Call it a blind spot, but how come nobody pays much attention to Jewish views on those Ten Tribes? I mean, don't you think they of all people might have some interest in the history of these long-separated brethren?
Here's a link to a guy - Mendel Kaplan - who's a Lubavitch Rabbi in NYC, with a 90 minute lecture on the questions that have exercised a good many folk in the COG tradition. Worth a listen? Well, it's got to be fresher than anything Rod, Gerry or Big Dave could come up with.
30 comments:
Sorry, but the Luvavitcher and Hasidim hold the Talmud in a higher esteem than the Torah. Anything that comes from them is based on the traditions of man and does not necessarily have anything to do with God's teachings. If you observe their practices, you will see that they have ventured far away from Biblical teaching on just about everything.
Anonymous said...
Sorry, but the Luvavitcher and Hasidim hold the Talmud in a higher esteem than the Torah. Anything that comes from them is based on the traditions of man and does not necessarily have anything to do with God's teachings. If you observe their practices, you will see that they have ventured far away from Biblical teaching on just about everything.
Funny, that's NOT the way my Jewish friends view them. And since it their religion and writings, I think they would know!
Talk about a blind spot: Looks like Anon 9.10 @ 1:02:00 still subscribes to that bad old Armstrongist fallacy, "the Jews know nothing about their own religion".
If that isn't anti-Semitism, I don't know what is.
exactly.....looking to the Jews for wisdom is not recommended.
they preserve the scriptures, but do not understand them.
There is a huge difference between the Christian approach to beliefs and Jewish response to Jewish teachings. Christianity expects its membership to believe its doctrines, being primarily a faith-based community.
A good Jew is more or less expected to live Jewish, but his beliefs are his own, and he may express and argue them whenever and wherever he pleases. One grows in level of observance, and not all Jews live within neighborhoods that maintain high levels of Judaism.
Judaism is more a legal than a belief system, although there are cherished beliefs within Judaism. They simply are not a test of fellowship.
A man can walk into a Passover Seder, announce that he doesn't believe in God or the Bible, and be immediately urged to help fill out the Sabbath minyan. The fact that he is Jewish is enough to qualify his full participation, from congregational prayer, to explaining Scripture to leading services. That he disagrees with Jewish teaching often only heightens the excitement of heated discussion, should he choose to argue his opinions. Those who don't disagree with Rabbis are suspect.
Rabbis often immensely enjoy those who know why they reject certain teachings or traditions. I once watched a Rabbi finish his eloquent explanation of a Jewish doctrine, only to hear a listener say, "Rabbi, I couldn't disagree with you more!" The Rabbi beamed with pleasure that someone in his audience actually cared enough to disagree.
Hassidic Judaism is more patriarchal than what might be considered more normative Orthodoxy; so the Rebbe, the top man in the heirarchy, is usually more accepted as a final arbiter of teaching or Jewish Law. But Hassidim, whether Lubavitcher or otherwise, are not the mainstream.
In Judaism there is basically something for everyone, not unlike the way things were in the first century CE, when Pharisees accepted and Sadducees rejected belief in angels and resurrection from death. Both groups were fully Jewish members of the Kingdom of Priests that constitutes the family of Israel.
As for the Talmuds, they are primarily commentary on Jewish Law as it appears in the Mishna. They chronicle Rabbinical deliberations that took place over centuries, in an effort to understand the rationale for every point of Jewish law. To dismiss these great works as "traditions of man," cannot derive from careful study of their vast content. The men who contributed to them often knew the Hebrew Torah by heart before they reached 13 years of age. They were men of genius and profound scholarship, deeply devoted to God's teachings.
As American Constitutional Law derives from the Constitution, Jewish Law derives from the Torah. Both foundational documents are deliberately open-ended and require interpretation commensurate with each new generation's society.
The anti-Talmudic literature I've seen never honestly reflected the Talmuds. I'd recommend giving them another chance if first impressions were negative. There's much more there than what might meet the eye on first glance. The Talmuds are some of mankind's most valuable treasures.
SmilinJackSprat said...
There is a huge difference between the Christian approach to beliefs and Jewish response to Jewish teachings. Christianity expects its membership to believe its doctrines, being primarily a faith-based community.
A good Jew is more or less expected to live Jewish, but his beliefs are his own, and he may express and argue them whenever and wherever he pleases.
Its kind of like the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Republicans view politics as a football game and everyone has to have the same game plan.
Democrats fight and argue with each until the election is almost upon them, and then settle on a candidate.
That probably explains why evangelicals identify so readily with Republicans.
"the Jews know nothing about their own religion".
That's the premise of the entire New Testament and why it runs off the road in so many places.
"they preserve the scriptures, but do not understand them."
You obviously have never read a Jewish response to the NT use of their scriptures.
"exactly.....looking to the Jews for wisdom is not recommended."
I repeat......if that isn't anti-Semitism, I don't know what is.
"The anti-Talmudic literature I've seen never honestly reflected the Talmuds."
And if you read the King James Old Testament and a Judaic translation of the Septuagint side-by-side, you'll see King Jimmy's cover album doesn't honestly reflect the original, either. Also, the "prophetic" books like Daniel and ?? I think Zechariah aren't even anywhere in the original lexicon, because apparently they're suspected of not being either authentic or relevant, I forget which.
(Don't tell dead Herbie that. You might want to mention it to Six-Pack, Iron Rod, the Packatollah, and Witless, though.)
"Both groups were fully Jewish members of the Kingdom of Priests that constitutes the family of Israel."
Sorry, but the Pharisees and Saducees were not priests. They were part of the lay members of Israel who taught instead of the priesthood.
>>>If you observe their practices, you will see that they have ventured far away from Biblical teaching on just about everything.
Now that is one heck of a false statement. A careful study of the Jewish roots indicates that the Jews have been more faithful if not, over cautious in observing the commandments of God.
God did not define terms for us, we do it for ourselves. People would ask questions, the Rabbis were expected to answer people's questions. Just like today, we all want to know how this law or that law applies to us. They simply wrote down their conclusions in the Mishna and other commentaries. It often used to amuse me when reading through some of it how one Rabbi thought one opinion yet another Rabbi thought the complete opposite yet both opinions were recorded down for our benefit. We simply had to chose which one we thought was right.
Everything was legally defined for us even which shoe lace should be tied up first, what shoe should be put on first. And the test for an old man was for him to stand on one leg.
Some of it does amuse me but there is some value in some of the things in there.
There is freedom of choice and plenty of debate within Judaism. Those still in the grip of Armstrongism have yet to taste the freedom that we enjoy--debate is healthy and good.
"...they preserve the scriptures, but do not understand them."
That's right. Only a select few white males who were born in the twentieth-century TRULY understands what was supposedly given to the Jews thousands of years ago, which they have been studying all this time, I might add.
Paul Ray
I'm on dial-up, and in no way have time to download and listen to a lecture of that length.
However, judging by the first drive by (and anonymously made)comment, I have to wonder if someone is assuming that the location of the lost ten tribes is described both in the officially inspired Torah, and also in the "man made" Talmud, but that the Torah account takes precedence? Is that what we're saying, anonymous?
To my recollection, nothing specific on this topic appears in the Torah. Some creative guess work was done by the Armstrong camp on some very nebulous passages, which I guess would make sense if a person were on acid, retarded, or just plain ignorant.
I am now curious. Does the Talmud more actually state the location of these ten tribes today? To those of the Jewish persuasion, said location would be a matter of their history, not theology. The so called gospel message preached by HWA was to a large extent based on British Israelism, HWA having made speculative history into ominous theology.
I think it's hilarious that someone would immediately recognize something coming from the Talmud as being extra-biblical, yet cling to all of the extra biblical stuff which was officially sanctioned by HWA as being gospel truth, and even necessary for salvation.
BB
One anonymous quoted me and commented as follows:
"'Both groups were fully Jewish members of the Kingdom of Priests that constitutes the family of Israel.'
"Sorry, but the Pharisees and Saducees were not priests. They were part of the lay members of Israel who taught instead of the priesthood."
You are speaking only of Israel's internal Levitical priesthood, the Cohanim.
Ex. 19:6 refers to all Israel as a kingdom of priests. Peter, writing to the diaspora (the circumcision), paraphrased the verse as, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people."
As you noted, the Cohanim were and are Israel's priesthood (some were Pharisees), but all Israel was and is yet to become a priesthood to the nations. My reference was to the statement in Exodus.
By the way, Saducees were a priestly sect. The word is from the Mishnaic Hebrew ṣədûqî, after ṣādôq, referring to Zadok, an heroic High Priest during David's and Solomon's reigns.
www.answers.com/topic/sadducee
"Jew ain't right boy" wrote:...
"You obviously have never read a Jewish response to the NT use of their scriptures."
I agree with this. Another similar example is that virtually no Christians (COG or any other) I've met have ever seriously read the reasons why the Jews do not accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Try expanding your mind and read some of what they have to say on this or many other relevant topics. BUT BE WARNED: you may face extremely well-reasoned and articulated arguments your Christian "education" has not prepared you for.
The more I live, the more I see that Christianity as a whole is based upon ignorance, not factual evidence. Books like Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" is a joke in the real world of serious apologetics, and often this is the kind of "scholarship" Christianity (especially the more evangelical and fundamentalist brands) leans on.
HOW JESUS BECAME CHRISTIAN?
by Barrie Wilson
How did a Jewish rabbi from Galilee become a Gentile God- human? Who was Paul, really? Since he never met Jesus and rarely quotes him, what connection does Paul have to the movement? Why did early Christianity separate from its parent religion, Judaism? Who was James, Jesus' brother? What was the earliest form of Christianity really like? Would Jesus recognize the religion that bears his name today? Why was Mary the Mother of Jesus elevated and Mary Magdalene demoted within early Christianity? Why did Christianity espouse anti-Semitism? Why are there 4 canonical gospels - didn't Mark (the earliest gospel) get it right? Why did Matthew and Luke have to step in to "correct" him?
Barrie specializes in investigating puzzles such as these about early Christian origins. His latest book, How Jesus Became Christian, explores these questions. In it you will learn about the fascinating Christification process that explains many of the mysteries of early Christianity -- how the image of Jesus was made over as a Christ and how the religion of Jesus was hijacked by a religion about the Christ.
www.barriewilson.com/index.html
Anonymous said...
exactly.....looking to the Jews for wisdom is not recommended.
they preserve the scriptures, but do not understand them.
So you say. But, what does an anonymous poster know anyway?
P.H. said, "I repeat......if that isn't anti-Semitism, I don't know what is."
Get off it! Quit finger pointing! The statement had nothing to do with hatred of Jews nor maligning their faith. It was just an ignorant comment about their supposed "lack of understanding NT context and concepts." Nothing more.
If you're looking for political correctness or carefully scripted writing, you've come to the wrong blog buddy!
"BUT BE WARNED: you may face extremely well-reasoned and articulated arguments your Christian "education" has not prepared you for."
This is the bottom line observation about questioning "the Best Book Ever Written."
Would that the learned Rabbi Jesus, if that's what he was in reality, didn't think to write anything. Josephus wrote about everything he could think of regarding the times he lived in. He did fail to notice Jesus however, as did most contemporary historians. (the testimony of Josephus of Jesus is an inserted fraud and all but Evangelicals know it)
One would think Jesus, God in the Flesh, Rabbi, miracle worker, raiser of the dead would have at least written something about himself (and not after death from heaven as in Revelation..leaves too much to doubt.) instead of leaving it to others. Would we believe today others saying someone claimed to be God? Ummm, probably not.
The Jews have very good reasons to doubt the Jesus as Messiah story. They know Paul was no Pharisee and that the NT does not properly represent even what a Pharisee was or thought. They can see how conveniently Paul stops quoting where he needs to and adds meaning and words to the text that don't exist. They aren't oblivious to Pauls bungling attempts to sound Hebrew and turning OT meanings on their heads.
They understand how a Pharisee would not brag about having Roman citizenship or that no one in Judaism was ever looking for a pagan godman in the Greek, Persian or Egyptian mode to appear.
The Jews didn't reject or miss Jesus as Messiah any more
than we today reject or miss that Ron Weinland and Wife, (who I understand is in the witness protection program now:) are the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11.
They also understand the plethora of prophets and godmen running around Israel at the time and why.
They understand their writings aren't talking about Jesus. Isaiah 53 is not about him, nor is "the virgin birth story" or Psalm 22.
They understand the Jesus of the NT was cobbled together out of their scriptures however. The meaning of the Jesus of the Gospels revealing to others himself "from the scriptures" instead of from his reality is not lost on them.
They may also understand well that their own story may not have happened as literally or dramatically as portrayed in the OT.
Jewish historians, Rabbis and laymen understand full well what has occured. Veils are turned into blindfolds, cut and paste has been the origins of the NT analogies, Abraham the father of the circumcision has been reborn as the Father to the Gentiles, OT polytheism points to Jesus as the eternal side kick of El and many more such things as these.
And yes, it's troubling. I liked Sunday School as a kid. It was conforting. I liked the WCG of the whole Bible for the most part. It was comforting. I don't like the present view as portrayed in the rambling fluff of the Surprising God Blog however, if that is where the miracle in the WCG Jesus has lead them. (Why did he not speak up sooner about the old WCG? Say, around 1934. Would have saved many lots.)
Whoever and whatever God is, he/she/It is an inside job. Any real God is within us where few would ever think to look. It is benevolent and could not care less about motivating us with fear, guilt and shame, coming to him or he'll kill ya.
PS In my humble opinion....
"Another similar example is that virtually no Christians (COG or any other) I've met have ever seriously read the reasons why the Jews do not accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah."
I agree with this, and with both of the earlier sentiments expressed in the same vein. Ex-Armstrongist evangelicals have to ditch that bad old BI, but they get to cling to the anti-Semitism like nobody's business --- and yet they're daft enough to think anyone believes them, when they deny this attitude problem vehemently, when called on it.
For a good, if slightly over-the-top overview of what exactly the gaping chasm between Jewish and Christians believers is, I highly recommend the website Jews for Judaism.
I do not find much that I am in sympathy with, in either religion, but the two thousand-year-old holy war between the both of them is enough to send any sensible person running screaming in the opposite direction, as far and as fast as possible.
"The more I live, the more I see that Christianity as a whole is based upon ignorance, not factual evidence."
I used to think this way. I regret it now, because the more I read, the more firmly I am convinced that it is not ignorance that has been Christianity's downfall. It is literalism that has brought such horror, violence, and prejudice into this world, at the hands of alleged "Christianity", which is actually anything but.
"How did a Jewish rabbi from Galilee become a Gentile God- human?"
The Roman emperor Constantine was looking for a means to unify his falling empire, so he decided (with the help of the Nicene Council) to slap a Christian coat of paint on the Horus/Osiris/Isis mystery schools, and he converted as many as he could. Then he executed everyone else who refused to start believing that the allegories and parables were all literally true.
"Since he never met Jesus and rarely quotes him, what connection does Paul have to the movement?"
One of the more radical (definitely fringe) theories I have heard, suggests that "Paul" might actually have been Simon Magus! Not that I have done any reading or looking into it myself, I just read it mentioned in passing. That really would turn everything on its ear though, wouldn't it?
"Why did early Christianity separate from its parent religion, Judaism?"
"In the place where I will eat all things is the Tree of Knowledge. That one killed Adam, but here the Tree of Knowledge made men alive. The law was the tree. It has power to give the knowledge of good and evil. It neither removed him from evil, nor did it set him in the good, but it created death for those who ate of it. For when he said,"Eat this, do not eat that", it became the beginning of death." - Gospel of Philip.
"Who was James, Jesus' brother?"
It was not a literal brotherhood, but probably more of a symbolic (or even an initiatory, if you believe the religious Gnostics' take on it, which I personally don't) "brotherhood".
"What was the earliest form of Christianity really like?"
Anything you wanted, as long as you agreed with the core doctrines, that the allegories in use were powerful, and meaningful, and could have profoundly transformative effects in the life of the individual --- but they were in no way to be taken as literal fact.
Information about a few variations of Christianity that were available at the time has managed to survive the Romanization of the religion, and the burning of Alexandria: The Albigensians, the Valentinians, the Sethians, and the Cainites, just to name a few.
"Would Jesus recognize the religion that bears his name today?"
Since "Jesus" never existed, it's a moot question. But OK I'll play along for the sake of the thought-experiment: No.
"Why was Mary the Mother of Jesus elevated and Mary Magdalene demoted within early Christianity?"
Literalism, misogyny, prejudice, internal political squabbling, and oh yes the main reason: "Mary mother of Jesus" was closer to the "Isis mother of Horus" teachings than the Magdalene mythology/cosmogony was. The Romans didn't even have to change the statues in their churches.
"Why did Christianity espouse anti-Semitism?"
Because as far as Constantine was concerned, it was his way or no way at all. Bit petulant, no?
"Why are there 4 canonical gospels - didn't Mark (the earliest gospel) get it right?"
Not really. As a matter of fact, not even close.
"Why did Matthew and Luke have to step in to "correct" him?"
They didn't, the Nicene "translators" had to, in order to bring the texts in line with the romanized, institutional form of the (crowd-control) religion.
Thanks for the recommendation of Barrie Wilson, Robert. I have heard the name before, although I have not looked into his writings as of yet. Am I correct in assuming that his theories fall in line with the answers I provided above?
PurpHymn noted:
"It is literalism that has brought such horror, violence, and prejudice into this world, at the hands of alleged "Christianity", which is actually anything but."
And that, in a nutshell, is everything that went wrong with how one should view the Bible.
It's the reason the SUN of God, in all human religions since Egypt, morphed into the Son of God.
The sky story came to earth and was literalised. I think we have a major Christian Church that makes us ask about it's leaders, "what would Jesus wear?" to thank for that.
It's hard for us in this day and age of Evangelicals, fundamentalists and "If God said it, I believe it. That does it for me," types to swallow that bitter pill, and how do to you back up and say "oops, nevermind."
Pious conviction with marginal information or information too hot to handle is what will keep people trapped in place and more than willing to simply assign the label of "scoffers in the last days" to critical thinkers.
It's really no fun realizing all the glorious truth is less than literally true. I wanted it to be true. We all did or we'd not be here growing up before our very eyes.
>>>Thanks for the recommendation of Barrie Wilson, Robert.
No problem. We were taught it was Simon Magus that set up this false religion but he points the finger at Paul bringing us a "cosmic" mystical Christ. According to Mr Wilson, there is the Jesus Movement (Torah observant crowd) and the Christ Movement (Paul's religion--religion about Jesus).
The book of Acts written about 60 years after Paul, to use our modern phrase is historic revisionism so that we accept Paul's message.
These are some of Mr Wilson's ideas. You can buy his book from Amazon. (I have already ordered a copy).
Some interesting theories that would explain a lot, but at the back of my mind, I do wonder if we are just misquoting Paul and that really he did preach the historical Jesus. Funny though how Paul doesn't quote Jesus or can you find one quote somewhere?
Judaism is a very reasonable and respectable religion. It has a significant historical basis.
Orthodox Christianity is not as reasonable and has much less historical basis. But it still does some good.
We have lost the religion of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, it was suppressed and replaced by Judaism. The religion of the Northern Kingdom of Israel was simpler, no hierarchy. It was probably more genuine, in that it had fewer man-made traditions.
God does work, at least some, in all of these religions.
But you don't have to belong to any group or denomination.
Anyone who does good, who help his or her neighbor, who takes care of the poor, and honors God is to a large extent accepted by God.
Men add all kinds of laws and rituals, Jesus said not to do that. In the Gospel of Mary Jesus said
4:37 Go then and preach the gospel of the Kingdom.
4:38 Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.
4:39 When He said this He departed.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
What ten tribes? Are you sure there ever was another ten tribes other than the "Jews"? What makes anyone believe that there was any history of Israel at all beyond 600 BC?
There is no evidence of it, and, there is no evidence that there ever was a first temple of Solomon or nation of Israel even existing before the so-called "Babylonian captivity" outside of the Bible.
No, I take that back, Josephus said there was - but then, Josephus didn't know anything of that history outside the Jewish scripture and Jewish tradition either.
Accepting the Jewish writings as "truth", literally, the ten tribes suffered the same fate as the Assyrians (being assimilated by them), they ceased to be anything other than wandering nomads without a country of their own.
"Get off it! Quit finger pointing! The statement had nothing to do with hatred of Jews nor maligning their faith. It was just an ignorant comment....."
My point, in bold, above. And why, exactly, must I stop "finger pointing"? It is not out of political correctness I seek to point out their racism and prejudice to the literalist evangelicals; it is because their racism and prejudice clearly puts the lie to their deceptively-spouted "Golden Rule Delivered at the Sermon on the Mount".
You know, that one about loving somebody, who was it, your oh, your neighbour? Yeah that was it.
Now, the thing about Jewish and Christian believers, is that they don't want to acknowledge the dirty little secret that their religions are branches of the same tree (and there's a third branch on that same tree for Islam too).
Rest easy, I am not here for "political correctness", nor do I demand it. What I do demand is refraining from hypocrisy. Which is probably entirely too much to ask for, now that I think about it.......
"I liked the WCG of the whole Bible for the most part. It was comforting."
Some cold comfort Dennis. Especially considering that the bible jigsaw was a farce, one perpetuated at our expense.
"Whoever and whatever God is, he/she/It is an inside job. Any real God is within us where few would ever think to look."
That statement leads a little more into dualism than I'm comfortable with, but if you replace "God" in the above with "wholeness", then I'm right there with you. And no external "spark" or "spirit" or even "Spirit With Personality!!" is required. In my never humble opinion. ;-)
"It's really no fun realizing all the glorious truth is less than literally true. I wanted it to be true. We all did or we'd not be here growing up before our very eyes."
Hm. Well I've been pondering the idea of "truth" versus "Truth" lately, if you know what I mean.
I actually have had the opposite response to you, Dennis: In contemplating all of the ancient philosophical texts, I have found that it has become much easier to classify and even yes, utilize, the canonical texts, when they are viewed in an allegorical light as opposed to a fundamentalist one.
When all is said and done however the allegories only mean what we want them to. No matter how much people parrothead on about how "gawd inspired" their (mis)-interpretation of their version of holy writ, it is still a personal interpretation. Which is how it should be.
Unfortunately, "Peter"'s and "Paul"'s personal interpretations got writ large, and were re-interpreted and mis-applied to large numbers of people. Which is where religion turned down the dark road IMO.
"Funny though how Paul doesn't quote Jesus or can you find one quote somewhere?"
Nevermind quote Jesus Robert, "Paul" (depending on which pseudoepigraphical author you are referring to) never even met the guy. He (or one of them anyway) just claims he did.
As for anon quoting the Gospel of Mary, I would recommend a different source than the EGC's text of same (read Pagels instead): The self-appointed Pope in charge of that church pretty much puts paid to all the pretty gnostic things they claim to have "succession" of.
Also, reading between the lines on the religious Gnostic blogosphere, it is painfully apparent that the EGC is a less-than-ecumenical group themselves.
Well, that, and if you read their "Gnostic Library" into any great depth at all, you keep getting hit in the face with the same old same old "And the ONLY way to get saved is to JOIN OUR CHURCH yo!!!" that we here are all more than familiar with.
Reading Pagels' translation of the Gospel of Mary, it looks a little bit like wish-fulfillment on the part of the author IMO. I dunno, I haven't looked into it very extensively, and I am having some difficulty reconciling the more literal-seeming (to me at least) texts of the NHL into a wider personal mythological cosmogony, a problem I am not finding with either the Gospel of Philip or the Gospel of Thomas.
That said, however, if the EGC fills your needs anon, more power to ya. :-) The robes and silly hats dfefinitely don't do much for me though, except give me the creeping horrors.
Unfortunately, I see those external trappings (and trappings they are, IMO, which is where the religious Gnostics definitely missed the boat I think), and my brain still blares "Great False Church Whore of Babylon!!!!!" warning klaxons at me, no matter how much I try to tell my brain to shut up...... :-(
One of the Anons said, "Men add all kinds of laws and rituals, Jesus said not to do that." Are you sure? If he did, it certainly wasn't a blanket rule, because Jesus worshipped in synagogues and went to the Temple during Hannukah, he made little mud pies for healing blindness and was immersed in the Jordan river. None of these traditions is specifically commanded in the Torah, so they had to be inventions or interpretations of men, commandments of the oral Torah or a combination of the above.
Some Rabbis say that when the Torah has been completely internalized, Purim will outlast other Biblical Holydays precisely because it is a creation of men. Interestingly, Jesus seems to have spoken from this point of view. "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law [Torah], till all be fulfilled."
Torah is for grooming humanity.
"Torah is for grooming humanity."
For you it is, Smilin' Jack, and as long as it works for you, that's great! I daresay the evangelicals would disagree fairly violently with your assessment however. :-D
That is why I personally find it more useful to be an observer of all religions --- and a participant in none. :-)
Purple, imho, that goes to show you what evangelicals know. To each his own...
Post a Comment