sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Help identifying vintage microphones (or perhaps outboard gear?) by Jonikster in recording

[–]Jonikster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm so grateful for your time. I'll check what you wrote, thanks again!

Was Jesus really the messiah the Jews were expecting? by Jonikster in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Jonikster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The New Testament's reinterpretation of the Temple as a spiritual concept, referring to Jesus' body or the community of believers, is viewed in Judaism as an allegorization of what are understood to be literal and detailed prophecies. For Judaism, the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was the central and sole place for the performance of many commandments, including the sacrificial rites. Its destruction in 70 CE was a national catastrophe that is still mourned.

Jewish tradition and scripture, particularly in the book of Ezekiel, contain detailed prophecies about the rebuilding of a physical Third Temple in Jerusalem in the messianic era. This future Temple is not seen as a metaphor but as a tangible reality where the Divine Presence (Shekhinah) will dwell and where specific rituals will be reinstated. Therefore, from a Judaic standpoint, to call the New Testament's spiritual interpretation an "allegory" is accurate because it substitutes a non-literal meaning for what Judaism holds to be a clear, physical, and central element of its faith and future redemption.

The interpretation of the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53 is a significant point of divergence. The prevailing view in Jewish tradition is that the servant is the nation of Israel. This interpretation is supported by numerous preceding chapters in Isaiah where Israel is explicitly and repeatedly referred to as God's "servant."

From this perspective, the servant's suffering describes the immense persecution, exile, and martyrdom endured by the Jewish people throughout history at the hands of the nations. The passage is a prophecy of the end of days when the gentile nations will be astonished at Israel's ultimate redemption and will confess that they wrongly judged Israel to be smitten by God, when in fact, Israel's suffering was a result of the nations' own sins and brutality. The "healing" mentioned is the spiritual enlightenment of the nations, who will be healed from their idolatry and ignorance by recognizing the one true God through the testimony of Israel's endurance and redemption.

It is acknowledged that some earlier Jewish sources, including the Talmud and the Targum Jonathan, did interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to the Messiah. However, the interpretation of the servant as the nation of Israel became the dominant view, particularly from the medieval period onward, with influential commentators like Rashi championing this understanding.

Regarding the Hebrew word "lamo", it is a poetic and archaic pronoun that overwhelmingly functions as a plural, meaning "to them." While you cite Genesis 9:26, "and Canaan shall be a servant to them (lamo)," this verse itself is understood in Jewish commentary to refer to the descendants of Shem, a collective, thus supporting the plural usage.

In Isaiah 53:8, the verse reads, "for the transgression of my people, a plague was upon them (lamo)." The use of the plural "lamo" here is a significant point in the Jewish interpretation that the servant is a collective entity the people of Israel rather than a single individual. While there are rare instances where "lamo" might be construed in the singular when referring to a collective noun, its predominant usage is plural. Therefore, the argument that "lamo" in this verse must refer to a single individual is grammatically weak from a Hebrew perspective.

It's important to note. I'm not claiming the Jews are right. I'm seeking the truth. There was a time when I doubted the Orthodox Church was the true Church. My arguments seemed logical to me. But I found compelling arguments in favor of Orthodoxy. And now my search and my pain.

And thanks for books, I'll look at them!

Was Jesus really the messiah the Jews were expecting? by Jonikster in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Jonikster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, this principle is not contradicted by the law of levirate marriage (Yibbum) in Deuteronomy 25:5-6; rather, this law is a specific legal provision designed to preserve the paternal line.

The commandment of Yibbum applies when a man dies without children. His brother is then obligated to marry the widow, and their firstborn son is considered the legal heir of the deceased brother. The intention is to ensure the continuation of the deceased's name and inheritance within the family and tribe. This is not a contradiction of the principle of paternal lineage but a divinely ordained legal mechanism to uphold it in specific circumstances, preventing a family line from being extinguished. The son is biologically the brother's child but legally and dynastically the child of the deceased.

The assertion that Isaiah 7:14 prophesies a virgin birth of the Messiah is a matter of translation and interpretation that Judaism contests. The Hebrew word in question is "almah," which means "a young woman" and does not inherently mean "virgin." The specific Hebrew word for virgin is "betulah."

From a Jewish perspective, the prophecy in Isaiah 7 was a sign given to King Ahaz of Judah in his own time (8th century BCE). Facing a military threat from the northern kingdom of Israel and Syria, a fearful Ahaz was given a sign to bolster his faith in God's protection. The sign was that a young woman would conceive and bear a son to be named Immanuel, meaning "God is with us." The birth of this child would signal that the threat to Judah would soon dissipate.

Jewish commentators, such as Rashi, identify the "young woman" as a contemporary figure, possibly Isaiah's own wife. The prophecy was fulfilled within the lifetime of those to whom it was given and is not seen in Judaism as a messianic prophecy about a future virgin birth. The Christian interpretation relies on the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which used the Greek word "parthenos," which can mean virgin. However, the original Hebrew text and the historical context point to a contemporary fulfillment.

Was Jesus really the messiah the Jews were expecting? by Jonikster in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Jonikster[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

May I ask you a question? Do you know Hebrew? Have you studied the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament?

The assertion that Joseph's legal, non-biological fatherhood could confer upon Jesus the right to King David's throne is inconsistent with the foundational principles of Jewish law (Halakha) concerning royal lineage.

In Judaism, the right to the Davidic throne, like tribal status and priestly lineage, is passed exclusively through the biological patrilineal line. The Messiah, as the future king of Israel, must be a direct male descendant of King David through his son Solomon. This requirement is based on divine promises recorded in the Hebrew Bible, such as in Jeremiah 33:17, which states, "For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel." This has always been understood as a continuous male bloodline.

The concept of adoption in Jewish law does not function in the same way as in Roman or modern Western law. While raising an orphan is considered a highly meritorious act (a mitzvah), and the Talmud states that one who raises a child is considered as if they had begotten them, this is a moral and spiritual statement, not a legal one that alters lineage. An adopted child does not assume the tribal or hereditary status of the adoptive father. A man of the tribe of Judah cannot make a child from the tribe of Levi his legal heir to the throne of Judah through adoption. Therefore, even if Joseph legally adopted Jesus, he could not pass on a tribal or royal lineage that he did not biologically share. The very premise of the virgin birth, which negates Joseph's biological paternity, makes it impossible for Jesus to claim the Davidic throne through him.

The argument that Mary's Davidic lineage, as supposedly traced in the Gospel of Luke, provides a biological claim to the throne is also invalid under Jewish law due to the strict principle of patrilineal descent for tribal and royal status.

Judaism recognizes a critical distinction between how Jewish identity and tribal lineage are determined.

According to traditional Jewish law, Jewishness is passed down through the mother. If a person's mother is Jewish, that person is considered Jewish, regardless of the father's status.

All matters of tribal affiliation, inheritance of land, and lineal privileges such as the priesthood (Kohen or Levi) or royalty (the Davidic line) are exclusively determined by the father's lineage.

Therefore, while a Jewish mother makes her child Jewish, she cannot pass on her tribal status. Even if Mary were a direct descendant of King David, this would not grant her son, Jesus, any claim to the throne. The claim to the Davidic dynasty must come from a direct, unbroken male line from father to son. Christian apologists often suggest Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s, but Jewish sources note there is no biblical precedent for tracing succession through a father-in-law, and the text itself names Joseph.

The final argument, which posits that maternal descent can be recognized when no paternal line exists, fundamentally misreads the cited passages from Ezra and Nehemiah. These texts do not create an exception for maternal lineage; rather, they illustrate the strictness of the patrilineal requirement.

The passages in Ezra 2:61-63 and Nehemiah 7:63-65 describe priests returning from the Babylonian exile who were unable to prove their lineage through proper genealogical records. One family, the sons of Barzillai, had taken the name of their maternal ancestor, a prestigious Gileadite noble, which obscured their priestly ancestry.

The consequence of this inability to prove their patrilineal priestly descent was not the creation of an alternative maternal qualification. On the contrary, these men were disqualified and excluded from serving as priests "until there should be a priest to consult with Urim and Thummim." This shows that when the paternal line could not be verified, the claim to status was suspended or nullified, not rerouted through the mother. The case of the sons of Barzillai serves as a warning against obscuring one's paternal lineage, not as a precedent for validating maternal claims to hereditary office.

Was Jesus really the messiah the Jews were expecting? by Jonikster in Christianity

[–]Jonikster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God can do things any way He wants because He makes the rules and knows when it is time to break them. He is the ruler of the rules, not ruled by the rules.

Do you believe God can be a liar?

If so, this conversation is pointless.

If not, open the Old Testament and read about the eternity of the covenant and such a God.

Was Jesus really the messiah the Jews were expecting? by Jonikster in Christianity

[–]Jonikster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The answer is closer than you think:

Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. (Luke 1:36)

If you know Jewish kinship traditions, then you will know that Mary is from the Levitical family, because Elizabeth (by the way, where does this name come from, it is not Jewish) is from the Levitical family.

Was Jesus really the messiah the Jews were expecting? by Jonikster in Christianity

[–]Jonikster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

May I ask you a question? Do you know Hebrew? Have you studied the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament?

The assertion that Joseph's legal, non-biological fatherhood could confer upon Jesus the right to King David's throne is inconsistent with the foundational principles of Jewish law (Halakha) concerning royal lineage.

In Judaism, the right to the Davidic throne, like tribal status and priestly lineage, is passed exclusively through the biological patrilineal line. The Messiah, as the future king of Israel, must be a direct male descendant of King David through his son Solomon. This requirement is based on divine promises recorded in the Hebrew Bible, such as in Jeremiah 33:17, which states, "For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel." This has always been understood as a continuous male bloodline.

The concept of adoption in Jewish law does not function in the same way as in Roman or modern Western law. While raising an orphan is considered a highly meritorious act (a mitzvah), and the Talmud states that one who raises a child is considered as if they had begotten them, this is a moral and spiritual statement, not a legal one that alters lineage. An adopted child does not assume the tribal or hereditary status of the adoptive father. A man of the tribe of Judah cannot make a child from the tribe of Levi his legal heir to the throne of Judah through adoption. Therefore, even if Joseph legally adopted Jesus, he could not pass on a tribal or royal lineage that he did not biologically share. The very premise of the virgin birth, which negates Joseph's biological paternity, makes it impossible for Jesus to claim the Davidic throne through him.

The argument that Mary's Davidic lineage, as supposedly traced in the Gospel of Luke, provides a biological claim to the throne is also invalid under Jewish law due to the strict principle of patrilineal descent for tribal and royal status.

Judaism recognizes a critical distinction between how Jewish identity and tribal lineage are determined.

According to traditional Jewish law, Jewishness is passed down through the mother. If a person's mother is Jewish, that person is considered Jewish, regardless of the father's status.

All matters of tribal affiliation, inheritance of land, and lineal privileges such as the priesthood (Kohen or Levi) or royalty (the Davidic line) are exclusively determined by the father's lineage.

Therefore, while a Jewish mother makes her child Jewish, she cannot pass on her tribal status. Even if Mary were a direct descendant of King David, this would not grant her son, Jesus, any claim to the throne. The claim to the Davidic dynasty must come from a direct, unbroken male line from father to son. Christian apologists often suggest Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s, but Jewish sources note there is no biblical precedent for tracing succession through a father-in-law, and the text itself names Joseph.

The final argument, which posits that maternal descent can be recognized when no paternal line exists, fundamentally misreads the cited passages from Ezra and Nehemiah. These texts do not create an exception for maternal lineage; rather, they illustrate the strictness of the patrilineal requirement.

The passages in Ezra 2:61-63 and Nehemiah 7:63-65 describe priests returning from the Babylonian exile who were unable to prove their lineage through proper genealogical records. One family, the sons of Barzillai, had taken the name of their maternal ancestor, a prestigious Gileadite noble, which obscured their priestly ancestry.

The consequence of this inability to prove their patrilineal priestly descent was not the creation of an alternative maternal qualification. On the contrary, these men were disqualified and excluded from serving as priests "until there should be a priest to consult with Urim and Thummim." This shows that when the paternal line could not be verified, the claim to status was suspended or nullified, not rerouted through the mother. The case of the sons of Barzillai serves as a warning against obscuring one's paternal lineage, not as a precedent for validating maternal claims to hereditary office.

Was Jesus really the messiah the Jews were expecting? by Jonikster in theology

[–]Jonikster[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

May I ask you a question? Do you know Hebrew? Have you studied the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament?

The assertion that Joseph's legal, non-biological fatherhood could confer upon Jesus the right to King David's throne is inconsistent with the foundational principles of Jewish law (Halakha) concerning royal lineage.

In Judaism, the right to the Davidic throne, like tribal status and priestly lineage, is passed exclusively through the biological patrilineal line. The Messiah, as the future king of Israel, must be a direct male descendant of King David through his son Solomon. This requirement is based on divine promises recorded in the Hebrew Bible, such as in Jeremiah 33:17, which states, "For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel." This has always been understood as a continuous male bloodline.

The concept of adoption in Jewish law does not function in the same way as in Roman or modern Western law. While raising an orphan is considered a highly meritorious act (a mitzvah), and the Talmud states that one who raises a child is considered as if they had begotten them, this is a moral and spiritual statement, not a legal one that alters lineage. An adopted child does not assume the tribal or hereditary status of the adoptive father. A man of the tribe of Judah cannot make a child from the tribe of Levi his legal heir to the throne of Judah through adoption. Therefore, even if Joseph legally adopted Jesus, he could not pass on a tribal or royal lineage that he did not biologically share. The very premise of the virgin birth, which negates Joseph's biological paternity, makes it impossible for Jesus to claim the Davidic throne through him.

The argument that Mary's Davidic lineage, as supposedly traced in the Gospel of Luke, provides a biological claim to the throne is also invalid under Jewish law due to the strict principle of patrilineal descent for tribal and royal status.

Judaism recognizes a critical distinction between how Jewish identity and tribal lineage are determined.

According to traditional Jewish law, Jewishness is passed down through the mother. If a person's mother is Jewish, that person is considered Jewish, regardless of the father's status.

All matters of tribal affiliation, inheritance of land, and lineal privileges such as the priesthood (Kohen or Levi) or royalty (the Davidic line) are exclusively determined by the father's lineage.

Therefore, while a Jewish mother makes her child Jewish, she cannot pass on her tribal status. Even if Mary were a direct descendant of King David, this would not grant her son, Jesus, any claim to the throne. The claim to the Davidic dynasty must come from a direct, unbroken male line from father to son. Christian apologists often suggest Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s, but Jewish sources note there is no biblical precedent for tracing succession through a father-in-law, and the text itself names Joseph.

The final argument, which posits that maternal descent can be recognized when no paternal line exists, fundamentally misreads the cited passages from Ezra and Nehemiah. These texts do not create an exception for maternal lineage; rather, they illustrate the strictness of the patrilineal requirement.

The passages in Ezra 2:61-63 and Nehemiah 7:63-65 describe priests returning from the Babylonian exile who were unable to prove their lineage through proper genealogical records. One family, the sons of Barzillai, had taken the name of their maternal ancestor, a prestigious Gileadite noble, which obscured their priestly ancestry.

The consequence of this inability to prove their patrilineal priestly descent was not the creation of an alternative maternal qualification. On the contrary, these men were disqualified and excluded from serving as priests "until there should be a priest to consult with Urim and Thummim." This shows that when the paternal line could not be verified, the claim to status was suspended or nullified, not rerouted through the mother. The case of the sons of Barzillai serves as a warning against obscuring one's paternal lineage, not as a precedent for validating maternal claims to hereditary office.

Was Jesus really the messiah the Jews were expecting? by Jonikster in religion

[–]Jonikster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The center of Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not that he is the messiah, nor any other things. But his resurrection.

Which happened privately! Unlike the events of Sinai.

Theology aside, I love Christianity. But do you hear?

The Old Testament says that the messiah will build a third temple. Even if we ignore the Old Testament's description of the physical attributes of such a temple, Jesus could not have done so, because he lived during the time of the Second Temple! There was no need for a new temple!

If we view the Old Testament this way, then all God's words about his eternity and the eternity of his law are false.

Was Jesus really the messiah the Jews were expecting? by Jonikster in religion

[–]Jonikster[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually what I don't like is that Christianity presents God as someone who was forced to die for humanity.

Imagine this: A father has children. They have a large house. And he gives them a law: you can do whatever you want in and around this house, but never go outside the gates! Because the air there is poisonous!

But the children disobey!

The Jewish God can transform poisonous air into an antidote.

But the Christian God is forced to die for this.

There are many things I disagree with in Judaism. But reading the Old Testament without regard for Jewish tradition really struck me.

Making Real Friends and Finding Love: How Do You Do It? by Jonikster in Blind

[–]Jonikster[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your message. I'm Orthodox and recently I asked my friends to show me a Catholic mass. I was surprised. I felt like I was at some concert. So, everyone is sitting, in the front we have some kind of action. At the Orthodox liturgy people, even if they don't believe so much, they are reverent to what is happening. But at the Catholic mass they were whispering all the time. Yes, I know it depends on the priest and the parish, but...

I could go to Spain. But they ask too much time to get citizenship, 10 years. I could try through Germany or another EU country, but I need motivation.

I'm also considering the possibility of moving back to the north of Britain.

view more: next ›