by David_Jay 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
dear David_Jay...
you said, " It isn't that one must adhere to old laws for God to come into the world as much as we are responsible for bringing God into the world by the rightly choosing of virtues that serve humanity best."...
how is this different than secular humanism or establishing a God patterned after your own idea of righteousness?
if the intention is God going WITH you on His path, then I would say that this sounds like "racing ahead of God's chariot", so to speak.
Jews don't see it that way.
Remember, our culture is very much a product of monotheism as monotheism is a product of the unique Jewish culture. The rules are not written in Scripture. For Jews the Scriptures came after the rules were set in place. Our worship is not based on Scripture as much as the Scriptures are based on what we believe and how we worship. It is a product of our faith, not its foundation or rule book.
That being said, Jews see the Mosaic Law as beginning with Genesis and ending in Deuteronomy. In this context "laws" are often composed in the form of narratives, moral lessons, stories passed down from generation to generation. The story of Abraham attempting to offer up Issac is a law in the Mosaic Code as much as a verse in, say, Leviticus 18. This is the way we read it and what we are referring to as Torah or the Mosaic Law.
So the "history of the Patriarchs" is often read not as literal history but as a way to teach a law of Moses. On the flip-side, a literal law in the code is often read as if were a narrative.
Abraham's attempt to offer up Isaac according to God's direction is therefore interpreted as a law that says "God taught Jews: You must not offer your children unto me as a sacrifice, for the Lord will not approve of the one who sacrifices their offspring unto me." To others who are not Jews, they read it as a story that makes it sound as if YHWH historically asked Abraham to attempt to offer up Issac. It may not be a historical account because it has been preserved as Torah, as Law.
Laws in Leviticus 18, such as those against "men lying with a man as he does a woman" are not viewed as stating that homosexuality is forbidden. This section of law codes occurs in the midst of narrative. Many Jews see this as instruction: "You must read the Law in the context of where it is written." These law codes are part of a story, the Exodus from Egypt. They have to be read and applied according to the needs and social mores of the time. If you don't do this, you are ignoring why these laws were placed in the middle of a narrative.
Get it? I know it may sound foreign, but Jews don't see the Law written in a haphazard manner. It is as it is because it is law. It is all Torah, not just the individual laws within.
The only way we got Torah is through Moses writing them with human hands upon stone. We do not get Torah as written by God's hands alone. This means God works through humans.
We are made in God's image, so says the Law. Therefore what humanity sees as justice, even if some members of it who do so are not theists, these declare the Law as we need it today. Paul stated that this is why some heathens will gain eternal life over some Jews and Christians who have God's inspired Word. God's voice is often that voice of conscience all of us have, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, and it is by that inner Law we are judged.--Read Romans 2.14-16.
This doesn't mean that we ignore the Law. What it means is that Jews must learn and apply Law "through human hands," with reason, with current understandings. Jews believe that is how we got it in the first place and that it was designed to be used in this very manner, through human hands. It's not ignore the Law for your own whims, as that is what slavery means. It is not ignore one and accept the other. It requires the divine mixed with humanity.
That is Torah.
"This doesn't mean that we ignore the Law. What it means is that Jews must learn and apply Law "through human hands," with reason, with current understandings."...
what do you think that God REALLY meant when He repeatedly said "Return to Me"? or jeremiah 6:16...19?
Doesn't this verse in jeremiah contrast God's path, His words and His law with the thoughts of men? ie: human reason and "current understandings" kinda like judges 21:25?
xo
Did you not get this from your reading of the article about what we Jews believe?
Well he says our job is to hammer out a moral society. As I already mentioned I just don't understand why religion is therefore necessary if that's our job. You talk about Jews believe this, Gentiles believe that. Sounds awful. I am a 'Gentile' but I don't believe in God. Which group do you put me in? Sorry but your partitioning everyone into groups makes me feel ill.
Xanthippe,
The reference to Gentile culture is spoken of, again, in reference to the Pauline epistles that we mentioned in a previous post by myself and several other posters who made reference to Pauline theology. Its use was meant to be limited to that and to the way logic was employed by both.
Since many Jews, including practicing Jews, are atheist, I am very careful to be inclusive in my terminology when atheism is meant to be implied.
Even religious Jews do not require belief in God or doctrine, and some, as in Reform Judaism, are in certain respects opposed to such concepts. Gentile cultures, however, put great emphasis on what one believes or what one refuses to believe, whereas Hebrew culture puts emphasis on what one does or what one fails or refuses to do. The references between "Jew" and "Gentile" were in reference to such differences in approaching the concept of theism or its rejection, that is all.
But outside of the context of the discussion in reference to Pauline theology, this type of compartmentalizing is highly objectionable even in Judaism. Outside of a discussion such as this I do not label people according to gender, sexual orientation, race denomination, ethnicity, economic status, creed or lack thereof, etc.
This thread is about an article on how JWs have come to a far different interpretation of Jewish Law by means of rejecting the culture and theology that shaped it. My comments are in reference to the discussion of theology that ensued, and the terminology employed is thus limited by the thread's OP.
Drawing conclusions outside of any topic and any poster's speech meant to be read in the context thereof is highly unexpected. No offense was meant since nothing was meant outside this context.
Myelaine,
Human thought can indeed lead people astray as well, so you are correct. It isn't a perfect path.
The article mentioned the loveliness of debate, differences, and on going discussions that such subjects inspire and how beneficial it is to keep asking questions and searching. Judaism does not claim to have all the answers. In fact to listen to some rabbis, I must say they seem to offer more questions than solutions.
Yet Judaism is quite adamant that just because something is humanistic in nature does not mean it is not beneficial, even essential, for us.
JWs have come to a far different interpretation of Jewish Law by means of rejecting the culture and theology that shaped it. -DJ
NO they haven't. But they base their teachings on the "NT's'" interpretation of the "OT"
According to the Gospels, Christianity was a Jewish movement that coexisted with other Jewish movements pre 70. IT did not catch on, however, Pharisaic Judaism not being Temple based, according to Talmudic legends, survived- bais hatred or un-based, take your pick.
In the Soncino Press, (I have all the books) the publishers give some academic credit to non-Jewish commentators, referring to them as 'semi-heathen' and "by the same token," (an expression used by TD ) surviving Pharisaic Judaism like the Samaritans or even a Policeman fired from his job but who continues to presume his duty, have no authority, and their interpretations although having some academic merit (the Samaritan Pentateuch for example) is not Temple based, have no spiritual value, and also not from Jehovah. Jws interpretations of Tanakh is not baseless, made up by the wt, they are the teachings of Christianity as opposed to the teachings of surviving Judaism, and besides that, JW proclaim authority.
Fisherman,
The majority of Christianity agrees with the theology I presented above. For instance, last year the Vatican released an official statement, denouncing the type of interpretation you mention and bringing a formal end to the proselytizing of Jews:
Catholics make up the majority of the world's Christians.
And I am a Post-denominational Jew, one who accepts Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. No, I'm not a Messianic Jew. I'm a full-fledged Torah-observant Jew part of a movement of many Jews from either interfaith families or Conversos/Crypto-Jews (like mine) who practice a form of first-century Judeo-Christianity similar to what is described in Acts 21.17-26. My family has done so for centuries, at least since shortly before the Alhambra Decree of 1492.
While there are still many Jews and Christians who don't think we can both, there seem to be even more that are very accepting of us, even formally. A worldwide "Orthodox Rabbinic Statement on Christianity" (2015) has given the official view of many rabbis from around the world, seeing Christianity as a God-inspired expression from Judaism and Jesus as a Jewish sage.
And years prior, non-Christian Jewish theologians and rabbis published the first Jewish Annotated New Testament employing the NRSV as the text as part of mainstream Judaism's move to reclaim the New Testament as a Jewish literary work.
And finally, when I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I was one of the (then) declining number of the "anointed remnant." Unlike today and the claims made by the current Governing Body, some of us anointed from around the world did indeed play a significant part in developing (as well as preserving) the official teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses. So I can say with firsthand experience that I know what JWs have taught and currently teach about the Hebrew Scriptures, and most of it is indeed runs contrary to historical and current Jewish thought and at the expense of Jewish culture. It is quite anti-Semitic even.
Pointing out that Jehovah's Witnesses are no different than anybody else in this respect is a reiteration of the obvious. TD
That is not what I did. Kindly, read below.
Therefore, you conclude that in a survival situation jw should be required to consume blood same as a Jew is required to eat to save his life over keeping kosher? WT does not view it like that.
compare
14 "What if a doctor tells us that we will die if we do not have a blood transfusion? Each person must decide whether to obey God’s law on blood. Christians deeply respect God’s gift of life, and we will look for alternative treatments to keep living; but we will not accept a blood transfusion."
I was pointing out the difference that Judaism requires that a Jew eat non kosher to save his life and the wt teaches that each person must decide whether to obey God's law on blood.
Your quote from the JW website is a good illustration of the mechanical application of law of which I spoke.
Can you explain what do you mean by "mechanical" application of the Law.
Do you believe that Jesus of the Bible broke the Sabbath? Why or why not?
Thank you for your clarification so as not to confuse with "Heysus" the Spanish kid who broke into the house in your story on the Sabbath.
All kidding aside, I see your point: Assuming that receiving a blood transfusion violates God's Law, God must allow laws to be broken same as Jesus used God's Holy Spirit to work on the Sabbath (.."..My father has kept working until now and I keep working.. because Lord of the Sabbath is what the son of man is..." Hence God should allow JW eating blood and receiving "life saving" blood transfusion to survive because JW conscience is (seemingly) ONLY based upon wt interpretation of Scripture.
The reference to Gentile culture is spoken of, again, in reference to the Pauline epistles that we mentioned in a previous post by myself and several other posters who made reference to Pauline theology. Its use was meant to be limited to that and to the way logic was employed by both.
I was talking about the way you used the phrase Jew and Gentile in your post specifically to me.
Drawing conclusions outside of any topic and any poster's speech meant to be read in context thereof is highly unexpected. No offense was meant since nothing was meant outside this context.
No offence taken.
