Lula

St. Matthew Chapter 7 verse 15-23

"Beware of false propets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fuit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father in heaven shall enter the kingdom heaven. Many will say to me in that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and work many miracles in they name?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers in iniquity!"


Paul of Tarsus sought to destroy the apostles. If you believe the word of Jesus than Paul of Tarsus can not be who he says he is.

St. John Chapter 21 verse 18-19

"Amen, amen, I say to they, when thou wast young thou dids't gird thyself and walk where you wouldst. But when thou art old thou wilt stretch forth thy hand, and another will gird thee, and lead thee where thou wouldst not."

Many believe that this refers to Peters death. It does not. After the death of Jesus Peter would gladly have died in defence of his words due to his previous betrayel of him. When Peter was told by the roman authorities that he would die as Jesus did, Peter was glad, it was not "lead thee where thou wouldst not" This statement is about Paul of Tarsus, and his usurping of Peters authority, and Pauls leading astray of the sheep by the twisting of Jesus's words and the founding of a new religion in the name of Peter.


St. Matthew Chapter 6 verse 22-23

Jesus told his apostles "The lamp of the body is the eye. If thy eye be sound, thy whole body will be full of light. But if thy eye be evil, thy whole body will be full of darkness. Therefore if the light that is in thee is darkness, how great is the darkness itself."

It is the eye that sees all truly when it is free of self importance, when it is not free what it sees is filtered and deciphered by self (the mind) before it is given to us. It is a scientific fact that what we see is not immediate but is first given to the mind for deciphering and once we see it, it is properly a "memory", since the moment that it was seen is already past.

All the apostles could SEE. They all SAW Jesus after the resurrection. However in The Acts those that were with Saul (Paul) heard a voice, but did not see anything but a light from heaven. The "Lord" appeared to Ananias, a disciple, not an apostle, as a disciple he had not had the inner teachings revealed to him by Jesus he could work natural law which allowed him to cure, but he could not "SEE". (The "Lord" is not "God". God is THE I AM, the "Lord God" (which is of "God" but not "God") is that which trapped the attention of man, recreated woman and set up the law of karma. The "LORD" is that force of "God" but also is not "God" the creator, and not the "Lord God" which causes karma, and enforces it, it is the "self", which is not to be confused with "self importance" which is but of "self" but not self itself) It was he (Ananias) who on the bidding of the "Lord" found Saul and cured him of his blindness. Ananias could cure blindness. (Curing and working miracles are simply the working of natural law, as a catholic you are no doubt familar with Bruno Giordano. Who could also work natural law (and was burned to death by the catholic church for heresy), but he was not an apostle. It was the "Lord" mind you, not Jesus, not "God" and not the "Lord God", that appeared to Ananias. (As I said before Apolonius of Rome could also cure the blind and he was neither Jew or Christian, but a Roman. It is historical documented fact, if you don't believe me do some research and you will find that this statement is true.) It was Barnabas who took him and brought him to the apostles, and he told them how on his journey he had "SEEN the "Lord",and the "Lord" had spoken to him." It is stated in the vision of Saul "Now the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing indeed a voice, BUT SEEING NO ONE." Saul also SAW NO ONE, but heard a voice, just as the men journeying with him. It was the "Lord" who spoke to Ananias saying "Go, for this man is a chosen vessel to me, to carry my name amoung nations and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." (We always suffer for "self". It is our self that causes us to sin.)


Jesus told his apostles "Take care that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, "I am he", (The Acts chapter 9, verse 22, "But Saul grew all the stonger and confounded the Jews who were living in Damascus, proving that this is the Christ"), and they will lead many astray." Also once again in obstacles to Virtue St. Matthew chapter 7 verse 22-23 "Many will say to me in that day, "Lord, Lord", did we not prophesy in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and work many miracles in thy name?" and then I will declare to them, "I never knew you". Depart from me, you workers of iniquity." Jesus was also called by his disciples "Lord" because he had "self", and "Master" because he had begun to "Master Self Importance" (even a partial mastering of self importance allows one to work miracles because it allows us to master natural law, but it that doesn't mean that we are one with "God" as of yet), until we completely Master Self and Self Importance both, we can not give over to "God". He became the "Christ" once he completely mastered "self" and "self importance" and gave over both to "God". Once that took place Jesus was no longer either "Lord" or "Master".

St. Luke Chapter 21 verse 1-12

"But on the first day of the week at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared, and they found the stone rolled back form the tomb. But on entering, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, while they were wondering what to make of this, that, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling raiment. And when the women were struck with fear and bowed their faces to the ground, they said to them, "why do you seek the living one among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he spoke to you while he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son Of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified and on the third day rise." And they remembered his words. And having returned from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven, and to all the rest. Now, it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary, the mother of James,and the other women who were with them, who were telling these things to the apostles. But this tale seemed to them to be nonsense and they did not believe the women. But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths laid there; and he went away wondering to himself at what had come to pass."

Quite contrary to what St. John says isn't it? Peter according to St. John is not at the tomb with the women but goes there afterwards.

Quite frankly Leauki, what you think of me is important only to you. Think what ever you wish.

If it weren't world wide, then why did Noah take 120 years to build the boat? Think how far he could have traveled in 120 years.

Why did Noah bring the animals into the ark? Animals are quite capable of going to higher ground on their own. There must have been a reason for this. Perhaps because there was no higher ground to go to? The following quotes came from Genesis Chap 7

"And Noah was 600 years old when the flood of wate was upon the earth."

"Of clean beasts and of beasts that are not clean and of fowls and of every thing that creeps upon the earth."

"And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were upon the earth."

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth and all the high hills that were under the whole heavens were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both fowl and of cattle and of beast and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth and every man."

God did not write this book nor did God chose anyone to write it. Man wrote this book. Nowhere in the new testament does it say that "God" commanded anyone to write anything. If God had chosen to have anyone write a "book" it would have been Jesus who had complete understanding, not the apostles, or Paul of Tarsus, or the disciples. As it was Jesus wrote nothing.

Oh, you again. Hi. Still keeping up the parallel discussion about your importance?

No, if I had self importance I'd care what you think of me. I don't. What don't you get about this concept?

And the difference between covering of the head and the wearing of a burkha is what?

Sorry, it is not up to you to say enough. It is up to THE I AM. When THE I AM itself tells me it is enough than it will be enough. I heed to no word of man, but only the word of THE I AM.

Yes, this is true. I believe the same to some extent about true Christianity. I believe it's not a religion but a relationship with the OT God of the Jews. They were called 'the way" or "followers of the Christ or Messiah" but it wasn't until modern times that all these "religions" cropped up in the name of Christianity. In fact it was those outside the faith that first coined the term "Christians."



The Jews according to the OT scriptures were to be a light to other nations. They were to give honor and glory to their God and point to the one true God in the midst of pagan cultures who had a god for everything. So in effect they were to evangelize by their lifestyle.

Israel's mission always was to bring nations to God and it would come to complete fulfillment in the person of Christ who would come from the line of Judah. Isaiah said this:

" And He said, It is a light thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel. I will also give you for a light to the Gentiles and you may be my salvation unto the end of the earth." 49:6

A Jew named Simeon said this when he saw the Christ child at 8 days old.

"Lord now let your servant depart in peace according to your word. For mine eyes have seen your salvation which you have prepared before the face of all people. A light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of your people Israel." Luke 2:32

I don't know if it took him 120 years and neither do you.

The Bible speaks of "mea v'esrim shana". "Shana" means "year" in modern Hebrew but originally simply meant "repeating unit", from a root WNT (the W is a /sh/ sound) that means, from what I can find, "alter", "repeat", and "learn". The flood story is of Sumerian origin and was included in the Bible simply because it was true and part of Israel's (the people) history.

But what unit of time the Sumerians used I don't know. Could be months, or seasons, or even days.

Unless one of us studies Sumerian I doubt that we can identify which value we have to change.

I am also not sure if Genesis says that it took him 120 "shana" to build the ark. The reference to "120" I can find is the following.

"6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." (King James)

Where do you get the number 120 in relation to the ark? I am not super-familiar with the text.





Please don't ask questions about the obvious. When you have family and animals and someone reliable tells you about a flood affecting your land, you will obviously use your boat to save your family and your animals. Animals are quite capable of going to higher ground on their own. Indeed.

The problem here is that that is exactly what they would have done. And who wants to lose seven cows and seven sheep and the two family dogs to whichever neighbouring population they run to?





The text is

"V'Noach ben shesh meot shana v'haMabul haya mayim 3al haAretz."

Note that "ben [some number] years" is in Hebrew the way to say "(male) [some number] years old", as in "Ani ben shloshim." ("I (male) am thirty [years old].").

I also had to look up "mabul" ("deluge").

So translated we get:

"And Noach [is/was] six hundreds shana [old] und the deluge was (some past tense of "to be") water on the land."

("Mayim" could be Geneitive, hence "flood of water" would be correct.)

It doesn't say "earth" (as in the planet), but "earth" as in "ground". The word "eretz" is most often used to refer to simply "land" or a specific land (often Eretz Yisrael). Eretz never means "earth, the planet". Even in the first sentence of Genesis the word refers to "earth" as in "opposite of heavens", i.e. "the ground".

"Shana", as I said, means "year" in modern Hebrew, but in older times meant any repetitive unit. If we assume "months", Noach would have been 50 years old at the time, which pretty much matches the description of his character. Since the story is Sumerian, we would have to find out what Sumer's base unit was for age in stories. The Hebrew version of the story (given to the Jews by G-d, if you will) would simply use the Hebrew word for the same concept, but the dimensions could be different.

Think "billion" and "milliard" (A British "billion" is one million millions). The Prussian mile is also ten times longer than the British mile. This is normal and has to be taken into account.

Either way, you have to remember that Abraham was not 600 _year_ old when _the earth_ was flooded, but 600 _shana_ when _haAretz_ was flooded. Those words do not map exactly to the English words you focus on.




This is interesting because the word used here is not "eretz" ("land") but "adama" ("earth", the material; what "Adam" is made off, a word game in Genesis).

The word here refers not to land or the earth at all, but to a type of animal. We have beasts (like cows and sheep), birds, and those things that creep on the "earth material", maybe snakes etc..

So why was Noach supposed to bring snakes? I don't know what types of reptiles people then kept for what reasons. Phoenicians kept sea snails for purple a few hundred years later. Or perhaps those "earth material" animals included cats and dogs, I don't know.

Suffice it to say that G-d certainly could save animals from a world-wide flood without the need for a boat.

Either way, whichever word you want to translate as "earth" ("eretz" or "adama"), the two are NOT the same.




Again, it says "on the land", not "upon the earth".




Again, it says "on the land". And I am not sure how high the hills are in southern Iraq (where Sumer was). I think it is mainly swamp land. The word for "hill" or "mountain" in Hebrew is "har", which is also used here. But a "har" is not what we (Europeans and Americans) think of as a mountain. I have seen "harim" ("mountains") in Jerusalem that I wouldn't even have noticed as such in Europe.

The highest "har" I can think of is Har haKarmel in Haifa, which is well under 2000 feet. I would be surprised if there were any hills higher than a few hundred feet anywhere in the marshlands of southern Iraq, let alone in Noach's kingdom.

Reading the Bible LITERALLY, the whole world or planet is never mentioned in Noach's story.

Leuki, I have heard this often but I cannot really find supportive evidence in the Torah that suggests an Unbelieving Jew is still a Jew.

According to multiple places in the Torah that when an Israelite stops believing they are to but cut off from the congregation/people/nation (Hebrew Am - עמ). The Hebrew word there 'cut off' is kaw rat (כרת)which happens to be the same word when Elohim is talking with Noach about not destroying (cut off) all people with the flood. Or in reference to the foreskin from circumcision (ie Abraham's covenant).

Hopefully you can help me with this dilemma?

True. As I mentioned before, the Hebrew word for "religion" really means "law" and doesn't say anything about a relationship with G-d.

Christians have a relationship with G-d, not necessarily a "religion".




No, I think you are making a mistake here.

Jews are supposed to be a light to the nations. But those other nations were supposed to learn about the one true G-d, NOT copy the Jewish lifestyle (or even Jewish law).

Judaism is supposed to influence other cultures positively, not convert them. No way were Arabs and Greeks supposed to live like Jews.




That is true in the sense that Jesus did bring the one G-d to many people.

But so did Muhammed.

I am not a religious or legal scholar.

That said, here's my explanation.

Hebrew "3am" ("nation", /3/ is Ayin) is from the same root as "3im" ("with"). It refers to a "being together", if you will; and someone who stops believing openly might have been shunned.

However, when such a person comes back, he is part of the "3am" again, and so are her descendants, if the line remains maternal.

I think "3am" ("people", based on "with") is not the same as "beni" ("people", from "children of").

A non-believing Jew might not be part of 3am Yisrael (although that has changed since then), but will still be a part of Beni Yisrael.

This seems to be similar to modern concepts of criminals losing certain rights but not citizenship, I think.

Either way, for questions like this I can only but say: ask a rabbi (or your Israeli embassy).

(You don't have to mention in the Tora that a father's son is still a father's son even if the son doesn't believe in G-d.)

I didn't mean to insinuate such a thing.

I do agree that they can be brought back in as Am once they decide to believe and desire to come back. This is no different as a Gentile coming in and becoming a part of Israel.

Thank you for your perspective. It gives me something to chew on.

These weren't his animals and nobody else prepared. These animals came from all over sent to the ark by God. Every species from every corner came to be saved from the impending danger. There was no need for Noah and his sons to capture these animals since God had told Noah they would all "come unto thee to keep them alive." So not sure where you're getting these were family animals.

God made it clear that the flood would cause "the end of ALL flesh" and that it would "destroy them with the earth." Thise statments made it clear that the flood would have to be worldwide not a local flood. That's why this ark was so huge. It was huge! Such an ark would have been completely unnecessary if the flood were merely local.

God emphasized that the flood would be universal "a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy ALL flesh, wherein is the breath of life from under heaven and everything that is in the earth (that is, the land) shall die." 6:17.

Did you know the ark was to be made watertight with some kind of "covering" (same Hebrew word elsewhere is translated "atonement.") most translators have rendered here as "pitch." This covering (atonement) is another picture of Christ. Whatever this pitch was it was not a petroleum based pitch (a diff Hebrew word) as was used later by Moses mother for the much smaller "ark" in which she placed the baby Moses in.



"Ararat" is the same as "Armenia" in the Hebrew and the ark had grounded on the highest peak in the great mountain ranges of Armenia, as is evident from the fact that it took another two and a half months of dropping sea level before those in the ark could see the tops of any of the other mountains, Gen 8:4-5. They spent over a year in the ark (all calculated in scripture) before the ground had dried sufficiently fo them to leave it. The ark was left high on Mt Ararat very near the geographic center of the earth's new land areas maybe to be preserved possibly as a witness to future generations.

Just a disclaimer. It means I give my best but cannot be authoritative.




Actually, that is even more complicated.

In one sense it is different, in another it is not.

A disbelieving Jew coming back doesn't have to undergo a legal conversion. (I understand there is a "quick" conversion ceremony for those who are legally Jewish but might not be.) Also, the legal meaning of "disbelieving" changes over time.

CURRENTLY, there is no level of disbelief that would disconnect any Jew from the people.

A complete atheist can, if he is Jewish by birth, become a citizen of Israel, marry in a synagogue according to Jewish rites, or be subject to marriage laws that forbid him from marrying (in Israel) a divorced woman if he is a Cohen.

That is today. In the past such a person might have been acknowledged as "too disbelieving" to be part of the people (as in 3am Yisrael). But he will always be part of the people (as in Beni Yisrael).

A convert is acknowledged as a Jewish soul born into a non-Jewish body trying to join its people (Beni Yisrael and 3am Israel). (The soul was presumably present at Mount Sinai back then.)

So in a way both "come back", but the convert has never left.

Jesus says St. Matthew Chapter 6 Verses 25-33

Trust in God

"Therefore I say to you, do not be anxious for our life, what you shall eat, nor yet of your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life a greater thing than the food, and the body then the clothing? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow, or reap, or gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are not your of much more value than they? But which of you by being anxious about it can add to his stature a single cubit? And as for clothing, why are you anxious? Consider how the lilies of the field grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I say to you tha not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which flourishes today but tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more you, O you of little faith! Therefore do not be anxious saying "What shall we wear?" or "What shall we drink?" or, "What are we to put on?" For these are the things that the Gentiles seek; for your Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be given you besides. Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow; for tomorrow will have anxities of its own. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."

Paul of Tarsus says

The Acts chapter 20 verses 32-35

"And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, who is able to build up and to give the inheritance among all the sanctified. I have coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have provided for my needs and those of my companions. In all things I have shown you that by so toiling you ought to help the weak and remember the word of the Lord Jesus, that he himself said "It is more blessed to give than to receive."

His admission of having his needs provided for by the work of his own hands is in direct conflict with that which Jesus himself said. Jesus said "trust in God" and God will provide. Paul did not trust in God, so Paul had to provide for himself.

Where do you get that G-d sent him animals?

There was indeed no need for Noah to capture these animals. But from that I deduce that the animals were domesticated or under Noah's control.



No. According to the words of Genesis, G-d made it clear that the flood would "destroy them with the _land_."

It doesn't mention "earth", the planet, only "land".

Hebrew has a perfectly fine term for "the entire world" ("haKol 3olam"). G-d would have used it.



Again, there is no "upon the earth" there, only an "unto the land".

Incidentally, your text even has the word "land" in brackets there when "earth" appears the second time. But in both cases, in 6:17 "eretz" is used.

The brackets are right, "in the earth" doesn't make sense. It's "in the land".



I don't know which place was called "Ararat" 5000 years ago.

"Armenia" in Hebrew is "Armenia". I don't think the country existed back then. Today's Mount Ararat was probably part of the Hitite Empire. If Ararat had referred to them, somebody would have noticed, I am sure.

Today's Mount Ararat was named after the Biblical story, not vice versa. To say that the Bible identifies it is like claiming that Amerigo Vespucci was named after the continent.

So there was a region (with a mountain or more likely a hill) named "Ararat", but we have absolutely no hint in the Bible as to its location.

Leauki posts: #527

At first, I was puzzled by your saying that Judaism doesn't see itself as a religion, but now I'm beginning to understand better what you mean. While modern, Rabbinic or Talmudic Judaism may not see itself as a religion per se, that same cannot be said of Old Testament Hebraic Judaism based upon the teachings of Moses and the prophets.

Most dictionaries, encyclopedias or almanacs state that Judaism, Muhammedism (Islam) and Christianity are the three main monotheistic religions of the world. I'd like to discuss these 3 religions further in terms of the necessity of religion, the practice of religion and the need for religion.

By religion I mean the act of justice (worship) by which we render to God both privately as individuals and publicly as social beings the honor, gratitutde and obedience due Him and in the way prescribed by Him.

God has definite rights which no man is justified in ignoring. God definitely commands us to adore and serve Him and no other by the First Commandment. It's not enough to admit off hand that God exists and then ignore His definite claims.



The religion in the bibilcal sense is Hebraic Judaism and it was definitely more than just knowing the "law", for ALmighty God gave a specific system of sacrifice and worship which is a very major part of true religion today.



I can accept this. Religion implies faith or belief. Correct views concerning the existence of a personal God, divine providence and retribution, the immortality of the soul, free will, and personal moral responsibility are of vital importance to true religion. And taking it further....

To me, religion, as a term, comes from the Latin word "religare" meaning "to bind".
So, by religion, in the widest sense, we are tied to God and bound to Him as our Creator and Benefactor by the bond of piety. Religion may be defined as the voluntary subjection of oneself to God, who man recognizes is the Source of his perfection and happiness.

Subjectively, religion is the attitude allied to justice which prompts us to render to God the worship and reverence that is His by right.
Objectively, religion is a voluntary acknowledgement of man's dependence on God through acts of homage. It consists of doctrines and precepts by which we seek to bring about this union with God.

Religion is true when its doctrines and precepts are either dictated by right reason or revealed by God. If the former, it's called natural religion, if the latter, supernatural religion, or that revealed by God. Religion is false, when it's unable to show a divine guarantee, or when it's doctrines and practices sin against right reason or conscience.

Actually, it's the other way around.

While Judaism is today seen as a religion (falsely so), it was never seen like that in Biblical times.

The Children of Israel saw themselves as a people before and after Moses brought them the Tora.

And not all prophets were Jewish (or sent to the Jews, for that matter).

"Beni Yisrael" means exactly that: the sons of Jacob. It has nothing to do with religion.

Paul desires to prevent punishment and save his own life

Acts Chapter 22 Verse 3

"And he said: "I am a jew, and I was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but was brought up here in this city,a pupil of Gamaliel, and instructed according to the strict acception of the Law of our fahers."

Later in Acts Chapter 23 verse 25-29

"But when they had bound him with the straps, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, "Is it legal for you to scourge a Roman, and that without a trial?" When the centurion heard this, he went to the tribune and reported, saying, "What art thou about to do? This man is a Roman citizen." Then the tribune came and said to him, "Tell me, art thou a Roman?" And he said, "Yes." And the tribune answered, "I obtained this citizenship at a great price." And Paul said, "But I am a citizen by birth."

St. John 12 verse 25

"He who loves his life loses it; and he who hates his life in this world, keeps it unto life everlasting. If anyone serves me, let him follow me; and where I am there also shall my servant be."

Forget about "religion" in today's sense. Think "law" and "belief" and apply where necessary.

 

A view shared by Islam/Muhammadism which differentiates between heavenly religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and other reasonable religions (Zoroastrianism, sometimes Hinduism etc.)

However, is that "religion" as in "law" or "religion" as in "belief"?

 

 

The Hebrews were first and foremost "a people".  This people, like many early, primitive societies, gathered together, devised customs, beliefs, rites and rituals which became the adhesive that held the tribe together.  Aspects of these became sliced and diced as only moderns can do to become attributes of special categories, i.e., religion, law,  philosophy, theology, etc.

Today, we clearly are a religion, but also a people. We are a culture, or if you take the Kaplan route, a "civilization". We are a culture.  There is a genetic science to our people, so in some sense we are a race...or at least genetically different from non-Jews. It is complex.

Maybe we could say we are a people who created a religion based on our experience with the Absolute.  Other peoples have their own experiences with the Infinite. God speaks many languages and has taught many peoples many different, but equally effective, paths to Him.

Just my two cents on this theme.

Be well.

lula posts #574

LEAUKI POSTS:

kfc posts:



lEAUKI,

You say and KFC agrees that modern Jewry self identifies as a nation.

In answering my question you seem to be changing the terminology...from Judaism, the religion to Jews, the nation. This is most interesting becasue there certainly must be some Jews who would identify themselves as a religious group, or am I totally wrong on this?

As for me, I've always understood that a Jew is a believer of the teachings of Moses, the lawgiver of Judaism, the religion of the descendants of Abraham. This seems to permit a contradiction in terms, as there are Pantheist-Jews, Atheist Jews and Christian-Jews.

Why, I wonder has modern Judaism denied the revealed character of religion so far from the central hope of being concerned with their salvation and afterlife?


LEAUKI POSTS:

That the Jews were a nation is an undisputed historic fact. They were until as Jacob foretold, Gen. 49:10, the "sceptre" the authority, the sovereignity of the House of David was taken away. This was to happen and did happen about the time when the "Expected of Nations", the Messias came. You may remember that when Christ was born, Judea was a province of the Roman Empire upon the throne of which Herod sat, the Edomite, instead of a descendant of the House of David.

Yes. As did ancient Jewry.




Actually, I have explained that "religion" is really two things. One is the law of the Jewish people, the other the belief. Belief is a personal matter. Law is a public matter.

The Jewish religion is a child of the Jewish people, not vice versa.

Back in the days most peoples (or even all peoples) had their own religions (laws, beliefs, and gods).




I have never met any.




A Jew is someone whose mother was Jewish or who converted according to Jewish law.

That's the only definition according to Jewish law.




Yes.

Jesus was a Jew even when he himself believed that he was the son of G-d (if he ever did believe it). Sometimes, especially in eastern Europe, individuals don't even know they are Jewish until they find papers that show it or are told by their parents who hid the fact to avoid persecution by the communists.

(I have heard that in Russia there is a joke about a Jewish girl being the fastest means of transport in the world. You marry a Jewish girl and you can immigrate to Germany.)



Heng?