Posts by CalebInFloroda

27

My proposal for Mankind to end all doubts...

by James Mixon in

just watch the movie "contact" and it gave me an idea.. our population on earth today 8-9 billion, a day where all of mankind pray, beseech,.

plead for god to show us a sign that he is still up there.

one day all around the world.

CalebInFloroda

Hi James,

Judaism teaches that all nations have been chosen by G-d to follow the destiny set out for each. Therefore when one reads that the Jews were "chosen" by G-d, it means "chosen" in reference to their specific destiny. It does not make us any more special than others. Even nations that worshipped heathen gods still bring their "piece of the puzzle" that makes society work and beneficial for all. All different nations and ethnic groups actually rely on one another, and peace is actually when each follows through with whatever they are supposed to be doing and when others allow them the freedom to do this.

Christianity might have been responsible for changing the "chosen" interpretation to "special." In their eyes they have replaced the Jews as G-d's people (where as in Judaism all humans are G-d's people), interpreting Hebrew Scripture texts in such as way as to make them, Christians, sound as if they were more enlightened, more essential, and in some way therefore more important to the history of humankind. (As a consequence this idea that this is how Jews also feel about themselves often gets mistakenly transferred to us.) Christians have even given this economy a theological name: "salvation history." Whereas the Jews see themselves as being saved by G-d, Christians turned this around to make them sound as the "chosen people" assigned to save the world through the preaching of the Gospel.

Now if you mean by your question, do Jews still see themselves in a covenant relationship with G-d? The answer would be "yes." However we also understand the Law of Moses as something that is fluid with the changing needs of G-d's people, so how we respond to G-d today through Torah observance differs from the way it was carried out centuries ago.

Lastly you might find it interesting to note that Jews take an approach to G-d more in line with atheism than one like Christianity. Belief in G-d is not as important as how one brings G-d into the world. One line of thought is for Jews to act as if there is no G-d, and therefore to act as G-d for the world. This means not teaching others to worship according to some creed but caring for the world and for people as G-d would "in G-d's absence," so to speak. Instead of debating over the existence or nature of G-d, Jews get up and do something to help the world. In that way they are "chosen" to be G-d for a world without one.

91

Why using Jehovah for God's name is as good as using Yahweh

by oppostate in

in another thread i wrote some notes about why using jehovah in english is as good as using yahweh.

i'm starting a discussion on this topic because it sounds quite ignorant to hear people talk of the monk who started using it in latin without really understanding why the monk did so.. the spanish dominican monk, raymundus martini, in 1270, didn't get hoodwinked by an old jewish superstition about pronouncing the divine name with the vowel points of another word.. 1. first the vowel points of adonay and jehovah cannot be the same for grammatical reasons.

you just can't use the same vowel points because some vowels aren't paired with some consonants in pronouncing hebrew words.

CalebInFloroda

My "sense" of being Jewish? I'm a little lost.

First of all I am not a Fundamentalist, and 2nd I don't judge Jews who are.

Next I have many Ashkenazi friends who are like family and I love my Palestinian neighbors. I know some people have problems with others, but I don't. I believe the world is what we make of it.

And Jews don't get all their doctrine from Scripture like JWs or Protestant Christians do. Tanakh is a product of Jewish religion, not its basis. Abraham and Moses came first before Torah. So in Jewish theology it makes little sense to claim the "it's not forbidden in Scripture" argument, because Jews don't do have that as a part of their theology. Worship of the God of Abraham came first, and Tanakh was not settled until the first century CE, so the point you are making is moot.

And lastly, Jews pray the Psalms to this day. What do you think we do when we go the Western Wall? Have you never been to Temple on Shabbat? What's in your Siddur? Where did you get the idea the Jews only use the Psalms for personal meditation? It's our official hymnal and prayer book, for crying out loud! What Jews are you talking about?

On that I leave you to your views. I just hope people on this forum have enough sense to know what's what. You may be of Jewish stock, ethnically speaking, but just because you were at Woodstock doesn't make you a real hippie.

91

Why using Jehovah for God's name is as good as using Yahweh

by oppostate in

in another thread i wrote some notes about why using jehovah in english is as good as using yahweh.

i'm starting a discussion on this topic because it sounds quite ignorant to hear people talk of the monk who started using it in latin without really understanding why the monk did so.. the spanish dominican monk, raymundus martini, in 1270, didn't get hoodwinked by an old jewish superstition about pronouncing the divine name with the vowel points of another word.. 1. first the vowel points of adonay and jehovah cannot be the same for grammatical reasons.

you just can't use the same vowel points because some vowels aren't paired with some consonants in pronouncing hebrew words.

CalebInFloroda

I'm also a Sephardic Jew and a philologist. Both sides of my family are from Spain, and we are of the tribe of Judah, with possibly some Benjamin stock.

I have to admit that there is some history of the Jews uttering the name very early in their history, but by the beginning of the era of the Second Temple the Name stopped being uttered. This was likely due to exposure to pagan religion practice during the Diaspora.

While I am not in any position to claim what amount of understanding or grasp you have of historical Judaism, as an etymologist and practicing Jew I can attest that no Jew has ever viewed avoiding the use of the name as a "superstition." That term and accusation can historically be traced to anti-Semitic sources that Christianity separated itself from after the Shoah. You are the first Jew who I've seen use such a non-Jewish polemic against their own people.

Be that as it may, Jews are quite aware that making a thing is not the same as using a thing. Again the Holy of Holies was created and stood before the Jewish people every day for generations, but only one person ever saw it from the inside, and that only once a year. Just because it was there every day didn't mean it was meant to be used. On the contrary the fact it was there and rarely used and unseen by most was meant to explain what holiness meant.

The same goes for the Name. Just because it got written to be present always in scrolls doesn't mean it has to be read. Holy things do not get treated that way. As the theology of Israelites grew and the era following Babylonian captivity came about, the Jews were careful to avoid practices that imitated the pagans.

While some are of the opinion that a person might remain ethnically Jewish if they be atheist or Christian, they are not being true to their heritage if they use anti-Semitic polemics to describe the practices of their fellow Jews. Jewish is as Jewish does, not by what it claims .

And I also thought about what it would be like to be a Messianic Jew or the like. But upon learning that Christians killed over 2.5 million of my family members in the Holocaust and chased my family from Spain in 1492 after torturing and killing several thousand relatives then too, I felt being a Jewish Christian would be tantamount to suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

91

Why using Jehovah for God's name is as good as using Yahweh

by oppostate in

in another thread i wrote some notes about why using jehovah in english is as good as using yahweh.

i'm starting a discussion on this topic because it sounds quite ignorant to hear people talk of the monk who started using it in latin without really understanding why the monk did so.. the spanish dominican monk, raymundus martini, in 1270, didn't get hoodwinked by an old jewish superstition about pronouncing the divine name with the vowel points of another word.. 1. first the vowel points of adonay and jehovah cannot be the same for grammatical reasons.

you just can't use the same vowel points because some vowels aren't paired with some consonants in pronouncing hebrew words.

CalebInFloroda

I'm a Jew. I speak and read Hebrew.

Jewish culture finds it fitting that YHWH escapes a definitive pronounciation. Far be it from me to argue with Gentile Christian scholars, but though I spent some of my youth as a JW, I grew up exposed to the language and Hebrew culture.

So for what it is worth: it's not a name. Not really. YHWH is an anti-name, or to be more exact using Hebrew terminology, it's an anti- "handle."

The Hebrew word for "name" is SHEM. The word means "handle," such as found on a suitcase or bucket. In Hebrew culture the bestowing of a name or its use meant you could have some control or a "handle" on the individual. But when Moses asked G-d for his "handle" in Exodus, you will notice that it was not the Tetragrammaton that was used in the reply. G-d merely stated "I am Me," or as Gentile Bibles put it "I Am What I Am."

In plain English this means "I am defined by myself," or even "You can't have a handle on me." God's designation is IS, with the "is" meaning what God is.

Like the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and two Temples, the Name of God would always be presented four-square, using four letters. And like the Holy of Holies (and everything else considered holy in Hebrew culture) it's use would be limited and rare. Writing the name is one thing, like constructing the Holy of Holies, but regular access to it would never exist.

The pronounciation is irrelevant, culturally speaking to Jews and Judaism. Gentiles gave names to their gods and uttered them repeatedly, often in gibberish to make sure they got the pronunciation just right. The heathen believed that if they did not utter the divine name of their pagan gods, the same gods would ignore them--perhaps even if they mispronounced it. If they uttered these divine names, the heathen believed they had a handle on their gods and their pagan gods would in turn have to reply.

In Hebrew culture to use something over and over again makes it common or mundane. To reserve it or separate it from mundane or secular things makes it holy. The Name of the Hebrew G-d was thus separated from the type of use that people of the nations used their deities' names for.

I laugh a little now because the insistence on using and pronouncing the name of a deity is a pagan practice, not one the Jews had. And as we all know the JWs are obsessed with using the Name in the exact fashion as the pagan nations did.

21

Who were the Sadducees and the Pharisees?? Are there similarities between them and JW's??

by confuzzlediam in

last month, i had the privilege of traveling to jamaica with a study abroad group from my community college.

while there, we went to a place called my father's house in which severely disabled children lived when they had no one else to take care of them.

as part of their day, they hold worship in a small, outdoor meeting place.

CalebInFloroda

Megaboy:

“No one can deny that the Jews are a most unique and unusual people. That uniqueness exists because of their Edomite heritage. You cannot be English Jews. We are a race, and only as a race can we perpetuate. Our mentality is of Edomitish character, and differs from that of an Englishman. Enough subterfuges! Let us assert openly that we are International Jews.”—Manifesto of the “World Jewish Federation,” January 1, 1935, through its spokesperson, Gerald Soman.

This oft repeated quote is the type of propaganda that gets repeated in hate sites that blame the Jews for World War II. Some of these groups are those who believe that Jews are the Caucasian race. You need only Google it to see what I am talking about.

And it has nothing to do with describing what type of people the Pharisees and Sadducees were and if they are like the JWs in anyway.

11

Why would Jesus have to ask God in the Lord's Prayer, to not lead us into Temptation, but deliver us from evil..?

by Tater-T in

..... and then willingly be lead into temptation .

he knows that's how a good god operates, so the first thing he does when installed as heavenly ruler... .

he casts the ultimate tempter to the vicinity of the earth... so he can do it as much as possible.... has anyone ever noticed this flaw in the almighty ... he has to be told to do what is good , then doesn't do it ... man what a tool.. i guess he really does love us... lol.

CalebInFloroda

I'm Jewish, don't believe in Jesus, wouldn't recommend making a religion from a book or adopt Christianity. Just offering a little insight in case you meet up with the rare Christian who knows their Greek (I'm a linguist myself).

The phrase from Matthew 6.13 you are referring to is KAI ME EISENENKES HEMAS EIS PEIRASMON. Though in 1611 the phraseology is correct to say it means, "do not lead us into temptation," in modern 21st century English we would say the phrase differently: "Spare us from the test."

The author of Matthew was referring here to apocalyptic Jewish writings popular with some during the Second Temple era that believed that a series of "woes" or "tests/temptations" had to befall all during the Messianic age (which of course never occurred). Believing the Messianic age was upon them in their day as well as in this marginal theology, the Matthean movement actually included this petition in their Eucharistic liturgy: "Spare us from the test." The author gave authority to this petition by placing these words in the mouth of Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount, but it is hard to say if the historical Jesus would have actually subscribed or encouraged such attention to fringe Judaism.

In full the petition reads in modern English as so: "Spare us from the test. Deliver us from the evil one." It can mean just "deliver us from evil," but contextually and from historical references it is understood as a Christian petition for freedom from the devil.

Unlike Judaism in general, Christianity developed a counter deity to YHWH, an archenemy if you will. They took the symbol of argument from Old Testament texts (known as "ha satan") and developed this into a literal fallen angel with powers practically on the level with G-d. To this day there is no such archenemy of the Creator in Judaism, but one can see how this peculiar invention of Christianity became central to its religion as it is here presented not as merely an instruction for prayer but in what became (and to this day remains) official liturgy.

Tater is very correct that the archaic version along with JW theology causes more than a mere paradox. It is equally paradoxical that Christians, even Catholics, use the archaic version based on the King James Version (a Protestant rendition) in English liturgy. This has created further confusion among many as some Christians have come to the incorrect conclusion that Jesus was implying that G-d might lead one astray lest one pray that G-d does not.

27

My proposal for Mankind to end all doubts...

by James Mixon in

just watch the movie "contact" and it gave me an idea.. our population on earth today 8-9 billion, a day where all of mankind pray, beseech,.

plead for god to show us a sign that he is still up there.

one day all around the world.

CalebInFloroda

Thanks too, John. You comments are extremely helpful.

It's been longer than I thought since my time going door-to-door (which I now realize is changing in the JW world). And as a kid I just didn't see or grasp the whole "faith" thing or the concept of belief. So when I dismissed it upon reverting to Judaism as an adult I just lost grasp of the whole thing of how important it was.

But there does appear to be a difference in some atheism. You might say there appears to be an atheistic response to Christianity (that sometimes includes Judaism because of the silly claims Christians make about our own religion and texts) and atheism in those who just reject the idea of deities in general (an ex-boyfriend of mine was of the latter, a scientist who never grew up with any belief in deities whatsoever).

This also seems to cause a difference in the attitude of the atheist. The one who responds to Christianity seems to adopt the evangelistic approach and has a need to "prove" their side as a response to the same activity they are constantly challenged with by Christians who are constantly trying to "save" them. Where this does not exist the non-theist seems to lack this activity in their lives and often sees no value in even arguing it (and most I know are like this, but then again that may be cultural).

I do admire the response to Christianity in many atheists, though. Just the other day one of those "Jews for Jesus" people told me: "You know, we are so worried for you Jews. We don't want you to end up in hell."

Made me think, This lady goes around all day thinking I am heading to hell because I'm a Jew! What a lovely set of Christian and religious values in general, huh?

So I really don't have an issue with atheists. I totally get it. Just asking about the "prove" thing. Thanks again!

27

My proposal for Mankind to end all doubts...

by James Mixon in

just watch the movie "contact" and it gave me an idea.. our population on earth today 8-9 billion, a day where all of mankind pray, beseech,.

plead for god to show us a sign that he is still up there.

one day all around the world.

CalebInFloroda

Thanks Azor. This helps a lot. It was a while since I was a Jehovah's Witness and of course they had the incorrect view of everybody, especially atheists, so this aids me in understanding.

In light of this please correct me if I am wrong (as I just want to see if I got it):

So the atheism you are talking about is within the paradigm of what Christianity views as important, namely what one believes, yes?

I ask this because faith is not an issue in Judaism. Whether Jesus ever existed is not important either. A Jew’s belief in G-d’s existence means little in and of itself. Faith is just a mental acknowledgement of something, and in this Eastern paradigm believing in something has just as much effect and merit as not believing in it. We are defined by our actions, not just by what set of convictions we adhere to. Response to the G-d issue, for or against, is what is meaningful in the world, and a belief in the existence of G-d or the lack of such mental acknowledgement neither adds nor takes away the value of the good anyone can bring to life and society. You are good because you do good, not because you claim to believe in a set of mental lines of creed, religious or not, which you claim brings enlightenment or truth.

But within the Christian paradigm where I lived in when I was a JW, I understand that what one mentally acknowledges holds great weight. A mere “belief” can mean salvation or the lack of it, the difference between being accepted and being shunned.

So it is just within this Christian paradigm in which a non-theist who claims, “I will believe if you can prove it to me,” that this statements are being made. They are not absolute, in other words. Like doubting Thomas, if the deity proves itself then the theist’s claims that he or she will offer up mental acknowledgement of and trust in that deity will occur. It is tantamount to saying if one does not agree with the creed of one group or the definition of one deity over another, the theist will stand their ground unless one comes that changes their mind—kind of like(but not exactly) shopping around for a church or religion (because the important thing in this paradigm is what one mentally acknowledges)?

But it is not the same as me saying that despite Jesus existing or not, I don’t believe he is the Messiah my people have waited for. Where I have no problem telling a returned Jesus this, the atheist on the other hand would accept miracles as proof of a deity (if Jesus showed up on their doorstep amid miraculous events they would "sign up" for theism). I gather then the meaning of their stand is conditional? In other words you wouldn’t tell a god who performed miracles, “I still don’t believe in you, even though you moved those mountains and raised those dead people.” If the mountains moved and the dead rose, you would believe in the one who performed such things.

For me Jesus can move all the mountains he wants in front of me, it doesn’t make him the Messiah and I don’t mind telling him so. This changes not whether he truly exists or he doesn’t. (But some atheists might change their minds in the face of such things, perhaps?) Okay, I get it. I also see the logic of taking the other stand of believing because of seeing great wonders.

Thanks again for your input. I was curious if it was comparable to my view or not. I understand now.

27

My proposal for Mankind to end all doubts...

by James Mixon in

just watch the movie "contact" and it gave me an idea.. our population on earth today 8-9 billion, a day where all of mankind pray, beseech,.

plead for god to show us a sign that he is still up there.

one day all around the world.

CalebInFloroda

And it's that "if" that I am truly wishing to know about, DarioKehl.

I want to make it plain that as a Jew I have no interest in converting anyone to my beliefs, convictions or doctrines. Unlike Christians I don't adopt the concept of "you must mentally acknowledge the same list of concepts I do to gain salvation." Jews don't believe atheists are lost or will go to some type of fiery hell or, if there is some future reward for us in the next world, are denied this because of their disbelief. We don't even actively attempt to bring you over to our side as you aren't lost or wrong if you don't believe as Jews do.

But I am interested in this concept of "if there was proof, I would change."

If one does not believe in G-d, why would so many of the same people challenge others for "proof"? Are they just trying to show how foolish others are? Would they be convinced if such evidence did exist? What advantage does one gain in destroying or attempting to destroy or challenge the convictions of another? Does not the possibility that empirical evidence of a deity changing one's mind belie the claim of some atheists' stand who also say such evidence will convince them?

To illustrate: I believe in the Dalai Lama's existence, but this doesn't mean I'm a follower. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was a miracle-working rabbi, but as a Jew I don't believe he was the Messiah. I don't believe in Santa Claus and as a consequence I don't spend time debating online championing my disbelief in Saint Nick to challenge Santa believers to prove their convictions to me. Santa doesn't exist, so such would be illogical and at least in my mind a waste of time. So I would like to expand in this area and open my mind more to comprehend what is going on here.

In an effort to understand, why would evidence in the G-d of Abraham, such as any of those mentioned in the OP, change an unbeliever's mind? Would not that make any subsequent belief a bit hypocritical if only afterward you believed, because you saw something like the Red Sea splitting apart? Why can't people disbelieve in a deity that has empirical evidence for their existence? It takes no courage to disbelieve in something that isn't real.

27

My proposal for Mankind to end all doubts...

by James Mixon in

just watch the movie "contact" and it gave me an idea.. our population on earth today 8-9 billion, a day where all of mankind pray, beseech,.

plead for god to show us a sign that he is still up there.

one day all around the world.

CalebInFloroda

By the way, my post in not meant to be taken as a challenge to the current convictions of a non-theist. I don't believe that belief in a deity necessarily makes a person good or guarantees being "saved." It's a real question I have had for some time.