good points, but because it doesn't conform to the perverted ideology they've formed, it will be "out of context/mistranslated/overlooked/forged/misinterprited/a riddle/ a parable/ cryptic jedi speak. which really means the exact opposite effect to something like " love love love i have no flaws"
Interesting. How do you blend this with the teaching that God is the only God in the whole universe? (Or do you not have that teaching?)
I think before anybody places too much faith in the Bible they should remember that originally the Bible wasn't just one book. The Bible was composed from several books used by the early Christians for moral guidance. More to the point they would only use parts of these books. Reading the parts that fitted their belief system. The Christian Bible only came into being because early Christians refused to follow an order from Rome to stop using these books. In the end Rome compromised and said they could keep a few books but had to destroy the others. If Rome had gotten it's way, there would be no Christian Bible at all.
Oy! Not true!! The First 2/3 of the Bible that I use is exactly the same (in the books used and their exact number/content) as the Holy Scriptures used by MACanuck and other practicing Jews. In fact, all the contents of what I call the 'Old Testament' were contained in a translation commissioned by Ptolemy circa 250 BC (well before any established Christian church). The New Testament was basically born with the church.
No such teaching. G-d is the only god for the Jews. Remember the First Commandment: " I am the Lord your G-d. You shall have no other gods before Me." Implies that there are other gods.
As I understand it, the Mishnah wasn't codified or written down until circa 200 CE, which is considerably later than the books of the Torah. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence that the oral tradition of the Mishnah was passed down accurately and unchanged from Moses to Judah. Such a lack of supporting documentation, added to the fact that the Mishnah would have been passed down orally for a great deal of time, leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the Mishnah was an effort to align the older, perhaps less acceptable laws of the Torah with the accepted cultural view of the period. Again, without some type of objective, documented reference stating which parts of which books are meant to be literal, the most logical view is still that the books of the Torah and Bible were written a very long time ago, and it has since become acceptable to discount the sections that don't line up with contemporary cultural norms. The fact that the two sections of the Bible were compiled in two different time periods only goes to show that cultural values do in fact change over time, as evinced by the radically different approaches to God seen in each. Let's face it, religions have always backpedaled in the face of changing cultural norms. Slavery, sexism, resistance to the heliocentric model of the solar system, homophobia, and opposition to the theory of evolution and natural selection are all ideas that were once firmly held by the church but are now either completely abandoned or are on their way out. Once public opinion reaches a certain critical point, a religion is forced to either change its stance or face obsolescence. It's no surprise that many holy books contain laws and ideals that seem outdated or archaic. They were perfectly acceptable when the book was written, but have since become discounted as societies change and evolve.
Or, maybe it means that other gods are fake, as in figments of one's imagination. Don't Isaiah and Job both, independently, remove the possibility of other gods even being real?
I'm not aware of any reason to believe that the instructions were passed from Judah to any person who surivived the Babylonian captivity, nor from the Babylonian captivity to the time of the Pharisees in the first century, nor from there to any other time period since. I think it would exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to read the Writings and the Prophets and say, "Wow, the oral instruction of Moses has been passed down from generation to generation!" The opposite conclusion is pretty much hitting me square on the nose.
"First of all, under Jewish law, not only did there have to be witnesses to a crime for the death penalty to be used, but someone had to warn the person committing the crime that what he was doing was punishable by death. The death penalty was only carried out around once every hundred years." That's entirely beside the point surely? The point is that, whether we act upon it or not, God has sanctioned the death penalty for these "crimes". That points to the nature of god rather than the nature of man to follow or interpret those instructions. If my Dad told me to go and steal from people my Dad would be wrong to do so even if I never actually stole from anyone. That's the point.
No, the point is that while the written text points to the penalty, the Oral part, handed down to Moses at Sinai, spells out what is required before applying those penalties.
But it is whithin a Jewish context. You have to understand that Halacha (Jewish Law) is a self contained system, it does not concern itself with what is outside.
That is your interpretation. Jews beleive that both Written and Oral Torah were handed down by G-d to Moses at Sinai, and that the Oral part was transmitted accutrately through the generations. And part of that is the other part of the Talmud. We can break down our books in 2. Tanach, which is Written Torah and Writings and Prophets. And Talmud comprised of Mishna, the written down Oral Law and Gemara, the Rabbinic discussions of Torah (both Written and Mishna). In addition Halache (Jewish Law) has specific mechanisim to deal with change and hand down rulings. Thus we can deal with such things as electgricity and cars. You may not agree, but at the end of the day, it;s our Book, our Laws.
I'm confused now. Are you claiming that Judaism is *not* monotheistic -- as in, Moses and Elijah and Isaiah would acknowledge and affirm that deities besides Yahweh actually *lived* ?
Those are 2 different concept. Judaism is monotheistic. G-d is our god and none other. We are not concerned with other cultures. Within our view point, other cultures don't matter much. For Example, we can look at Hindus and their many gods, we know it's wrong from out point of view, but we would not try to change them, after all we came from an idol worshipping people as well.
Which deity created the Earth and the universe? Was it the God of Isaiah and Elijah and so on, or was it another deity?
The god of the Hebrews. Does not mean we don't leave people who worship other gods alone. We know that they are wrong, but it is not our concern.
Okay, but are the other deities (Hindu, whatever -- anything besides the Hebrew God) non-existant? Or are they real, but just not appropriate for a Jew?
