Replies

I would have made this thread a Jewish/Noachide caucus thread, but because chrstianity is mentioned and responded to, it would not qualify to be a caucus thread.

To those who may object to this article:
I did not post this to antagonize anyone or hurt anyone's feelings. There are many religions represented on Free Republic, and all of them are free to criticize their opponents and respond to their claims. Most FReepers acknowledge Judaism as a legitimate religion and are aware that it rejects the claims of chrstianity. Logically, Judaism should be as free to answer its critics and defend its beliefs as are all the other religions present here.

Protestants criticize Catholic leaders of the past and present. Catholics criticize Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation. Everyone criticizes Joseph Smith. As a universally recognized legitimate religion, it should not be regarded as a scandal when Judaism defends itself and sets forth its rationale for rejecting the attacks and claims of its critics.

An additional note for pious chrstians: merely asserting chrstian claims or quoting the new testament does not constitute any sort of refutation of this article.

The Talmud divides world history

So What of the Word of God? How does the Word of God define the divide history? And what of Deut 18? The second half of Deut 13 and the Prophet like unto Mosheh? Mosheh played a specific role and while I do agree that Deut 18 speaks of all the prophets prior to Babylon, it also speaks of the prophet to come after those days.

The prophet Yeshua was quite adamant in telling us that all that He did and said was to be found in what all the prophets before Him was given to say and write down.

Luke 24:25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Mashiach to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Mosheh and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. ... 44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Torah of Mosheh and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. 46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Mashiach to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Mashiach came to restore, He did not come to form a new religion, but because man sought the need to do so, HaShem is using what man created to suit His purpose, His desire. The harder Christianity boasts against the natural branches, the harder Judah clings to and preserves His Torah, albeit through Talmud, but at least they are still in covenant with HaShem unlike the Christian church.

I think the Chhristian issues with the argument are contained in what might be different interpretations, Jewish and Christian, of parts of the quote from Deuteronomy, as far as that part of Deuteronomy as explanation and justification of a Jewish position vis-a-vis Yeshua.

Here is the portion of Dueteronomy I am speaking about:

"He may present you with a sign or miracle, and on the basis of that sign or miracle, say to you, 'Let us try out a different god. Let us serve it and have a new spiritual experience.' ......."Do not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. God your Lord is testing you to see if you are truly able to love God your Lord with all your heart and all your soul....[snip]"That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for having spoken rebelliously against God your Lord, who brought you out of Egypt and liberated you from the place of slavery."

I think a strict application of what Yeshua said would say that Yeshua did NOT ask the Jews or anyone to "try out a different G-d", "serve it" and "have a different spiritual experience", nor that Yeshua ever told any Jew to depart from the Torah.

I understand that in the strictist sense my certainty in that can only come from Yeshua's own words, as best we are to believe the words ascribed to him, and that the theological interpretation of Yeshua's teaching begun by Paul and others in the 1st century might not totally argue that Yeshua never said such things to the Jews.

I restrict my argument that way because it is only what Yeshua said that the Jews heard and the Jews had to contend with, before the crucifixion, and not the extensions of Yeshua's teachings into Christian theology from Saul/Paul and others.

“But here is just one big problem that according to Judaism prophecy ended with the destruction of the First Temple 500 to 600 years before Jesus was even born. In Judaism, prophecy and prophets ends with the period surrounding the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah – the Babylonian Exile – Return to Zion. The title and functions of a prophet or Navi ends with the Biblical greats of Malachi, Daniel, Ezra and Nechemia. After them there are no more prophets in the BIBLICAL Tanach sense among the Jewish people. The era of what is called Prophecy (“Nevuah”) ends and a new era of Wisdom “Chochmah” commences with the onset of the era of the Men of the Great Assembly (“anshei knesset hagedolah”) that launches the era of the Oral Law as the main focus, they decide what shall and shall not be part of the Tanach, and once they “seal” it, the Hebrew Bible remains fixed forever. Obviously this is totally incompatible with Christianity and its “new” additions and editions and its claims about its founder that claims to “supersede” what came before it and displace Judaism for a new religion subsequently known to the world as Christianity.”

This person seems to be very ignorant about his own religion. He says that prophecy ended with the destruction of the 1st temple, yet cites Daniel who predicts the construction of the second temple as well as its destruction by the Romans in 70AD, predicted to occur after the coming of Christ (Dan 9:26-27).

If anything, he should have understood the destruction of the second temple as the fulfillment and ending of the old testament system, since the conclusion of Daniel’s 70 weeks is supposed to fulfill the “bring an end to sin, make reconciliation of iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”

So why conclude that it all ends with the destruction of the 1st temple, when it is the second which concludes the Jewish system?

As for his rubbish about a new “oral” system taking place after the alleged cessation of the prophets, this was not the view of the Jews at that time, who were still awaiting another Prophet as we see in Maccabees. It has no basis in the scripture itself. Furthermore, it directly contradicts what God said, that He would raise up another “Prophet” from among the children of Abraham.

By the way, sure is weird that a Noahide who isn’t even Jewish is posting this stuff. There is no biblical basis, either, for a separate law applying to Gentiles.

Lev 24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.

You’re either in, or you’re out. This Noahide nonsense strikes me as a Jewish method to keep people out of their exclusive club, even though the only thing special about their club is bizarre stuff like found in the Zohar. They can keep their vain and useless traditions. I’ll stick with the scripture.