Zone1 The real secret of Jewish success.

Or that's the way God fulfilled the prophecy. Recall that Esau, in a moment of impulsiveness, had "despised" his birthright by trading it for a meal. No doubt Rebekah knew of the event but because the birthright blessing had not actually been passed to Esau, had to act in the moment.

As happened later to Reuben, the firstborn can disqualify himself from the blessing by evil behavior. As Esau hadn't done anything to disqualify himself it was left up to Rebekah alone to be the instrument of the change.
You don't know that. All you know is that she used deception and she never saw her favorite son again because of it. Seems like a lesson there.

Let me ask you this... if she didn't do it, would God have fulfilled the prophecy or would he have let it go unfulfilled and make himself out to be a liar?

When God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac, did God let him go through with it? Anytime we read the passages and we think they are showing God condones violence or deceit. We are reading them wrong. God isn't a dick. The bible is a how to book; how to live and how not to live. Some of these passages are intended to show us how not to live.
 
Last edited:
No. It doesn't. Maybe you misunderstood my premise.

Your premise: "God doesn't condone violence or deception"
is contradicted by all 5 books of Moses.

But you're free to twist into a pretzel,
pretending it's a hippie manifesto.
 
You don't know that. All you know is that she used deception and she never saw her favorite son again because of it. Seems like a lesson there.

Let me ask you this... if she didn't do it, would God have fulfilled the prophecy or would he have let it go unfulfilled and make himself out to be a liar?
I think she did what she had to do. Apparently, she was the only one who knew that Jacob was destined to receive the blessing. Isaac didn't. Recall that she was a special lady, chosen by God for Isaac.
 
I'm not seeing how this pertains to the discussion. Maybe express what you think it is supposed to mean in the context of this discussion. Or admit that you are wrong.
Sefaria is an extensive body of classic Jewish texts,
very useful when learning the text.

Even Muslims study Rashi.

Stop pretending you don't know the Exodus story,
or the numerous commandments pertaining to war.
 
Your premise: "God doesn't condone violence or deception"
is contradicted by all 5 books of Moses.

But you're free to twist into a pretzel,
pretending it's a hippie manifesto.
Or you are reading them wrong.
 
I think she did what she had to do. Apparently, she was the only one who knew that Jacob was destined to receive the blessing. Isaac didn't. Recall that she was a special lady, chosen by God for Isaac.
I disagree. I think this passage is showing us what she shouldn't have done.
 
Sefaria is an extensive body of classic Jewish texts,
very useful when learning the text.

Even Muslims study Rashi.

Stop pretending you don't know the Exodus story,
or the numerous commandments pertaining to war.
I know it better than you do. The meaning of these passages have been lost through time. I bet you can't tell me what the Tower of Babel was about.
 
You aren't making any sense.

Rebekah didn't trust God. It's that simple. As a result of her deception she never saw her favorite son again.
Look, the text doesn't shy away from criticism when due,
you can judge someone's actions by your values, or the values of God.
The values that you use as a premise to judge the prophets, are not in the text.
 
Look, the text doesn't shy away from criticism when due,

you can judge someone's actions by your values, or the values of God.

The values that you use as a premise to judge the prophets, are not in the text.
This is simple. Either God condones deception or Rebekah didn't trust God. I say it was a test and she failed it. I say that was the moral of the story.
 
I disagree. I think this passage is showing us what she shouldn't have done.
I think she saved Isaac from making a huge mistake that could have had serious consequences later.
 
This is simple. Either God condones deception or Rebekah didn't trust God. I say it was a test and she failed it. I say that was the moral of the story.
False dilemma.
Neither.

Furthermore, according to your logic,
Sarah didn't see Isaac after binding,
due to lack of trust, or any sin?

Be careful.
 
The last verse in the chapter before the story begins,
tells of Esau marrying idol worshippers.

Think of twins,
one is a weak bookworm,
another is a cunning hunter.

In some constellation that could be a great union,
but sometimes you face the painful choice of distancing both.
 
False dilemma.
Neither.

Furthermore, according to your logic,
Sarah didn't see Isaac after binding,
due to lack of trust, or any sin?

Be careful.
I thought Sarah DIED before she could see Issac.
 
15th post
I thought Sarah DIED before she could see Issac.
She did pass away.

After the binding, the story follows with the purchase of the burial cave in Hebron.

The comment was in the context of another user's argument,
that the passing away should be viewed as proof
of a perceived character flaw of wrongdoing.
Which is false according to text.
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant and useless claims. Stay focused on the thread.
Of course, ignoring God is irrelevant to any "unorthodox Jew". :huh1: Is that not the point, unorthodoxness leads to the worship of false gods such as wealth, power and social acceptance rather than acceptance to God's commands?

The history found in the O.T. teachings demonstrate how the houses of Israel and Judah have continually ignored the advice and commands of our Lord God. Even a short study from the O.T. record contains such as a documented history of failure on the Jews' part to follow the Lord God of the Holy Scriptures.
 
Last edited:
This is inciteful.

Commentary Magazine
The monthly magazine of opinion.
DECEMBER 1953
commentary image placeholder

Jews and Manual Labor​


by Our Readers
To the Editor:

As a practicing engineer who spent the past fifteen years in the factories of this country, I was particularly attracted by Warner Bloomberg, Jr.’s, article, “Jew in the Factory” (November 1953). He describes a lunchtime discussion with a young Polish American, Andy, in which he, Bloomberg, tries to explain why Jews are not found in industry “working with their hands.” I was disturbed because Bloomberg was obviously on the defensive, finding it necessary to relate “the long history of oppression and persecutions that drove European Jewry so long ago from the crafts of the land. . . .” The implication here, of course, is that there is something ennobling or virtuous in hard, manual, unskilled labor—a fiction perpetrated, in my opinion, by those who have never made a career of it. Common sense, or if necessary, a few years digging ditches, picking peas, or moving steel plate, should convince even the most romantic that far from being ennobling pursuits, they are on the contrary degrading to the dignity of man and the sooner supplanted by the machine the better. . . .

Louis Soltanoff
Salisbury, Maryland
Gee, an opinion in a letter to the editor in 1953. That doesn't really make your case.
 
Back
Top Bottom