Posted on 08/19/2014 2:00:40 AM PDT by idov
There are lots of famous Jewish atheists from Sigmund Freud to Ayn Rand to Isaac Asimov to Woody Allen.
How do you think the Jewish community would have reacted if what follows had happened?
A Jewish couple, atheists, artists, puts on an exhibit in which they critique five major religions with artworks and commentary. At the end of the first day the gallery owner comes up to them and says, you are attacking Islam and that means you favor the Jews in "Palestine." This is "racism."
They try to explain that they are critiquing five major religions equally, did not single out Islam, did not mention the Palestinian issue, and therefore took no position on it.
Not good enough. The gallery owner continues his tirade and blames the Jews in "Palestine" for all the woes of the Arabs. The woman asks, "What is your reaction when Arabs blow up a bus full of Jewish children?" His response, "So what?"
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.timesofisrael.com ...
The Delhi to Cairo flights were full every day ...
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
Jews like Rabbi Akiva should not have hailed Simon, so-called Bar Kochba, as a messiah, giving people false hope. the revolt was a continuation of the disastrous first war started in 66 which had led to the destruction of the temple, the deaths and suffering of huge numbers of Jewish people. The second war sealed the Diaspora already begun and was the origin of Palestine. Hebrew Christians could not fight for a false messiah which was a wise choice.
Well you were born in Canada right? You did not journey with Moses and the host of Israelites in the wilderness, so no you don't know. Just applying your relativistic model.
You have one or two specious and refuted authors in your corner. Please reference Sir Walter Ramsay. That IS hard historical evidence. He dug up and confirmed the claims of Luke and Paul.
So basically, your entire premise is based on "so says me and a few other atheist authors."
Wow, thought the Times of Israel had much higher standards than this. Guess this is the modern 'journalism.' Make an assertion (I hope you know the difference between an assertion and an argument) and broadly infer without presenting the evidence. Then rinse, repeat and hope it sticks to the wall. Saul Alinsky would be most proud of this.
Wrong this was not the second war, it was the third war.
The middle one was the biggest one, one of biggest conflicts in history stretching from Mesopotamia to Libya to the Greek islands. It was called the Kitos War. Probably a million people died on each side.
They had Trajan on the run. Two of his generals in charge of the breadbasket of the empire were going to secede but then Trajan dropped dead because of the stress. They wanted to rebuild the Temple. Hadrian said go ahead and the war stopped.
It’s pretty facile and stupid to make conclusions why a war was lost. The Jews took on an empire three times and they were beat before they started unless others arose either from within or without. No one did. Even so in the third war Hadrian had to bring in troops all the way from Britain and use his sailors to fight on land.
Not as much as the Nineveh, Babylon and Damascus shuttles:) I seem to have missed that Hindi invasion of Egypt and the Levant.
I haven’t the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.
Oh, I entirely agree - compared to the exactitude with which the Torah was translated, and the whole of Tanakh, the treatment of the Septuagint (and the later New Testament) was egregious.
But, a few points:
Firstly, one cannot blithely take the whole of the Septuagint as a single body of work. It was created in stages. I am of the mind that the origination of the Septuagint, which was only Torah (the Pentateuch) was skillfully done - perhaps not with the precision of Temple scribes, as one must allow for the language barrier, but I think it was an honest effort... It is in the latter revisions that one might find question.
Secondly, your premise wholly ignores the politics of the time - Judaism was not pristine, and in a vacuum. The Hellenists, present even in Jerusalem, are a significant liberalization of Judaism - I think the Alexandrian codex, the Septuagint, was an honest attempt to teach Hellenistic Jews that which they purported to believe, Hebrew having been lost to them. It is the latter revisions which show that attempt being hijacked and Hellenized. Your opinion lacks for study into the construction of the Septuagint.
And the synagogues were another point of pressure - While Torah was pristine (IMO) across the board, what Torah supposedly said was widely disparate, and can be compared to Congregational Protestantism in our day (the basics were right, but not agreeing in complexity), and was just as highly factional, especially the further one got from the Temple... Temple Judaism was quickly losing ground to what later became Rabbinical Judaism.
It is for all these reasons that Protestant Christianity rejected the scriptures their fathers used and went directly to the source (as much as was possible).
But what will inevitably stand in your way (with regard to Messiah) will be the books of Daniel and Isaiah, both of which are present in the Dead Sea Scrolls, both of which are in the (proto)Masoretic tradition, and both of which, as extant-in-situ predate Yeshua by hundreds of years. Their accuracy cannot be ignored.
These guys were no different from a woman who eats ham sandwiches on Yom Kippur bringing out a kosher cookbook. No one who keeps kosher is going to touch it.
I get it - I can loosely be identified as a Messianic Christian. I try to keep Torah and kosher (Torah, not Rabbinical). But your premise assumes that any and every scribe not Temple ordained is incapable of an honest and literal translation. While I agree with you that bias and inclusions have crept in, that does not mean the truth is not there. As an example, IMO, for the lion's share, the KJV can be used with abandon - the milk of the message, and most of the meat, is there. It is only when one ventures in with specificity to very deep things that one must cross-check other variants to winnow out a meaning.
They even screwed up the first word. It does not say “in the beginning.” There is no suggestion of creation out of nothing. It says “at the beginning of....” and goes on to describe a process. It does not rule out pre-existing universes or other universes.
Yes, it most certainly does say 'in the beginning'. To say otherwise would offend the prophets and the Holy Days, and primarily, Shabbat.
I have challenged your assertions. You have repeated the same assertions without presenting evidence.
Your defense is the "Cliff Clavin" tactic of "It is a well known fact." Well it's not, and frankly refuted. The Walter Ramsay research dug up physical evidence of 1st Century Christianity. So that EVIDENCE throws your assertions into the file 13 of the X Files and conspiracy theory blogs.
There were no synagogues in Israel not until after the destruction of the Temple.
Porphyry, a Greek philosopher, using textual analysis exposed Daniel as bogus. That finding has stood the test of time. There is a litmus test on the Hebrew side as well. Angels do not give their names. He names two. The writer is a con artist.
The Greek translation of the Torah was a total botch done by numskulls out to make a fast buck and there was no need for it.
You don’t read Hebrew? Rashi pointed out the correct translation way back when “at the beginning of.....” a process. If you want to say “in the beginning” the expression is “barishona” not b’reshit.”
Anything else?
I still don’t know what you are talking about. State something specific.
2,000 year old Jewish traditions are not all that they're cracked up to be. Did you know that epilepsy is the result of having sex too soon after having a pee?
"The Rabbis taught: 'On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic.'" (Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 70a)
I don’t what your point is. I pay no attention to rabbis.
Talk to someone else about them.
And we are to believe this same 2,000 year Jewish tradition is a reliable historical source to comment on the history of Christianity.
Well, there goes your last shread of credability idov. What else are you going to lie about next. Synagogues were present in Israel as soon as after the return from exile and through Jesus' time. Before that there was no need.
Porphyry, a Greek philosopher, using textual analysis exposed Daniel as bogus.
Boy extra special sauce. His objections were based on the a priori supposition that there could be no predictive element as such in prophecy - not textural analysis.
You should really stop digging yourself any further into the hole
Rashi is no Moses my FRiend. And just because you believe and Rashi believed a certain interpretation does not make it so. History is full of people making their own versions of history. Go ask some of your kin who endured the worst genocide of modern times. The man who started that genocide had his own revisionist views of history, races and peoples with absolutely no evidence to back it up. It was so because he said it was so. The reasoning here is similar
And yet again I point your attention to the physical evidence presented by Sir Walter Ramsay.
The tradition is 2,000 years of opposing Christianity. We have no tradition of opposing Buddhism and Hinduism because they rely on their cultures to make their own religions. Christianity is a parasite which links itself to Israel so we have to defend ourselves. They could link to Ireland just as easily and leave Israel out of it.
Yes, if you want to include the rebellion of the Diaspora in bringing suffering and death on the Jewish people, then the false messiah Simon led the third war in a series.
It’s pretty facile and stupid to make conclusions why a war was lost. The Jews took on an empire three times and they were beat before they started unless others arose either from within or without.
It is sadly obvious that the LORD God of Israel was not fighting on behalf of the children of Israel in any of these three wars. I wish it could have been otherwise. And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
No synagogues as houses of prayer. None. Zilch.
Well you keep alluding to Rabbi Rashi for your source material! And the rabbinic tradition of "2000" years. So pay no mind to your assertions, as you pay no mind to rabbis.
Did I confuse Rashi with Moses? He simply translated a word correctly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.