ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 777
Thu, 15-Aug-13 08:20:09
Moderator
menashe wrote:"would only cause them to degenerate even further", is this a good or a bad thing? I mean to say that if its possible to get them to bottom out quicker then the only way is up after is it not?
Posts: 970
Thu, 15-Aug-13 08:39:50
Sophiee1 wrote: The thing that mystifies me is how Brown, Shapira and such can remain Christians. I can understand them being lured to Christianity out of ignorance, but by now Brown (in particular) has been exposed to enough knowledge by the Rabbis -- how can he continue to pitch the same woo when he has to realize that he is wrong in so many areas?
Posts: 5945
Thu, 15-Aug-13 09:14:45
Posts: 1232
Thu, 15-Aug-13 11:57:04
Ezekah wrote:Sophiee1 wrote: The thing that mystifies me is how Brown, Shapira and such can remain Christians. I can understand them being lured to Christianity out of ignorance, but by now Brown (in particular) has been exposed to enough knowledge by the Rabbis -- how can he continue to pitch the same woo when he has to realize that he is wrong in so many areas? I've wondered about this too. Once a xian has questions, researches the answers, and determines the truth, how can they possibly continue to worship the xian idol? I think several converts to Judaism identified the reason. It's the fear factor, the fear of the devil and the eternity in a lake of fire. Fear is an extremely powerful motivator and it is difficult to overcome. The "what if its right" will always be in the back of their mind.Personally, I think another reason is the inability of people to admit that they are (or were) wrong. Most people are unable to admit they were wrong on minor points, how much more so, on deep philosophical points. Rather than face their error, most people will rationalize or engage in doublethink, to continue erroneously believing.
Posts: 20703
Thu, 15-Aug-13 12:11:41
SearchinMyRoots wrote:I also think that it was during their time of "need" that they "believe" that the xtian god "saved" them. So it is hard for them to let go of something they believe changed their life.Could G-d have helped? Yes, of course, but we know it was the person themselves that changed their life. You know, if there is a will there is a way!
Wed, 21-Aug-13 07:43:27
In the July 25th 2013 edition of Dr.Brown’s radio show he interviews Tzahi Shapira, author of “Return of the Kosher Pig”. At one point during the show Shapira makes an attempt to respond to a point that I raised in Contra Brown.
The point in question is one of the foundational arguments with which the Jewish Scriptures empower the Jew in his debate with any competing faith including the faith in Jesus/Yeshua. It is simply this. God Himself taught the Jews who it is that they are to worship. It follows that no one is authorized to teach differently than God (Deuteronomy 4:9,15,35). Shapira’s response is that Jesus was present at Sinai. The thrust of this argument is that the Jews were taught by God to worship a trinity. He bases this bizarre claim on his reading of the complex and mysterious kabbalistic work; the Zohar.
According to Shapira, the Zohar teaches that the voices that the text of Exodus 19:16 describes of are the three voices of a triune god.
Before we analyze Shapira’s understanding of the Zohar we will point out that his argument still does not answer this core Jewish Objection. In Deuteronomy 4:9 we are given to understand that God designated the living testimony of the Jewish people to transmit the message of Sinai to future generations. This concept is reinforced in the book of Isaiah were God points to Israel as the witnesses to the truth of His sovereignty (Isaiah 43:10). Since the living Jewish people saw Shapira’s claim as the very antithesis of what we were taught at Sinai then his claim is without foundation. Throughout history the Jewish people have understood their calling before God that they testify to the world that every iota of finite existence is completely subject to God. The very witnesses God appointed to preserve the message testify that Shapira has it wrong.
When we examine Shapira’s rendering of the Zohar (on page 64 of his book) it becomes obvious that the words of the Zohar have no connection at all to Shapira’s fantasies.
The Zohar is describing the spiritual forces that were involved in the sounds that Israel heard during the Sinai experience. These sounds were what Israel heard before God actually spoke to them and these were not the voice or voices of God. This passage in the Zohar is not presenting a teaching on the nature of God.
In this same radio show Shapira insists that the basis of his belief is the simple contextual meaning of the Jewish Bible. If this were true he would respond to my challenge with a passage in Scripture. The fact that he needed to find his answer in a book that declares his worship to be idolatrous tells us that he was not able to find an answer elsewhere. And the fact that in this short quotation from the Zohar he managed to include five incredible errors tells us that his approach to the Zohar is not based on language or context; neither is it based on a respect for the intention of the author. It is based on the same foundation which had Matthew see the Virgin Mary in Isaiah 7:14.
Wed, 21-Aug-13 07:48:28
Michael Brown says: Ah, the “kosher pig” concept is the least of the concerns. That’s just a midrashic springboard for a more important discussion. I deal with some related issues re: the perpetuity of Torah in the world to come in vols. 4 and 5 of my series.
I said to Brown: Regarding Tzahi’s Kosher Pig and tying that in to Yeshua….Saying that Yeshua was treif but will return Kosher…..I believe he is taking too much midrashic license…(ie deception)…but that is my opinion of course. He derives his theory from Rabbeinu Behaye…but takes him out of context…
R. Bahya ben Asher, in his commentary to Leviticus (11:7), explains the midrash about a pig becoming kosher allegorically. As we see elsewhere in the midrash (e.g. Vayikra Rabbah 13, end), the nation of Edom is referred to as a pig (in the context of various nations being compared to different animals). This midrash is telling us that our archenemy in this world, the nation of Edom, will become a friend of ours, “kosher,” in the peaceful messianic era. This is also how R. Menahem Recanati explained the midrash in his commentary to Leviticus, how the Ritva explained it in his novellae to Kiddushin (49b), and how R. Yitzhak Abarbanel explained it in his Rosh Amanah (ch. 13). (Cf. however, Responsa Ateres Paz, part 1 vol. 2 Yoreh De’ah no. 6.)
R. Hayim Ibn Atar, however, took this midrash literally in his Or Ha-Hayim (Lev. 11:7). Nevertheless, this does not contradict the principle of the eternity of the Torah because, rather than the law changing and a non-kosher pig becoming kosher, the pig will change. Currently, pigs do not chew their cuds and, therefore, are not kosher. The midrash is referring to a change in the pig’s anatomy so that it will chew its could and, therefore, will become kosher. It is not Torah changing but nature. This is also how R. Menahem Azariah di Fano (Asarah Ma’amaros, Ma’amar Hikur Ha-Din 2:17, 4:13) explained this midrash, as did R. Moshe Sofer (Toras Moshe, end of Re’eh).
R. David Ibn Zimra (Radbaz) offered two different approaches in his Responsa Radbaz (vol. 2 no. 828). The first is to take the midrash as an exaggeration. In the messianic era people will partake of so many different kinds of wonderful foods that it will be as if everything, include pig, will be eaten. However, non-kosher food will not actually be permitted or eaten. In a similar vein, the Or Yekaros notes the passage in Hullin 109b that states that the shibuta fish tastes exactly like pig and the passage in the introduction to Eikhah Rabbasi (ch. 4) that the shibuta fish did not return from the Babylonian exile, i.e. we no longer had access to it and lost track of it. Combining these two passages with the midrash above, the Or Yekaros suggests that, in the messianic era, we will find the shibuta fish and will once more be able to taste pig, albeit from a kosher source.
Radbaz’s other approach is kabbalistic in nature. He pointed out that the angel Hazriel (similar to hazir, pig) is the heavenly prosecutor of the Jewish people. However, in “the next world,” he will turn into our defender. He repeated this, with slightly more explanation, in his Sefer Ta’amei Ha-Mitzvos (no. 185).
R. Yitzhak Abarbanel (Rosh Amanah, ch. 13) offered another suggestion. Noting that in the time of the original conquest of Israel, soldiers were permitted to eat non-kosher, including pig (cf. Hullin 17a), Abarbanel suggested that this temporary permission will also be the case during the time period discussed in the above midrash. Temporary abrogation of a law does not contradict the principle of the Torah’s eternity.
However, the entire premise of this discussion, that a midrash states that pig will someday become kosher, has been subjected to scrutiny. It seems that this midrash is extant nowhere in the voluminous midrashic material available to us. R. Shmuel Yafeh Ashkenazi, in his Yefeh To’ar (unabridged) to Vayikra Rabbah (13:3), disputed the existence of such a midrash. R. Yehiel Heilprin, in his Erkei Ha-Kinnuyim (hazir), agreed with this conclusion as did some others (e.g. Bnei Yissakhar, Ma’amarei Hodesh Adar 7:2).
Posts: 1781
Wed, 21-Aug-13 12:36:47
Sophiee1 wrote:The thing that mystifies me is how Brown, Shapira and such can remain Christians. I can understand them being lured to Christianity out of ignorance, but by now Brown (in particular) has been exposed to enough knowledge by the Rabbis -- how can he continue to pitch the same woo when he has to realize that he is wrong in so many areas?
Wed, 21-Aug-13 13:17:05
Wed, 21-Aug-13 13:22:46
Wed, 21-Aug-13 13:48:10
ProfBenTziyyon wrote:The Hebrew word רֽוּחַ ruaḥ, which christians almost invariably translate as “spirit”, in fact nearly always means something else. It usually means a “wind” (as in “north wind” or “east wind”), but it can mean a “mood” or a “fit”; and it can also refer to God’s tangible “presence”. For example, in B'midbar 5:14 and 5:30 it occurs in the phrase רֽוּחַ קִנְאָה ruaḥ kin'ah which means “a FIT of jealousy”, while Sh'muel Alef 16:14 readsוְר֧וּחַ יְיָ֛ סָ֖רָה מֵעִ֣ם שָׁא֑וּל וּבִֽעֲתַ֥תּוּ רֽוּחַ־רָעָ֖ה מֵאֵ֥ת יְיָֽ׃“Now Adonai’s Presence (ruaḥ) had deserted Sha'ul and moods (ruaḥ) of melancholy from Adonai kept tormenting him”which is not referring to a spiritual entity (“evil spirit”), but rather to a medical condition (some kind of neurosis) engineered by God.In this verse, and also in T'hillim 51:13 (v.11 for christians who can’t count), the word רֽוּחַ ruaḥ is also used in the sense of “Presence”:אַל־תַּשְׁלִיכֵ֥נִי מִלְּפָנֶ֑יךָ וְר֥וּחַ קָ֜דְשְׁךָ֗ אַל־תִּקַּ֥ח מִמֶּֽנִּי׃“Don’t send me away from before You, and do not remove the Presence (ruaḥ) of Your Holiness from me!”Finally, the expression רֽוּחַ הַקֹֽדֶשׁ ruaḥ hakodesh can’t mean “holy spirit” because קֹֽדֶשׁ kodesh isn’t an adjective, but is actually a noun meaning “holiness” or “sanctity”; the Hebrew words for the adjective “holy” are קָדוֹשׁ kadosh (masc.) and קְדוֹשָׁה k'doshah (fem.)—the corresponding plural forms being קְדוֹשִׁים k'doshim and קְדוֹשׁוֹת k'doshot. The correct translation of רֽוּחַ הַקֹֽדֶשׁ ruaḥ hakodesh is therefore “presence of [the] holiness”.
The Hebrew word רֽוּחַ ruaḥ, which christians almost invariably translate as “spirit”, in fact nearly always means something else. It usually means a “wind” (as in “north wind” or “east wind”), but it can mean a “mood” or a “fit”; and it can also refer to God’s tangible “presence”. For example, in B'midbar 5:14 and 5:30 it occurs in the phrase רֽוּחַ קִנְאָה ruaḥ kin'ah which means “a FIT of jealousy”, while Sh'muel Alef 16:14 reads
וְר֧וּחַ יְיָ֛ סָ֖רָה מֵעִ֣ם שָׁא֑וּל וּבִֽעֲתַ֥תּוּ רֽוּחַ־רָעָ֖ה מֵאֵ֥ת יְיָֽ׃“Now Adonai’s Presence (ruaḥ) had deserted Sha'ul and moods (ruaḥ) of melancholy from Adonai kept tormenting him”
אַל־תַּשְׁלִיכֵ֥נִי מִלְּפָנֶ֑יךָ וְר֥וּחַ קָ֜דְשְׁךָ֗ אַל־תִּקַּ֥ח מִמֶּֽנִּי׃“Don’t send me away from before You, and do not remove the Presence (ruaḥ) of Your Holiness from me!”
Finally, the expression רֽוּחַ הַקֹֽדֶשׁ ruaḥ hakodesh can’t mean “holy spirit” because קֹֽדֶשׁ kodesh isn’t an adjective, but is actually a noun meaning “holiness” or “sanctity”; the Hebrew words for the adjective “holy” are קָדוֹשׁ kadosh (masc.) and קְדוֹשָׁה k'doshah (fem.)—the corresponding plural forms being קְדוֹשִׁים k'doshim and קְדוֹשׁוֹת k'doshot. The correct translation of רֽוּחַ הַקֹֽדֶשׁ ruaḥ hakodesh is therefore “presence of [the] holiness”.
Wed, 21-Aug-13 14:45:41
The Lord descended in a cloud and spoke to him, and He increased some of the spirit that was on him and bestowed it on the seventy elders. And when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but they did not continue.
Posts: 4849
Wed, 21-Aug-13 15:27:57
Administrator
mark wrote:What about Numbers 11:25?The Lord descended in a cloud and spoke to him, and He increased some of the spirit that was on him and bestowed it on the seventy elders. And when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but they did not continue.Are you going to tell me that this is another one of those "poems" that isn't to be taken literally?
Wed, 21-Aug-13 16:23:59
Be careful that your heart not be tempted to go astray and worship other G-ds, bowing down to them. D'varim / Deuteronomy 11:16
Deuteronomy 29: 17. Perhaps there is among you a man, woman, family, or tribe, whose heart strays this day from HaShem, our G-d, to go and worship the deities of those nations. Perhaps there is among you a root that produces hemlock and wormwood. 18. And it will be, when he [such a person] hears the words of this oath, that he will bless himself in his heart, saying, "I will have peace, even if I follow my heart's desires,". . . 19. HaShem will not be willing to forgive him; rather, then, HaShem's fury and His zeal will fume against that man, and the entire curse written in this book will rest upon him, and HaShem will obliterate his name from beneath the heavens.
Posts: 1507
Wed, 21-Aug-13 17:31:38
Thu, 22-Aug-13 10:24:24
Thu, 22-Aug-13 10:32:27
mark wrote:All I'm trying to say is that when a person has a kind of supernatural experience(s), it can change their understanding of scripture forever. Sophiee asked why Dr. Brown doesn't repent even after he's been shown the error of his ways. Well, from his point of view, maybe he's not so much rejecting what you've shown him as much as he's realizing that the Christian understanding of scripture (erroneous as it seems to you) is validated by his own experiences. Arikm7 may have turned away from what he received, but maybe Dr. Brown finds it much harder to do that.
Thu, 22-Aug-13 11:14:12
Thu, 22-Aug-13 13:08:23
Thu, 22-Aug-13 18:50:21
Share This