Thursday, March 4, 2010

OMG ROFL

Tropper and Elyashiv sitting in a tree ...
trying to control everyone.

Why should conversions to judaism be "universally recognized?" Why should the majority (everyone) listen to the minority (haredim)? Divine Right is an outdated concept, or so we hope.

15 comments:

Shalmo said...

"Divine Right is an outdated concept, or so we hope."

Does that also apply to Yehoshua ben Yusuf?

Btw the John gospel has a unique christology which I find interesting.

In Jewish wisdom literature a common canard was that special beings existed with YHWH in heaven, and when he has need of them he sends them to earth.

The title Son of man, as well as the "I AM" statements in John point to the John gospel having an essene christology best seen in the Book of Enoch.

When John in v.3:16 calls Jesus God one and only unique son, this is a reference to how the angels are sons of YHWH. And Jesus is his greatest "son", since the essenes believed the messiah existed with YHWH before creation. So Jesus is the greatest angel made by YHWH. Makes sense considering he is the one who initiates the messianic age, and gets all his "elect" to become angels.

The Leader, Garnel Ironheart said...

Once again, Shalmo, you're making up facts as you go along. Where in the Bible does God refer to an angel as a son? And he's not ben Yosef (can't you even spell?). We'll never know the name of the Roman soldier who was his real father.

At any rate SJ, you asked two questions.
The first has an obvious answer: having a universal standard for conversions is like having a universal standard for certifying medical schools or food safety standards. You eliminate guesswork as to whether the particular job was done properly or not.

The second - no, there's no good reason to listen to them and let them dictate standards to the rest. There's a bad reason though: they'll scream and kick until we do.

SJ said...

Shalmo, Jesus is son of David via Mary.


>> The first has an obvious answer: having a universal standard for conversions is like having a universal standard for certifying medical schools or food safety standards. You eliminate guesswork as to whether the particular job was done properly or not.


The problem Garnel is that religion is not medical science due to religion's subjective nature.


Medical science is not open to interpretation, it's based on observation and that alone.


To treat joining a religion in such a black and white manner as going to a doctor or anything else that involves objective science seems to me to be a fallacy.

SJ said...

Apparently the Jerusalem Post article that Failed Messiah referenced was an old article erroneously reprinted by the Jerusalem Post, if I understand correctly.


Oh and Garnel, I know what the gemarah claims about Jesus having a human father, and I choose to dismiss it on its lack of evidence. Stop being a wise guy.

Garnel Ironheart said...

> The problem Garnel is that religion is not medical science due to religion's subjective nature.

Judaism is a national/legal system with a constitution, basic principles and rules for extrapolating to new legal situations. It's as systematic as medicine is.

And if JC was from David, so what? By 2000 years ago David had lots of descendents.

Besides, you're inconsistent. You don't believe in Torah MiSinai but their claims are okay? You have no more evidence for your claim than you think the gemara has for its.

SJ said...

>> Judaism is a national/legal system with a constitution, basic principles and rules for extrapolating to new legal situations. It's as systematic as medicine is.


Jewish belief and practice was never a monolith. By the way Garnel, documentation referencing these rules and principles for extrapolating legal situations, didn't start to show up until how many hundred years after matan hatorah? At least 10. Probably more.



>> And if JC was from David, so what? By 2000 years ago David had lots of descendents.


This is a different debate for a different time, and one that I'm not really interested in having unless it's forced on me like what Shalmo tried in a previous thread.



>> Besides, you're inconsistent. You don't believe in Torah MiSinai but their claims are okay? You have no more evidence for your claim than you think the gemara has for its.


Garnel, cut it out. I said in a previous thread belief in the New Testament entails belief in the Old. This includes Torah m'sinai.

Shalmo said...

Garnel I thought you were a rabbi. You ought to know this stuff

Who were the Sons of Elohim in Genesis 6:1-5?

A rather clear reading would imply they are angels. This ancient viewpoint hinges in part on the assumption that Jude 1:6, 7 refers to angels. Perhaps some scriptural backing can be seen in Job 1:6-12.

The idea that the Sons of Elohim were angels comes largely from the book of Enoch, which implies that the majority of Jewry and possibly early Christianity held the same way. Also the John Gospel biulds its narrative of Jesus using the "son of man" title used in the Book of Enoch.

Something to bear in mind is that since much of Judaism was plagarized from the Canaanites, its possible that as hebraic religion continued to evolve the Torah replaced the references to other gods,with these gods instead being angels of Yahweh (his sons).

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion#Parallels_with_Old_Testament_narrative

Shalmo said...

Garnel why do you have a problem with Jesus having a virgin birth?

In Torah magical births are quite common. As was the case with Isaac, and as was the case with both Adam and Hawwah.

However if Jesus was virgin born then he can't be moshiach ben david. In Judaism title goes by biological father.

A boy born in the tribe of Dan yet raised by a Levite will still always be a Danite as adoption does not exist in Judaism.

So if Jesus is virgin born he can't inherit the messianic throne since he lacks patrilineal descent from David. And point to Mary's geneology as some christians do won't cut it.

Regardless, ignoring all the mythology I suppose Jesus should be praised. By all accounts he was the world's first reform rabbi!

SJ said...

I'm not an expert, but if there is no son to pass down the title, then it is passed down to the daughter. Mary has no known siblings, and of course, Jesus was Mary's son, so it seems to work.


Alternatively, it is possible and maaaybe probable that being the actual Messiah isn't something that is passed down biologically but rather chosen by God himself, rendering the whole male lineage point moot.


I don't know where the whole tribe of Dan thing comes from, Jesus was from the tribe of Judah.

Shalmo said...

Um ... NO!

In Judaism, Islam, and every singe semetic faith title gets passed down by biological father.

To be messiah per the jewish prophecies you HAVE to have a pure patrilineal descent from David. Which JEsus through virgin birth can't have.

I used the tribe of Dan example to illustrate how in Judaism adoption of title does not exist.If you were born in the tribe of Judah, but raised in the tribe of LEvi, you still will be a Judite all your life. In the same fashion, Joseph being Jesus' adopted father won't cut it because Jesus has no biological relation to him and thus has no patrilineal descent from David.

And pointing to Mary won't work because the daughters of Zelophad incident in the Torah where women inherit title only is applicable in cases of property ownership. Messianic title is a completely different thing.

Furthermore of the two contradictory geneologies of Jesus in the gospels one of them goes through the Jeckohaim line, and Jecokaihm was cursed by YHWH as was every descendent of his. So to get the pure line required one must have pure descent from David. One of the gospel geneologies ingores Solomon altogether. The implication is of course that the gospel writers had no clue how jewish matters work, other they would have gotten this stuff right!

Btw the reason I pointed to the John christology is because John is making a well researched counter-argument to the above objections.

Rather than Jesus being a human messiah which "some" Jews were waiting for, his version of Jesus is the supreme angel of YHWH (3:16: God sent his one and only "unique" son). Aka the unique son of YHWH. Which if you think about it makes sense. I mean if he is the one who initiates the messianic age then clearly he has to be the best angel.

The essenes had a very complex angelology mind you and John in many ways continues that tradition. The messiah being the supreme angel of YHWH is an essene concept.

SJ said...

>> In Judaism, Islam, and every singe semetic faith title gets passed down by biological father.


You seem to be arbitrarily parsing types of inheritance to beef up your argument with imaginary deliniations.

If messianic title is property ownership, then the Zelophehad issue is relevant. If messianic title is not property ownership, then you can't use inheritance laws to argue against it. Does the Torah (I mean the Torah, not interpretations of it) have separate laws of inheritance for the throne and everything else? I'm not an expert, but I would guess no.

There is no scriptural rule that says title or gets passed down only by biological father. It's just an interpretation, i.e. nothing in the Torah seems to prohibit having a ruling queen even though it never happened in history.

There is no scriptural rule that says the messiah must have have men only in his line going back to David, it's just interpretation.


In fact if we want to go into titles, although this is not the same as being in a royal family, I'm sure you are aware Shalmo that if being ashkenaz or sphardic is not able to be passed down paternally, it is passed down maternally.


>> Furthermore of the two contradictory geneologies of Jesus in the gospels one of them goes through the Jeckohaim line, and Jecokaihm was cursed by YHWH as was every descendent of his. So to get the pure line required one must have pure descent from David. One of the gospel geneologies ingores Solomon altogether. The implication is of course that the gospel writers had no clue how jewish matters work, other they would have gotten this stuff right!


It is generally accepted that Matthew's genealogy is of Joseph and Luke's genealogy is of Mary, so there's no contradiction there. With regard to Jeckohaim, Matthew's geneaology is via adoption so no contradiction there.


Do your own homework Shalmo.

Shalmo said...

"You seem to be arbitrarily parsing types of inheritance to beef up your argument with imaginary deliniations."

You don't know how semetic culture under which the Torah was revealed works. Most ashkenazi jews don't, since they are so seperated from the semetic environment Judaism is defined by

"If messianic title is property ownership, then the Zelophehad issue is relevant. If messianic title is not property ownership, then you can't use inheritance laws to argue against it. Does the Torah (I mean the Torah, not interpretations of it) have separate laws of inheritance for the throne and everything else? I'm not an expert, but I would guess no."

You misunderstand. There is NO precedence in jewish tradition (whether Tanakh or Talmud) or in any semetic tradition where title goes by mother.

In semetic tradition title always goes by father. This includes the messianic title. Check out the geneologies and tell me whose last name each person inherits.

If your biological daddy is a levite you are a levite. If he is danite you are danite.

Women cannot pass on title. The one isolated example of this was in the case of the daughters of Zelophad in the Torah. And even in that case, it was only because there were no men to inherit the land. Many chrisians appeal to this to allow Jesus to inherit title by Mary, however they fail to see that this was an isolated incident on property ownership. IT does not apply to messianic title.

"There is no scriptural rule that says title or gets passed down only by biological father. It's just an interpretation, i.e. nothing in the Torah seems to prohibit having a ruling queen even though it never happened in history. There is no scriptural rule that says the messiah must have have men only in his line going back to David, it's just interpretation. In fact if we want to go into titles, although this is not the same as being in a royal family, I'm sure you are aware Shalmo that if being ashkenaz or sphardic is not able to be passed down paternally, it is passed down maternally."

Irrelevant. This is how semetic culture works. This is how Torah works. Both Torah and semetic culture follow this rule; hence why all the geneologies in the Tanakh follow patrilineal descent

But for scriptural support read this: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/faq-primary-211/birth-of-jesus-primary-360/62-must-the-messiah-be-a-descendent-of-solomon

"It is generally accepted that Matthew's genealogy is of Joseph and Luke's genealogy is of Mary, so there's no contradiction there. With regard to Jeckohaim, Matthew's geneaology is via adoption so no contradiction there."

This is perhaps the oldest christian apologetic canard known to man.

There is no verse in the Gospel of Luke that makes the claim that Mary is a descendant of King David. In fact, there is no New Testament verse that makes this claim

Shalmo said...

It should be noted that the Gospel of Matthew sets the precedent for presenting a genealogy of Jesus that goes through Joseph. Incidentally, this genealogy goes through a line (Jehoiakim) that is disqualified for kingship. Therefore, it is not surprising that Luke's genealogical list also gives a genealogy (much different from that given by Matthew), which is supposedly that of Joseph.

The Gospel of Luke provides a variant tradition concerning Jesus' ancestry. In the literal Greek of its genealogical listing "Joseph of the Heli" (Luke 3:23) is just another way of saying "Joseph son of Heli."

Some Christian commentators have claimed that Luke gives Mary's genealogy. Accordingly, it is proposed that Heli is the father-in-law of Joseph, that is, Heli is the name of Mary's father. There is no genealogical record, in either the Jewish Bible or the New Testament, which refers to a man as the son of his father-in-law. There is no verse in the New Testament that says Mary is the daughter of Heli.

To presume that Mary was of Davidic descent presents the problem that Mary could not pass on what she did not possess: (1) Maternal connection does not enter into consideration for succession to the throne of David which is passed on only through a continuous male line: "There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel" (Jeremiah 33:17); (2) Biblically, the right of lineal privilege, that is, kingship and priesthood, are exclusively passed on through the male line. The incident regarding the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers, chapters 27 and 36) does not apply here since it concerns the transference of physical property and not privileges of lineage.

Considering Luke's genealogical list, neither Joseph nor Mary could claim an inheritance to the throne of David through Heli. Heli and his progeny would be disqualified in regard to the Davidic kingship if he were a descendant of Nathan. Of all the son's of David, God chose Solomon to sit on the throne of Israel (1 Chronicles 29:1, 1 Kings 2:24).

Whether through Joseph or Mary, Jesus is disqualified from the messianic office.


"Do your own homework Shalmo."

Good advice. Please follow it and hopefully you'll be joining a friendly humanistic judaism synagogue in due time!

SJ said...

This answers the Heli issue. (For the record, I know it's a link to Answers in Genesis and I am not a young earth creationist as I believe the big bang and evolution to be true, so don't even try anything along that road Shalmo, I just think that this page has a decent answer as while being literal with the creation story is wrong, it don't mean the rest of the bible is allegorical.)


Again Shalmo, do your own homework.

Anonymous said...

According to the gemara in sanhedrin conversation is a din that needs three judges with semicha. Since that does not exist anymore no conversion is kosher. The other gemara in avoda zara requires no judge at all--just a dip in the mikva does it (for the sake of nida or such). That would make a lot of people Jewish. The gemara stipulates that one tells a perspective ger only light things--not all the requirements. so
I would say in general one should never accept any ger--usually gerim are complete fakes or vicious religious fanatics. Both are really bad news.
But sometimes I admit there are exceptions