Questions about the Jews

[mlchance]

RSiscoe:

Jewish race as a whole is guilty.

RSiscoe:

Anyone who disagrees with what I am saying is really disagreeing with God, not me.

News flash, RSiscoe. You’re neither God nor God’s designated mouthpiece. According to the Church, who does have the authority to speak for God (emphases added):

**597 **The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:
. . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.
**598 **In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured." Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:
We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.

Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.
Holy Mother Church herself refutes you, and Scripture advises that “silence is the beginning of wisdom.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[RSiscoe]

mlchance:

News flash, RSiscoe. You’re neither God nor God’s designated mouthpiece. According to the Church, who does have the authority to speak for God (emphases added):

**597 **The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:. . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.

**598 **In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured." Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.

Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.

Holy Mother Church herself refutes you, and Scripture advises that “silence is the beginning of wisdom.”

– Mark L. Chance.

Simple Question: Do you believe “the Jews killed… the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thes. 2:14-1)? Do you believe that or not. Notice it does not say “Jews killed…”, but “THE Jews killed…”. Do you believe that, or not?

One more question: What did the Church teach regarding this subject from the year AD33 up to 1965?

And the Church did not change this truth taught in the Bible. All it did was to state the obvious: that all Jews are not individually guilty for that murder. Only the Jews that actually took part in it are guilty. But that does not nullify what the Bible clearly says and what the Church has always taught.

mlchance:

News flash, RSiscoe. You’re neither God nor God’s designated mouthpiece.

Fair enough. So let’s remove my words from the equation. Forget my words. Do you believe the words of God:

“The Jews killed… the Lord Jesus Christ”.

Do you, or do you not, believe those words of God as recorded in the Bible? Either you believe them or you don’t: which is it?

If you reject the words of God, please explain why. If you accept them, please explain why you disagree with me, who am saying the exact same thing.

 

[mlchance]

Which is it, RSiscoe? Is it this?:

RSiscoe:

…all Jews are not individually guilty for [the murder of Christ]. Only the Jews that actually took part in it are guilty.

Or this?:

[The]
Jewish race as a whole is guilty.

You can’t even keep your own story straight, and yet you expect people to think you are an authoritative interpreter of Scripture and Church teaching?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

My, y’all certainly have been busy the past few days. It is Saturday night here & Shabbat (i.e. the Sabbath) has been over for about 3.5 hours. On Shabbat (from sundown Friday to nightfall Saturday), orthodox Jews don’t use most electric/electronic devices, including TVs, radios, phones & computers. (See jewfaq.org/shabbat.htm for a good introductory read.) And DW & I are usually way too busy on Friday dealing with Da Boyz and cooking & cleaning (both the flat & ourselves) for her to let me anywhere even remotely near the computer. So, Shabbat being out, I’m now online.

Catholic Dude, you posted:

I admit that Im not quite sure what the Amos 3:12 means. is this saying with big responsibility comes big judgement?

It means (inter alia) that God picks on us because He holds us to higher standards (that 613 vs 7 thing; see one of my previous posts) & chastises us when don’t measure up.

Is this saying that a few people can cause the rest to pay even in the future.

Yes. One of my rabbis told me that we (collectively) are still paying for the sin of the Golden Calf & that of the spies.

I mean no disrespect in this…was Hitler chosen by God? Did this happen because of the reasons mentioned?

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=373714&highlight=Isaiah#post373714.

When I look in the atlas i see a “new” country called ISRAEL…This has to mean something?

I like to look at the last two verses in Amos:

And I will turn the captivity of My people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be plucked up out of their land which I have given them, says the Lord your God."

& Deuteronomy 30:2-5.

And you shall return unto the Lord your God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart, and with all your soul; that then the Lord your God will turn your captivity, and have compassion upon you, and will return and gather you from all the peoples, whither the Lord your God has scattered you. If any of you that are dispersed be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord your God gather you, and from thence will He fetch you. And the Lord your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will do you good, and multiply you above your fathers.

Howzat?

As to the whole “Who killed Jesus?” question, that is an intramural Christian debate which I’m going to stay out of. I certainly don’t feel that I and my fellow Jews today are in anyway guilty in least bit. (To the degree that it may be relevant, Caiphas was a Saducee heretic.) But I do have a question. As I understand it, Christ’s death on the cross & subsequent resurrecton were two parts of one salvific act that Christianity holds was beneficial to humanity. If this is the case, why blame us (in the negative/accusatory/perjorative sense)?

Be well!

ssv

 

[RSiscoe]

mlchance:

Which is it, RSiscoe? Is it this?:

Or this?:

You can’t even keep your own story straight, and yet you expect people to think you are an authoritative interpreter of Scripture and Church teaching?

– Mark L. Chance.

I notice that you will not answer the question I asked. And my story is straight. If you read through my posts, I have been saying the same thing. When the Bible says “The Jews killed … the Lord Jesus Christ” it is true. The Jews killed Him. Inidvidual Jews are not guilty unless they took part in it.

However, the entire Jewish race (who have not converted to the truth) are suffering as a result of their ancestors killed God. The Old Testament predicted that they would suffer for it (collectively) and they have been. Even they will admit they are being punished by God, but they don’t realize why.

Why won’t you answer the simple question I asked in my last post?

 

[trogiah]

stillsmallvoice:

Hi all!

The Hebrew phrase is sinat chinam. These 3 short articles aish.com/tishabav/tishabavdefault/Kamtza_and_Bar_Kamtza.asp, ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1101 & aish.com/tishabav/tishabavdefault/Bickering_While_the_Temple_Burns.asp explain it very nicely. By the way, as a point of reference, we mourn the Temples’ destructions (and some other things) on the

ssv

I read those articles and found them to put forth a message very much like what I believe Jesus taught.

"But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny. "

Thus it seems that being at peace with our brother, (our neighbor, our fellow human being) is more important than any offering that we might bring to God’s altar. (Or to the temple?)

I think that is a message that is lost among many who claim to be following God. The Jewish people are not the only ones who have lost a great deal by getting caught up in gratuitous hatred. History and current events are filled with examples.

God give us the sense to set priorities as they should be.

peace,

-Jim

 

[Catholic_Dude]

wow that stuff about turning off even the fridge lightbulb tells me that this is an important time! but at the same time there is so much to it i cant comprehend, especially living as an American in 2005. one of the most mind blowing things to me is how a human can keep all these (is it 613?) commandments and rituals.

well here i go again juming all over the map with more questions!
(i see stuff here and there and it just reminds me or gets me thinking.)

1)here is a classic: "how did Creation happen in days when the sun didnt exist to allow for day and night?
i guess that a day in this sense is independent of the sun? what do Jews think in terms of space, like earth being sphere, why there are other planets, 365 days/year etc? (now for some real crazy ones, why is there so much uninhabitable space on earth, like oceans, deserts, tundra?)

2)what do Jews believe about Adam and Eve in the sense that they populated the Earth (up till Noah?), they only had sons?

1. now for the golden calf. did this just appear out of the fire or were they making it on purpose? I thought they had the 10 Commandments (ie knew about “no other Gods”), but isnt Moses just coming down with them. is Mount Sinai sacred now?
2. did the Jews help/forced-to build the pyramids/palaces in Egypt or is this wrong place and time? also you mentioned something about how the Jews keep years (ie no AD) …what year is it now and when did it start?

 

[manualman]

stillsmallvoice:

But I do have a question. As I understand it, Christ’s death on the cross & subsequent resurrecton were two parts of one salvific act that Christianity holds was beneficial to humanity. If this is the case, why blame us (in the negative/accusatory/perjorative sense)?

Bingo! Same reason the church in her wisdom calls the day of the crucifixion ‘Good Friday.’ (That one puzzled me for years) I wish more christians understood this concept as well as you do. (Although beneficial is rather an understatement)

Catholic Dude, Jewish lingo for B.C. is BCE(before common era)
Their AD is CE (Common era). No conversion equation. 2004 AD = 2004 CE.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Trogiah, you posted:

I read those articles and found them to put forth a message very much like what I believe Jesus taught.

I have always said that we orthodox Jews & you Roman catholics have much in common!

Catholic Dude, I will answer your first & second questions together.

First, about a “literal reading” of the Tanakh. I don’t think that any two people could agree on a “literal reading” of, say, Genesis (certainly mine, as an orthodox Jew and based on the original Hebrew, will probably differ in many particulars from that of a fundamentalist Protestant, based on the KJV); such a thing is inherently subjective and based on our own idiosyncrasies, psychological/emotional/spiritual baggage and personal it-seems-to-me’s. Thus, we should be very leery of basing beliefs and/or arguments on a “literal reading” of the scriptures. Those who do insist on a strict, narrow, “literal” interpretation of this or that section of scripture are, I believe, forcing it into a literary and spiritual strait-jacket entirely of their own devising that does no justice to the scriptures…

So, that being said, how do I, the orthodox Jew, view the Torah? Well, of course, I believe that it (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) is the literal word of God as He revealed it to Moses our Teacher. We believe that the Torah can be understood/appreciated/interpreted on any of four general levels ranging from that which is most in accord with a close reading of the (original Hebrew!!!) text, to the metaphorical, to the most rarefied and esoteric (the grasp of which is waaay beyond most of us). Who is to say which chapter and verse of Genesis is to be best understood or appreciated on which level? Moreover, our Sages say that the Torah is like a diamond with many facets, each with its own brilliance, each offering a different perspective from which to behold the wondrous jewel.

Lastly, I would humbly argue that we are grasping at trees & missing the forest. What is more important, (sterile?) debates over whether Genesis proves/supports or disproves/opposes this or that theory of creation or evolution, or whether the Flood “really happened” or discussing, studying and seeking to internalize its sublime moral, ethical and spiritual truths (such as befit the word of God)?

I heard a story that Karl Barth once gave a lecture on Genesis 3 at the University of Chicago. When it came time for the question and answer portion, a student spoke up and said “Dr. Barth, you don’t really believe snakes could talk do you?” Barth replied, “I could care less whether or not snakes could talk. What I’m interested in is what the snake said.”

I’ll add one more thing. It always gets me how some religious folk, usually of a more fundamentalist bent, treat the scriptures as if they were some kind of adult version of a first grade reader, i.e. with everything very simply/simplistically laid out & spelled out, no depth, no use of simile, metaphor & allegory, no layers of meaning, and with shallow, uncomplex characters who never have mixed motives. This is not the Jewish view at all! We see the Tanakh as possessing limitless depth, a rich, oftentimes allegorical & metaphorical, language that lends itself to a multiplicity of interpretations (within limits) and a vast reservoir of multi-layered meaning. The characters are complex & not made out of cardboard.

I hope this helps!

You posted:

1. now for the golden calf. did this just appear out of the fire or were they making it on purpose? I thought they had the 10 Commandments (ie knew about “no other Gods”), but isnt Moses just coming down with them. is Mount Sinai sacred now?

No, we made it on purpose. Aaron’s statement in Exodus 32:24, ("…and there came out this calf…") is hollow & insincere. Although, to Aaron’s credit, our Sages note that when Moses went up Mt. Sinai, he left Aaron and Hur in charge (see Exodus 24:12-14). Yet when we get to the incident of the Calf in 32:1-6, Hur is not mentioned. Our Sages teach that he sought to dissuade us from making the Calf and was murdered by the mob. Thus, when we told Aaron (32:1), “Up make us a god…,” it was over Hur’s murdered corpse. Not surprisingly, Aaron acceded to the mob’s wishes. But even so, Aaron sought to play for time. He said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast unto the Lord…,” hoping that Moses would reurn by then.

Our Sages teach that the women did not participate in the Sin of the Golden Calf, and neither did the tribe of Levi (being a Levite, I’m kinda proud o’ that!).

(cont.)

 

[stillsmallvoice]

(cont.)

Our Sages say that the rite of the red heifer atones for the sin of the Golden Calf. There’s a parable that a king had a servant woman whose baby made a mess in the king’s palace. He said “Let the mother come and clean up the mess.” This is more than just a cutesy story. The sin of the Golden Calf represented the ultimate extreme in hedonistic, totally self-centered, God-denial (“What do we want? A god! When do we want it? NOW!”). Our sages present the paradox of the rite of the red heifer (as per Numbers 19:5-10 and 19:21, it rendered the ritually clean impure, and as per 19:14-19, it rendered the ritually impure clean), its inexplicability, as signifying our submission to God (i.e, we carry out the rite of the red heifer, which defies logic, because God says so). Thus, it does atone for the sin of the Golden Calf. (19:3-4 specifies that Elazar was to officiate at the first carrying out of the rite; Aaron was ineligible to carry out the rite due to his role in the sin of the Golden Calf.)

I’ve heard that one reason why Moses smashed the first set of tablets of the Ten Commandments was that once he saw that we were worshipping the Calf, he was afraid that we would worship the tablets. Thus, he smashed them. (Exactly why King Hezekiah smashed the Brass Serpent; see II Kings 18:4.)

As far as I know, we ascribe no special sanctity to Mt. Sinai today.

1. did the Jews help/forced-to build the pyramids/palaces in Egypt or is this wrong place and time? also you mentioned something about how the Jews keep years (ie no AD) …what year is it now and when did it start?

I think that the pyramids were already there when we got to Egypt.

This jewfaq.org/calendar.htm will answer your questions about our calendar, why we don’t say “AD”, etc.

Manualman, thank you for responding to my question!

Be well!

ssv

 

[Catholic_Dude]

good stuff!

i looked into some stuff on Jewfaq.com.

1)i have never heard about this holiday, Shavu’ot. it says it is when God gave Moses the Torah! This sounds HUGE to me, so what happened, that is a foundation for Jews.

well i dont have any more questions now.
but im looking at Jewfaq.com and I should have more!

 

[Exporter]

stillsmallvoice http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_382546”, true);
Regular Member
Join Date: September 25, 2004
Location: Maaleh Adumim, Israel
Posts: 148

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Questions about the Jews
Hi Catholic Dude (glad to make your cyberacquaintance)!

As CAF’s resident orthodox Jew, I’ll take a go at your questions. Lessee here…

Stillsmallvoice,
I am glad I found an Orthodox Jews from Isreal.

I asked this question of a Rabbi here in Texas last yesr and he talked all around the question but didn’t answer it. It is:

In our Bible we raed about the Isrealites. They always talk about “the Isrealites”. Here in the USA we talk about “Jews”.

Can you tell me when did the Jews arise? Was Moses an Isrealite? Where did the Jews come from? Did the Isrealites migrate off into Russia and Europe. Were the Isrealites the Lost Tribe?

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Catholic Dude, jewfaq.org/toc.htm is about as good an introduction-to-Judaism site as I’ve come across. Their article on Shavuot (literally “Weeks”"; jewfaq.org/holidayc.htm) is pretty good. We read the Book of Ruth (ou.org/chagim/shavuot/ruth.htm), Exodus 19:1-20:23, Ezekiel 1:1-28/3:12 during morning prayers on Shavuot, and sing special hymns (ou.org/chagim/shavuot/akdamot.htm). There is also the custom to eat dairy foods so DW & I will make things like quiches, pies, cheesecake, etc.

Exporter, I’m glad to make your cyberacquaintance!

I think that this

Origins of the Words “Jew” and "Judaism"

The original name for the people we now call Jews was Hebrews. The word “Hebrew” (in Hebrew, “Ivri”) is first used in the Torah to describe Abraham (Gen. 14:13). The word is apparently derived from the name Eber, one of Abraham’s ancestors. Another tradition teaches that the word comes from the word “eyver,” which means “the other side,” referring to the fact that Abraham came from the other side of the Euphrates, or referring to the fact Abraham was separated from the other nations morally and spiritually.

Another name used for the people is Children of Israel or Israelites, which refers to the fact that the people are descendants of Jacob, who was also called Israel.

The word “Jew” (in Hebrew, “Yehudi”) is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob’s twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means “Judah-ism,” that is, the religion of the Yehudim. Other sources, however, say that the word “Yehudim” means “People of G-d,” because the first three letters of “Yehudah” are the same as the first three letters of G-d’s four-letter name.

Originally, the term Yehudi referred specifically to members of the tribe of Judah, as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel. However, after the death of King Solomon, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12; II Chronicles 10). After that time, the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

In the 6th century B.C.E., the kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyria and the ten tribes were exiled from the land (II Kings 17), leaving only the tribes in the kingdom of Judah remaining to carry on Abraham’s heritage. These people of the kingdom of Judah were generally known to themselves and to other nations as Yehudim (Jews), and that name continues to be used today. In common speech, the word “Jew” is used to refer to all of the physical and spiritual descendants of Jacob/Israel, as well as to the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and their wives, and the word “Judaism” is used to refer to their beliefs. Technically, this usage is inaccurate, just as it is technically inaccurate to use the word “Indian” to refer to the original inhabitants of the Americas. However, this technically inaccurate usage is common both within the Jewish community and outside of it, and is therefore used throughout this site.

Link: jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

and this jewfaq.org/ashkseph.htm should answer most of your questions.

(cont.)

 

[stillsmallvoice]

(cont.)

“Israelite” & “Israeli” are not the same thing. As per the above excerpt, “Israelite” is a Biblical term. An “Israeli” is a citizen of the modern State of Israel. Only 80% of Israelis are Jews. The other 20% is composed of Christians (tinyurl.com/6vwoy), Druze (tinyurl.com/6z9g5) and Muslims (tinyurl.com/4w52u).

After the destructions of the First and Second Temples :crying: and the concomitant dispersions/exiles, one began to see large Jewish communities, that were originally founded by the exiles, in the various countries outside the Land of Israel (see jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Diaspora.html). Many Jews from what is now European Russia migrated there from points further west in the Middle Ages, although there were Jewish communities there dating from much earlier times (see jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/russia.html & jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/ukraine.html).

Howzat?

Be well & be in touch!

ssv

 

[Catholic_Dude]

im back. i was very busy these last few days.
i read almost all of jewfaq.com and it probably saved 20 posts worth of questions. it took about 7 hours of reading, but it shed a lot of light on things.
well some new questions

1. “…the Torah tells us not to “boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21).”
   (jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm)

to me this seems inherently wrong to do to food/animals, yet i dont understand how this prohibits dairy and meat at the same meal. this seems to indicate a pagan practice or something that God didnt want the Jews to follow. shouldnt a verse have said something like “no mixing dairy and meat”.

1. that stuff about separate dishes, pots, pans, etc. for dairy/meat…
   If meat touches a dairy dish is the dish garbage? how can it be cleaned?.. it says that you need two separate towels, sinks, etc, so how can something with both kinds be cleaned. …if something is "cleaned " then there should be no need for more towels, sinks, dishwashers, etc. it is “clean”, the “bad stuff” no longer exists.

3)i read the 613 as best as i could, here is one that stuck out. "273 Never to settle in the land of Egypt (Deut. 17:16) (CCN192). "

In the Catholic bible there are deuterocanonical books, I have read that some of these books were written by Jews living in Egypt. i understand the negative feeling for Egypt, but does this extend to now?

4)i cant remember if this was asked or not. What do the Jews think of the Deuterocanonical books?

1.   "There are no formal religious requirements for naming a child. The name has       no inherent religious significance. In fact, the child's "Hebrew name" need       not even be Hebrew; [Yiddish](http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/yiddish.htm) names are often used, or even English ones. ("http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm)

This one strikes me a odd. All through the OT someone is given a name of some significant meaning. you dont name your kid Harod, Cain, Molech, etc. To me a name (both first and last) is one of the most important things a person can have.

6)who was Melchizedek? What do the Jews think about him? important or not?

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi Catholic Dude!

Lessee here…

1. "…the Torah

tells us not to “boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21)."
(jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm)

to me this seems inherently wrong to do to food/animals, yet i dont understand how this prohibits dairy and meat at the same meal. this seems to indicate a pagan practice or something that God didnt want the Jews to follow. shouldnt a verse have said something like “no mixing dairy and meat”.

Your question is entirely understandable & natural since you are looking at the Written Torah only. It is a cardinal ( SMILEY) belief of traditional, normative (i.e. orthodox) Judaism that just as God gave us a Written Torah, so too He gave us an Oral Torah. If you’ve gone through jewfaq.org/toc.htm, then you’ve come across:

In addition to the written scriptures we have an “Oral Torah,” a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe God taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained in oral form only until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah

.

Over the next few centuries, additional commentaries elaborating on the Mishnah were written down in Jerusalem and Babylon. These additional commentaries are known as the Gemara. The Gemara and the Mishnah together are known as the Talmud. This was completed in the 5th century C.E.

There are actually two Talmuds: the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian one is more comprehensive, and is the one most people mean when they refer to The Talmud. There have been additional commentaries on the Talmud by such noted Jewish scholars as Rashi and Rambam.

Link: jewfaq.org/torah.htm

We believe in an unbroken chain of tradition going all the way back to Moses our Teacher that is at the heart of our belief in an Oral Torah as well. We believe that God gave both a Written and an Oral Torah to Moses. As per the above excerpt, the Talmud is a major codification of the Oral Torah. Through these (now written down) oral traditions, we understand how to understand the text of the Written Torah. (Ferinstance, the Oral Torah tells us that the adage “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.,” was never meant to be taken literally but instead means that someone who gouges out another’s eye must compensate him monetarily for the loss of his eye. The Oral Torah tells us about the kosher method of slaughtering animals, referred to in passing in Deuteronomy 12:21. Etc. etc. See tinyurl.com/2ffy8 and tinyurl.com/2uyfp for a good intro on this very key Jewish concept.)

There is a tradition that after God told Moses about not boiling a kid in its mother’s milk & Moses wrote it down, He started telling Moses about not mixing dairy and meat in all its details. Moses started writing down the details. God told him not to. Moses thereupon asked how succeeding generations of Jews would know the details. God replied, “Because you’re going to teach them to Aaron, Joshua & the elders. They’ll teach them to their children, who will teach them to their children, etc. ad infinitum.”

(cont.)

 

[stillsmallvoice]

(cont.)

1. that stuff about separate dishes, pots, pans, etc. for dairy/meat…
   If meat touches a dairy dish is the dish garbage? how can it be cleaned?.. it says that you need two separate towels, sinks, etc, so how can something with both kinds be cleaned. …if something is "cleaned " then there should be no need for more towels, sinks, dishwashers, etc. it is “clean”, the “bad stuff” no longer exists.

This depends. If you use a utensil that you normally use for meat, for dairy, whether or not it can be “re-koshered” depends on what it’s made of & whether the dairy stuff you put in it was hot or cold and whether or not you actually cooked stuff in it. I don’t know all the details (that’s what rabbis are for).

3)i read the 613 as best as i could, here is one that stuck out. "273 Never to settle in the land of Egypt (Deut. 17:16) (CCN192). "

In the Catholic bible there are deuterocanonical books, I have read that some of these books were written by Jews living in Egypt. i understand the negative feeling for Egypt, but does this extend to now?

How’s this:

** Deuteronomy 17:16: Moreover, he shall not keep many horses or send people back to Egypt to add to his horses since the Lord has warned you, “You must not go back that way again.”

**The rulers of the nations had three methods of increasing their glory and thereby strengthening their rule. The first was pageantry to inspire the masses with awe. The accumulation of horses contributed greatly to this end and also served to display the king’s military might. The second method was to marry into many other royal houses. Many wives would bring them many alliances and would produce many royal sons. The third means of self-aggrandizement was in amassing large fortunes. The Torah condemns all three methods in this and the following verse.

The king the Torah envisions has no need to strengthen his throne through these means. Military prowess comes from God—witness David’s miraculous victory over Goliath. The words of the Psalms echo this: “There is no king saved by the multitude of a host; a mighty man is not delivered by great strength. A horse is a vain thing for safety; not shall he save by his great strength.” (Psalms. 32:16-17) As for wealth, the words of the Torah are “more to be desired… than gold, even much fine gold.” (Psalms 19:11)

The prohibition against owning horses actually only forbids accumulating more horses than are absolutely necessary for the maintenance of his court and his chariots. The danger in amassing these animals is in the inevitable contact with the land of Egypt since horses were always purchased there. Jews would visit Egypt and would trade with Egyptians, a condition that existed in the time of King Solomon, who bought a great many horses from Egypt. A return to the land of Egypt symbolized a return to a point in Israel’s history when they lacked any spirituality and moral direction. Through his passion for wealth and the status owning many horses would give him, a king would set an example for his people that material possessions were paramount. He would undermine his people’s ideals, and this would be tantamount to “returning” them to Egypt. God lifted Israel out of bondage in order to instill the value of the Torah within His Chosen People and endow them with some spiritual striving.

There are three verses in the Torah which forbid the return to Egypt.

The first is in Parshat BeShallach, when Moses calmed the fears of the Children of Israel before the parting of the Red Sea with the words: “Have no fear…for the Egyptians whom you see today you will never see again.” (Exodus 14:13) The second verse is the one we are dealing with here, and the third appears in Parshat Ki Tavo when Israel is threatened with a return to Egypt in chains “by a route which I [God] told you that you should not see again” if they abrogate their covenant with God. (Deuteronomy 28:68)

One is permitted to return to Egypt for business dealings, but not to settle there. If a king of Israel were to conquer the land of Egypt, then Jews would be allowed to live there because it no longer would be in the possession of idolaters.

(cont.)

 

[stillsmallvoice]

(cont.)

Yet through the ages many Jews lived in Egypt, and it had, at one point, a thriving Jewish community. We must understand that the prohibition only applied to leaving the Land of Israel to settle in Egypt but not to immigrating there from other lands of the Diaspora. Moreover, the ancient Egyptians who subjugated the Jews have long since disappeared, and for many centuries Egypt has been occupied by other Middle Eastern groups who had migrated there.

There were three instances when Israel was punished for returning to the land of Egypt. The first was when, threatened by an impeding invasion by Sennacherib, they turned to Egypt for aid. The second was after Babylonia conquered Judea and Yochanan ben Kareach and his followers refused to listen to God’s word given by Jeremiah to remain in the Land and not to move to Egypt. The third was after the destruction of the Second Beit HaMikdash when many Jews fled to Egypt thinking it a safe haven, only to have the Roman Emperor Trajan, about fifty years later, destroy the entire Jewish community of Egypt.

Link: jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=1214

You asked:

4)i cant remember if this was asked or not. What do the Jews think of the Deuterocanonical books?

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=369844&highlight=Maccabees#post369844.

1. "There are no formal religious requirements for naming a child. The name has no inherent religious significance. In fact, the child’s “Hebrew name” need not even be Hebrew; Yiddish

names are often used, or even English ones. ("http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm)

This one strikes me a odd. All through the OT someone is given a name of some significant meaning. you dont name your kid Harod, Cain, Molech, etc. To me a name (both first and last) is one of the most important things a person can have.

Yes, I would agree with you that one’s name is very important. I’m rather superstitious about this & disapprove of giving kids names of Biblical figures whose reputations aren’t so good. Jepthah is a fairly popular name with secular Israelis; it makes me shudder.

6)who was Melchizedek? What do the Jews think about him? important or not?

See jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=383&letter=M&search=Melchizedek.

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I didnt quite get what was being said about Melchizdek. So was he turned into a superman figure, but was actually a nobody? He is called a priest, yet of what? And that Ethiopian stuff, I cant understand if the Jews accept that account or not.

I looked around JewishEncyclopedia and it was great.
heres some stuff I looked up…
1)Leviathan

2)Baal

3)Sadducees- the Jewish version of Protestantism?
These guys interest me, yet there seems to be little info on them. So what was so bad about the Sadducees? They seemed well educated, rich and powerful. Why couldnt they only believe in the written Torah?..they seemed to be able to back up their positions. Yet at the same time what did they think of King David, the prophets, etc?.. I doubt they would disregard them.
These guys seem like Ultra Conservative Jews in the fact that they dont change with the times. Did i miss something. I dont understand how these guys died off.
So what is the biggest flaw or weak point of the Sadducees?

This opens up a Huge can of worms to me. I said above they seem like Protestants in a way, yet conservatives in another. What is the point of all that “extra stuff” after the Law, did God really intend to have anything but the Law? But wait they relied on the Temple, which was after the Law. Im confused!

Well ill keep searching for more stuff on Jewish Encyclopedia!

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi Catholic Dude!

I apologize for taking so long to reply. Lessee…

I’ve dug up more stuff about Melchizedek. In the following excerpt, I’ve added some explanatory notes in square brackets.

Siddur Avodat Yisrael [a prayerbook] writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim [the Hebrew word for “Psalms”] which corresponds to each parashah [weekly Torah reading] --this week Psalm 110. The Midrash Shocher Tov [a collection of rabbinic homilies & traditions] and the gemara (Nedarim 32b) [a section of the Talmud] interpret this chapter as referring to events in Avraham’s life.

When Avraham returned from defeating the Four Kings (as described in this week’s parashah), he was met by Malki-Tzedek, King of Shalem (i.e., Yerushalayim [Hebrew for “Jerusalem”]). The Torah says of Malki-Tzedek (14:18), “He was a priest of G-d.”

Upon meeting Avraham, Malki-Tzedek said (14:19-20), “Blessed is
Avram . . . and blessed is G-d.”

Avraham responded, the gemara tells us, “Do you then bless the servant before the Master?”

Immediately, the gemara [a section of the Talmud] says, priesthood was stripped from Malki-Tzedek and given to Avraham and his descendants. Thus we read in our chapter of Tehilim [Psalms] (verse 4), “You shall be a priest forever, in accord with Malki-Tzedek’s word.” This means, the gemara explains, because of Malki-Tzedek’s word.

Maharal [acronym for Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague, 1525-1609]explains that a kohen [priest] must keep Hashem [God] at the forefront of his thoughts, and Malki-Tzedek demonstrated by his words that he did not do so. (Chidushei Aggadot [a book by Rabbi Loew])

Alternatively, this chapter may be interpreted as referring to mashiach [the Messiah]. Ramban [Rabbi Moses Ben Nahman also known as Nahmanides, 1194-1270] explains that King David called his descendant “My master” (verse 1) as a tribute to mashiach’s greatness. All of the military victories which G-d wrought for David pale in comparison to what He will do for mashiach (Sefer Ha’vikuach [a book by Nahmanides]).

Link: acoast.com/pub/sehc/hamaayan/9596/lechlech.956

(cont.)