Let's Talk Judaism (2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Splinker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Splinker

Guest
The original thread was closed. As there didn’t seem to be any angry or abusive posts there, I assume this was done because it’s an old thread. The last question was, Do Jews believe Moses wrote the Torah.

Judaism teaches that God spoke the Torah to Moses and Moses wrote it down. How much of the Torah and when Moses did it, is up for speculation within Judaism, if I remember correctly.

I think most biblical scholars would agree that no single person wrote all five books of the Torah.
 
I like to watch “The Naked Archeologist” and he started to explain the first five books (Pentateuch) and then he started to explain the text using the alphabet. It was interesting.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

the Yahwist source ( J ) : written c. 950 BCE in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
the Elohist source ( E ) : written c. 850 BCE in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
the Deuteronomist ( D ) : written c. 600 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
the Priestly source ( P ) : written c. 500 BCE by Aaronic priests in exile in Babylon.
The Torah redactors: first JE, then JED, and finally JEDP, producing the final form of the Torah c. 450 BCE.
 
What the Jews interpretation for Zechariah 12, particularly this verse:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced,"
 
Sam_777 said:
What the Jews interpretation for Zechariah 12, particularly this verse:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced,"
Click to expand...
“They will look toward Me because of those whom they have stabbed”- (Stone edition)
והיביטו אלי את אשר-דקרו

You see how in your Christian english translation plurals are mixed up with singulars, how a comma is inserted in the wrong place and how the word stabbed is replaced with pierced to try and give the text some sort of connected meaning with Christianity - If you translate the hebrew passage properly and in context it refers to the fact that salvation will be so complete that people will be astonished if even one man is killed by the enemy.
 
Barbkw said:
I like to watch “The Naked Archeologist” and he started to explain the first five books (Pentateuch) and then he started to explain the text using the alphabet. It was interesting.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

the Yahwist source ( J ) : written c. 950 BCE in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
the Elohist source ( E ) : written c. 850 BCE in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
the Deuteronomist ( D ) : written c. 600 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
the Priestly source ( P ) : written c. 500 BCE by Aaronic priests in exile in Babylon.
The Torah redactors: first JE, then JED, and finally JEDP, producing the final form of the Torah c. 450 BCE.
Click to expand...
The Documentary hypothesis is far from settled controversy. The Pentateuch, An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible by Joseph Blenkinsopp shows many flaws in this. No alternative has won general acceptance, so any attempt to explain the formation of the Pentateuch must be tentative.
 
chosen_people said:
“They will look toward Me because of those whom they have stabbed”- (Stone edition)
והיביטו אלי את אשר-דקרו

You see how in your Christian english translation plurals are mixed up with singulars, how a comma is inserted in the wrong place and how the word stabbed is replaced with pierced to try and give the text some sort of connected meaning with Christianity - If you translate the hebrew passage properly and in context it refers to the fact that salvation will be so complete that people will be astonished if even one man is killed by the enemy.
Click to expand...
All these translations are wrong and your “Stone edition” is right!!!

However, here what I’ve found in the Internet from what is seems Jewish Bibles:

From “Jewish Bible (JPS 1917)”:
“And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.”

From “Jewish Bible Copyright 1998 by David H. Stern. Published by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.”:
“and I will pour out on the house of David and on those living in Yerushalayim a spirit of grace and prayer; and they will look to me, whom they pierced.” They will mourn for him as one mourns for an only son; they will be in bitterness on his behalf like the bitterness for a firstborn son."

Why should I believe your translation over all the above Bibles!!!
 
Sam_777 said:
All these translations are wrong and your “Stone edition” is right!!!
Click to expand...
The question should not be whether the Hebrew text uses a word best translated as ‘pierced’ or better translated as ‘stabbed’.

Instead, the question is the wording of John 19:37, which quotes Zecheriah 12:10 incorrectly.

You can find a Jewish perspective on this here.
 
SnakeMauler said:
Go with the Septuigant, everyone knows Jews started changing their scriptures later. Look:

youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s
Click to expand...
The Septuagint, the rabbi’s translation of the Hebrew to Greek, was only of the Torah or the five books of Moses. Christians often mistakenly refer to the Septuagint regarding this translation by the rabbi’s as also being a translation of the prophets. Secondly, the Torah is held in Jewish tradition to have been dictated from God to Moses. There are no “versions” of the Torah. A Torah scroll with even a single letter wrong may not be used. When the mass in-gathering of Jews occurred following the Jews regaining their independence over their homeland, Torah scrolls from Jewish communities around the world, many isolated, were gathered together. There were no textual differences in any of the Torah scrolls except for a single letter in scrolls from a single isolated Yemenite community, which had no effect on the textual meaning and was immediately corrected. Thirdly, the rabbi’s feared the possibility that their translation of the Torah into Greek could be tampered with. Therefore 15 key passages of the Septuagint translation were placed in the Talmud, Tractate Megilla 9a-9b, so that the Septuagint could always be compared to the original translation of these passages. In the current version of the Septuagint, Christian translators have altered the translation of thirteen of the fifteen passages that the rabbi’s placed into the Talmud.In other words, Christian translators have falsified the rabbi’s original Septuagint translation of the Torah and it cannot be relied upon for linguistic proof.
 
chosen_people said:
The Septuagint, the rabbi’s translation of the Hebrew to Greek, was only of the Torah or the five books of Moses. Christians often mistakenly refer to the Septuagint regarding this translation by the rabbi’s as also being a translation of the prophets. Secondly, the Torah is held in Jewish tradition to have been dictated from God to Moses. There are no “versions” of the Torah. A Torah scroll with even a single letter wrong may not be used. When the mass in-gathering of Jews occurred following the Jews regaining their independence over their homeland, Torah scrolls from Jewish communities around the world, many isolated, were gathered together. There were no textual differences in any of the Torah scrolls except for a single letter in scrolls from a single isolated Yemenite community, which had no effect on the textual meaning and was immediately corrected. Thirdly, the rabbi’s feared the possibility that their translation of the Torah into Greek could be tampered with. Therefore 15 key passages of the Septuagint translation were placed in the Talmud, Tractate Megilla 9a-9b, so that the Septuagint could always be compared to the original translation of these passages. In the current version of the Septuagint, Christian translators have altered the translation of thirteen of the fifteen passages that the rabbi’s placed into the Talmud.In other words, Christian translators have falsified the rabbi’s original Septuagint translation of the Torah and it cannot be relied upon for linguistic proof.
Click to expand...
Ok well you got me I was wrong? Forgive me?

Oh and btw what do Jews do for forgiveness of sins? is there still priests to kill animals and stuff and make atonement?
 
SnakeMauler said:
Ok well you got me I was wrong? Forgive me?

Oh and btw what do Jews do for forgiveness of sins? is there still priests to kill animals and stuff and make atonement?
Click to expand...
In Judaism there never was atonement for intentional sins through sacrifice. If you could atone through sacrifice for intentional sin than people would sin and feel all they had to do to atone was to make a sacrifice, no matter how horrible the sin. The only way to atone for an intentional sin, at all times in Judaism, including when the first and second Temple stood, was through prayer, repentance and charity. When the sin was against another person who was injured by the sin and incurred damage, then restitution was also required.

The Temple sacrifice was only for unintentional sins, did not necessarily require a blood sacrifice, for instance flour and incense were also used, and of course unintentional sin could also be atoned for by repentance, prayer and charity.

Christianity claims that Jews atoned for intentional sins through temple blood sacrifice. This is incorrect. Christian concepts concerning their messiah, of vicarious atonement, atonement through the sacrifice of human blood or atonement through faith rather than following the moral and ethical path of the Torah, all have no place in Judaism.
 
chosen_people said:
In Judaism there never was atonement for intentional sins through sacrifice. If you could atone through sacrifice for intentional sin than people would sin and feel all they had to do to atone was to make a sacrifice, no matter how horrible the sin. The only way to atone for an intentional sin, at all times in Judaism, including when the first and second Temple stood, was through prayer, repentance and charity. When the sin was against another person who was injured by the sin and incurred damage, then restitution was also required.

The Temple sacrifice was only for unintentional sins, did not necessarily require a blood sacrifice, for instance flour and incense were also used, and of course unintentional sin could also be atoned for by repentance, prayer and charity.

Christianity claims that Jews atoned for intentional sins through temple blood sacrifice. This is incorrect. Christian concepts concerning their messiah, of vicarious atonement, atonement through the sacrifice of human blood or atonement through faith rather than following the moral and ethical path of the Torah, all have no place in Judaism.
Click to expand...
To be fair, this is not quite accurate, though I understand your perspective (BTW, I am a jewish believer in Christ as the Messiah). The flour and incense offerings were laid “upon the altar” and the context indicates would have been included with the animal sacrificial offerings.

God said in Leviticus that atonement is through the blood. While sacrafice, without a pure heart would not lead to forgiveness, the entire levitical sacrificial system was based upon both “repentance” AND “sacrifice”.

In terms of vicarious atonement, when the high priest died, the sins of others were forgiven through His death.

In terms of “intentional sins” sacrifices on Yom Kippur provided atonement for both intentional and unintentional sins (this is taught in the Talmud). The asham/guilt offering, in conjunction with repentance, served as atonement for intentional sins.

The fact is that with the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, over 2/3 of the levitical/mosaic law could no longer be fulfilled. That, together with the Talmlud’s own recording of the fact that the sins of the Jewish people were not forgiven for the 40 years before the destruction of the temple (which coincided remarkably with the crucifiction and sacrifice of Christ (Yoma 39b) is something to think about (at least).

Blessings,

Brian
 
chosen_people said:
In Judaism there never was atonement for intentional sins through sacrifice. If you could atone through sacrifice for intentional sin than people would sin and feel all they had to do to atone was to make a sacrifice, no matter how horrible the sin. The only way to atone for an intentional sin, at all times in Judaism, including when the first and second Temple stood, was through prayer, repentance and charity. When the sin was against another person who was injured by the sin and incurred damage, then restitution was also required.

The Temple sacrifice was only for unintentional sins, did not necessarily require a blood sacrifice, for instance flour and incense were also used, and of course unintentional sin could also be atoned for by repentance, prayer and charity.

Christianity claims that Jews atoned for intentional sins through temple blood sacrifice. This is incorrect. Christian concepts concerning their messiah, of vicarious atonement, atonement through the sacrifice of human blood or atonement through faith rather than following the moral and ethical path of the Torah, all have no place in Judaism.
Click to expand...
Do the ancient (not modern) Jewish believe that the “life” of an animal or human being is in the blood?
 
Robbinson said:
The fact is that with the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, over 2/3 of the levitical/mosaic law could no longer be fulfilled. That, together with the Talmlud’s own recording of the fact that the sins of the Jewish people were not forgiven for the 40 years before the destruction of the temple (which coincided remarkably with the crucifiction and sacrifice of Christ (Yoma 39b) is something to think about (at least).

Blessings,

Brian
Click to expand...
Very Interesting, Brother. Could you give me a reference to it?
 
chosen_people said:
“They will look toward Me because of those whom they have stabbed”- (Stone edition)
והיביטו אלי את אשר-דקרו

You see how in your Christian english translation plurals are mixed up with singulars, how a comma is inserted in the wrong place and how the word stabbed is replaced with pierced to try and give the text some sort of connected meaning with Christianity - If you translate the hebrew passage properly and in context it refers to the fact that salvation will be so complete that people will be astonished if even one man is killed by the enemy.
Click to expand...
yes the Christian english translation is different. this is why i keep a Jewish english translation to get a more full picture. i dont believe you can ever truly understand Christianity, without a clear understanding of Judaism, and a love for the Jewish people. we are for all intents and purposes sister religions. and my hope is that one day we may be one again. i believe the Creator will work this out in his own good time. Peace and blessings to you and yours. shalom 🙂
 
chosen_people said:
In Judaism there never was atonement for intentional sins through sacrifice. If you could atone through sacrifice for intentional sin than people would sin and feel all they had to do to atone was to make a sacrifice, no matter how horrible the sin. The only way to atone for an intentional sin, at all times in Judaism, including when the first and second Temple stood, was through prayer, repentance and charity. When the sin was against another person who was injured by the sin and incurred damage, then restitution was also required.

The Temple sacrifice was only for unintentional sins, did not necessarily require a blood sacrifice, for instance flour and incense were also used, and of course unintentional sin could also be atoned for by repentance, prayer and charity.

Christianity claims that Jews atoned for intentional sins through temple blood sacrifice. This is incorrect. Christian concepts concerning their messiah, of vicarious atonement, atonement through the sacrifice of human blood or atonement through faith rather than following the moral and ethical path of the Torah, all have no place in Judaism.
Click to expand...
JL: Unintentional sin and Intentional sin, would be what the NT scripture and the Church call venial and mortal sin. 1Jn5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. 16 If any man see his brother sin a SIN which is NOT UNTO DEATH [venial not mortal], he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that SIN NOT UNTO DEATH [venial]. THERE IS A SIN UNTO DEATH [MORTAL]: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and THERE IS A SIN NOT UNTO DEATH [venial].

I would be interested to see how you view the following OT scripture;

Lv 5:4 Or if a person thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil in any matter one might carelessly swear about even though he is unaware of it, in any case when he learns of it he will be guilty. 5 When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned 6 and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Lv 19:20-22 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. 21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. 22: And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

Nbs 5: 5-7 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 6: Speak unto the children of Israel, When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against the LORD, and that person be guilty; 7: Then they shall confess their sin which they have done: and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed.
 
I respectfully disagree with Chosen People’s assertion that sacrifices were never offered for intentional sins. I believe, however, that sacrifices were not the exclusive means of attonement, and Chosen People is correct when he says prayer, repentence, etc., were also used as a method of attonement.

As set forth in Hosea 14:3, we render instead of bullocks the offering of our lips (Hosea 14:3).

Also, King Solomon confirmed that prayer is a valid means to obtain forgiveness of sins, I Kings, 8:46.

Over time, the standard jewish prayer service has evolved to parallel the system of sacrifices which, as everyone agrees, was largely abandoned after the destruction of the Temple.

Chosen People was also correct when he pointed out that a blood sacrifice was not the only means of obtaining forgivness from sins. There were grain offerings, etc. Also, look at the book of Jonah. An entire town is forgiven of their sins without any sacrifice whatsoever.

Finally, from a Jewish perspective, the blood sacrifice was anything but a symbol of a savior to come. More likely, it was a holdover from older pagan practices. A concession to our tendancy to backslide into known traditions. So, rather than prohibit sacrifices outright, since they were a pagan practice and therefore a danger, Judaism transformed the sacrifice in such a way as to strengthen their connection with God. By instituting strict rules as to when, where and how, it ensured that sacrifices would strengthen the monothesitic religion, rather than work as a tool to encourage paganistic behavior.
 
To put it simply, there’s nothing in Torah or tradition that says blood sacrifice is the only way to attone for one’s sins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top