Judaism-Christianity

Hello,

So where did we leave off? Alternatively (and perhaps more appropriately), where did you wish to re-begin?

We can start at the beginning:

Please pose your question or theory, and we'll answer up.

What I don't want is for this to turn into a melee'. None of us are up for that.

So, will it be Bereishis?

Haha, ok.

Suggested rule number 1: all hebrew and yiddish requires a translation. It would save me a fair amount of google time (as well as being for a helpful guide to others who peruse).



I guess to start wide before tracing narrow: what is you biggest theological clash with Christianity?

There are many, the main one is pretty obvious: jsus.

So to start with, we should look at the root of the problem; we should see what the Torah says about self proclaimed prophets (or self proclaimed men of G-d). The reason is simple, G-d created the Torah and His Law. All aspects of life are covered by His Torah, His Halachah. So every part of what we will be discussing will be rooted squarely in Torah, and Torah Law.

If you like, I can bring some pasukim (verses) from Torah that pretty much lays that out: G-d says that we are not to listen to dreamers or those who proclaim to be prophets. He also places a heavy penalty (death) on anyone who is a false prophet.

We will also need to talk about the laws regarding married women; because if you believe that Joseph was not the physical father of jsus, then there are some serious halachic (Torah Law) issues here as well.

Then we should discuss self sacrifice, or the idea of having yourself killed for any reason, but for the sake of this argument "the sins of man".

After that we should talk about rising from the dead.

I dunno, there is just so much to start with.....

Well, since there are obviously a great many differences, then why not choose one to start with. I'm sure that as it grows, it will address and perhaps engulf a variety of these and other issues.

To start with, let's get to the absolute, the root of it all: Shemos Kuf Beis/Gimmel - Parshas Yisro (Exodus 20:2 - 3)

20:2
Anochi Hashem Elochecha asher hotzaysecho mayretz mitzraym (I am Hashem, your G-d, Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery.)

This is G-d telling the Jews that He and ONLY He is G-d, the One who performed myriads of miracles in their presence, and who brought them out of the grasp of Paroahs' indenture.

Baal halachos Gedolos says that this commandment isn't a commandment at all, but a statement of fact. Ramban explains this to mean that this fact is a necessary prerequisite to ANY commandments that we be informed that Hashem is our G-d.

===============
20:3
Lo Hashem Licho Elochim al ponoy (You shall not recognize the gods of others in My presence.)

This is G-d telling us that we are not to worship ANY other G-d than He, period. Actually if you look at the following 3 pasukim, it lays it out very clearly.

Ibn Ezra says that the verbage "in My presence" means as long as I exist. Since G-d is eternal, this means forever.

Sforno says that to defy a human king to his face is the worse form of treason, and since G-d is Omnipresent, idolatry is an unpardonable afront.

===============

So to start with, christianity believes that jsus is G-d. It is clear from the very first and second commandment that is can not be true. So to believe jsus is G-d is to break (at a minimum) the first two commandments. As Sforno says in his commentary to pasuk gimmel, to deny G-d is ONE is unpardonable.

Ok, I'm off to sleep for tonight, but I guess we should address sources used.

Correct me if I am wrong (I played the google game again) but some of those sources quoted from are not primary texts but are instead rabbis (and forgive me if the title is off, no offense intended)?

I would suggest that such secondary or tertiary sources would be off limits. Instead, only primary texts (Genesis, Exodus, etc).

Thoughts?

I listed the primary source, Torah. That is where the pasukim came from. More specifically the Stone Edition Chumash with Rashi. The english translation is the best and most precise.

The primary commentary on Torah is Rashi, but many many of our Talmudic Sages have commented on Torah and have as much weight. Rashi is the most popular.

If you need me to give you more information on Rashi or Sforno, for example, I can do that. The problem is that you will not be able to gain access to these texts unless you have access to an Orthodox Beis Medrash. So I don't know that there is any point to it.

There are on-line repositories, but in order to have access, you'll need to know and understand Hebrew as well as pay to gain access.

Ok, allow me to rephrase the question.

Are you citing these sources (the aforementioned rabbis) as authorities or as thoughtful and useful commentary?

neoinarien wrote:Ok, allow me to rephrase the question.

Are you citing these sources (the aforementioned rabbis) as authorities or as thoughtful and useful commentary?

Both.

The Torah commands us to listen to our sages (the Rabbaim cited are Sages). They are the halachic and spiritual authority in Judaism, they are also our philosophical guides.

I know that flies in the face of the "free thinkers", but that's the way it is.

Well, I guess I would disagree with using that as a source of authority. The Catechism, Church Councils, etc, are to be used by authority but me slinging the Nicene Creed at you likely wouldn't get us anywhere.

Any chance of just limiting the scope of authority to primary text?

So let's take a look at your request:

The Oral and Written Torah are together and can't be separated for any reason. You can't have one without the other.

Me using the "primary text" for my argument would surely stand, all I have to do is quote pasukim for that. Without explanation by our Chachomim though, makes it open to unlearned interpretation.

So really, there is no way for me to use the "primary text" by itself; I'm simply not learned enough to do it. Learned enough means at the Gaon level. And even today's Gaonim use our Sages (as G-d taught us).

I find it funny, and somewhat retarded.

Yehudah wrote:I find it funny, and somewhat retarded.

What is retarded?

If you're insisting on accepting the oral traditions as authoritative then obviously this must work both ways. If that is the case, then the Christian can use the New Testament, Church Councils, Creeds, Catechism, etc.

But then that gets us no where.

It's retarded because it is obvious that you (and all christianity) know we hold the Oral AND Written Torah as authorative and you still insist that it isn't.

Dude, if you want to use the truckload of christianities books or "sources" for your arguements, I'm okay with that. Certainly you are not more learned than your "sages".

And THAT is the point. We are unlearned regardless of how much we think we know. I can go toe-to-toe with you with no problem, but on my best day, my opinion is worth nada if it flies in the face of the Sages.

Here is one example that was brought by one of our Sages that involves the Sadducim and Shabbos. The Torah commands us that we are not to light fires on Shabbos, it is midaraisah, we are not to light fires on Shabbos. The Sadducim believed that it meant that we could not have hot food, or warm air, or light to read by on Shabbos.

If your opinion is based solely on the Written Torah, then on your Shabbos, you are to eat cold food, in the dark, and if it is winter, you are to freeze.

The Oral Torah, which was taught to Moshe by G-d and passed down to the people, states that we can cook our food erev Shabbos, keep it warm on a fire that exists (that we can't touch), leave lights on to read by, and have the furnace on so we can stay warm.

My opinion is like Moshe, it's a mitzvah l'moshe misinai.... and it makes sense that G-d would not want us to freeze, eat cold food, and not be able to study Torah on Shabbos... hence the Oral Law.

Now... do you still want to play the game of my unlearned opinion versus YOUR unleared opinion?

I have no quarrel with the use of the Oral tradition. My point comes on where it is considered authoritative.

Clearly most any debate one would be having would revolve around the passages in the Torah and their meaning. Now, if we both cite our respective oral traditions as binding authority then we get no where. If we use them as persuasive authority (to borrow a legal term) then we open up areas for dialogue.

Otherwise it's you say X, I say Y, both are authoritative within our traditions and that's that.

But if we can argue why X makes more sense than Y, or vice versa, then there is dialogue.

While I am somewhat late to this debate and not sure where you two began on another forum, I feel that the written Torah by itself is more than sufficient to debunk any myths that somehow jesus was G-d or that we should accept any part of the NT

As I've posted, I can go toe-to-toe with any christian with what I have...... the problem comes in when any of us decide that what we say that is written is an absolute without an authorative explanation. None of us are learned enough to do that.

I only need to cite one example to prove the point:

Anochi Hashem Elochechah

To me, without explanation from our Sage; it means G-d is telling us He is our G-d. Rashi, Rambam, the Ohr HaChaim, Sifsei Chaim, etc.. have expounded on the writing to make it much more than that.... G-d is telling us that HE alone, is the ONE G-d... AND NO OTHERS... no man, no animal, no inanimate object is G-d other than HE.

Religious Jews get that... christians do not.

And that is an example of my reasoning.

Arik S. wrote:While I am somewhat late to this debate and not sure where you two began on another forum...

Tom and I were acquanted on GTRI at one point. I believe we had a lengthy debate on RCC, etc.. I don't remember who he was on GTRI (I'm pretty sure it was GTRI).

At any rate, he sent me a few emails wanting to email debate... he says he is scholarly and speaks. I have yet to see that in his emails or posts.

At this point, we are trying to iron out the rules so we can continue....

I'm not sure how that's gonna turn out, but I'm willing and able to debate as soon as he wants.

Yehudah,

First off: please, tone down the remarks.

At this point you've referred to my simple request as "retarded", broad brushed us "christians" (which you always use the lowercase 'C', and also lower case 'J' even for J-sus, while always using Jews/Judaism with upper case 'J') as completely lacking the capacity to understand certain concepts, and classified my remarks to date as bereft of any scholarly content.

Meanwhile, in both our emails as well as on the board I have shown nothing but unflinching respect and deference: I have not used any latin Catholic terms, I have always spelled Him as "G-d", and always been consistent with my capitalizations. I have also never taken a derisive tone towards either you or made prejudicial remarks about Jews as you have Christians. You have also completely disregarded my simple request to, if not avoid using Hebrew terms, to at least include an explanation.

Can we at least agree to show some mutual respect?


Second off: if you are insisting on allowing us to use and quote Oral Traditions as authoritative against one another, then this will make everything exceedingly easy.

With your rules in place, allow me to return to your original questions from back on page 1:

1. G-d as three: see Nicene Creed. Definitively answered.
2. J-sus as G-d: see New Testament in general, but also Nicene Creed. Definitively answered.
3. Virgin Birth: see Gospel of John, chapters 1-4. Definitively answered.
4. Self sacrifice: see New Testament in general, although I would specifically reference John, Romans and Revelations. Also, see Nicene Creed. Definitively answered.
5. Rising from the dead: see Gospels, Romans, Nicene Creed, etc. Definitively answered.


I can provide additional specifics from my own authoritative sources if it would ease your conscious.

I hope you see the problem of allowing us to use oral tradition and such sources as authoritative.

Also, you never responded (back to our email chat) to my last email. I'll copy it your last response, followed my remarks.

Yehedah:

Considering how many levels of understanding there are in Torah (70), I can only tell you I have a topical understanding mostly, but in some areas I a bit more.
As with Moshe at Sinai, HaShem walked by him yet Moshe was not allowed to see him (and live). I'd say that since Moshe was in Shamayim, G-ds' realm, Moshe was on a spiritual level never known by humans. That being said, I'd say that Moshe was broaching a spiritual plane to the point of light. Since Torah is light, and HaShem is what lights the Torah, I'd say that it was actually Moshe who became less physical (more spiritual) as opposed to G-d becoming more physical.
Since Gan Eden was in Shamayim (on a spiritual plane unknown and very much un-understandable by man), the same could be said of Adom, Chaya, and thier walks with HaShem.


Neoinarien:

1.
Well, I'm not saying you are interpreting literally (though perhaps, unknown), but it is worth laying down a bracket against 100% literal interpretation in all places by pointing to areas where the Bible speaks of so and so "walking with G-d", etc. Now, I understand this to mean that these individuals were righteous before G-d and so walked in his path.


This point really comes down to an issue of Trinitarian theology. Obviously Christianity (I use the term to address mainstream Christianity, and likewise with Judaism and leaving the fringe to themselves, so Branch Dividians, etc) and the New Testament would have a radically different viewpoint on the issue. Just as obviously, the New Testament is hardly valid within Judaism (at least from my understanding). So I will cede making comments based on New Testament sources and limit myself to the Hebrew Bible.

I.
Based on the Hebrew Bible we are created in G-d's image. This begs the point, and also a matter of hermeneutics, of what does this mean? Is this referring only to our spiritual make up or is this meant to be interpreted in a more literal and thus physical sense? To the best of my knowledge, this point has applied to both our physical and meta-physical makeup.

II.
One can present a very strong argument of G-d appearing physically in the Hebrew Bible. In Exodus 23:9-12, G-d appears physically before Moses and tribal leaders and the writer even belabors this point by speaking about the ground beneath G-d's feet as being like a paved walkway made from sapphires. It mentions his hands, his physical motions, and that G-d and the leaders even ate and drank.

Amos 7:7 explicitly states seeing G-d standing beside a wall, and again in Amos 9:1 where G-d is seen standing beside an altar.

Isaiah 6:1 (and forward) places G-d as sitting on a throne with angels before him.

Jeremiah 1:9 says G-d put forth his *hand* and touched the writer's mouth.

RSV Ezekiel 1:26 Ezekiel sees G-d seated above the "likeness of a throne...a likeness as it were in human form." This is pretty explicit since the author goes out of his way to state G-d appeared in human form.

Numbers 12:8 tells of speaking *mouth to mouth* and "of the form of the Lord".

Exodus 33:21-23 refers to the place by G-d and to G-d 's back and hand.


Now, stating that G-d has a material form is not to say that he does not have a purely physical form. One cannot limit the limitless, which I see as something of the problem in the argument before oneself: namely that G-d is only spirit. This seems to be self contradictory. If one is to define G-d as, well, G-d, then he can do whatever he wants which may or may not include possessing a physical form.

As a note, additional textual arguments to this point can be claimed from non-canonical sources, such as Enoch, etc.





2. Plurality of G-d
My initial reaction is similar to the one above: G-d as G-d can do whatever he wishes or designs.

I do not understand why mercy would be grouped as separate from G-d? Surely, G-d is infinite mercy, infinite justice, infinite love, etc. To group these concepts as somehow separate enough to constitute a plurality seems deeply problematic to a shared Judeo-Christian base conception of what/who G-d is. To do so, sets limits on G-d's existence and thus becomes inherently antithetical to the most base definition of G-d within a theistic paradigm.

The consultation explanation (with angels constituting a plurality) does make a lot more sense to me either. Why would G-d need to confer with someone/something else?

I.
I don't know how familiar you are with questions of "who wrote the Bible?", etc. This question strives exactly to point on this question, but will ultimately not give a satisfactory answer unless one embraces a 'reformist'/'leftist' bent within our traditions. As such, I'll leave this here as an open string.




3.
What does this mean?
"This has been the case since Korach"


To the conversation...

"As you know, G-d said that we may not add or take away from Torah, to do so is an abomination."

"In modern times the Messianic/Reconstructionist/Reform/Conservative movements (as the ancient others), were created to make life easier for Jews by relaxing or abolishing Torah."

So if abolishing the Torah is abomination (very bad, suffice to say) and some modern sects relax or abolish Torah... then some sects are in theological abomination?

I am speaking more to sects than to individuals.

So this knuckle-draggin' mouth-breathin' cHRISTIAN still awaits your response

Gut Voch to all of my Yiddin family.

Tom, you should know by now that I observe Shabbos.... and don't sit at my laptop on Saturdays.

After talking with some of my Rabbi friends... Okay, your on... We can do this pasuk for pasuk without relying on commentary as authority.

And let's take it point for point... no need to have massive posts.... it's too much too read at one sitting.

I'm going to get changed, grab my 'Nach and I'll respond once you have, with specific points to ponder.

btw... you are right about the respect. You have never tried to preach to me.. and have been very nice. My apologies.

Let's get it on.

Haha, ok, sounds good.

And yes: I did specifically recall that you would not be on Saturdays from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

I guess I would be interested in hearing about G-d not taking an appearance.

I hope you passed a peaceful holy day.