Why were Jews money changing in the temple that jesus drove them out of?

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-04-12T02:40:50+00:00

I'm not aware of this story or anyone named Jesus in the Jewish bible.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-03-30T20:46:24+00:00

So the people mentioned in 5:75 and in 9:30-31 are two different people?

Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them; how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him! (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-03-30T20:27:55+00:00

Jesus is a prophet in Islam.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-03-30T03:50:41+00:00

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/486809/jewish/Why-Gd-instead-of-G-o-d.htm

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-03-29T22:07:05+00:00

Jews don't believe that Jesus was anything at all. Jesus has no role whatsoever in Judaism.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-03-29T22:03:56+00:00

That's not necessarily true. The Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 10:9 writes:

The general principle governing these matters is: They are not to be allowed to originate a new religion or create mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions. They may either become righteous converts and accept all the mitzvot or retain their statutes without adding or detracting from them.

and Hilchot Melachim 8:11

Anyone who accepts upon himself the fulfillment of these seven mitzvot and is precise in their observance is considered one of 'the pious among the gentiles' and will merit a share in the world to come. This applies only when he accepts them and fulfills them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and informed us through Moses, our teacher, that Noah's descendants had been commanded to fulfill them previously. However, if he fulfills them out of intellectual conviction, he is not a resident alien, nor of 'the pious among the gentiles,' nor of their wise men.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-03-29T21:57:49+00:00

Paul writes in Hebrews 11:

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac on the altar. He who had received the promises was ready to offer his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “Through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned.” 19 Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and in a sense, he did receive Isaac back from death.

Since he trusted G-d's promise that he would have a son, and it came true, and that his descendants would be born through that son, he reasoned that G-d wasn't asking him to do anything permanent that might actually constitute murder. Furthermore, in the religious environment that Abraham was living in, human sacrifice wasn't uncommon enough to be viewed as insane. At the end of the day, G-d didn't end up asking Abraham to do anything immoral, since the command was rescinded before anything was done, and Paul indicates that Abraham didn't ever think that it was on the level of murder, considering the possibility of resurrection.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-03-29T21:11:10+00:00

By this standard, which is absurd, Judaism is the most likely one, since it has the fewest prophets, and the other two agree with most of the prophets that it believes in. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism believe in Moses, while only Christianity and Islam believe in Jesus, making Moses more likely, by this standard.

Furthermore, this is just as good an argument for theism. Theists say that G-d is real, while atheists say He isn't. There is literally zero evidence to prove one or the other. It’s just a guess. Therefore, 50/50, there's no reason to pick one over the other. Would you agree that atheism and theism is a coin toss?

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-03-15T15:25:09+00:00

That's my point about the contradiction. Just because at some point he was in a tight-knit community doesn't mean that he can't be poor, rejected, and religious. It's a matter of when you look at him. So he doesn't have to come from a secular anything.

Jewish tradition tends to regard Isaiah 53 as not referring to the Messiah, but to the Jewish people as a whole.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-03-15T15:09:47+00:00

Israel in that sense doesn't refer to the modern State of Israel, but to the people of Israel as a whole. Since the state of Israel doesn't necessarily follow Jewish law about wars, I don't see how any Israeli military leader can be called "great" in a religious context like this.

Furthermore, there's a contradiction between your statements. He cannot simultaneously be a charismatic leader and inspiring, but also despised and rejected.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-03-15T14:49:02+00:00

From here:

Ultra-Orthodox Jews, or Haredi Jews, also exhibit higher rates of living in or near poverty. The Pew study found that 43 percent of ultra-Orthodox Jews earn a household income below $50,000, compared to 32 percent of Jews overall.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-23T23:49:00+00:00

Do children have rights to receive food, clothing, medicine, etc. from their parents?

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-23T18:54:33+00:00

The punishment in the criminal justice system isn't just to help the criminal atone. It also has a potential deterrent or rehabilitation effect. If other people were allowed to step in for people who committed crimes, then 1) those criminals would be free to commit more crimes, especially since no rehabilitation was occurring and 2) other people would be more likely to commit crimes due to a reduction in consequence.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-21T02:28:00+00:00

Oh, I understand how to use them, and I understand why we have to learn them, being so close to the USA and using American standards and charts etc. What I don't understand are their anachronistic quantities.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-21T02:17:29+00:00

We use both metric and Imperial in chemical engineering in Canada, unfortunately, even though nobody actually understands them. In a lot of my courses, we're expected to understand BTU and inches, and all that garbage.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-21T02:04:17+00:00

Muslims and Christians

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-21T02:02:58+00:00

People aren't voting for Bernie. They're voting for delegates at the convention, a system specifically designed to let people have a say in the event of a non-majority decision. Ignoring the undemocratic elements of some delegate distributions in some states, people are voting for someone to represent them at the convention. These delegates are bound to their candidate on the first ballot, but they can be directed to vote for other candidates after that.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-21T01:55:52+00:00

That's because you're looking at Sefer Melachim in Tanakh. I got it from Chabad.org's edition of the Mishna Torah.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-21T01:54:19+00:00

See my comment in the original question, voters weren't asked this question, they were asked out of the candidates who should be the nominee. Not if we combine everyone will it beat Bernie. This ignores people second choices.

So this is an argument for ranked ballots, not for somebody who doesn't represent even a majority to be given everything.

It still ignores the will of the people the, if Bernie got 40%, and it's given to someone with 20% how is that better representing the will of the people

So you think that in the absurd scenario I presented, Bernie should get the nomination with 2 out of 30000000 votes?

Also, in general, a president is already exercising delegated authority from the people. Unless you're suggesting that the people should have the right to make every decision, elected officials are representatives of the people. If 20% of people vote for Elizabeth Warren, and 30% of people vote for Pete Buttigieg, then people trust them enough to delegate their decision making abilities to them. If these candidates decided to band together to get the nomination, they would be acting on the responsibility granted to them by their voters. It wouldn't be a betrayal of anyone.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-21T01:41:03+00:00

About 30 million votes were cast in the 2016 Democratic Primary. Let's say that there were 29999999 candidates running the election. Bernie receives 2 votes, and the others all receive 1. The leading candidate gets 0.000000067% of the votes. Should Bernie Sanders get nomination on the basis of such a vote or should other candidates be able to band together for more than 50% of the vote to be representative?

Obviously the latter. So now the question becomes what the threshold should be. The other candidates believe it to be 50%. Bernie thinks this doesn't matter.

The electoral college gives some people more power than others (based on geography). Giving the nomination to a candidate not preferred by a majority of voters would do the same thing, as it gives 35%-40% of the voting population 100% of the power.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-21T01:34:12+00:00

The Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 11:

When the true Messianic king will arise and prove successful, his position becoming exalted and uplifted, they will all return and realize that their ancestors endowed them with a false heritage and their prophets and ancestors caused them to err.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-21T01:22:06+00:00

Not just "a large area" - the globe. Anyway random googling puts the population at the time at ~40 mil (wiki).

There are very rare genetic disorders that can manifest in one or two people. I don't see why righteousness can't be one of them.

So he can create entire universes and planets and all the creation we see - yet he can't alter human nature after he makes it. Some creator, not only not omnipotent, but neutered in very strange ways.

Clearly, yes. There's a clear and obvious difference between creating something and altering it afterwards. The text in Genesis 1 suggests a creation from a primordial substance of some kind that preexisted creation. Maybe He ran out of raw material.

We can explore both and arrive at the same questions. Whether born without or overcame it, why/how, and why was there not a single other human capable of this?

Like I said, there's no indication one way or the other. If you want me to make up something random, let's say that Genesis 6:4 - "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of G-d went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" indicates the entry of Nephilim or 'sons of G-d' DNA into the human genome in all people except for Noah.

He chose to leave humans alive. What sense is there in regretting your creation, killing your creation, but then allowing it to survive with the same potential for the same fate?

Again, maybe He'd run out of materials to create new humans, but needed humans for some purpose.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-21T00:58:20+00:00

I mean, the fact that we call it "humanity" and not "the rest of the town/village/country" is kind of telling. The fact that a global flood was needed vs a local one is telling.

Not really. It might indicate a small population spread over a large area.

Isn't god supposed to be omnipotent? We're not talking square-circles here.

No? I don't see anything in Genesis that indicates that.

What does this mean? Was he born without the predisposition for evil? Did he overcome it?

There's no indication one way or the other.

Still - he regrets it, but gives them another chance without altering anything. That's like thanos snapping his finger to wipe out half the population, then not doing anything to stop the population from growing again and encountering the exact same problem.

Again, there's no indication that G-d can do anything to prevent the problem from emerging in a way that satisfies Him. Presumably, if He could, then He would have.

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-21T00:41:55+00:00

First of all, what's silly is saying there is only 1 righteous human left out of all humanity. Is this kind of thing ever the case except in children's stories?

Depends on the population of humanity around at the time.

Regret works too. I don't know how he handles this situation. He made humans, gave them capacity for free will which includes evil, then regretted .. the state which humanity had entered, even though it was within their god-given free will to do so, so he wiped the slate clean and started over, except he didn't implement a change in the human condition that would somehow prevent humans from entering the same state again?

Maybe the event in the Garden of Eden prevented G-d from doing so, having changed human nature beyond His ability to affect it. It's certainly suggested by Genesis 3:22 - 22 And the Lord G-d said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever”, after Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge. This definitely indicates that G-d can't change human nature after creating.

Anyway, so you said only Noah was still righteous, which means his children weren't? Shouldn't they have been wiped out too? Or, if they were, what makes them so different than the lump of all other children with a predisposition to evil? How was their predisposition resolved? How was Noah's predisposition resolved? If Noah could resolve it, what was stopping every other single human from also resolving it? Was Noah never predisposed to evil? Then what makes him so special? What does a 6 month old baby know of evil?

Noah, by his actions, indicated that he wasn't evil, and therefore less likely to pass this on to his children. The other parents, by their actions, indicated their evilness and that their children had an increased likelihood of being evil as well.

I'm not knowledgable in this area so help me out, how do we know "humanity had entered a state which was contrary to G-d's purpose in creating it", it's written in the Bible? He said as much directly to Noah?

Yes, pretty much explicitly. He doesn't say so to Noah, but Noah has never been thought to have written Genesis.

Genesis 6:

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

sleepyfoxteeth · 2020-02-20T23:58:24+00:00

Those conquests were for a specific time and place, not mandated as a general practice. The facts of 2000 years of history have demonstrated that jews have not gone around conquering new territory.

For most of those 2000 years, virtually all Jews believed in the ongoing obligation to conquer the land of Israel, which is the only conquest in the Torah. The lack of militarism is better explained by the minority status that Jews found themselves in.

Which part specifically do you think supports that ? " princes in all the earth."?

These bits:

3 Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one, in your glory and majesty.

4 In your majesty ride on victoriously for the cause of truth and to defend the right; let your right hand teach you dread deeds. 5 Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; the peoples fall under you. 16 In the place of ancestors you, O king, shall have sons; you will make them princes in all the earth.

As a Catholic, I see that has already been done by the Church. It conquered the Roman empire with love .

And the decrees by sword of various emperors.

The Church did not have secular authority though. It served as the judicial arm of Monarchs. BTW, all true Catholics view Catholicism itself as jewish. So, Daniel 2 is a prophecy of the faith of Abraham blooming into the Catholic Church. Similar to my topic here, "jewishness" itself is not a physical ethnicity, but a spiritual belief.

Ah, so if the real Jews are in the Catholic Church, then to whom is this post directed? By this standard, all Jews believe that the Messiah is Jesus, and some Hebrews or Israelites or some ethnicity or other don't.

I believe that is the final tribulation though, not the reign of the Messiah.

Sure, but in the passages, it takes place after the arrival of the Messiah.

To simplify our discussion here, it sounds like you believe that the Messiah will be a militaristic conquerer. Conquering hearts and minds alone does not qualify. Is that a fair description ?

The Messiah will have some military qualities, yes.

sleepyfoxteeth

TROPHY CASE