Thursday, 27 February 2014

More Interesting Objections from the Rabbinic Camp

Here are some more objections by barry umansky that I intended to address for sometime. Let's get cracking shall we?

"1. The mitzvah simply states to have children. I will not enter a debate about the ecosystem as it presently exists. The argument wrt Jeremiah is an old one.
There are two ways to view this passage. First, this can be viewed as Jeremiah
being commanded by God not to marry at all. In this case, it would not accrue to him
as a transgression of the precept in Genesis 1:28. He had no choice other than to
obey God’s instructions.
Alternatively, the phrase "in this place" [in Hebrew, בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה (ba’maQOM
ha’ZEH)] in verse 2 could be understood to imply that the order is tied to the
particular location for a specific reason, which is described elsewhere in the Book of Jeremiah. Hashem gave no such command to Jesus. He did not have children. He violated this mitzvah."

The fact remains that due to the earth being already filled as it is, it is still not a command for marriage for all people, my point stands. Furthermore, even if you want to argue Jeremiah did it in a specific time and place for the purpose of a mission, Jesus had a mission to accomplish, he didn't have the time to settle down, nor was it the reason he came to earth. If you want to argue that Jesus was violating Genesis 1:28, you are stuck with the fact that Jeremiah, despite not having children, EVEN IN a specific place, You have to toss Jeremiah out.

"2.The reason you may feel the reasoning wrt starvation is nonsensical is because you do not know Talmud and in your willingness to swallow the near universal vilification of the Pharisaic sect, hook line and sinker. The principal of pikuach nefesh means that any mitzvah including the Sabbath was over-riden if life was at stake. Just another silly ruling of those evil Pharisees. The NT is guilty of wholesale degradation and vilification of the Pharisees, an account which is contradicted by an examination of extra-biblical sources. Do I feel there may have been a few hypcriticial people among them. Sure. But the caricatures drawn in the NT are just propaganda-no different from the whitewash given to Pilate which also is contradicted by extra-biblical sources such as Philo and Josephus."

While Jesus condemned many of the Pharisees for their traditions, that doesn't mean he agreed with every tradition. For that matter, claiming the NT is contradicted by extra-biblical sources like Philo and Josephus' sources because Pilate acted a certain way, doesn't mean that he did NOT act that way. Historians only record what is relevant and important to them and their audience, selection and connection is what they do, same with respect to the Pharisees.

Furthermore, Where is Pilate whitewashed? He is held responsible for crucifying Jesus, even by Paul.

Barry does mention this tradition about the mitzvah above and it is a real tradition.

If a Jew needed to save his own life because of it being in danger, he could break any mitzvah, however he was not allowed to commit murder, idolatry or sexual immorality.

I wouldn't say that tradition is silly, but risky. Although, there are cases like this in the TANAKH, such an example would be when David feigned madness to save his life. But that's an assumption I am taking regarding that tradition.

"The fact is what Jesus was teaching was a violation of Shabbat- a form of agricultural labor. The Torah says if there is any dispute we should follow the ruling of the judges and in this period the Pharisees were the judges - they sat in Moses' seat. Twisting things around, Jesus admits they are the authority but then paints the picture everyone being hypocritical and not carrying out what they rule to the population at large- there is no basis for this in outside of the NT in the historical records that survive. Exodus 22:27 is another mitzvah not to curse a judge, not to revile a judge. How can you read what comes from the mouth of Jesus and not accept it as a violation of Hashem's commandment?"

Again, one should respect their leaders, but calling them out and exposing them for something they are doing is wrong and RIGHTLY calling them hypocrites and snakes is not speaking evil of them, even in the context of Exodus 22:27 (He actually meant Exodus 22:28 but that's a typo and we can all make mistakes and I have made some of my own.)
"28 “Do not blaspheme God[f] or curse the ruler of your people."

If you want to dismiss the NT when resorting to historical criteria, that's irresponsible, most information on Jesus' existence comes from the NT and those can be used in historical study, AS WELL AS OTHER SOURCES mentioned on the comments page.

Furthermore, you only obey a leader if what he says is righteous, in line with what God has revealed. Were the leaders of the people always righteous in their decrees?

Jesus even said to his disciples to listen to what the Pharisees have to say, but not to emulate their deeds because they were not practising what they preach, as found in Matthew 23:2-3.

"I will not get into a lengthy discussion of the word genea in reference to this generation. From what I have read it most commonly refers to contemporaries. A plain reading of the text leaves little doubt that Jesus was referring to his disciples .

Matthew 24 is quite consistent with Matthew 16:28-28 “Truly I tell YOU some who are standing HERE will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Any attempt to rationalize genea to some future generation or to the nation of Jews is just that- a poor rationalization. His followers expected something immanent in their lifetimes. "

Genea CAN mean a future generation or race. It's not a poor rationalization. Again, the NT writers don't assert that Jesus' coming is imminent. They say it is soon, but not imminent.

"Finally, I do not find the commentaries you referenced convincing wrt honoring one's parents. The actions decribed seem disrespectful and in violation of the commandment."

That fine if you want to reject the commentaries, however my point still remains and Jesus did chastise some who did not care for their parents.

Hope this article helps.

Answering Judaism.

1 comment:

  1. I will only address 2 points. First regarding Pilate and the Romans. The vast majority of Christian biblical scholars and anyone who reads the NT in an objective fashion admit the authors of these writings place a disproportionate blame on the Jews while exculpating the Romans. Matthew 27:25 is a prime example, while Pilate is made to look like a benign character, who, with resignation hands Jesus off to be executed (Luke 23:4). Compare this with the extra-biblical sources that record Pilate crucifying thousand of Jews.. His rule was so brutal, he was recalled from Judea.

    Second, it is totally illogical for you to take this statement: Truly I tell YOU some who are standing HERE will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom", and attempt to make a case that it is referring to some future generation.