I don’t normally like to make personal attacks on people. However, as a truth seeker, I feel obligated to publicize those who hide the truth.
A regular commenter here and on RPP by the name of Israel likes to frequently inform us how ‘observant’ and ‘orthodox’ he is despite his belief in ‘Yeshua’ (That’s Jesus, the Christian god). As you can see in this post that I have attached below, he like to smatter his comments with expressions that sound very very stereotypical Jewish like ‘oy vey’, ‘G-d’ and ‘HaShem’. However, when he has to type in hebrew, the truth really comes out. Can you spot the errors? The truth is, if he really can read and understand Hebrew and read the Jewish Bible in its original language, he wouldn’t make this mistake not once, let alone TWICE!
(Methinks there is more ‘Christian’ than ‘Hebrew’ in this ‘Hebrew Christian’)
A deeper look at the Real Messianic Jews 
74 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 2, 2010 at 11:28 am
bography
Hi Yash
It’s your bulldog again.
The text says
יְהוָה אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה יְהוָה שְׁמֹֽו׃
So, he has replaced יְהוָה by Hashem because he thinks it more frum to say Hashem.
Hey Yash, are you sure that y’are not a Chris..oops Xchin in Israel’s clothing?
Don’t tell me; I missed it too! always willing to learn.
September 2, 2010 at 11:26 pm
yash613
My issue is not that he replaced the Tetragrammaton with ‘Hashem’, my issue is with the spelling. But yes – bography, your comment indicates that you cannot spot the flaw either! 🙂
(I apologize for not being clearer, but his flaw still screams very loudly to those who know Hebrew)
September 5, 2010 at 7:12 pm
bography
יְהוָה אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה יְהוָה שְׁמֹֽו׃
Sorry can’t see it. Help me on this one.
September 5, 2010 at 11:21 pm
yash613
bography. I will help you help yourself!
Start here: http://www.hebrew-language.com/
September 6, 2010 at 9:27 pm
bography
Yash
when a person feels hurt by someone else, he/she normally smarts on his/her own and carries a grudge. And never speaks to the person again.
I need to tell you that your remark has pained me. I did study Hebrew at university and can read it. I also lived in Israel and studied Hebrew. Granted, you probably know more than me. But your way of proving that someone is not a Jew is at best strange.
You banished Anonymous from your site because I think you felt he would turn people away from your site. But what you are doing now is not very apt. But Yash, we all make a hash now and again. Indeed I might have hurt you. It’s to do with our flawed nature.
Now, come on, tell this floored Hebrew scholar where the flaw lies.
September 6, 2010 at 11:56 pm
yash613
bography.
I don’t mean to hurt you, sometimes when the truth smacks you in the face, it might hurt – but don’t begrudge the person who exposes the truth to you, take some time to absorb what this exchange has shown: perhaps your foundations in Hebrew/Bible were not as strong as you thought.
I am not trying to prove who is or is not a Jew, I thought you knew me better than that by now.
Please do not falsely accuse me of banishing anonymous! I asked him to be polite (to you, no less). He then asked me to remove his posts – I even left that request on the site (https://messianicjews.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/who-is-lying-ii/#comment-72 ) for the very reason that no one would accuse me of censoring!
Here is a hint to the flaw: sofit
September 7, 2010 at 5:57 am
bography
The five sofit letters are:
So, you mean the Mem should be a sofit. Gee, Yash, your ringed example is so tiny, I didn’t notice the tiny little thorn on top of the “lower case” mem. Also, even a good Hebrew speaker could make a mistake because the two mems are so similar, especially when in a hurry. Don’t you make English spelling mistakes?
Now don’t tell me I missed the flaw again.
September 7, 2010 at 6:09 am
yash613
Bography, the more you comment, the more you demonstrate your lack of understanding of Hebrew.
Is this an arrogance thing, or just a desperate attempt to justify this person who is dishonestly embellishing their apparent knowledge of Hebrew?
In this particular thread, bography, I really think you are better off to cut and run and truthfully tell yourself that you might have been mistaken about this character calling himself ‘Israel’ and his command of the Hebrew language.
September 8, 2010 at 12:22 am
uriyosef
bography,
That’s funny. My eyesight isn’t really very good, yet I spotted the two instances of a מ (that should have been a ם) right away. I guess the fact that I’m a native-Hebrew speaker may have ישג something to do with that. 😉 However, I can guaranty that anyone who went through my Modern Hebrew for Beginners class would have spotted it as well.
Uri
September 8, 2010 at 12:54 am
yash613
I am not a native Hebrew speaker, and I laughed as soon as I saw it (and felt compelled to write this post).
Just goes to show that no matter how well you dress yourself up as an ‘authentic’ Jew, you only need to scratch the surface to see it all fall away.
Thank you for your haskama, Uri.
September 7, 2010 at 7:12 am
bography
I don’t mind being a fool.
September 7, 2010 at 8:45 am
yash613
I’m not sure what would make you a fool.
But a fool who realises they made a mistake and prioritises truth over ego is no fool, but someone who should be honored.
September 8, 2010 at 6:07 am
bography
My tiny ego is frozen.
Acknowledgements to Che Gelida Manina
September 8, 2010 at 6:14 am
bography
By the way Uri, if you came to my modern English class you would notice the difference between “y” and “ee.” Tee hee.
What was that I was saying about my tiny ego? http://grammargraph.wordpress.com/
September 8, 2010 at 3:21 pm
uriyosef
bography,
If that is what you teach in our “modern English” class, then you’re short-changing your students, since both forms, “guarantee” and “guaranty”, are acceptable as verbs. Just check any decent English dictionary. Hey! I’m not even a native-born American and I know that. 😉
Uri
September 8, 2010 at 6:23 am
bography
Yash you said:
“Just goes to show that no matter how well you dress yourself up as an ‘authentic’ Jew, you only need to scratch the surface to see it all fall away.”
What percentage of Jews outside Israel know biblical Hebrew? 10, 20 per cent?
I suppose you know that fews Jews in the diaspora between 300 and 100 BCE knew Hebrew. And that is why 70 very clever chochomim translated it into the lingua franca of the Jews – Greek.
So “authentic” Jew by your definition is a Jew who can spot your flaw?
If that’s the case, I’d rather be a Catholic than a Jew, which I was once – a Catholic I mean, and also a Jew.
Help. I’m so confused.
“You said it.”
September 8, 2010 at 3:47 pm
uriyosef
bography,
****What percentage of Jews outside Israel know biblical Hebrew? 10, 20 per cent?****
This is one of those strange misperceptions held by many Christians. It is true that “Biblical Hebrew” is a “frozen” language the vocabulary of which is contained within the Hebrew Bible, whereas “Modern Hebrew” is a “living” language with a vocabulary that keeps growing. Yet, aside from some stylistic differences (mostly due to the poetic nature of the Hebrew used in the Hebrew Bible), Biblical Hebrew is a subset of Modern Hebrew.
Anyone who grew up speaking Hebrew, as I did, can read and understand the Hebrew Bible without having to learn “Biblical Hebrew”. The only possible exceptions would be those parts of the Hebrew Bible in the Books of Daniel and Ezra that are written in Aramaic.
****I suppose you know that fews Jews in the diaspora between 300 and 100 BCE knew Hebrew.****
This sounds like yet another one of those Christian perceptions that are not backed up by a legitimate source.
****And that is why 70 very clever chochomim translated it into the lingua franca of the Jews – Greek.****
This is a “red herring”, and is false. I guess you either ignored or did not read my response to Steven on Rabbi Eli Cohen’s blog, time-stamped August 29, 2010 at 1:02 am, here – http://proverbs1817.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/have-you-read-isaiah-53/#comments.
****If that’s the case, I’d rather be a Catholic than a Jew, which I was once – a Catholic I mean, and also a Jew.****
It seems like you change faiths regularly… 😛 That could definitely explain the reason you are so confused.
BTW, did you ever read the articles at the links I provided in my response to your statement regarding the historical accuracy of the Greek Testament (on Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal’s blog, time-stamped September 5, 2010 at 5:28 pm, here – http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/works-2/#comments)?
I get the general impression that you are afraid to learn and know the truth.
Uri
September 8, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Israel
of course, it prob would never have occured to you that i intentionally choose not to make the replacement alephbetically correct in order to point out the replacement. next time i’ll just use quotes instead. odd you would write a whole article about this. thanks for the attention.
September 9, 2010 at 8:13 am
bography
Urijosef
Let’s just say that Dr Gamaroff and Dr Language of the “100 Most Often Mispelled Misspelled Words in English” disagry with you, and put the matter to rest.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/misspelled.html
By the way, in applied linguistics there’s a difference between language competence and language performance. The latter applies to slips of the mind or pen, the former to lack of knowledge.
Darn, that sounds as if I’m cocking a snook at you, which I’m not. But then I’m flawed, and may indeed be doing so. It’s so “angering” – a great word I heard emanating from Angelina Jolie.
September 12, 2010 at 12:41 am
uriyosef
bography,
I checked out your link – http://grammargraph.wordpress.com/ – and the person’s credentials are pristine. Yet, you will notice that his PhD in English is from a British institute of higher learning, so that he represents the true English language. American English and British English have many differences, both in spelling and also as it regards to some vocabulary and its applications.
Since I have lived in the US for many years now, and American English is my 4th language, I’ve checked several American references, both in printed media and on the Internet, regarding the word “guaranty”, and here is a sample of what I found:
Printed media:
1. American Heritage Dictionary, p. 580: guaranty – tr. v. to guarantee
2. Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, p. 847 – guaranty – tr. v. to guarantee
[In the above, tr. v. = transitive verb]
Internet:
1. World English Dictionary – guaranty – vb, -ties, -tying, -tied
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/guaranty)
2. Merriam-Webster dictionary – guaranty (transitive verb)
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guaranty)
I think that now we can put this issue to rest… 😉
Uri
September 12, 2010 at 6:02 pm
bography
Uriyosef
I can’t fault your reasoning. Now how am I going to get from under this one?
I’ve got it: There’s English Hebrew and there’s American Hebrew.
I’m also feeling quite coy. No one has ever told me that Dr Gamaroff’s credentials were “pristine.” He must be onedaringjew!
http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/
September 12, 2010 at 6:25 pm
uriyosef
bography,
****No one has ever told me that Dr Gamaroff’s credentials were “pristine.”****
Let me make it perfectly clear that I was referring to the academic credentials, which include a PhD in English&Linguistics from the University of Cape Town, not to your choides of religious beliefs.
Whereas you may be a “daring Jew”, unfortunately, you are no longer Jewish. By your own testimony, you are now a Jew who follows the Christian religions, i.e., you are now Christian, not Jewish.
Uri
September 12, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Joseph
havent you heard the joke, if bill clinton’s not a jew, then he’s at least jew-ish
I like ben gurion’s definition of a Jew: anyone crazy enough to call themselves a Jew.. is!
September 13, 2010 at 12:08 am
uriyosef
So, Joseph, according to David Ben-Gurion’s definition of “Who is a Jew?”, you would then agree that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a Jew, because he said “… not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one …” at an august 19th memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the Jewish journalist who was kidnapped and murdered by militants in Pakistan. 😉
Uri
September 13, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Joseph
Maybe he’s a Jew for Allah!
September 12, 2010 at 7:15 pm
bography
Hmmmm.
September 12, 2010 at 7:48 pm
uriyosef
Typo correction in the above: “choides” should read “choices”.
Why the “Hmmmm.”? Do you need any clarification to what I wrote?
September 12, 2010 at 8:00 pm
bography
Just hmmmming loudly.
Ok, let me see if I understand your reasoning:
I was Jewish. I now believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Ergo, I am, according to your logic, no longer Jewish.
So, this means that belief determines whether you are Jewish or Christian.
We both know that to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus is the Divine Messiah.
My question to you is: “What belief determines whether a person is Jewish?
September 12, 2010 at 8:53 pm
uriyosef
Since you like the English language, let’s return to it.
“(a) Jew” is a noun. According to Halachah (Jewish Law; which has its roots in Torah), one is a Jew if he/she was born of a mother who is a Jew. This remains so for the rest of the person’s life.
“Jewish” is an adjective. One is Jewish if, say, born a Jew to parents who are Jews (and Jewish) and has never adopted a set of religious beliefs that is outside the “pale” with respect to Judaism.
Given the above understanding of the terms “A Jew” and (being) “Jewish”, it is evident that one cannot simultaneously be both Jewish and Christian, or be Jewish and Muslim, or Jewish and Hindu, etc., etc., etc. Of course, this also applies to denominations within Christianity, viz., one who is Christian cannot simultaneously be Catholic and Protestant.
So, as it applies in your case, since you were born a Jew of parents who were Jews, and assuming they did not adopt any religious beliefs that were outside of Judaism (regardless of whether they were observant), you were a Jew who was Jewish until you converted to Catholicism. This means that you are a Jew who is Christian, not Jewish.
I hope this answers your question, “What belief determines whether a person is Jewish?”
Uri
September 12, 2010 at 9:05 pm
bography
I get it. I’m a Christian Jew but not a Jewish Christian.
September 12, 2010 at 9:49 pm
uriyosef
Congratulations!!! You got it!!! There cannot be such thing as a “Jewish Christian”.
September 13, 2010 at 4:32 am
bography
So, I get two of my greatest wishes fulfilled: I become a Christian as well as a different part of speech.
Thanks Uri. Where would I have been – change that “WHAT would I have been”, agh, change that again, “HOW would I be” without you, a Jewish Jew?
September 13, 2010 at 5:15 am
uriyosef
bography,
****So, I get two of my greatest wishes fulfilled: I become a Christian as well as a different part of speech.****
See? Aren’t you happy that you met me? 😉
I’m curious about how much of a Jewish education you had, and to what extent you practiced Judaism, when you decided to convert to Catholicism at the university.
The reason I am inquiring is that, except for certain circumstances, a Jew who enters into apostasy will still be judged as a Jew, albeit, an apostate Jew, in the end. In this case, a Gentile, one who has not proselytized Jews, will be in better standing than an apostate Jew before the final Judge.
If you wish to answer me privately, that’s OK; my public e-mail address in my profile.
Uri
September 13, 2010 at 5:42 am
bography
Uri, I can’t answer now because I have to go. But I will answer you soon – and publicly.
September 13, 2010 at 6:24 am
bography
I was away less than I expected. Before I tell you something about my life-changes, could you tell me what happens at the final judgement to Jews and others. You speak of different types of judgment.Your explanation will, of course, not affect how I relate my story.
September 13, 2010 at 3:49 pm
uriyosef
It actually doesn’t necessarily concern “Jews and others”, it concerns “the righteous an others”. There are many opinions about what happens, and I will not get into all those details here. I will just repeat for you that which the Hebrew Bible teaches:
Daniel 12:2 – And many of those who are sleeping in the dusty earth will wake up – these [i.e. the ones who will wake up – “the righteous ones”] for eternal life, and those [i.e. the others who don’t wake up – “the others”] for disgrace, for universal abhorrence.
Uri
September 13, 2010 at 3:51 pm
uriyosef
Type correction: “the righteous and others”.
[Too bad one cannot edit one’s own posts!]
September 13, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Nakdimon
I spotted that one as soon as I saw it. HaShem without a mem-sofit just looks strange. But if misspelling a word means you aren’t a real messianic Jew, then what happens if you deliberately misapply a word in the Tanach in order to salvage your position? I remember UriYosef doing just that on the MessiahTruth forum.
You still remember dont you Uri?
Nakdimon
September 14, 2010 at 12:41 am
uriyosef
!נקדימון, חזור והחבא תחת הסלע שמתחתיו יצאת
September 14, 2010 at 1:22 am
Nakdimon
אורי,זה לא היה נחמד ולא היתה תשובה על השאלה
You made a claim Uri, that since someone misspelled a Hebrew word, he is a fake jew. So I’m asking a smple question to see how consistent you are. I’m sure you remember how you misapplied Hebrew words in both 2 Samuel 11 and 12 and Psalm 51 to salvage your position on David murdering Uriyah. Here is the question again and please answer honestly: If misspelling a Hebrew word means you are not a real Messianic Jew, then what does misapplying Hebrew words make you?
todah,
Nakdimon
September 14, 2010 at 2:08 am
uriyosef
You need to reread the thread. I never made such a claim. I just posted a comment about spotting the flaw.
September 14, 2010 at 4:45 am
uriyosef
Now, as to your charge that I “misapplied Hebrew words in both 2 Samuel 11 and 12 and Psalm 51 to salvage” my “position on David murdering Uriyah.”
You are obviously not familiar with the Hebrew expression
“דמים תרתי משמע”. Here is a commentary, in Hebrew, on Exodus 22:1-2, which deal with the right of self-defense (unfortunately, the Hebrew doesn’t format properly on this blog):
הזכות להגנה עצמית
שני הפסוקים הראשונים בשמות פרק כ”ב עוסקים בנושא מיוחד: הזכות העומדת לבעל הבית להתגונן בפני גנב שפרץ אל ביתו. החוק מבחין בין שני מקרים:
המקרה הראשון “אם במחתרת יימצא גנב…”, עוסק במקרה שלבעל הבית לא הייתה אפשרות להזעיק עזרה, וחזקה על הגנב שינקוט בכל האמצעים בכדי להשיג את מבוקשו. במקרה כזה רשאי בעל הבית להכות את הגנב. אם כתוצאה מן המכות הגנב ימות – לא יהיה בעל הבית חייב במותו, ותעמוד לו הזכות לטעון להגנה עצמית. ובלשון החוק: “אין לו דמים”.
המקרה השני “אם זרחה השמש עליו…” עוסק במקרה שבעל הבית יכול היה להזעיק עזרה, אבל העדיף לפגוע בגנב ולהכותו. אם כתוצאה מכך ימות הגנב, לא תהיה לבעל הבית הזכות לטעון להגנה עצמית והוא יהיה חייב במות הגנב – משפחת הגנב תוכל לגאול את דמו, או שיואשם בהליך שיפוטי רגיל. “דמים לו”.
דמים תרתי משמע – בעקבות הפסוקים הללו קבעו חז”ל את מטבע הלשון “דמים תרתי משמע” כלומר למילה דמים שתי משמעויות. ניתן להבין אותה הן כריבוי של המילה “דם” והן במובן של “כסף” (כמו למשל “דמי חנוכה”, “דמי כניסה” וכו’). מכאן שעל-פי הפירוש השני, כוונת הפסוק “דמים לו” היא שעל בעל הבית הפוגע לשלם פיצויים למשפחת הגנב, שמת כתוצאה מהמכות שספג. כמובן שעל-פי פירוש זה, במקרה הראשון בעל הבית אינו חייב בתשלום קנס כספי למשפחת הגנב שנהרג
Whether you are able to read and understand this I do not know. In the last paragraph, the expression “דמים תרתי משמע” is explained. It means that the Hebrew word “דם” (dam) has two meanings – blood and money. This leads to the commantary regarding the first verse, that the homeowner who kills a thief that broke into his home does not have to pay restitution to the family of the dead thief.
So, now that I’ve set the record straight, it is time that you abandon your ridiculous accusation that you’ve been hurling at me for several years and move on. I really have no interest in having a dialogue with you.
September 14, 2010 at 7:58 am
Nakdimon
Uri wrote: “You need to reread the thread. I never made such a claim. I just posted a comment about spotting the flaw.”
Ok, let’s not treat each other as if we suffer from the syndrome of down. Your initial post had one purpose only: to discredit Israel’s claim that he was an orthodox and observant Jew because of some misspellings of the Hebrew text. With statements like “RPP by the name of Israel likes to frequently inform us how ‘observant’ and ‘orthodox’ he is despite his belief in ‘Yeshua’ (That’s Jesus, the Christian god).” and “Methinks there is more ‘Christian’ than ‘Hebrew’ in this ‘Hebrew Christian’”, that is pretty obvious.
Uri wrote: “Now, as to your charge that I “misapplied Hebrew words in both 2 Samuel 11 and 12 and Psalm 51 to salvage” my “position on David murdering Uriyah.”
You are obviously not familiar with the Hebrew expression
“דמים תרתי משמע”. Here is a commentary, in Hebrew, on Exodus 22:1-2, which deal with the right of self-defense (unfortunately, the Hebrew doesn’t format properly on this blog):
Whether you are able to read and understand this I do not know. In the last paragraph, the expression “דמים תרתי משמע” is explained. It means that the Hebrew word “דם” (dam) has two meanings – blood and money. This leads to the commantary regarding the first verse, that the homeowner who kills a thief that broke into his home does not have to pay restitution to the family of the dead thief.
So, now that I’ve set the record straight, it is time that you abandon your ridiculous accusation that you’ve been hurling at me for several years and move on. I really have no interest in having a dialogue with you.”
Uri, you have settled nothing, sir. I would think that after all these years you would have learned that I’m not that easy to fool, especially not with a commentary from the sages that has absolutely no bearing on the text of the Tenach. The commentary talks about compensation in the case of accidental killing of a thief. How is that at all relevant in the case of David and Uriyah, where Uriyah was neither a thief nor did nothing wrong and David planned the murdering of Uriyah? When it says in Psalm 51, the Psalm of David where he cries out to God for his awful to be forgiven, “הַצִּילֵנִי מִדָּמִים” David doesn’t say that because he is supposedly scared for his life to be taken, as you claim. It obviously means, that God should take away his bloodguilt, which you deny, since you say that David did absolutely nothing wrong when it came to Uriyah. So all this put together we can conclude that the word “damim” doesn’t mean “the shedding of my blood”. Nor have I seen any text where the word “dam” has the meaning “money”. Can you point me to a verse in the Tenach where it could have that meaning? Any verse will do. Thanks. Because as you know I don’t just take their word (that of the Sages) for it.
And the word דָּמִים was not the only problem you have. You also tried to say that David didn’t murder Uriyah because the word that is being used is “הָרַגְתָּ” instead of “ratzachta”, claiming that “harag” is not murder, only “ratzach” is. But if that is the case, then are you saying that Cain didn’t murder Abel? You know, since the word being used there is “וַיַּהַרְגֵֽהוּ” and not “wayaratz’chehu”?
As anyone can see your explanation is ad hoc and completely unconvincing, because you have nothing from the Tenach to substantiate your case or that slightly helps you with your explanation.
So my accusation is anything but “ridiculous”. So can you now answer the question. I’ll slightly rephrase it: Since you tried to argue that Israel was not as orthodox as he claimed to be and probably was more of a gentile than a Jew and people shouldn’t take his claims too seriously, what does it make you, who obviously misapplied MULTIPLE Hebrew words MULTIPLE times, either deliberately or inadvertently?
Thanks for answering in advance.
Nakdimon
September 14, 2010 at 4:13 pm
uriyosef
Nakdimon,
You are picking on something as a diversion, and I will not play your game. You are also acting in a hypocritical manner.
There is the following story in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Shabbat, Folio 31a):
“A certain Gentile once came to Shammai and asked him,”How many Torot have you?” “Two,” he replied: “the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.” “I believe you with respect to the Written Torah, but not with respect to the Oral Torah; convert me to Judaism on condition that you teach me the Written Torah only.” Shammai scolded and dismissed him angrily. This Gentile then went to Hillel, who accepted him as a proselyte. On the first day, he taught him, “alef, bet, gimmel, dalet; and on the following day he reversed the order of the letters. “But yesterday you did not teach the letters to me this way,” he protested. Hillel replied: “Must you then not rely upon me? Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral Torah too.”
Just like the Gentile in that story, you are picking and choosing what you are willing to accept from the Jews, such as learning the alef-bet – you trust them for that, but you don’t trust them on other things. This is hypocritical behaviour.
I prefer not to dialogue with you.
Uri
September 14, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Nakdimon
Uri, although you have said you prefer not to dialogue with me, I will respond nonetheless to your last post to me. I don’t see why you guys think that this story from Tractate Shabbat 31a is at all compelling. Rather than this showing the wisdom of Hillel, it shows the gullibility of rabbinic Jews. If this story tells us anything it is that whatever you do, do not question whatever the rabbis tell you. Which is foolishness! Think about it:
Do not question your math teacher when he told you yesterday that 3+3=6 yet tells you today that 3+3=4. What would you do if the math teacher would tell you “Must you then not rely upon me, since I’m your teacher, I know best.“ It would be foolishness not to object!
Do not question your tour guide to go right when you are at an intersection and the arrow to the left says “next gas station 5 miles” and the arrow to the right says “next gas station 200 miles” while you only have 20 miles of fuel in your tank. What would you do if the tour guide would tell you “Must you then not rely upon me, since I’m your tour guide, I know best.“ It would be foolishness not to object!
Do not question your financial advisor when he tells you one day that you need to fill in your annual tax papers yet the next day tells you don’t have to pay your taxes for that year at all, while you just received a phone call from the tax collector saying that your taxes are due. What would you do if your financial advisor would tell you “Must you then not rely upon me, since I’m your financial advisor, I know best.“ It would be foolish not to object!
Unlike the gentile in the story I am not that gullible and I will question the rabbi that claims to have an unbroken chain of traditions back to Moses when he clearly doesn’t. I will question a rabbi that claims to correctly apply the Hebrew words in the Tenach yet cannot show me a single example from the Tenach to substantiate his claim. I will question a rabbi that tells me one thing now, but tells me a completely different thing the next day. That is not hypocrisy, that is called common sense!
What is hypocritical is your hyper-skepticism towards anything that has to do with Yeshua or that supports Christianity. Such as your claim that Yeshua never even existed or that his early followers were Jews. There is more historical evidence for the existence of Yeshua than there is for any biblical figure! If you would apply your hyper-skepticism to your own position, you would have to reject the existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon and all the Tanaic rabbis, since there is much, much, much less historical data for their existence than there is for the existence of Yeshua. But we all know that that you will not be consistent at all but use double standards left and right where ever it suits you. As a wise elder of a church often says to his opponents in his debates after he notes their inconsistencies: The application of double standards is the sign of a failed argument!
Ain’t that a fact.
Nakdimon
September 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm
bography
so Uri you would equate (the basic idea of) Olam Habah with “eternal life for the righteous” (your description). Correct?
September 13, 2010 at 4:26 pm
uriyosef
bography,
The Hebrew Bible has very little to say about the after-life, i.e., what happens after death. Three passages that hint at it come to mind. One is Daniel 12:2 (which I already mentioned), another is Qohelet [Ecclesiastes] 12:7, and the third one is the incident recorded in 1Samuel 28, which describes how King Saul went to consult a “medium” who lived at a place called Ein-Dor, which proves that a person’s n’shamah (“soul”) lives on after the body dies, but suggests very strongly that it does not “go to heaven” because both Saul and the “medium” refer to bringing the dead person “up” rather than “down”, and “Heaven” is invariably referred to in the Hebrew Bible as being “above” (see, e.g., Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 4:39, 5:8, Joshua 2:11, 1Kings 8:23, Isaiah 45:8, and Jeremiah 4:28).
I did not equate anything here, I just quoted you what the Hebrew Bible teaches. If you are interested in the opinions of our Jewish Sages, there are two main opinions among them regarding “Olam haBa”. Few (e.g., RaMBaM [Maimonides]) hold that it is the “World of Souls”, which is frequently also called “Gan Eden”. Most others (e.g., RaMBaN [Nachmanides]) hold that it refers to the “Resurrection of the Dead” in the messianic era.
Uri
September 13, 2010 at 5:19 pm
bography
So, the Jewry is out on this one.
Here is clear example of life beyond physical death in 2 Samuel 12:23, which supports Rambam’s view; which was also the view of all Israel’s neighbours.
David’s son (from Bathsheba) dies.
19But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; so David said to his servants, “Is the child dead?” And they said, “He is dead.”
20So David arose from the ground, washed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he came into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he came to his own house, and when he requested, they set food before him and he ate.
21Then his servants said to him, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.”
22He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’
23″But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”
David expected to join his son after he himself had died. Do we need a sage to tell us otherwise?
September 13, 2010 at 9:23 pm
uriyosef
bography,
I think you’ve missed something, as is evident from your example and, perhaps I should have provided more information.
As I wrote earlier, the minority opinion (e.g., the RaMBaM’s) holds that Olam haBa is the World of Souls, often referred to as Gan Eden. According to this opinion, it is from this pool of souls in the spiritual realm that every soul departs when it is about to descend into a body, and it is to this same state that the soul returns when it leaves the body at the conclusion of its mission. Ultimately, when the time comes for the Resurrection, the RaMBaM views this as a transient stage, from which it follows that, after the Resurrection of the Dead, the body will again die, and the soul will return to Olam haBa, i.e., to the World of Souls.
OK, so it is clear that both World of Souls and the Resurrection of the Dead are fundamental concepts in the thinking of the Jewish Sages. Yet, there is a difference between the two schools of thought. The RaMBaM (and few others) holds that after the Resurrection of the Dead, people will still die and inherit their ultimate reward in the World of Souls, whereas the RaMBaN (and most others) maintains that, after death, all souls “reside” in the World of Souls until the Resurrection of the Dead, at which time they are finally enclothed in a body and are granted their ultimate reward in that state.
This difference of opinions was later settled in a ruling by the great Sage. the AriZal [1534-1572], who ruled according to the opinion of the RaMBaN and the majority, and this is now the final halachah.
Uri
PS – Since I supplied dates for the AriZal, here are the dates for the other two Sages I mentioned: RaMBaM [1135-1204]; RaMBaN [1194-1268].
September 14, 2010 at 1:29 am
Nakdimon
Hi bography, I think Isaiah 66 is also a hint at the hereafter. If you havent read it yet, please do and tell me what u think.
Thanks,
Nakdimon
September 14, 2010 at 5:17 am
bography
Nakdimon, I see something significant in Is 66:22-24.
Verse 22-24 speak of a life beyond that will endure forever. The enduring (never-ending? what else?) judgment described here, is reiterated in the NT.
22 “As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the LORD, “so will your name and descendants endure. 23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says the LORD. 24 “And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome (an “ABHORRENCE” – a term used by Uriyosef) to all mankind.”
Mark 9:43…
Jesus is speaking:
“And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it…”
Rev 14:11:
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”
Nakdimon, you probably know the Jehovah’s witnesses’ argument that the though the fire continues to burn (is eternal), the souls in it are annihilated. I say to the JW, thanks for the “warning.”
September 14, 2010 at 8:12 am
Nakdimon
Glad to see it was of some help bro.
Nakdimon
September 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
uriyosef
bography,
****I see something significant in Is 66:22-24.
Verse 22-24 speak of a life beyond that will endure forever. The enduring (never-ending? what else?) judgment described here, is reiterated in the NT.****
You see what you want to see. The actual context is quite different than the one you “see”. God’s universal sovereignty will be recognized by all, and they will regularly, month-by-month and week-by-week, come to worship in His holy Temple in Jerusalem (that’s the Third Temple of which Ezekiel gives all the details in the last nine chapters of his book). The dead bodies are those of the apostates, and they will be continuously be consumed by the worms in spite of the burning fire, for everyone to see. All the people who will come to worship in Jerusalem will be passing this site, which will be in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom (located on the south side immediately outside of Jerusalem), where the remains of the sacrificial animals were, and will be, disposed of by being burnt. This will be the everlasting abhorrence of which Daniel speaks, and both Daniel and Isaiah make use of the same word here (דֵרָאוֹן) for “abhorrence”.
Uri
September 14, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Nakdimon
Sounds like hell to me. So how does it differ from what bography has said?
September 14, 2010 at 5:31 am
bography
Uriyosef
You said:
This difference of opinions was later settled in a ruling by the great Sage. the AriZal [1534-1572], who ruled according to the opinion of the RaMBaN and the majority, and this is now the final halachah.
So, Isaac Luria’s (the Arizal) opinion carried great weight, indeed the casting vote. The (Lurianic) Kabbalah has the final say.
As you know Rebbe Schneerson comes from the mainstream line of Lurianic Kabbalah (which, today, is the predominant form of Kabbalah). We can trace it all the way back through Kook, Zalman, Luzzatto, Baal Shem Tov, Moses de Leon and on to Luria.
Hindus would describe Kabbalah, if not as a Hindu heresy, as a Jewish offshoot of Hinduism.
The chassidim are in the thick of Kabbalah, and it seems Uriyosef, so are you. Rebbe Schneerson is regarded by his followers as the Christ. “Christ” is merely Greek for “Messiah”.
Uri, in the light of what you said, it seems to me that you believe that Lurianic Kabbalah (in its basic doctrines, e.g. sephirot) was revealed to Moses at Sinai.
September 14, 2010 at 7:32 am
bography
If my MEMawry serves me well, I think it was Yash who said I couldn’t be Jewish because I didn’t see the sophit. Soph of story.
September 14, 2010 at 12:35 pm
bography
There so much Jewish talk that it’s making me peckish.
September 14, 2010 at 3:23 pm
bography
Uri
I assume you include under “apostates” Jesus and all his followers, as well and all those chassidim who claim that Rabbi Schneerson is the Messiah. And also Mordecai Kaplan and his Reconstructionist followers who believe that man created God. And Theodor Herzl, and Victor Frankl. Agh most Jewish Jews.
September 14, 2010 at 4:25 pm
uriyosef
bography,
That is really a silly question.
You weren’t paying attention to my description, earlier in our dialogue, of what the adjective “(being) Jewish” means. All the rest of those you list (not counting Jesus and his followers) were and are still Jews who are Jewish, hence, they’re not apostates.
In order to exclude Jesus and his (early) followers, you must first to provide tangible and verifiable evidence that he actually existed, and that his (early) followers were Jews who were also Jewish.
As it concerns the small minority of Chabadnicks (and their ranks are diminishing daily) who believe that the Rebbe is the Messiah, unlike Christians, they don’t worship him as a deity, nor do they consider him as a manifestation of a deity.
Uri
September 14, 2010 at 6:13 pm
bography
Uri
So for you a Jewish atheist/Buddhist/Muslim/Hindu Jew who all believe the Torah is bunk are not apostate. But the Christian Jew is an apostate? I’m confused, and you might very well say, “very confused.”
You say:
“In order to exclude Jesus and his (early) followers, you must first to provide tangible and verifiable evidence that he actually existed, and that his (early) followers were Jews who were also Jewish.”
Uri, I can’t make head or tail of what you mean by “provide tangible and verifiable evidence that he actually existed, and that his (early) followers were Jews who were also Jewish.”
Assume there Jews like Paul (you seem to be questioning his existence) who were Jews. They then became followers of Jesus. You would say they became Christian Jews. What do you mean by Jewish Jews before they believed in Jesus. Say these Jews, before they believed in Jesus were Zoroastrians or atheists or Mithraists, according to you, they are still Jewish Jews. Give me an example of a non-Jewish Jew before Jesus.
As for questioning the most basic history of Christianity (as you, Yash, Eli, and probably most Halachic Jews do), you are a far stranger brood than the Muslims who at least accept the basic history.
It’s hard to argue with your kind when you have such a perculiar view of history – and “apostacy.”
Uri, Jesus did exist. You have no excuse for denying this.
September 14, 2010 at 9:46 pm
uriyosef
bography,
Some of what you wrote shows that you are, indeed, confused. Let’s go with the following definition of “Apostasy from Judaism”:
Apostasy from Judaism is when a Jew rejects Judaism AND defects to another religion.
Combining this with what the adjective “jewish” means, there is no such thing as a “Jewish Buddhist/Muslim/Hindu” and, I might add, to the list “Jewish Christian”.
A Jew who is an atheist is not technically an apostate according to the above definition, which means that he or she is still Jewish.
****Uri, I can’t make head or tail of what you mean by “provide tangible and verifiable evidence that he actually existed, and that his (early) followers were Jews who were also Jewish.”****
All I am saying is that I cannot address the status of Jesus and his (early) followers since the only information about them is found in the four Gospels, which were originally composed in the first century CE long after the time that Jesus supposedly lived, and later redacted by unknown redactors an unknown amount of times (this is evident from the many ancient variants that have been found). Moreover, the information contained in the Gospels is unreliable to begin with (as I have demonstrated in some of my articles).
Philo of Alexandria, a Jew and prolific author, whose life span overlapped the period of time during which Jesus allegedly lived, never mentions him. There is also a list of more than 40 writers who lived during the time or during a century after the time that Jesus allegedly lived who never mention him (it is in a book called “The Christ” by John Remsburg).
Paul is a different story altogether. For the details, you need to read the book “The Mythmaker” by Hyam Maccoby. Paul was a miisionary who was looking for converts to his new religion.
****Give me an example of a non-Jewish Jew before Jesus.****
There are numerous references in the Hebrew Bible to Jews/Israelites who worshipped pagan idols – they were all apostate Jews. In the Babylonian Talmud there are 29 references to an apostate Jew named Elisha ben Avuya, to whom the Rabbis actually refer to as “אחר” (aher), meaning Another.
****Uri, Jesus did exist. You have no excuse for denying this.****
And your proof is? Perhaps a little bit of circular reasoning, such as, “Jesus did exist because my bible says he did”. 😉 I have a good excuse for denying this – the Gospels in particular, and the Greek Testament in general, cannot be relied on for factual historical accounts. For the evidence, I refer you to some of my articles that deal with this issue – http://thejewishhome.org/counter/BethlehemOfGalilee.pdf, http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Genealogies.pdf, http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Mt2FalseTrue.pdf, and http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Luke4.pdf. Enjoy!
Uri
September 15, 2010 at 4:17 am
bography
Uri
Two questions:
Can a Jew (mother Jewish) who says he is an atheist be accepted as a Jew by the rabbinate in Israel?
Do you think Julius Caesar or Pontius Pilate may have existed?
September 15, 2010 at 6:43 pm
uriyosef
bography,
In response to your first question, let me put it this way. According to Jewish Law, when a Jew is non-believer, period, that Jew is still Jewish – he maintains all the rights and privileges as a “Jewish” Jew. When a Jew rejects Judaism AND defects to another religion, i.e., an apostate, he maintains only two rights: the right to inherit his parents’ property [and if firstborn, retains the rights of the firstborn], and the right to do T’shuvah (to repent and return to Judaism). The lost rights & priviledes include such things as burial in a Jewish cemetery and, in the case of a male, receiving honors in Jewish worship services. However, a Jewish child may say Kaddish for a deceased apostate parent.
As to your second question… Don’t you think that you should first answer my question about your proof about the existence of Jesus?
Uri
September 16, 2010 at 1:04 am
uriyosef
Correcting some typos above:
Line 3: Jew is a non-believer…
Line 9: rights & privileges include…
September 15, 2010 at 4:38 am
bography
I see you answered the first question. A Jew can say the Torah is bunk and remain a Jewish Jew. But if he says that the Torah is bunk and the Koran is true, he becomes and apostate – a Muslim Jew.
The reason why I have difficulty understanding you is because apostasy
comes from L. apostasia, from later Gk. apostasia, from apostasis “revolt, defection,” lit. “a standing off.”
You are not using “apostasy” as defined in the English dictionary. You say it is not only turning away from a religion (Judaism only?) but after turning away it also turning towards another religion.
Or is there a difference between my English and yours across the Atlantic? Or is it Jewish English?
September 15, 2010 at 7:07 pm
uriyosef
bography,
Let me explain to you what the term “apostate” means with regard to Judaism.
The Tosefta, which is a supplement to the Mishnah that was written in “Palestine”, uses the term מְשֻׁמָּד (m’shumad; e.g., in Tractate Hulin 1:1), and the Babylonian Talmud uses the term מוּמָד (mumar; e.g., Tractate Hulin, Folio 4b), for Israelites who abandoned Judaism and adopted another religion. The accepted English translation of both these terms is “apostate”.
Uri
September 15, 2010 at 7:12 pm
uriyosef
P.S. I should have mentioned above that these two terms are used in the same quotation in both sources, respectively. In other words, the Tosefta uses מְשֻׁמָּד and the Babylonian Talmud uses מוּמָד in reference to the same passage. Both are translated as “apostate”.
September 15, 2010 at 4:56 am
bography
I see Yisroel Blumenthal, our scholarly PhariseeFriend, not only believes in the existence of Yeshua, but also in his essence: YPF says “Yeshua and his disciples faithfully obeyed most of the traditions.”
http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/letter-to-aryeh-leib/#respond
September 16, 2010 at 1:30 am
uriyosef
bography,
I cannot speak for Rabbi Blumenthal. All I can do is give you my impression after reading his article.
It seems that Rabbi Blumenthal was in a dailogue with a Jew who believer in Jesus, who refers to him as “Yeshua”. I see only two sections, #3. Do Not Add & #8 Christian Love and a Wicked Rejection, in which Rabbi Blumenthal uses that name for Jesus, and it appears that he is addressing directly statements in which his correspondent invoked the name “Yeshua”. Everywhere else he uses the name “Jesus”. Moreover, I do not see that Section 3 is necessarily an endorsement by Rabbi Blumenthal of the historical and factual validity of the Gospels or that Jesus existed. Rather, he is simply using the information in Gospels to demonstrate the opposite of what the correspondent is claiming – he is using the language and texts with which that person is familiar.
But, again, I must emphasize that this is MY take on it, not necessarily what Rabbi Blumenthal opinion may be.
Uri
September 16, 2010 at 3:38 am
bography
Uri
מוּמָד (mumar)?
September 16, 2010 at 4:08 am
uriyosef
bography,
Sorry, slip of the finger. The word is מוּמָר (mumar). The letter “” is located immediately above the letter “” in the Character Map.
Uri
September 16, 2010 at 4:10 am
uriyosef
bography,
Sorry, slip of the finger. The word is מוּמָר (mumar). The letter “ד” is located immediately above the letter “ר” in the Character Map.
Uri
September 16, 2010 at 7:58 am
bography
You’re safe with me; not a murmar from theselips.
A “performance mistake,” not a “competence error” as they say in linguistics.
I’ve now proved to you that I’m English. Any chance of me trying to prove I’m also Jewish. Naa, thought not. Oh well, will have to be happy with merely being a Jew – very happy.
September 16, 2010 at 2:00 pm
bography
Earlier I referred to Luria:
“As you know Rebbe Schneerson comes from the mainstream line of Lurianic Kabbalah (which, today, is the predominant form of Kabbalah). We can trace it all the way back through Kook, Zalman, Luzzatto, Baal Shem Tov, Moses de Leon and on to Luria.”
Moses de Leon is earlier than Luria.