Paul Bethke vs the 613 Mitzvot

[Paul Bethke]

And, like so many Christians, you have almost no correct knowledge about Judaism. Therefore you have no basis for determining whether a Jew is a good Jew or not, in the sense of being true to the Jewish faith and teachings.

Judaism is very complicated and is made up of so many sects—so as Jesus stated the Ten Commands are what a person is judged by—now he had a good understanding of the faith.

Non sequitur. Your exegetical tradition fits an established pattern whether you know the name of the pattern or not.

But they still eat pig.

Your obsession over the decalogue doesn't fix all the other errors you've made in all the other parts of the Torah you use, including your misunderstanding of Judaic doctrine, history, and culture. Spare us the irrelevant scripture dumps.

You are spared—the Ten Commands are the thread throughout the Hebrew nation—understanding when and where the Hebrews sinned can be seen where they violated the Ten Commands.

The Decalogue was the centre of all that the Creator determined as the basis of the faith—there is no other foundation—it is the means to understand sin, and it will be the means to judge the world—it encompasses all the moral actions of people.

Do not lie.
Do not steal.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not covet your neighbours wife.

This is what makes people sinners, and those that avoid this are the righteous.

So how can I not refer to the Scriptures—they are prophetic in nature, so they are not understood by you.

 

[Crossbow]

Perhaps in isolated cases--but that is not the norm---so the fragile tissue is the problem.

But it is still a corruption of what the Creator designed.

Well then, ...

Since you have so much special knowledge of your god, then you should make a "Safe Sex" video for us regular humans so that we can know for sure what sexual practices are safe and which sexual practices are damned.

 

[JayUtah]

Judaism is very complicated and is made up of so many sects—

Most religions are complicated and made up of many sects. That is why, when you insinuate that someone is not a good exemplar of his religion, you need to have the actual facts regarding that religion, not just what you were told about it by a competing religion. Even better, one should practice the religion to determine how it is actually practiced. Since you do none of those things with regard to Judaism, your opinion about whether any person is a "good Jew" is worthless.

But they still eat pig.

Did you look up what "exegetical tradition" means?

You are spared—the Ten Commands are the thread throughout the Hebrew nation—

You are not an expert on Judaism.

So how can I not refer to the Scriptures—

You spew random irrelevant scripture passages instead of answering the actual questions that were asked. Insisting that they are relevant doesn't make them so. You seem to lack ordinary knowledge. You appear to compensate for that by offering knee-jerk scripture references coughed up by your computer Bible tool, and then create a fantasy that the ability to do this somehow qualifies as an erudition unique to you.

...they are prophetic in nature, so they are not understood by you.

No, there is no magical understanding that only you possess. You need to find a better argument than accusing your critics of being stupid.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Studying/learning/knowing history has zero to do with being a jew or not.

You did not answer my question.

Why not?



So why do you reject the historical truth? Why do you refuse to see the truth?

Unlike you, I have studied history. It is your choice if you want to remain ignorant of historical and archeaological facts.

Are you going to answer my question or not?

What was your question it is not clear—I too have studied the history of the Jew which is recorded in the Bible—I have worked for Jews and have worked with Jews, Jews lie and steal and commit adultery.

The sins that cost two Temples are still being committed.

But what is the best is that I have met the real Jew, so I still have hope.

 

[JayUtah]

I too have studied the history of the Jew which is recorded in the Bible—

...and elsewhere, which you clearly have not studied. Contrary to your protests, all knowledge is not contained in the Bible. And if you learned "the history of the Jews" from Christian Sunday school, then no you really don't know enough to determine whether someone is a good Jew.

I have worked for Jews and have worked with Jews, Jews lie and steal and commit adultery.

You're going to want to revise this accusation to say exactly which Jews you think do this.

Mere contact with people gives you no special insight into their religion, culture, history, or society. Did you attend worship services with them? Did you discuss the Torah with them? Did you compare notes on obedience to the mitzvot?

But what is the best is that I have met the real Jew, so I still have hope.

Elaborate. Who is "the real Jew?"

 

[Zivan]

But then you like many other Jews people.......

FTFY

.......have not taken cognizance of what the Prophet prophesied---Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Emmanuel.

Still using your crappy translation I see. The hebrew does not say what your false, crappy english "translation" says.

Also, that is not a prophecy.

The prophecy is verse 16. Read it. It refers to the first verse (7:1). Do you even bother to READ chapter 7? Obviously not. You just cherry-pick and have no clue of the actual meaning.

RASHI

"Rezin and Pekah, for in that year the king of Assyria marched on Damascus since Ahaz hired him, as it is stated in the Book of II Kings (16:9): “And seized it and exiled its inhabitants to Kir, and he slew Rezin,” and in that very year (ibid. 15: 30), “Hoshea the son of Elah revolted against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and he struck him and slew him… in the twentieth year of Jotham,” which was the fourth year of Ahaz."

<snip pathetic rambling>

So the bite will be worse than the bite—are you not bitten?

I am not actually interested in vampires so you need to talk to someone else about that topic.

 

[halleyscomet]

Perhaps in isolated cases--but that is not the norm---so the fragile tissue is the problem.

It's more common than you think.

But it is still a corruption of what the Creator designed.

Got a source for that other than your own personal extrapolations?

What was your question it is not clear—I too have studied the history of the Jew which is recorded in the Bible—I have worked for Jews and have worked with Jews, Jews lie and steal and commit adultery.

The sins that cost two Temples are still being committed.

But what is the best is that I have met the real Jew, so I still have hope.

What exactly do you mean by the bolded part? Are you trying to imply something about Jews compared to the rest of humanity?

I am not actually interested in vampires so you need to talk to someone else about that topic.

Besides, I'm pretty sure blood play would fall among the sexual/kink practices Paul Bethke's theology would declare verboten.

 

[Pacal]

But then you like many other Jews have not taken cognizance of what the Prophet prophesied---Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Emmanuel.

You SEE adultery was and is the sin of Israel, and it is the sin for which Jews are mostly committing, but is it not that most of the world is guilty of?

So the bite will be worse than the bite—are you not bitten?

Not that old chestnut again. Christians have been misinterpreting that verse from Isaiah for c. 2000 years it seems. First the proper translation of the Hebrew is not "virgin" but "young woman", secondly the whole passage is not a reference to the Messiah to begin with.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Most religions are complicated and made up of many sects. That is why, when you insinuate that someone is not a good exemplar of his religion, you need to have the actual facts regarding that religion, not just what you were told about it by a competing religion. Even better, one should practice the religion to determine how it is actually practiced. Since you do none of those things with regard to Judaism, your opinion about whether any person is a "good Jew" is worthless.
Did you look up what "exegetical tradition" means?
You are not an expert on Judaism.
You spew random irrelevant scripture passages instead of answering the actual questions that were asked. Insisting that they are relevant doesn't make them so. You seem to lack ordinary knowledge. You appear to compensate for that by offering knee-jerk scripture references coughed up by your computer Bible tool, and then create a fantasy that the ability to do this somehow qualifies as an erudition unique to you.
No, there is no magical understanding that only you possess. You need to find a better argument than accusing your critics of being stupid.

The Scriptures I present are relevant and as I said they are prophetic, beyond your understanding as you have shown.
Religions as you say are complicated, so it is necessary to make it simple for all people to understand—using the Decalogue as the basis does that, because it is simple to understand.
It give a clear picture as to a person’s character—so it is my purpose to show why the Creator is angered at the present corrupt world, by using the simple Decalogue to illustrate sin.
Even if there were only one command that applies to all—it would still suffice in condemning the world.
Rev_21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

You SEE ALL liars—there is no one who has not lied.
Psalms_5:6 You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the LORD abhors.

So what is wrong in using a computer tool—how else can one present information.
I have many good translations and commentaries that give a very good understanding of the original copies. We must all learn, you were not born with knowledge.

Now Jesus said a person is recognized by their fruits, or their behavior, so if someone is acting contrary to the faith it is a simple observation to see how they interpret the truth---so if people eat the pig, they cannot be believers.

If people divorce and remarry another then they are not in the faith, because it is adultery.

So the law is there to show what is sin, so being familiar with the laws of Torah it can be the means to analyze a persons belief.

So using these two violations, a person can be proven. Adultery and pig consumption.
Churches and people can be deemed by these two.

 

[Zivan]

What was your question it is not clear—

I have already posted it twice. Are you not able to scroll back to see it?

Here it is, again:

So why did your "Creator" god, "Yahweh" dump his wife, the goddess Asherah? Then he took up with another goddess, Anat, for a while.

Then he dumped her as well.

After that your god impregnated a human teenager, who was married!

Is that the reason your god's illegitimate son barks on about adultery?

Are you going to answer the question?

(Or just pathetically spit that I am not a "good/real" jew, again)?

 

[Paul Bethke]

Not that old chestnut again. Christians have been misinterpreting that verse from Isaiah for c. 2000 years it seems. First the proper translation of the Hebrew is not "virgin" but "young woman", secondly the whole passage is not a reference to the Messiah to begin with.

Well a young woman should be a virgin—but the New Testament acknowledges Isaiah as being the direction to the child that would be born of a virgin

Mat_1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us."
Luk_1:27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
Luk_1:34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

So I can only go by what is written, and the writers seem to be confident in asserting this to be true.
.

 

[JayUtah]

The Scriptures I present are relevant...

No.

...and as I said they are prophetic...

No, throwing around the label "prophetic" doesn't suddenly make you understand them so much better than everyone else, or at all. There is no magical body of knowledge that you alone possess.

...beyond your understanding as you have shown.

You obviously don't remember the first few pages of this thread.

Religions as you say are complicated, so it is necessary to make it simple for all people to understand—

No. You base your entire body of preaching on nuances between Christian sects that we would now have to ignore in order to do what you're proposing we do now with Judaism. If you demand that we must simplify in order for people to understand, then you have no basis to demand that you should be differentiated from any of the other Christian sects. This is especially acute since you have revealed that you take the same approach to the mitzvot as all the other "cafeteria Christians." But you protest and say that some nuance like not eating pork is sufficient to distinguish you.

Sorry, you don't get to insist on nuance when it benefits you and deny it from others where it would also benefit them.

...using the Decalogue as the basis does that, because it is simple to understand.

No, you're trying to make the problem fit your knowledge. You need to expand your knowledge to fit the problem.

 

[Zivan]

Well a young woman should be a virgin—but the New Testament acknowledges Isaiah as being the direction to the child that would be born of a virgin

The quote in isaiah 7:14 is NOT speaking of a virgin. It is NOT in the future tense. It is in the present tense and is speaking of a young woman who is already pregnant, at the time of writing, ~700 years before your jesus is said to have been born.

If you think the pregnant young woman in isaiah 7:14 "should be a virgin" then that would mean you think there where TWO "virgin births", 700 years apart. In that case, jesus' alledged "virgin birth" would not be a "miracle" or anything "special".

Also, the writer(s) of the book of isaiah use the hebrew word for "virgin" in other parts of the book. If the writer(s) meant to write about a virgin in isaiah 7:14 they would have used the word. But they did not because it has NOTHING to do with any so called "virgin birth".

Why do you insist on never learning more than a third grade sunday school "knowledge"? Ignorance is not a good thing.

 

[JayUtah]

...but the New Testament acknowledges Isaiah as being the direction to the child that would be born of a virgin

This all presupposes Isaiah wrote the word for "virgin." He didn't.

Here's a parable. In 1947 a guy flying an airplane saw some flying objects he couldn't identify. He reported them to the local newspaper, saying the way they flew was like if you "skipped a saucer across the water." As other newspapers picked up the story, they misread the account and started writing about "flying saucers." Now it happens the original witness actually drew a picture of what he saw, and it doesn't look anything like a saucer. The reference to a saucer described the motion, not the shape. Nevertheless, within a few weeks other people started claiming to see these same "flying saucers." They described them predictably as "saucer-shaped," and that's how we got the classic UFO description of the 1950s and onward. That whole movement was based on one mistake made early and then "confirmed" by subsequent usage. The original facts are still there, but no one cares about them. The story is just too good to bother with facts.

So I can only go by what is written, and the writers seem to be confident in asserting this to be true.

The writers whom you choose to consult, perhaps. There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[JayUtah]

It is in the present tense and is speaking of a young woman who is already pregnant, at the time of writing, ~700 years before your jesus is said to have been born.

And let's not forget it's a two-part allegory. Lucky bastard עמנואל gets all the credit in Christianity, and poor מאהר-שלאל-חש-בז gets nothing. Traditionally Christians just pluck that one verse bleeding from its context and don't even give a rat's hiney about the carefully structured discourse Isaiah was laying out.

When you study these things with a rabbi instead of a lay Christian Sunday school teacher you realize that Christian exegesis of the Torah is like entomology using a fly swatter.

 

[Zivan]

And let's not forget it's a two-part allegory. Lucky bastard עמנואל gets all the credit in Christianity, and poor מאהר-שלאל-חש-בז gets nothing. Traditionally Christians just pluck that one verse bleeding from its context and don't even give a rat's hiney about the carefully structured discourse Isaiah was laying out.

Very true. I always wonder why christians have no idea about chapter 8...........I guess they just do not like the name of מהר שלל חש בז although it appears to be the same child as עמנואל.

When you study these things with a rabbi instead of a lay Christian Sunday school teacher you realize that Christian exegesis of the Torah is like entomology using a fly swatter.

Being in the process of studying entomology (Apis mellifera) I love your analogy.

 

[Border Reiver]

The Christian use of "virgin birth" for their divine hero figure is a direct copy of the Mithraic legends that predate Christianity by centuries. It is a patent attempt by a Romanized person (Paul) to co-opt a familiar element to non-Jews so that they would be more comfortable in his new religion. Just like how Paul lifted dietary restrictions, clothing laws, and indicated that "righteous Gentiles" could still be with His god even though a strict reading of their new faith would cause his converts to realize that their ancestors were all being punished for not believing as Paul said.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JayUtah]

Very true. I always wonder why christians have no idea about chapter 8...

Or even just the rest of chapter 7, which clearly has nothing to do with the Messiah but is still talking about the child עמנואל.

I guess they just do not like the name of מהר שלל חש בז although it appears to be the same child as עמנואל.

The rabbi who taught me didn't think that was necessarily true, nor that it necessarily needed to be true or false. The parallel works either way. The names of the children are allegorical, much as Dickens personified Ignorance and Want as children in A Christmas Carol. You wouldn't actually call a child either of those names, and the point with מאהר-שלאל-חש-בז is that it can't possibly be referring to an actual child. The important bit in the allegory is the ages of the children. I.e., "In the time it would take a child to reach cognizant age from today, the things I'm predicting will come to pass." So, say, less than 10 years from the time he said it.

Being in the process of studying entomology (Apis mellifera) I love your analogy.

And being in the process of cajoling my lavender to grow so my neighbor's bees can avail themselves of it, I love your field of study. We have a beehive on our freakin' state flag.

 

[Peregrinus]

...l a corruption of what the Creator designed.

A human abstraction applied to an undemonstrated action of an undemonstrated supernatural being.

 

[Zivan]

Or even just the rest of chapter 7, which clearly has nothing to do with the Messiah but is still talking about the child עמנואל.

Exactly, which is what I was trying to point out to PB in post #306. Which he ignored.........surprise.

The rabbi who taught me didn't think that was necessarily true, nor that it necessarily needed to be true or false. The parallel works either way. The names of the children are allegorical

I agree. Some commentators, such as rashi, say it is the same child, and others that it is two different ones.

The english language sites I have seen seem to go by rashi so that is what I thought was taught in the west.

But I spoke too fast when I said it seemed to be the same child. Looking again at 8:18, it clearly says ילדים (children) and אתות (signs), and not ילד (child) and אות (sign)*. So, two different children.

*I know you can read hebrew, I just put the translation for those who maybe do not know.

And being in the process of cajoling my lavender to grow so my neighbor's bees can avail themselves of it, I love your field of study. We have a beehive on our freakin' state flag.

It is fascinating to study. Bees do not see colours the same as we do. They do not see the red spectrum, but can see further in the blue than humans can. So, if you want to see how your lavender flowers look to bees, just look at them under a UV light.

The oldest apiary in the near east was unearthed at tel rekhov. It is dated to 10th - 9th bce. They were also able to get DNA from bee parts still in the hives. (DNA showed bees were imported 3000 years ago, same as today, because the native bees are too difficult to work with).

Getting back on topic, some religious people accept archeaological data about everything EXCEPT if it goes against their god beliefs.

Which is why PB will continue to ignore my question about Asherah..........