I am not asking this question retorically. I am not asking this in order to set up an argument that I think I already have the answers for. I am not asking this in order to point out inconsistencies or to cause doubt.

I am asking because I really dont know. I see some Jewish members who seem to be able to answer.

Animal sacrifices to atone for sins.

Twister already answered this in another thread. God allowed the temple to be destroyed. Makes sense. Now  if the sacrificial system is important, wouldnt God want it rebuilt as soon as possible? Or is it forbidden to rebuid? What replaced the atonement for sins that they were for?

Menstration.
Are the practices still in effect? I dont understand them so please correct me if I am wrong. If my wife is menstruating and I touch her, the bed, or her clothes am I to take  a bath right away and am I now unclean? If I sit in her chair  would I become unclean? Has that practice been done away with or is it still valid?

I have other questions but am tired and will get to them at another time.

tagged for learnage......


Sgat1r5

Animal sacrifices to atone for sins
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Im not jewish but my understanding is these can not be continued until the temple is rebuilt.
There is a foundation out that that are prebuilding all the peices to build th temple when its possible.
Currently the Muslem dome of the rock temple sits on top of the original temple. They are recreating all the originally hand crafted vestments all ready and working on genetically recreating the perfect red heifer for sacrifice. To read more check www.templeinstitute.org/main.htm


Doctor Vendyl Jones (the origin of indiana jones (endle jones)) Is currently making amazing discoveries and this month is going on a expidition that is supposed to turn up the Ark of the Covenent, one of the last peices missing from the temple. Reading his writings it would seem he is very sure thathe knows exactly where it is at and will find it this month. Check out his sight on his amazing finds leading up to knowing the location. www.vendyljones.org.il/

          These are very interesting times we live in I suggest you read the two web sites before turning these ideas away as crazy.

Quoted: Animal sacrifices to atone for sins. .

Hebrews 10: 4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

The animal sacrifices were a KEY component of the levitical law.

Given the verse above, we understand the levitical law never really was an end unto itself, but rather a means to an end - namely, Jesus Christ, the ONLY one who can forgive sins.

The levitical law served two purposes - to point to Christ, and to maintain the righteousness of God till Christ came.

Gal. 3: 19Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions... until the seed would come [of]  whom the promise had been made.


Jesus Christ has come. The levitical law has gone. In a real sense, the levitical law NEVER WAS "in effect" as a means of anything other than an arrow pointing to Christ.

And (no irreverence intended) thank God for that.

Quoted: Quoted: Animal sacrifices to atone for sins. . Hebrews 10: 4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. The animal sacrifices were a KEY component of the levitical law. Given the verse above, we understand the levitical law never really was an end unto itself, but rather a means to an end - namely, Jesus Christ, the ONLY one who can forgive sins. The levitical law served two purposes - to point to Christ, and to maintain the righteousness of God till Christ came. Gal. 3: 19Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions... until the seed would come [of]  whom the promise had been made. Jesus Christ has come. The levitical law has gone. In a real sense, the levitical law NEVER WAS "in effect" as a means of anything other than an arrow pointing to Christ. And (no irreverence intended) thank God for that.

I totally agree with you there. I was just wondering why they took so long to rebuild, that is if it was really necesary for them to sacrifice. Maybe something else came along that they use to atone.

I am not saying the sacrifice does anything IMHO. I just wondered what the modern Jewish belief was about it.

Quoted: I totally agree with you there. I was just wondering why they took so long to rebuild, that is if it was really necesary for them to sacrifice. Maybe something else came along that they use to atone. .

I think it was more logistical than anything. Only being a nation since 1948, they've had less than 100 years to re-institute Judaism.

But I'm not really qualified to speak on Judaism.

It is an interesting question.

If modern jews still believe in the Mosaic Law, are they still practicing literal animal sacrifice?  If not, why?

Quoted: It is an interesting question. If modern jews still believe in the Mosaic Law, are they still practicing literal animal sacrifice?  If not, why?

They need the Temple for that. My question is why wasnt it rebuilt ASAP.


Also what about the practices around womens menstruation. I still havent seen an answer for that one. I am honestly curiuos as to what laws are still binding on them today and which ones are not.

Quoted: Quoted: It is an interesting question. If modern jews still believe in the Mosaic Law, are they still practicing literal animal sacrifice?  If not, why? They need the Temple for that. My question is why wasnt it rebuilt ASAP. Also what about the practices around womens menstruation. I still havent seen an answer for that one. I am honestly curiuos as to what laws are still binding on them today and which ones are not.

If all they need is a temple, why not rebuild the tabernacle like they used in the Exodus from Egypt.  It was literally a portable temple.  Or they could build a new temple somewhere else.

Maybe I missed something in the OT that says the temple at Jeruselem is the only one allowed to be built/rebuilt.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is an interesting question. If modern jews still believe in the Mosaic Law, are they still practicing literal animal sacrifice?  If not, why? They need the Temple for that. My question is why wasnt it rebuilt ASAP. Also what about the practices around womens menstruation. I still havent seen an answer for that one. I am honestly curiuos as to what laws are still binding on them today and which ones are not. If all they need is a temple, why not rebuild the tabernacle like they used in the Exodus from Egypt.  It was literally a portable temple.  Or they could build a new temple somewhere else. Maybe I missed something in the OT that says the temple at Jeruselem is the only one allowed to be built/rebuilt.

Well hopefully Twister or one of the other Jewish member seducated in this area will be along to help.

I have found so much misinformation I am now completely confused.

Quoted:

I am not asking this question retorically. I am not asking this in order to set up an argument that I think I already have the answers for. I am not asking this in order to point out inconsistencies or to cause doubt.

I am asking because I really dont know. I see some Jewish members who seem to be able to answer.

Animal sacrifices to atone for sins.

Twister already answered this in another thread. God allowed the temple to be destroyed. Makes sense. Now if the sacrificial system is important, wouldnt God want it rebuilt as soon as possible? Or is it forbidden to rebuid? What replaced the atonement for sins that they were for?

________________________________________________________

Hi WildBoar:

I believe G-d has a power in our lives; that which helps us to undertand a seemingly innate search of our spiritual side.  That said, and to better answer your question, G-d did not allow the Temple to be destroyed any more than (plz., comparative purpose only) he allowed 9/11 to happen.

People cause, and are responsible for their own actions.  Both Temples were destroyed by invaders--the first Temple by the Babylonians, the second by the Romans.

Animal sacrifices during the first and second Temple periods were not just to atone for sins.   For example, Psalm 50, which was presumably sung in the Temple, commends the sacrifice of thanksgiving.  Biblical sacrifices were both communal and individual--as well as serving to sustain the Levites.  Remember, the Levites received no portion of the Land of Israel; their task was to maintain the Temple--and they themselves would take a portion of offering (animal or vegatable--with the excecption of a sin offering) for themselves and their families.

During the times of the first and second Temples, it was understood also that the sacrificial cult was secondary to the primacy of moral conduct.  

By the time the Romans had destroyed the second Temple, the synogogue as an institution was fully developed...perhaps guided by G-d?  Who knows, but what we do know is that during the beginning of the Diaspora and the start of the era of the synogogue, it was understood that the study of sacrifice is as important as bringing sacrifice--this is clearly seen from the Jewish tradition, as well as the understanding embodied by the words of Hosiah 6:6 that for it is said "...I desire mercy, not sacrifice".

Atonement for sins was replaced by the High Holy Days, beginning with the start of the Jewish New Year--Rosh Hoshanna; the ending with the Day of Atonement--Yom Kippur.  It's during the interim of the 10 days between these holidays that Jews reflect upon the sins they have commited against both G-d and their neighbors.

____________________________________________________________________

Menstration.
Are the practices still in effect? I dont understand them so please correct me if I am wrong. If my wife is menstruating and I touch her, the bed, or her clothes am I to take a bath right away and am I now unclean? If I sit in her chair would I become unclean? Has that practice been done away with or is it still valid?

I spent three weeks in Israel back in 1996.  I'll never forget the time when my wife and I enterred a shop in Jerusalem browsing the Judaica.  An Orthodox Jew entered the store and asked the clerk some questions.  During an interlude, my wife had found an item without a price tag, and approached the clerk (and next to the Chassid) to ask what the price was.  I was watching and found the Orthodox gent nearly jump when he realized he had been that close to a female that could have been "impure", or menstruating.

Like most of you guys, you've gotta love your woman--because of or simply despite the fact they put up with so much with us.  But for me to view my wife with ancient views of purity from eyes looking ~3,000 yrs. in the past would be to dishonor her in todays world.

I would never do that.

The practice is still common amongst Orthodox Jews.  It is not a common practice amongst Conservative or Reform Jews in this country or overseas.



Ed

Thanks Ed. I appreciate the reply. I hope to see Twister give their take on this as well.

[/They need the Temple for that. My question is why wasnt it rebuilt ASAPb]

The most likey site for the Temple to be rebuilt...is the Mosque on the Rock. Imagine if you sent BullDozers in the destroy it? The blood would flow.

As for the older customs, I am a Reform Jew, actually a bit radical for them maybe. I look to my Christian upbringing to balance me. I did not lose Jesus, I never believed he was an incarnate of G*d, He has always been a Rabbi or teacher to me.

I look to the Leviticus with respect to the state of Jews at that time. For instance meat and dairy. One of my mentors told me ofhow his family was able to afford a 2nd set of dishes so the meat dishes and the dairy dishes would not be even stored in the same place. Well the whole thing goes ot a pagan rite where the calf was boiled alive in the milk of its mother. To them that is cruel.

OK nowadays meat cattle come form one ranch and milk comes from a Dairy farm...

His family kept kosher, but he said how his mother made wonderful Gelfilte Fish, from catfish. Catfish have no scales, they have skin and are not Kosher.

So do they go to where ever? Catfish I am sure do not live in Israel...

Continuing in the eating topic. I asked of a Reform Rabbi..is a chicken cheese steak Kosher...as chickens don't give milk? His answer no it is no meat and chicken is meat. But an orthodox Rabbi told a fellow congreant..it is ok. Who knows?

I keep the Sabbath, but actually according to my old Rabbi it is ok for me to teach martial arts on a Saturday afternoon, as it is recreation for those I teach.

I have known a few Jewish woman that ....have enjoyed sexual relations up until they started to menunstrated. Well to the old way thatis forbidden. But the writings tell us that a husband is to satisfy his wife's sexual needs...so if she wants it is it ok?  Oh and youy are not to touch anything below the waist,especially with your mouth.  That is another topic that has lost much usage today.

I tend to look with an eye ot eliminating superstition. With todays food handling, refridgeration, hot water and soap, hygiene...itis a much different world that 50 years ago let alone 2,000 years ago.

The law is a basis that we can adapt to our lives the biggest part is what is in our hearts.

As a "gun toting" conservative Jew from Texas, my recommendation is to read other interpretations: http://www.jewfaq.org/toc.htm
Is there a spell checking on this forum?

Quoted: .... the biggest part is what is in our hearts.

+1

Psalm 73:1 - Truly God is good to Israel, namely, those of an upright heart.

And as Christ said "Its not what enters a man that defiles him - it is what comes out (of his heart."

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is an interesting question. If modern jews still believe in the Mosaic Law, are they still practicing literal animal sacrifice?  If not, why? They need the Temple for that. My question is why wasnt it rebuilt ASAP. Also what about the practices around womens menstruation. I still havent seen an answer for that one. I am honestly curiuos as to what laws are still binding on them today and which ones are not. If all they need is a temple, why not rebuild the tabernacle like they used in the Exodus from Egypt.  It was literally a portable temple.  Or they could build a new temple somewhere else. Maybe I missed something in the OT that says the temple at Jeruselem is the only one allowed to be built/rebuilt. Well hopefully Twister or one of the other Jewish member seducated in this area will be along to help. Hi guys, we've been painting and putting down vinyl tile all day. Projects not quite through but I will be back later to read this. I have found so much misinformation I am now completely confused.

Psalm 73:1 - Truly God is good to Israel, namely, those of an upright heart. And as Christ said "Its not what enters a man that defiles him - it is what comes out (of his heart."

Jesus preached Judiasm, he was at the time of Rabbinic Judiasm, which held more personal accountability. IMHO

Quoted: Quoted: As a "gun toting" conservative Jew from Texas, my recommendation is to read other interpretations: http://www.jewfaq.org/toc.htm Is there a spell checking on this forum? Welcome to the site! There should be a a button under the reply box that says "SPELLCHECK".

Welcome as well.

Unfortunately spell-check doesn't seem to work for squat.

Oh, and tag for answers...

Shalom Brother..now are you Conservative as in Jewish or conservative as in Republican?

Quoted: Jesus preached Judiasm, he was at the time of Rabbinic Judiasm, which held more personal accountability. IMHO

If Jesus preashed Judaism, what was the nature of the disagreement that caused the chief priests to want Him executed?

Quoted: I am not asking this question retorically. I am not asking this in order to set up an argument that I think I already have the answers for. I am not asking this in order to point out inconsistencies or to cause doubt. I am asking because I really dont know. I see some Jewish members who seem to be able to answer. Animal sacrifices to atone for sins. Twister already answered this in another thread. God allowed the temple to be destroyed. Makes sense. Now  if the sacrificial system is important, wouldnt God want it rebuilt as soon as possible? Or is it forbidden to rebuid? What replaced the atonement for sins that they were for? There was no need to replace animal sacrifice since it was never the only atonement for sin. Menstration. Are the practices still in effect? I dont understand them so please correct me if I am wrong. If my wife is menstruating and I touch her, the bed, or her clothes am I to take  a bath right away and am I now unclean? If I sit in her chair  would I become unclean? Has that practice been done away with or is it still valid? Yes, these practices are still in effect among some of the Orthodox. It's been a long day and I'm tired. Will get back with you tomorrow. Goodnight I have other questions but am tired and will get to them at another time.

TheWind: Conervative as both a Jew and a Republican.... hanks
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."

- Mark Twain, a Biography

I've asked some of these same questions at my church, but I never got any answer that I was satisfied with. We follow the foods listed in Leviticus, but we don't follow the rules about what to do when women are menstruating, not mixing different materials in our clothing, etc.  I asked why, and also who it was that decided which things we'll ignore.  I got and , and then ignored.

GM consider that you are the outgoing leaders of the faith...the High Priest..and a bunch of guys are say your dont' mneed animal sacrifices? Remember Jesus had a fit iont he temple over the money lenders and the like?  I don't blame him. It was the changing of the guard and the old one didn't want to go.
Jesus was at the forefront of the new Jews.

This is more specific: www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm  

Quoted: Jesus was at the forefront of the new Jews.

I agree with this, but prolly not in the way you are thinking.

Scripturally, "Israel" is defined now, since the advent of Chrsit, as all men, and all women of all time, and all nationalities that are in Christ, exhibiting teh same faith that Abraham did. (Rom. 2:28-29, Galatians 3, Psalm 73:1, Jeremiah 31)

Having this reality as His message, Jesus was NOT (to my understanding) preaching Judaism. Rather, he was taking all the elements of Judaism (animal sacrifice, the priesthood, the feast days, etc) and telling the Jewish people "These are NOT an end unto themselves. They all speak of me, and the "new Israel" that is a united peple made up of Jew and Gentile alike."

Quoted: I've asked some of these same questions at my church, but I never got any answer that I was satisfied with. We follow the foods listed in Leviticus, but we don't follow the rules about what to do when women are menstruating, not mixing different materials in our clothing, etc.  I asked why, and also who it was that decided which things we'll ignore.  I got and , and then ignored.

When a church's leadership ignores legitimate questions such as you have asked, that's not a good sign.

Quoted: Quoted: I've asked some of these same questions at my church, but I never got any answer that I was satisfied with. We follow the foods listed in Leviticus, but we don't follow the rules about what to do when women are menstruating, not mixing different materials in our clothing, etc.  I asked why, and also who it was that decided which things we'll ignore.  I got and , and then ignored. When a church's leadership ignores legitimate questions such as you have asked, that's not a good sign.

Quite true my friend, but they're the closest to my beliefs I've ever found. The church doctrine that many members follow is pacifism, and I've told them there's no way I'll adhere to that. Just this last week Mrs GoGop (newly registered as martini-butt) told them "Trespassers will be shot, survivers will be shot again." I thought some of them were going to run away and hide. ROTFL
  Starting this Sabbath we have a new pastor, so I'm anxious to find out how he teaches. Our old paster said we shouldn't watch movies because we might see or hear something that's not appropriate, and I responded that under that theory I couldn't talk to any of my friends, and sometimes it would include my own mind.
 Still growing and learning, and I discuss all these inconsistancies with our son so that confusion is kept to a minimum. (He's 10).  So far he's pretty passive, even refusing to take martial arts so he could defend himself, but if someone scarey comes around he stays real close to me. After they're gone he'll say "I'm glad you've always got your gun with you."  

Quoted:   Starting this Sabbath we have a new pastor, so I'm anxious to find out how he teaches.

Without knowing anything about your beliefs or denomination, I guess it makes sense to give the new guy a chance.

If I may ask , what church / denomination / group is it?

Quoted: Quoted: Jesus was at the forefront of the new Jews. I agree with this, but prolly not in the way you are thinking. Scripturally, "Israel" is defined now, since the advent of Chrsit, as all men, and all women of all time, and all nationalities that are in Christ, exhibiting teh same faith that Abraham did. (Rom. 2:28-29, Galatians 3, Psalm 73:1, Jeremiah 31) Having this reality as His message, Jesus was NOT (to my understanding) preaching Judaism. Rather, he was taking all the elements of Judaism (animal sacrifice, the priesthood, the feast days, etc) and telling the Jewish people "These are NOT an end unto themselves. They all speak of me, and the "new Israel" that is a united peple made up of Jew and Gentile alike." ______________________________________________________________________ Scripturally, "Israel" is defined now, since the advent of Chrsit, as all men, and all women of all time, and all nationalities that are in Christ, exhibiting teh same faith that Abraham did. (Rom. 2:28-29, Galatians 3, Psalm 73:1, Jeremiah 31) That indeed is a personal opinion, and is popular amongst many Christians.  Though, from a fundamental (no pun intended) understanding of the continuing religious tradition of Judaism for the last ~3500 years, your opinion is in error. Having this reality as His message, Jesus was NOT (to my understanding) preaching Judaism. Rather, he was taking all the elements of Judaism (animal sacrifice, the priesthood, the feast days, etc) and telling the Jewish people "These are NOT an end unto themselves. They all speak of me, and the "new Israel" that is a united peple made up of Jew and Gentile alike." ______________________________________________________________ As a Jew, where I to look even at the Gospel of Mathew, which is generally the most anti-semitic of the gospels, I would find a quote attributed by Mathew to Jesus indicating "...I came to change not one jot or tittle of the law", a clear indication that Jesus was teaching and "preaching" Judaism...not a new form, but the same one he was raised in.   There's little in the Gospel that indicates any deviation from Judaism as his life is portrayed.   In fact, there are only two notable Gospel teachings of the person of Jesus that may have been outside normative Jewish thought. The first is the comment to turn the other cheek.  Yeah, like that has been a mainstay of tradition!  The second being that to think of an evil act is the same as doing it.  Not so. Biblical review and understanding is an exhaustive subject.  One theme becomes clear, especially if one reads accounts of the historical times; and a suprising amount of material has been preserved--the Romans kept great records. The bible needs to be understood within the context of the times.  For instance, the Sadducees and the Pharisees may quite litterally be understood in todays terms of two competing views, not unlike the Democratic and Republican parties of this nation. Ed

Quoted: That indeed is a personal opinion, and is popular amongst many Christians.  Though, from a fundamental (no pun intended) understanding of the continuing religious tradition of Judaism for the last ~3500 years, your opinion is in error.

Well OF COURSE you think that's in error.  

As a Jew, where I to look even at the Gospel of Mathew, which is generally the most anti-semitic of the gospels,

Ahhh yes, those "self-hating" jews we always hear about....  

I would find a quote attributed by Mathew to Jesus indicating "...I came to change not one jot or tittle of the law", a clear indication that Jesus was teaching and "preaching" Judaism...not a new form, but the same one he was raised in.

You both botched the text and ommitted the most important part. Allow me...

Matt 5:17 - Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

Jesus said He came to FULFILL the law - i.e. explain to all men (particularly the Jews who viewed the law an end in itself) that the law was about Him.

There's little in the Gospel that indicates any deviation from Judaism as his life is portrayed.   Ed

That's true because the law embodied the righteousness of God  - so naturally Christ would not have violated it.

The mistake the Jews iof Christ's day is they worshipped the law of God, and not the God of the law, and the Son that law was meant to point them to.

Quoted: The mistake the Jews iof Christ's day is they worshipped the law of God, and not the God of the law, and the Son that law was meant to point them to.

Very profound.

Quoted:

Well OF COURSE you think that's in error.

Ahhh yes, those "self-hating" jews we always hear about....

Quoted: Quoted:   Starting this Sabbath we have a new pastor, so I'm anxious to find out how he teaches.   Without knowing anything about your beliefs or denomination, I guess it makes sense to give the new guy a chance. If I may ask , what church / denomination / group is it?

It's the United Church of God, which is an off-shoot of the Worldwide Church of God that Herbert W. Armstrong started.

www.ucg.org

Gman, I think that Ed was referring to the next verse after the one you quoted, in Matthew 5:

  17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

  18  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

However (for everyone's edification), I'd like to point out the context, which Ed also alluded to:

  19  Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

  20  For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

  21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

  22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire...

I've underlined verse 20, which is what I believe to be the the key verse (for Ed's implication, at least).  The idea is that it is impossible to keep the whole Law (every "jot" and "tittle").  As a result, followers of Jesus are to strive to keep the law in spirit.

Paul calls it "cicumcision of the heart", IIRC.

Now, if we go back to verse 17 and 18, we notice the following implication as well: The "jot's" and "tittles" of the Law (at the very least) will go away, but not until the prophecy "till heaven and earth pass" is fufilled.

Most non-futurist (Reformed, Orthodox, Roman Catholic) Christians would claim "heaven and earth" to be God's promise to Israel through the Law, and set the time of fufillment to be (at the earliest) Jesus's resurrection, His ascention, or (at the latest) Jeruselem's destruction in 70 A.D..  This would be but one verse in the New Testament that indicates Christians have "freedom" from the Levitical ordinances.

I'm sorry for the hijack, as WildBoar's questions were meant for a Jewish response, rather than a Christian perspective.  I had also planned on commenting on Ed's liberal use of the icon, but I'm afraid that it wouldn't do much good, and probably "earn" me one as well.

ETA: I like the way you stated "Law of God v. God of Law" as well, brother.

Quoted: Quoted: Well OF COURSE you think that's in error. Ahhh yes, those "self-hating" jews we always hear about....

So....disagreement with you = ???

Can ONLY the proponents of a particular religion comment on the sensibility of that religions doctrines?

Or do you wish this forum, or certain threads within in, to be restricted to those of the Jewish faith alone?

I'm just puzzled as to why you throw out trolly heads like candy.

Quoted: I've underlined verse 20, which is what I believe to be the the key verse (for Ed's implication, at least).  The idea is that it is impossible to keep the whole Law (every "jot" and "tittle").  As a result, followers of Jesus are to strive to keep the law in spirit. Paul calls it "circumcision of the heart", IIRC.

Bingo.

The Jewish history in Yahweh is a rich, blessed history.

But their history is incomplete without Christ, and Christ bringing the Gentiles into the family of God.

Just as we Gentiles are incomplete without the rich blessings God gave Israel.

ETA: I like the way you stated "Law of God v. God of Law" as well, brother.

No credit to me. Just a rather clumsy wording of a Scriptural concept.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:
Quoted:

Well OF COURSE you think that's in error.

Ahhh yes, those "self-hating" jews we always hear about....





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




So....disagreement with you =  ???

Can ONLY the proponents of a particular religion comment on the sensibility of that religions doctrines?

Or do you wish this forum, or certain threads within in, to be restricted to those of the Jewish faith alone?

I'm just puzzled as to why you throw out trolly heads like candy.

______________________________________________________________

So....disagreement with you =  ???

_____________________________________________________________

No, disagreement with me doesn't merit anyone the TROLL badge.

However, your postings of:

 Well OF COURSE you think that's in error.

Certainly indicates, particularly by your emphasis thru capitalization, a sense of error of a Jewish view.  By the standards of this forum, that's not appropriate.  

Drop the issue.
_____________________________________________________________

 Ahhh yes, those "self-hating" jews we always hear about....

_____________________________________________________________

Really, this too is quite insensitive, as it's a term primarilly used by the Jewish community to refer to members within the Jewish community.

Drop the issue.



Ed

I'm sorry for the hijack, as WildBoar's questions were meant for a Jewish response, rather than a Christian perspective. I had also planned on commenting on Ed's liberal use of the  icon, but I'm afraid that it wouldn't do much good, and probably "earn" me one as well.

_______________________________________________________

FMD...please refer to and try to understand the perspective I profferred to gm.

On a further note, as the title of this thread started with regarding the Levitical Laws and current application, I find it humorous that Christians would have such a strong feeling of the subjext--I'm still at a quandry as to how many of the comments have added insight.  

From a Christian perspective, none of the Jewish laws of Leviticus would apply to a Christian...is that not the dogma of Christianity that did away with the legalities of the Hebrew Bible?


Ed

"The notion that we are born condemned, and that without the
practice of animal sacrifices Jews cannot atone for their sins, represents
a blatant misinterpretation of the Jewish Bible.

First of all, the Bible teaches that sin is an act, not a state of
being. Mankind was created with an inclination to do evil (Genesis
8:21), and the ability to master this inclination (Genesis 4:7) and
choose good over evil (Psalm 37:27). Second, G-d gave us a way to
remove our sins. When sacrifices were required they were intended
only for unintentional sins (Leviticus 4:1) and served as a means of
motivating individuals to true repentance. Numerous passages, including
Hosea 14, I Kings 8:44-52 and Jeremiah 29:12-14, inform
us that today, without a Temple or sacrifices, our prayers take the
place of sacrifices. In addition, we read, “The sacrifices of G-d
are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51:22)
and “I desire kindness and not sacrifices, the knowledge of G-d
more than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6). The Torah teaches that
through repentance, prayer, fasting, and doing what is right, everyone
has the ability to return to G-d directly."

"This concept is beautifully illustrated in the books of Jonah and
Esther, where both Jews and non-Jews repented, prayed to G-d and
were forgiven for their sins without having offered any sacrifices."

Quoted: Really, this too is quite insensitive, as it's a term primarilly used by the Jewish community to refer to members within the Jewish community. Drop the issue. Ed

Who EXACTLY do you think you are that you get to dictate what I can and cannot post?

nah..........

Quoted: From a Christian perspective, none of the Jewish laws of Leviticus would apply to a Christian...is that not the dogma of Christianity that did away with the legalities of the Hebrew Bible? Ed

From my reading of the New Testament (rather than dogma), your take on what our perspective should be is correct.

Yet, interestingly enough, some denominations require adherance to many of the Levital ordinances, and quite a few add their own (extra-biblical) ordinances.  Legalism is something that the Church has had an issue with since the early Church in Jeruselem.

Quoted:

"The notion that we are born condemned, and that without the
practice of animal sacrifices Jews cannot atone for their sins, represents
a blatant misinterpretation of the Jewish Bible.

First of all, the Bible teaches that sin is an act, not a state of
being. Mankind was created with an inclination to do evil (Genesis
8:21), and the ability to master this inclination (Genesis 4:7) and
choose good over evil (Psalm 37:27). Second, G-d gave us a way to
remove our sins. When sacrifices were required they were intended
only for unintentional sins (Leviticus 4:1) and served as a means of
motivating individuals to true repentance. Numerous passages, including
Hosea 14, I Kings 8:44-52 and Jeremiah 29:12-14, inform
us that today, without a Temple or sacrifices, our prayers take the
place of sacrifices. In addition, we read, “The sacrifices of G-d
are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51:22)
and “I desire kindness and not sacrifices, the knowledge of G-d
more than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6). The Torah teaches that
through repentance, prayer, fasting, and doing what is right, everyone
has the ability to return to G-d directly."

"This concept is beautifully illustrated in the books of Jonah and
Esther, where both Jews and non-Jews repented, prayed to G-d and
were forgiven for their sins without having offered any sacrifices."

__________________________________________________________

Very well written and nicely done.   Personally, this expresses the joyous and humanist relationship to G-d I find myself so openly expressive in my communal relationship between G-d and humankind, and back again...well, I also Jewish, so I would suspect that helps!  

Good Shabbos, SilentRun!

Quoted: Quoted: Really, this too is quite insensitive, as it's a term primarilly used by the Jewish community to refer to members within the Jewish community. Drop the issue. Ed

Who EXACTLY do you think you are that you get to dictate what I can and cannot post?

__________________________________________________________________

I'm a Jew with far more experience with the phraseology you so casually flung about.  Dicatate?  Not me bubbulah!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Really, this too is quite insensitive, as it's a term primarilly used by the Jewish community to refer to members within the Jewish community. Drop the issue. Ed Who EXACTLY do you think you are that you get to dictate what I can and cannot post? __________________________________________________________________ I'm a Jew with far more experience with the phraseology you so casually flung about.  Dicatate?  Not me bubbulah!

__________________________________

Oh, and by the way...the purported support for the original question was posited with the response from the Jewish community on this forum...so if you don't like what we post, would you have us evaporate--or would sending us up a chimney flue be more to your ken?

Quoted: Quoted: or would sending us up a chimney flue be more to your ken? This part is totally uncalled for IMO. scuba_ed, I'm done with editing your posts. You know the rules for posting in here. Either abide by them, or don't post in this forum.

Am I allowed to ask for a lock on my thread? I think it has lived past its usefulness and now everyone is backbiting.

I thank everyone for their participation.

By authors request...