Messianic friend: “Belief in Yeshua is 100% experiential”

Gene,

When G-d commands His people to love the LORD your G-d with all your heart, doesn’t the Hebrew for “love” really mean “be faithful”, and wasn’t the heart considered the seat of the mind? Therefore, the commandment is not to experience love in the modern sense, but to remain loyal and obedient to G-d with all of one’s intellect, life and strength. Would you agree? And would this understanding cause experience-oriented believers to stop and take note?

It sounds like a drug addiction In many respects. Maybe there is an intervention and treatment model which would apply.

While it’s true that intellect is important, the idea of the “heart as seat of intellect” was imported from Greek philosophy. That said, yes, the commandment to love G-d is bound up with obedience to the commandments. Once a person reads psalms, there isn’t a doubt about it.

Geza Vermes of Oxford, who characterized the historic Jesus as a charismatic faith healer and itinerant preacher who believed the end of days was imminent, demonstrated in his books, fairly convincingly I might add, that there was probably an initial list of Jesus’ sayings written down and in circulation. This seeded the first sources of the NT.

In his book, The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, Vermes strives to analyze all of the quotations of Jesus and categorized them into groups such as “almost certainly authentic”, “probably not authentic”, “almost certainly not authentic”, etc. Matthew 5:18 was, of course, deemed to be in the almost certainly authentic category.

As we know, layer upon layer of fiction was added to the original list of Jesus’ sayings, probably beginning with Paul’s gospel (my speculation), ending up with the NT gospels as we have them today.

Question: Might it be reasonable to observe that speculations regarding what others may believe is easier than examining the mythology contained within the Oral Torah?

Are Karaites, Mashiachim, Conservatives, etc truly wrong when they find no divine inspiration in the Oral Torah?

I don’t think Karaites and conservatives find no divine inspiration in the oral law. They just don’t regard it as binding in the same way as the commandments in the Torah. Therefore, they feel freer to accept what makes sense to them — and a lot does — and reject as binding what does not.

But, to refocus, there is ample and convincing proof in the Torah itself, let alone the Nevi’im, to knock every leg that Christianity stands on right out from under it, without a single word being needed from the oral tradition. It is easy to strain gnats but swallow the camel, nes pas?

The witness that L-rd Yeshua has indeed become the “light to the nations” through the same Emunah as Abram is powerful proof that HaShem continues to keep His Word alive and powerful.

Isaiah speaks of Yeshua HaMashiach, Emunah, and the nations:
****Isaiah 55:1-5
“Come, everyone who is thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you without money,
come, buy, and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost!

Why do you spend money on what is not food,
and your wages on what does not satisfy?
Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good,
and you will enjoy the choicest of foods.

Pay attention and come to Me;
listen, so that you will live.
I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
the promises assured to David.

Behold, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
a leader and commander for the peoples,

Behold, you will summon a nation you do not know,
and nations who do not know you will run to you.
For the L-RD your God,
even the Holy One of Israel,
has glorified you.”

My question is to Concerned Readers last post (8:58pm) above KAVI’s who slipped in before me.

(Apologies for my typos “hear” instead of “here”.)

Leonard, what you can say to Christians simply is that Judaism is based, and stands or falls in the OBSERVANCE of Halacha, not on a belief in the myriad of aggadic concepts and literature, and that even if you could hypothetically “prove” the existence of a Christian like theology in Judaism at any time, it wouldn’t change the duty to observe mitzvot as we have recieved them and as Jews were commanded to observe them on Sinai. That is to say, Israel is commanded to worship the father alone exclusively multiple times.

Christian theology which emphasizes an incarnation of G-d in a body (an incarnation in a human form) violates a plain reading of Deuteronomy 4, ( and consider carefully that nobody ever prays to the burning bush as a manifestation alongside the father for example, even though HASHEM spoke through it, ) BECAUSE ISRAEL IS TOLD THAT THEY SAW NO FORM ON SINAI, THEY HEARD ONLY A VOICE.

So, simply, Even if you could prove that the angel who bears hashem’s name in Joshua 5 and elsewhere, was in fact a pre incarnate divine manifestation of a word from hashem, there is no scriptural precedent or command given to Pray to, celebrate, or make a go between or mediator of such a being in the way Christians do with Jesus.

To worship Jesus, or the rebbe, or anyone else the way the Christians do would violate the same principle as what was violated by those Jews who worshipped the brass serpent in 2 kings.

I want to shoot information straight with Christians. The Talmud tells us that some Jews saw the Angel of G-d’s presence (Sar ha panim,) as a sort of second power/person. The problem is, there is no Mitvah on Sinai from G-d the father in Tanakh to worship a logos incarnate. In fact, Jews are told that the Sinai experience and the commandments given at that time are for Jews to follow in “all generations,” so if the pattern deviates from that (as Christianity does,) it is considered idolatrous according to a plain reading of the Torah of Moses. It’s wrong to worship Jesus, or ANY OTHER FORM as G-d, as Tanakh proves.

IF CHRISTIANS WERE CONTENT TO TREAT JESUS AS A HUMAN RABBI AND OEAVE IT AT THAT, JEWS WOULD BE FINE WITH HIM I’m sure of it.

Jim my Friend,
Although I have come to believe what Isaiah revealed of Yeshua as the Messiah, I nonetheless enjoyed your “Kosher” comment [and am still smiling about it as I write] :)

Thank you and Shalom!

Thanks CR. That’s good stuff.
I wonder if this not praying to the burning bush can apply to the Tora.
What I mean is that it seems that science has disproved some stories in Genesis and the other books of the Tora and Tanakh.
For example, we know that there was no Flood or Babel-language-confusion-incident as depicted in the Tora in actual history, so I wonder how you would see the Tora?
You say that Moses didn’t pray to the bush; the Children of Israel saw no form on Sinai; [I would add] God wasn’t in the quaking/fire/noise (Elijah at Sinai).
In other words, perhaps one could say that actual history is not in the Tora/Tanakh, and that’s ok. because neither was God in those other things, including angels who appear now and again in Tanakh. But these things and angels signified God (as strange things that occur in my life signify God, but aren’t God – signifying versus Signified). (In other words, when a very strange thing (miracle) occurs in my life, I think it’s healthy to soft-petal it (i.e. don’t idolize it/literalize/’pray’ to its burning bushiness- i.e. look away and ‘live’, whether intellectually, spiritually, or both)).
Now, someone will say: “O, you mean the Tora lied/got it wrong? You say the Flood, Babel, etc. didn’t occur –according to our best science– as written? Well, then doesn’t that make the whole Tora into a lie?; and since God is Truth, how can that which signifies God (Tora) tell a lie/get it wrong?”
I could respond: “As God wasn’t in the quaking/fire/noise, so it’s ok for the historical/actual/scientific truth to not be in the Tora/Tanakh. In other words, there is something “stiller and smaller” beyond the Tora/Tanakh THAT ALLOWS/ENCOURAGES JEWS TO CALL OUT SOME OF THE STORIES AS NOT LITERALLY TRUE, AND THAT IS OK, SINCE GOD TRANSCENDS RELIGION AND THE UNHISTORICITY OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES.”.
I would like to get your (Concerned Reader) input on this.

CR,
Just to make sure– you are saying both the Oral Law and the Tanakh contain myths?

If so, are you ready to go to Yerushalayim and express your beliefs in the midst of a synagogue of the Haredim??

Still CR, you can believe in the Force, but it still does not help for you to move objects. In my opinion, if they are not actual facts, then those are myths and god is a myth as well. There are 3 books written about the exodus, if it did not actually happened, then god is not real. We are all trying to convince each other on myths and fables then. Each and every of us inherited a lie, if Abraham’s not real, then there is not even a Jewish people. I do understand that a lot of historian and philosophers believe that, but I think that they also believe that god is not true. You wont convince many if all was written by a few folks with a good imagination. How do you know god is not one of the myth? I don’t want to be rude, I just don’t understand how you can believe in a god that did nothing of what he say he did.

This is a very timely and important topic, worthy of discussion. In fact, as I see it, everyone so far has put forth valid points. The underlying “problem” is that science has caught up with the Torah and has clearly shown that some significant stories and pronouncements written there cannot be true.

Aside from the story of the Exodus, which is huge, there are a number of other claims that science has disproved. For example, according to Torah the earth was formed 5775 years ago. We now know that is unquestionably false. Interestingly on this particular subject, I was talking about it last year with a friend of mine who is a Lubavitcher. Of course, out came the pat response that science doesn’t really “know”. Scientists, of course, are all godless heretics. When I brought up carbon dating and that science has proven that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago and we have many bones to prove it, his answer was that God planted them in the earth to test man. What else can a believer say? There really isn’t another type of answer that preserves the authority of the Torah. It is as much an issue for the Orthodox as for the Christian’s necessity for an inerrant New Testament.

The following excerpt from a book by Jacob Milgrom was intended to explain how one could claim that Rabbinic or oral laws were handed down at Sinai. Although that’s the intent of this passage, I think it can be applied to our present discussion as well. And it teaches an important lesson for those who tend to have a knee-jerk reaction of categorically dismissing all Rabbinical precepts.

——————————–
“But how is it possible to affirm the Mosaic origin of the entire Torah, not as blind faith but with conviction-rationally? I resort to a Rabbinic story.

During a discussion about how the Torah would be interpreted in the future, Moses requested of God that he be allowed to visit Akiva’s academy. The request was granted. Moses sat down in the back of the classroom and listened to Akiva exposit a law purportedly based upon the Torah. Moses didn’t understand a word. … Akiva replied, “halakhah l’Mosheh mi-Sinai” ([It is] an oral law from Moses at Sinai). The story concludes that Moses was reinvigorated-” his mind was put to rest” (BT Men. 29b).

This story leads to an obvious deduction. Between the times of Moses and of Akiva, the laws of the Torah underwent vast changes, to the extent that Moses was incapable even of following their exposition. But the story conveys a deeper meaning. After all, why was Moses pacified when Akiva announced that his law is traceable to Moses? It couldn’t be true. Moses never said it! The answer, however, lies on a different plane. After announced that the specific law was given by Moses at Sinai, Moses recognized that it was based on Mosaic foundations. Akiva was not creating a new Torah, but was applying the Torah’s law to new problems. Moses had been given general principles; successive generations derived their own implications. Presumably, although Moses was not the author of Akiva’s legal decision, he might have intended it. That is, had Moses lived in Akiva’s time he might have concurred with Akiva’s conclusion.

This interpretation is explicitly confirmed in Scripture…. (In the case of) Nehemiah’s amanah (covenant, agreement) subscribed to by Israel’s leaders and accepted on oath by the people (Neh. 10:1ff.). The amanah comprises 18 laws, “b’yad Mosheh eved ha-Elohim” (given through Moses the servant of God; Neh. 10:30, cf. vv. 35-37), yet none of them can be found in the Torah precisely as prescribed in Nehemiah’s amanah. Nonetheless, Nehemiah feels authorized to attribute the 18 laws to Moses since they are built on Mosaic foundations.

Each law can be derived from a precedent in the Torah….
—————————–

Now, backing up to look at the big picture of this discussion, I would state that it is clear from studying the history of Judaism that it has continually evolved over the millennia. Although we would like to think that if we just go back far enough we might unearth the “true” scriptures (I was one of those seekers), what we find instead is something quite different.

In fact we find that Judaism has always been on the move. Applied to our current discussion, and hearkening back to the Moses/Akiva story, the issue for me is — especially in light of what science is showing us — what can we say is truly Jewish? In other words, will/should Judaism continue its evolution and harmonize with science? Or should we stick our heads in the ground?

Is it more important to hold to the belief that the earth is 5775 years old, or understand from the story that there is only one God who created it and is sovereign above creation? In this example, we would have to take CR’s position. And I would agree with him.

In my opinion, I think what’s at the core of Judaism are it’s values and religious philosophy, which we know as “ethical monotheism”. IF we are going to believe in and worship a god, we should worship Hashem alone, and according to Jewish scripture (not the NT). Secondly, we are to live righteous lives according to the ethical values taught by Torah. Finally, Jews are a people and we are to live as a community, not as individuals. These are the pillars of Judaism, and they can certainly harmonize with science or anything else that comes along in the next few millenia, without needing to get hung up on whether every verse in the Torah is a factual.

Remi, G-d is not a physical being, we all know that, so logically, relating to him through a physical reality (wether it be an event in history, or a person) will always be temporal, (that is to say, will be bound by the limitations of our senses, bound by the passage of time.)

“There is not reason to believe in the G-d who brought Israel out Egypt if it did not happen. There is no reason to believe in Jesus if he is not risen from the dead like Paul said.”

There is reason Remi, but to confine G-d to a single event is as bad as confining him to a single physical body. The way we determine if something happened in history is to look for the evidence of its happening, like ww2 or the Shoah. We know it happened because there is physical, written, testimonial, forensic, etc. evidence from the multiple groups involved. In these cases the physical evidence, and testimony of different groups involved, serves to cross examine various people’s testimonies.

You are not supposed to just blindly trust any witnesses who make a claim, (because as happened with Jesus’ followers,) this can be dangerous, and lead people wrong. We know from experience that people lie, even just white lies. You must test for the truth of claims made by anyone.

So, the Torah tells me there was a huge clash of 2 nations that lasted for hundreds of years, and culminated in great plagues and a mass Exodus, followed by G-d speaking on a mountain top to a very large group of people. The very nature of this claim, (it’s multi national scale,) makes it very odd indeed that there are not more references to it from cultures outside of the Bible, or data in the archaeological record, or forensic evidence. The Torah seems mythic, not necessirily false, for this reason. The claims made cannot be cross examined or externally verified.

but a LOT of people were in the exodus.

Remi, consider something very carefully. We only have a BOOK (that’s just 1 source preserved by 1 group) that SAYS (makes the claim) that a lot of people saw and experienced an Exodus, and as you’ve said, there is no way to prove it.

Having a book that Says 1000,000,000,000,00 people saw an event, is not at all the same thing as having 1000,000,000,000,00 independent accounts from all the different groups of people involved. Do you See the difference?

Just as its true that Jews and non Jews alike believe that the New Testament cannot be brought as a proof that the New Testament is true, so too you cannot use the Torah to prove that the Torah is true.

As an example, lets say a nation of 6,000,000 people approaches me with an ancient chronicle of their people that says “our ancestors saw a unicorn, and heard it speak.” The proof given for this claim is, “why would our whole group and our ancestors accept such an outlandish claim if it hadn’t actually happened in reality?

That in and of itself is not a proof of anything, it is a claim, (albiet a unique one) until you can demonstrate its truth.

Kavi,

God gave the ten commandments as well as the others in the Torah. Let me ask you a purely theoretical and unrealistic question: God said to be holy because He is holy. Do you think God would commit any sins Himself — if could? We know for example, that not eating unclean foods would not apply to God since He doesn’t eat. But what about other sins that He could conceivably do — although all of this is clearly a stretch and just a theoretical discussion — such as committing murder (unjust killing), adultery, stealing, worshiping Molech, etc? Can you imagine that God, if he could, would do any of the things He commanded man not to do?

“Jim,
Your hypothetical question is interesting and I am not sure I can answer it– we do know that there are some laws in the Torah that are not ‘good’:”

Okay Kavi, for the sake of argument let’s assume that based on Ez 20:25 there may be some commandments that are not good. I disagree with that, and can offer an explanation, but let me save that for another post. I don’t want to get sidetracked here.

So let me rephrase the question: Without qualifying God’s commandments in the Torah as good or bad, do you think — and I am asking you for your own opinion here — that God would do any of the things He commanded man not to do? To narrow the focus of my question, let’s keep it limited just to the Ten Commandments.

Gene,
Defining a true believer of “The Way” can be as controversial as defining “Who is a Jew?” :)

So, maybe the best way would be to describe the “good news” [basar] of redemption as:
*** “If you profess with your mouth, “Yeshua is L-rd,” and believe in your heart that G-d raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” [Romans 10:9]

Apostle John says the same,
*** “If anyone professes that Yeshua is the Son of G-d, G-d lives in them and they in G-d.” [I John 4:15]

Where does this type of profession of faith [Emunah] originate? At least as far back as Abram– it was he who believed G-d and it was accounted to him as righteousness.

After much searching, I still have yet to find absolute proof in the Torah that the Everlasting Elohim cannot exist as a unified plurality. Starting with Genesis, Elohim’s singular plurality is found beginning with “Let Us make man in our image” in Genesis and then following throughout the Scripture with the many uses of the plurals “Elohim, “Adonai”, “Echad”, etc.

And yes , I know most readers of this website adamantly disagree with these assertions and they have strong reasons to disagree. So, please understand that I am only trying to discuss what a true believer in “The Way” is.

NOTE> I will try to address the other questions in separate emails.

Kavi, I take it that you don’t have a position regarding my last question to you?

Remi,
You’re absolutely right– As Abram did not profess his faith in a void of understanding of who His G-d is, so the same is true here.

When unpacked, these verses are rich in understanding that:
** Elohim must exist [Genesis 1]
** The Ancient of Days is the “Father” [ Daniel 7, Psalm 2, Proverbs 30:4 ]
** Yeshua is G-d and is identified as the “Son” [see above ]
** Yeshua was sent to redeem mankind according to G-d’s promise [Genesis 3]
** Yeshua suffered and died to satisify the requirements of the Law [Isaiah 53]
** G-d raised Yeshua for a reason to certify that Yeshua was indeed innocent of sin [Isaiah 53]
** Yeshua returned to Heaven to await vengeance upon the satan’s unseen world as well as mankind who reject His way of faith [Psalm 110; Habakkuk 2:4]

_____________________________________________

Based on roots deeply set in the Tanakh, the true Emunah found Romans 10:9 and I John 4:15 could be restated:
[] There is only One Sovereign Elohim who created all things;
[] All mankind is sinful before G-d, with no hope of attaining the holiness Adonai requires;
[] The Ancient of Days sent the Son of Man [Yeshua] to redeem mankind from their sins;
[] Redemption occurs when one Trusts that Yeshua’s death and resurrection atones for ones own sins;

This simple faith can be understood by young and old alike.

__________________________________________________

Whatever you think of Yeshua, He did not die upon a wooden stake because of any hatred of His beloved Yehudim– nor did He weep over Yerushalayim because He had no compassion. No, it was done because of His own faithful love to draw back to Him and redeem sinful people who had no hope of attaining His holiness– David often sings of the L-RD’s enduring love to those who profess true Emunah [e.g., Psalm 32]

And who, of all mankind, would be in the best position to understand this faithful love of Elohim? Certainly not the Gentiles– it’s the Jews.

[Genesis 1] I agreee
** The Ancient of Days is the “Father” [ Daniel 7, Psalm 2, Proverbs 30:4 ]
He is YHVH, not the father of a triune god. The son of man if Daniel 7 could be Israel. What makes you think that it talks about Jesus anyway?

** Yeshua is G-d and is identified as the “Son” [see above ]
Yeshua, claimed to be the son of G-d, I have no problem with that, we are all sons of G-d.

** Yeshua was sent to redeem mankind according to G-d’s promise [Genesis 3]
According to Romans 16:20, G-d will crush satan under feet. Not Jesus. Not yet, this is again a prophecy that did not happened yet.

** Yeshua suffered and died to satisify the requirements of the Law [Isaiah 53]
It cannot be Jesus, he did not have seeds and again this has not happened yet.
See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
When was Jesus exalted? This whole scene will be at the end of time and until then, we cannot say Jesus fulfilled it. You may think it talks about Jesus, but again it has not happened yet, Jesus was never exalted, or maybe in the mind of peoples, but not on earth.

** G-d raised Yeshua for a reason to certify that Yeshua was indeed innocent of sin [Isaiah 53]
Good, but nobody saw it except his followers.

** Yeshua returned to Heaven to await vengeance upon the satan’s unseen world as well as mankind who reject His way of faith [Psalm 110; Habakkuk 2:4]

This is the part that nobody can see. Hard to show it to be proof of anything. Jesus was god because he ascended to heaven. Again, it’s hard to see that as a proof of anything.

Remi,
We agree on one thing– Yeah!

Since this thread is about Gene’s friend having a faith that’s 100% experiential, let’s consider monotheism. It is either:
[1] Plurality of Majesty – Faith of Judaism
[2] Unified Plurality – Faith of “the Way” or “true” Christianity

First, despite what Gene’s friend says, his faith cannot be 100% experiential because he received all his information from the B’rit HaChadashah. He may have evidence of his faith based on “experiences”– but the faith appears to have been based on teaching gained from the Old and New Covenants.

Second, does not Judaism and Christianity both think of G-d in “plural” terms?

Even the SHEMA uses plurality [“Echad”]– so why should the Rabbi’s concept be accepted as true? What if Judaism is 100% experiential?

____________________________________

Daniel 3 and Daniel 7
The “Son of Man” man cannot be Israel– otherwise it would be truly be idolatry. Why?

[a] Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would not serve [ יִפְלְח֑וּן] the gold image of Nebuchadnezzar;
[b] The Most High is served [ יִפְלְח֑וּן ] by ALL dominions;
[c] The “Son of Man” is given a kingdom of ALL nations who will serve [ יִפְלְח֑וּן ] Him;
[d] Therefore, this Son of Man is G-d who is brought before G-d, the Ancient of Days

This Hebrew word [ יִפְלְח֑וּן ] only occurs in this form in Daniel– there are no alternative or competing definitions.

____________________________________

So, just a very brief summary on the second issue you raise–
[a] “Plurality of Majesty” is only a concept invented by the Rabbis;

[b] Daniel, Moses, and the other Prophets argue against this rabbinical concept of “Plurality of Majesty”;

____________________________________

Hi Kavi, Deu 4 boils it down. Echad means one, Jesus was not at Sinai and I am not sure what you are trying to prove with prophecies that has not come to past yet. Daniel 7, again has not happened yet. The son of man is not clear, why? Because no son of man (literal or not) has been given a kingdom of ALL nations. So basically, you may want to say it is Jesus, Buddha, or Mohamed, it cannot prove anything, because it has not happened yet. Let’s all wait and see, but for now, you cannot claimed it was fulfilled by Jesus. You cannot allow your idolatry because some passage could mean it will be Jesus. Jesus said he will come back on a cloud, but that does not change the fact that he has not come yet. Now look at all the CLEAR warning against idolatry. You shall not put any gods before YHVH. But the Non testament say “there is one G-d and one mediator between G-d and man, the man christ Jesus” Now, there is a mediator between G-d and man, Jesus is before the face of G-d, but the First and most important commandment according to Jesus his “You shall not put any gods before my face”. If you want to throw all warnings because of types and shadows and so call prophecies, make sure they are 100% sure talking about Jesus. If there is a shadow of doubt, then it cannot be used as proof. If also the new testament contradict the “old” then it should be a red flag as well.

Echad is one, just like in English. One day (even if there is an evening and a morning), one mountain even if there are a lots of rocks and yachid means “only”. How did your KJV translated it? All your translations say “one” or “alone”. And that’s pretty much what it means. For Daniel 7, it’s a vision. Why don’t you take the beasts as literal beasts? So why the Ancient of Day should have a form, when G-d say He does not. It’s a vision, you are taking something literally when the whole context is prophetic and has to be taken figuratively.

” I hope you understand that I am just as much as against idolatry as you are.”

I understand that you think you are against idolatry, but “there is a way that is right for a man and it’s end is destruction”. Those who worshipped false gods think they are right, catholic bow down to Mary and status of Jesus and use bible verses to back themselves. up. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues

How many songs have you sang to Jesus this week end. Hajejura, to the lord (baal) and to the lamb. We will praise him because god shed his blood, our redeemer.

If Jesus is not part of a tri (that means THREE) une god that catholics invented, then you are indeed committing the worst idolatry and saying HIS name in vain. G-d is NOT a man,

“I am the Lord; that is my name!
I will not yield my glory to another (not Jesus either)
or my praise to idols.

Alright Kavi. I see that you’re wrapped up in dialogue with Remi and probably don’t see the importance of my question. So I’ll answer it for you. You said:

“First, of course, we all understand HaShem cannot sin nor even be tempted by sin.
G-d does not murder and He commands mankind, “Thou shalt not murder”– yet He commands Abraham to offer up Isaac as a human sacrifice on the altar.”

Before I get to my point, what you wrote above deserves a few comments too. It is God who, by His commandments, defined what is sin. You say that He “cannot” sin, but who are you to put a limitation of what God can and cannot do? Of course He could break His own commandments (sin) if He chose to do so. And He cannot be “tempted” by sin? I’m afraid that does not even compute. How could He be tempted? He is not human. I am speaking of YHVH, not Jesus. Your statement reflects the Christian view of sin, which is not supported by Torah (therefore Hashem).

So first you say that we all understand that Hashem “cannot” sin. But then you backpedal a bit, perhaps because you are unsure, and state that He commanded Abraham to murder Isaac. Why do you consider the binding of Isaac to be murder? God never intended for Abraham to sacrifice his son, and that is precisely why His angel stopped Abraham from following through with it. It was a test. Gen 22:12. Murder isn’t murder if it doesn’t occur.

Aside from that, my question was would God Himself sin — not whether He would have men sin. But He doesn’t do that either.

So this brings us back to the question of whether God sins. Nowhere in the Torah do we see God committing sin. So we know that God does not sin. We can’t even say for certain what God’s thinking is, that God *chooses* not to sin — although we probably wouldn’t be too far off if we did. But we do understand what we read in the Tanakh: God doesn’t sin. But suddenly in the New Testament, God commits a grievous sin. We will get to that.

Now, as I approach my point, let me bring back into the discussion the sin of adultery. It’s a pretty significant sin, one of the Ten Commandments, right up there with murder and idolatry. And what is adultery in the bible?

Adultery in the Torah is not how we define it today. In modern society, adultery is any sexual act by either a husband or wife outside the bounds of their marriage. (And I agree with that.) But in the ancient middle East and in Torah, adultery was the act of a man, married or not, having sex with a married woman. So if a married man had sex with a woman who was not his wife, it was not adultery so long as the other woman was not married — or betrothed.

And so, we received God’s commandment for the situation where a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, in Ex. 22:15-17. In this case, he is to take her as his wife. But if the girl’s father won’t allow the marriage, the seducer is to pay the bride’s price to her father, and then he may go on his way. This is reiterated in Deuteronomy 22:28. Notice the proviso; a virgin “who is not betrothed”. If a virgin is betrothed, it is a very, very different story.

If a virgin that is “betrothed to a husband” and willingly has sex with another, both she and the man are guilty of adultery. The penalty is death. (Deut. 22:23) If a man finds a “betrothed” girl in the country and forcibly has sex with her, he is guilty of adultery. The penalty is death. (Deut. 22:25-26)

When a woman was engaged to be married (betrothed), even before the wedding she was considered to be the man’s wife. There is no question about it, and this is exactly how it worked in ancient Israel. In fact, once a woman was betrothed to a husband, if he didn’t want her for a wife he had to legally divorce her, the same as if it were after the wedding.

So according to God’s own commandments in the Torah, a betrothed woman was the wife of her husband, and if she had sexual relations outside of the marriage it was adultery. Now guess what we have?

Matthew 1:18: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way. While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.”

Hm. Sounds pretty much like adultery to me. Yes, you have God committing adultery in Matthew 1:18.

In the Akedah, God Himself doesn’t tell Abraham to put the knife down; He sends one of His angels to do it. But we still consider that God prevented the sacrifice. Equally so, in your holy book, God commits adultery via his holy spirit — whatever that is. Oh yes, part of your triune God. So the “holy spirit” is God then. Any way you slice it, your sacred scriptures have God committing adultery.

Furthermore, the statement in Mat 1:22-23 that her pregnancy fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 is based the mistranslation in the Septuagint (“virgin” instead of “young woman”), but Isaiah 7 wasn’t even messianic. It had only to do with the present situation at that time before him. Is 7:1-4 makes that abundantly clear.

And the genealogy that precedes the story of the birth of Jesus? We can visit the mistakes therein at another time. But there are mistakes.

Kavi, I want you to take a breath, back up a couple of steps and contemplate this. As well as everything else that’s been said to you in this forum. I’m sure you can see it all just doesn’t add up. The only explanation that fits, and is right under your nose, is that Matthew 1:18-25 is fiction. Like so much of the NT. It’s made up, my friend.

Remi,
I am of the faith of the Mashiachim– not Catholic.

In Deuteronomy 4, G-d simply says that Israel did not see His form on the mountain. It never said the G-d does not have a form.

In Daniel 7, it does not matter whether it is a vision or not– the Ancient of Days is G-d and the Son of Man is G-d. There are no alternatives with Daniel’s use of very clear language.

____________________

Isaiah 42:8
“I am the Lord; that is my name!
I will not yield my glory to another
or my praise to idols.”

This verse is rich in meaning for we find:
Genesis 1,
Then Elohim said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.”

Since Elohim cannot give His glory to angels, mankind, or idols– He can only be referring to Himself as the Ancient of Days, the Son of Man, and the Ruach HaKodesh.

______________________

Hi Kavi, I am not saying you are a catholic, but that you are committing idolatry just like Catholics and uses your bible to justify yourself. Your are a christian, you may call yourself Mashiachim or use other nice hebrew words, but your belief system is probably evangelical christianity in disguise mixed with a bite of legalism. You may not like xmass or easter and celebrate so call jewish feast. But they are all centred around your idol. Pesach is about the lamb of god, unleaven bread is Jesus who had no sin, shavuot is the holy spirit, feast of trumpet is when Jesus will come back, day of atonment is Jesus going in the wilderness and Jesus dying (he is actually the two goats!) Atonment is Jesus making atonement (I am really not sure why you should fast if Jesus provided atonment and paid for all your sins but you probably do without asking questions), and sukkot is Jesus being our sukkot. Nothing to do with YHVH!

Remi,

I am sure Kavi does not fast. If he observes the festivals, he does it along with the messianic “synagogue”, which he likely attends. But even then, he wouldn’t keep them fully because it would just be for show in front of Jews. But the fact is, he doesn’t need to keep more than the Noahide laws because he wasn’t born a Jew. Kavi is a gentile-born, evangelical Christian, and so its really not a problem for him if he doesn’t observe the holy days that were given to Jews.

Most importantly, you need to understand that Kavi’s mission in life is to bring Jews to the cross. He has spent years learning Jewish ways, Jewish thinking and Jewish scripture toward that end. He slings Hebrew words around to impress Jews — and you can find his lexicon and script right out of the pages of the “Complete Jewish Bible” and the “Orthodox Jewish Bible”, which are messianic bibles designed to accomplish that purpose. The truth is, he doesn’t know Hebrew at all (as evidenced by a number of misuses of Hebrew as well as his remark, “Almah always means virgin– no exceptions”).

You can go back to the first time he posted here and review every one of his comments. You will see that there is no real give and take going on. He’s not interested in coming to any new understandings. In the thousands of words exchanged, there isn’t a single instance where he has accepted anyone’s explanation of anything that counters classical evangelical apologetics. He has not, and will not, seriously entertain any explanation we have to offer.

Understand that he is here for one purpose: to hone his missionary skills by debating us so he can be more effective at converting Jews to Christian idolatry.

Kavi,

You said,

“Miryam asked the very same question– without becoming crass, she basically said, “I am a virgin– wouldn’t I be committing adultery if I become pregnant by having sex with a man?”

But the discussion in Luke had nothing to do with her concern for committing adultery. It is clear that she was only confused as to how she could become pregnant if she was still a virgin. (Which, by the way is nonsensical in and of itself because she was about to marry Joseph. But being accurate was not the aim of the author of the gospel.)

The fact is that sex in and of itself was not the issue addressed by the law. The purpose was knowing that every child a wife bore to her husband was indeed his, because male children carried the family line and received the father’s inheritance. Because sex is the only way a woman can conceive, notwithstanding the mythical fiction in the two gospels, the act of sex is what God regulates through the commandment. You miss the point.

The gospels have God committing adultery. Plain and simple.

“Yeshua came to earth through the “sign” of being miraculously being formed within her womb.”

This is no sign at all because pregnancy occurs from a single act of sex, so there would have to be proof to the people that she never did. Unless there were witnesses at Mary’s side 24/7 who saw that she never had sex, then it was no sign. It was no sign.

“She was a virgin who gave birth to the Son of Man. [Isaiah 7:14, Jeremiah 31:22]
Almah always means virgin– no exceptions.”

You do not understand those two verses. Further, you don’t know Hebrew and you are not qualified to declare what a Hebrew word means and what it does not. In fact, it is to the contrary: ‘Almah’ almost always means young woman, not ‘virgin’. It has that meaning in every instance in the Torah except one. When ‘virgin’ is intended, “betulah” is used in scripture. Your self-confident statement even goes against Strong’s. But you know better, right? And I invite you to go back and read the story of the defiling of Dinah. The Torah refers to her as “almah” after she was raped and no longer a virgin. Your astounding display of self-confidence is unsupported — in this case and in many others.

Thanks Jim :)

“Only those Jews who are even more ignorant about Judaism than the Christians who are targeting them for conversion.”

Which, unfortunately, is the majority. And when a person first views Tanakh through the Christian lens, it becomes much more difficult for them to refocus and see clearly. Added to that, Judaism is complex, rich and can be perplexing to the uninitiated. It requires quite a bit of study, which most secular Jews don’t do.

Friends,
I do have to admit that some of you are very curious [and persistent] as to figuring out who I am– which is what I did not want to happen. Oh well, I tried to be anonymous :(

So, to keep you all from killing yourselves too much, I will say that my occupation is an accountant and let’s just say that Chicago, Illinois and its commuting area is pretty familiar territory. I hold no theological degree, have never taken theological coursework, attended no yeshiva, hold absolutely no leadership position of any kind in “church” or synagogue, have written no books, am no professional blogger, have no facebook page, no twitter account, etc. I am pretty much just a regular person who goes to work every day and who has all the usual problems just getting through each day.

Well– let’s back up on the part about writing a book– sometimes, after looking at all I have written on Gene’s site, I have to wonder :)

__________________________________

I only joined the discussions on this website because it seemed frustrating that no one was able to see that the Tanakh was written by HaShem to reveal His plan to redeem mankind from their sins.

So, if I have any “purpose”, it is to proclaim that:
— HaShem made mankind a promise of a Redeemer who would lovingly cleanse us of our sins according to the sure mercies of David. [Genesis 3, Psalm 32].

— HaShem grants this cleansing only through Faith [Emunah] — the same Faith professed by Abram [Genesis 15:6 and Habakkuk 2:4]

______________________________

Getting back to our conversations in Gene’s “Agora of Reasoning” . . .

Reading no real objections, it would appear that we must conclude that:

[**] The Hebrew text [“serve” יִפְלְח֑וּן ] in Daniel 3 and Daniel 7 reveals that:
–-Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would not serve the idol in Babylon
–-The Ancient of Days is served as G-d, the Most High
–The Son of Man is served as G-d [ Yeshua ]

[**] Starting with Genesis, Elohim’s singular plurality is found throughout the Tanakh beginning with “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness”
— Both Judaism and Christianity think of G-d in “plural” terms.
— There is no Scripture that absolutely prevents us from understanding Elohim as a “Unified Plurality” rather than the rabbinical concept of “Plurality in Majesty”.
— The Son of Man is neither a created image of man nor a creation of the Most High.
— Moses, Isaiah, Daniel and the other prophets teach us that Elohim is a “Unified Plurality”.
— Even “the Shema” uses the concept of plurality [“Echad”]

[**] PS> Jim,
You are mistaken regarding the word Almah:

— Only the Greek Septuagint records Dinah as a virgin after being raped, not the Hebrew text [ הַֽנַּעֲרָ֔ ].

— In Hebrew, there are less than 10 occurrences of the word Almah [ הָעַלְמָ֗ה ] and they all mean virgin.

______________________________

Leonard,

Let me take a stab at that tomorrow. (And I happen to like cats, by the way..)

And Kavi, you are also incorrect in asserting that the word “alma” is always referring to a virgin in the Tanach. Besides the obvious example that I just described concerning the use of “alma” referring to Isaiah’s own wife, (who was not a virgin by the way…) there is another instance where the word “alma” refers to an adulterous woman!

I used to use this argument as well, but I found that christians didn’t have the attention span to comprehend the argument. Lets see if you’re any different…

Proverbs 30:18 There are three things which are too wonderful for me, for which I do not understand:

Proverbs 30:19the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a **young woman (alma).**

Proverbs 30:20 This is the way of **AN ADULTEROUS WOMAN:** she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.”

In the above three verses, King Solomon compares a man with an alma to three other things: an eagle in the sky, a serpent on a rock, and a ship in the sea.

What do these four things all have in common?

They leave no trace.

After the eagle has flown across the sky, it is impossible to determine whether an eagle had ever flown through that airspace. Once a snake has slithered over a rock, there is no way to discern that the snake had ever crossed there (as opposed to a snake slithering over sand or grass, where it leaves a trail). After a ship passes through the sea, the wake behind it comes together and settles behind it, leaving no way to discern that a ship had ever moved through this body of water.

Similarly, King Solomon declares that once a man has been sexually intimate with an almah, i.e. a young woman, no trace of sexual intercourse is visible, unlike a virgin who will leave behind a discharge of blood after her hymen is broken.

Therefore, in the following verse (Proverbs 30:20) King Solomon explains that once this adulterous woman “eats” (a metaphor for her fornication), she removes the trace of her sexual infidelity, “wipes her mouth, and says, ‘I have done no wrong.’” The word alma clearly does not mean a virgin.

“Similarly, King Solomon declares that once a man has been sexually intimate with an almah, i.e. a young woman, no trace of sexual intercourse is visible, unlike a virgin who will leave behind a discharge of blood after her hymen is broken.”

Excellent Dvar in your three posts, Yehuda. And this is the correct meaning of Prov 30:19. I believe I heard this explanation in the past by Tovia Singer but had forgotten it.

But the thing is that, for the most part, the Christian thinker doesn’t do well with putting the pieces together in this way. They have been oriented to take verses out of context, focus on the bits, and not understand the whole. They also suffer from the many mistranslations.

And it is good to teach… those who will learn.

Leonard:

“I’ve been mulling over Ezekiel 20:25 since Kavi brought it up about how the laws are bad and can’t be lived, and it seems that the Prophets (including Moses) talked about how God sometimes blinds/deceives us (and certainly gives us over to deception). It seems the NLT translation of verse 25 and 26 supports this:
v.25 “I gave them over to worthless decrees and regulations that would not lead to life. v.26 I let them pollute themselves…”

I don’t see anywhere in the Torah a single worthless decree or statute that does not lead to life. So here’s my take. I disagree with Kavi that this scripture indicates that this is something God does. The verses describe what God DID to a second wicked generation in the wilderness.

In fact, the passage devotes a number of verses to describing the problems Moshe had with the second generation. But our text is silent on this. So where does this come from?

I did not consult rabbinical commentary. It seems to me that this is a witness to a tradition, either oral or even possibly in writing, that was circulating at the time of Ezekiel that never made it into, or was purposefully kept out of, the Hebrew canon.

For Daniel 7, why do you think it’s Jesus in the first place? It has not happened yet. There are a lots of way it could be interpret because it is a vision. It could be the messiah, not a flying one, but as the beast are not literal beast, the messiah does not have to fly on the sky. Or it could be Israel compared to the beast nations who wanted to force their idolatrous religion on the Jewish people, Babylon, Persia, Greece and the last one the holy Roman empire. Just a little less strong because of the clay who claim they are not from ROME.

Kavi, G-d tells us His son’s name. (Hint: It isnt jesus!)

Exodus 4:22 And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘So said the Lord, “My firstborn son is Israel.”

I always find it hilarious when christians obsess on the word “son” and think it refers to their jeezer when the context clearly says otherwise. Just another reason why christians are wrong!

Rebelious people who do not seek the L-rd but seek their idols… Kavi are you sure you follow the L-rd and not a foolish idol? A son of man, a mortal that his followers deified as a god? Can you tell us that we do not trust in the G-d of Abraham, we do not follow idols, are you sure that you do not have your eyes closed and your ears shut. Everything we are telling you goes straight at you like the wind. Jesus is not G-D, G-d was clear and you are following the ways of yours fathers, and it does not go back to Abraham.

A Fourth of July D’var:

It’s appropriate in this forum and at this time, I think, to consider that the founding principles of this country as so eloquently expressed in our Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, are rooted not so much in Judeo-Christian principles, but in Jewish doctrine alone.

Jefferson made it a point throughout his political career to keep his personal religious views out of the public eye. But his religious views, as expressed later in life in private letters to colleagues and friends, had a great influence on this country’s founding document, and so they remain incorporated to this day in the fabric of our government and society – even if most of us don’t realize it. Ironically, Jefferson’s views on Christianity would be extremely offensive to the conservative Christian coalition which loudly proclaims its loyalty to the very foundational principles of the United States of America that reflect Jefferson’s disdain for the religion of Christianity.

Jefferson thought that, had he known about them, the real Jesus, would have had nothing to do with the mythical nonsense that the gospel writers concocted around him. He took on a pet project to extract what he thought, after careful analysis, were Jesus’ authentic sayings, and disregarded the rest. He was practicing textual criticism — something that the patriotic, conservative Christians in this country would view as heresy to this day. Once Jefferson had extracted the moral teachings of Jesus, he arranged and pasted them into their own book, which he named “The Life and Morals of Jesus”. We know it as “The Jefferson Bible”. Of his discovery, Jefferson said:

“A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” (In a letter to Charles Thomson from Minticello, Jan 9, 1816)

The Thomas Jefferson Foundation writes, “Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the “outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man.” (Monticello.org)

Jefferson valued the rational above the superstitious. He believed that God gave man a brain and expected him to use it. He also felt that Christianity had corrupted Jesus’ original messages and obscured them with irrational, pagan mythology:

“”no one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in it’s advances towards rational Christianity. when we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus, when, in short, we shall have unlearned every thing which has been taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples: and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian.” (Letter to Timothy Pickering, Feb. 27, 1821)

However, Jefferson felt that it was unfortunate that those who think clearly and reject Christian myth, end up discarding the authentic Jesus along with the rest – essentially, throwing the baby out with the bath water.

“the religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconcievable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce it’s founder an imposter. had there never been a Commentator, there never would have been an infidel.” (Ibid.)

Jefferson extended his views above, in the hope that someday we would recognize the falsities of Christian mythology and embrace Jesus’ authentic, moral teachings. In embracing these, Jefferson held that our country would become stronger, more moral and, in fact, more godly:

“The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.” (Letter to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823 – three years before his death.)

What should come as no surprise to most of us on this blog is that if one can successfully whittle away the mythological nonsense that was built up around Jesus and the so many lies that were put into his mouth in the gospels, and examine what are most likely his authentic sayings (a number of scholars have tackled this task, such as Oxford Professor Geza Vermes), we find that they actually make up only a very small fraction of the gospels. Furthermore, what we would also find is that the true sayings of Jesus are simply expressions of the classical teachings and values of the Torah – nothing more, nothing in opposition to them, and nothing that would replace them.

As for Paul, the gospel writers and the rest of the authors of the New Testament — they have hijacked Judaism. But a careful reckoning reveals that the age-old doctrines of Judaism, embodied in the Torah, expressed by Jesus and deciphered by Jefferson are, through their eventual expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the true core and foundation of what makes this country great.

Happy 4th of July, everyone! And Shabbat Shalom.

Jim,
Do you not remember that on June 16th, you said that–
“This is a very timely and important topic, worthy of discussion. In fact, as I see it, everyone so far has put forth valid points. The underlying “problem” is that science has caught up with the Torah and has clearly shown that some significant stories and pronouncements written there cannot be true.”

Jim, both you and Concerned Reader believe in a mythological G-d of the Tanakh who has no power to give us truth. So why express concern about some mythological “Jesus”?

And since there is a determined belief that the Tanakh and the Talmud have mythological stories embedded in them– is not this belief just as idolatrous as many of the ancestors were? [with “science” being the new god of this age].

_____________________________

Yehuda,
I know you wish to find truth in your understanding of Proverbs 30:19-20– however, the interpretation you set forth is inaccurate.

First, the “no trace” interpretation is faulty from the start because not all three wondrous deeds occur with “no trace.”

And, if you honestly want to interpret only the first three deeds as “wonderous”, then the fourth deed cannot be– as such, there must be some logic found to explain how the adulterous woman contrasts with all three of the first parts of the Proverb. . . this cannot be done.

Last, as I said, Rebekah is described as Bethulah and Almah.

I plead that you reconsider being honest in interpretation to yourself and others, and all will go well with you– otherwise HaShem Himself will show you false. As we also find in Proverbs 30:

[**] Proverbs 30:5-6
“Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.”

Friends– to date, no one has put forth any “proof” that I am propagating lies. You have brought forth theories and guesses, false interpretations and hope– but no proofs.

_____________________________

Remi,
It is irrelevant whether you believe Daniel had a was a vision or not. There are no other interpretations since the language in Daniel is very clear-cut:

[**] Daniel 3 and Daniel 7
– Only Elohim is “served” יִפְלְח֑וּן
-Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego refused to serve the idol of Nebuchadnezzar
–The Son of Man is served as G-d
–The Most High, the Ancient of Days is served as G-d

[**] Daniel 9
The promised Messiah must come before the destruction of the second Temple in 70 AD

So, we continue building solid evidence– Daniel 3, 7, 9 and Proverbs 30

_____________________________

Last, since no one challenges that Rebekah is both Bethulah and Almah before her marriage to Isaac, I can again say Almah always means “virgin” [Genesis 24:16 and 24:43]

_____________________________
_____________________________

Jim,
I need to remind you again that you said. . .
“The underlying “problem” is that science has caught up with the Torah and has clearly shown that some significant stories and pronouncements written there cannot be true.”

Since you plainly state the Torah contains lies– please just be honest with us and yourself :(

The world is not 5776 years old and Jesus was neither Messiah nor God. Both are equally clear. Sorry if that doesn’t fit the bookkeeping rules you were taught and you’re having problems comprending balances that don’t seem to match.

“Jim,
You said that, “science has shown that some significant stories [plural] and pronouncements [plural] written there cannot be true.” Just how many stories and prounouncements in the Tanakh are false? Maybe the teaching that Yeshua is NOT the Messiah is false also?”

Kavi, I’m not even going to begin to answer that. You are so stubborn in your lostness that it’s just not worth going around in these OCD circles with you. My hat is off to the rest of the gang though, as they appear to have much more patience with you than I do.

Kavi, your interpretation are wrong but only you wont open your eyes because you don’t want to deny your idol. Seriously. Blessed is the one who believes without seeing! There are no proof for Jesus, to argue about almah will lead to nothing. But lets be honest, Jews, those who spoke the language know more than your christian messianic preacher who went to southern baptist school (Not to offend any but I do not know many messianic preacher who went to study hebrew with Jewish people).

Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

Jesus is a rock that cannot save, but again, you will say that He is the Lord. Baal was translated as Lord as well. You need 100% proof that he is part of the G-d of Israel, but all you have is bible verses taken out of context, and Daniel 7, Psalm 2 and Isaiah 53, which have not happened yet, and yet you said that it was fulfilled. That’s a lie, because it has not, Jesus is not ruling over all the earth and the man flying on the could has not come. You may say that the man will be worshipped, but again, no man flying in the sky was worshipped. So it does not prove it is Jesus. Stop that non-sense and open your eyes. Please provide ONE prophecy that is not disputed and prove Jesus was the messiah.

Jim “My hat is off to the rest of the gang though”

Hey Jim, use Gene’s advice, in the end you may not persuade Kavi, but other people will see your comments and will be able to see that there is no reason whatsoever to bow our knees to him, a human. That he is not god and that all the claims of xtianinty goes against what the scriptures teach. There are thousand of xtians website and so called jewish website that are messianic in disguise trying to lure Jewish people. There are thousand of xtians that believes what comes out of the pew and if they would come to a site like this, would read the comments and would come to know the truth. I do not set my hope to convince Kavi, but there are really people like me, that sought to know the truth and went to website that show the other side of the coin. It is foolish and a teaching of the new testament to avoid checking anything that would disprove xtianity, but some people will check to make sure that what they believe is true. And in the end will reject the falsehood of xtianity.

Yes of course, most of the tithe, after paying the building goes to evangelism and charity. Most of Christian Charity has second objective to share the gospel. All Christians are mandate to share the gospel and should spend time and money for that cause. Furthermore all Christian would love to convert Jewish people first. Also, as Paul said, they don’t care to put a “Jewish” visage to show the gospel attractive. Lobbies push the government to put back prayers in school and of course it should be in the name of Jesus. I asked my friend if we should put prayer in the name of Jesus back in school. He said yes. Then I asked if instead they would pray in the name of allah, then he said it would be wrong. I asked about those who do not think Jesus is god, if it is faire to force praying in the name of Jesus, and told him that for the Jews, praying to Jesus would be as bad as praying to allah and that because he thinks Jesus is god, does not necessarily makes it true or false and even if it would be true, it would be forcing your view on others that do not think like you do.

Yehuda,
I always congratulate those who make an honest effort to closely examine Scripture– when making the examination, consistent interpretation requires consistent application.

The most essential rule to employ is “p’shat”

With p’saht in mind, there are at least two application errors in comparing Psalm 146:6 and Daniel 7:13

[**] Misapplication in Immediate Context [i.e., the verses immediately surrounding the text]
In the Psalm, the context is in reference to relying upon mankind for deliverance and the following verse is, “When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.”

In Daniel, the context is where the Son of Man is brought into the presence of the Ancient of Days.

[**] Misapplication of Author’s Intent [i.e., how does Daniel use the words and context]
Daniel uses the word יִפְלְח֑וּן that ties Daniel 3:28, 7:14, and 7:27 together.

Daniel tells us that:
— Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would not “serve” the golden idol of Nebuchadnezzar;
— Both the Son of Man and the Most High are “served” as G-d.

________________________________

So, even though we cannot compare Psalm 146 and Daniel 7, it’s great that you try to examine everything closely. And, it keeps me spiritually sharp– “like iron on iron” :)

Shalom!

Yasher koach.

But he won’t accept it, you’ll see. He’s not here for understanding the truth — only to sharpen his missionary sword.

Kavi, the Messiah is a part of Israel. Rashi explains this clearly. Rashi’s interpretation is consistent with the angel’s interpretation in Daniel 7:15-28. I never said the passage didn’t apply to the Messiah and neither does Rashi.

But you error when you assume that the “son of man” who receives the kingdom and dominion refers ONLY to the Messiah. The text doesn’t say that and Rashi doesn’t say that either.

So please Kavi, you have already contextually abused scripture enough in order to falsely champion your jeezer as the subject of this passage. Please do not abuse the context of Rashi. I know you’re sore about your loss in this argument, but its time you come to terms with the fact that Daniel 7:13-14 does not refer to ONLY the Messiah receiving a kingdom and it also does not refer to the worship of the Messiah either. Rashi understood this. Daniel understood this. The angel who told Daniel the interpretation of his dream understood this.

Do you understand this?

It isn’t rocket science…

Shalom

Yehuda, it’s not only about prophecies, it’s all the changes in his life and his personal experiences. The holy spirit convinces him that those passage talks about Jesus even if it is not the case. You cannot go wrong with that, it’s all about feeling.

Kavi, I showed you the Rashi plainly and clearly. Rashi identifies the “son of man” as referring to Israel as well as the Messiah. Now you are continuing to try and say “so and so disagrees with you.” Please, stop with the disingenuous banter and recognize that Rashi explicitly states that Israel is LIKENED TO A MAN.

Here is the link to Chabad.org concerning what Rashi says concerning Daniel 7:13-14. Read what Rashi says concerning Daniel 7:14.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16490/jewish/Chapter-7.htm#showrashi=true

Here it is for you, once again, plain as day!

And He gave him dominion: And to that man He gave dominion over the nations, for the heathens he likens to beasts, **AND ISRAEL HE LIKENS TO A MAN** because they are humble and innocent.

Rashi clearly identifies the “son of man” as not simply the Messiah, but also as Israel.

So please, stop being a disingenuous fool and respect the fact that Rashi does not identify the “son of man,” exclusively with the Messiah. Thank you…

But unfortunately for your position, Rashi’s interpretation is consistent with the interpretation given to Daniel in Daniel 7:15-28. You really want to go down kicking and screaming, don’t you Kavi?

You claim that since Daniel 7:13-14 uses “singular pronouns” this must mean that it cannot refer to a plurality, or in this case, the nation of Israel.

Well played, Kavi. I guess you also believe that the four beasts mentioned in Daniel 7:3-12 must also not refer to a plurality either…After all, they also use “singular pronouns.” I guess there’s no way in the world that these beasts could actually symbolically refer to NATIONS of PEOPLE because they only use “singular pronouns.”

Right Kavi? ;-)

Or maybe you are being foolish again and you are forgetting (or perhaps, deliberately overlooking) the fact that Daniel 7:1-14 refers to Daniel’s DREAM/VISION and that the singular “beasts” and singular “son of man” are not understood to be singular entities, but rather representations of NATIONS/PEOPLE as the angel describes to Daniel in Daniel 7:15-28.

You go on to say this “The angel says the holy ones will “receive” and “possess” the kingdom, v.18.”

You are correct Kavi! The angel makes it clear that the “holy ones” (PLURAL) will “receive” and “possess” the kingdom.

But did you forget that this is an interpretation of Daniel’s dream? Did you about Daniel 7:14?

Daniel 7:14 And He **GAVE HIM** dominion and glory and a KINGDOM, and all peoples, nations, and tongues shall serve him; his dominion is an eternal dominion, which will not be removed, and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.

The description of the “son of man” RECEIVING the kingdom from G-d (Daniel 7:14) directly corresponds with the interpretation given to Daniel that the “holy ones” (PLURAL) will “receive” and “possess” the kingdom. (Daniel 7:18)

So there’s no way around it, Kavi…Daniel 7:14 directly corresponds to Daniel 7:18. A plurality of people receive this kingdom! You can contextual abuse Daniel 7:13-14 all you want and whine about “singular pronouns” in isolation, but that will never change the fact that the interpretation given to Daniel concerning Daniel 7:13-14 involves a PLURALITY of people receiving the kingdom…

You also claim this concerning Daniel 7:27, Kavi:

“The Most High is “served” in His kingdom [ מַלְכוּתֵהּ֙ ]– not the holy ones”

Actually, “The Most High” is not mentioned explicitly in this verse at all, so your argument doesn’t make sense. If you are arguing about the singularity of the kingdom, that also wouldn’t make sense for your position, as a kingdom can rule over other nations/dominions…Which is precisely what the verse says…The kingdom does not only include the Messiah. That is the error in which you make.

So please Kavi…Own up to your misunderstanding of this prophesy and admit that you have been contextually abusing these verses in order erroneously argue that the Messiah is a “god” that must be worshipped…

And considering the fact that your jesus fulfilled none of this prophesy, it makes little sense why you are so obsessed with it at this point…

Shalom

Ex. 4:22.

Yehudah, I’m sorry, but “The Jeezer”? Lol sounds like a rude nickname for Scrooge lol or an epithet for someone from the big Lebowski or pulp fiction. Hey dude, where’s the Jeezer? Ah! He’s sleeping.

Jim,
Besides the resources of http://www.chabad.org, there are least two others:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3407.htm

http://biblehub.com/
http://biblehub.com/daniel/7-1.htm

___________________________________

Yehuda,
Gene’s Rabbi friend is correct about Rashi, because if he is not, there are at least three problems you would need to overcome:

First, Rashi clearly identifies King Messiah as singular in Daniel 2:44 and Daniel 12:12
[**] Daniel 2:44– The Messiah is identified in the singular
— “The kingdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, which will never be destroyed, is the kingdom of the Messiah.”

[**] Daniel 12:12– The Messiah is “hidden” for awhile and then “revealed”
Fortunate is he who waits etc.: Forty five years are added to the above number, for our King Messiah is destined to be hidden after he is revealed and to be revealed again. So we find in Midrash Ruth, and so did Rabbi Eleazar HaKalir establish (in the concluding poem of the morning service of the portion dealing with the month of Nissan): “and he will be concealed from them six weeks of years.”

Second,
[**] Daniel 7:14
— Rashi specifically identifies the Messiah as the Son of Man [note his words “that man” in relation to the dominion in v 13 ]
— Rashi then makes a comparison between the heathens as beasts and Israel as a man. Here, Rashi assumes the reader understands several references:
(a) The division between Esau and Jacob [aka, “Israel”] in Genesis 25:23 where we the ideas of see “nations” and “kingdoms”.
(b) Esau described as a beast [ see Rashi’s commentary in Psalm 80:14]
(c) The Talmudic concept that Jacob [aka, Israel] would need to be found “worthy” or “repentant” for the King Messiah to come in the “clouds of heaven” [ also see Rashi’s reference to humility and innocence in v 14 ]
(d) The “final” Mashiach ben David will come in victory [in contrast to Mashiach ben Yossef]

Third,
[**] The singularity of the Messiah
— Rashi does not make the mistake of claiming that Israel is the Messiah for a simple reason– the Messiah is of the line of Judah, not all 12 tribes.

So, for Rashi to claim here that “all” Israel is the Messiah would deny the writings of Moses and the other prophets. And would it not pretty well invalidate the other commentators [e.g., Akiva] who were looking for a Messiah to come as a singular King?

PS> You can email Gene’s friend, Rabbi Chaim @ http://www.mesora.org/qa/ regarding Rashi and the “final” Messiah.

PSS> See http://www.chabad.org/library/moshiach/article_cdo/aid/101747/jewish/Appendix-II.htm which brings a lot of this information together.
______________________________________

After further analysis, I hope you will now see that your interpretation is inaccurate–

But, I do admire your tenacity :)

Yehuda,

Since you were not able to counter my well-documented response, here is the quote and direct web link to Rabbi Chaim’s Q&A:

From a set of several question in 1998,

Question: Who is Daniel 7:13-14 referring to?”As I looked on, in the night vision, one like a human being came with the clouds of heaven; he reached the Ancient of Days and was presented to Him.14. Dominion, glory, and kingship were given to him; all peoples and nations of every language must serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed.”

Response: This is a reference to the final messiah. (Rashi)

Source: mesora.org/messiah-daniel.html

_____________________________

I reiterate that your interpretation is complex and valid to discuss– but I have given a logical, solid response.

So, you may indeed call me a “fool”, but you have to admit that I well-document my foolishness :)

_____________________________

Again, to summarize a couple things:

[*] The respected Rabbi Chaim does not agree with your interpretation.

[*] Rashi does not make the mistake of claiming that Israel is the Messiah for a simple reason– the Messiah is of the line of Judah, not all 12 tribes.

So, for Rashi to claim here that “all” Israel is the Messiah would deny the writings of Moses and the other prophets as well as other Jewish commentators [e.g., Akiva] who were looking for a Messiah to come as a singular King.

[*] In Daniel, “possessing” the kingdom is naturally part of HaShem’s promised inheritance to His righteous children, Israel. The kingdom will be ruled by the King Messiah where both the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man will be “served”.

I truly do wish you Shalom as you continue to ponder these types of issues.

_____________________________

Kavi, you are blatantly misrepresenting Rashi when you claim this:

[*] Rashi does not make the mistake of claiming that Israel is the Messiah for a simple reason– the Messiah is of the line of Judah, not all 12 tribes.

KAVI, Rashi doesn’t identify the son of man exclusively with the Messiah. His commentary on Daniel 7:14 and Daniel 7:18 confirm this.

You can keep yelling and screaming that Rashi only meant the Messiah, but you are simply being disingenuous and you are abusing the text.

And if you can do that, then Im sure you would understand if someone used John 14:28 do disprove the “deity of jesus.”

Shalom

Yehuda,
The term “face to face” only means there was no one between G-d and the people when He spoke.

A similar expression is found in Exodus 33:11 where G-d spoke to Moses with no intermediary.

______________________

You know what, Kavi? I don’t think we ever finished discussing Isaiah 7:14 before we moved on to other verses. There was a lot of back and forth about the definition of “almah”, which itself wasn’t fully resolved, but we didn’t address the rest. I just don’t see it as messianic. Why do you?

Jim,
You said, “Irrelevant. Almah can mean both, as previously stated, but means maiden, not virgin.”

When saying “both”, does that mean Almah and Bethulah can both refer to a virgin and chaste young maiden [of marriageable age]?

Isaiah 7:14 has already been addressed and Kavi had nothing to counter it. His interpretation goes against the interpretation of Isaiah himself! Here it is again:

I will now demonstrate to you how the “virgin birth” that matthew speaks of is a lie. Isaiah never made such a prophesy!

The birth of Isaiah’s child was clearly the fulfillment of the sign prophesied in Isaiah 7:14-16. How do I know this? Isaiah tells us himself! Lets look at these verses

Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.

Isaiah 7:16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”

Keep verse 16 in mind. It is crucial to the context of Isaiah. Now, lets look at the next chapter of Isaiah and see what he has to say:

Isaiah 8:3. And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Isaiah 8:4. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, “Father” and “mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.”

Well what do you know! Isaiah said a young woman would give birth to a child and in the very next chapter his wife has a son! Prophesy fulfilled! The interesting thing about it is that Isaiah explicitly says he was intimate with her. This means that this “alma” described in Isaiah 7:14 is Isaiah”s wife. Morever, she is not a virgin! Thus, the word “alma” does not exclusively refer to women who are virgins! Isaiah says it himself!

And if you are still not convinced, here”s a direct statement from Isaiah saying his sons are signs:

Isaiah 8:18. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel, from the Lord of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion.

The natural birth of Isaiah”s son was the fulfillment of the sign of Isaiah 7:14, namely that his wife would give birth to a son, and that before he knew the difference between good and evil/father and mother, “the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.”And if you are going to whine that Isaiah”s son was not called “Immanuel directly,” I will kindly point out to you that your yeshua was never called “Immanuel” by his mother either, so you would be setting a double standard, as Isaiah states that the mother of this child will call him “Immanuel.”

And just to delve into the idea behind “Immanuel” a bit more, II Chronicles 32:7-8 describes the events which occurred concerning the king of Assyria, during the reign of King Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz:

II Chronicles 32:7. “Be strong and of good courage; do not fear and do not be dismayed because of the KING OF ASSYRIA and because of all the multitude that is with him, because *HE WHO IS WITH US is greater than those with him.*

II Chronicles 32:8. With him is an arm of flesh, and WITH US IS THE LORD OUR G-D to help us and to wage our wars,” and the people relied on the words of Hezekiah, king of Judah.

So lets put it all together: The birth of Isaiah’s son was a sign for King Ahaz that the two kings who he dreaded would be destroyed by the king of Assyria. By after the king of Assyria defeated these kings, King Hezekiah (Ahaz’s son) assured his kingdom that G-d WAS WITH THEM. Since King Hezekiah and Isaiah’s son both lived during the same time as well, it is safe to conclude that the birth of Isaiah’s son can be linked to King Hezekiah’s understanding that G-D WAS WITH THEM, even though Assyria appeared to be a threat. Remember, this prophesy was TIME SENSITIVE and involved the two kingdoms being destroyed by the king of Assyria. This is how Isaiah’s son is considered Immanuel. It’s all linked together within the time frame.

If you are going to argue that this is a “dual fulfillment” regarding Matthew”s application of this to the supposed virgin birth of yeshua, you will have to concede that the word “alma” does not exclusively refer to a virgin, as I have demonstrated above. This shows lack of exclusivity to the nature of the word “alma” and demystifies the “yeshua believer’s” obsession with the birth needing to be “miraculous” in order to see fulfillment.

In other words, Isaiah 7:14 has just as much to do with the birth of yeshua as it does the birth of Karl Marx, or Jerry Seinfeld, assuming a “multiplicity of fulfillments” theory”
Or perhaps my birth! I was born of a woman! Maybe Isaiah 7:14 is about me!

See how ridiculous it is to attribute this prophesy to yeshua?

Kavi, let me spell it out for you one last time…But first, a question for you:

What did mary name her son according to the NT?

Was it “immanuel?”

No?

That’s what I thought…So your argument about “immanuel” is a double standard. Isaiah 7:14 explicitly states that “SHE (his mother) WILL CALL HIM IMMANUEL.” No where in the NT is jesus called “immanuel” by his mother, mary. So your jeezer failed this prophesy, too, if you are going to use that standard as the litmus test for truth.

I on the other hand, look to the words of Isaiah for truth. Lets see what Isaiah has to say on this issue.

Isaiah 8:18. Behold, **I and the CHILDREN whom the Lord gave ME (Isaiah) for SIGNS and for tokens in Israel,** from the Lord of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion.

Now Kavi, what *SIGNS* do you think Isaiah could be referring to in this verse? Maybe Isaiah 7:14 can give us some explanation?

Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a **SIGN;** behold, the young woman is with CHILD, and she shall bear a SON, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Hmm…Interesting Kavi…Isaiah mentions that his SONS were SIGNS for Israel in Isaiah 8:18 and he also mentions that a WOMAN is giving birth to a SON in Isaiah 8:18…Maybe there’s some sort of connection?

Maybe Isaiah 8:3-4 will shed light on this…

Isaiah 8:3. And I WAS INTIMATE WITH THE PROPHETESS, and SHE CONCEIVED, and SHE BORE A SON, and the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Isaiah 8:4. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, “Father” and “mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.”

Lets compare Isaiah 8:4 to Isaiah 7:16 concerning the son that will be born of the “alma.”

Isaiah 7:16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”

Isaiah 8:4. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, “Father” and “mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.”

Hmm…Kavi. Why would Isaiah see it fit to mention that his WIFE gave birth to a SON right after he made a prophesy about a WOMAN giving birth to a SON?!!!! Did Isaiah just do this for fun? Do you think Isaiah wrote Isaiah 7:14 and was thinking something along the line of “GEE! I’M GONNA WRITE A PROPHESY ABOUT THE JEEZER BEING A SIGN BECAUSE HE IS GONNA BE BORN TO SOME WOMAN HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN THE FUTURE! BUT NOW I’M GONNA TALK ABOUT MY WIFE GIVING BIRTH TO SOME OTHER SON THAT I AM GOING TO CALL A SIGN IN ISAIAH 8:18, BUT THAT SIGN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JEEZER SIGN OF ISAIAH 7:14! JUST IGNORE ANYTHING ABOUT THE TWO KINGS OR AHAZ BECAUSE I’M TALKING ABOUT MAH JEEZER COMING TO SAVE YOU ALL!”

Seriously Kavi. You’re putting your hands over your ears and humming loudly, trying to hopelessly escape from the fact that Isaiah tells us himself that his son was the fulfillment of the sign of Isaiah 7:14. Your interpretation ignore the fact that Isaiah goes out of his way to tell us that his wife gave birth to a son in the very next chapter.

Your interpretation goes against the words of Isaiah himself, Kavi. Let Isaiah speak for himself, and stop trying to twist his words and fight against him.

Shalom

Kavi, the Hebrew word used for “she shall call” is קָרָאת. It is not an “interpretation.” If you knew anything about Hebrew, you would know that this word is written in the FEMININE third person singular.

Here is another example where the word is used in context with Hagar naming Ishmael:

Genesis 16:11 And the angel of the Lord said to her, “Behold, you will conceive and bear a son, and **you shall name (קָרָאת)** him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard your affliction.

The Hebrew word “קָרָאת” used in Genesis 16:11 is the EXACT SAME WORD used in Isaiah 7:14 where it says “she shall call.” Notice that in both instances, it refers to WOMEN calling their children a name. So the “she” is not simply an “interpretation.”

So no, Kavi. Your interpretation is false. Nice try…

Yehuda,
Understood– but we also have Isaiah 60:18 where the exact same word is translated “you” meaning the “City” [feminine, singular] of Zion to be ruled by King Messiah, Immanuel.

____________________

So Kavi? No rebuttal to my last post? I don’t think there could be one… Other than an unconsidered repost of previous declarations made (per usual).

He’s in denial.

“Because if Jesus is the King on the donkey…”

Didn’t you mean “donkeys”? ;-)

“The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible.” — Tertullian, one of the Church Fathers, 2nd – 3rd century BCE

Sheer genius.

Who (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit/Ghost) do Christians have in mind (or heart) when they are doing their Christianity. I tried, and the best I could come up with was a three headed gorgon-like creature.
It seems to be awfully unwieldy being a Christian. Don’t they ever feel like just taking a sword and cutting off two of the heads?
Anyway, any testimony as to how you (Kavis), they, or you ex-Christians negotiate (or couldn’t negotiate) this seemingly pure polytheistic [devotional] situation would be much appreciated.
I ask this because of something I read on page 59 of Prothero’s ‘American Jesus’ about ‘trinitarian Christians’.

Prayer, however, is different than worship. Prayer is directed to the Father, but through the Son, as they believe they cannot be heard by God directly, only via Jesus their intercessor. So prayers always end with something like, “in your son’s name, amen”.

I think the way they avoid the three headed confusion is to focus on one at a time.

— Schizophrenic.

Shabbat Shalom.

Hi Jessica. I just received notification of your post from last month, and I’d like to respond. Sorry for the delay. First I’d like to introduce myself. I am Jewish by birth on both sides of my family, have studied more than most, and have also learned much about Christianity. I was formerly married to a born-again Baptist and went to church with her many times (until I determined not to continue) and came to know her pastors and friends in the faith. I understand the writings, beliefs and personal experiences of Christian believers fairly intimately. I also have been a member of orthodox communities before and after those times. So I think I have a full understanding of both. I agree 100% with what you wrote. Rabbis in general do not wish to take their limited time for what you want, and there is definitely an attitude of judgement and defensiveness on the part of most, so you may have to find knowledgeable lay Jews who are willing to befriend and work with you. I think you need someone with a decidedly spiritual orientation. And by the way, Rabbis generally will not work with non-Jews who want to start the conversion process unless you express your earnest desire on at least three occasions. But that is for a future time. I would be happy to have a dialog with you, but I am not as spiritual a person as may be best for you. But I’ll engage with you as you like. — Jim