Posted on 12/16/2009 7:38:57 AM PST by PanzerKardinal
As you know, I do not subscribe to the idea of Judaism/the Torah "developing" over time, nor do I subscribe to Biblical criticism...
I am aware of that. However, Judaism is not a magisterial faith, and different beliefs are held by different individuals, which means that none ca really claim "orthodoxy."
Clearly, apocalyptic and dualistic Judaism that developed in the 2nd century BC is not the same Judaism of earlier times. Historical developments affected developments or changes in the beliefs as a struggle to explain why, all of a sudden, the Jews were being persecuted for being righteous instead of unrighteous and why would God allow it.
Clearly, God promised Israel success and his protection if they were obedient to him and his commandments. Now, that the Jews learned their lesson through centuries of their unrighteous, for which they received God's punishment (deservingly), they were at a loss to explain the wrath that fell on them by the Hellenic Syrian king.
To inform an occasional lurker, bu the middle of the 2nd century BC, a Hellenic Syrian ruler decided to Hellenize all his subjects and started to persecute Jews who were under his rule, for circumcising their children. To the Greeks, circumcision was something silly at best and outright barbaric at worst.
The pogroms were unbelievable. Those who performed circumcision were killed. The mothers of the circumcised children were killed. The circumcised infants were hanged on their dead mother's necks, etc. This culminated in the Maccabbean revolt.
The Jews were dumbfounded. While they could see the reason for their previous misfortunes, their idolatry, sin and disobedience being the cause, they simply could not explain the pre-Maccabean revolt terror the people of God were subjected to. Why would God do this to them?
It made no sense. So, little by little, a belief developed that there was actually a resident evil in the world and that suffering of the righteous is brought on not by God's rigtheous anger but by this personified enemy of God, the "devil."
Of course, the Jews were exposed to Zoroastrian dualism by their Persian liberators from Babylonian captivity, and probably realized that maybe there was some truth to the idea of resident evil (obviously residing among Gentiles), which traditional Judaism does not teach, know or believe in.
Along with this newly discovered source of wrath for the rigtheous came, by necessity, the belief that God will eventually defeat this evil presence by sending a warrior-king (meshiyah) who will defeat the Gentile oppressors and establish peace in God's Kingdom on earth (Israel), and all nations will know the power of Adonai.
Thus was born messianic apocalyptic Judaism—as a revelation that bad things don't just happen to the misbehaving Jews by God, but also to the observant Jews by the resident evil, an enemy of God, and that a God-sent anointed wariror-king will bring about the lasting peace.
The major party to these beliefs were none other than our friends the Pharisees, of whom Jesus would have certainly be one. They shunned any contact with the evil Gentiles, even Samaritans, couldn't eat with them, couldn't fraternize with them, etc. probably for fear that God will get angry.
On the other hand, the Sadducees, who held on to the Pentateuch as the Bible, did not see any reason to shun the Gentiles as it is obvious the pre-Babylonian Jews didn't. Rather, intermarriage with Gentiles was common. Even Moses' wives were not Hebrew. The Sadducees, likewise, did not believe in the "resident evil" (devil) either, nor did they see any need for a messiah, resurrection of the dead, etc because none of ti is in the Mosaic books.
When the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and 2nd Exodus began, the surviving Judaism was the rabbinic Judaism of the Pharisees who to this day represent mainline Judaism., obviously heavily secularized to the point that some are accusing Judaism of becoming Sadducee-like in character more than Pharisaical.
Indeed, some of the elements of modern Judaism are Sadducean. It is my understanding that Jews still refuse to believe in satan as the personification of resident evil (i..e the "devil"). But some modern Jewish sect do subscribe to the idea of a messiah and the resurrection of the dead.
Now, I do realize that you don;t believe in "evolving" Judaism, but Judaism did evolve into various sects, and ultimately each Jew is free to believe what he or she wants. So, it's not as if there is some prescribed set of beliefs one must follow to the "t" except the very minimal core and then some.
I am sure the sages would come up with a wise opinion why there is no evolution even though there seems to be one, as they explained why is Ketav 'Ashurit the "true" and theological alphabet (without which one apparently can never understand properly the scriptures) and Ketav `Ivrit is not. I would be curious, though, to find out when and where did these rabbis come up with these opinions, just for context.
And I wonder how could prophets like Isaiah write and read in Ketav `Ivrit and properly interpret when Ketav `Ashurit is critical. Indeed, maybe the latter was the reason why the Jews just "couldn't get it" until Ezra reintroduced the Ketav `Ashurit...
And I wonder how would non-messianic Jews explain the pre-Maccabean pogroms. Why was observant Israel being punished and by whom? Why would God, who promised otherwise, allow his people to be persecuted for their rigtheousness?
And, apparently, subject to various OPINIONS from various Hebrew Authorites.
The FACTS are that Israel BROKE the Covenant that GOD had with them - thus the promise of a NEW one.
Still again those are your opinions and theories nothing has been proven only the anti wish list!
nothing has been proven
- - - - - - - -
Excatly, nothing about the Book of Mormon has been proven.
nothing has been proven
- - - - - - -
Exactly, nothing about the Book of Mormon has been proven, not one city, town, weapon, cache of Gold in Cumorah. Nothing.
However, it has been proven, over and over again that the BOM and other LDS teachings are in direct conflict with the Bible and therefore must be rejected by Christians.
Thus, the Exile and the destruction of the Holy Temple. But they broke the covenant not by "rejecting the messiah" but by deviating from the eternal Torah.
One day G-d will return all Israel to their Land and rebuild the Holy Temple and restore the Davidic King (the Mashiach). There is not a hint in the Torah of G-d reacting to Israel's violation of Torah by replacing it with something else. And apostasizing from Torah to another religion would only compound Israel's sins.
Are you REALLY this ignorant?
Still again just your theories and opinions!
Still again just your theories and opinions!
- - - - -
And the theories, opinions, RESEARCH and facts from several hundred other historians, egyptologists, and archaeologists. Including some, like BH Roberts, who were leaders in your own church.
Jer 8:8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?
So you're one of those people who say the Torah is of lesser authority than the Prophets?
You realize that still doesn't vindicate chr*stianity. Chr*stianity comes from the "new testament," not the Hebrew Bible.
Jer 8:8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?
So you're one of those people who say the Torah is of lesser authority than the Prophets? Or are you saying that no copy of the Hebrew Bible is trustworthy? If that is the case, you Protestants are in trouble. You realize that until the invention of the printing press that scribes are all that kept the "new testament" going as well, right?
You realize that still doesn't vindicate chr*stianity. Chr*stianity comes from the "new testament," not the Hebrew Bible.
Apparently very few people realize that theories and opinions can be (and often are) based upon experience, research, and facts.
There is not a hint in the Torah of G-d reacting to Israel's violation of Torah by replacing it with something else.
Jer 31:31 "The time is coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
Jer 31:32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to [fn] them, [fn]" declares the Lord.
Jer 31:33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
Jer 31:34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
Sounds great. Too bad it didn't happen two thousand years ago.
I said there is no hint in the Torah. The Torah is the Supreme Revelation. No prophet can overthrow the Torah. Any prophet who did so would have been a false prophet and his prophecy would certainly not have been canonized by the Men of the Great Assembly who compiled the canonical books of the Prophets and Writings. In order for the Torah to be replaced by something else, the Torah itself (Genesis/Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy) must authorize it.
Also, you are assuming (based on your chr*stian presuppositions) that the "new covenant" Jeremiah prophesied is chr*stianity. This is what chr*stianity claims, and this is what you have always believed, but in order to believe this is a prophecy of chr*stianity, one must already believe in chr*stianity.
There are numerous covenants in the Hebrew Bible, but only one Torah. G-d made a covenant with Israel at Sinai and another in Mo'av just before Israel crossed the Jordan--two covenants, but the exact same Torah.
Jeremiah may have very well been predicting the days of `Ezra', when the people made another covenant with G-d and put away their foreign wives and idols. Or it may refer to the Messianic era when the Davidic King rules from Jerusalem and all mankind has rejected false "gxds" and embraced HaShem. But in neither case is the Torah replaced by something else. However many covenants, there is only one Torah.
And most are found behind the doors of buildings owned by LDS Inc.
If I told you that 2+2=4; you'd say that THAT was just my opinion.
Sorry; but your handwaving away of FACTS doesn't cut it in the real world where we live.
Anyone ever manage to KEEP it?
Your question is asked from the Protestant perspective that the Torah was given merely to teach Israel that all are sinners, and supposedly, since no one is perfect, a divine scapegoat was needed. I dealt with this very thing several months ago in my explanation of Fundamentalist Protestantism for Orthodox Jews. Would it do any good to point out that King Solomon knew that all are sinners long before chr*stianity existed, yet he knew that inherent human imperfection does not nullify the Torah.
Madam, I did not enter this thread to be a grinch. You believe the "new testament." I doubt anything I say will disabuse you. The "new testament" is so ingrained in you that you simply don't seem to be able to see the Hebrew Bible in any other way than as part of chr*stian "salvation history."
Very well. I merely point out that all this comes from accepting the "new testament" first and prior to the Torah which actually preceded it. The Jewish People, unlike you, had the Torah for a thousand years before there was a "new testament" in the world and so they do not look at it through your assumptions at all.
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.