Modern Day Judaism Paradoxes in Regards to God and the Messiah

E

exile

Guest
Maybe someone can clear this up for me. To the best of my knowledge modern day Jews only adhere to the Torah (Pentateuch) or pre-exilic books of the Hebrew Bible. In these books there is no clear statement of monotheism, rather many statements pointing to polytheism or henotheism, the worship of one god at a time while acknowledging the existence of other gods. Nor is there mention of a Messiah in the sense of a future deliverer. Both the concept of a single God and a Messiah as a future deliverer only appear in the post-exilic books of the Old Testament. So my question is if modern day Jews only consider the pre-exilic books scripture, and ignore the post-exilic books, how is it that they are awaiting arrival of the true Messiah (Jesus to them having been the false one)?
 
Well, you have it wrong. Rabbinic Judaism uses Tanakh (the whole canon) as well as Torah she-be-`al peh (the Oral Torah). The Tanakh consists of 24 books. The Torah she-be-`al peh consists of three separate books: Mishnah, Talmud, and Midrash. The Mishnah consists of 63 masechtot or webs (roughly analogous to books) and runs 11 or so volumes (each the size of Tanakh, if I remember rightly). Talmud is likewise very long (6,200 pages) consisting of 63 masekhet or tractates. Finally, Midrash consists of series of many books (61 each about the size of Mishnah, again, if I remember correctly).


So it is not 5 books, but about 211 books, many the size of the entire Christian Bible. This is "the law" I believe (my Jewish friends, correct any misstatements).
Monotheism runs throughout this library and not polytheism and henotheism (the existence of these in the law are a matter of mainly academic conjecture and are read quite differently by the Orthodox). The annointed one is a continual theme in all four collections I gave you links to.
 
I'm aware of the Tanakh. These are same books as the intertestimental books of the Old Testament But I think it was Bob X who said that modern day Jews threw the intertestimental books out. And he's not the only one who has acknowledged this. Others have claimed that the Jews don't consider the Tanakh scripture and that the only books sacred to them are the Torah or Penteteuch. So why do they say this?

And I find it kind of insignificant that the Jews of today interpret the Torah differently. The Christians interpret their own scriptures differently too. I don't see scholarly interpretations as conjecture. They're linguistic truths. You can interpret a word like Eloheem however you want to, but when it comes down to it Eloheem is plural "gods" not singular "god." Its clearly distinguished from El "god" or Eloi "my god."

And the idea of a Messiah does occur in pre-exilic books, but it doesn't mean future savior. It only started to mean that in Second Isaiah.
 
Because they are incorrect. Just look up Rabbinical Judaism on wiki, fer pete's sake.

What do you mean "interpret the Torah differently"? From whom? From Christians? From how you think it was interpreted in the Middle Ages or the time of J-sus? "Linguistic truth" is an oxymoron. It merely indicates what some scholar believes (with some kind of evidence or justification) to be true. The practitioners (of any religion, not just Judaism) have their own interpretation as well. Which is "true", probably both are probable to some extent. I believe most really, really Orthodox Jews read "Elohim" as a "Royal We". The scholars may disagree, it does not really matter, the truth is a matter of meaning and context (mental things) and not inherent properties of some squiggles on parchment.

Yep, Isaiah... but that is part of Tanakh.
 
Because they are incorrect. Just look up Rabbinical Judaism on wiki, fer pete's sake.

Well that would explain it. I'm telling you though, there must be a lot of people out there with the misconceived notion that the Jews only consider the Torah scripture. I see that the Rabbanical school derives its traditions from the Pharisees. It was first made apparent to me through Mary Boyce that the word Pharisee is an Aramaic word for "Persian" or "Persianizer." But I have also read it was a Pahlavi word for "Persian." Boyce's book was published in the 90's. Do you have any idea what they are saying about this linguistics today?

What do you mean "interpret the Torah differently"? From whom? From Christians? From how you think it was interpreted in the Middle Ages or the time of J-sus? "Linguistic truth" is an oxymoron. It merely indicates what some scholar believes (with some kind of evidence or justification) to be true. The practitioners (of any religion, not just Judaism) have their own interpretation as well. Which is "true", probably both are probable to some extent. I believe most really, really Orthodox Jews read "Elohim" as a "Royal We". The scholars may disagree, it does not really matter, the truth is a matter of meaning and context (mental things) and not inherent properties of some squiggles on parchment.

But it's not just the word Elohim. It's in the context too. The Old Testament is rampant with henotheistic (which is basically polytheism) statements up until Duetero-Isaiah and even occurs after that.

See Secrets of Zoroastrianism under polytheism vs. monotheism.
 
Unfortunately if the Abrahamic people were to truly rediscover their own heritage according to western scholastisism I don't think they would like what they would find.

You are right, those Jews who take an orthodox view of the religion do NOT like it. Where the Talmud and the Tanach do not match up, demonstrating to an uninvolved scholar that the Tanach has probably been reconstructed from memory several times, much mental gymnastics are performed to justify and reconcile what I would call obvious evidence.

As far as Zoroastrianism goes, many Jews spent a long time in exile in Persia/Iran. The book of Esther gives a fairly partisan view of that. Historians will be aware that the modern Hebrew alphabet is of Persian origin. The script at the time of the temple was quite different. This has led to more mental gymnastics as to the structure and miracles around the giving of the ten commandments at the time of Moses, where the centre of the Samech was said to be suspended when the letters were cut from the rock. At the time, however, Samech was not a circular letter, ayin was. Anyway, you can look up the gymnastics if you are interested.

In fact we are only talking about the idiot fringe here. The vast majority of Jews that I grew up with are content with their westernised lifestyle and relaxed orthodoxy, and just don't care about these details. They see it as irrelevant to their faith and their relationship with God.
 
exile and skinker. The Religion is not in the scriptures. The scriptures are not the final revelation.

From where I sit, I see no difference between your literalistic interpretation and that of Kach or Moral Majority or Al Qaeda. It is just different.

Religion is about the interior existence and experience of the D-vine and not the external material things you two spend your time discussing.

I am no more pro-Jewish than I am pro-Sikh or pro-Islam. Judaism (as I see it) is the interior discussion between the Ich und Du, not some scribbling in a historically once-dead language.

It goes back to the Verstehen of Weber. The objective (through a telescope) analysis of a social or mental phenomena is doomed to failure because the notion, meme, experience is non-physical. So one must use a subjectivist approach (intersubjectiveness is a refinement of this to overcome the solipsism of total relativity).

"Do not judge until you have walked two moons in the others' moccasins".

 
Whatever I might agree or disagree with, I am obliged to point out again, WHERE YOU PUT YOUR ATTENTION ... that, you become.

"Where attention goes, Energy flows."

The solution to a problem is not to focus on, curse or otherwise talk up the problem itself. It lies in accepting the impediment, raising ourselves to the next higher plane of awareness, and working Constructively, Creatively and Lovingly to effect the proper solution. And that will always bring out the best in both ourselves, and all others involved. At worst, we may be required to express our disagreement, or our dissent, through SILENCE.

Was the Silence of the Christ before Pilate an indication of HIS approval, or of HIS condoning of what the F. was going on?

Alright then. Don't feed me a line about "silence indicating consent." You don't know JACK ... if you ain't the one who's being silent. Indeed, you may safely and wisely assume at least some degree of DISagreement, as otherwise, why not simply nod, or speak your affirmation?

My point is, you will never advance your *own* cause, while you are busy trying to fight, snuff out or put down what another has accepted as his own. Only when there is armed, violent conflict does it become necessary to defend oneself or one's compatriots through a like, hopefully superior, show of force.

I do not witness violence resulting from our discussions at INTERFAITH, fortunately ... even if some here would as soon SNUFF OUT the ecumenical motives and actions which I am trying to let define & characterize my presence here. And as any of you may witness, or might have witnessed, when I cross the line and cease to live up to my current Ideal, or that of an earlier identity [TAIJASI] ~ how then can I justify my words, my actions and their repercussions?

I cannot. Thus at any point at which I recognize that I stand corrected, or otherwise `set back on the proper Path,' it behooves me to thank those who have pointed out my error ... and if I am sincere, I will follow this gratitude with further and renewed effort to be truly Christ-LIKE in my future actions.

Never might I imagine the Christ spewing bile or speaking in a tone filled with hatred and rage. Nor would He condemn entire religions or their followers, EVEN when there may be some dead-ends that He can, and could, plainly see or otherwise point out as being precisely such.

Thus the Christ came not to destroy but to FULFILL the Law ... and in the last two passages of the Hebrew Scriptures as presented in the Christian Bible, we see all the evidence we need [if we are sincere, with eyes and ears open] that Christ taught Reincarnation to his Apostles directly [if not also to the masses] ... as by Elijah's rebirth as John the Forerunner, the indication of Malachi came to fruition.

Nor will the ignorant of the LAW of Rebirth understand that in subsequent incarnation, as best I can tell, John the Baptizer appears as Mohammed, while today, his incarnation further proves that Christ's lesson with Nicodemus is worth paying attention to, heeding and otherwise accepting IF WE dare to call ourselves Christians.

Jews tend to reject their own Messiah, and Muslims pretty much do the same ... at least when they fly planes into buildings, or destroy property and the lives of innocent civilians in the "name of Mohammed, or worse, of ALLAH." I assure you, the Messenger Mohammed in his present lifetime has and wants NOTHING to do with that kind of crap ... even as Christ Jesus must, daily, give further expression to those five familiar words, "I did not know you."
 
Back
Top