Replies

So where would you like to go back to?

How about you read my post and respond to it? All of it? Why do I need to pick certain things? If you give me the excuse that you are too tired and will get back to me later, then fulfill your promise at least. Don't play dumb about it.

I want to point out that you groan about haughtiness and other issues with the approach of my posts, yet you wrote in your first reply “stupid oral traditions.” Very considerate/gentlemanly of you.

That was my response to some absurd Talmudic Rabbi thinking he can "cross examine" Christianity and prove Christ never claimed to be God or anybody special. Let the Rabbi take the plank out of his own eye before he bothers us. Not only are the traditions stupid, I would even characterize them as vile. Here, for example, a Rabbi lies to a Jewish woman to settle a dispute on what kind of degenerate a boy is:

"The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman's menstrual period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah.

"They said, 'What induced you to contradict the opinion of your colleagues?' He replied, "I will prove it concerning him." He went to the lad's mother and found her sitting in the market selling beans. "He said to her, 'My daughter, if you will answer the question I will put to you, I will bring you to the world to come.'. She said to him, 'Swear it to me.'

Rabbi Akiba, taking the oath with his lips but annulling it in his heart, said to her, 'What is the status of your son?' She replied, 'When I entered the bridal chamber I was niddah (menstruating) and my husband kept away from me; but my best man had intercourse with me and this son was born to me.' Consequently the child was both a bastard and the son of a niddah."(Babylonian Talmud, Kallah 51a)

This junk has none of the majesty of the Old and New Testaments, which any one familiar with them knows.

(Of course I think the same thing about your religion and its dogmas or, “YOPIOS”)

Hence my contempt for your oral traditions. I am well aware of Orthodox arrogance and foolish desire to equate Demons of Epilepsy with, say, the doctrine of salvation by grace alone. The latter is actually in the scripture too, founded in the Old Testament itself, though you vainly think you will ever get anywhere by how you urinate.

Anyway, relations between orthodox and reform are fine. Thanks for asking!

Do the Orthodox consider Reformed, Karaites, and other non-Orthodox Jews to actually be "real Jews"? Let's try this approach. You might as well say "relations between Catholics and Protestants are fine!", since that is how you were trolling me with your irrelevant posts.

The not-yet-religious do, Heaven help us, tend to marry out and forfeit their inheritance, but more and more are becoming religious, thank G-d.

There is no inheritance to lose. If one believes the Jews, the eternal covenant with David to always have a man for him upon the throne, and a Priest for the Levites, was broken by God for over 2,000 years. In which case, God is a liar, and the Jews are abandoned. If one believes the Christians, there is neither any Jews nor Gentiles anymore, but one in Christ. Intermarriage does not rob anyone of their "inheritance" in this case. They are safe either way regardless of who they decide to marry.

They don’t tend to argue doctrine with their coreligionists like Catholic and Protestant do.

So you say after mentioning the great sin of a Jew marrying an accursed Goy. That they don't fight is a total falsehood, as anyone familiar with the Orthodox knows.

"Perlow’s speech, the evening’s most fiery, condemned non-Orthodox streams of Judaism and used particularly harsh language to condemn Open Orthodoxy, the movement led by Rabbi Avi Weiss and centered at Yeshiva Chovevei Torah in Riverdale that pushes for a greater role for women in Jewish ritual, among other things. Perlow criticized the Israeli Chief Rabbinate for not being harsh enough in their treatment of Open Orthodoxy. Perlow said that the threat posed by the Conservative and Reform movements had largely passed. “They’ve become oblivious, and they’ve fallen into the pit of intermarriage and assimilation,” he said. “They have no future, they almost have no present.”"

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/199010/orthodox-rabbi-stuns-agudath-gala-with-heresy-atta/?p=all#ixzz34INOsJzZ

I thought of something— Imagine if I told a Buddhist that there is a new Buddah in town and they are all wrong.

The chip is on your shoulder. Look who posted this thread? Go to your Orthodox forum and rant and rave all you like there. I won't venture therein.

Karites, Saducees, and the rest have their own religion which has nothing at all to do with Judaism and our rabbinic tradition.

IOW, even though the Karites follow the Torah, because they reject the trashy and absurd oral traditions, they are not real "Jews." Hence, there is no conflict between Jews, because all real Jews are Orthodox, just like all real Scotsman hate the British.

And before you whine about this, remember you spammed me 3 times now, I think, trying to annoy me with Catholics and Protestants fighting, as if you are all so undivided and peaceful! And none of this ever had anything to do with the thread or your original posts to me. So why bring it up? To hide from the evidence of Christ's self-proclaimed divinity. Keep to one thing at a time. This is advice to keep you from digging yourself into a bigger hole.

some concepts (like demonology, impurity) we hold to be bygone powers that have mostly faded— but which will come back as applicable to the 3rd Holy Temple,

Where does it say in your Talmud that having sex too soon after peeing no longer gives your kids Epilipsy? Considering the whole thing was constructed a long time after the Romans torched the Temple, it does not appear that Jews stopped believing in it until modern science showed their Rabbis to be superstitious, and yet we must regard your Talmud as having more authority than the scripture itself!

I know you’re not at the Catholic level, but you are in the world’s minority if in your YOPIOS and scripture-only viewpoint there is no spiritual force in our world.

Do a study of all those people who had sex too soon after using the bathroom, showing that all their kids have epilepsy. In that event, I will believe you that there are Demons waiting around counting the seconds to see if you slip up, and then I will even start to throw salt over my shoulder, and knock on wood and the like, and step on all the cracks, and burning witches in my spare time for turning me into Newt Gingrich, and righting all the photographs so planes and helicopters do not drop out of the sky.

Or should we go back to the Hebrew Torah and ask, in your opinion and translations, does Lev 3:17 mean we should not eat fat or not eat milk? The word is exactly the same in Hebrew.

The word is always exactly the same, not just in Lev 3:17, and the words "fat" and "milk" are often understood by the Hebrews to be one in the same. Therefore, we must rely on the context, which in this case is the butchering of an animal, and removing the fat from the meat.

Lev 3:15 And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away.

None of my commentaries site the Rabbins, nor do any of the Lexicons. And why should they? It is obvious. The Rabbins must write their commentaries for idiots. "Believe me," says the Rabbins, "though you are too stupid to read, this word here, by an unbroken (but broken) chain of tradition, assures me that this impossibly complex word means "fat" and not "milk"."