charity. Hosea endorses this approach when he says:

Return, O Israel, unto the Lord your God; for you have stumbled in your iniquity. Take with you words, and return unto the Lord; say unto Him: 'Forgive all iniquity, and accept that which is good; so will we render for bullocks the offering of our lips.

The Torah does mention other ways of effecting atonement & given the temporary absence of the offerings, we rely on those until the offerings are restored.

Thanks for the Chronicles citation.

Be well!

ssv

[On My Way]

Ok I have a new one

For lack of a better term

What's with the beanie type hat that I see on TV

Does it (as I had heard) remind you that there is a higher authority?

and does the shape have anything or signifance?

Just curious

Thanks

[Truth Seeker-Joshua]

Peace all..

Peace & Love stillsmallvoice.

Couple of things:

First: Where in Israel are you?
Just curious, been to Hafia several times.

Secondly: Need your opinion.
I am under a 7 year contract with my publisher for my first book. It just came out of the editing phases and is currently in the arts department for the slip cover. My editor has told me it will be on the shelves in 5-6 weeks from now.

The book is about Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israel titled; My Heartbreak for the Jews.

I would really like to get feedback from a Jewish person and a Israeli who could read it. Whether I'm basically full of dung, or if I was right on the tee.

If you would like to read it and critique it for me, I will let you know when it goes on the selves. (I know it will be @ Barnes & Nobles stores, but I believe you might not have that option, so I have to check if amazon.com will carry it.)

Jesus is Lord
Peace and Godspeed
Pray for Israel

[On My Way]

Wow that's great Joshua

How much will the personalized autographed copy cost me?

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

It's 22:30 on a Saturday night here. Da Boyz are asleep & DW is glued to Wimbledon on the TV so I can hog the computer & munch Shabbat (i,e, the Sabbath) leftovers.

Lessee here...

On My Way, you asked:

For lack of a better term

What's with the beanie type hat that I see on TV

Does it (as I had heard) remind you that there is a higher authority?

and does the shape have anything or signifance?

Well, http://www.jewfaq.org/signs.htm#Yarmulke says:

The most commonly known and recognized piece of Jewish garb is actually the one with the least religious significance. The word yarmulke (usually, but not really correctly, pronounced yammica) is Yiddish. According to Leo Rosten's The Joys of Yiddish, it comes from a Tartar word meaning skullcap. According to some Orthodox and Chasidic rabbis I know, it comes from the Aramaic words "yerai malka" (fear of or respect for The King). The Hebrew word for this head covering is kippah (pronounced key-pah).

It is an ancient practice for Jews to cover their heads during prayer. This probably derives from the fact that in Eastern cultures, it is a sign of respect to cover the head (the custom in Western cultures is the opposite: it is a sign of respect to remove one's hat). Thus, by covering the head during prayer, one showed respect for G-d. In addition, in ancient Rome, servants were required to cover their heads while free men did not; thus, Jews covered their heads to show that they were servants of G-d. In medieval times, Jews covered their heads as a reminder that G-d is always above them. Whatever the reason given, however, covering the head has always been regarded more as a custom rather than a commandment.

There is no special significance to the yarmulke as a specific type of head covering. Its light weight, compactness and discreteness make it a convenient choice of head gear. I am unaware of any connection between the yarmulke and the similar skullcap worn by the Pope.

There are lots of styles for kippot (Hebrew, plural). Most modern orthodox Jewish men, especially here in Israel, like myself wear a crocheted/knitted kippah. The color, pattern etc. can be just about anything, from simple geometric designs, to flags, to basketballs (i.e. an orange kippah with black stitching), etc., etc. Ultra-orthodox Jews tend to wear black kippot made from velvet or some other fabric. I usually wear a baseball cap over my kippah since at the ripe old age of 42, I don't have much in the way of hair to clip my kippah to & the slightest of breezes will send my kippah flying. The only times when I take off my kippah is when I'm asleep or in the shower.

I suppose that a kippah could be square or hexagonal or whatever altho' I've never seen one.

Truth-Seeker Joshua, you asked:

First: Where in Israel are you?
Just curious, been to Hafia several times.

We live in Maaleh Adumim (http://jr.co.il/ma/), Jerusalem's big suburb to the east. These http://jr.co.il/ma/pic/ma012.htm are photos of our neighborhood. DW & I both commute daily to Jerusalem.

Haifa (http://www.haifa.muni.il/Cultures/en-US) is a great city. Before Dw & I were married (December 1988, during Hanukkah), she lived there for a year while she worked at one of the libraries at the Technion (http://www.technion.ac.il/). What took you to Haifa?

Please let me know about your book, I'd love to read it.

Is Saginaw close enough to Detroit to get Detroit TV stations? I ask because my brother (we're originally from Pittsburgh) is the lead meteorologist for the Fox affiliate TV station in Detroit.

Be well & be in touch!

ssv

[On My Way]

Thanks for the answer to my question

OK a new question

What is the Orthodox's view on Homosexuality and Homosexuals?

[Truth Seeker-Joshua]

Peace all..

On My Way: Wow that's great Joshua

Thank you..

On My Way: How much will the personalized autographed copy cost me?

Just get one and send it to me, I'll sign it.

Stillsmallvoice: What took you to Haifa?

When I was in the Navy, I had to periodically goto Israel to do co-op training exercises with the Israeli military.

I looked more forward to liberty days and nights on the town.

Stillsmallvoive: Please let me know about your book, I'd love to read it.

I'm going to let everyone know as soon as it hits the shelves.

Stillsmallvoice: Is Saginaw close enough to Detroit to get Detroit TV stations? I ask because my brother (we're originally from Pittsburgh) is the lead meteorologist for the Fox affiliate TV station in Detroit.

I pick up the majority of them, so I'll watch for him.

He is Lord
Peace and Godspeed
Pray for Israel

[Aineo]

Thanks for the answer to my question

OK a new question

What is the Orthodox's view on Homosexuality and Homosexuals?

Also, since many Christians associate homosexuality with the destruction of Sodom, why did God judge Sodom and the other cities of the plain?

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Weell...

While our Sages certainly do not downplay either the attempted homosexual gang-rape of Lot's angelic visitors (the people of Sodom could hardly have known that they were angels) or the Torah's ban on homosexual acts (the Torah does not refer to "homosexuality" per se; the wording of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is very precise - it is homosexual acts which are a banned abomination) most of our Sages agree that the "sin of Sodom" was a combination of extreme stinginess, inhospitality and uncharitableness; our Sages cite Ezekiel 16:49

Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy

(inter alia) in this regard.

Note the sequence of the text. We find out about God's cognizance of the "sin of Sodom and Gomorrah" in Genesis 18:20, BEFORE the attempted gang-rape in Genesis 19:5. Abraham seems to understand right away, in Genesis 18:23, that God intends to destroy Sodom & Gomorrah.

(Orthodox) Judaism believes that voluntary and willful homosexual, lesbian, bestial and non-consensual heterosexual acts (even in the context of marriage) are inherently sinful at all times and in every context. (We infer the ban on lesbian acts from Leviticus 18:3 and 18:30.)

We (orthodox Jews) certainly oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage in the USA (see http://www.ou.org/public/statements/2004/nate9.htm & http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editletcontent.php3?artid=3346). As Rabbi Weinreb writes in the second article:

While tolerance for individuals who manifest homosexual tendencies is certainly a Jewish value, and consistent with some of the core values to which Rabbi Ellenson refers, there is a great difference between tolerance for an individual and recognition of a movement which wishes to turn something clearly wrong by Jewish standards into something not only tolerated but normative.

I was recently (honorably!) discharged from the Israel Defense Force reserves after 11 years' service. I am/was a medic. Back in the spring of 1991, I did the 13-week medics' course. It was no secret that the commander of the IDF Medical Corps at the time was a homosexual. However, since he was a first-class doctor & officer, who kept his private life private and never let it interfere with his military & medical service, his sexual preferences were not an issue. He recently died (not from AIDS) & his long-time partner was forced to sue to receive the same benefits as the spouse of a widowed IDF veteran would receive. Unfortunately (I say), the (secular) civil courts here awarded him the benefits. While I do not think that it is right that he (or any homosexual) be penalized or discriminated against for his sexual preferences), I also don't think that it's right that he, in effect, be rewarded for them either. By choosing the way of life that he did, I think that he forfeited any claim to spousal benefits which, after all, are for spouses, which his partner was not. (A Catholic cyberfriend once told me: "I thought 'spousal benefits' were to provide for the wife who gave up her chance at a professional career to raise children. The children being the future benefit for which society was willing to pay the benfits. Now these benefits appear to be a monetary condolence paid to someone upon the loss of a sexual partner. Which follows a dark logic in a society that no longer considers children a community value.") But, as I mentioned, the courts here ruled otherwise. Recently, several Israeli homosexuals were "married" in Ontario & are trying to have their "marriages" recognized here. The court fight is already underway.

Truth Seeker-Joshua, you posted:

When I was in the Navy, I had to periodically goto Israel to do co-op training exercises with the Israeli military.

When were you in Haifa? When DW lived in Haifa (August 1987-July 1988), she lived across the street from the USO office:

On Mt. Carmel, don't miss Panorama Road and its spectacular view of the sea. If you're in the neighborhood, why not stop by the USO office around the corner from the Dan Panorama Hotel. It's run by a one-woman whirlwind named Gila Gerzon, who has been helping U.S. sailors feel at home and giving them a taste of Israel since 1980. The U.S. Sixth Fleet and other naval vessels frequently come through Haifa, which is one of the sailors' favorite ports of call.

Link: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vie/viehaifa.html

We saw sailors up there all the time. I remember sitting on the balcony of DW's flat (on Yefe Nof Street, right opposite the big hotel towers) & looking out over Haifa Bay when one of the big 6th Fleet aircraft carriers was there. The thing took up the entire Bay!

Be well!

ssv

[Aineo]

Hi all!

Weell...

While our Sages certainly do not downplay either the attempted homosexual gang-rape of Lot's angelic visitors (the people of Sodom could hardly have known that they were angels) or the Torah's ban on homosexual acts (the Torah does not refer to "homosexuality" per se; the wording of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is very precise - it is homosexual acts which are a banned abomination) most of our Sages agree that the "sin of Sodom" was a combination of extreme stinginess, inhospitality and uncharitableness; our Sages cite Ezekiel 16:49

Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy

Try to tell most Christiand that Ezekiel lists the reasons for the destruction of Sodom and you will have a major fight on your hands. But thank you for confirming what I have been saying for the better part of two decades.

[Aineo]

Moses was Married and remained celibate after his encounter on Sinai. So did Aaron and the 72 chosen elders. The Priests, when serving in the tabernacle, could not have relations with their wives, so those with life long commitments to temple service remained celibate, even the married ones. Elijah and Elisha no longer had relations with their wives after the prophetic call came to them.

The above was posted on another message board and is part of a discussion concerning Jewish men and women who were "married" but never consummated their marriage. Also this person claims that Jewish men were required by Rabbinical law to divorce his wife if she committed adultery.

In Leviticus 20 the penalty for adultery is death but I cannot find any Scripture that states a man had to divorce his wife if she committed adultery.

What does Orthodox Judaism teach concerning the above situations.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Aineo, you posted:

Try to tell most Christians that Ezekiel lists the reasons for the destruction of Sodom and you will have a major fight on your hands.

???

But thank you for confirming what I have been saying for the better part of two decades.

You're welcome!

You also posted:

Moses was Married and remained celibate after his encounter on Sinai. So did Aaron and the 72 chosen elders. The Priests, when serving in the tabernacle, could not have relations with their wives, so those with life long commitments to temple service remained celibate, even the married ones. Elijah and Elisha no longer had relations with their wives after the prophetic call came to them.

The above was posted on another message board and is part of a discussion concerning Jewish men and women who were "married" but never consummated their marriage. Also this person claims that Jewish men were required by Rabbinical law to divorce his wife if she committed adultery.

In Leviticus 20 the penalty for adultery is death but I cannot find any Scripture that states a man had to divorce his wife if she committed adultery.

What does Orthodox Judaism teach concerning the above situations.

Well, I'm perplexed. "Jewish men and women who were 'married' but never consummated their marriage" is a new one to this Hebrew. Judaism explicitly disavows celibacy as an unnatural defiance of God's will.

About Moses. Israeli Rabbi Shlomo Riskin (a transplanted Yank like myself) writes a column for The Jerusalem Post every Friday (the Friday papers here are like the Sunday papers in the USA, i.e. with all the supplements, magazines, special sections, etc.) on the weekly Shabbat (the Sabbath) Torah reading ( ). We read Numbers 8:1-12:16 a few weeks ago. Rabbi Riskin wrote:

The great philosopher - legalist of the 12th Century, Maimonides, explains it as follows (Laws of the Foundations of Torah, 6): The Almighty, in an attempt to raise the spiritual level of the Israelites and prepare them for the Revelation at Sinai, instructed them to separate from their spouse for three days prior to the Appearance of the Almighty atop the Mount. At the conclusion of the Revelation, G-d instructs His prophet, “go now and tell them to return to their tents (and their wives)” (Deut 5: 27,28 ). Miriam therefore tells Aaron that Moses, too, should have returned to his wife Zipporah. After all, was not the commandment to return to the natural familial situation after the Revelation given to everyone - including Moses !?

What Miriam did not understand was that Moses was sui generis, unique and different “in kind” from everyone else, and even from every subsequent prophet. G-d specifically singled out Moses and separated him from the general return to the family tents when He said to him, “But you stand here with Me and I shall (constantly) speak to you….” (Deut. 5:28 ). “All other prophets had their ‘prophetic moments of Divine communication,’ either in a dream or in a vision; Moses prophesized when awake and standing … the holy spirit garbed and enveloped him, whenever he desired it… He was constantly prepared and ready for Divine communication, just like a heavenly angel. Therefore the other prophets would return to their homes and to their bodily, physical needs once the spirit of prophecy departed from them, whereas Moses could not return to his wife, but had to separate himself from her forever, because his mind was constantly bound up with the “mind” of the Rock of Eternity, whose Divine glory never left him…” (Maimonides, ibid).

Link: http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/parsha/5765/behalotcha65.htm

But Moses, as Rabbi Riskin says, was utterly unique. (Besides, he had already fathered two children with Zipporah.) I have not heard anything about Aaron & the 72 elders (who had not been chosen for prophecy at the time of the revelation at Mt. Sinai but only later, in the wilderness). It seems like someone got hold of a garbled version of the following. Our Sages teach that the Eldad & Medad prophesied that Moses would die in the wilderness & that Joshua would lead us into the Land of Israel (Joshua was concerned for Moses's honor & was worried that we would panic upon hearing Eldad & Medad, thus he wanted to arrest them)...

"Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses regarding the Cushite woman he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman. They said, 'Was it only to Moses that God spoke? Did He not speak to us as well?' And God heard. Now the man Moses was exceedingly humble, more than any person on the face of the earth!"

Our sages give us some background to the incident (Tanchuma 96,13). Moses stopped cohabiting with his wife Ziporah after he descended from Mount Sinai. When the seventy elders were being chosen, there was a need to deal with the problem of two extra elders that had to be excluded from the group. There were twelve tribes to represent and only seventy sages allowed. The most equitable distribution would have allowed six elders per tribe, but this would have added up to seventy two, more than the number allowed. The decision was taken to write seventy-two names on lots and pick the seventy elders by drawing the first seventy names. Eldad and Meidad, both of whose names had been included in the draw, decided to solve the selection problem by not showing up to the drawing.

For this act of generosity and humility they were awarded with the gift of prophecy, and they began to prophesize in the camp. Their prophecy: "Moses will die in the desert and Joshua will lead the Jews into Israel." Ziporah and Miriam were both present when Moses was informed. Miriam overheard Ziporah remark, "How unfortunate are their wives as their husbands will now stop cohabiting with them just as my husband no longer cohabits with me." Ziporah was so upset about Moses' separation from her that she didn't even react to the content of the prophecy regarding her husband's death, but remained focused on the unfortunate marital consequences of the phenomenon of prophecy, as she understood them. The separation practiced by Moses was obviously undertaken and carried out without soliciting her agreement and against her will.

Upon realizing this, Miriam, who was Ziporah's sister-in-law, decided to intervene on her behalf. She went to her brother Aaron and attempted to enlist his aid. Her argument: she and Aaron were also prophets and yet they continued to lead normal lives including the maintenance of full marital relations with their spouses. Moses was therefore inflicting uncalled for mental anguish on his wife by his ascetic behavior, and it was up to them, his family, to straighten this out and protect the conjugal rights of their sister-in-law.

At this point in the story God inserts the aside regarding Moses' humility quoted above; but this is not what He tells Miriam and Aaron. To them He explains at length that whereas on their level of prophecy marital relations can and should be maintained, Moses is a higher sort of prophet and the extra spiritual dimension of his prophecy mandates the abstention from physical relations he practiced; and that Moses' decision had His full approval.

"Hear now My words. If there shall be prophets among you, in a vision shall I, God, make Myself known to him; in a dream shall I speak with him. Not so is My servant Moses; in My entire house he is the trusted one. Mouth to mouth do I speak to him, in a clear vision and not in riddles, at the image of God does he gaze. Why did you not fear to speak against My servant Moses?"

The commentators explain the background of God's intervention; as He was fully familiar with Moses' extreme humility, God realized that Moses would never defend himself by revealing the truth - that he had reached a higher level of prophecy than even the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Therefore it was up to Him, God, to defend Moses from his siblings' undeserved criticism.

First God explained the matter and then He expressed His anger. He basically told Aaron and Miriam that they should never have assumed that Moses was capable of causing needless anguish to his wife Ziporah; they should have realized that if he separated from her, it was done as a matter of strict necessity.

In the event, it is God who made a public incident out of this story. The Rabbis specifically teach that neither Aaron or Miriam mentioned their criticism to anyone, and what is more they spoke directly to Moses and not behind his back (Ohr Hachaim). "And God heard"; only He heard, no one else.

I recommend that you read the whole article at http://www.aish.com/torahportion/mayanot/Torah_Pride_and_Torah_Prejudice.asp.

Jewish law says that if the High Priest was either divorced or widowed, he could not perform the Yom Kippur service in the Temple; i.e. the High Priest had to be married & living with his wife in order to enter the Holy of Holies in the Temple (where he, and only he, would go once a year, on Yom Kippur).

Regarding the requirement that a husband divorce his adulterous wife (as opposed to her being executed), see http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=865&letter=A&search=adultery#2151.

References to Elijah being celibate are based on a particular tradition found in later Kabbalistic literature that Elijah was an angel in human form; however, this particular tradition is very much a minority view. Jeremiah is no precedent; he received a direct, peremptory and personal command from God. (Our Sages teach that Hephzibah, the wife of King Hezekiah & mother of King Manasseh, was the daughter of the prophet Isaiah.)

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv

[Aineo]

Hi all!

Aineo, you posted:

Try to tell most Christians that Ezekiel lists the reasons for the destruction of Sodom and you will have a major fight on your hands.

???

Many Christians apply Genesis 19:5 as the reason for the destruction of Sodom, when I bring up Ezekiel 16:49 they counter with Ezekiel 16:50

Ezekiel 16:50

50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. KJV

There position is that "and committed abomination" (singular) means homosexuality since Jude 7 reads:

Jude 7
7 Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. NAS

As to the balance of your reply I learned something today, so thank you.

[Sevryn45]

Welcome stillsmallvoice, nice to see a jew on our bords once in a while we don't get too many since most people think that Christian Fundamentalists are insane.


One question for you my friend, how do Orthodox Jews interpret Scripture?

Also I was always interested in Studying Jewish view of end time Escathology, the problem is I never was able to find a site that would point me in the right direction. Can you please help, I have been looking for more information to do my studies but i have been unable to find a great abundance of information.

[Sevryn45]

Post edited for containing a false statement that is both divisive and derogatory.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Aineo, thank you for the info on Ezekiel & Sodom.

As to the balance of your reply I learned something today, so thank you.

Sevryn45, you posted:

Welcome stillsmallvoice, nice to see a jew on our bords once in a while...

Thank you!

...we don't get too many since most people think that Christian Fundamentalists are insane.

Funny thing that. Many secular & so-called "Reform" and "Humanist" Jews consider we orthodox Jews to be Jewish Fundamentalists and, therefore, a bit loco. So, I guess that we're birds-of-a-feather.

One question for you my friend, how do Orthodox Jews interpret Scripture?

Well...

If 100,000 Jews people drew 100,000 conclusions from the Tanakh (what we call what Christians call the "Old Testament), we would have communal anarchy very soon; indeed an organized, cohesive community would be all but impossible under such circumstances. The sheer mass of 100,000 inherently subjective, idiosyncratic it-seems-to-me's would forestall and frustrate any communal cohesion. There has to be some way whereby the community can formulate/agree on basic principles acceptable to all which can help serve as glue to bind the community. A "people of the Book" has to be able to agree, at least to a certain extent, on what the Book means.

As orthodox Jews, we believe that the origins of the vast body of Jewish interpretive and exegetical literature are rooted in the Torah itself. Deuteronomy 27:2-8 says:

And it shall be on the day when you shall pass over the Jordan unto the land which the Lord your God gives you, that you shall set you up great stones, and plaster them with plaster. And you shall write upon them all the words of this Torah...And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this Torah very plainly.

Our Sages comment on the seemingly redundant phrase very plainly. Not believing that it refers to the clarity of the etching in the plaster (that being obvious), our Sages say that it means that the Torah had to be interpreted/commented upon so that it could be easily & plainly understood by all, by each person in accordance with his/her abilities.

We see this in action in Nehemiah 8:7-8.

Also Joshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, even the Levites, caused the people to understand the Torah; and the people stood in their place. And they read in the book, in the Torah of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Who may interpret, expound, teach & cause to understand? Only one who is steeped in tradition and who has studied & delved into the text in great depth. (See Deuteronomy 17:8-11). This is an awesome responsibility. The Talmud quotes Rabbi Elazar from Modi'in (2nd century CE, what we say instead of "AD") as saying that:

He who profanes sacred things, slights the festivals, puts his fellow man to shame in public, repudiates the Covenant of Abraham our Father, or misinterprets the Torah, even though he has Torah and good deeds to his credit, he has no share in the world-to-come.

Many of our traditional interpretations of this or that verse are based not only on the Written Torah but on an unbroken chain of tradition (http://www.aish.com/holidays/shavuot/last/chain.htm#precise) going all the way back to Moses our Teacher that is at the heart of our belief in an Oral Torah as well. We believe that God gave both a Written and an Oral Torah to Moses. The Talmud is a major codification of the Oral Torah. Through these (now written down) oral traditions, we understand how to understand the text of the Written Torah. (Ferinstance, the Oral Torah tells us that the adage "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.," was never meant to be taken literally but instead means that someone who gouges out another's eye must compensate him monetarily for the loss of his eye. The Oral Torah tells us about the kosher method of slaughtering animals, referred to in passing in Deuteronomy 12:21. Etc. etc. See http://tinyurl.com/2ffy8 and http://tinyurl.com/2uyfp for a good intro on this very key Jewish concept.) Our Sages, i.e. those who are steeped in tradition and who have studied & delved into the text in great depth, are the bearers & keepers of these oral traditions & thus they are uniquely qualified to authoritatively interpret the Tanakh.

About Jewish eschatology, see http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Reincarnation_and_Jewish_Tradition.asp, http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/324/Q1/, & http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=108400.

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv

[Aineo]

I would like to return to my question concerning “atonement”.

One of the cornerstones of Christian theology is that the only way to achieve atonement for sins is through the offering of a sacrifice whose blood is shed in our place. The Greek Testament makes this very clear in Hebrews 9:22 "...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Is this idea consistent with the teachings of the Tanach, or do the Jewish and Christian bibles diverge on this issue? Christians generally insist that the absolute need for a vicarious blood sacrifice is rooted in the Torah, and cite as proof Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul."
http://www.jewishpassion.com/documents/ ... 17_11.html

Although one of the central tenets of Christianity is that Jesus is the sacrifice to atone for our sins the above reference to Hebrews 9:22 is incomplete:

Hebrews 9:22
22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. NAS

A better analogy is Jesus is the Christian’s Passover lamb.

In Judaism what does “atone” and “atonement” mean?

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi aineo!

You asked:

In Judaism what does “atone” and “atonement” mean?

Well, the Hebrew word that is usually translated as "atonement" is kapara or kipurim (hence "Yom Kippur" is "The day of Atonement"). However, the k-p-r root, in Biblical Hebrew, means something like "coat/cover/protect". I've found a longish article by a noted rabbi here in Israel on how this jibes with the definition of "atonement" as "espiation for sin/wrongdoing". However, the article is replete with transliterated Hebrew terms that you will probably be unfamiliar with. If you like, I'll make a list/glossary of the terms in the order that they appear in the article & send it to you along with the article. Howzat?

In the meantime, have a gander at: http://ohr.edu/special/books/faithtoc.htm#t9.

Be well!

Andyhill

[Aineo]

Thank you, I would like to read the article.

[Truth Seeker-Joshua]

Peace all..

Sorry for not keeping up, took a little vacation.

Stillsmall voice: When were you in Haifa? When DW lived in Haifa (August 1987-July 1988), she lived across the street from the USO office:

I was in and out between 1994-1997. I do remember the USO office quite well. When I was their, their were 3 to 4 young girls running it.

I was also in Hafia the night the prime minister was killed. Very sad time.

He is Lord
Peace and Godspeed
Pray for Israel

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Aineo, here http://www.vbm-torah.org/roshandyk/yk.htm is that article. Thank you for your patience!

Here is the glossary of terms:

chumash – The Torah (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy)

shiur – lesson

shoresh – root of a Hebrew word

Parshat Noach – The weekly Torah portion of Genesis 6:9-11:32

Parshat Va’yishlach – The weekly Torah portion of Genesis 32:4-36:43

Yaakov Avinu – (our Father) Jacob

Thilim – Psalms

Parshat Mishpatim -- The weekly Torah portion of Exodus 21:1-24:18

Bamidbar – Numbers

Mishkan – the Tabernacle

Parshiot Trumah/Tzaveh -- The weekly Torah portions of Exodus 25:1-27:19 & 27:10-30:10

Ka’poret – gold-plated lid of the Ark of the Covenant

Luchot – Tablets, i.e. the 10 Commandments

Aron – Ark of the Covenat (or coffin, go figger)

Kruvim – Cherubs

Gan Eden – Garden of Eden

Breishit – Genesis

Parshat Nitzavim -- The weekly Torah portion of Deuteronomy 29:9-30:20

Pa’rochet – Curtain over the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle & the Temple

Korban – offering (“sacrifice”)

Mizbayach – altar

Par chatat – sin offering

Kohanim – Aaronic priests

Ayil – animal offering

Shchina – Divine Presence

Ma’amad har Sinai – assembly at Mt. Sinai

13 midot – 13 Divine Attributes specified in Exodus 34:6-7 (see http://www.ou.org/chagim/Elul/selichotattrib.htm & http://tinyurl.com/9oy46)

Bnei Yisrael – Children of Israel

Mizbach ktoret – small golden altar used for burning incense

Parshat Acharei Mot -- The weekly Torah portion of Leviticus 16:1-18:30

Psukim/psuk – verses/verse

Am Yisrael – People of Israel

Hitgalut – Exiling of

Ohel Moed – Tent of Meeting/Tabernacle

Tamey – ritually impure

Avodat Yom Kippur – Yom Kippur Temple service performed by the High Priest (specified in Leviticus 16:1-34

Yhi ratzon – May it be [His] will

Iyun -- study

Truth Seeker-Joshua, Haifa is a beautiful city, is it not? Did you visit any of the holy sites in & around Haifa?

Be well!

ssv

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Hey! The forum's back! When did this happen? Wasn't it down for a long while?

So...what's everyone been up to?

Be well!

ssv

[On My Way]

Hi
I'm not sure if this topic has been covered but I was wondering if you could expand on Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?

I was reading somewhere about this and the person responding to it said something like this " You have to understand that in the day that this was written there were several deaths that could be applied but the one for this passage was that you were to basically go and spit on their shoes and say you are dead to me and have nothing more to do with them" Or were they stoned to death?

Thanks

Edit Aineo can I also post this in Bible study or can the Chrtistian perspective be addressed here?
Thanks

[Aineo]

Edit Aineo can I also post this in Bible study or can the Chrtistian perspective be addressed here?
Thanks

The Bible Study Forum is the appropriate forum to discuss this subject from a Christian perspective.

[On My Way]

Thanks

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Exodus 22:19 does not condemn David Copperfield, or the kind of magicians who appear on HBO specials, or at your local nightclub, to death. Card tricks are not going to get one stoned (literally).

Look at the context of Exodus 22:17 (in our numeration of the verses, "You shall not suffer a sorceress to live" is 22:17). It's lumped in there with bestiality and sacrificing to other gods. This attests to the fact that witches & such in Biblical times were also practitioners of the foulest kinds of rites, which were, in fact, part & parcel, of the "witchcraft" practiced. (This is why, I don't think, Exodus 22:17 and other verses condemn modern-day Wiccans to death; Wiccans hardly burn their children to Molech, couple with animals, etc. The Wiccan Rede "An ye harm none, do as ye will" is a far cry from ancient Canaanite practices.)

See http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Witchcraft_and_Judaism.asp.

But the death penalty here means actual execution. The way I understand Jewish law (and I am not a rabbi), a duly constituted & recognized rabbinical court could only apply the death penalty only if all of the following conditions were met: a) The offending party was mentally competent, b) The offending party had been warned by qualified authorities, prior to the commission of said act, about the specific law & the penalties for violating it, c) There were 2 eyewitnesses to the offending act, d) The offending party was of legal age & did not act under conpulsion or durress. Moreover, under Jewish law, hearsay, circumstantial evidence & confessions (in capital cases) are absolutely inadmissible. Executions immediately followed conviction (often on the same day) and were not open to the public. (See http://tinyurl.com/4qdkz, the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on "Capital Punishment.")

Howzat?

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[On My Way]

Thank You

That was great

I just wanted to verify what I read

[Aineo]

Great answer, now I have one for you. How does Orthodox Judaism view God's word ("logos" in Greek)? Now this is probably more of a philosophical question than one that can be answered with the Torah and prophets but I could be wrong.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

You're welcome to both On My Way & Aineo.

Aineo, you asked:

How does Orthodox Judaism view God's word ("logos" in Greek)? Now this is probably more of a philosophical question than one that can be answered with the Torah and prophets but I could be wrong.

The concept, as it exists in Christianity, has no parallel in (Orthodox) Judaism. We certainly do not see His words as having any personality or existence apart from, or within, Him; His words (in our view) are not Him.

Howzat?

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[Aineo]

The concept, as it exists in Christianity, has no parallel in (Orthodox) Judaism. We certainly do not see His words as having any personality or existence apart from, or within, Him; His words (in our view) are not Him.

Would you consider the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria an Orthodox Jew?

"His words are not Him", so His words simply explain Him?

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Aineo, you posted:

Would you consider the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria an Orthodox Jew?

I don't know what Philo's level of observance was but (and I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck, God forbid!) it's not relevant. Just because a Jew says something doesn't make that something part of normative Judaism. While learned, he was not a mainstream rabbinic scholar & many of his views were rejected by the normative Jewish mainstream.

See The Jewish Encyclopedia article on him: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=281&letter=P&search=Philo.

I cite the following excerpts:

Philo included in his philosophy both Greek wisdom and Hebrew religion, which he sought to fuse and harmonize by means of the art of allegory that he had learned from the Stoics. His work was not accepted by contemporary Judaism. "The sophists of literalness," as he calls them ("De Somniis," i. 16-17), "opened their eyes superciliously" when he explained to them the marvels of his exegesis. Greek science, suppressed by the victorious Phariseeism (Men. 99), was soon forgotten. Philo was all the more enthusiastically received by the early Christians, some of whom saw in him a Christian.

(...).

Philo's teaching was not Jewish, but was derived from Greek philosophy. Desiring to convert it into a Jewish doctrine, he applied the Stoic mode of allegoric interpretation to the Old Testament. No one before Philo, except his now forgotten Alexandrian predecessors, had applied this method to the Old Testament—a method that could produce no lasting results. It was attacked even in Alexandria ("De Vita Mosis," iii. 27 [ii. 168]), and disappeared after the brief florescence of Jewish Hellenism.

(...).

The Logos:

Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also, treating them as a single independent being, which he designates "Logos." This name, which he borrowed from Greek philosophy, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools. From Heraclitus he borrowed the conception of the "dividing Logos" (λόγος τομεύς), which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts ("Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit," § 43 [i. 503]), and from Stoicism, the characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power. But Philo borrowed also Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the "idea of ideas" and the "archetypal idea" ("De Migratione Abrahami," § 18 [i. 452]; "De Specialibus Legibus," § 36 [ii. 333]).

I mean no disrespect to my Christian friends (God forbid!), but as per the above, we see the Logos idea as an essentially Greek one that Philo attempted to Judaize, or merge with Judaism. We cannot accept, and very much reject, this.

"His words are not Him", so His words simply explain Him?

His words are the things He says and, in our view, have no more an independent, or prior, existence than mine do. A word is a tool, or a symbol; in any case, it is a created thing.

Howzat?

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[Aineo]

I mean no disrespect to my Christian friends (God forbid!), but as per the above, we see the Logos idea as an essentially Greek one that Philo attempted to Judaize, or merge with Judaism. We cannot accept, and very much reject, this.

His words are the things He says and, in our view, have no more an independent, or prior, existence than mine do. A word is a tool, or a symbol; in any case, it is a created thing.

On the other hand Philo used the Greek concept of "logos" to explain monotheism to Greeks. God spoke the creation into existence, and His words describe Him and His purpose for mankind so on a philosophical level would you agree that His words are Him?

What you posted does not show disrepect. I asked a question you gave me an anwer, in fact your explanation is informative.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi Aineo!

You posted:

What you posted does not show disrepect. I asked a question you gave me an anwer, in fact your explanation is informative.

Thank you! I feel that since this is a Christian website, I have to be ultra-careful not to insult my hosts (who have been gracious and friendly since the get-go).

On the other hand Philo used the Greek concept of "logos" to explain monotheism to Greeks.

And in so doing, sought to meld/fuse Greek and Jewish beliefs (syncretism being very much the 'in thing' in his era) into some newfangled hybrid. We cannot accept this.

God spoke the creation into existence, and His words describe Him and His purpose for mankind so on a philosophical level would you agree that His words are Him?

No, I cannot say that His words are Him or are co-equal/co-existent with Him. They are created things that serve His purpose.

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[Aineo]

Hi Aineo!

Thank you! I feel that since this is a Christian website, I have to be ultra-careful not to insult my hosts (who have been gracious and friendly since the get-go).

As long as you do not intentionally violate our Forum Rules you do not have to fear insulting "your hosts" who see Orthodox Judaism as the foundation of our faith.

On the other hand Philo used the Greek concept of "logos" to explain monotheism to Greeks.

And in so doing, sought to meld/fuse Greek and Jewish beliefs (syncretism being very much the 'in thing' in his era) into some newfangled hybrid. We cannot accept this.

And I agree that Philo went to far with his concept of the "logos", however we believe that God's word is not static but an active force or power since God used His words to create our universe.

God spoke the creation into existence, and His words describe Him and His purpose for mankind so on a philosophical level would you agree that His words are Him?

No, I cannot say that His words are Him or are co-equal/co-existent with Him. They are created things that serve His purpose.

I agree, which is why I appreciate you taking the time to answer questions. To many professed Christians do not have any real knowledge of our Hebraic roots since Greek men ripped control of Christianity out of the hands of our founders who were Torah observant Jews.

[Aineo]

Now another question. How do you view the Holy Spirit.

Psalms 51:11
11 Do not cast me away from Thy presence,
And do not take Thy Holy Spirit from me. NAS

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi Aineo!

How do you view the Holy Spirit.

Psalms 51:11
11 Do not cast me away from Thy presence,
And do not take Thy Holy Spirit from me. NAS

Certainly not in the way that Christians do, i.e. a person within a triune God, or an aspect of God that has its own identity, personality or existence apart from, or within, Him. I suppose that we see references in the Tanakh to God's spirit as metaphors or literary/poetic images that help us to understand how God interacts with us and with the world.

The Hebrew word for God's presence is shekhinah & is a cognate of a root meaning "to dwell" & is related to the Hebrew words for "neighbor", the Biblical "tent of meeting" and, oddly enough, "mortgage". Shekhinah is feminine (the Semitic languages, like the Romance languages, but unlike English, assigns gender to all nouns). We believe that God is Wholly Other and, that as such, completely transcends the physical concept/construct of gender. Insofar as we, with our necessarily limited human understanding, perceive God and how He (I use the masculine pronoun simply because it is the customary usage, not because I attribute any particular gender to God) makes His presence felt in the world, we discern features/aspects that appear to be feminine or masculine, as the case may be. Accordingly, we see the shekhinah as representing the more feminine side of God’s presence in the world.

Howzat?

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[Aineo]

Thank you, and BTW not all Christians (including me) accept the triunity of God.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi Aineo!

Thank you,

You're welcome!

and BTW not all Christians (including me) accept the triunity of God.

Are you a Unitarian/Universalist? They don't accept the trinity, right?

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[Aineo]

and BTW not all Christians (including me) accept the triunity of God.

Are you a Unitarian/Universalist? They don't accept the trinity, right?

You are correct that Unitarian/Universalist do not accept the Trinity, but I am not a universalist. The closest label you can put on me is "Biblical Unitarian". There are more of us than many Trinitarians realize since to reject the Trinity is to cause lots of anger thrown our way because we reject how men have interpreted God's word since about the 2nd or 3rd century. Most Biblical Unitarians just keep quiet but I was never one to avoid God's truth or a debate concerning traditional beliefs vs. God's word.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi Aineo!

I apologize for the cyberhiatus!

You posted:

You are correct that Unitarian/Universalist do not accept the Trinity, but I am not a universalist. The closest label you can put on me is "Biblical Unitarian". There are more of us than many Trinitarians realize since to reject the Trinity is to cause lots of anger thrown our way because we reject how men have interpreted God's word since about the 2nd or 3rd century.

If you reject the trinity, what is your view of Jesus & of the Holy Spirit?

Most Biblical Unitarians just keep quiet but I was never one to avoid God's truth or a debate concerning traditional beliefs vs. God's word.

Good for you!

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[Aineo]

Jesus is the prophesied Messiah who will return to rule from the throne of David in Jerusalem and the Holy Spirit is another name for God after all God is spirit and is also holy.

[Truth Seeker]

Hi, I don't mean to interrupt your conversation...but I'm new and hoping I'm correctly posting a question to stillsmallvoice.

I'm familiar with some of the Tenach but have very little understanding of how one would follow the Torah (commandments). Is there a website that lists the commandments in an easy-to-read format? Possibly, with practical ways of obeying the commandments?

Thank you and Shalom!

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi Truth Seeker!

I'm familiar with some of the Tenach but have very little understanding of how one would follow the Torah (commandments). Is there a website that lists the commandments in an easy-to-read format? Possibly, with practical ways of obeying the commandments?

Hmm...

This http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm is a straight list of the 613 commandments of the (Written) Torah. The observance of many of these is either wholly or partially suspended due to the temporary lack of a Temple, functioning Aaronic priesthood, a Sanhedrin, etc.

We rely on our Sages to teach us how to carry out these precepts. We believe in an unbroken chain of tradition going all the way back to Moses our Teacher (http://www.aish.com/holidays/shavuot/last/chain.htm) that is at the heart of our belief in an Oral Torah as well. I always refer people to these two articles (http://tinyurl.com/2ffy8 and http://tinyurl.com/2uyfp) for a good intro on this very key Jewish concept. As orthodox Jews, we believe any attempt to understand the Written Torah without the benefit of the Oral Torah is futile, can only give rise to vast misunderstandings about what the Written Torah means & will necessarily leave one with a warped & stunted view of the scriptures. It's like trying to pry/prise two halves of a single coin apart, you get two pieces of metal that, by themselves, are worth nothing. We see the Written Torah & the Oral Torah as two inseparable halves of a greater whole.

Howzat?

Aineo, what salvific value do you attribute to Christ's death on the cross?

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[Aineo]

Aineo, what salvific value do you attribute to Christ's death on the cross?

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

I am not sure I understand your question. The word "Christos" or "Christ" is a title not a name. Jesus is God's anointed Messiah (Christ) who fulfilled such prophecies as:

Genesis 3:15
5 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel. " NAS
(Fulfilled, see Romans 16:20)

Genesis 12:3
3 And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. " NAS

Genesis 28:14
14 Your descendants shall also be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed. NAS

Genesis 49:10
10 "The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
Until Shiloh comes,
And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. NAS

Deuteronomy 18:15-19
15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16 This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, lest I die.' 17 "And the LORD said to me, 'They have spoken well. 18 'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 'And it shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. NAS

2 Samuel 7:16
16 And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever."' " NAS

Psalms 2
1
Why are the nations in an uproar,
And the peoples devising a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand,
And the rulers take counsel together
Against the LORD and against His
Anointed:
3 "Let us tear their fetters apart,
And cast away their cords from us!"
4 He who sits in the heavens laughs,
The Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then He will speak to them in His anger
And terrify them in His fury:
6 "But as for Me, I have installed My King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain."
7 "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son,
Today I have begotten Thee.
8 'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as Thy possession.
9 'Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron,
Thou shalt shatter them like earthenware.' "
10 Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
Take warning, O judges of the earth.
11 Worship the LORD with reverence,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! NAS

Psalms 16:10-11
10 For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol;
Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.
11 Thou wilt make known to me the path of life;
In Thy presence is fulness of joy;
In Thy right hand there are pleasures forever. NAS

Psalms 22
1 For the choir director; upon Aijeleth Hashshahar.
A Psalm of David.

My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?
Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning.
2 O my God, I cry by day, but Thou dost not answer;
And by night, but I have no rest.
3 Yet Thou art holy,
O Thou who art enthroned upon the praises of Israel.
4 In Thee our fathers trusted;
They trusted, and Thou didst deliver them.
5 To Thee they cried out, and were delivered;
In Thee they trusted, and were not disappointed.
6 But I am a worm, and not a man,
A reproach of men, and despised by the people.
7 All who see me sneer at me;
They separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying,
8 "Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him;
Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him."
9 Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb;
Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts.
10 Upon Thee I was cast from birth;
Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb.
11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near;
For there is none to help.
12 Many bulls have surrounded me;
Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me.
13 They open wide their mouth at me,
As a ravening and a roaring lion.
14 I am poured out like water,
And all my bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It is melted within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And my tongue cleaves to my jaws;
And Thou dost lay me in the dust of death.
16 For dogs have surrounded me;
A band of evildoers has encompassed me;
They pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones.
They look, they stare at me;
18 They divide my garments among them,
And for my clothing they cast lots.
19 But Thou, O LORD, be not far off;
O Thou my help, hasten to my assistance.
20 Deliver my soul from the sword,
My only life from the power of the dog.
21 Save me from the lion's mouth;
And from the horns of the wild oxen Thou dost answer me.
22 I will tell of Thy name to my brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will praise Thee.
23 You who fear the LORD, praise Him;
All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him,
And stand in awe of Him, all you descendants of Israel.
24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Neither has He hidden His face from him;
But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.
25 From Thee comes my praise in the great assembly;
I shall pay my vows before those who fear Him.
26 The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied;
Those who seek Him will praise the LORD.
Let your heart live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD,
And all the families of the nations will worship before Thee.
28 For the kingdom is the Lord's,
And He rules over the nations.
29 All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship,
All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him,
Even he who cannot keep his soul alive.
30 Posterity will serve Him;
It will be told of the LORD to the coming generation.
31 They will come and will declare His righteousness
To a people who will be born, that He has performed it. NAS

Psalms 110
1 A Psalm of David.

The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet."
2 The LORD will stretch forth Thy strong scepter from Zion, saying,
"Rule in the midst of Thine enemies."
3 Thy people will volunteer freely in the day of Thy power;
In holy array, from the womb of the dawn,
Thy youth are to Thee as the dew.
4 The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
"Thou art a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek."
5 The Lord is at Thy right hand;
He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.
6 He will judge among the nations,
He will fill them with corpses,
He will shatter the chief men over a broad country.
7 He will drink from the brook by the wayside;
Therefore He will lift up His head.
NAS

Isaiah 7:13-16
13 Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? 14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. 15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. NAS

Isaiah 9:6-7
6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this. NAS

Isaiah 28:16-18
16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD,
"Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone,
A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed.
He who believes in it will not be disturbed.
17 "And I will make justice the measuring line,
And righteousness the level;
Then hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies,
And the waters shall overflow the secret place.
18 "And your covenant with death shall be canceled,
And your pact with Sheol shall not stand;
When the overwhelming scourge passes through,
Then you become its trampling place. NAS

Isaiah 42:1-3
1
"Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold;
My chosen one in whom My soul delights.
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the nations.
2 "He will not cry out or raise His voice,
Nor make His voice heard in the street.
3 "A bruised reed He will not break,
And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish;
He will faithfully bring forth justice. NAS

Isaiah 49:1-6
1
Listen to Me, O islands,
And pay attention, you peoples from afar.
The LORD called Me from the womb;
From the body of My mother He named Me.
2 And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword;
In the shadow of His hand He has concealed Me,
And He has also made Me a select arrow;
He has hidden Me in His quiver.
3 And He said to Me, "You are My Servant, Israel,
In Whom I will show My glory."
4 But I said, "I have toiled in vain,
I have spent My strength for nothing and vanity;
Yet surely the justice due to Me is with the LORD,
And My reward with My God."
5 And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant,
To bring Jacob back to Him, in order that Israel might be gathered to Him
(For I am honored in the sight of the LORD,
And My God is My strength),
6 He says, "It is too small a thing that
You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also make You a light of the nations
So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth." NAS

Isaiah 50:5-6
5 The Lord GOD has opened My ear;
And I was not disobedient,
Nor did I turn back.
6 I gave My back to those who strike Me,
And My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard;
I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting. NAS

Isaiah 52:13-15
13 Behold, My servant will prosper,
He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted.
14 Just as many were astonished at you, My people,
So His appearance was marred more than any man,
And His form more than the sons of men.
15 Thus He will sprinkle many nations,
Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him;
For what had not been told them they will see,
And what they had not heard they will understand. NAS

Isaiah 53
1
Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
3 He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face,
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living,
For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?
9 His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
10 But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors. NAS

Isaiah 61:1-3
1
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
Because the LORD has anointed me
To bring good news to the afflicted;
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to captives,
And freedom to prisoners;
2 To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD,
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
3 To grant those who mourn in Zion,
Giving them a garland instead of ashes,
The oil of gladness instead of mourning,
The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting.
So they will be called oaks of righteousness,
The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified. NAS

Daniel 9:25-26
25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. NAS

Hosea 2:23
23 "And I will sow her for Myself in the land.
I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion,
And I will say to those who were not My people,
'You are My people!'
And they will say, 'Thou art my God!'" NAS

Micah 5:2
2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity." NAS

Zechariah 2:10-11
10 "Sing for joy and be glad, O daughter of Zion; for behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst," declares the LORD. 11 "And many nations will join themselves to the LORD in that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you. NAS

Zechariah 6:12-13
12 "Then say to him, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts," Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. 13 "Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices."' NAS

Zechariah 12:10
10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born. NAS

Zechariah 13:6-9
6 "And one will say to him, 'What are these wounds between your arms?' Then he will say, 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'
7 "Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd,
And against the man, My Associate,"
Declares the LORD of hosts.
"Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered;
And I will turn My hand against the little ones.
8 "And it will come about in all the land,"
Declares the LORD,
"That two parts in it will be cut off and perish;
But the third will be left in it.
9 "And I will bring the third part through the fire,
Refine them as silver is refined,
And test them as gold is tested.
They will call on My name,
And I will answer them;
I will say, 'They are My people,'
And they will say, 'The LORD is my God.'" NAS

Malachi 3:1-2
1 "Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2 "But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap. NAS

His death on the cross as the lamb of God fulfilled the sacrificial requirements of the Mosaic Law for those who have faith in Jesus (Yehoshua) as Yehovah's anointed King.

[GraceAndPeaceInChrist]

Jesus is the prophesied Messiah who will return to rule from the throne of David in Jerusalem and the Holy Spirit is another name for God after all God is spirit and is also holy.

So Jesus is not God in your view?

[Aineo]

Jesus is the prophesied Messiah who will return to rule from the throne of David in Jerusalem and the Holy Spirit is another name for God after all God is spirit and is also holy.

So Jesus is not God in your view?

Correct. The Trinity is a manmade doctrine based on Greek philosophy and the misapplication of selected Scriptures.

The forum is not for defending what you believe vs. what I believe, which is why we have an apologetics forum. See the following threads to discuss the Trinity:

http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic ... 12&start=0
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?t=7710
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic ... 20&start=0

[Truth Seeker]

Hi again stillsmallvoice!

Thanks for previous answers. I have yet another question.

I understand that ha Moshiach will be a man with a level of soul which has never been in the world before. A man elevated to the level of G-d by G-d himself. As is said of Moshe Rabbeinu, "Moshe, ish ha'elokim".

Hasn't a man like this already existed by the name of Jesus, Yeshua? But he was disqualifed because he did not complete the obligations of ha Moshiach, yes? But his followers claim he will return to finish what he began.

Is there anything in all of the Tanakh that says that ha Moshiach must complete his obligations in a specific period of time?

Thanks for your help with this. It's wonderful that you offer your time and expertise!

[Truth Seeker]

Is there anything in all of the Tanakh that says that ha Moshiach must complete his obligations in a specific period of time?

I think I have found the answer to above question: No. (Let me know if you have a different answer).

I do have a few other questions (I hope you're still out there )...

1. Does the Tanakh say that the father of Moshiach must be a biological descendant of King David? Can it be through the mother?
2. What about the tribe of Judah? Can it be through the mother?

If the answer is it must be through the father, could you please give me the references in the Tanakh? Thanks.

3. Where in the Tanakh does it say prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry?

Thanks for any help!

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I apologize for the too long cyberhiatus!

Lessee here...

I understand that ha Moshiach will be a man with a level of soul which has never been in the world before. A man elevated to the level of G-d by G-d himself. As is said of Moshe Rabbeinu, "Moshe, ish ha'elokim".

This is not what we understand regarding either the Messiah or Moses.

We believe that this

Hasn't a man like this already existed by the name of Jesus, Yeshua?

is moot because

he did not complete the obligations of ha Moshiach

.

But his followers claim he will return to finish what he began.

This is their privilege & their right. However, it is our privilege & our right to respectfully disagree.

Is there anything in all of the Tanakh that says that ha Moshiach must complete his obligations in a specific period of time?

Maimonides says only that he'll complete his obligations in his lifetime.

1. Does the Tanakh say that the father of Moshiach must be a biological descendant of King David? Can it be through the mother?

2. What about the tribe of Judah? Can it be through the mother?

Tribal affiliation in Judaism is passed in the male line only. If the Messiah is to be a descendant of David then it stands to reason that his father must be as well.

How do we know that "Tribal affiliation in Judaism is passed in the male line only"? Numbers 1 refers to the tribes as being according to their father's houses. Look at Numbers 36 and the daughters of Zelophedad. The men from the tribe of Manasseh were concerned that Z's daughters would marry men not from Manasseh & that Z's inheritance, which had been divided up amongst his daughters, would thereupon pass out of Manasseh because the daughters' children would not be Manassehites because they would belong to whatever tribes their fathers belonged to.

A Jew's mother's tribal affiliation doesn't count for anything.

3. Where in the Tanakh does it say prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry?

See http://www.aish.com/tishaBavHolyTemple/tishaBavHolyTempleDefault/The_Lost_Art_of_Prophecy.asp, http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=84902 & http://www.jewfaq.org/prophet.htm.

Howzat?

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[DMP]

StillSmallVoice...sorry, I posted this question in the wrong forum.

What does it mean to an Orthodox Jew "the right hand of God?"...such as standing at the right hand of God.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

DMP, you asked:

What does it mean to an Orthodox Jew "the right hand of God?"...such as standing at the right hand of God.

A poetic metaphor indicating that, as loyal and faithful servants, we will be so high in God's esteem as to be at His right hand.

We don't take it to mean that God literally has actual physical limbs appendages.

Howzat?

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[DMP]

Thanks SSV.

So, the right hand is a position...a place of priviledge and/or favor. It would be the place of authority.
Do you agree:
God, then, could rule and reign through this (highest) position if He so desired?

Thanks

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi DMP!

Do you agree:

God, then, could rule and reign through this (highest) position if He so desired?

I see the Christological bent of your question.

No; while He may assign specific tasks to various angels (to run His errands, so to speak), God does not share/delegate power.

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[DMP]

Greetings StillSVoice.
I see you have a keen eye for bent things..

Quote: No; while He may assign specific tasks to various angels (to run His errands, so to speak),

True...but it's not as though God has not the power to do the things Himself as to these specific tasks assigned.
But it seems He has chosen to assign things as if by design.


quote: God does not share/delegate power.

While He might not share/delegate power...yet in the purpose/pleasure of His plan, He gives authority to exercise His power.
And in this grand scheme of things God has (by design) needs. Such as a Messiah.
Therefore, the Messiah shares in value with God. For God cannot deliver man or advance man from his fallen condition without The Man (Messiah).
Without the Man...there is no remissiion/forgiveness of sin. There must be shedding of blood as you well know.

This is why under the new covenant (as I contend) being an oneness advocate of God...understand Philipians 2 to mean that the man Christ Jesus did not think he was stealing anything away from God. In fact, saw his role in the plan/design of God as being (as a man) of equal value. Without him there is no salvation, no restoration, no restitution, etc.

So, God will/has exalted (the Man) -to the right hand of God- the place of authority.

If I'm not right about Jesus being the Messiah, then when he comes, he will be highly exalted in the manner aforementioned.

Angels would not be able to run these errands for God so to speak ...
only a man.
And while, maybe, not sharring His power, He would yet share Himself in a manner that would allow man to take dominion of the earth once again.
He breathed Himself into Adam. Why not breath Himself into Messiah (Emanuel)?

Thatzall..

PS> Sorry for messing up the quote usages

[DMP]

Hi StillSmallVoice again..

I was, also, drawn in like a magnet with you and Aineo's dialogue concerning the "logos".

Here are the main quotes I emphasize:

StillSmallVoice said:
Aineo, you asked:

How does Orthodox Judaism view God's word ("logos" in Greek)? Now this is probably more of a philosophical question than one that can be answered with the Torah and prophets but I could be wrong.

The concept, as it exists in Christianity, has no parallel in (Orthodox) Judaism. We certainly do not see His words as having any personality or existence apart from, or within, Him; His words (in our view) are not Him.

Aineo said

"His words are not Him", so His words simply explain Him?

StillSmallVoice said:
His words are the things He says and, in our view, have no more an independent, or prior, existence than mine do. A word is a tool, or a symbol; in any case, it is a created thing.

Aineo said:

God spoke the creation into existence, and His words describe Him and His purpose for mankind so on a philosophical level would you agree that His words are Him?

No, I cannot say that His words are Him or are co-equal/co-existent with Him. They are created things that serve His purpose.

SSVoice...
Staying on a philosophical level, if His words are not Him, could He be His words?
I ask because when the New Testament was being written from the Greek, a Scholar by the name of Middleton rearranged John 1:1:

"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and God was the word is how it reads, not and the word was God."

The word was not Him but pertained to Him, pointed towards Him. And when the word (plan, grand design) became flesh...it was God in flesh. The man was not God...but God was that man. (just my perspective)
I don't think that Christ was God...but I do see that God was in the Christ reconcilling the world to Himself.

As Aineo alluded to...
We see the "and God Said" as being, more than simply a word spoken, but a sound, a constant vibration, frequency, that sustains creation.
And God said, and it was so...and still so... just as He said.

What, then, is the view from an Orthodox Jew concerning God's word that upholds what was created?

Thanks

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi DMP!

You asked:

Staying on a philosophical level, if His words are not Him, could He be His words

1) What's the difference? (A=B & B=A are the same thing.)

2) No.

What, then, is the view from an Orthodox Jew concerning God's word that upholds what was created?

If He wills that a thing exist and continue to do so, it exists and continues to do so. We do not attribute a separate/independent/particular personality or existence to His will (or His words).

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[DMP]

Good day StillSmallVoice...thanks for answering.

Quote:
Staying on a philosophical level, if His words are not Him, could He be His words


1) What's the difference? (A=B & B=A are the same thing.)

This is a mathmatical answer that shows equality or like value of a thing, etc. but can be different in other ways. That's ok. Your reply to the whole question is greatly appreciated and what I wanted. thanks.

What, then, is the view from an Orthodox Jew concerning God's word that upholds what was created?

If He wills that a thing exist and continue to do so, it exists and continues to do so. We do not attribute a separate/independent/particular personality or existence to His will (or His words).

Neither do we attribute His will/word as something independent/seperate personality to Him.
I take it that you mean if God said it (and He doesn't take it back) it remains. I agree. His word (logos) pertains to Him or points toward Him, but is not Him.

If He wills it, thinks it, or even speaks it...how do you explain the operation or existence of it. Is it vibrational as sound waves for example.

God breathed the breath/spirit of life into Adam. What was His breath? Was this a certain sound that caused the body of Adam to conform to it?
What is your view on this?

Thanks again!

DMP

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi DMP!

If He wills it, thinks it, or even speaks it...how do you explain the operation or existence of it. Is it vibrational as sound waves for example.

It can't be anything vibrational like sound waves, which are physical constructs which God, being Wholly Other, transcends.

I don't think that I have to explain "the operation or existence of it"; as per Deuteronomy 29:29, Isaiah 55:8-9 and Psalms 131:1-2, there are things that are beyond our ken.

God breathed the breath/spirit of life into Adam. What was His breath? Was this a certain sound that caused the body of Adam to conform to it? What is your view on this?

Not sound or air but an innately spiritual and intangible soul.

Howzat?

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[DMP]

Hello StillSmallVoice.

Been gone for about a week.
Thanks for the answer.

Quote:
If He wills it, thinks it, or even speaks it...how do you explain the operation or existence of it. Is it vibrational as sound waves for example.


It can't be anything vibrational like sound waves, which are physical constructs which God, being Wholly Other, transcends

Right. He is totally Other. And the way you explain it is the way we feel about the logos. It is something that existed before creation that God determined to be so that everything that followed could be sustained.

Thanks

DMP

[Truth Seeker]

Hello stillsmallvoice and DMP. I've been reading your conversation. I hope it is okay to ask some questions of the both of you.

When God speaks something into existence, isn't a part of Him in that something? Does He not have the ability to have different levels of saturation of Himself in those created things? The water, the trees, the flowers, etc. all have Him in them. Animals, perhaps, have a higher level of saturation of Him. Humans have an even greater level of saturation. Creation has God within it, but His creation is not Him. This means God has been manifested or made known to us through this 3rd dimension in which we live? His creation reflects aspects of Him.

Perhaps the prophets had even higher levels of saturation of Him. Enoch (Hanokh) was so full of God, he was taken by Him. The fuller one is, the closer one walks with God. The closer one walks with God, the fuller one is. The advantage humans have, that plants and animals do not, is the ability to walk closer with Him, become more filled with Him, and consequently have the privilege of reflecting more accurately His characteristics.

Moving along this line of thinking, why is it difficult to embrace the possibility that Jesus was fully saturated with God? Can God choose to make Himself known in a greater, fuller, deeper way through this complete saturation? Is that why Jesus could say, “I and the Father are one” and “He who has seen me has seen the Father”? Did Jesus accurately reflect the nature of God? Could he have been the exact representation of His nature? By “exact”, I mean the fullest extent to which this dimension allows.

It is God’s word that spoke everything into existence, His word is full of Him, and God can be found in every piece of His creation. God created through His word. The word is that which did the creating. Without the word, that which was created through it would not have been created. The word cannot be independent from God. It is eternally connected to Him. To say that God was independent from His word before it was spoken is not relevant now, since the word has been spoken and cannot be taken back. It is the word that unites God to His creation.

One might say that God’s word is one with Him. One might say that when you experience (or see) God’s word, you experience (or see) God. One might even say that you cannot experience God outside of His word. Now, does God have the power to make His word become flesh? This is different from His word making flesh. This is His word becoming flesh. Is it conceivable that we, with finite minds, are unable to fathom the possibility of such a concept? Or are we just intelligent enough to talk ourselves out of believing such a thing?

When we, the created, speak, our words reflect who we are. One might say that it is our actions that reflect who we are, which is true. However, when we are being honest, our words and our actions will not contradict each other. God’s word is much greater and more complex than ours. Should we limit His word to have the same limitations as ours? Our words exist in a 3-dimensional existence. His words do not. Even our words lead to physical ramifications. Our words can be manifested into something tangible. Maybe our words do not “become” the thing, but our words “make” the thing. God’s word “makes” things. Are we going to limit Him by saying His word cannot “become” the thing just because we are unable to fit that concept into our thinking? One might say a word is simply a vibration, a sound, etc. A word is not the thing. That is true in our dimension. However, if God says His word not only makes things, but at a place in time in this dimension became “the thing”, why is it we cannot embrace this inconceivable concept? And if He says that His word which became “the thing” is the exact representation of Him to the fullest extent this dimension allows, why do we reject that? Because we know better? Isn’t He the One who created something out of nothing? That doesn’t make sense but we embrace it.

So, some believe Jesus was the exact representation of the nature of God, because He walked with God, was completely saturated with God, the fullness of God. Some believe not only this, but also that Jesus was God’s word become flesh. Now why is it that the word that is flesh would need to walk with God and become more filled with Him and consequently become the exact representation of His nature? Wasn’t he at his birth, being the word, already the exact representation of His nature? How could the word become flesh not immediately be the exact representation of His nature? I don’t know. Perhaps it has something to do with the limitations of this dimension.

So, that is my thinking “out loud.” Respond to any portions you feel comfortable with.

Shalom.

[DMP]

Hello Truthseeker.
Nice of you to jump in. Your inputs are welcomed.

When God speaks something into existence, isn't a part of Him in that something? Does He not have the ability to have different levels of saturation of Himself in those created things? The water, the trees, the flowers, etc. all have Him in them

God so transcends our thinking...that it is hard for us to conceive that in order for there to be nothing...nothing would have to be created. You have excellent points.
My belief is that God created (from nothing) everything visible and invisible. And they are not Him.
Paul said in Acts 17 that in Him (God) we live and move and have our being. Even though God is not these things yet they are in Him.

It is God’s word that spoke everything into existence, His word is full of Him, and God can be found in every piece of His creation. God created through His word. The word is that which did the creating. Without the word, that which was created through it would not have been created. The word cannot be independent from God. It is eternally connected to Him. To say that God was independent from His word before it was spoken is not relevant now, since the word has been spoken and cannot be taken back. It is the word that unites God to His creation.

I believe God spoke all things into being. But when John said in 1:1 that in the beginning was the Word...My take on that is that before the beginning began, God had willed, expressed, and set in place the entire thought, plan and method for His dream, desire, and pleasure.

(and the Word was with God). This thought of thought (Word) logos...would pertain to God. It would always reflect His doings and always point towards Him eternally and testify to His genius.

(and God was the Word) And this entire thought was wonderfully expressed and centered upon and rested in the fact that God would be housed in humanity in which all of creation would stand or fall.

(The same was in the beginning with God)
His humanity was in view at all times.
Everything would be created... with him (always) in mind.

(all things were made) and came into existence (because of him); (and without him) without this grand thought of God being a human, (was not even one thing made that was made) or come into being.

It would be this very image and likness that the first manifested man, Adam, would be made...and therefore, the plan of plans, the thought of thought, the logos, was engaged in which our God through Mary would be "the man" by whom are all things...for whom are all things...and to him are all things...(and the Word was made flesh).
This man would be the only life that God would ever have (for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son or life). This was a one shot deal for God. Everything would rest upon this one life that He would give.

To wit, God was in Christ (the man) reconciling the world to Himself.

The Old Testament paints a beautiful picture of this in the Tabernacle of Moses. The pattern was after the heavenly (from before the beginning).
The structure itself was a picture of the son (christ) made by man while God was the occupier. A good view of the Father in the Son.

And like Aineo, I see the son by itself as simply flesh not God.
But God in this flesh is the Father in full view.

Again...that's just my view. There are many in this forum who have differing viewpoints. Thanks for your viewpoints. They were well received and appreciated and still being considered.

DMP

[DMP]

StillSmallVoice...

I hope you're still around.

What (if anything) to an Orthodox Jew would be the difference between standing at the right hand of God and sat down on the right hand? (and I know it doesn't mean appendages)

Thanks!

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

DMP, you posted:

I hope you're still around.

So do I!

What (if anything) to an Orthodox Jew would be the difference between standing at the right hand of God and sat down on the right hand? (and I know it doesn't mean appendages)

Nothing, I suppose. Beats me.

What do you guys/gals think of The DaVinci Code?

Be well!

stillsmallvoice

[Aineo]

What do you guys/gals think of The DaVinci Code?

The DaVinci Code is a well written action novel that is filled with myths and legends.

[DMP]

Hi backatcha StillSmallVoice!

Glad you and me are still around ..

Have not seen the D Code. Plan on it though.

DMP

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Hi all!

Dw & I read it last year & are looking forward to seeing the movie soon.

As an orthodox Jew, I’ll say the following (& DW agrees). I can see very much how Roman Catholics might be (very) offended by the book. If this book had been written with a Jewish angle instead of a Roman Catholic one, Jewish groups (such as the ADL) the world over would be screaming bloody murder that it was libelous, anti-Semitic, etc.

Brown cleverly mixed in just enough facts (i.e. regarding the Christian makeover of various pagan symbols into symbols of evil) with his fiction to give the latter a veneer of plausibility. An undereducated/underinformed person could easily be led to believe some of the more outrageous stuff (i.e. Opus Dei buying its bishopric by bailing the Vatican out of bankruptcy, that the Church has murderously sought to suppress certain information, etc).

Also, I must fault very many of his references to Judaism & Jewish practices:

1) There were NO “sacred prostitutes” in the First Temple in Jerusalem, as Brown wrote. Temple prostitution was a Canaanite practice. The Torah denounces such gross immorality. Such a charge (that there were “sacred prostitutes” in the Temple) has no basis whatsoever in any Jewish source.

2) The Hebrew word shekhinah means "God’s presence" (and is a cognate of a root meaning "to dwell" & is related to the Hebrew words for "neighbor", the Biblical "tent of meeting" and, oddly enough, "mortgage") & is feminine (the Semitic languages, like the Romance languages, but unlike English, assigns gender to all nouns). Shekhinah was/is not God’s female consort, as Brown wrote. We believe that God is Wholly Other and, that as such, completely transcends the physical concept/construct of gender. Insofar as we, with our necessarily limited human understanding, perceive God and how He (I use the masculine pronoun simply because it is the customary usage, not because I attribute any particular gender to God) makes His presence felt in the world, we discern features/aspects that appear to be feminine or masculine, as the case may be. Accordingly, we see the shekhinah as representing the more feminine side of God’s presence in the world.

3) Judaism does not, in any way, denigrate or disparage the role of women (as Brown insinuated more than once). A common (and very condescending) liberal fallacy is that because a traditional faith like orthodox Judaism believes that men & women are different and have different roles, that we necessarily believe that women are inferior; people confuse uniformity with equality & mistake the absence of the former for a lack of the latter. This is nonsense. Neither does orthodox Judaism deny/disparage a married woman’s sexuality; indeed, it is our view that satisfactory sexual relations are the wife’s right & the husband’s duty to meet that right & not the other way ‘round.

Still, I found Brown's comments on the pre-Christian/pagan spirituality of the act of sexual intercourse & communing with the goddess/feminine aspects of Divinity, very interesting. This actually jibes with the orthodox Jewish view very nicely. Our Sages teach that when a loving & respectful husband & wife unite in the act of love that the Shekhinah (which, as I noted above, represents more feminine side of God’s presence in the world) rests upon them and that they sanctify the physical act and invest it with holiness.

Genesis 2:24 says:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.

Our Sages have always noted that it is the man who seeks out his wife, and not the other way 'round, prior to their becoming one flesh. Our Sages teach that it is a case of the spiritually weaker (the man) seeking out the spiritually stronger (the woman).

4) The idea that Jews living in Roman Gaul would have kept the genealogical lists of Mary Magdelene’s presumed descendants is also pure hokum. Brown said (based on what?) that she was from the tribe of Benjamin & hinted at her descent from the House of Saul. Big deal; who cares? In Judaism, tribal affiliation is passed in the male line only & the House of Saul was perpetually excluded by God from the kingship. Also, David’s royal line continued among the Jews of Babylonia until well into Islamic times (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exilarch). Brown should know very well that Jews have never accepted Jesus’s presumed Davidic descent (no offense) & to assert that Jews in Gaul would have is ludicrous.

5) Still, my wife & I found it to be a good whodunit conspiracy thriller and a fun read that shouldn’t be taken too seriously. That just generates more publicity & makes more even money for Brown. Learn from some Jewish groups' way overblown, overreaction (which I didn’t agree with at all, by the way) to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.

6) The more we peer at DaVinci's Last Supper, the more we are convinced that the disciple reputed to be St. John the Evangelist is a woman & not merely a youthful, possibly pre-pubescent, male.

Howzat?

Be well!

9) stillsmallvoice

[Aineo]

6) The more we peer at DaVinci's Last Supper, the more we are convinced that the disciple reputed to be St. John the Evangelist is a woman & not merely a youthful, possibly pre-pubescent, male.

So you discount the fact that da Vinci often portrayed young men as well as angels as a bit feminine? I wonder how Catholic priests of his time would have viewed the apostles on Jesus' right? Had they accepted Brown's premise da Vinci would have spent his last days in a prison cell.