Everyone take the personal issues off site. We really DO NOT CARE. Just abide by the forum rules.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
So noted.
Everyone take the personal issues off site. We really DO NOT CARE. Just abide by the forum rules.
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||
ProfBenTziyyon |
|||
Sophiee1 wrote:
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל |
|||
Sophiee1 |
|||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||
Arikm7 |
Excellent point | ||
|
Sophiee: Your comment about the content being the issue and not the poster/personality is right on the money. When anyone calls the xians on the carpet for
their misrepresentation of G-d AND for their agenda, they get all huffy and cry "foul" or worse, say that everyone is being "mean'. This
latest incarnation is the whining that somehow the forum is enacting a double standard.
The question I have and I am sure you have asked many times is: If it so offends these xians then why do they keep coming back and regurgitating either the same arguments/points or go on and clog the system up with their pointless rebuttals? If it is such a one-sided and "unfair" site, why bother returning? If it if it is so "offensive" why come back for more "offense"? Their return is clear, as you have clearly pointed out, that these missionizing meshuggenahs DO have an agenda and think that we're all going to be fooled by their revolting claims of "loving" us. They're not here to learn because their own GT puts the Jew beneath an ignoramus; in need of being "taught" about G-d by xians showing us the "light'. Never mind that half of their (mis)translated passages were plaugerized by the xians and the very concept of G-d (later to be perverted into a pagan triune) was a knock off of Judaism's. They want Judaism to be seen through the filter of xianity, which it can NEVER be. And when told the truth by yourself, the other moderators and the Professor, they get all upset and say they're being insulted. They want Judaism to be subservent to their own horrible agendas. And can't stand to be thwarted in that attempt! It is no surprise that LadyFelix would find solace in the company of people such as Dougg. Water seeks its own level.. high or shallow. But more tellingly, this is simply an indication that the truth really does hurt. But all of this we know. The truth is that at some point an ultimatum may have to be issued. As you yourself have offered "if you don't like it leave". How simple can the message be? If one cannot stand getting dirty and bruised, then why on earth would he/she try out for a football team? Who said finding the truth about the REAL G-d and the REAL Messiah would be any less contentious and painful?? |
|||
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Arikim: cream isn't the only thing that floats.
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||
dawn6773 |
|||
|
I'm sure this is probably a, well, duh, question; but, I just put this past theology in the garbage bag and an ready to toss it out too. Just want to make
sure I got this right.
Back to the original topic. So the blood for the bris milah is incidental to the covenant, it isn't the covenant. The covenant is the obedience to HaShem's wish that the Jewish males would perform this act on the 8th day. Correct? Also, the blood thrown on the altar and toward the veil (parochet, isn't it?) is not a covenant, but part of the act of a sacrifice. The sacrifice being the outward manifestation of an inward decision/change. So - I hate to say this as it tastes terrible and makes me want to puke, but then the blood of the covenant spoken of by c-ans is truly nothing more than a pagan ritual. Sounds a lot like what I was told about molech requiring infant blood and mother's being willing to sacrifice them to this abhorrent idol...in their minds it was innocent blood and therefore acceptable. C-ans say that their idol's blood came from an "innocent" god/man. To me that's where the similarities are. What did both accomplish? Unnecessary murder at the very least. It is strange to think that throughout the years at bunny time, c-ans historically claimed that Jews were killing children and using their blood as part of Pesach, when weekly in Catholic churches they claim that the juice/wine they pass around (however they do it. I was never Catholic.) is supposed to become their god's blood. Strange. Warped. Twisted. Then they blamed the Jews for the very thing that they include in a weekly ritual. Where is the trash can? I'm about to barf. If the Catholics used the same passage from Corinthians that the protestants used, that tradition of communion and drinking grape juice/wine was called "blood of the covenant." They drink it. OK how inconceivable is that? If HaShem is the same yesterday, today and forever and He stated clearly in Torah that blood was forbidden to ingest, why then is it commanded to drink "blood of the covenant." That's just bizarre. It just doesn't fit any of the verses and concepts you guys mentioned at the beginning of this thread. What blows me away is how can they say that HaShem never changes, yet their text denies what they proudly spout. I was often in trouble for asking that question. Anyhow the kids are getting antsy. Back to mommy land. |
|||
ProfBenTziyyon |
|||
dawn6773 wrote:
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל |
|||
dawn6773 |
|||
|
Be it as it is...still, eeeew. The thought grosses me out. Also, though I know Torah is for the Jews, we were taught in the groups I was with that it was for
gentiles as well. That Torah, chas v'shalom, was done away with and replaced with something better. It always rubbed me wrong. "The whole thing is for
us. G-d never changes and yet He had to make something new." Crazy. Pointing that out only gave me the "heretic" remark and eventually got me
out of a false religion. Anyhow, that's besides the point.
Am I understanding these correctly?: Back to the original topic. So the blood for the bris milah is incidental to the covenant, it isn't the covenant. The covenant is the obedience to HaShem's wish that the Jewish males would perform this act on the 8th day. Correct? Also, the blood thrown on the altar and toward the veil (parochet, isn't it?) is not a covenant, but part of the act of a sacrifice. The sacrifice being the outward manifestation of an inward decision/change. So - I hate to say this as it tastes terrible and makes me want to puke, but then the blood of the covenant spoken of by c-ans is truly nothing more than a pagan ritual. (How do you bring down quotes from a post?) Thanks |
|||
ProfBenTziyyon |
|||
dawn6773 wrote:
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל |
|||
dawn6773 |
|||
|
Prof, I did go over it several times. I think I am understanding it, but I want to be sure. In the bible college, we had a week long seminar on covenants. I
have much to relearn as a result. Like I've said, "I am packing up garbage and tossing it out." I just want to make sure that I understand what
you said correctly. That is the purpose of the questions. I know that there is much C-an language and perspectives that I still have that may cloud what is
being taught here and at other places. So, I ask to clarify, refine and relearn.
So - "Brit" is a pact and agreement. The action is an idiom "to cut", like to cut a deal. Correct? Then, the brit milah is an agreement saying "we will raise our sons according to Torah". This agreement involved an actual cutting. C-an theology taught that it was the blood that made the covenant. As I understand from your lead, it isn't. The blood that issued as a result of the cutting was incidental. It is not the covenant itself. Do I understand this correctly? For the sacrifices involving blood, we were shown in college that it was symbolic of covenants. This is simply not true. Temple sacrifices are unrelated to covenants. True? Like I said, I am pretty sure that I am understanding this correctly; but, as my conclusions in the past have been incorrect, I want to double check to make sure I am grasping the matter correctly. Yes, it may seem obvious to you. But, when you are relearning something, the obvious may not be so obvious. I do appreciate your patience and time. |
|||
ProfBenTziyyon |
|||
|
Correct. Correct.
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל |
|||
Dannyil |
|||
ProfBenTziyyon wrote:I just started looking at the thread now.... I have one comment....your critic will say.....100% Prof Tziyyon, but that is between people, when a brit occurs between people and G-d, well then you need sacrifices and (yes you guessed it) blood! (Now I'm playing devil's advocate here, not agreeing with the premise, because logically there should be no reason to make a distinction between these) but your critic will comment and say your citations have dealt specifically with a brit made between individual people and not G-d which is a subtle difference. - my 2 cents -D
Deut 4:15, Deut 4:35-39, Num 23:19, Deut 24:16, Eze 37, Psa 119 - now go and read it...!
Torah True Judaism |
|||
kerry drennen.jpspanzers |
A BEAUTFUL REVELATION IS THE MOGEN DAVID | ||
|
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER WAS DAVID WAS A MAN AFTER G_D'S OWN HEART. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT DAVID COMMITTED ADULTERY, THEN TO TRY AND COVER HIS SIN, HE PLOTTED
THE MURDER OF HIS ACCOMPLICE IN ADULTERY'S HUSBAND. HE ALSO WAS GUILTY OF PRIDE IN THAT HE THOUGHT HE COULD GET BY WITH IT. HIS GUILT UNDER THE LAW WAS
UNQUESTIONABLE. HE ALSO WROTE "CREATE IN ME A CLEAN HEART OH GOD", SO HE MUST HAVE HAD SOME KIND OF UNDERSTANDING WITH G_D. THE SHIELD WHICH HE
TRUSTED IN WAS TWO TRIANGLES, ONE WITH THE TIP POINTING DOWN, THE OTHER WITH THE TIP POINTING UP. THESE SHAPES REPRESENTED A MYSTERY OF THE ALMIGHTY AND HIS
CREATION. WHEN MAN RETURNS HIS ATTENTION TO HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS G_D, G_D WILL RETURN TO THE MAN, INSPITE OF HIS MISTAKES. THERE WAS NO SHEDDING OF BLOOD
IN THIS COVENANT OF THE STAR OF DAVID, ONLY THE BREAKING OF A REBELLIOUS HEART. DAVID KNEW HIS SIN WAS GREATER AND THAT IT WOULD TAKE SOMETHING GREAT TO
FORGIVE THEM. NOT ALL THE BULLS BLOOD OR GOATS OR SHEEP OR DOVES COULD HIDE HIS SHAME THAT HE CARRIED. WHEN G_D GAVE DAVID THE SIGN OF HIS MOGEN, HE ALSO GAVE
HIM A DIVINE SPARK, THE UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WOULD ALLOW G_D TO BE HIS SALVATION AND HE WOULD RETURN TO THE PROMISE HE SHOWED TO BE THE MAN HIS CREATOR MADE
HIM TO BE. IT WAS A MATTER FAITH, PERSONAL FAITH IS WHAT REDEEMS CHRISTIAN AND JEW ALIKE.
|
|||
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Kerry:
Welcome to the forum. #1 please don't yell which is what typing in CAPS is. #2 Please do not speak for "Jew and Chrstian alike." We are not alike. I suggest you read the forum rules and ask questions of us Jews rather than pre-supposing you know what we believe. #3 take your entire post -- David was not guilty of murder or adultery. He was not "guilty under the law." Deut 7:3 specifically forbids a marriage between Bathsheba and Uriah. Therefore Bathsheba could not have been legally married to Uriah. The Tanach refers to her as his "isha" which can be translated as wife, or as "woman" or other meanings. So odds are they Bathsheva and Uriah were never legally married in the eyes of Torah. Quote: Genesis 27:46 - And Rebecca said to Isaac, "I am disgusted with my life because of the daughters of Heth. If Jacob takes a wife of the daughters of Heth like these, from the daughters of the land, of what use is life to me?"If the marriage was not legal, and according to Deuteronomy 7:3 it wasn't, then there's no issue here. However, let's say for the sake of argument that Uriah was married to Bathsheba at some point. The question is: was she married to Uriah at the time she met and bedded King David? Did King David commit adultery with her? Note that nowhere in the bible does it say that he committed adultery. In Psalm 51 David admits to G-d that he (David) commited a sin ONLY to G-d . . .not a sin against either Bathsheba or Uriah. Quote:Going back a bit, when David was just a youth, the following account is found in the Tanach: Quote:This is an important text. Here we are told that before David's brothers go into battle where they may die they must give their wives divorces (a get). This is because a man who dies in battle may never have his body found and the wife will never be free to remarry if there is a doubt about his death. This is still true today. In 9/11 many Jews called their Rabbis from the towers to give their wives divorces so that they (the wives) could remarry since they knew their bodies would never be found. In my quote above Jesse is sending supplies with David to bring to his [Jesse's] other sons, David's brothers, who are on the battle field, and requests that David secure from them their respective 'arubah, surety/guarantee, which is their "get" (bill of divorcement) to be brought back home and given to each of their wives. In the event that any of them die on the battlefield, this would enable their widow to legally remarry among the Israelites. If Uriah and Batsheba were legally married, then he was obligated to give her a "get" (divorce) before he went to the battlefield. From that moment on, they were no longer married. The Hebrew noun 'arubah appears in only one other place in the Hebrew Bible, where it confirms this meaning: Quote:In other words, a fool makes his neighbor look good. In Modern Hebrew, the nouns 'eiravon, guarantee/security and 'arvut, guarantee. [The noun 'eiravon is actually also used in the Hebrew Bible, e.g., Genesis 38:17,18,20.]. Now what about murder? Did David murder Uriah? Are you forgetting perhaps that David was the KING? Just as Presidents order soldiers into battle, so too did David order Uriah into battle. No murder, no adultery for King David. It is all there in the bible. Uriah disobeyed a directo order from his commander which was treason -- so David had the right to condemn him to death. He erred in doing it surreptitiously rather than putting him on trial -- so his sin was one of appearance. David did not commit adultery and neither did he commit murder in sending Uriah to his death. David did not commit either sin. His sin was one of appearance -- of appearing to commit adultery. Quote:How can one read the above and think that David sinned? How can one think that David was a murderer or adulterer and yet G-d was with him? If so, what is meant [by the Prophet Nathan's admonition] maduah bazit et d'var HaShem la'asot hara b'eino Quote:Read closely we see that it says la'asot hara 'to do evil' [but not that he 'did' evil]. Not DID evil. But "to do" -- this teaches that David did not actually commit a sin. Read Psalm 15 -- it is obvious that David is not the sinner you seem to think that he is: Quote:Quote: #4 your idea about the Mogen David is likewise illogical and based on no knowledge -- so why voice it here? Very odd. Kerry, you are welcome to post on the forum but please stopp "yelling" (all caps) and do not assume to come here and teach Judaism (it is a rule violation). Ask questions. That is fine.
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||
Sophiee1 |
|||
In modern times, the Star of David has become a premier Jewish symbol. This six-pointed star (hexagram), made of two interlocking triangles, can be found on mezuzahs, menorahs, tallis bags, and kipot. Ambulances in Israel bear the sign of the "Red Star of David," and the flag of Israel has a blue Star of David planted squarely in the center. What is the origin of this six-pointed symbol? Through the Jewish people's long and often difficult history, we have come to the realization that our only hope is to place our trust in G-d. The six points of the Star of David symbolize God's rule over the universe in all six directions: north, south, east, west, up and down. Originally, the Hebrew name Magen David -- literally "Shield of David" -- poetically referred to God. It acknowledges that our military hero, King David, did not win by his own might, but by the support of the Almighty. This is also alluded to in the third blessing after the Haftorah reading on Shabbat: "Blessed are you God, Shield of David." Various other explanations exist on the meaning behind the Star of David. One idea is that a six-pointed star receives form and substance from its solid center. This inner core represents the spiritual dimension, surrounded by the six universal directions. (A similar idea applies to Shabbat -- the seventh day which gives balance and perspective to the six weekdays.) In Kabbalah, the two triangles represent the dichotomies inherent in man: good vs. evil, spiritual vs. physical, etc. The two triangles may also represent the reciprocal relationship between the Jewish people and God. The triangle pointing "up" symbolizes our good deeds which go up to heaven, and then activate a flow of goodness back down to the world, symbolized by the triangle pointing down. A more practical theory is that during the Bar Kochba rebellion (first century), a new technology was developed for shields using the inherent stability of the triangle. Behind the shield were two interlocking triangles, forming a hexagonal pattern of support points. (Buckminster Fuller showed how strong triangle-based designs are with his geodesics.) One cynical suggestion is that the Star of David is an appropriate symbol for the internal strife that often afflicts Jewish nation: two triangles pointing in opposite directions! The Star of David was a sad symbol of the Holocaust, when the Nazis forced Jews to wear an identifying yellow star. Actually, Jews were forced to wear special badges during the Middle Ages, both by Muslim and Christian authorities, and even in Israel under the Ottoman Empire. So whether it is a blue star waving proudly on a flag, or a gold star adorning a synagogue's entrance, the Star of David stands as a reminder that for the Jewish people... in G-d we trust. This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/liter...oncepts/Star_of_David.asp
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||
kerry drennen.jpspanzers |
|||
|
I am sorry for "yelling" I hav MS and it is much easier for me to type in caps on my particular kind of keyboard. I am not supposing to teach you
anything, an opening discussion gives those who read it only a direction of where I come from and if Faith in G_D is not a common factor in anyone's
relationship with H_M what is?
|
|||
kerry drennen.jpspanzers |
Thank You Reb. | ||
|
Although you have expanded my knowledge on the Shield, I have seen that some of my understanding follows a similiar path to yours. I do believe Melech David
did trust in his covenant with G_D for his salvation. Also is David's plea for renewing a right heart not a personal conviction of being wrong? I know that
it is often my carrying guilt unnecessarily that must be over come within my own spirit.
|
|||
Sophiee1 |
|||
kerry drennen wrote:Sorry to hear about your illness, and thanks for your consideration in "not yelling." Everyone has a relationship with HaShem -- some have a very BAD relationship with Him because they put their stock in "faith" based on feelings and ignored Torah. To you, faith in HaShem means what exactly? Do you really have faith in HaShem or do you believe in a man-made religion (perhaps one of your own making). I'm not being judgmental here, just asking a question. You see, G-d created man for a purpose. That purpose is that we are co-creators on this planet. That means we have responsibility to follow G-d's little instruction book (Torah). To have a relationship with HaShem we must be good people, we must help ourselves and others. We must try to make this world a better place. We must try to understand what this means. . . Do you do that? These are questions for you to ask yourself -- because it is who you are and what you do that gives you a GOOD relationship with HaShem.
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||
Sophiee1 |
|||
kerry drennen wrote:Dovid HaMelech (King David) wasn't perfect. None of us are. But it isn't through our "faith" or "spirit" that we over come anything. It is how we act on our evil and good inclinations. ACTION, not just words or feelings. David had faith in G-d, but David was also a warrior king. He didn't just sit around and have "faith" that G-d would solve the problems of the Jews. David had faith that G-d would give him the ability to lead us. See the difference? You might want to read this short article, "David the King." If you are guilty of something then you must truly repent of your actions. If your actions were against a person, you must seek their forgiveness and try to make up for what you did wrong. If your actions are against G-d, you must also repent and this includes not repeating what it was you did wrong. It isn't your "spirit" that overcomes evil -- it is YOU. It is all of you, your human self which includes body and soul.
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||
kerry drennen.jpspanzers |
|||
|
I am not sure if my previous answer made it through. I have given much consideration to what Faith Is and have decided that it is an action that you do if you
believe G_D is actually there and what HE wants you to do - you do it.I would also like to respond to Danyill's post and say that I believe the blood shed
at bris was only incidental, as part of the price paid to walk in obedience to the Word of G_D. I also want to say that my definition for rigteousness might be
a little simple (sometimes simple is good); righteousness is the act of being right with G_D and right with your neighbor. This means I have tried to do
everthing in my power to make sure there is peace and understanding between myself and G_D and myself and my neighbor.
|
|||
