Persecuting Moshe<was-Re: Jesus is not the Messiah...
Pam
Ariel, you are not alone is just not getting it at all -- not getting
the reaction to moshe. I agree completely with everything you say. I
know I could not withstand the abuse he endures with as good grace as he
does, as you point out. All I can come up with is that he is seen as a
very big threat, and the bigger the threat, the more intense the
reaction. It is shameful that certain rather unorthodox Christians,
seeing that he is the target of so much abuse, join in the attack. But
then I just don't get Jesus being spat upon and scouraged and jeered at
as he hung on the cross, either.
Interesting story about the relationship between the Conservative rabbi
and MJs --- very nice.
Also, regarding all this stupid discussion about moshe's real name being
Joe, those of us who remember his first few posts recall that the posts
were from "Janet" -- his wife's name. He fixed that pretty quick, but
then people called him Janet for a long time anyway, just as they have
taken to calling him Joe now.
> I've participated in this ng (alt.messianic) for a while now, and I have most
> of the posts for months. I really don't know why people are so hard on Moshe.
> What is wrong with a Christian defending his beliefs against harsh commentary
> emanating from a bias from one side? That's the purpose of this ng, isn't it?
> His writing is articulate, and he presents intelligent and lucid commentary. He
> is always courteous and matter of fact in presenting information, without ad
> hominem insults or personal agendas. He usually doesn't resort to returning
> insults, although nearly every post responding to him is derogatory or seems to
> take a hostile stance. It has become a sport to make fun of him, and he has
> never written anything here that I have seen that would warrant it. He has
> shared personal testimonies with us because they were relevent to certain
> discussions on faith and Christianity. I don't see him as a devious
> evangelical who is only on usenet to disrupt the peace of Jewish and Christian
> newsgroup discussions. He has a burden to provide some balance to these
> discussions. He has every right to respond to these threads. In my view, he is
> scholarly, yet humble, and his responses are quite reasonable. I have never
> perceived any innappropriate behavior on his part during these threads, yet, he
> gets an inordinate amount of flak.
> Rarely do people come down as hard on me, and I have said some outragiously
> zealous and hard line Messianic things. I think that I am missing the
> annointing that the Lord has placed on Moshe. He is more blessed than I,
> obviously, for he gets much more of a reaction. Does that make sense?
>
> I'm sorry guys, but I just don't get it. I don't know Moshe, and don't
> correspond with him, privately. One time I defended him on this ng, and it was
> one of the few times he e-mailed me, asking me not to, but, here I am, doing it
> again. Sorry Moshe.
> I don't perceive a weak person in him, but, a man who believes passionately in
> Jesus Christ, and as a Jew, worships him as such. I think it's beautiful that
> he was led to sit silently, in * LOVE *, in the synagogue, praying for those
> whom he loves. Yet he is constantly accused of "preying" not praying.
>
> FWIW, my family's synagogue is conservative, and the rabbi is very open-minded
> towards the Messianic community. When a new Messianic fellowship was started,
> he facilitated the tools they needed for Jewish and Hebrew studies, as well as
> temple items. He also assisted local churches with the details and assistance
> for Passover services. He knows I am Messianic and has always been kind to me
> and has accepted me as a Jew, although I am not personally a member of the
> synagogue. He has invited me to join, and he knows that I believe in Jesus.
> So, it is not unimaginable that some congregations recognise Messianic Jews as
> being entitled to participate in Aliyah.
> Nothing Moshe has written seems odd to me. I admire his determination to
> participate in these discussions, considering how much of a sport it has become
> to spit at him. Moshe, you are beloved in the Lord.
>
> Ariel
guess who
Pam wrote:
> Jordonfree wrote:
>
> Ariel, you are not alone is just not getting it at all -- not getting
> the reaction to moshe. I agree completely with everything you say.
oh here we go again
how many fundalmentalist christians does it take to change a light bulb
three one to change the bulb and two to tell him he is full of the holy ghost.
so pam joes...@earthlink.com goes crying to you tell are picking on me. you defend
his indefenceable behaviour. you enlist ariel in your unholy war.
so now it is not joes...@earthlink.com who fills this group with hatred and lies it
is the un holy trinigy of
joes...@earthlink.com
pam
ariel
you and ariel need to step back and take along hard look at yourselfs. you are
totally loosing any credibility you have ever had.
--
****************************
American eyes, American eyes....
View the world from American eyes
Bury the past, rob us blind
And leave nothin behind
Rage Against the Machine
****************************
vince garcia
people who embrace Christ and this is the root of the hostility
* ducking in anticipation of Joel and Joe's response *
v
guess who
vince garcia wrote:
huh?
ariel has been honest upfront and forthright. i dont see anybody being
nasty to her. besides her i am not aware of another current poster who was
once a jew.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
>
> great post, ariel. I think there is a special animosity here for Jewish
> people who embrace Christ and this is the root of the hostility
>
> * ducking in anticipation of Joel and Joe's response *
>
The recation to Jews who convert to Xianity is the same as the reaction
of Americans to Benedict Arnold. The main problem though is not that a
Jew has "converted" to Xianity, but that there are those who claim that
this "conversion" means the the new beliefs of the "convert" are somehow
"more Jewish" (or even "still Jewish"). THIS is what is so upsetting.
If a Jew "converts to Xianity, we feel sad at the loss, but when he
begins the standard missionary lie, we have no choice but to fight back.
--
Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore" | Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
Jews are the fish, Torah is our water | Zovchai Adam, agalim yishakun
josh...@aol.com
The first post by "Moshe" which I ever read complained about how the
newsgroup was going downhill, with no substantial discussion. I tried
to contribute to that thread, but shortly thereafter "Moshe" posted an
announcement that he would henceforth be posting liberally to
alt.messianic (Lord knows he does that) but not actually reading
anything else one has to say. Because of that, I must admit, I
sometimes bait him a little if I want him to respond to something in
particular, because otherwise he maintains his posture of pretending
not to read alt.messianic.
As for my other rude behavior of calling him Joe or "Moshe" with
quotation marks. I don't like helping people cross-dress in this forum.
One of the actual points of dispute between us is whether a person - or
a religious movement - can just call themselves whatever they like, and
expect everyone in the name of "freedom of speech" to parrot the
propoganda. I won't, in this newsgroup, be found referring to the
evangelical missionary efforts among the Jews as "Messianic Judaism."
My non-use of that propoganda term is not evidence of "persecution" on
my part. I certainly have no desire to persecute anyone. The reason I
don't use the propoganda term is because I recognize that it *is*
propoganda, the effort to create an impression which I believe to be a
false impression.
In the case of "Moshe," I could be right or I could be wrong, but I
have the impression that his use of the handle "Moshe" is for
propoganda purposes, cross-dressing in cyberspace. While he is free to
represent himself however he wishes and I would in no way wish
to "persecute" that expression, I do not want to be a party to creating
an impression which I believe to be a false impression. Maybe I am
being overly scrupulous or rude, I and wouldn't mind someone telling
me if they think I am. But that the thinking behind my "persecution"
of "Moshe" by using those horrible little quotation marks.
Sincerely,
"Josh"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jordonfree
>The recation to Jews who convert to Xianity is the same as the reaction
>of Americans to Benedict Arnold. The main problem though is not that a
>Jew has "converted" to Xianity, but that there are those who claim that
>this "conversion" means the the new beliefs of the "convert" are somehow
>"more Jewish" (or even "still Jewish"). THIS is what is so upsetting.
>If a Jew "converts to Xianity, we feel sad at the loss, but when he
>begins the standard missionary lie, we have no choice but to fight back.
This is where the problem originates, and I can understand why it is a sore
spot. We are considered traitors. The zeal of the Messianic mission exceeds
many other evangelical denominations and it is adviseable for Messianic Jews to
try to be more sensitive to the feelings and beliefs of traditional Jews, no
matter what we believe in our hearts. Respect is a two-way street. There is a
natural shield protecting traditional Judaism from outside beliefs, and that is
why Judaism has survived.
However, once the skin is broken and belief in the Messiah comes into a Jewish
soul, it is very difficult to contain that message. It is a sensitive and
volatile topic, understandably so. We have a lot of growing up to do as a
Christian/Jewish denomination and some of the bitter feelings expressed towards
us have been warranted by our own lack of compassion for the history of the
Jewish people and culture. Hopefully the channels of communicating with
eachother won't be blocked by emotional obstacles and we can foster less
animosity towards eachother's beliefs. We all share a similar and dynamic
history. We are each seeking the face of the Living Word in God.
Ariel
guess who
Jordonfree wrote:
> Respect is a two-way street.
you have hit the nail on the head. when joes...@earthlink.com practices respect he
can recieve respect.
two very critical things need to be done.
1. practice proper netiqette -- ie dont post to scj. this is of course showing
respect to jewish people his failure to do this when asked many times by both
christians and jews show he has no respect for jews.
2. tell the truth about himself. -- his refusal to tell the truth about himself.
something you have done. his refusal to be honest show he has no respect for jews.
vince garcia
>
> vince garcia wrote:
>
> > great post, ariel. I think there is a special animosity here for Jewish
> > people who embrace Christ and this is the root of the hostility
> >
> > * ducking in anticipation of Joel and Joe's response *
>
>
> ariel has been honest upfront and forthright. i dont see anybody being
> nasty to her.
Linda
Pam writes:
>It is shameful that certain rather unorthodox Christians,
>seeing that he is the target of so much abuse, join in the attack. But
>then I just don't get Jesus being spat upon and scouraged and jeered at
>as he hung on the cross, either.
>
Oh Pam,
I asked a question after Moshe condoned Joel about his posting on SCJ, and I
perused there and saw all the posting about Jesus.....
And he posted some sort of an account of his life as a inspirational? on this
and another ng. On this ng i made comment on the other i did not.
Beyond this, you and Moshe called me such sweet christian names this past
weekend.....look in the mirror.
<--->
~*~*~*~*~
Be Well,
Linda
~*~*~*~*~
Pam
>
>
> so pam joes...@earthlink.com goes crying to you tell are picking on me. you defend
> his indefenceable behaviour.
Moshe never said a word to me about it, and certainly did not ask me to
stand by him. It is my choice. Futhermore, the only behavior of his I am
defending is his claim that the repeated ridicule of his disability is
irrelevant to any discussion. That is a very defensible claim among
civilized people.
> you enlist ariel in your unholy war.
I didn't enlist Ariel in anything, and you know it. She is certainly
able to speak her mind without any prompting from anyone.
> so now it is not joes...@earthlink.com who fills this group with hatred
Hardly. It is you who cannot bring yourself to treat him as a human
being. You have been on a ten month jihad against him. You are obsessed
with him and will go to any lengths to try to pry personal information
out of him or his friends. You must dream about him every night.
> and lies it
> is the un holy trinigy of
>
> joes...@earthlink.com
> pam
> ariel
Better add Vince and Mike, then, too, if objecting to ripping another
human being apart is all it takes to make an unholy alliance.
> you and ariel need to step back and take along hard look at yourselfs. you are
> totally loosing any credibility you have ever had.
I don't need or want credibility with people who can't treat others
like human beings, and especially those who ridicule the disabilities of
others. That is beneath contempt.
Pam
>
>Because of that, I must admit, I
> sometimes bait him a little if I want him to respond to something in
> particular, because otherwise he maintains his posture of pretending
> not to read alt.messianic.
No problem with that -- that's considered fair fighting here in the
brutal world of alt.mess. However, although I haven't read your posts to
moshe, I don't imagine you have engaged in the "debate technique" of
ridiculing his disability.
>
> As for my other rude behavior of calling him Joe or "Moshe" with
> quotation marks. I don't like helping people cross-dress in this forum.
> One of the actual points of dispute between us is whether a person - or
> a religious movement - can just call themselves whatever they like, and
> expect everyone in the name of "freedom of speech" to parrot the
> propoganda. I won't, in this newsgroup, be found referring to the
> evangelical missionary efforts among the Jews as "Messianic Judaism."
> My non-use of that propoganda term is not evidence of "persecution" on
> my part.
I can't imagine anyone thinking that your choice of terms is
persecution. We, after all, claim the right to choose and define our
terms, so why shouldn't you?
> I certainly have no desire to persecute anyone. The reason I
> don't use the propoganda term is because I recognize that it *is*
> propoganda, the effort to create an impression which I believe to be a
> false impression.
Fine. That's why many of us use the term Rabbinic Judaism or Talmudism
to distinguish it from what we consider Judaism to be. Everyone is
entitled to use whatever he considers the most accurate terms and I
don't see any reason whatsoever to cry "persecution" when he does.
> In the case of "Moshe," I could be right or I could be wrong, but I
> have the impression that his use of the handle "Moshe" is for
> propoganda purposes, cross-dressing in cyberspace. While he is free to
> represent himself however he wishes and I would in no way wish
> to "persecute" that expression, I do not want to be a party to creating
> an impression which I believe to be a false impression. Maybe I am
> being overly scrupulous or rude, I and wouldn't mind someone telling
> me if they think I am. But that the thinking behind my "persecution"
> of "Moshe" by using those horrible little quotation marks.
>
I don't see any problem with this either, if it has signifcance for you.
He can call himself what he wants but then so can you. However, he can
point out that his name is not Joe. His first couple of posts were in
the name of his wife, Janet, so he got called Janet for months after
that, as way of annoying him, even though he took her name off the posts
almost immediately.
Jordonfree
I've taken some heat for things I've said, and I've also ranted back and have
hurled some insults, (which I've regretted...) Yet, no one at alt.messianic has
ever been blatantly disrespectful to me. In fact, I am touched by the genuine
concern that some of the posters have had for me, as a Jew, honestly believing
that I am on the wrong path. I can't dislike or criticise anyone for wanting
me to find the true God of Israel, and they are presenting their beliefs in
that fashion, never to condemn me or renounce me as evil. That is why it
seemed unfair that Moshe was the target of a different type of reaction and
held to different standards. Whenever people have disagreed with me, they
never seemed callous about my well-being, just the opposite. I know that there
are good people here, and it is sad that one man has become the target of
contempt, while I usually have been treated with fondness and gentleness.
Personally, I am greatful for the hand of friendship, but, privately, it is
grieving to see things said about someone I view as a brother in Jesus.
Ariel
guess who
Jordonfree wrote:
> Vince wrote:
> >guess who wrote:
> >>
> >> vince garcia wrote:
> >>
> >> > great post, ariel. I think there is a special animosity here for Jewish
> >> > people who embrace Christ and this is the root of the hostility
> >> >
> >> > * ducking in anticipation of Joel and Joe's response *
> >>
> >> huh?
> >>
> >> ariel has been honest upfront and forthright. i dont see anybody being
> >> nasty to her.
> That is why it
> seemed unfair that Moshe was the target of a different type of reaction and
> held to different standards. Whenever people have disagreed with me, they
> never seemed callous about my well-being, just the opposite.
he is being held to the same standard. he gets a different reaction because he live
up to the standard you and others have.
1. posting to scj. -- come on ariel. that is something that is a simple matter of
nettiquette. polite behaviour on the internet. alt.messy was started for the
specific purpose of keeping evangelism off of scj. joes...@earthlink.com violated
that rule. he was asked many times by jews and christians alike not to engage in
that unexceptable behaviour.
if want to see mean vicious name calling for no reason read pam responce to linda
where linda asks joes...@earthlink.com to stop engaging in unexceptable behaviour.
2. telling the truth about oneself. -- it is customary at some point early in
posting to this group. you did as much and people relate to you accordingly.
joes...@earthlink.com has never done this dispite being asked many times. instead
he has drippled out some information out over time. the information has been
deliberately misleading.
he still refused to tell the truth about these issues.
nobody is being unfair to him they are treating him as he treats us. he lies to use
and behaves rudely. i am sure if he changes others will change how the behave
towards him.
guess who
Jordonfree wrote:
> Joel wrote:
> >Jordonfree wrote:
> >
> >> Respect is a two-way street.
> >
> >you have hit the nail on the head. when joes...@earthlink.com practices
> >respect he
> >can recieve respect.
> >
> >two very critical things need to be done.
> >
> >1. practice proper netiqette -- ie dont post to scj. this is of course
> >showing
> >respect to jewish people his failure to do this when asked many times by both
> >christians and jews show he has no respect for jews.
> >
> >2. tell the truth about himself. -- his refusal to tell the truth about
> >himself.
> >something you have done. his refusal to be honest show he has no respect for
> >jews.
>
> I appreciate you seeing me as truthfully representing my beliefs, but, I don't
> see Moshe as being deceitful. I know why you do, and I can't change your
> views.
> He has explained that the reason he participates in SCJ is to balance things
> that he believes are misrepresentative about Messianic beliefs and Jesus
> Christ. I've lurked in SCJ and this seems to be the case.
irrelevant.
> It is not a task
> that I am compelled to undertake, but, he feels that this is important. I can
> understand how this would violate netiquette if he initiated the themes of
> threads about Jesus, but, he is there to offer a balance to one-sided
> arguments.
then in that case neither you or him can complain about other people being rude to
him. if you think it proper for him to be rude to jews on the net then dont
complain when other are rude to him.
sorry ariel. that is life. if you are rude you will be treated rudely. you are
polite you will be treated politely.
i have withheld some coments on this thread to cool thinks down but why?
you believe ethical moral polite behaviouir is not important. if you evey complain
about me or anybody else being rude to joes...@earthlink.com again i will throw
in your face as justification.
why is joes...@earthlink.com above the law
why is joes...@earthlink.com not requried to be polite.
> He has said that when no one there maligns Jesus and Messianics,
> that he will cease and desist. I don't know if I personally agree with his
> convictions in pursuing this, but, I admire his determination and thick skin.
if he had a thick skin he wouldnt have complained.
i will till you this he better grow a thick skin. if you think i am being rude to
him you havent seen anything yet.
Pam
>
> BTW, along this line, "3 Kings" is an excellent movie. Aside the from
> the obviously fictional plot, the historical backdrop is 99% accurate.
> (The 1% being the wrong color of the MRE rations).
>
I thought it was very good, too. Very graphic in unusual ways.
Stylistically different, too. And George Clooney is very appealing.
guess who
Yojimbo wrote:
> In article <380A6B0D...@uswest.net>,
> guess who <joey...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> > ****************************
> > American eyes, American eyes....
> > View the world from American eyes
> > Bury the past, rob us blind
> > And leave nothin behind
> >
> > Rage Against the Machine
> > ****************************
>
> At one time that signature line would piss me off. After some of our
> recent imperial adventures in the ME and the Balkans I'm beginning to
> see some truth in it.
>
the first time i heard this song these word spoke to me.
america a new country 225 years against the thousands of years in other
parts of the world. bury the past. when you (any immagrent culture --jews,
italian, armeiane, spainish, etc) it is forget your heritage bury your
past.
rob you blind not necessary financial but your heritage.
american fundamental christianity with its attempts to evangelize jews is
doing this bury the past --- forget 4000 years of tradition. rob you blind
--- take your traditions.
since you mentioned movies i think one of the most underrated movies of
all time is "king of the gypsies"
there is a great scene in the begining where sterling hayden gives a great
speach finishing with
"they treat 3000 years of tradition as so much dogshit"
guess who
Pam wrote:
> guess who wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > so pam joes...@earthlink.com goes crying to you tell are picking on me. you defend
> > his indefenceable behaviour.
>
>
> > you enlist ariel in your unholy war.
>
> I didn't enlist Ariel in anything, and you know it. She is certainly
> able to speak her mind without any prompting from anyone.
come on pam i believe that about as much i believe an orthodox or conservative rabbi
knowing that joes...@earthlink.com is a believer in jesus knowing gave him an aliyah.
well pam you wanted to be know as a defender of a liar. it is only natural to think you
are a liar too.
Yojimbo
> ****************************
> American eyes, American eyes....
> View the world from American eyes
> Bury the past, rob us blind
> And leave nothin behind
>
> Rage Against the Machine
> ****************************
At one time that signature line would piss me off. After some of our
recent imperial adventures in the ME and the Balkans I'm beginning to
see some truth in it.
BTW, along this line, "3 Kings" is an excellent movie. Aside the from
the obviously fictional plot, the historical backdrop is 99% accurate.
(The 1% being the wrong color of the MRE rations).
Best Regards,
Derek Copold
--
"They say one thing in the piazza and another in
the palazza." Italian proverb, quoted in
Niccolo Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy" I,52,2
Jordonfree
>Why I "Persecute" "Moshe":
>
>The first post by "Moshe" which I ever read complained about how the
>newsgroup was going downhill, with no substantial discussion. I tried
>to contribute to that thread, but shortly thereafter "Moshe" posted an
>announcement that he would henceforth be posting liberally to
>alt.messianic (Lord knows he does that) but not actually reading
>sometimes bait him a little if I want him to respond to something in
>particular, because otherwise he maintains his posture of pretending
>not to read alt.messianic.
We all have idiosyncrasies that may turn people off in cyberspace, especially
since we lack eye contact and proximity. I can almost see a sparkle in his eye,
and tongue in cheek, with many things he writes, yet, he is visciously attacked
whether he is being serious or using levity.
I recall Moshe stating that he wanted to stop interacting, but, I didn't blame
him at the time, since he did get so much grief from personal ridicule.
The fact he does respond to people's comments demonstrates his commitment to
participate in reading and discussing issues. Most of us have gotten grieved
and taken time out from these debates. Sometimes we say things which are true
when we write them, but, we have different feelings at another time.
>As for my other rude behavior of calling him Joe or "Moshe" with
>quotation marks. I don't like helping people cross-dress in this forum.
>One of the actual points of dispute between us is whether a person - or
>a religious movement - can just call themselves whatever they like, and
>expect everyone in the name of "freedom of speech" to parrot the
>propoganda. I won't, in this newsgroup, be found referring to the
>evangelical missionary efforts among the Jews as "Messianic Judaism."
>My non-use of that propoganda term is not evidence of "persecution" on
>my part. I certainly have no desire to persecute anyone. The reason I
>don't use the propoganda term is because I recognize that it *is*
>propoganda, the effort to create an impression which I believe to be a
>false impression.
You are not alone feeling this way about Messianic "Judaism", and although I
may not agree from my perspective, I do respect why this would be offensive to
you and other Jews. When I became a Christian, it was my boasting about my
"super" Judaism in Jesus that offended my friends and family, not my beliefs. I
feel the same way when white supremicists use the term "Christian" and although
it's not the same, the emotional response of desecrating another person's
religious identity is an understandably contentious subject.
>In the case of "Moshe," I could be right or I could be wrong, but I
>have the impression that his use of the handle "Moshe" is for
>propoganda purposes, cross-dressing in cyberspace. While he is free to
>represent himself however he wishes and I would in no way wish
>to "persecute" that expression, I do not want to be a party to creating
>an impression which I believe to be a false impression. Maybe I am
>being overly scrupulous or rude, I and wouldn't mind someone telling
>me if they think I am. But that the thinking behind my "persecution"
>of "Moshe" by using those horrible little quotation marks.
Josh, you are generally very polite when debating and discussing issues and
responding to posts. I don't think that writing someone's name in "===" is on
the same level as people accusing him of being paid to prostelytise the Jews
in cyberspace, or ridiculing someone who has told us about a crippling and
progressive disease and the problems that it has caused him and his family.
There's a world of difference.
We all have strong beliefs and it is otherwise a friendly forum. People can
disagree and still respect one another.
I think that there are misconceptions about Moshe's motives, character and
honesty. I, personally, would put money on the veracity of his posting. I
believe everything he says and I don't sense he embellishes or detracts from
any part of the truth.
Ariel
Jordonfree
>Jordonfree wrote:
>
>> Respect is a two-way street.
>
>you have hit the nail on the head. when joes...@earthlink.com practices
>respect he
>can recieve respect.
>
>two very critical things need to be done.
>
>1. practice proper netiqette -- ie dont post to scj. this is of course
>showing
>respect to jewish people his failure to do this when asked many times by both
>christians and jews show he has no respect for jews.
>
>2. tell the truth about himself. -- his refusal to tell the truth about
>himself.
>something you have done. his refusal to be honest show he has no respect for
>jews.
I appreciate you seeing me as truthfully representing my beliefs, but, I don't
see Moshe as being deceitful. I know why you do, and I can't change your
views.
He has explained that the reason he participates in SCJ is to balance things
that he believes are misrepresentative about Messianic beliefs and Jesus
Christ. I've lurked in SCJ and this seems to be the case. It is not a task
that I am compelled to undertake, but, he feels that this is important. I can
understand how this would violate netiquette if he initiated the themes of
threads about Jesus, but, he is there to offer a balance to one-sided
arguments. He has said that when no one there maligns Jesus and Messianics,
that he will cease and desist. I don't know if I personally agree with his
convictions in pursuing this, but, I admire his determination and thick skin.
Ariel
josh...@aol.com
jordo...@aol.com (Jordonfree) wrote:
> I don't think that writing someone's name in "===" is on
> the same level as people accusing him of being paid to prostelytise
the Jews
> in cyberspace, or ridiculing someone who has told us about a
crippling and
> progressive disease and the problems that it has caused him and his
family.
> There's a world of difference.
It's certainly wrong to make fun of someone's handicap:
Lev.19:[14] You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block
before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
The problem (on my side of the aisle) is some people have the notion
that the missionary is literally (not figuratively) endangering the
souls of others, and hence should be treated like a person about to
commit murder - so anything is justified to stop the "attack" (saving a
life suspends the law). Just as (on thy side of the aisle) some people
literally believe the non-believers will go to hell forever, so
anything is justified to "save a soul" (saving a life suspends the
law). From my POV that is taking all this a bit too seriously.
Religious ideas - since religion impacts so greatly on human life - are
worthy of serious debate. But since the issues can ultimatly never be
resolved, in order for human society to endure, there must be a limit
on religious debate. The legal limit is anything involving coersion.
The psychological limit is when it starts to do more harm than good for
the folks involved in the debate.
But that's a humanistic POV on my part, and some people feel there is
no limit, for these are ultimate issues which (they think) should be
fought to the ultimate degree. And from a theistic POV, how can you
criticize that kind of zeal? As civilized people we know it to be
wrong; as religious people we don't allow ourselves to acknowledge
*why* it is wrong. We live by humanistic principles but hesitate to
acknowledge them. God save us from our religions! Mine as well as yours!
vince garcia
there is an overwhelmingly good reason
guess who
vince garcia wrote:
> i agree, joel--x posting here is nearly an unforgiveable sin unless
> there is an overwhelmingly good reason
well at least you are even handed.
go back and look at pams posts. she explicted states that gives need to
engage in moral behaviour. she explicted states that
joes...@earthlink.com does not need to engage in moral behaviour.
pam has no problem with him lieing, commiting fraud, or engaging in an
unforgiveable sin.
pam is well aware that joes...@earthlink.com has lied to this group
about his personally life for 10 months now.
for some time i have had a discussion about with moshe with somebody
using a hotmail address. over and over again i asked why the care so
much. finally in the last few days i realized this is either
joes...@earthlink.com wife janet or his daughter sarah.
they told me that joes...@earthlink.com had sent his real life story
to the christians in this group. i emailed several christian. i was
surprised the vast majority of them had had email fights with
joes...@earthlink.com and could not stand the guy. pam was the only
one who had his real life story.
she would not share it with me but told me enough about it that it is
obviouis she knows what he says to the group and what he said in his
life story do not jive.
still see stands with the liar.
still see protects him.
i see her persecution of me as blatant anti semitism.
--
Pam
>
> pam was the only
> one who had his real life story.
>
> she would not share it with me but told me enough about it that it is
> obviouis she knows what he says to the group and what he said in his
> life story do not jive.
I certainly said no such thing. What I said was:
First response:
Joel:
> i have been having an email conversation with some body
> defending moshe. he claims moshe sent out his life story to
> the christians in the ng. do you ever get one. would you mind
> sharing it with me
>
> thanks
Pam:
"I wouldn't call it a life story -- too short -- but I DO know his
non-Hebrew first name, which I bet you would love to know (it's pretty
Jewish, too). But you know I can't share any email info with you w/o the
author's permission -- not kosher."
Then when you posted the fake autobiography which you had received, I responded:
"I don't know who you got this from but you know it's a fake -- moshe's
margins never look like that. And he doesn't sound like that -- you
should trust me on this because even when you used a fake name and
Capital Letters I figured out it was you. :-) His name does definately
sound Jewish. That was interesting info you gave me about how the Jewish
names are similar to the regular ones.
You said in your last letter that I was the only one who got a letter
but in the one before that you said moshe sent a letter to several other
people on the list.
He's not a bad guy, Joel. He's not a liar. He gets mad sometimes like we
all do. The problem is that this is an issue that can't be discussed by
Jews and Christians or MJs at all. We can talk and be friends about
everything but the conversion of one of "ours" to one of "your camp".
Like the Edith Stein issue. There's no way to talk about it."
> still see stands with the liar.
>
> still see protects him.
>
> i see her persecution of me as blatant anti semitism.
>
I am not persecuting you, but I certainly am criticizing the juvenile
insults you throw around. It has nothing to do with being Jewish. It has
to do with your reprehensible ridicule of a man's disabilities, and the
rejoicing that they will get worse.
Pam
>
> In article <19991018202554...@ng-bg1.aol.com>,
> jordo...@aol.com (Jordonfree) wrote:
>
> > I don't think that writing someone's name in "===" is on
> > the same level as people accusing him of being paid to prostelytise
> the Jews
> > in cyberspace, or ridiculing someone who has told us about a
> crippling and
> > progressive disease and the problems that it has caused him and his
> family.
> > There's a world of difference.
>
> It's certainly wrong to make fun of someone's handicap:
>
> Lev.19:[14] You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block
> before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
Good verse to quote in this context.
>
> The problem (on my side of the aisle) is some people have the notion
> that the missionary is literally (not figuratively) endangering the
> souls of others, and hence should be treated like a person about to
> commit murder - so anything is justified to stop the "attack" (saving a
> life suspends the law). Just as (on thy side of the aisle) some people
> literally believe the non-believers will go to hell forever, so
> anything is justified to "save a soul" (saving a life suspends the
> law).
There may be people who thing "anything" is justified to save a soul,
but we are clearly told to shake the dust off our feet as we leave those
who do not want to hear the gospel. Never does the end justify the
means. Certainly I can't imagine using ridicule of disabilities as any
sort of evangelistic tool.
> From my POV that is taking all this a bit too seriously.
> Religious ideas - since religion impacts so greatly on human life - are
> worthy of serious debate. But since the issues can ultimatly never be
> resolved, in order for human society to endure, there must be a limit
> on religious debate. The legal limit is anything involving coersion.
> The psychological limit is when it starts to do more harm than good for
> the folks involved in the debate.
I agree. As I told Joel in email discussion, this is simply not a topic
that Jews and Christians can discuss. We may be able to discuss other
tangental matters, but the issue of conversion in either direction is
too painful to discuss rationally for very long without it
disintegrating into a mud fight.
>
> But that's a humanistic POV on my part, and some people feel there is
> no limit, for these are ultimate issues which (they think) should be
> fought to the ultimate degree. And from a theistic POV, how can you
> criticize that kind of zeal?
Easy, because that's not the Biblical/NT model. I don't know what the
Talmudic model is. The kind of zeal that resorts to abusiveness,
coersion, or destruction is simply never warranted.
Jordonfree
>
>It's certainly wrong to make fun of someone's handicap:
>
>Lev.19:[14] You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block
>before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
>
>that the missionary is literally (not figuratively) endangering the
>souls of others, and hence should be treated like a person about to
>commit murder - so anything is justified to stop the "attack" (saving a
>life suspends the law). Just as (on thy side of the aisle) some people
>literally believe the non-believers will go to hell forever, so
>anything is justified to "save a soul" (saving a life suspends the
>Religious ideas - since religion impacts so greatly on human life - are
>worthy of serious debate. But since the issues can ultimatly never be
>resolved, in order for human society to endure, there must be a limit
>on religious debate. The legal limit is anything involving coersion.
>The psychological limit is when it starts to do more harm than good for
>the folks involved in the debate.
>
>no limit, for these are ultimate issues which (they think) should be
>fought to the ultimate degree. And from a theistic POV, how can you
>wrong; as religious people we don't allow ourselves to acknowledge
>*why* it is wrong. We live by humanistic principles but hesitate to
>acknowledge them. God save us from our religions! Mine as well as yours!
I don't think you are taking a "humanistic" approach, Josh, but, a
compassionate one, which is always Godly. You shed light on why people are so
hard on Christian evangelicals, and I can understand their reactions a little
better, but, like you, I don't go for ridiculing or belittling a person based
on those criteria.
No matter what our beliefs are or how zealously we are compelled to share them
or defend them, it is wrong to hit below the belt. Besides, it doesn't enhance
a posture of righteousness to mock anyone or slander them. We can feel
indignation, but, we shouldn't sin in the process. It diminishes both parties.
That doesn't mean we can't disagree or argue our points. Most traditional
Jewish participants in alt.messianic have criticised me, but, no one has mocked
me, personally. The result is that I have a generally fond view of them and
listen to what they write. It is a win WIN situation because I am open to
learn in the process, otherwise, I would never be open to anything anyone here
shared. Amongst these opinions, you are someone who I have gained insights
from.
Ariel
josh...@aol.com
Pam <pst...@io.com> wrote:
> > But that's a humanistic POV on my part, and some people feel there
is
> > no limit, for these are ultimate issues which (they think) should be
> > fought to the ultimate degree. And from a theistic POV, how can you
> > criticize that kind of zeal?
>
> Talmudic model is. The kind of zeal that resorts to abusiveness,
> coersion, or destruction is simply never warranted.
The bad news is, the Biblical model for dealing with apostates is to
kill them. If an entire city apostacized, one should kill every living
thing in the city and raze it. That's the Biblical model. By comparison
to that every participant in this newsgroup should be praised for his
or her restraint. The NT (because it was directed to individuals and
not governments) merely advises total shunning rather than stoning
(epistles of John), which is an improvement, and which is also the most
severe penalty which any Jewish community would extract at the present
time. The NT of course, in its own way, outdoes the OT by killing the
apostates and burning them over and over again throughout eternity, a
model which (unfortunately) certain sages of the Talmud seem to have
adopted as well.
vince garcia
>
>
> i see her persecution of me as blatant anti semitism.
>
To me, anti-semitism is a hatred for all jews as a group. I don't see
Pam or Moshe having such widespread hatred.
v
guess who
Kevin Lind
> The NT of course, in its own way, outdoes the OT by killing the
> apostates and burning them over and over again throughout eternity, a
> model which (unfortunately) certain sages of the Talmud seem to have
> adopted as well.
>
Actually, you should look a little more carefully at the Greek here (by
the way, it would come out just as clearly in Hebrew). The "vessels fit
for salvation" are made fit by an outside agency, i.e. G-d, whereas the
"vessels fit for destruction" make themselves unfit. The NT does not
kill apostates and burn them forever throughout eternity, any more than
providing lifeboats on a ship means that I am deliberately drowning
those who refuse to board them. According to OT and NT, "There is no-one
who is good, no not one" (Ecclesiates) and so the NT is in the business
of calling apostates to repentance and saving them from the eternal
separation which is the fruit of their own self-will. If the NT
describes a very grim fate for those who refuse G-d's redemption in
Messiah, well, that is a description, not a cause. Take it up with the
Creator.
B'rachot, Kevin Lind
moshe
josh...@aol.com wrote:
> Why I "Persecute" "Moshe":
>
> [snip]
>
> In the case of "Moshe," I could be right or I could be wrong, but I
> have the impression that his use of the handle "Moshe" is for
> propoganda purposes, cross-dressing in cyberspace. While he is free to
> represent himself however he wishes and I would in no way wish
> to "persecute" that expression, I do not want to be a party to creating
> an impression which I believe to be a false impression. Maybe I am
> being overly scrupulous or rude, I and wouldn't mind someone telling
> me if they think I am. But that the thinking behind my "persecution"
> of "Moshe" by using those horrible little quotation marks.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> "Josh"
***************
Josh has never persecuted me.
He has merely acted like an insulting jerk
in e-mail he has sent to me.
In e-mail he said that I was "playing a
game of charades" in pretending to be
Jewish, claimed that I had said things
that I never said, etc.
He acted like a royal jerk, but he
didn't persecute me.
moshe
guess who wrote:
> vince garcia wrote:
>
> > i agree, joel--x posting here is nearly an unforgiveable sin unless
> > there is an overwhelmingly good reason
>
> well at least you are even handed.
***************
When is Joel going to admit that he was
cross-posting his Christian-bashing into
soc.culture.jewish, even mentioning
the name of Jesus in some of those
posts that he was cross-posting into
soc.culture.jewish?
After all, that was where I was reading
his Christian-bashing and responding
to it, in soc.culture.jewish.
And if Joel says that he was merely
responding to someone else's cross-posted
material, that was what I was doing.
I was responding to posts that the other
person had already cross-posted, so
that it was sent to wherever when I
clicked the "reply" button.
Only 2 times that I can remember did
I create new threads in soc.culture.jewish:
The first never mentioned the name of Yeshua
even once, since it was a long quote
about what the ancient rabbis said about
the end-times. And it was posted only
to soc.culture.jewish.
The second post was sent to both alt.mes
and to soc.culture.jewish, because I wanted
the Christians in alt.mess to know what
soc.culture.jewish is like in case they have
never experienced the animosity there.
Therefore, Joel is complaining that I failed
to delete someone else's pre-set cross-post
after I pressed "reply" to their post.
But that was exactly what Joel was failing
to do also: Joel was failing to delete
someone else's pre-set cross-post after
he pressed "reply" to their post, so his
reply with talk about "Jesus" was appearing
in soc.culture.jewish, where I was reading
Joel's Christian-bashing and responding
to it.
moshe
guess who wrote:
>
> for some time i have had a discussion about with moshe with somebody
> using a hotmail address. over and over again i asked why the care so
> much. finally in the last few days i realized this is either
> joes...@earthlink.com wife janet or his daughter sarah.
>
*****************************
My wife and daughter have never corresponded
with Joel.
Joel mentions my daughter's name in this
volatile arena, although I explicitly said that I
did not want to have her name mentioned so
as to protect her. People who hate me might
try to make her a target.
Joel tries to drag my young daughter
into this by throwing an accusation at her.
That is despicable.
vince garcia
>
> vince garcia wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > i see her persecution of me as blatant anti semitism.
> > >
> >
> > To me, anti-semitism is a hatred for all jews as a group. I don't see
> > Pam or Moshe having such widespread hatred.
>
> i dont remember accusing joes...@earthlink.com of that.
>
> --
>
right--that's why i dont think pam is an antisemite
moshe
Miriam wrote:
> Iwhat I find repugnant is his (and others) equating xianity dressed
> up as Jewish with authentic Judaism.
>
***********
As opposed to your taking Rabbinic Judaism
and pretending that it is the Judaism that
G-d gave to Israel through Moses?
When Yochanan ben Zacchai said "We have
another way", he contradicted the explicit
words of G-d through Moses as contained
in the Bible:
Taking "good deeds" and pretending that
they are the blood sacrifices required in
the Mosaic Law.
Pam
>
>
> See Pam and ARiel, You are right 8-^^^
> joester "never" is anything but polite and civil;
> an ad homineum would "never" be uttered by
> his cyberlips.
>
I never said this, Miriam, and I don't think Ariel has either. I have
said I know he gets his buttons pushed like most of us do. We all say
things in irritation and moshe is no exception.
The original discussion I initiated, and the one I am sticking with, is
my obejection to Joel repeatedly ridiculing moshe's disabling condition,
and his diabetes, and references to his "disease infested body", etc.,
as well as telling moshe that these conditions are not serious enough to
really disable him, and he's just a slacker. I am not making any other
point. I just don't like it when ANYone is deliberately cruel in this
way. I can't think of anyone else in this ng, Jew or Gentile, who would
ridicule disabilities, except maybe for EJ. Calling someone a jerk or
something to that effect is par for the course in this ng, but Joel has
gone way beyond this into entirely new territory.
For a brief sample of what I find so repugnant:
Notice how many months Joel has been using this introduction:
1999/08/16
Author:
guess who
<joey...@uswest.net>
moshe ben joseph, the suffering messiah, after another
sleepless night, with the aid of cane and
crutches moves to
the computer
This is repeated in every post to moshe for months.
*******************
Re: Jesus is not the Messiah...
Date:
Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:49:00 -0400
From:
guess who <joey...@uswest.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.messianic, soc.culture.jewish
moshe crys in pain from another violent reaction to his diabites
medicine while
his body was distracted his yetza hara wrote:
joes...@earthlink.com doenst have a decent moral thought in his diesese
infested body
************************
but then again you would rather whine and live on welfare then attempt to
make yourself a productive member of society.
**************************
> > i have heard from a mutual friend that your condition is
deterioring and some you
> > wont be able to communicate at all. how
does it feel
knowing that your failing
> > health is making people on two ngs happy.
Pam
>
> Miriam wrote:
> >moshe
> ><joes...@earthlink.com> wrote:
> >
> >@
> >@ Josh has never persecuted me.
> >@ He has merely acted like an insulting jerk
> >@ in e-mail he has sent to me.
> >@ In e-mail he said that I was "playing a
> >@ game of charades" in pretending to be
> >@ Jewish, claimed that I had said things
> >@ that I never said, etc.
> >@ He acted like a royal jerk, but he
> >@ didn't persecute me.
> >
> >
> >
> >See Pam and ARiel, You are right 8-^^^
> >joester "never" is anything but polite and civil;
> >an ad homineum would "never" be uttered by
> >his cyberlips.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Your faithful correspondent,
> >
> >Miriam Wolfe
>
> Hi Miriam.
> You know what? I think we all have said things that have been construed as
> rude or sarcastic, including you just now. We're adults and should be able to
> get past it. I could defend Pam, Moshe and myself and say that these retorts
> follow constant provocation and then you'd remind us how, as Christians, we're
> being hypocritical because we're supposed to just take it. That's not the way
> it really works, but, it is not a bad standard to try to aim for. Sometimes
> these arguments are so ridiculous that the only response is a sarcastic one.
> Calling Joel a royal jerk is not in the class of some of the things that people
> here have called Moshe. We are all entitled to opinions, but, the things said
> about him are the cruelest things I have ever seen written on the Internet. Not
> just by Joel, but, many.
I agree -- I remember the shock when he first arrived on the group. It's
never let up. But Joel has taken it to a whole different level that no
one else is willing to go to. No matter how much some despise moshe they
do not stoop to making fun of and taking pleasure in his disabilities.
>
> Calling Pam, or other Christians antisemitic is a typical phenomenon here,
> where instead of people just disagreeing, someone is accused of being an
> antisemite and it is repeated over and over again. Soon, casual readers only
> associate that point and perception becomes reality.
It's a lot like the cries of racism that often become an excuse for
failure. I condemn Joel's behavior and so he pretends it's not really
his behavior that's the issue, but my "deep-rooted malicious
antisemitism". Actually it has nothing to do with religious discussion
or Jew/Gentile at all. It's about common decency, not about moshe
crossposting or his alleged "lies". I am not discussin moshe. I am
discussing an instance of brutal cruelty, and expressing my objection to
it.
> Moshe has had more criticism than anyone here and it is a gang mentality
> against him. Nothing he has said, including "royal jerk" qualifies as rude,
> compared to the remarks he is responding to.
"Jerk" is practically a term of endearment in this group.:-)
>
> I have no doubt that in your non-cyber life, if Moshe were a neighbor, for
> instance, he would be someone who you would check in on, knowing he has been
> sick, and even offer a hand to help him if you could. I bet you'd despise
> anyone who could casually make fun of his suffering...
>
> Beyond cyberspace, there is a real person who has shared stories of his life,
> more than most people would have the honesty to do on the Internet. But, he is
> continuously misquoted and slandered, and always accused of lying. I read
> these threads and everything he says is taken out of context. I think the
> reason that people react to him is that he has a real gift to present Jesus
> Christ in Jewish terms and that is too powerful to overcome. He is very
> scholarly and has devoted his life to seeking the truth. I know this, without
> knowing him, because of the wealth of knowledge and wisdom that is obvious with
> his posts. He also has been truthful about his background and health. What
> more do people want from him?
>
> I believe that he is a gentle and humble person who is blessed by God and
> through his suffering has shared the cross of Jesus Christ. This is what
> Christianity is about to me. Not arguing about whether Jesus was sexual or
> reproduced. I know you won't see it like this, but, as a compassionate person
> in your real life, Miriam, I hope that you can see him with your heart, not by
> your anger at Jesus.
>
> Ariel
Brilliant and compassionate response, Ariel. (And to think that you
wrote it ALL BY YOURSELF! :-)
Jordonfree
just by Joel, but, many. It reminds me of my worst year in High School when I
was new in school and went out with the most popular girl's boyfriend and she
got the entire class to believe lies about me. If things are said often
enough, they begin to take on a life of their own, especially in an anonymous
medium like the Internet. Soon, everyone feels empowered to join in and use
the same language and believe the lies that have been repeated so often.
Calling Pam, or other Christians antisemitic is a typical phenomenon here,
where instead of people just disagreeing, someone is accused of being an
antisemite and it is repeated over and over again. Soon, casual readers only
associate that point and perception becomes reality.
Moshe has had more criticism than anyone here and it is a gang mentality
against him. Nothing he has said, including "royal jerk" qualifies as rude,
compared to the remarks he is responding to.
I have no doubt that in your non-cyber life, if Moshe were a neighbor, for
moshe
Jordonfree wrote:
************
I was referring to joshmoss, who sent me insulting
e-mail in which he said that I was "playing a game
of charades" and that he wasn't going to "play along",
and who accused me of saying things that I never
said, and who accused me of believing things
that I do not believe.
I got fed up with him and told him he was
acting like a jerk, which he was.
Anytime someone repeatedly claims that I
said things which I never said, repeatedly
claims that I believe things which I don't
believe, says that I am a fraud, and repeatedly
calls me "Joe" after I tell him that is not my
name, is going out of his way to act like a jerk.
guess who
Pam wrote:
pam i have documented the lies and deliberately misleading informatino he provided
about his personal life. this was done to give the false impression he was a
religious jew who left judaism to become a christian. this is not the case.
his recent claim of aliyah is a lie. there is no way it is believable. in an
orthodox or conservative shule if, as he claims he was known as a believer in jesus,
there is no way he would receive an aliyah. it as like saying a lutherian was
elected pope, a non morman entered the temple, there will be a homosexual wedding in
your church before a non jew knowingly receives an aliyah in an orthodox or
christian shule.
now i even gave a scenariou where it could have happened by accident. his responce
was that he received many aliyahs. it is such as out ragious lie then telling it
discredits the individual.
> He gets mad sometimes like we
> all do. The problem is that this is an issue that can't be discussed by
> Jews and Christians or MJs at all. We can talk and be friends about
> everything but the conversion of one of "ours" to one of "your camp".
> Like the Edith Stein issue. There's no way to talk about it."
why. ariel has given a lovely testimony about the say think. she just redid it this
week. it is a lovely story and people respect her for it. there are any number of
people in this group that converted from christianity to judaism and have given
there story. there are people who converted from judaism to christianity and back
that have given there story. it is reguallary discussed in this group.
joes...@earthlink.com has tried very hard to give the false impression he was a
religious jew who became a christian. we have learned he was not raised in a
religious jewish family. we have learned he never attended a jewish religious
service till after he became a christian. why does he constantly talk around the
edges of it. i can answer that question. he is trying very hard to give a false
misleading impression of his background. in business that is known as fraud.
the vast majority of jews couldnt careless about edith stein and what the catholic
church does with her memory. the objects come from those that believe the catholic
church was looking for somebody to make a saint that was killed in the houlacaust.
edith stein being a jew became the perfect person. she has certainly be fast tracked
into sainthood. are you saying joes...@earthlink.com is a saint?
why is it impossible to talk about his conversion many other peoples conversion are
regular topics in this group. your argument is as phony as joes...@earthlink.com
life.
guess who
Pam while patting herslef on the back had her yetzer hara write:
> josh...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <19991018202554...@ng-bg1.aol.com>,
> > jordo...@aol.com (Jordonfree) wrote:
> >
> we are clearly told to shake the dust off our feet as we leave those
> who do not want to hear the gospel.
well at least you finally acknowledge that joes...@earthlink.com is
violating a part of your religion by posting to scj.
Jordonfree
>
>Brilliant and compassionate response, Ariel. (And to think that you
>wrote it ALL BY YOURSELF! :-)
Thanks Pam!
:)
With a little help from my yetzer hara? What exactly *IS* a yetzer hara, is
that a euphemism for the holy spirit? I've been meaning to ask that for a
while.
Ariel
moshe
Jordonfree wrote:
****************
Literally the yetzer ha-ra is "evil inclination"
while yetzer ha-tov is "good inclination".
Have you seen those cartoons and funny
movies where an angel stands on one
shoulder of a guy and says "Don't do it"
while a devil stands on the guy's other
shoulder saying "Go for it!"?
But the angel and the devil both look
like miniture versions of the guy on
whose shoulder they are standing,
showing that they are really two
sides of that person's conscience
warring against each other.
Those are the yetzer ha-ra and the
yetzer ha-tov.
Orthodox Judaism says that much
good can actually come from the
yetzer ha-ra, since that aggressive,
impulsive side is actually necessary
for survival.
So the yetzer ha-ra needs to be controlled
so that it only offers as much input into
the person's life as is appropriate.
Ramban said that G-d will destroy
the evil inclination in the world to
come, presumably because it will
no longer serve a good purpose and
would only serve as an enticement
to sin.
moshe
Many people would also say that
Christian minister John Hagee in
Texas would never be given the
opportunity to be guest speaker
at the Friday evening service
at Shearith Israel Conservative
synagogue in Dallas on November
23, 1984.
But he was, and he did.
Many people would say that a
Messianic would never knowingly
be given a job in a Reform synagogue.
I know one who was, because the
Reform rabbi was very sympathetic
to the individual's sincerity
(I was not that Messianic person).
On the other hand, I know a Conservative
rabbi who does not want to be within
100 feet of Christians.
And I know of a Reform rabbi who does
not want the Jewish spouse of a multi-faith
marriage within his congregation because
of the "hassles" it might cause.
The lesson: What happens within any
particular synagogue is entirely dependant
upon what the individual rabbi wants to
do (and what the congregation is willing
to let the rabbi do, but most of the congregation
will be unaware of much of what the rabbi
is doing behind the scenes anyway).
vince garcia
> Joester and Joel both are behaving rudely.
> Neither one of them (nor you) have a leg to stand on.
> As a xian there is absolutely no justification for joester's comments.
> As for Joel, well, his comments are the height of bad taste and reflect
> poorly on him.
>
> IMHO they should both drop it and walk away.
> The End.
>
> --
> Your faithful correspondent,
>
> Miriam Wolfe
well said--that's absolutely the best solution
Artjohn
>From: moshe joes...@earthlink.com
>Date: Wed, 20 October 1999 02:15 PM EDT
>Message-id: <380E06DC...@earthlink.com>
joesterl recently stained this newsgroup with the following trash:
>As opposed to your taking Rabbinic Judaism
>and pretending that it is the Judaism that
>G-d gave to Israel through Moses?
>
>When Yochanan ben Zacchai said "We have
>another way", he contradicted the explicit
>words of G-d through Moses as contained
>in the Bible:
>Taking "good deeds" and pretending that
>they are the blood sacrifices required in
>the Mosaic Law.
>
Who are you to say that prayers offered in the name of the spattered blood of a
murdered first century Jew are more effective with God in remitting sin than
prayers offered by Jews who reject the Gentile faith in Christ that you
embraced?
Why does Christian faith for some people, including you, produce the need to
post such ignorant Antisemitic filth.
It is an utter perversion of the Hebrew Bible to say that God only accepts
animal sacrifices for remission of sin. The prophets are repleat with what God
wants from man-- TO DO JUSTICE; to take care of the poor, the less fortunate.
Without the Temple in Jerusalem, no one, not even you, can offer the animal
sacrifices.
If you want to believe the Gentile fantasy that "faith in Christ" replaces
doing God's commandments, that is your problem.
But dont' expect your pathetic, ignorant and foolish postings here will
convince any believing Jew that your beliefs have any merit.
Your "faith in Jesus" has little in common with the "faith of Jesus."
And, by your postings here, you have demonstrated that you haven't a clue about
modern or ancient Judaism.
ajack
"The NT of course, in its own way, outdoes the OT by killing the apostates and
burning them over and over again throughout eternity, a model which
(unfortunately) certain sages of the Talmud seem to have adopted as well."
Josh, it isn't the "NT" that declares that, but it is the majority of religious
denominations that teach that. And as you said, certain sages of the Talmud
seem to have adopted as well." I'm not sure, but are you inferring that those
sages adopted it from "Christianity?" I believe they both got it from the same
source: Greek thought. The belief of the immortality of the soul is at the root
of that belief. It kind of goes like this: Since that part of mankind called
the soul continues to exist and is immortal then those souls that are condemned
will suffer forever.
The TaNaKh doesn't teach that, nor does the "NT." The "NT" is very strong on
the importance of the resurrection - death is death and to live again comes
through resurrection. Of course to live again through resurrection doesn't
guarantee that you will then live forever, no, only those accounted righteous
will then live forever. Those that aren't accounted righteous will be judged
and then cast into a lake of fire where they will be destroyed forever. It is
during the judgement that any suffering will take place, and it will be in
proportion to the amount of evil a person committed - the more evil the longer
the suffering, the less evil the less the suffering. The suffering will involve
mental anguish - not physical - there will indeed be weeping and gnashing of
teeth.
These are my own beliefs from my personal study of God's Word; they aren't from
any other books I've read or from any denominational teaching. So then, how did
I come to believe these things? In the TaNaKh it says:
(Ezek 18:23 NRSV) "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the
Lord GOD, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?"
Since God hasn't any pleasure in the death of the wicked, I doubt that He'd
have pleasure in their suffering forever.
In the "NT" it is written:
(2 Th 1:9 NRSV) "These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction,
separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,"
It speaks here of "eternal destruction." And from elsewhere in Scripture I
deduce that the destruction will be finalized in the Lake of Fire which is
called the second death.
Yeshua said:
(Mat 12:36 NASB) ""And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall
speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment."
Since I believe that to be so (for the lost) it will be like having your entire
life lived over before your eyes, all the while knowing that there is no longer
a chance to repent - at that time you'll know with certainty that God exists,
what His plans were and are, that you are left out of those glorious plans, and
that you are heading for a permanent and total destruction away from His
presence. The more evil you spoke and performed the longer will be your mental
torment and suffering.
And of course I believe that all those who have not put their faith in Yeshua -
God's salvation - will someday have to stand in that judgment. Those that have
put their faith in Yeshua will be accounted as already having suffered the
judgment of death through Yeshua's death. Yeshua's death is made real to all
those who are accepted in Him by being spiritually joined to Him by God's Holy
Spirit - Paul says that all true believers have been baptized into the body of
the Messiah by one Spirit (I Cor. 12:13).
This is put forward not in the vain of a threat, but of a warning. My sincere
prayer is that all in this NG will be alive someday in the Kingdom of the
Messiah, The Kingdom that was promised to Israel. It isn't so much what you
will get if you don't believe, but what you *won't get* by not believing.
Jack
Pam
>
> In article <380E75ED...@io.com>, Pam <pst...@io.com> wrote:
>
> @ Miriam wrote:
> @ >
> @
> @ >
> @ > See Pam and ARiel, You are right 8-^^^
> @ > joester "never" is anything but polite and civil;
> @ > an ad homineum would "never" be uttered by
> @ > his cyberlips.
> @ >
> @
> @ I never said this, Miriam, and I don't think Ariel has either.
>
> Really? You actually assert that you never made any similar
> types of remarks re:joester's character?
I don't think so. I think both of us have said sometimes moshe gives as
good as he gets, but so do most of us here.
>
> I am not favorably impressed with Joel's taunts. I think he should
> take a break from alt.messy for a while and cool his heels. OTOH
> I think joester should drop out entirely, for his own good. Having
> been out of the altmessy loop (pretty much) for a few months now,
> I now look at the fray and see nothing truly appealing in terms of
> real discussion or debate. I find it extremely pathetic that several
> threads contianing a gazillion posts are focused on the cat fight
> nasties of Joel and Joester.
I dropped out for a while, too, and only dropped in to say this one
thing -- Joel has gone too far this time. I am used to all the other
usual mudslinging by now but not this. There has to be a line somewhere,
and I think most of us know where it is.
>
> I recommend ignoring them both until they talk dogmatic substance.
>
> I feel compassion for the man with the dire starits that joester describes,
> his humanity should be respected (as everyone's should);
Amen, and ...
>as for his
> theological views, well they are fair game on this ng, and I will gladly
> argue against him.
amen.
>
> Joel and Joester should simply drop the personal warring,
> no apologies, no rationalizations--just the both of them should
> shut up.
>
> But that's only my opinion, your mileage may vary.
>
You and I have had plenty of words but on this particular issue we seem
to be in agreement. We will do our share of mudslinging on occasion, but
there is a line we won't cross.
Jordonfree
>
>So are you adjusting your original blind defense of Joester?
>I am not interested in your rationalizations and excuses Ariel.
>
>
>Joester and Joel both are behaving rudely.
>Neither one of them (nor you) have a leg to stand on.
>As a xian there is absolutely no justification for joester's comments.
>As for Joel, well, his comments are the height of bad taste and reflect
>poorly on him.
>
>IMHO they should both drop it and walk away.
>The End.
>
>--
>Your faithful correspondent,
>
>Miriam Wolfe
Yup!
:)
Ariel
Jordonfree
Cool explanation. Thanks!
Ariel
moshe
Artjohn wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Persecuting Moshe<was-Re: Jesus is not the Messiah...
> >From: moshe joes...@earthlink.com
> >Date: Wed, 20 October 1999 02:15 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <380E06DC...@earthlink.com>
>
> joesterl recently stained this newsgroup with the following trash:
>
> >As opposed to your taking Rabbinic Judaism
> >and pretending that it is the Judaism that
> >G-d gave to Israel through Moses?
> >
> >When Yochanan ben Zacchai said "We have
> >another way", he contradicted the explicit
> >words of G-d through Moses as contained
> >in the Bible:
> >Taking "good deeds" and pretending that
> >they are the blood sacrifices required in
> >the Mosaic Law.
> >
>
> Who are you to say that prayers offered in the name of the spattered blood of a
> murdered first century Jew are more effective with God in remitting sin than
> prayers offered by Jews who reject the Gentile faith in Christ that you
> embraced?
******************
Torah in the books of Moses does not permit
the substitution of good deeds for the required
animal sacrifices in the temple, such as for
Leviticus Chapters 4 and 16.
What Yochanan ben Zacchai claimed is not
found in Torah in the books of Moses.
*******************
> Why does Christian faith for some people, including you, produce the need to
> post such ignorant Antisemitic filth.
******************
Disagreeing with certain doctrines of
Orthodox Judaism does not constitute
"anti-Semitism", and you are dishonest
when you claim that it does.
***************************
> It is an utter perversion of the Hebrew Bible to say that God only accepts
> animal sacrifices for remission of sin.
**************************
That is not what I have ever said.
Torah required animal sacriifices
for SOME instances, such as in
Leviticus Chapters 4 and 16, and
Israel has not offered such required
sacrifices for almost 2,000 years.
Just because some sin did not
require blood, that does not change
the fact that other sin did require
blood.
**************************
> The prophets are repleat with what God
> wants from man-- TO DO JUSTICE; to take care of the poor, the less fortunate.
**********************
Then it was absolutely non-sensical for G-d
to have ever instituted the Temple sacrificial
system in the first place, since you have
just declared it to be unimportant.
**********************
> Without the Temple in Jerusalem, no one, not even you, can offer the animal
> sacrifices.
********************
Bingo.
********************
> If you want to believe the Gentile fantasy that "faith in Christ" replaces
> doing God's commandments, that is your problem.
******************
You believe Yochanan ben Zacchai's
statement that doing good deeds has
replaced G-d's explicit commandments
in the books of Moses.
**********************
> But dont' expect your pathetic, ignorant and foolish postings here will
> convince any believing Jew that your beliefs have any merit.
***************
It is not my duty to make you believe.
It is my duty to speak the truth.
You are then responsible to G-d for
how you accept or reject that truth.
*****************
> Your "faith in Jesus" has little in common with the "faith of Jesus."
*****************
I follow the explicit words of Yeshua in John 3:18,
where he said that belief in him is what saves.
********************
> And, by your postings here, you have demonstrated that you haven't a clue about
> modern or ancient Judaism.
******************
To disagree with it is not the same as being
ignorant of it.
I don't like Limburger cheese, either, but
that isn't because I am ignorant of it.
guess who
Jordonfree wrote:
> Pam wrote:
> >
> >Brilliant and compassionate response, Ariel. (And to think that you
> >wrote it ALL BY YOURSELF! :-)
>
> Thanks Pam!
> :)
> With a little help from my yetzer hara? What exactly *IS* a yetzer hara, is
> that a euphemism for the holy spirit? I've been meaning to ask that for a
> while.
no its the part of my headers that upset pam that is an insult and even after i
told joes...@earthlink.com that it was an insult and i meant it as an insult
he still didnt get it.
Jerry Grushow
>
> J Moss wrote:
>
> "The NT of course, in its own way, outdoes the OT by killing the apostates and
> burning them over and over again throughout eternity, a model which
> (unfortunately) certain sages of the Talmud seem to have adopted as well."
>
> Josh, it isn't the "NT" that declares that, but it is the majority of religious
> denominations that teach that. And as you said, certain sages of the Talmud
> seem to have adopted as well." I'm not sure, but are you inferring that those
> sages adopted it from "Christianity?" I believe they both got it from the same
> source: Greek thought. The belief of the immortality of the soul is at the root
> of that belief. It kind of goes like this: Since that part of mankind called
> the soul continues to exist and is immortal then those souls that are condemned
> will suffer forever.
>
> The TaNaKh doesn't teach that, nor does the "NT." The "NT" is very strong on
> the importance of the resurrection - death is death and to live again comes
> through resurrection. Of course to live again through resurrection doesn't
> guarantee that you will then live forever, no, only those accounted righteous
> will then live forever. Those that aren't accounted righteous will be judged
> and then cast into a lake of fire where they will be destroyed forever. It is
> during the judgement that any suffering will take place, and it will be in
> proportion to the amount of evil a person committed - the more evil the longer
> the suffering, the less evil the less the suffering. The suffering will involve
> mental anguish - not physical - there will indeed be weeping and gnashing of
> teeth.
evil one committed in life verses the good one did. A soul has a typical
life of 160 years. At that point its intensity is down to 2 percent of the
time of death.
In death we live in a collective state upon the dual spiritual Earth on the
opposite side of the sun.We are all together in death. It is heaven to some
and hell to others but in the end, both saint and sinner dies.
> These are my own beliefs from my personal study of God's Word; they aren't from
> any other books I've read or from any denominational teaching. So then, how did
> I come to believe these things? In the TaNaKh it says:
>
> (Ezek 18:23 NRSV) "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the
> Lord GOD, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?"
>That is the little Jewish God speaking. There were 1000 to 10,000 little
tribal gods at the time. They are only collectives of the ancestral dead.
> Since God hasn't any pleasure in the death of the wicked, I doubt that He'd
> have pleasure in their suffering forever.
>The Jewish God would have no say in that matter. Only the God of the
universe sets the structure of the heavens. We don't get much time there.
> In the "NT" it is written:
>
> (2 Th 1:9 NRSV) "These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction,
> separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,"
> This is nice sentiment but unfortunately we all must suffer awhile in death.
> It speaks here of "eternal destruction." And from elsewhere in Scripture I
> deduce that the destruction will be finalized in the Lake of Fire which is
> called the second death.
>There is no fire. We merely fade out in the world of the dead as if we
never existed. Moses, Isaiah, Yeshua, etc. all perished long ago.
> Yeshua said:
>
> (Mat 12:36 NASB) ""And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall
> speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment."
> Unfortunately he no longer exists.
> Since I believe that to be so (for the lost) it will be like having your entire
> life lived over before your eyes, all the while knowing that there is no longer
> a chance to repent - at that time you'll know with certainty that God exists,
> what His plans were and are, that you are left out of those glorious plans, and
> that you are heading for a permanent and total destruction away from His
> presence. The more evil you spoke and performed the longer will be your mental
> torment and suffering.
>
> And of course I believe that all those who have not put their faith in Yeshua -
> God's salvation - will someday have to stand in that judgment. Those that have
> put their faith in Yeshua will be accounted as already having suffered the
> judgment of death through Yeshua's death. Yeshua's death is made real to all
> those who are accepted in Him by being spiritually joined to Him by God's Holy
> Spirit - Paul says that all true believers have been baptized into the body of
> the Messiah by one Spirit (I Cor. 12:13).
>
Nice words but meaningless. The universe could care less what Paul thought.
His soul was long gone by 200AD.
> This is put forward not in the vain of a threat, but of a warning. My sincere
> prayer is that all in this NG will be alive someday in the Kingdom of the
> Messiah, The Kingdom that was promised to Israel. It isn't so much what you
> will get if you don't believe, but what you *won't get* by not believing.
>We all need some fairy tales, some hope. Yeshua believed the Biblical
stories as if they were true.He believed that his death would bring about
the new Earth. However that is for higher man in the future after the wipe
out. then a new Earth will emerge from the ashes of the old. and higher man
will walk the new Earth and not even know we were on it unless we survive
by establishing safe havens on Mars and Venus and the moon. Then a few of
us can return and produce higher man.
> Jack
Pam
LOL -- nailed him, moshe!
guess who
moshe wrote:
> Many people would also say that
> Christian minister John Hagee in
> Texas would never be given the
> opportunity to be guest speaker
> at the Friday evening service
> at Shearith Israel Conservative
> synagogue in Dallas on November
> 23, 1984.
> But he was, and he did.
there is a differance between allowing a christian to speak
at a verse. very common among shules that are active in
inter faith dialogue. rabbis will speak in the churches and
giving a christian an aliyah a violation of ritual purity
that will not happen
> Many people would say that a
> Messianic would never knowingly
> be given a job in a Reform synagogue.
> I know one who was, because the
> Reform rabbi was very sympathetic
> to the individual's sincerity
> (I was not that Messianic person).
unlike christians jews are not adverse to hiring people of
other religions to do office work. on the other hand did
would not let the non jews defile a religious ceremony.
> On the other hand, I know a Conservative
> rabbi who does not want to be within
> 100 feet of Christians.
> And I know of a Reform rabbi who does
> not want the Jewish spouse of a multi-faith
> marriage within his congregation because
> of the "hassles" it might cause.
>
i know an orthodox rabbi who sees mj churches as a training
ground for orthodox jews. non religious jews go to mj church
learn about judaism then seek out an orthodox shule once
they realize what judaism has to offer.
> The lesson: What happens within any
> particular synagogue is entirely dependant
> upon what the individual rabbi wants to
> do (and what the congregation is willing
> to let the rabbi do, but most of the congregation
> will be unaware of much of what the rabbi
> is doing behind the scenes anyway).
the issue is not an interface issue.
the issue is not how a rabbi feels about non jews
the issue is about ritual purity.
that is why you are lieing if you say that in a conservative
or orthodox shule you received an aliyah with the rabbi
aware you were a christian. i have presented a way this may
have happened by accident.
were these aliyahs really at your mj church and not in the
conservative or orthodox shules you atteneded.
guess who
Pam patting herself on the back allowed her yetzer hara to write:
> moshe wrote:
>
> LOL -- nailed him, moshe!
huh the same tired old dreck we disproved 7 months ago
Artjohn
>From: moshe joes...@earthlink.com
>Message-id: <380F5C21...@earthlink.com>
>Torah in the books of Moses does not permit
>the substitution of good deeds for the required
>animal sacrifices in the temple, such as for
>Leviticus Chapters 4 and 16.
What the Torah does not permit is your worship of a cruelly murdered first
century Jew and abandoment of following the Commandments, including kashrut and
Sabbath observance.
As for the role of animal sacrifices, prayer, charity and good deeds in the
remission of sin, you have demontstrated your unwillingness to really read the
bible.
For example, you and Christian Evangelical's like you simply ignore the book of
Jonah where an entire Gentile community was forgiven of sin without the
shedding of a drop of blood.
And you ignore passages such as Ezek. 33:11 which state "As I live, says G-d, I
have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that they turn from their way
and live." or Ibid. 33:19 "When the wicked turns from his sin, and does what is
lawful and right, he shall live thereby." or Jer. 36:3 "That every man shall
return from his way, and I will forgive him." or 1 Kings 8:33,34 "If they
return to You, and confess Your Name, and pray...then You will hear in Heaven,
and forgive their sin."
None of these passages and dozens of others mention shedding of blood.
R. Joshua b. Levi also said: When the Temple was in existence, if a man brought
a burnt offering, he received credit for a burnt offering; if a meal offering,
he received credit for a meal offering; but he who was humble in spirit,
Scripture regarded him as though he had brought all the offerings, for it is
said, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit.5 And furthermore, his prayers
are not despised, for it is written, A broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou
wilt not despise.6 Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 43b, referring to Psalem 51:19
(51:17 in some versions)
You have repeatedly been unable to provide a single Torah portion that says
prayer or good deeds CANNOT remit sin, while ignoring the dozens of passages
which clearly say they are sufficient.
Where does the Torah permit worship of a murdered first century Jewish holy
man instead of obeying the Commandments and praying directly to God Alone?
>Disagreeing with certain doctrines of
>Orthodox Judaism does not constitute
>"anti-Semitism", and you are dishonest
>when you claim that it does.
Words have meanings. Your persistent and sad claim that Jews don't practice
Judaism because they reject Christ is part of the Antisemite's word arsenal and
thought processes in their incessant attack against Jews. Underpinning your sad
postings in this newsgoup is the notion that God has abandoned the Jews b/c
they rejected the Gentiles Christ. That notion, abandonment by God, has
permitted others to go out and kill Jews. It is your intellectual dishonesty
that prevents you from seeing the antisemitism in your brand of Evangelical
Christianity. I could tell you to read William Nicholls "Christian
Antisemtism: A History of Hate" but then in your present perverted mind, it
would be of little use.
>Israel has not offered such required
>sacrifices for almost 2,000 years.
>Just because some sin did not
>require blood, that does not change
>the fact that other sin did require
>blood.
Name one sin that can be reprented by offering of a sacrificial animal but
*cannot be* repented by charity.
>Then it was absolutely non-sensical for G-d
>to have ever instituted the Temple sacrificial
>system in the first place, since you have
>just declared it to be unimportant.
You haven't begun to consider why God permitted men to worship Him in varying
ways.
Show ONE passage from the Torah that says prayer is not acceptable for
remission of sin.
>> Without the Temple in Jerusalem, no one, not even you, can offer the animal
>> sacrifices.
>
>********************
>
>Bingo.
Bingo what?
If animal sacrifices alone remitted sin, then of what use of your worship of a
murdered Jew?
>> If you want to believe the Gentile fantasy that "faith in Christ" replaces
>> doing God's commandments, that is your problem.
>
>******************
>
>You believe Yochanan ben Zacchai's
>statement that doing good deeds has
>replaced G-d's explicit commandments
>in the books of Moses.
You didn't answer the problem. If, as you say, the Bible says only animal
sacrifices remit sin, then of what use is the Gentile fantasy that faith in
Christ?
I cut my hand today while slicing a bagel--and shed blood. Are my sins
forgiven?
If Rome had become a compassionate state and outlawed the death penalty, would
the world remain unredeemed?
If Rome had used lethal injection rather than crucifixion to murder Jesus,
would you now worship the needle as you do the cross?
Would you have cheered on Jesus' murder b/c of your perverted view that only
thorugh his murder would the world be saved?
Is it possible that God wanted Jesus to live, and wept at his murder, as He
weeps at the underserved death of any of His righteous children?
>I follow the explicit words of Yeshua in John 3:18,
>where he said that belief in him is what saves.
Nonsense, what you have chosen to follow is a perverted English translation of
what an Aramaic Jewish sage may or many not have spoken 2000 years ago.
I won't quote English translations of the Koran or the Book of Mormon to you.
Don't waste your time quoting the Gentile's bible to me.
>To disagree with it is not the same as being
>ignorant of it.
ROFLOL
If as you believe that when God Himself walked as a man on this earth he choose
to do so as an observant practicing Jew who followed (in his own manner
perhaps) Rabbinic interpretations of the Torah, who are you to disagree with
the choice of others to similarly follow Judaism!
Artjohn
>Torah in the books of Moses does not permit
>the substitution of good deeds for the required
>animal sacrifices in the temple, such as for
>Leviticus Chapters 4 and 16.
>What Yochanan ben Zacchai claimed is not
>found in Torah in the books of Moses.
By this remark (and others you make) you demonstrate that you suffer from a
fundamental misunderstanding of the Hebrew Bible--the same misunderstanding
unfortuantely shared by most Evangelical Christians.
Animal sacrifices offered when the Temple stood in Jerusalem were not primarily
for the forgiveness of sin.
As has been pointed out in the newsgroup by many times by many different Jewish
posters over the past few years, the majority of sacrifices had to do with
ritual defilement, offerings of thanksgiving, and fellowship meals, not
atonement for sin.
Even those few connected with "sin" were not some magical means of automatic
forgiveness through blood. The one way' of forgiveness has always been the
same: repentance, confession, and restitution (see Numbers 5:5-7), not blood
sacrifices.
Without repentance toward God there was no forgiveness. Ezekiel 18 sets forth
the entire system of God's justice and His mercy in the clearest possible way:
"The soul who sins shall die .... but if a wicked man turns from all his sins
which he has committed, and keeps all My statues, and does what is lawful and
right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his transgressions which
he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness
which he has done, he shall live. Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked
should die? ' says God, "and not that he should turn from his `ways and live?"
(Ezekiel 18:4, 21-23).
The blood of "covering" (atonement) was to reinforce upon the people the
awesome Holiness of God and the life and death issues involved in sin, but the
"broken and contrite heart" is the only real "sacrifice" required.
Abraham "trusted in God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" (Genesis
15:6).
"The righteous (the zadik) shall live by faith" (Habakkuk 2:4).
Contrary to what you have been taught by the Baptizers, any and all who fear,
love, and obey Him, whether Jew or Gentile, who live that life of faith by
obeying His commandments, are true "children of Abraham" and heirs according to
the Promise.
Further expanding on this them, it is clear that the animal sacrifices were
connected with the Holiness of God's Presence in the Tabernacle. But these
offerings were never a substitute for repentance and restitution or
reconciliation (Numbers 5:5).
Notice the often overlooked text in Jeremiah, which the Baptizers want you to
forget:
"Thus says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, Add your burnt offerings to
your sacrifices and eat flesh. For I did nor speak to your fathers or command
them in the day, that I brought them our of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt
offerings and sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them saying, Obey My
voice, and I will be your God and you will be My people (Jeremiah 7:21-23).
This is an extraordinary insight, offered by God Himself regarding His true
intent for Israel.
Even at the giving of the Torah at Sinai He did not really want, or require,
animal sacrifices (see Amos 5:21-25!). He wanted their inner devotion, which is
the basis for the covenantal relationship. The whole system of sacrifices was
an accomodation to their weaknesses, and their lack of reverence for the
holiness of the Lord (see Ezekiel 20:24-26). What does God truly want? "The
sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contnte heart O God, you
will not despise" (Psalm 51:17).
The prophets constantly repeat this consistent theme.
"With what shall I come before God, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I
come before Him with burnt offering, with calves a year old? Will God be
pleased with thousands of rams, then thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my
firstborn for my transgression, thefruit of my body for the sin of my soul! He
has shown you, O man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you but
to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:7-8).
It has always been the same, from age to age. God the Creator, whose hand has
made all things, is greater than any Temple or system of worship. "I desire
loyal love (chesed), not sacrifice" says God (Hosea 6:6).
He responds directly to those who cry out to Him
"Thus says the Lord, Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool. Where
is a house you could build for Me? . . . But to this one I will look, to him
who is humble and contrite in spirit and who trembles at My Word" (Isaiah
66:1-2)
"Burnt offering and sin offering You have not reguired. . . Behold I come; in
the scroll of the book it is written of me; I delight to do Your will, O my
God; Your Torah is within my heart" (Psalm 40:6-7).
When anyone, Jew or Gentile, turns directly to God in this way, He promises to
hear, forgive, and enter into an intimate partnership with such a one:
"The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in
faithfulness (Psalm 145:18).
This way of salvation has never changed. It transcends all the so-called
"dispensations" of all the ages. It is the way of grace through faith. It was
the same for Enoch, Noah, Job, and Abraham, as well as Moses and all the
Prophets.
It was clearly affirmed by the Nazarene. Reading past what others have said
about him, the Nazarene seems to have taught that sinners are to turn directly
to God to receive forgiveness.
For example, he relates the story of the two men who go up to the Temple to
pray, one self righteous, and the other a "sinner." The sinner turns directly
to God in repentance, and goes away justified (Luke 18:13). The well-known st
ory of the "prodigal son" makes the same point. In dozens of sayings, the hero
of Christian faith unambiguously affirms this point: God hears sinners who turn
to Him in heartfelt repentance. He is simply echoing the words and teachings of
Judaism and the Hebrew Prophets.
So your teaching that the Bible offeres forgiveness of sins based only on the
blood of animal sacrifices is, charitably, is major misunderstandings of the
Scriptures.
You should know that all sin is ultimately against God.
When David commits adultery with Bathsheva, and even has her husband murdered,
he turns to God for forgiveness. He prays, "Against you and you only have I
sinned, and done what is evil in your sight" (Psalm 51:4; cf. 2 Samuel 12:13).
This is consistent throughout the Scriptures (see Genesis 20:6; 39:9; Numbers
5:5). God promises forgiveness based on His own compassion and goodness:
"I, even I, am the One who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake
(Isaiah 43:25).
"For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is His steadfast love
(chesed) toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, so far
has He removed our transgressions from us. Just as a father has compassion on
his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him (Psalm
103:11-13).
"In steadfast love and faithfulness is atonement (lit. "covering") provided for
iniquity; and by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil (Proverbs 16:6).
Psalm 103:8 mentions the precise "character description" which God revealed to
Moses in Exodus 34: "The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and
abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.
God's forgiveness is direct and unmediated, based upon His own tender merices
and His own loyal love, offered to ALL WHO CALL UPON HIM, Jew and Gentile
alike, even Catholic and Protestant.
Forgiveness of sins is not some cosmic "balancing of the books," some legal
transaction of justice, for which a payment in blood is required. The God of
the Hebrew Bible and of Judaism forgives as a father forgives His Own children,
out of love and concern for them.
The only way of salvation is by grace through faith, based on a personal
encounter with God.
As David put it: Bllessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is
covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, and in
whose spirit there is no deceit (Psalm 32:1-2).
Your cramped view of God's mercy, perverted by Evangelical misunderstandings,
was and always will be rejected by Jews who hold strong to the covenant Abraham
originally concluded with God.
(with thanks to Dr. James Tabor)
Artjohn
>Torah in the books of Moses does not permit
>the substitution of good deeds for the required
>animal sacrifices in the temple, such as for
>Leviticus Chapters 4 and 16.
>What Yochanan ben Zacchai claimed is not
>found in Torah in the books of Moses.
By this remark (and others you make) you demonstrate that you suffer from a
fundamental misunderstanding of the Hebrew Bible--the same misunderstanding
unfortunately shared by most Evangelical Christians.
Animal sacrifices offered when the Temple stood in Jerusalem were not primarily
for the forgiveness of sin.
As has been pointed out in the news group by many times by many different
Jewish posters over the past few years, the majority of sacrifices had to do
with ritual defilement, offerings of thanksgiving, and fellowship meals, not
atonement for sin.
Even those few connected with "sin" were not some magical means of automatic
forgiveness through blood. The one way' of forgiveness has always been the
same: Repentance, confession, and restitution (see Numbers 5:5-7), not blood
an accommodation to their weaknesses, and their lack of reverence for the
holiness of the Lord (see Ezekiel 20:24-26). What does God truly want? "The
sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart O God, you
will not despise" (Psalm 51:17).
The prophets constantly repeat this consistent theme.
"With what shall I come before God, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I
come before Him with burnt offering, with calves a year old? Will God be
pleased with thousands of rams, then thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my
firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul! He
has shown you, O man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you but
to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:7-8).
It has always been the same, from age to age. God the Creator, whose hand has
made all things, is greater than any Temple or system of worship. "I desire
loyal love (chesed), not sacrifice" says God (Hosea 6:6).
He responds directly to those who cry out to Him
"Thus says the Lord, Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool. Where
is a house you could build for Me? . . . But to this one I will look, to him
who is humble and contrite in spirit and who trembles at My Word" (Isaiah
66:1-2)
"Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required. . . Behold I come; in
the scroll of the book it is written of me; I delight to do Your will, O my
God; Your Torah is within my heart" (Psalm 40:6-7).
When anyone, Jew or Gentile, turns directly to God in this way, He promises to
hear, forgive, and enter into an intimate partnership with such a one:
"The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in
faithfulness (Psalm 145:18).
This way of salvation has never changed. It transcends all the so-called
"dispensations" of all the ages. It is the way of grace through faith. It was
the same for Enoch, Noah, Job, and Abraham, as well as Moses and all the
Prophets.
It was clearly affirmed by the Nazarene. Reading past what others have said
about him, the Nazarene seems to have taught that sinners are to turn directly
to God to receive forgiveness.
For example, he relates the story of the two men who go up to the Temple to
pray, one self righteous, and the other a "sinner." The sinner turns directly
to God in repentance, and goes away justified (Luke 18:13). The well-known
story of the "prodigal son" makes the same point. In dozens of sayings, the
hero of Christian faith unambiguously affirms this point: God hears sinners who
turn to Him in heartfelt repentance. He is simply echoing the words and
teachings of Judaism and the Hebrew Prophets.
So your teaching that the Bible offers forgiveness of sins based only on the
blood of animal sacrifices is, charitably, is major misunderstandings of the
Scriptures.
You should know that all sin is ultimately against God.
When David commits adultery with Bathsheva, and even has her husband murdered,
he turns to God for forgiveness. He prays, "Against you and you only have I
sinned, and done what is evil in your sight" (Psalm 51:4; cf. 2 Samuel 12:13).
This is consistent throughout the Scriptures (see Genesis 20:6; 39:9; Numbers
5:5). God promises forgiveness based on His own compassion and goodness:
"I, even I, am the One who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake
(Isaiah 43:25).
"For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is His steadfast love
(chesed) toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, so far
has He removed our transgressions from us. Just as a father has compassion on
his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him (Psalm
103:11-13).
"In steadfast love and faithfulness is atonement (lit. "covering") provided for
iniquity; and by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil (Proverbs 16:6).
Psalm 103:8 mentions the precise "character description" which God revealed to
Moses in Exodus 34: "The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and
abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.
God's forgiveness is direct and unmediated, based upon His own tender mercies
and His own loyal love, offered to ALL WHO CALL UPON HIM, Jew and Gentile
alike, even Catholic and Protestant.
Forgiveness of sins is not some cosmic "balancing of the books," some legal
transaction of justice, for which a payment in blood is required. The God of
the Hebrew Bible and of Judaism forgives as a father forgives His Own children,
out of love and concern for them.
The only way of salvation is by grace through faith, based on a personal
encounter with God.
As David put it: Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is
Jordonfree
Passover lamb and its blood? Why, if blood sacrifice is not a ritual
requirement, was it necessary at all?
It doesn't link up to me. I agree, however, that it is a contrite heart and
good works that God commands us to do. But, do these empower us to be
considered righteous enough to face the Living God?
What was the purpose of the Passover Lamb?
Ariel
Artjohn
>Date: Fri, 22 October 1999 06:03 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19991022180323...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
Ariel writes:
>Tell me, and I don't ask this to be provocative, WHAT is the purpose of the
>Passover lamb and its blood? Why, if blood sacrifice is not a ritual
>requirement, was it necessary at all?
Egypt worshipped the lamb, and there could be no better way to
show God's dominance over Egypt than by having Israelite slaves kill one of
Egypt's gods.
I understand that your question is not meant to offend, and
because it is one frequently asked by Christians, it is answered in full at:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/passoverlamb.html (Did the Passover Lamb
foreshadow Jesus?)
If you go to that site, you will learn that the annual sacrifice of the
paschal lamb was instituted as a part of the celebration commemorating the
redemption from Egyptian bondage Exodus 12:14, 26 and 27.
It is completely disconnected from any guilt offering intended to
bring about forgiveness of sin.
In Hebrew, as you no doubt already know, "pesach" literally means "passed" or
skipped over, as in when God brought death to the firstborn of Egypt, he passed
over the homes of the Jews. Jewish tradition (the Rambam) has it that God
chose only lambs or sheep for this offering because they were Egyptian deities.
(The ancient Egyptians worshiped a Ram God called Khnemu) The use by the Jews
of these animals as offerings demonstrated conclusively the total subjugation
of Egypt to the will of God, and that no Jew who trusted in God feared no
reprisal of any kind from Egyptian people or their gods.
I suppose the source of your question is that the NT and Christian teachings
continually refer to Jesus as the Passover lamb. Clearly, it is literally
false that Jesus was a lamb, (he had neither a split hoof nor did he chew his
cud) and as importantly, the analogy to the Paschal lamb doesn't work for
anyone who takes the time to actually read the Hebrew Bible and the Exodus
story. No honest reading of the Hebrew Bible would permit any comparison of
the sacrifice of the Passover lamb to redemption from sin. To be sure, Yom
Kippur, not Passover, has sacrifices related to sin, but inconveniently for the
Gospel story tellers, the tradition that Jesus was murdered at Passover time
was apparently too well entrenched to have him dying at Yom Kippur. So they
inflated the Passover story. See also
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/javasite/FAQ/FAQ-Q39.html
Interestingly, it is doubtful that Jesus ever expressed the typical
Evangelical Christian teaching that God was holding humanity hostage until
someone paid the price. An honest reading of the Hebrew Bible demonstrates
conclusively that Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Psalmist, indeed,
no prophet of Israel, ever held such views or endorsed the primitive idea that
God needs or is appeased by blood sacrifices. That is one of the many reasons
Jews reject this aspect of Gentile Christianity – we reject the notion of
redemption by execution. In our view, it is an utter perversion of history to
have sanctified the Roman death penalty, especially when history records that
so many thousands of our righteous sons and daughters perished from that most
gruesome form of in human torture. The murder of Jesus was a tragedy, and Jews
were well aware of that for they had witnesses thousands of their people suffer
a like fate at the hands of the Romans. A God who wanted Jesus – or any
righteous innocent– to die could not be the God of outgoing love for all his
creatures. It smacks of human sacrifice. This peculiar Christian teaching
cannot be reconciled with the Hebrew Bible, where God is described as desiring
mercy not sacrifices (Hosea 6:6), and that the noblest offering to Him is "a
contrite spirit." Psalms 24:3-6.
Good luck on your studies.
Jordonfree
>
> Egypt worshipped the lamb, and there could be no better way to
>show God's dominance over Egypt than by having Israelite slaves kill one of
>Egypt's gods.
>
> I understand that your question is not meant to offend, and
>because it is one frequently asked by Christians, it is answered in full at:
>http://www.outreachjudaism.org/passoverlamb.html (Did the Passover Lamb
>foreshadow Jesus?)
>
> If you go to that site, you will learn that the annual sacrifice of the
>paschal lamb was instituted as a part of the celebration commemorating the
>redemption from Egyptian bondage Exodus 12:14, 26 and 27.
I'll take a look at those sources that you've mentioned. I remember a similar
thread where we did discuss the fact that the Egyptians worshipped lambs, and
I'll try to find some of those discussions, but, we were at a loss to find that
type of worship amongst the Egyptians, other than by anectotal referrance.
Thanks for the
links though. I'll check them out.
Ariel
Artjohn
>similar
>thread where we did discuss the fact that the Egyptians worshipped lambs, and
>I'll try to find some of those discussions, but, we were at a loss to find
>that
>type of worship amongst the Egyptians, other than by anectotal referrance.
I think if you check any good reference Encyclopedia about ancient Egyptian
religious practices, you will learn that they worshipped many different birds
and animals.
Best of luck on your studies.
Pam
We have heard this lamb worship story before. The Encycopedia Brittanica
has a chart describing 24 main gods and another with 18 minor ones.
There are the familiar jackal-heads and numerous other animals, but no
Lamb Chop. Lambs must have been very minor gods. If the only
significance of the Passover animal being a lamb is God's way of being
"in your face" to the Egyptians, I would think He would pick one of the
major gods to offend them with.
I thought that the lamb in the binding of Isaac account being a
foreshadowing of the Passover Lamb, which someone mentioned, is more plausible.
Jordonfree
>
>We have heard this lamb worship story before. The Encycopedia Brittanica
>has a chart describing 24 main gods and another with 18 minor ones.
>There are the familiar jackal-heads and numerous other animals, but no
>Lamb Chop. Lambs must have been very minor gods. If the only
>significance of the Passover animal being a lamb is God's way of being
>"in your face" to the Egyptians, I would think He would pick one of the
>major gods to offend them with.
>
>I thought that the lamb in the binding of Isaac account being a
>foreshadowing of the Passover Lamb, which someone mentioned, is more
>plausible.
It does seem more parrellel. It will make an interesting study.
Jordonfree
>jordo...@aol.com (Jordonfree) wrote:
>
>@ Tell me, and I don't ask this to be provocative, WHAT is the purpose of the
>@ Passover lamb and its blood?
>
>
>The pascal sacrifice is a commemoration of the Exodus.
Yes. That's what I believe it is.
>@ Why, if blood sacrifice is not a ritual
>@ requirement, was it necessary at all?
>I am not sure what you are asking.
Artjohn mentioned that the lamb was used because of the Egyptian deification of
the lamb, or sheep, and not as a blood offering. I'm trying to gain an
understanding of the Jewish view of blood sacrifice. I was taught that the
Passover Lamb and it's blood was a sign of atonement, as well as a marker for
the Angel of Death to bypass the doors of those who had the blood on their
doorposts.
>@ What was the purpose of the Passover Lamb?
>The pascal sacrifice is a commemoration of the Exodus.
>At the time of the Exodus the blood was used as a marker.
Is that it's only purpose? What did the blood represent?
Ariel
guess who
Jordonfree wrote:
blood
Jordonfree
>> >At the time of the Exodus the blood was used as a marker.
>> Is that it's only purpose? What did the blood represent?
>blood
Thanks Joel, that was a *BIG* help!!!!
:-/
Ariel
Josh Moss
(Jordonfree) writes:
>Artjohn mentioned that the lamb was used because of the Egyptian deification
>of
>the lamb, or sheep, and not as a blood offering. I'm trying to gain an
>understanding of the Jewish view of blood sacrifice. I was taught that the
>Passover Lamb and it's blood was a sign of atonement, as well as a marker for
>the Angel of Death to bypass the doors of those who had the blood on their
>doorposts.
Every body and their brother can have their view, and rabbis had theirs and the
missionary movement has its views. But where (in either OT or NT) does Biblical
text *say* passover lamb was for atonement? I think it was for *redemption* (a
different concept) of the firstborn of Israel, but again that is merely another
opinion.
Josh Moss
josh...@aol.com
http://www.uc.edu/~mossja
Jordonfree
>Every body and their brother can have their view, and rabbis had theirs and
>the
>missionary movement has its views. But where (in either OT or NT) does
>Biblical
>text *say* passover lamb was for atonement? I think it was for *redemption*
>(a
>different concept) of the firstborn of Israel, but again that is merely
>another
>opinion.
>Josh Moss
>josh...@aol.com
I think that's a great opinion. It makes the most sense to me.
Ariel
moshe
Jordonfree wrote:
******************
G-d said that if He saw the blood applied
the people would be permitted to live.
G-d said that if He did not see the blood
applied the people would be put to death.
And that such judgement would be on
an indidvidual house-to-house basis.
That sounds so familiar that no wonder
they don't want to answer the question.
Jordonfree
Lord. Thanks brother.
Ariel
guess who
moshe while wondering why sour cream has an experation date allowed
his yetzer hara to write:
> Jordonfree wrote:
>
> > Joel wrote:
> > >> >At the time of the Exodus the blood was used as a marker.
> >
> > >> Is that it's only purpose? What did the blood represent?
> >
> > >blood
> >
> > Thanks Joel, that was a *BIG* help!!!!
> > :-/
> > Ariel
>
> ******************
>
> G-d said that if He saw the blood applied
> the people would be permitted to live.
> G-d said that if He did not see the blood
> applied the people would be put to death.
> And that such judgement would be on
> an indidvidual house-to-house basis.
> That sounds so familiar that no wonder
> they don't want to answer the question.
actually did is not ture.
the blood of the lamb was applied to the door post to mark the
homes of jews. the angel of death would then passover the homes of
the jews. therefore the name of the holiday passover. see exodus
12:1-14.
note that where the blood was not on the house the the poeple in
were not put to death. only the first born. note also it was the
first born person but the first born of the animals too.
then let us see that people were not judged but the gods of egypt
were judged. verse 12.
of course if you read these verses you will see that one of the
important parts of the ritual was the eating of paschal lamb. the
entire lamb was to be eaten that night none left till the moring.
who ate jesus.
since nobody ate jesus there is no realtionship between this and
jesus.
Pam
>
> moshe while wondering why sour cream has an experation date allowed
> his yetzer hara to write:
Weird, but a distinct improvement.
>
> who ate jesus.
>
> since nobody ate jesus there is no realtionship between this and
> jesus.
>
Surely you jest. Think about it a minute.
guess who
Pam wrote:
really i suggest you read the verses------------ Exodus 12:5
-------------
5 Your lamb shall be without
blemish, a male of the first year: ye
shall take [it] out from the sheep,
or from the goats:
6 And ye shall keep it up until the
fourteenth day of the same month: and
the whole assembly of the
congregation of Israel shall kill it
in the evening.
7 And they shall take of the blood,
and strike [it] on the two side posts
and on the upper door post of the
houses, wherein they shall eat it.
8 And they shall eat the flesh in
that night, roast with fire, and
unleavened bread; [and] with bitter
[herbs] they shall eat it.
9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at
all with water, but roast [with]
fire; his head with his legs, and
with the purtenance thereof.
10 And ye shall let nothing of it
remain until the morning; and that
which remaineth of it until the
morning ye shall burn with fire.
11 And thus shall ye eat it; [with]
your loins girded, your shoes on your
feet, and your staff in your hand;
and ye shall eat it in haste: it [is]
the LORD'S passover.
so if jesus was the passover lamb his body had to be eaten that night or
he was not the passover lamb.
Pam
He was not actually a baby sheep, either. Symbols are not the things
they represent. But we regularly do eat his body and drink his blood.
guess who
Pam wrote:
but it had to be done that night.
moshe
Pam wrote:
> guess who wrote:
>
> > who ate jesus.
> >
> > since nobody ate jesus there is no realtionship between this and
> > jesus.
> >
> Surely you jest. Think about it a minute.
*************
- "Teacher, Teacher, I know the answer!"
- "Moshe, let someone else answer this one."
Pam
>
> Pam wrote:
>
> > guess who wrote:
> > >
> > > Pam wrote:
> > >
> > > > guess who wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > his yetzer hara to write:
> > > >
> > > > Weird, but a distinct improvement.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > since nobody ate jesus there is no realtionship between this and
> > > > > jesus.
> > > > >
> > > > Surely you jest. Think about it a minute.
> > >
Joe Slater
>May the blood of the Passover Lamb be upon all our doorposts on the Day of the
>Lord. Thanks brother.
"Ariel", you're a woman. The doorposts were only there to protect men,
and first-born men at that - it's inthe Bible.
If I were a nasty man I would say that a Christain should therefore
believe that Jesus came for the Jews only, and not for the non-Jews. I
don't, however. I merely say that this shows how Christian symbolism
so erodes the original text that you were not even aware of the
underlying Biblical story.
jds
moshe
Pam wrote:
************
Orthodox Judaism is right in that it
distinguishes between what G-d required
in the observance of the original Passover
in Exodus 12:1-23 and what G-d required
in the "remembrance" observances of
subsequent years in Exodus 12:24-27.
The original observance was to be literal in all
respects, while the observances of subsequent
years were to be symbolic.
Therefore, Israel did not need to literally
go back to slavery in Egypt each year, literally
plunder Egyptians each year, literally cross
the Red Sea each year, etc.
Only a symbolic remembrance of the original
was required in subsequent years.
Which is useful to know regarding where
you are taking this:
Symbolic rather than literal observance
of the Passover.
Yeshua at the last supper did not need to
be a literal lamb, only a symbolic lamb.
Modern Judaism uses a piece of chicken
to symbolically represent the Passover lamb
rather than use a literal lamb, because it
is a symbolic observation rather than the
literal original.
Of course, Hebrews 10:1 sheds much light
on which is really the literal and which is
really the symbol or "shadow" in these
observances.
- moshe
guess who
great a religion of cannibals and vampires.
> >
> > but it had to be done that night.
> >
> If Jesus was a baby sheep.
does this mean you have finally admited jesus is not the passover sacrifice.
ajack
. If I were a nasty man I would say that a Christain should therefore
. believe that Jesus came for the Jews only, and not for the non-Jews. I
. don't, however. I merely say that this shows how Christian symbolism
. so erodes the original text that you were not even aware of the
. underlying Biblical story.
.
. jds
Joe, you are basically right. Yeshua did come for the Jews only: (Mat 15:24
NASB) "But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel."" And it is also written: (Isa 53:8 NASB) "By oppression and
judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He
was cut off out of the land of the living, For the transgression of my people
to whom the stroke was due?"
Isaiah's people are, of course, the Jews. Paul brings out the fact that it was
only after the majority of Jews rejected their own Messiah that God offered the
good news of salvation to the Gentiles (Rom.11). Paul is very clear that we
Gentiles, who have put our faith in Yeshua the Messiah, are sharing the Jew's
spiritual blessings (Rom. 15:27). And just as Yeshua's own generation didn't
consider that He was cut off out of the land of the living for their
transgressions, so it has gone on for almost two thousand years (as far as the
majority is concerned). Why it is that some Jews do believe in Yeshua and
others don't, like you for instance, I don't know. I can't look into your
heart, but God can.
I do believe that the majority of Gentiles (who have used the name of Jesus)
have mistreated the Jews through a misapplication and a misunderstanding of the
writings of the "NT." Perhaps for those Jews who have felt the brunt of that
mistreatment, it has become close to impossible for them to believe in Yeshua.
Consider this Joe: If you believe, as I do, that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob is all powerful and can, if He wanted to, intervene in the affairs of
Governments - as He did back in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus - He could
have very easily allowed Israel to rebuild the Temple. Instead, it has been
almost two thousand - that's right, TWO THOUSAND YEARS - and it hasn't been
rebuilt yet! How come? Have you ever wondered about that? Practically all OJs
have desired the Temple to be rebuilt and would gladly, if it were possible,
have it rebuilt today.
You have been forced to downplay that integral part of the Mosaic Law that had
to do with animal sacrifices, and instead, emphasize the importance of "a
broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart" (Psa. 51:19 - Jewish Bible).
True, those are very very important, but at that time animal sacrifices were
also required. To offer sacrifices without a "broken spirit: a broken and a
contrite heart" would be useless in God's eyes. For those who are quick to
quote Psa. 51: 18-19 (JB), for some reason they seem to overlook Psa. 51:21
(JB):
(Psa 51:21 -Jewish Bible) "Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of
righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt-offering: then shall they
offer bullocks upon thine altar."
Notice: ".the sacrifices of righteousness." At that time, you obtained a
righteousness standing before God , "with burnt offering and whole
burnt-offering." But of course, they had to be offered with "a broken spirit; a
broken and a contrite heart" (Just as Moshe has been saying is some of his
posts).
In reality, animal sacrifices never did pay for sins; they only provided a
covering of sin. It was the *faith* of the offerer that really counted in God's
eyes, and that is indicated by "a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite
heart." Which is the opposite of a haughty spirit. This is brought out in Hab.
2:4..
(Hab. 2:4 JB) "Behold his soul is haughty, it is not upright in him: but the
just shall live by his faith."
At the time between the first and second Temple, God honored that faith knowing
that the faithful one longed for the Temple and would gladly have brought the
proper offering if it were possible. But today for these almost two thousand
years since the destruction of the second Temple, God accepts the one who, not
only comes to Him with "a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart," but
who acknowledges the one true sacrifice that does more than cover, but truly
pays for sin. It is God's own offering, the offering of His Son the Messiah of
Israel, and as Abraham said that God Himself would provide a lamb, He indeed
has!! It is truly a shame that the majority of those for whom He came don't
believe in Him. Their Messiah is not only the King of the coming Kingdom that
was promised to Israel, but He is the very means of getting into that Kingdom.
I am and forever will be thankful to the living God of Israel for letting me, a
descendant of Gentile idol worshipers, to someday be in that Kingdom through
His Messiah. I am not of those Gentiles who claim that they are the true Jew; I
am but a grafted in branch, and I would not dare to boast against the natural
branches, the Jews. I can only plead with them to believe in their own Messiah,
Yeshua, and be grafted back into their own tree.
Jack
Josh Moss
<aj...@prodigy.net> writes:
>Joe, you are basically right. Yeshua did come for the Jews only: (Mat 15:24
>NASB) "But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the
>house of Israel."" And it is also written: (Isa 53:8 NASB) "By oppression
>and
>judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He
>was cut off out of the land of the living, For the transgression of my people
>to whom the stroke was due?"
"By oppression and judgement He was taken away" in the past from the point of
view of the author. "Who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the
living" in the past from the point of view of the author. Please take Isaiah
more seriously.
Pam
>
> Pam wondering whoes reputation she can ruin today
With your own words you did that by yourself. You ought to be wondering
how you can repair it.
Jordonfree
>>May the blood of the Passover Lamb be upon all our doorposts on the Day of
>the
>>Lord. Thanks brother.
>
>"Ariel", you're a woman. The doorposts were only there to protect men,
>and first-born men at that - it's inthe Bible.
>
>
>jds
You're right in the context of the original Passover Joe. Christians use this
as a metaphor to symbolize deliverance, and it is a different meaning to me in
this respect. But, you're point is well taken.
Ariel
Joe Slater
>Consider this Joe: If you believe, as I do, that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
>Jacob is all powerful and can, if He wanted to, intervene in the affairs of
>Governments - as He did back in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus - He could
>have very easily allowed Israel to rebuild the Temple. Instead, it has been
>almost two thousand - that's right, TWO THOUSAND YEARS - and it hasn't been
>rebuilt yet! How come? Have you ever wondered about that?
You know, your god's been dead for two thousand years. This is the
same god who allegedly said there were those who would not die before
he made his triumphant appearance. Have you ever wondered about that?
Now, from my perspective there's no problem - the exile in Egypt was
210 years, that of Babylon was 70. Each of those was long enough for
almost everybody to die before being redeemed. But you! There's nobody
alive today who heard Jesus' alleged original message! Your theology
fell to pieces 1900 years ago, and you still haven't woken up to it.
>You have been forced to downplay that integral part of the Mosaic Law that had
>to do with animal sacrifices, and instead, emphasize the importance of "a
>broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart" (Psa. 51:19 - Jewish Bible).
>True, those are very very important, but at that time animal sacrifices were
>also required.
What did they do about animal sacrifices in Egypt, or in Babylon? G-d
*explicitly* says that people can repent when in exile - where
sacrifices are forbidden. Go read it, it's near the end of
Deuteronomy.
>In reality, animal sacrifices never did pay for sins; they only provided a
>covering of sin.
I have no idea what "pay for sins" means, unlest you mean the sale of
indulgences. What's a covering of sin? A naughty nightgown?
>I am and forever will be thankful to the living God of Israel for letting me, a
>descendant of Gentile idol worshipers, to someday be in that Kingdom through
>His Messiah.
I'm sorry to tell you that your worship of the man Jesus means that
you are still an idolator. I would hope that G-d will take your good
intentions into account, but perhaps it's time to consider whether you
should be worshipping G-d or Jesus.
jds
Joe Slater
>>The pascal sacrifice is a commemoration of the Exodus.
jordo...@aol.com (Jordonfree) wrote:
>Is that it's only purpose? What did the blood represent?
At some stage you have to say that things mean what they are, and not
look for any deeper symbolism.
jds
Joe Slater
>We have heard this lamb worship story before. The Encycopedia Brittanica
>has a chart describing 24 main gods and another with 18 minor ones.
>There are the familiar jackal-heads and numerous other animals, but no
>Lamb Chop. Lambs must have been very minor gods.
The Bible itself says that Egyptians despised shepherds. I don't know
if Hindus worship cows per se, but they certainly loathe us Westerners
who eat beef and they call cows their "mother". You've got the
testimony of the Bible on this; you can only conclude that they either
revered sheep or despised them. In either event the sacrifice and
consumption of a sheep would have been the greatest sacrilege
imaginable.
jds
Linda
yes i know you were writing back to someone else....but .....
>
>"ajack" <aj...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>Consider this Joe: If you believe, as I do, that the God of Abraham, Isaac,
>and
>>Jacob is all powerful and can, if He wanted to, intervene in the affairs of
>>Governments - as He did back in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus - He
>could
>>have very easily allowed Israel to rebuild the Temple. Instead, it has been
>>almost two thousand - that's right, TWO THOUSAND YEARS - and it hasn't been
>>rebuilt yet! How come? Have you ever wondered about that?
>
>You know, your god's been dead for two thousand years. This is the
>same god who allegedly said there were those who would not die before
>he made his triumphant appearance. Have you ever wondered about that?
No. There will still be people alive when he returns....Those he will take
with him in the rapture and those he will not...the choice is whether to be one
who is going to be raptured or not.
Only G-d knows the time of his return.
>
>Now, from my perspective there's no problem - the exile in Egypt was
>210 years, that of Babylon was 70. Each of those was long enough for
>almost everybody to die before being redeemed. But you! There's nobody
>alive today who heard Jesus' alleged original message! Your theology
>fell to pieces 1900 years ago, and you still haven't woken up to it.
Well actually over a billion are quite awake....and more wake up each day ;-)
>.
>
>I have no idea what "pay for sins" means, unlest you mean the sale of
>indulgences. What's a covering of sin? A naughty nightgown?
There are those who believe in indulgences ..... as for me....Christ paid for
all of my sins....no indulgences needed.
>
>>I am and forever will be thankful to the living God of Israel for letting
>me, a
>>descendant of Gentile idol worshipers, to someday be in that Kingdom through
>>His Messiah.
>
>I'm sorry to tell you that your worship of the man Jesus means that
>you are still an idolator. I would hope that G-d will take your good
>intentions into account, but perhaps it's time to consider whether you
>should be worshipping G-d or Jesus.
There isn't a problem....you believe Jesus was not the SON and I do.
<--->
~*~*~*~*~
Be Well,
Linda
~*~*~*~*~
guess who
Jordonfree wrote:
so when a christian says jesus is the passover lamb it is a meaningless term as
far the biblical referance is consered. its meaning has nothing to do with God or
the tanakah but is another pagan part of your religion.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
> I thought that the lamb in the binding of Isaac account being a
> foreshadowing of the Passover Lamb, which someone mentioned, is more plausible.
The animal at the Akeidah (binding) was a full grown ram, not a lamb,
since its horns were caught in the thicket. The reason for it was not
because of some magical equivalence, but, since G-d had unequivacably
prohibited human sacrifice, Avraham and Yitzchak wished to bring a
sacrifice to show their devotion to G-d and acknowledgement of his
commands.
Note that the Passover sacrifice had to be a lamb since the other
animals worshipped by the Egyptians were not kosher and only kosher
animals can be brought as a sacrifice and/or eaten. See Noach and the
discussion as to why he was told to bring seven pairs of kosher animals
but only one pair of nonkosher animals.
--
Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore" | Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
Jews are the fish, Torah is our water | Zovchai Adam, agalim yishakun
Jordonfree
>The animal at the Akeidah (binding) was a full grown ram, not a lamb,
>since its horns were caught in the thicket. The reason for it was not
>because of some magical equivalence, but, since G-d had unequivacably
>prohibited human sacrifice, Avraham and Yitzchak wished to bring a
>sacrifice to show their devotion to G-d and acknowledgement of his
>commands.
>
>Note that the Passover sacrifice had to be a lamb since the other
>animals worshipped by the Egyptians were not kosher and only kosher
>animals can be brought as a sacrifice and/or eaten. See Noach and the
>discussion as to why he was told to bring seven pairs of kosher animals
>but only one pair of nonkosher animals.
That's very true. I never realised that before. The only thing I have a
problem with is that Abraham didn't bring the ram for the sacrifice, he took
Isaac and the ram appeared with the presence of the Angel of the Lord as he
raised him arm to sacrifice his precious son.
Ariel
Josh Moss
(Jordonfree) writes:
>You're right in the context of the original Passover Joe. Christians use
>this
>as a metaphor to symbolize deliverance, and it is a different meaning to me
>in
>this respect. But, you're point is well taken.
Ariel, if you can distinguish the *metaphorical application* of an OT text from
the *contextual meaning* of that text, you have defused almost the entire
debate in this newsgroup. When the proof-texters confuse the meaning of the
verse with the Christian application, they do violence to the original verse.
If one holds the application *as* an application, then no violence is done to
the contextual meaning.
Then all that is left to discuss is differing beliefs and values, but the
polemical edge is gone because the Christian beliefs are discussed from the
texts which actually teach them (NT).
moshe
guess who wrote:
> Jordonfree wrote:
>
> > You're right in the context of the original Passover Joe. Christians use this
> > as a metaphor to symbolize deliverance, and it is a different meaning to me in
> > this respect. But, you're point is well taken.
>
> so when a christian says jesus is the passover lamb it is a meaningless term as
> far the biblical referance is consered. its meaning has nothing to do with God or
> the tanakah but is another pagan part of your religion.
*************************
But it is OK when modern Judaism
considers a piece of chicken to
be its "Passover lamb" in the seder?
moshe
Joe Slater wrote:
> "ajack" <aj...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >Consider this Joe: If you believe, as I do, that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
> >Jacob is all powerful and can, if He wanted to, intervene in the affairs of
> >Governments - as He did back in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus - He could
> >have very easily allowed Israel to rebuild the Temple. Instead, it has been
> >almost two thousand - that's right, TWO THOUSAND YEARS - and it hasn't been
> >rebuilt yet! How come? Have you ever wondered about that?
>
> You know, your god's been dead for two thousand years. This is the
> same god who allegedly said there were those who would not die before
> he made his triumphant appearance. Have you ever wondered about that?
****************************
Subject:
"Never taste death"
Date:
Sat, 21 Aug 1999 04:47:02 +0100
From:
moshe <joes...@earthlink.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.messianic
"Assuredly, I say to you, that there are some standing
here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of
Man coming in his kingdom."
- Matthew 16:28
What did Yeshua (Jesus) mean about "tasting death"?
"Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word
he shall never see death...
You say, 'If anyone keeps my word he shall never taste death'?"
- John 8:51-52
What did Yeshua mean about "tasting death"?
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels,
for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that
he by the grace of G-d might taste death for everyone."
- Hebrews 2:9
Those who saw Yeshua that day and eventually accepted
him as Lord and Savior...
never tasted death because Yeshua tasted death on the
cross for them, so that they wouldn't have to.
Yeshua meant that those who believed in him would never
taste the spiritual death of G-d's judgment:
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes
in Him who sent me has everlasting life, and shall not come into
judgment, but has passed from death into life."
Yeshua's focus was on spiritual death because he said it was
of much greater importance than physical death:
"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
Rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
- Matthew 10:28
Those who heard Yeshua that day and eventually believed in him
never had to taste the more important spiritual death of eternal
condemnation.
But they no longer had to fear physical death either,
because their physical deaths would become mere naps
while waiting for Yeshua's return:
"But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning
those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have
no hope.
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so G-d will
bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are
alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means
precede those who are asleep.
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of G-d.
And the dead in Christ will rise first.
Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up with them
in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
And thus we shall always be with the Lord."
- I Thessalonians 4:13-17
"The child is not dead, but sleeping."
- Mark 5:30
What Yeshua said in Matthew 16:28 applies to all believers,
not just those who were standing before him that day 2,000
years ago.
Because of my belief in Yeshua,
I will never have to taste the spiritual death of condemnation,
and even my physical death will become a mere nap while
waiting for Yeshua's return.
- moshe
Jordonfree
>.> What did the blood represent?
>At some stage you have to say that things mean what they are, and not
>look for any deeper symbolism.
In some areas, I agree, but, not with blood. The spiritual body needs to
understand why blood is sacred, just as much as the physical body needs blood
to function. Understanding the divine mystery of it's symbolic language is the
way it's essense is transfused into our spiritual bodies and revives our souls.
blood =dam {dawm} -Hebrew
- also means the wine of grapes
<<Exd 12:7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike [it] on the two side
posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. >>
Just a sign?
<<Exd 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will
smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against
all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I [am] the LORD.
12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye
[are]: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not
be upon you to destroy [you], when I smite the land of Egypt.
12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a
feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an
ordinance for ever.>>
And if it were to be *just* a sign, just a mark, only blood, then why the
elaborate ceremony ?
<<Exd 24:5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt
offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD.
Exd 24:6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put [it] in basons; and half of
the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
Exd 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the
people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
Exd 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said,
Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning
all these words. >>
From the first dawn, blood (dawm,) in the biblical sense, was more symbolic
than the viscous liquid which carries the components of life to our tissues and
keeps our flesh from sticking to our calcified bones. Sure, it has the
biological components of our sustenance as living beings, transporting oxygen
on hemoglobin bound molecules in red blood cells; white corpuscles which offer
protection against disease and provide immunity;platelets to seal the integrity
of the flesh; Electrolytes and chemicals which cause muscles to function and
the heart to beat. It's a miracle in itself, but most importantly, in the
biblical sense, it contains more than mere plasma and volume that the heart
pounds through it's gateways... It's contains the essense of the Bible's
spiritual life, not to be gulped down, consumed as a way to get drunken, like a
cheap Bordeaux. It is to be sipped and savoured, the most precious substance of
our spiritual bodies while it's ingredients bring joyfulness and peace, as it
is disseminated and digested.
The Bible's heart pumps the plasma and packed blood cells of God's corporeal
existence, not to be ignored or discounted as merely just God, and not as his
mere blood like wine, just to be drunken for pleasure. It is the blood and
sustenance, the substance that brings life to our souls. The blood of God's
Covenant, The Word, from the begininng gives these clues:
<<Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall
ye not eat.>>
It also was used symbolically from the beginning to foretell God's Plan of
salvation and the chosen people:
<<Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from
between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him [shall] the gathering of the
people [be].
Gen 49:11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice
vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:
>>
In Egypt, God makes the life force in blood an admonition and sign of death..
It goes both ways.:
<<Exd 7:17 Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I [am] the LORD:
behold, I will smite with the rod that [is] in mine hand upon the waters which
[are] in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.
7:18 And the fish that [is] in the river shall die, and the river shall stink;
and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river. >>
Life and death in the blood. The blood of the grape... the blood of man and
animal.... Why is the blood colored grape, nutritious and intoxicating, and
the symbolic language of the vineyard of God and the vine used? What is the
intoxication referred to? Drunkeness or the elixer of life? In grapes? In
blood? Where is the eternal elixer that has the blood of life as its
ingredients? A sacred mystery. It is a mistake, in my opinion to walk over it,
like a puddle of blood on the sidewalk in a big city. People don't even think
about that either, they just walk around it, so as not to dirty their shoes.
So, I believe that we *ARE* to look more closely at the way the words of the
Bible combine to reveal the blood of God? Is this the wine that we are
encouraged to imbibe? The blood of animals and the blood of man soaks into the
earth's crust as the flesh turns to dust; ashes to ashes...but, the blood of
God is offered to transfuse us into immortal beings, again formed in his
likeness, in this great and sacred mystery.
Three years ago, my only brother got leukemia and my bone marrow, was an exact
tissue match. Now, he is healthy and cured, with my blood being made by his
bones. Was this a scientific miracle? You bet it was!!!
It made the mystery of blood and the allegory of tranfusions more eloquently
vivid in my mind. His blood is literally mine, with my blood type and female
chromosones vs. male. He not only was cured of leukemia, but, he was
transformed into a different organism. This was analogous to the mystical
transformation that occurs with allowing the blood of God to enter our
spiritual bodies. Another remarkable thing was before he could receive healthy
bone marrow, first, he had to have his body completely radiated and chemically
stripped of it's identity: A virtual death. Then my bone marrow was given to
him and his body learned to make healthy blood. A miracle. No one can state it
any other way.
To receive Christ, I believe that I must be stripped of the diseased elements
of my own blood and he must enter me. Without actually perishing, I must die,
too, to receive the life blood of immortality in God. I long for the same
process.
I am all over this topic, because there is such an abundant source of
inspiration to me. To try to be briefly coherent towards this mystifying and
edifying subject, yet, not ever being able compact such a comprehensive
subject, I wanted to mention a few more things to consider:
Look at some of the references to blood that the Old Testament uses
symbolically, and literally. THe pagans literally drank blood:
<<Psa 16:4 Their sorrows shall be multiplied [that] hasten [after] another
[god]: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names
into my lips. >>
<<Psa 79:3 Their blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem; and
[there was] none to bury [them]. >>
Before the plagues of diseases such as Hepatitis and HIV, blood was a sterile
substance, actually used to cleanse.
To sanctify and cleanse the temple, the Levites were instructed to use the
blood of a ram, also referred to as lamb...
<<Exd 29:20 Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put [it]
upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of
his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of
their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
Exd 29:21 And thou shalt take of the blood that [is] upon the altar, and of the
anointing oil, and sprinkle [it] upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon
his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed,
and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him. >>
<<Exd 29:29 And the holy garments of Aaron shall be his sons' after him, to be
anointed therein, and to be consecrated in them. >>
<<Exd 29:31 And thou shalt take the ram of the consecration, and seethe his
flesh in the holy place.>>
Interesting that dam(dawm) can mean the blood of man or beasts OR grapes, life
or death. Blood exceeds the mystery of a ruby red liquid substance.
The first demonstration of miracles that accompanied Jesus Christ's ministry
was turning water into wine..... .
In Greek, the word for blood is haima {hah'-ee-mah}
1) blood
1a) of man or animals
1b) refers to the seat of life
1c) of those things that resemble blood, grape juice
2) blood shed, to be shed by violence, slay, murder
<<Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye
eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I
will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I
in
him. >>
How many accuse New Testament adheerers of being vampires, drinking the blood
of their Savior? What is this esoteric thread linking blood of grapes *(also
dawm) to the blood of man?
<<Hbr 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord
Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting
covenant, >>
<<1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of
Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.>>
<<1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by
water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness,
because the Spirit is truth. >>
Blood and wine. Vampires and saints. Is it seeing too much into it to read
the language of prophecy?
What about drunkeness then? Was Mary exhorting Jesus to promote inebriation and
drunkeness at the wedding of Cana? Is he encouraging us to drink to get drunk?
Are we all merely carnal and apply this miraculous sign to condone our
loathing towards sobriety?
Water into wine...wine into blood....water into blood...It is intoxicating to
float through the language of mystery and see the metaphors and parables of
spiritual transformation. Well, at least to me.
Who is the great whore of religion, drunk not from wine, but the blood of
saints? How do they even relate? This is why *blood* is not "just" *blood* in
the Bible.
Water is turned to blood, water was turned to wine; blood that saves and blood
that is sucked from our Scripure, rendering it dead and lifeless? Who is the
whore?
Who is the VAMPIRE of all faith, only preaching the carnal gospel of
superficial flesh and blood, not the blood of the spirit of body of Christ?
Who is consuming the life and essense of our body? The Babylonian Mistress who
masquerades as the bride of God.
<<Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials,
and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the
judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the
inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a
woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having
seven heads and ten horns.
Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked
with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full
of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE
GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the
blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great
admiration. >>
There is more to blood than a sign. It is the life within us as well as the
covenant of everlasting mystery and peace with God. It is God's blood on us
which cleanses us from our own bloodguiltiness from the original fall. It is
his blood which he commanded us to drink and his flesh that he told us we must
eat. It is his blood, offered as the ultimate token of peace, that our Covenant
is fofilled. Do we drink God's blood to get drunken? Is the celebration at
Cana the ultimate exhortation to partey and FEEL GOOD?
Is Christ's blood an unworthy token and a blasphemous sign? God forbid. It
makes me terrified to think that there are those that won't even think about
it's meaning.
It's a bad idea to not think about and consider what blood really is all about.
It has the symbolism that connects our consciousness with the divine
life-giving power of transformation in God.
Get a transfusion today.
Ariel
Jordonfree
>(Jordonfree) writes:
>
>>You're right in the context of the original Passover Joe. Christians use
>>as a metaphor to symbolize deliverance, and it is a different meaning to me
>>in
>>this respect. But, you're point is well taken.
>
>from
>the *contextual meaning* of that text, you have defused almost the entire
>debate in this newsgroup. When the proof-texters confuse the meaning of the
>verse with the Christian application, they do violence to the original verse.
I think that many Christians are seeking to do what you suggest, to separate
the contextual meaning from the metaphor and understand them separately,
without mangling the literal and true event. That's what we should be doing,
anyway, in my opinion.
>If one holds the application *as* an application, then no violence is done to
>the contextual meaning.
Exactly. I agree.
>Then all that is left to discuss is differing beliefs and values, but the
>polemical edge is gone because the Christian beliefs are discussed from the
>texts which actually teach them (NT).
I think you're right and stated the reasons brilliantly. Well done.
:)
Ariel
>
Reo
However, mainstream Christianity holds the belief that Jesus *IS* G-d
(or "G-d the Son") and churches encourage its congregants to pray to
Jesus as one would pray to G-d.
Reo
(An interesting and more recent parallel to Christianity's divergence
from Judaism is in the Druish offshoot of Islam. The Druze believe
that the Egyptian Caliph El Hakim Abu Ali el-Mansur was divine, was
Allah incarnate, and they worship this Caliph as Allah become man)