The Bible does not condemn self defense

[oftheherd1]

Family and work obligations keep piling up, so I will try to answer a little at a time.

In your URL Why Jews Don t Believe In Jesus why Jews reject Jesus the commentator(s) seem first of all to quote extra Bible writings “The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum - Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides - Yad Teshuva 9:2).” I have no doubt at all that Maimonides was a very learned man. But the impression I get from this and some of the other URLs is that some writings are given the same weight to determine facts about God as the Bible. The same with the Targums. As a Christian, I can read commentaries on the bible, and maybe learn something I have not understood. But no commentary can take the place of, or be allowed to prove anything on its own. Only the Bible can prove something. Please correct me if I am reading something into it that is not true.

First is the comment that the Messiah must fulfill all the biblical requirements or he cannot be the Messiah. I agree. But as the commentator points out, we Christians who believe the Bible, including the New Testament, believe anything that wasn’t accomplished during Jesus’ short stay on earth, will indeed as He said, be accomplished at a later date known only to God. Interestingly, that timing is also prophesied by Zacharias.

We believe Jesus was also a prophet. If what he has prophesied in New Testament comes true, I guess he would be the greatest prophet. I don’t know of any reason Jesus could not be a prophet, that is, there must be a majority of world jewry in the land? Can you provide a reference for that?

That Messiah had to be a descendant of David? We Christians agree with that. The daughters of Zelophehad gained the right to pass on their inheritance, if they married within their tribe. Jesus’ mother, Mary, did so. Doesn’t that negate the necessity of being a direct descendent of Joseph? Why is that not brought up by the commentators? To we Christians, that is explained by the two different inheritances shown in the New Testament. One is the lineage of Mary, the other of Joseph (The commentators in the footnotes, jump back and forth between them). Yes, we Christians believe Jesus was born of Mary, a virgin. But her line goes back to David according to the New Testament, and according to God, as explained by Moses, she can pass on her inheritance. I understand that may be a belief we cannot share, but that is the Christian belief.

The commentators say Jesus did not observe the Sabbath, and quote John 9:14. They do not quote Mark 2:23-28. There, Jesus’ disciples are accused of breaking the Sabbath. Jesus reminds the Pharisees that David obtained shewbread from the temple, ate it, and also gave it to his men to eat. Jesus then makes the comment: “And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.”


The commentator goes on to talk about alma meaning young woman. I don’t know that alma doesn’t mean virgin since I don’t know Hebrew or Aramaic, whichever that word may be. But I know the quoted verse says, in the KJV, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If you say a young woman, what is unusual about that? Young women have been conceiving since long before Isaiah, and ever since, married or not. That doesn’t sound like much of a sign. But a virgin birth? I cannot see that happening without divine involvement. Again, this may be something you disagree with.

Sorry for the long post, and not covering all the URLs, but I will attempt to do so as I have time and can get to any verses I think need to be referenced. As you can see, except for Zelophehad’s daughters, I quote mostly the New Testament, and I understand you may not want to believe that. But as a Christian, I do, and it seems right to use that since I am a Christian, and the jewish commentators referenced it as well. Also, I hope it will give you more understanding of why we believe what we do. I understand full well you may not, and certainly don't have to, believe as I do. But I have been learning much from your URLs about how Jews believe, and why, and I hope you get that from my posts as well.

 

[elder999]

The commentator goes on to talk about alma meaning young woman. I don’t know that alma doesn’t mean virgin since I don’t know Hebrew or Aramaic, whichever that word may be. But I know the quoted verse says, in the KJV, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If you say a young woman, what is unusual about that? Young women have been conceiving since long before Isaiah, and ever since, married or not. That doesn’t sound like much of a sign. But a virgin birth? I cannot see that happening without divine involvement. Again, this may be something you disagree with.

Two things, really-alma means "young woman," or "maid," not "Virgin. "Nubile", pubescent or "of marriageable age."

The Hebrew word for "virgin" is betulah

.We've had the whole KJV discussion before-it's not at all a good translation-its developers didn't even follow any sort of proper translation protocol.....they did the best they could, though, and came up with some damn fine prose in the idiom of the time-they just got a few key things wrong, though-admittedly, things that Christianity had gotten wrong since its inception: almah to "virgin" is a mistranslation that dates back to third century translations of Hebrew to Greek.

Of course, you are entirely free to believe whatever you like, @oftheherd1 , but these are the facts.

"Virgin birth" is called parthenogenesis-it occurs frequently with reptiles and amphibians-there's an entire species of lizard in New Mexico that reproduces this way. It occurs in turkeys and chickens. It occurs with fish. It occurs under the right circumstances in most vertebrates, though, until recently, wasn't known to occur in mammals at all.

It's an extreme rarity, but it apparently does occur in mammals-at least, it's been induced in mammals, which implies that it could occur naturally.

The only thing miraculous about Jesus's "virgin birth" was that he was male-across nature,given that their genetic makeup comes from an entirely female source, the offspring of parthenogenesis are always female.

 

[Tez3]

Thank you for your reply. I think the problem we have in understanding how each of us perceives the 'Bible' is that we have very different approaches to it. You take it at face value and read it as it is written literally without looking for any other meaning other than the sentences in it, we look for other meanings, other interpretations which are considered as valid, as long as they do not go against our main beliefs, as the original. We believe the writing in the Tanakh ( Bible )is divinely inspired but not actually written by G-d, Jews know what it says and that G-d may have said it but we're allowed to argue over what it means. These commentaries are as valid as anything written in the 'Bible' as long as they don't go against Jewish principles so yes Maimonides' commentaries are given equal worth. The thing too, is we that don't have anything to 'prove' G-d or the 'Bible', we don't believe as you do, we know, so we don't look to have things proved to us, we look to improve our understanding, the way we behave, how we act and to keep the Covenant we have with G-d.
For us the 'Bible' is ambivalent with multiple meanings. You have to understand too when you say 'why haven't the commentators' brought such and such up that every Jew can write commentaries, that these things are discussed every day by hundreds of thousands of people ( and have been for hundreds and hundreds of years) I say discussed, often it can turn into full blown arguments. You have to remember too, that your Jesus was taught to do this, it's how he would have been taught and how he understood the 'Bible'
We have four different approaches to reading the Tanakh, that is P'shat..the simple basic story who said and did what with whom, how and what became of it. Remez... hints in the language of the texts such as metaphors that open up opportunities for deeper meanings. D'rash... the missing dialogue and difficulties in the text that your imagination can fill in so expanding the inspiration and meaning. Sod... secret, what hidden meanings are embedded in the text that will help you relate to it today.
One of the problems of reading translations is that you miss the meaning of the words in the original and therefore miss much of the meanings, names especially are very important because they tell you a lot. One I can think of that you would know is 'Barabbas'..., that isn't a name of a person, it means 'son of the father' an ironic term used to denote bastards.

Here is an example with commentary by Rashi. Genesis - Chapter 1 Parshah Bereishit - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

Rashi is Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki Rashi Jewish Virtual Library

There are a great many other commentaries on this portion and the discussion would be about them all, what is meant, what is hidden and what is obvious, the people in the discussion or just reading on their own can also put forwards thoughts and ideas.

 

[Tez3]

The Daughters of Tzelophchad - Jewish History

 

[oftheherd1]

Thank you for your reply. I think the problem we have in understanding how each of us perceives the 'Bible' is that we have very different approaches to it. You take it at face value and read it as it is written literally without looking for any other meaning other than the sentences in it, we look for other meanings, other interpretations which are considered as valid, as long as they do not go against our main beliefs, as the original. We believe the writing in the Tanakh ( Bible )is divinely inspired but not actually written by G-d, Jews know what it says and that G-d may have said it but we're allowed to argue over what it means. These commentaries are as valid as anything written in the 'Bible' as long as they don't go against Jewish principles so yes Maimonides' commentaries are given equal worth. The thing too, is we that don't have anything to 'prove' G-d or the 'Bible', we don't believe as you do, we know, so we don't look to have things proved to us, we look to improve our understanding, the way we behave, how we act and to keep the Covenant we have with G-d.
For us the 'Bible' is ambivalent with multiple meanings. You have to understand too when you say 'why haven't the commentators' brought such and such up that every Jew can write commentaries, that these things are discussed every day by hundreds of thousands of people ( and have been for hundreds and hundreds of years) I say discussed, often it can turn into full blown arguments. You have to remember too, that your Jesus was taught to do this, it's how he would have been taught and how he understood the 'Bible'
We have four different approaches to reading the Tanakh, that is P'shat..the simple basic story who said and did what with whom, how and what became of it. Remez... hints in the language of the texts such as metaphors that open up opportunities for deeper meanings. D'rash... the missing dialogue and difficulties in the text that your imagination can fill in so expanding the inspiration and meaning. Sod... secret, what hidden meanings are embedded in the text that will help you relate to it today.
One of the problems of reading translations is that you miss the meaning of the words in the original and therefore miss much of the meanings, names especially are very important because they tell you a lot. One I can think of that you would know is 'Barabbas'..., that isn't a name of a person, it means 'son of the father' an ironic term used to denote bastards.

Here is an example with commentary by Rashi. Genesis - Chapter 1 Parshah Bereishit - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

Rashi is Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki Rashi Jewish Virtual Library

There are a great many other commentaries on this portion and the discussion would be about them all, what is meant, what is hidden and what is obvious, the people in the discussion or just reading on their own can also put forwards thoughts and ideas.

That answers a lot of questions. Thanks. It certainly is not how I thought. But it is interesting. Again, I am enjoying reading the information at your URLs.

 

[Tez3]

That answers a lot of questions. Thanks. It certainly is not how I thought. But it is interesting. Again, I am enjoying reading the information at your URLs.

We may not agree on what or even who we believe in but at least you can see how Jesus would have been taught! I rather think too this has moved beyond what the OP had in mind but he surely would find what we are exchanging interesting if he's not ignoring it.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Hey PG, still waiting to see what you think the Bible says about self defense and the scriptural quotes about it. Thanks.

As I pointed out, the Bible does not condemn the use of force in self defense. As for advocating self defense, there is the case where Jesus had His disciples carry swords.

 

[Tez3]

As I pointed out, the Bible does not condemn the use of force in self defense. As for advocating self defense, there is the case where Jesus had His disciples carry swords.

For self defence or to attack people? I haven't read the New Testament but can't imagine that the Romans would be happy about young males carrying swords around the place?

 

[PhotonGuy]

For self defence or to attack people? I haven't read the New Testament but can't imagine that the Romans would be happy about young males carrying swords around the place?

In the New Testament, shortly before Jesus's arrest and crucifixion He had His apostles carry swords. They would've been for self defense purposes as when Peter attacked the high priest's servant Jesus rebuked him. Supposedly civilians could buy, own, and carry swords in that culture.

 

[Tez3]

In the New Testament, shortly before Jesus's arrest and crucifixion He had His apostles carry swords. They would've been for self defense purposes as when Peter attacked the high priest's servant Jesus rebuked him. Supposedly civilians could buy, own, and carry swords in that culture.

'That culture'?

 

[elder999]

For self defence or to attack people? I haven't read the New Testament but can't imagine that the Romans would be happy about young males carrying swords around the place?

The "New Testament" is a mashup of various different stories, and they bleed through in funny ways. Fer instance, the entire Zealot movement -basically, Hebrew revolutionaries that wanted to cast off the Roman yoke. There was a sect called, in Latin isicarri, "the ones who hold the knife," or dagger-men. One theory is that Judas's (the "betrayer of Jesus") name comes from his membership in this sect of assassins: Judas Iscariot-though the real meaning of "Iscariot" isn't clear, and there are about a dozen different theories-this one being around the second-most popular....

...in any case, there were lots of Hebrews with swords in the years leading up to and following the fall of Jerusalem.

 

[PhotonGuy]

'That culture'?

Yes

 

[Blindside]

As I pointed out, the Bible does not condemn the use of force in self defense. As for advocating self defense, there is the case where Jesus had His disciples carry swords.

Why do you think in one verse he told each of his disciples who does not have one to get one, but then in another verse says that the group of eleven only needs two?

Why doesn't Jesus carry a sword?

 

[Tez3]

The "New Testament" is a mashup of various different stories, and they bleed through in funny ways. Fer instance, the entire Zealot movement -basically, Hebrew revolutionaries that wanted to cast off the Roman yoke. There was a sect called, in Latin isicarri, "the ones who hold the knife," or dagger-men. One theory is that Judas's (the "betrayer of Jesus") name comes from his membership in this sect of assassins: Judas Iscariot-though the real meaning of "Iscariot" isn't clear, and there are about a dozen different theories-this one being around the second-most popular....

...in any case, there were lots of Hebrews with swords in the years leading up to and following the fall of Jerusalem.

Still can't see the Romans being happy about it though lol! Invading forces tend not to like the conquered having weapons. Talking of Romans we have a new archaeological dig a couple of miles up from our house, there used to be a Roman Garrison here as well as a big battle. Roman stuff has been found before as well as later Viking treasures. Just look how old how local road is lol. Archaeologists discover Britain s longest road to be 10 000 year old UK News Daily Express
Funnily enough I know who the Zealots were, it's part of my history after all.

 

[Tez3]

Yes

You don't like to name my culture then? You don't like to say Jewish culture?

 

[elder999]

You don't like to name my culture then? You don't like to say Jewish culture?

To be completely fair, Irene, while your culture has elements of that culture, and it's part of your culture's history, Hellenized Hebraism of the Roman occupation is not "your" culture at all....it's what your culture evolved from.....just sayin'

 

[oftheherd1]

Two things, really-alma means "young woman," or "maid," not "Virgin. "Nubile", pubescent or "of marriageable age."

The Hebrew word for "virgin" is betulah

.We've had the whole KJV discussion before-it's not at all a good translation-its developers didn't even follow any sort of proper translation protocol.....they did the best they could, though, and came up with some damn fine prose in the idiom of the time-they just got a few key things wrong, though-admittedly, things that Christianity had gotten wrong since its inception: almah to "virgin" is a mistranslation that dates back to third century translations of Hebrew to Greek.

Of course, you are entirely free to believe whatever you like, @oftheherd1 , but these are the facts.

"Virgin birth" is called parthenogenesis-it occurs frequently with reptiles and amphibians-there's an entire species of lizard in New Mexico that reproduces this way. It occurs in turkeys and chickens. It occurs with fish. It occurs under the right circumstances in most vertebrates, though, until recently, wasn't known to occur in mammals at all.

It's an extreme rarity, but it apparently does occur in mammals-at least, it's been induced in mammals, which implies that it could occur naturally.

The only thing miraculous about Jesus's "virgin birth" was that he was male-across nature,given that their genetic makeup comes from an entirely female source, the offspring of parthenogenesis are always female.

As I said, I don't know Hebrew, but I find it interesting to note that 64+ translators of the KJV and various clergy throughout England did not disagree. Also, as I explained above, a young woman or maid becoming pregnant would not be a sign. But that is just my belief. You don't have to believe it, and obviously don't.

As to your facts, I think the only real fact is that you and I have different beliefs. Mine are Christian. I don't know your beliefs since I don't remember you ever stating any religious belief other than an obvious great dislike of Christianity. But that is your choice as is mine to believe in Christianity as is written in the KJV Bible.

We are all entitled to our own belief. I have made mine clear, and Tez3 has also done so on many occasions here on MT. In fact most recently she has been very kind to share things I had never known before. I thank you Tez3. Of course Tez3, I don't agree with many of your beliefs, but that takes nothing from the great respect I have for you. I hope nothing I say will ever be taken as an insult to you. Or anyone else for that matter. I won't apologize for my beliefs, but if I phrase something in a way that you (or anyone else) thinks improper, I hope you will immediately let me know so I can clarify.

 

[elder999]

. I don't know your beliefs since I don't remember you ever stating any religious belief other than an obvious great dislike of Christianity. y.

I was raised a Christian. My dad was an Episcopal priest. His dad was an Episcopal priest. Ialmost went to seminary. I've nothing but love and respect for teachings of the rabbi Yeshua. I have no "dislike" towards any faith: they are all full of beauty and truth, as is the King James Bible-no where have I ever said or implied otherwise.

It is, however, a poor translation, and some of the stuff in it is pure b.s. This is, of course my opinion, no "great dislike of 'Christianity'" involved-as I've said (repeatedly) you can believe what you want. I simply cannot believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God: I'm the victim of a classical education- I studied Latin, Greek and Hebrew in high school......I studied Koine Greek and Aramaic in college-I have, as I've said (repeatedly) a degree in religious studies, and I can see the hand of man writ large throughout the KJV in its various mistakes. Sorry.

 

[Tez3]

To be completely fair, Irene, while your culture has elements of that culture, and it's part of your culture's history, Hellenized Hebraism of the Roman occupation is not "your" culture at all....it's what your culture evolved from.....just sayin'

A Jew is a Jew is a Jew. There were then as now different sects and different thoughts, not all Jews then were in the Greek style. There has never been a unified Jewish school of thought so you can't actually say that I as a Sephardic Jew don't have the same culture.

 

[Tez3]

I hope nothing I say will ever be taken as an insult to you.

Absolutely not! I enjoy your posts. what you believe is between you and G-d, it's not for me to say you shouldn't believe it, I will just tell you why I don't. Now I'm going to blow your mind lol, you asked before why there wasn't commentary on something and I said there will be but there is hundreds of thousands of commentaries, well in Israel they have and are building an online record of commentaries. Dip in if you fancy! Judaic Responsa - Bar-Ilan University Responsa Global Jewish Database
Elder you may have read Latin, Greek and Hebrew etc but have you studied in the Jewish way or the Xtian way? isn't your religious studies degree a Xtian based one or can you sit in a yeshiva and argue with rabbinic students?