Facts About Judaism

I suggest you read the link and then ask me any questions you still have.
I was more interested in hearing you talk about it first hand.

There’s a perception here, an inaccurate one I might add, that the G-d of Abraham is cruel. What’s your response to that?

whose perception is that? that of John and Charles Wesley?? we got
their followers here?
Right on cue.

amazing ----will they be posting ----I LOVE THEIR SERMONS
I love their evasiveness.

There is no law that requires anyone to answer your questions about anything. As a matter of fact, the 5th amendment to the United States Constitution gives every American the right to remain silent. Obviously, your education is sorely lacking.


Here is the ignorance that is killing us. The 5th amendment says "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ". It doesnt pertain to chat rooms :) Or silence at all.
 
Say, if I am a seller and by some trick I managed to get extra money from a buyer for the good which costs much cheaper, then it can be considered as theft?

A. It's only theft if taken against the will of the seller.

B. Everything on this planet, from true love to toilet paper, is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it ... no more, no less.
Yes, but if you sell some good pretending that it has some features which it doesn't, and the buyer can't check them immediately and takes your word and pays your money for them. The buyer wants certain good, you sell him another for this price.

Can it be said that the buyer according to his will bought the good you sold him?
 
Because you are too closed and as result of this various legends (sometimes ridiculous) emerge about your faith.

What a person believes as part of their faith, what any person believes as a matter of faith, is a private matter. What you believe holds no interest for me at all. I would hope that you would feel the same about me.

There is only one reason to declare your articles of faith to another person and that is in an effort to convert that person to your faith.

Proselytizing is the ultimate form of insecurity The need to get others to your point of view is compensation for your own misgivings regarding your own faith. Certain people only really feel comfortable when their opinions on faith represent the majority opinion.

If logical argument doesn't work to bring others to your religious point of view, you can always resort to the historically efficient methods of the pyre and the rack.
 

Attachments

  • An_auto-da-fé_of_the_Spanish_Inquisition_and_the_execution_o_Wellcome_V0041892.jpg
    An_auto-da-fé_of_the_Spanish_Inquisition_and_the_execution_o_Wellcome_V0041892.jpg
    839.4 KB · Views: 43
Say, if I am a seller and by some trick I managed to get extra money from a buyer for the good which costs much cheaper, then it can be considered as theft?

A. It's only theft if taken against the will of the seller.

B. Everything on this planet, from true love to toilet paper, is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it ... no more, no less.
Yes, but if you sell some good pretending that it has some features which it doesn't, and the buyer can't check them immediately and takes your word and pays your money for them. The buyer wants certain good, you sell him another for this price.

Can it be said that the buyer according to his will bought the good you sold him?

Caveat Emptor ... if you're going to discuss legality, you might want to start with learning the difference between civil legislation and criminal legislation.
 
I believe that only Pharisaical Judaism survived. All Jewish religions today are descended from the Pharisees right?

There were three religious major religious movements in the 1st Century CE, Sadducees, Pharasees, and Essense. Most of the world are only aware of them through Greek and Roman writings of the times.

None of the contemporary writing of the Sadducees exist and all we know about them was written by their enemies.

Their differences seem to have been centered around a priority of scriptural writings and to what extent the traditionally oral law of Judaism should be documented in written form.

Ultimately, the destruction of Israel and Judea by the Romans made these differences moot. Survivors included Jews of all persuasions and modern-Judaism is an amalgam of Jewish philosophies, not just a single one from the 1st Century CE.
 
can you point to some actions and teachings attributable to Jesus that you
consider "clearly went against Pharisaic teachings" ? (for the sake of clarity)
-----in fact ----would some deviance from what you perceive the CARVED IN STONE
Pharisee teachings or party line-----render Jesus NOT PHARISEE?
Pointless and therefore a waste of our time. You claim to know Jesus and the Gospels intimately. This being true, you clearly have the ability to name several already. I would rather discuss why it is so important to you that Jesus be a Pharisee.
All atheists claim to be experts on the Bible.

reality is important. It is interesting that anyone would describe
Pharisee teachings as "carved in stone". IN REALITY, the Talmud has been criticized as being argumentative.
I believe that only Pharisaical Judaism survived. All Jewish religions today are descended from the Pharisees right?

There were three religious major religious movements in the 1st Century CE, Sadducees, Pharasees, and Essense. Most of the world are only aware of them through Greek and Roman writings of the times.

None of the contemporary writing of the Sadducees exist and all we know about them was written by their enemies.

Their differences seem to have been centered around a priority of scriptural writings and to what extent the traditionally oral law of Judaism should be documented in written form.

Ultimately, the destruction of Israel and Judea by the Romans made these differences moot. Survivors included Jews of all persuasions and modern-Judaism is an amalgam of Jewish philosophies, not just a single one from the 1st Century CE.

for the record-----anti-Semitism is a CREATION of the Roman Catholic church. Jewish isolationism is a reaction to the oppression of the
Roman catholic church.
 
Jesus was a Pharisee,
Your opinion only. Jesus, as were all Jews, were influenced by Pharisees and Pharisaic teachings. We can point to actions and teachings that were clearly influenced by Pharisees--and also to actions and teachings that clearly went against Pharisaic teachings.

What I find interesting is your insistence that Jesus be a Pharisee. It seems extremely important to you that he was. (I doubt Jesus minds.)


Liberalism is obvious Pharisaical as well. Puritanical. When you argue with them do you ever notice their reliance on sophistries and technicalities?

the English term "Pharisaical" was coined by the British. It has nothing to do with the PHARISEES. Pharisees are specifically NOT
into sophistry.
 
Judaism should be more open to the rest of the world.

People have a tendency to try and slaughter us if we become too outspoken about our faith.

Everything has its time and order.

During the exodus, Mosheh Rabbenu A"H wanted the Erev Rav, the elite of Egyptian magicians and priesthood to draw nearer to G-d's presence and knowledge, under the Wings of Shechinah.

Even after their corruption at initiating the the golden calf, in spite of that,
he went so far as to plead with HaShem to entirely blot out his memory from His Torah,
this world and the word to come, if HaShem remained in His intention to obliterate them.

Yet, that said, it was mutual, they did recognize the G-d of Israel, which was his main motive behind the choice to put himself on the line for them,allow the them join on the way out of Egypt. At a certain stage, from the 3rd plague on, they started idolizing Mosheh Rabbenu A"H, and to certain extent even helped Israel in the process.

And for that, Israel paid, and still up to this very day paying a dear price.

But mind You, that was Mosheh Rabbenu A"H, one to whom HaShem spoke most directly,
and revealed more than any living soul. He knew well where his choice ultimately lead.

Does it remind You of anyone else, maybe another one our forefathers?
 
Last edited:
I believe that only Pharisaical Judaism survived. All Jewish religions today are descended from the Pharisees right?

There were three religious major religious movements in the 1st Century CE, Sadducees, Pharasees, and Essense. Most of the world are only aware of them through Greek and Roman writings of the times.

None of the contemporary writing of the Sadducees exist and all we know about them was written by their enemies.

Their differences seem to have been centered around a priority of scriptural writings and to what extent the traditionally oral law of Judaism should be documented in written form.

Ultimately, the destruction of Israel and Judea by the Romans made these differences moot. Survivors included Jews of all persuasions and modern-Judaism is an amalgam of Jewish philosophies, not just a single one from the 1st Century CE.

The argument between Pharasees, Sedducees and Baitusim was about the world to come,
more specifically about retribution.

Mishnah, in the Ethics of the Forefathers states it clearly.
In a way, they were all correct, just missed the mark of the changing times.

Which leads me to another part, regarding "Jewish philosophies".
Excuse me if it seems like I'm being merely picky on semantics, but its much more essential.
Namely, because the two are mutually exclusive - Philosophy starts where Prophecy ended.
Those are diametrically opposite attitudes, even if Philosophy recognizes central authority,
the Creator, it denies that beyond that initial act there's any further interest, concern or direct involvement in the creation itself. And that is exactly what prophecy, a revolutionary Jewish concept, essentially refutes.

P.S. Again, even if it may seem I'm arguing semantics for the sake of arguing alone,
I want to thank You for chiming in and really contributing to the conversation.
 
Last edited:
So wha
anyone out there know anything about the
"racial purity laws" of the Pharisees? Pic
alludes to them incessantly. hashev? do you know?

lots of people found the Pharisees annoying.
Martin Luther was one---Adolf Hitler was another. They were true to the Roman cause. There were more----eg Constantine. TWO of the most early and aggressive of the of the ANNOYED was Pontius Pilate and his pal Caiaphas Both
are whitewashed in the NT.
I know they were enacted here in the 1600’s by the British and that’s why we have racial issues here that other nations which imported slaves don’t have today.

where is "here" and what are "they"?
Here is America.

And they are every other western nation other than America that imported slaves.

Only something like 6% of the slaves that were exported were exported to America. So why is America the only nation that has experienced racial division? The answer is that no other nation had laws preventing the mixing of races. So in all other nations blacks were assimilated into their culture.

I heard about this from Thomas Sowell.

Actually it's because Christian white people are credulous enough to believe they're obligated to somehow make it all better, while the largely Catholic and native cultures of South America would just laugh at such silly nonsense about guilt for stuff that happened hundreds of years ago, and we certainly see no great Pity Party from any Africans over slavery. If it weren't for rich white liberals who are fine with handing out other peoples' money and subjecting working class whites to all sorts of discrimination to assuage their own guilt without suffering anything themselves we wouldn't be hearing about it now; but it's a lucrative industry now, and the parasites are greedy. But, as long as they only screw over white proles, it's OK. Black slaves were treated better than most poor white immigrants, by a long shot, and that history is well documented, by some of the same 'abolitionists' that opposed slavery. Not any money in that, though.
I’m talking about all of it. Up to and including today. No other nation which imported salves experienced the racial divide like we did.

It’s because the races weren’t allowed to mix. Makes perfect sense.

Fucking British.

South America is run by pure blood Spanish and German families that never inter-marry with Indians, mestizos, or blacks. They rule most of the continent and Central America.


Something very poorly understood by American liberals. The South and Central American elites despise the brown skins they export to America.
 
http://www.jewfaq.org/index.shtml

Many people know very little about Judaism. This site will answer most any questions you have.
Not all Jews do things exactly the same. There are 3 main denominations:Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. Orthodox are the most dedicated of the 3. Reform are the most casual.

Jews are a tiny minority. There are only 13 million Jews worldwide, which represents only 0.2% of the population.



I am 0.5% Ashkenazi Jewish as per the DNA test my sister had done. The one thing I'm interested in are the rulers of the Jews, and how membership in the learned elders of Zion is determined.

Sorry to break the news to you, but it's an IQ test.

Now thats funny.
 
OBSERVATION
JOSHUA BERMAN
It’s a longstanding truism that Judaism, in contrast to other monotheistic faiths, especially Christianity, is rich in rules of religious conduct but devoid of official articles of belief—that is, of dogma. In the popular phrase, it is a religion of deed, not creed. But is that true, or wholly true? Or is it a kind of dogma itself:
 
OBSERVATION
JOSHUA BERMAN
It’s a longstanding truism that Judaism, in contrast to other monotheistic faiths, especially Christianity, is rich in rules of religious conduct but devoid of official articles of belief—that is, of dogma. In the popular phrase, it is a religion of deed, not creed. But is that true, or wholly true? Or is it a kind of dogma itself:


Which is why liberals dont understand Christianity. Judaism, and its descendant Puritanism, dont grasp that Christianity is a religion of orthodoxy rather than orthopraxy.
 
Say, if I am a seller and by some trick I managed to get extra money from a buyer for the good which costs much cheaper, then it can be considered as theft?

A. It's only theft if taken against the will of the seller.

B. Everything on this planet, from true love to toilet paper, is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it ... no more, no less.
Yes, but if you sell some good pretending that it has some features which it doesn't, and the buyer can't check them immediately and takes your word and pays your money for them. The buyer wants certain good, you sell him another for this price.

Can it be said that the buyer according to his will bought the good you sold him?

Caveat Emptor ... if you're going to discuss legality, you might want to start with learning the difference between civil legislation and criminal legislation.
I am not going to discuss legality. I am going to discus morality. We are in religious section, right?
 
Because you are too closed and as result of this various legends (sometimes ridiculous) emerge about your faith.

What a person believes as part of their faith, what any person believes as a matter of faith, is a private matter. What you believe holds no interest for me at all. I would hope that you would feel the same about me.

There is only one reason to declare your articles of faith to another person and that is in an effort to convert that person to your faith.

Proselytizing is the ultimate form of insecurity The need to get others to your point of view is compensation for your own misgivings regarding your own faith. Certain people only really feel comfortable when their opinions on faith represent the majority opinion.

If logical argument doesn't work to bring others to your religious point of view, you can always resort to the historically efficient methods of the pyre and the rack.
I don't consider religious beliefs to be so intimate not to be shared with someone else.
Say, if I am a seller and by some trick I managed to get extra money from a buyer for the good which costs much cheaper, then it can be considered as theft?

A. It's only theft if taken against the will of the seller.

B. Everything on this planet, from true love to toilet paper, is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it ... no more, no less.
Yes, but if you sell some good pretending that it has some features which it doesn't, and the buyer can't check them immediately and takes your word and pays your money for them. The buyer wants certain good, you sell him another for this price.

Can it be said that the buyer according to his will bought the good you sold him?

Caveat Emptor ... if you're going to discuss legality, you might want to start with learning the difference between civil legislation and criminal legislation.
I am not going to discuss legality. I am going to discus morality. We are in religious section, right?

You used the term 'theft'. Theft is a legal distinction with a very specific definition and points of proof.
 
Because you are too closed and as result of this various legends (sometimes ridiculous) emerge about your faith.

What a person believes as part of their faith, what any person believes as a matter of faith, is a private matter. What you believe holds no interest for me at all. I would hope that you would feel the same about me.

There is only one reason to declare your articles of faith to another person and that is in an effort to convert that person to your faith.

Proselytizing is the ultimate form of insecurity The need to get others to your point of view is compensation for your own misgivings regarding your own faith. Certain people only really feel comfortable when their opinions on faith represent the majority opinion.

If logical argument doesn't work to bring others to your religious point of view, you can always resort to the historically efficient methods of the pyre and the rack.
I don't consider religious beliefs to be so intimate not to be shared with someone else.
Say, if I am a seller and by some trick I managed to get extra money from a buyer for the good which costs much cheaper, then it can be considered as theft?

A. It's only theft if taken against the will of the seller.

B. Everything on this planet, from true love to toilet paper, is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it ... no more, no less.
Yes, but if you sell some good pretending that it has some features which it doesn't, and the buyer can't check them immediately and takes your word and pays your money for them. The buyer wants certain good, you sell him another for this price.

Can it be said that the buyer according to his will bought the good you sold him?

Caveat Emptor ... if you're going to discuss legality, you might want to start with learning the difference between civil legislation and criminal legislation.
I am not going to discuss legality. I am going to discus morality. We are in religious section, right?

You used the term 'theft'. Theft is a legal distinction with a very specific definition and points of proof.
I used it because this is what used in the Noahide laws. And it is somewhat disappointing if theft there means only 'theft'.
 
Because you are too closed and as result of this various legends (sometimes ridiculous) emerge about your faith.

What a person believes as part of their faith, what any person believes as a matter of faith, is a private matter. What you believe holds no interest for me at all. I would hope that you would feel the same about me.

There is only one reason to declare your articles of faith to another person and that is in an effort to convert that person to your faith.

Proselytizing is the ultimate form of insecurity The need to get others to your point of view is compensation for your own misgivings regarding your own faith. Certain people only really feel comfortable when their opinions on faith represent the majority opinion.

If logical argument doesn't work to bring others to your religious point of view, you can always resort to the historically efficient methods of the pyre and the rack.
I don't consider religious beliefs to be so intimate not to be shared with someone else.
Say, if I am a seller and by some trick I managed to get extra money from a buyer for the good which costs much cheaper, then it can be considered as theft?

A. It's only theft if taken against the will of the seller.

B. Everything on this planet, from true love to toilet paper, is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it ... no more, no less.
Yes, but if you sell some good pretending that it has some features which it doesn't, and the buyer can't check them immediately and takes your word and pays your money for them. The buyer wants certain good, you sell him another for this price.

Can it be said that the buyer according to his will bought the good you sold him?

Caveat Emptor ... if you're going to discuss legality, you might want to start with learning the difference between civil legislation and criminal legislation.
I am not going to discuss legality. I am going to discus morality. We are in religious section, right?

You used the term 'theft'. Theft is a legal distinction with a very specific definition and points of proof.
I used it because this is what used in the Noahide laws. And it is somewhat disappointing if theft there means only 'theft'.

I thought to respond to Your previous post about morality, and expand the question,
but since You made it short and precise, I'll sum it shortly (we can later further expand ) -

As much as Jewish law is not merely 10 commandments, namely 613 commandments,
the same way the 7 Noahide laws are not merely 7 laws.

They're short headlines of entire chapters, categories.
 
Last edited:
Because you are too closed and as result of this various legends (sometimes ridiculous) emerge about your faith.

What a person believes as part of their faith, what any person believes as a matter of faith, is a private matter. What you believe holds no interest for me at all. I would hope that you would feel the same about me.

There is only one reason to declare your articles of faith to another person and that is in an effort to convert that person to your faith.

Proselytizing is the ultimate form of insecurity The need to get others to your point of view is compensation for your own misgivings regarding your own faith. Certain people only really feel comfortable when their opinions on faith represent the majority opinion.

If logical argument doesn't work to bring others to your religious point of view, you can always resort to the historically efficient methods of the pyre and the rack.
I don't consider religious beliefs to be so intimate not to be shared with someone else.
Say, if I am a seller and by some trick I managed to get extra money from a buyer for the good which costs much cheaper, then it can be considered as theft?

A. It's only theft if taken against the will of the seller.

B. Everything on this planet, from true love to toilet paper, is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it ... no more, no less.
Yes, but if you sell some good pretending that it has some features which it doesn't, and the buyer can't check them immediately and takes your word and pays your money for them. The buyer wants certain good, you sell him another for this price.

Can it be said that the buyer according to his will bought the good you sold him?

Caveat Emptor ... if you're going to discuss legality, you might want to start with learning the difference between civil legislation and criminal legislation.
I am not going to discuss legality. I am going to discus morality. We are in religious section, right?

You used the term 'theft'. Theft is a legal distinction with a very specific definition and points of proof.
I used it because this is what used in the Noahide laws. And it is somewhat disappointing if theft there means only 'theft'.

I thought to respond to Your previous post about morality, and expand the question,
but since You made it short and precise, I'll sum it shortly (we can later further expand ) -

As much as Jewish law is not merely 10 commandments, namely 613 commandments,
the same way the 7 Noahide laws are not merely 7 laws.

They're short headlines of entire chapters, categories.
Yes, I also think that they are only headlines. My post was used to the poster who, in my opinion, implied that theft is only 'theft'.

You are welcome to expand the question. It will be interesting.
 
Shulchan Aruch For Bnei Noach Set To Be Published

The “Shulchan Aruch” is a halachic rulebook which contains all the daily routines, and also the practices for holidays and the life cycle. What is permitted and what is forbidden? This book will be a collection of halacha specifically for Noahides.

The “Shulchan Aruch” will be written by the Director of Brit Olam – Noahide World Center – Rav Oury Cherki. a result of many years of mutual efforts with many Noahides. It is being written with the advice and guidance of a forum of rabbis who are experts in the subject of Bnei Noach and the universal message of Judaism.



 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top