Thanks david f

You beat me to it by a few minutes. Keith is really a splendid person, we have communicated by direct Email. What we could all achieve if we got together. However Keith you are totally wrong on Judaism. You talk about official Judaism, there has been no such thing since the fall of the first Temple over 3000 years ago.

Judaism in its many forms is very dynamic, even the Chassidic movement taken by many as the "ultra-orthodox" developed as a reform movement in the 18th century, relatively recently for a religion. The Progressive movement, probably the most popular, is light years ahead of Christianity and Islam in its acceptance of modern ideas - women Rabbis, gays, declared agnostics, all welcomed without fuss. Even atheists are welcomed at the services.

There is a joke about a Synagogue that was so progressive that on the festival days you would find a notice on the door - "Closed for the Jewish Holidays".

Judaism relies on interpretation by Rabbis, called Talmudic law, which, it is recognised, had a great influence on English common law. This law was in existance until about the 10th century when it was continued by means of Rabbinic commentary, with many variations.

Jewish law for example has relatively modern ideas on abortion, the Menahitt ruling could have been taken straight from the Talmud.

You suggest that Judaism has not considered the teachings of Jesus, it was really the other way around with Jesus preaching pure Judaism, it was the post Nicean Christians who moved that faith in a new direction. Both faiths moved forward on separate paths, although recently the two are moving together. To its credit Judaism teaches that divine rewards are given without discrimination to Jews and non-Jews depending only on the goodness of their life.

Do unto others comes from Judaism, from a statement from Rabbi Hillel who preceded Jesus.

And Israel in no way practices or has ever practiced arparheid.

Keith,

It seems you have an attention deficit disorder. I have knocked down and exposed every single argument you have made, yet instead of attempting to defend them, you just move on to something else. Finally you have resorted to straight abuse.

I can do that too, but I don’t really think its worth my time

You have since been shown up by logic and davidf, regarding your factually incorrect statements regarding Judaism.

You say >> “It's official religion … It doesn't include the influence of the teachings of Christ in it's make up”

And your point would be what exactly? On that basis you could include all the religions of the world except Christianity.

You say >>”You display such arrogrance with your arrant nonsense. Get real no one is listening to your propaganda crap anymore. With such displays as yours you are guaranteeing the destruction of Israel as we know it.”

This is the rantings of an uneducated and intolerant man. You are not alone in your belief/hope that Israel is somehow going to be smashed soon. You’ve been wrong about just about everything on this thread, and you’re wrong about this as well. Also, I don’t imagine that I have any effect at all on Israel’s fate one way or the other. It would be really arrogant of me to imagine that I did.

You clearly don’t understand the first thing about the subject under discussion, yet you allow yourself the most intolerant of points of view. Go back and do some reading; something besides the green weekly or the socialist banner, and then cite references for your arguments from legitimate/respected sources.

Davidf,

You are being a little disengenous. You talked about more than just the four things you listed in your last post. I was responding directly to your criticisms of Israel’s control over their immigration, and the law of return.

I don’t suggest that Israel is a perfect example of western liberalism and equality. But then, who is? Israel is certainly a beacon in the vast ocean of despair and inequality that is the Midlle East. Furthermore, the people Israel finds itself at war with are the same people it seeks to exclude, precisely because of the potential to destroy the country from within.

I don’t accept that countries should be required to take all comers, especially if it would upset the stability and social cohesion of the nation.

You say>>” I am against Jewish, Christian, Muslim or any other states defined by part of its population”

Which of course, is anti-democratic. Until you can convince Christians and Muslims to give up their homelands, leave the only Jewish homeland alone. The rights of minorities in Israel are protected under law, as they are in many countries. But surely it is the right of the majority to decide how they will live, and with whom they will share their country.

One day it may be possible for the Israelis and Palestinians to live together. Before that can happen old wounds must be healed. Whilst new injuries are being inflicted every day, there is no chance of this happening.

Forcing Israel to allow entry to more Muslims would be the end of the only democracy in the Middle East, the end of a homeland for the Jews, and quite possibly portend a great deal of bloodshed

Dear Paul L,

I agree. Restrictive immigration is necessary for a Jewish state.

Yochanan ben Zakkai opposed the war with Rome and was smuggled out of besieged Jerusalem in a coffin. Romans conquered Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple and ended the Jewish state.

Zealots at Masada fought bravely but finally committed mass suicide rather than being overwhelmed and having their survivors put into slavery. Masada disappeared from Jewish consciousness, but the story has been resurrected to become part of the ideology of the state of Israel. Masada contributed nothing to Jewish survival. The loss of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Jewish state did not mean an end to the Jewish people.

Many today equate the state of Israel with the Jewish people. Yochanan knew better. Jewishness was in ethos, learning, tradition and religion and not in territory. He was a Pharisee, those maligned in the New Testament. The Sadducees bound up with Temple worship disappeared as a separate entity with the fall of the Temple.

Emperor Titus allowed Yochanan to establish a school for the study and exposition of traditional lore at Jabneh (Jamnia). The sanhedrin was reconstituted with members chosen for erudition rather than influence or wealth. With the fall of the Temple the synagogue became the centre of Jewish life.

Possibly the present Jewish Bible was formed at the synod of Jabneh in 70 CE. Without the synagogue and the Bible Judaism would not have continued for very long after the destruction of the Temple.

Yochanan wanted Jewish continuity and realised it could not be based on the reconstruction of past glories. He was reviled as one who fled Jerusalem, collaborated with the hated Romans and discarded the past in not working for a new temple. He inspired continuity through learning.

For many Jews primitive ethnic nationalism has replaced a religion they can no longer follow wholeheartedly.

Yochanan's example leads to survival. Masada's leads to the grave. We have survived these many years because we did not have a state. Better no state than an undemocratic one.

Welll David F's 'Judaising evangelistic' credentials are finally nailed to the mast.. :)

David.. you said:

"Jews do not accept the sloughing off of sins by putting them on a humanoid God."

No, they accept the sloughing off of sins on a sacrificial lamb..and animal.. and have a 'day of atonement'.. "at-one-ment"..where the barrier of sin between man and God is removed.

I don't expect you to come rushing to the front in repentance as we sing the last verse of the last hymn for the 20th time...but I do hope you will at least look a bit more closely at the true nature of Christianity,.. and see what it's about .. particularly benefiting from a read of Pauls letter to the Romans.

The theories you proposed are well known, and the presuppositions of their authors are also well known.

There is no need here to bore everyone with a 'blow by blow' expose of the weaknesses of such theories.

David, the True Faith is found

here: Isaiah 42:6

"I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,

and....you would agree I'm sure that this is 'Israel'...but see belows...same prophet speaking, is 'this' Israel?

Isaiah 53

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all

Seems like the 'myth' of the Humanoid God who sacrifices Himself for our sin began ... in your scripture :)

BOAZ_David wrote:

David, the True Faith is found

Dear Boaz,

You notice I wrote 'true faith' not True Faith. I put quotes around the expression. There is no true faith. There is merely what different people accept. Whatever brand of mumbo-jumbo you want is ok as long as you live a decent life and don't try to push your mumbo-jumbo on other people. Jews gave up the nonsense of the scapegoat. They realised the idea of transferrable sin is codswallop. Unfortunately Christianity picked it up. You want that discarded Jewish nonsense. Fine. Go to it. In the immortal words of Jimmy Durante; "Why doesn't everybody leave everybody hell the hell alone."