/lit/ - Literature

>>21283299
>Where to begin with Judaism?
>I think it has a fascinating history and I'd like to learn more.
Start with "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and then pick up "Mein Kampf"

>>21283299
>the original Abrahamic faith
That would be Catholicism. Modern Judaism was invented in the sixth century AD

>>21283299
Maimonides

>>21283329
Tradcaths still mad af about the reformation huh?

>>21283321
Dude. Shuddap already.

>>21283299
Hi OP, I'm one of the insufferably relentless Christian dudes always reccing, "The Bible," nonstop. It just so happens I love Jewish people, so I'll tell you recs for that too.

>The Tanakh (Basically the Old Testament of the Bible - made up of the Torah (The Five Books of Moses), the Nevi'im (The Prophets), and the Ketuvim (The Writings).
>The Talmud; Rabbinical Writings
>The Mishna; The Oral Torah essentially
>The Zohar; Jewish mystic interpretations of the Tanakh - if I'm not mistaken - part of Kabbalistic thinking
>Pirke Avot; releated to the Mishna, but I forget in what way precisely
>The Magic Touch: A Jewish Guide to Relationships; Gila Manolson

I could give plenty more, but that's a good deal of reading already.

Here's one at the intersection of Christianity and Judaism, I suppose, if you're interested:
>The Messiah Texts: Jewish Legends of Three Thousand Years; Raphael Patai

>>21283321
hitler was a homosexual papist, hebrew is greek and judaism is an aryan religion made from the teachings of plato and hermes

>>21283329
That graph but swap The Church with the Orthodox Bishop. Catholics have shown that the gates of Hell prevailed against them.

>>21283493
While I immensely respect the true Orthodox faithful and their faith as such, that is a bold sentiment concerning a church whose head has been subject to the Grand Turk for 500 years and whose most important regional church is controlled by the KGB/FSB. This is not an incidental feature of Orthodoxy either, despite the depth of their spirituality the Orthodox church has historically been very bad at resisting the influence of temporal power.

Essential Judaism by George S. Robinson is good

>>21283299
Contrary to most other religions Jews do not want people seriously learning about Judaism because it is just as strict and dogmatic if not more so than Christianity and Islam (which makes perfect sense when you think about it for 5 seconds) and this is clearly not the image they want people to have of them.
They want people to see Judaism in stark contrast to Christianity and Islam even though that obviously heavily contradicts both history and their current actions.
This is part of the reason why self-deprecating humor about Judaism is so popular among Jews and why it shows up in media so often.

>>21284308
Did you miss the show Unorthodox?
All the documentaries about ultra orthodoxy?

>>21284308
Judaism has some pretty nasty things to say about non jews.
>>21283299
>where to begin with Judaism
Get rid of it

>>21283471
>Christian dude
>Loves Jewish people
Didn't have to go on. You're honest, i will give you that. The others try to appropriate Christianity for their juvenile anti-Semitism.

>>21283299
There’s a pretty interesting chart floating around that shows how the people we call today Israelites are supposedly actually Canaanites, that’ll probably jump you straight to the place most people end up after years of study and research, if it’s true or not is up for debate though. The essenes are fascinating.

>>21283299
I haven't read it, but Steinsaltz's The Essential Talmud is THE classic when it comes to laymen learning about the talmud.
Telushkin wrote a great book with short commentaries on different ethical rulings in judaism accompanied by a history of the jewish people, it's name in french is Le Grand Livre de la Sagesse Juive but I dont know how it's called in english (english is the original language of the book)
Obviously the Tanakh
Pirkei Avot

>>21285033
All of these books, as well as the other books people have recommended, focus on the more 'legal' aspect of religion. Assuming you're a christian, you might be more interested in the 'spiritual' aspect. If so I can't recommend any book (haven't read) but the whole Hasidic movement is focused on the spiritual aspect of religion, maybe read something by/about Rabbi Nachman of Breslev or the Baal Shem Tov. Nachman emphasised happiness as a mitzvah and meditation/intimate personal relationship with God. I've heard that Heschel's books are also more 'spiritual'-minded, so maybe read God in Search of Man or The Prophets.

>>21283372
protestants eternally ass-blasted about being too dumb to correctly interpret the Bible.

>>21284252
They have remained uncorrupted. While the Roman Catholic Church managed to resist physical control, they have more or less entirely surrendered spiritually. The Catholic Church is fundamentally humanist now.

>>21283299
I'm an actual Orthodox Jew. What precisely do you want to know more about

>>21285322
well that's one thing amongst many that catholics and protestants share with each other

>>21283299
>Where to begin with Judaism?
Preheat to 1500°F

>>21285359
Should I convert brother?

>>21283329
Atheism didn't exist before protestants?

>>21285582
Probably not. If you keep the Noahide Laws, you're fine

>>21285359
Why don't you guys spread your message like Christians and Muslims? Do you want people to be saved?

>>21283299
>I think it has a fascinating history and I'd like to learn more. Anyone here researched it before in-depth?
Google: biblical minimalism

>>21283299
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCuy163srRc

>>21285709
Judaism isn't really about salvation, it's about serving G-d as individuals and as a nation. We don't believe in eternal damnation in hell, so the idea of "salvation" isn't really relevant. The mainstream Jewish opinion is that non-jews get their afterlife by basically being good people, which to some extent means keeping the Noahide Laws, although it's really more nuanced. Either way, proselytizing doesn't really make sense. I don't want to bore anyone, but if you want me to go into more detail, I can.

>>21285776
Btw I don't know who this is and I'm not watching that, but I'll just take this opportunity to say that I have no idea why non-jews get circumcised. Jews don't want them to - the whole point is that it's a distinctly Jewish thing.

>>21283329
Catholics are not Christian. There is a special place for you in hell, Rodrigo.

>>21285359
Does the Talmud really say that Jesus is the son of a whore? Why do Jews hate Jesus so much?

>>21283299
>I think it has a fascinating history and I'd like to learn more. Anyone here researched it before in-depth?
Jan Assmann - Moses the Egyptian ; The Price of Monotheism

>>21283299
I can teach you the basics, let's start.
So basically God created Adam in his image, and he wasn't a Jew (he had a semen demon feminist wife before Eve btw), but somehow the souls of Jews are inherently superior to those of gentiles. Gentiles can have some fun in the afterlife if they simped enough to the Chosen People.
Jews debate each other all the time and don't agree on anything besides besides their hatred of Jesus Christ and Christians.
Sorcery is a terrible sin, but you can call it "practical Kabbalah" and then it's okay.
Jews like to imagine enemies and heretics cooking in boiling semen/poop in hell.

>>21285359
How similar is the Hebrew Bible to the OT? Is it 1/1?

>>21285989
The order of book placement is different, and translation may be different in places, depending on which versions you're reading, but otherwise, yes. It is one-to-one.

>>21285781
> I don't want to bore anyone, but if you want me to go into more detail, I can.

You're literally in a thread about Judaism lol. Post away.

Fun fact: the first mention of spaghetti was in the talmud

>>21283299

John M. Oesterreicher, Walls are crumbling: Seven Jewish Philosophers Discover Christ

John Friedman, The Redemption of Israel

Adrian van Kaam, A Light to the Gentiles: The Life Story of the Venerable Francis Libermann

Elias Friedman, Jewish Identity

Eugene Kevane, The Lord of History

Fr. Arthur B. Klyber, Once a Jew

Raphael Simon, The Glory of Thy People: The Story of a Conversion

Raphael Simon, Hammer and Fire: Way to Contemplative Happiness and Mental Health in Accordance with the Judeo-Christian Tradition

Roy Schoeman, Salvation is from the Jews

Roy Schoeman, Honey from the Rock

Overview of key issues: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/prologue.htm#I

Of interest:
Sholem Asch, The Nazarene

Pic related.

>>21285906
Whether Jesus is referenced at all is debatable; there's a wikipedia that discusses the issue, idk how good it is. I know of one passage that arguably indirectly calls Mary a prostitute, but it's a bit of a stretch.
Jews consider Jesus to be a heretic, and he brought a lot of Jews away from Judaism, so we're not too fond of him. Add to that the crusades/inquisition/etc. and you can see why we don't have much good to say. We consider the worship of Jesus to be akin to be akin to idol worship, since you're worshipping something that isn't G-d (in our view), so we often won't say his name. Really, Jewish dislike for Jesus shouldn't need explanation. We don't really think about him for the most part, though, since he doesn't come up much, and at this point in history we kind just joke about it.
>>21285989
They're theoretically one and the same, but as the other anon said, Christians order the books differently, add some psalms, and make a few other edits.

>>21283329
>anti protestant picture
get fucked papist

>>21286078

>>21286057
Jews are fucking pussies that denied the Jesus after they went all in on Bar Kozeba. Once he got blown the fuck out and they immediately backpedalled and called him the son of lies shows you what fucking rats they are.

>>21285906
I don't know if it does, and I'm a gentile Christian, not a Jew, but I once heard a rabbi say this, "Either Jesus was the best Jew who ever lived, or the worst." I think He means, either Jesus really was the Messiah, which modern Judaism does not believe of course, or He was a simply a Jewish man who blasphemed God and lead the chosen people astray, and in becoming the martyr-founder of a new religion, inadvertently fueled the many instances of persecution the Jewish people have endured at the hands of people who profess Christ (though personally, I would be in disbelief at the Christianity of those people), and whose followers, to a non-Christ-believing Jewish mind, have continually led people astray to follow and worship Him as God rather than worshipping God, even becoming an influence upon the birth of Islam, a fairly openly anti-Jew religion. Although I won't repeat the blasphemy about Mary and had a difficult time even saying what I've said so far, I imagine the Talmud would say that, if it did, because the Talmudic rabbis didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception, therefore simply believed Mary had been unfaithful to Joseph. Obviously I consider it all dreadfully mistaken.
I believe the Lord has chastised His people Israel harshly, but I also believe the signs of His mercy are present and growing. I believe Christ is coming soon, and I believe Jewish people will come to faith in Him in great number, and it will be the greatest blessing to the house of Israel that ever was, and more importantly, it will be life from the dead unto the nations of the entire Earth.

>>21286011
Alright
Basically, understanding why we don't proselytize necessitates understanding how we view ourselves. You'll definitely find some Rabbis espousing Jewish supremacy, but that's a hotly debated point, and the truth is that it doesn't really matter. Like I said, we think there's afterlife for non-Jews. Anyway, the essence of the whole "chosen nation" thing is that we see G-d as having uniquely chosen us to represent Him in the world and serve him in a distinct way. That doesn't preclude anyone else from serving him, nor does that make Jews inherently/metaphysically superior in-and-of-itself (although it does make "nationalism," in some sense, integral to Judaism). We just see Judaism as bestowing on a person a higher level of obligation to G-d and his Laws; since this is a significant commitment, and since it isn't necessary for "reward" or for a connection with G-d - although I guess we do think Jews are capable of a *heightened* relationship with G-d - we have no interest in proselytizing. (Of course, in Jewish philosophy, "reward" is extremely deemphasized, and serving G-d for reward is endlessly discouraged and perhaps diminishes the reward you actually get.) That being said, if someone - of his own volition -wants to convert to Judaism, shows absolute commitment, and is willing to undergo the lengthy conversion process, then we do accept them, and they're considered full Jews in all respects.
In the context of this discussion it helps to know that, according to mainstream opinion, the worst punishment you can get is for your soul to cease to exist after you die. This means that someone who rejects G-d basically gets exactly what they expected.
Hope this helped, let me know if you want to know more

>>21286092
We denied Jesus before, during, and after Bar Kochba's rebellion. It seems like it's worth adding here that we don't see the Messiah as being divine.

>>21286057
Who is the Angel of the Lord מלאך יהוה that speaks as God, and is called God by those who see him, worshipped and even given offering? Have you read the Targums, the Word of the Lord מימרא/דבר יהוה being present and acting everywhere Christians claim it was Him?
Can't you see it?
You're own Rabbis used to interpert Isaiah 53 as being about the Messiah (both in the Talmud and Targum Yonatan) and they changed it to being about the Jewish people because it's clear to everybody that Jesus fulfilled it.

>>21286151
>It seems like it's worth adding here that we don't see the Messiah as being divine
How do Jews interpret the various passages in the Tanakh which posit multiple divine powers? I’ve seen Christians use this to provide evidence for their doctrines (deity of Christ/trinity). For example:
>the Angel of the Lord implying that Abraham was sacrificing Isaac to him specifically
>God ‘putting His name’ on the Angel of the Lord in Exodus 23
>Jacob wrestling with a physical manifestation of God
>the Lord visiting Abraham and Sarah
>etc
I’ve heard of a book about Second Temple Judaism’s perspectives on this called ‘Two Powers in Heaven’ or something like that, but I’m not sure to what extent it represents mainstream Judaism.

BE HYPERETHNOCENTRIC AND HYPERTRIBALISTIC; KILL HENS ONCE A YEAR; BLASPHEME AGAINST THE SON OF GOD, AND HIS MOTHER; MUTILATE PENIS.

>>21286189
>מלאך
There're a lot of opinions about the exact nature of angels ("messengers of G-d"), but assuming that they're basically applications of G-d's will, the things you're describing aren't surprising. Either way, the idea that it's Jesus is curious seeing as how he wasn't even born yet and how there's no indication that it would be.
>everywhere Christians claim it was him
Honestly don't know exactly what you're referring to, but I'm not sure why the word of G-d would be interpreted as G-d's son
>Isaiah 53
Suppose that chapter were referring to the Messiah - it's debatable, but it likely does. The messiah himself isn't indicated as the son of G-d, and Jesus is disqualified since he 1) tried to lead the Jews away from the law and 2) claimed he was G-d (both of which are forbidden according to the Torah - Jesus is a false prophet as described in Deuteronomy 13). He also died without doing anything particularly Messianic, so that's sort of a moot point.
Note that I'm no expert on countering Christian arguments. Like I said, its really not a thing anymore. Feel free to throw stuff at me, but you're never gonna lead me away from believing that our Father and our King, G-d, is One or that I should worship anything or anyone other than Him.
>>21286227
Every example has its nuance, and some of them actually deeply reflect certain aspects of Jewish theology, but I haven't the time to address them all right now - I'll try to come back to this point later. What I'll say at the moment is that the Torah makes repeated reference to the Oneness of G-d, and once that's an axiom, the rest falls into place. Angels, for example, aren't gods in their own right, but means through which G-d's will is carried out. This might not help if you're approaching the issue from a critical perspective, but that's a different discussion altogether.

>>21283299
Josephus: Antiquities

and maybe Philo

>>21283329
Saving picture thanks

>>21283329
This is all wrong. First of all, Essenes were influenced by Persian dualism, and Jesus came from the Qumran Essenes. So did his teacher, John the Baptist.

And you're missing the Mandaeans, who came from John the Baptist, so you could call them an offshoot of the Essenes.

Also all 2nd temple Judaism varieties were influenced by Hellenic philosophy. And you're missing the other apocalyptic varieties of the 2nd temple era, namely the Zealots and Sicarii.

Also, "Gnostics" didn't arise from the Catholic Church - they predated it. Marcion of Sinope is the first person recorded to be in possession of a written gospel.

>>21286397
>"Gnostics" didn't arise from the Catholic Church - they predated it
Incorrect. The Catholic Church began while Jesus was still alive

>>21286409
citation required

hint: Acts doesn't count

the singular Semitic god is exclusive. Before his truth there
was no other, nor after it. There is no new Avatar, no reincarnation or
Resurrection of the Gods. Before Christ all of mankind lived in the ‘error of
paganism’, in sin, and this does not happen solely in religion. We are also
assured that before Marx, no one saw the truth, everyone was wrong; there
was nothing before him, no one after him. The Jew exalts the part above the whole. For Freud, only sex exists in the background of any manifestation.
For Marx, only the economy. Moreover, the emphasis is always put upon
something which, even when not being inferior in itself, is made inferior to
oppose it to the superior. Freud did not consider sex to be a divinity, nor did
Marx make an entelechy from the economy. They had both brought down
dark forces of matter, acting through mechanistic dialectic, equalizing
downwards, representing the tendencies of the pasu, the rebellion of the
slaves, as Nietzsche would say. Not so with the Aryan Jung, who seeks the
totality of the unus mundus , the equilibrium and harmony between the
multiple tendencies. This occurs likewise with Abraxas-Shiva-Apollo, God
of Light and Beauty, the Christ of Atlantis.

>>21286482
Matthew 16:18-19 Douay Rheims Version
>And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

>>21286519
Upon this rock I WILL build my church. It could be built on Peter's legacy, not within his lifetime.

>>21286132
Thanks for the lengthy post, very interesting.

Should I convert to Judaism if I wish to marry a Jewish Woman? I'm aware that my Children would be considered Jewish regardless of whether I convert or not.

Would it be appropriate to convert in order to raise a family of the same faith?

>>21285359

What the actual fuck do the scribes who wrote the old testament have against firstborn chads? Like Cain (qayin), esav, josephus, jesus. Is there a real pathos to it worth understanding? Or is Judaism just this high entropy, scoundrel beta uprising?

>>21286746

>josephus

mb, I meant "joseph"

>>21286715
You just want big jewish milkers. They are demon succubi

>>21283299
Torah duh

>>21286085
>scripture debunking Evolution/Big Bang/Old Earth
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lmao

>>21286746
Honestly not sure what you mean. Joseph wasn't a firstborn and Jesus isn't in the Old Testament. The first born is seen by the Old Testament as having privilege in matters of inheritance - it's seen as a good thing. The whole substance of the Esav story is that he sold his right to the firstborn's privilege, which didn't work out too well for him. Kayin and Hevel both suffered. You could ask a different question - why does the OT give ontological significance to being a firstborn? I don't have an immediate answer for that.
>>21286715
I'm not a Rabbi and I don't have enough knowledge to be qualified to answer these kinds of questions. Navigating the realm of halacha is very different than exploring Jewish philosophy. There are nuanced facets to your question that actually make it very interesting when considered on a deeper level.
To keep it simple, I'll only speak from Orthodox Jewish ideals (though I urge you, due to my ignorance, not to consider this to be Judaism's perspective). You're not supposed to convert unless your intentions are really to accept the service of G-d/ the entire Jewish legal system (halacha) and theology (It's extremely questionable if the conversion is even valid post facto if done with improper intentions). If you're converting to marry someone, this isn't the case. It's conceivable, though, that you could convert with proper intentions while also intending to marry someone. For her part, ideally, she'd be religious (meaning Orthodox which I assume she isn't), and since the law doesn't recognize marriages between Jews and non-Jews, she wouldn't marry you unless you were properly converted.
Thus, from Judaism's perspective, she either shouldn't marry you, or you should become convinced of the need to become Jewish in service of G-d/keep G-d's Torah. The conundrum comes from the fact that if you're going to marry an irreligious woman, then your intention was never to accept Halacha, meaning you shouldn't convert, meaning you shouldn't get married. So from Orthodox Judaism's perspective, either you should both become religious Jews, or she should become a religious Jew and you should remain non-Jewish, meaning you don't get married (or have kids). Anything in between is somehow a breach of Jewish values/law, and like I said, I'm not qualified to talk about the right move in gray areas.
I wrote this fairly quickly, I'm sorry if this is long-winded and unclear.

>>21285781
So, in your mythology, what sets you apart from the average Joe that doesn't follow your religion? Do you unlock Afterlife Achievements to unlock perks for your next run if you manage to pull off Lifetime Challenges (no pork, shellfish, mixed fabrics, etc) or do you just get cooler shit in the afterlife? What are you guys supposed to get out of following your life completely by the book?

>>21286057
>Jews consider Jesus to be a heretic, and he brought a lot of Jews away from Judaism, so we're not too fond of him
They had the guy executed simply for providing a better message than what the Pharisees had. Putting him to death was an objectively evil act, regardless if you think he was full of shit.

>>21283299
One of the reasons people want to study those faiths is because those faiths invite people to study them. Those faiths all want to save all of humanity. This makes people interested in what they have to offer, because a faith which wants to save humanity might have some universal wisdom in it. But Judaism doesn't want to save humanity, it's a religion of rabbis who want to rule the lower caste jews and the rest of the world, whom they consider subhuman. That's why the scholarly approach is totally different, non-Jews who want to study Judaism just want to dissect it, and this isn't as rewarding as studying something for its virtues

>>21285837
Forcing it on your children is pretty fucked up. You are literally engaging in infant sacrifice. Sure it's not lethal, but the fact that you are ritualistically sacrificing your child's cock-skin to your God is horrific. This alone is a valid reason to find your religion barbaric.

>ITT people finding flaws in a work of fiction

>>21286107
>I believe Christ is coming soon
The guy died almost 2,000 years ago. People have been saying he's coming back soon for millennia. Have you considered the message behind his tale was that while the man died, his message and memory lived on?

>>21286962
Isn't that why we're here? To laugh at all the plot-holes?

>>21286937
I'm assuming you're specifically asking what reward there is for following the Torah, and that your question isn't "what's the metaphysical difference between Jews and non-Jews."
Abstractly speaking, Orthodox Jews will agree that there's some "reward" after life, and that its "more substantial" the more you've lived a life dedicated to G-d/his Torah. However, there are a multitude of opinions about the nature this reward, since it's so ill-defined, so we're not really sure. Everyone (I think) agrees, though, that whatever heaven is, the benefit has nothing to do with physical pleasure; the idea of heaven being "a really nice place" is meaningless to us, and the whole 72 virgins thing has no relevance. There's also a difference in eschatology from the individual perspective and the national perspective, and the cross-section is even more of a gray area. This is because, like I said, the whole reward thing is downplayed tremendously; if you're doing it for reward, you're doing it wrong, and, like I said, if you're like an atheist, most agree that your punishment is for your soul to cease to exist, which is what you thought was going to happen anyway, right? The reason to get close to G-d isn't because you'll burn in hell otherwise, but because it's a virtue in and of itself.
>>21286944
I'm not gonna try to convince you otherwise, but I will draw attention to the disingenuity of "better message" and the meaninglessness of "objectively evil."
>>21286955
The same fundamental problem exists with this, and again, I'm not gonna convince you otherwise, but I'll just add that I've never met a Jew who cared about that (including myself).
>>21286997
Just want to note here that just like it's absurd to the Atheist to consider such a contradictory work to be holy, so too is it absurd to the Religious person to dismiss the work the moment hes5 been made aware of the contradictions. At least for Jews, the epistemological foundations of religion aren't just, "well it says right here..." and I suspect it's the same for Christians and Islam

>>21286997
there are zero contradictions in the bible when read in the original greek as the math textbook it is you fucking human waste

>>21286995
It's important to watch for the signs the Bible gave us, anon. There has never been a time with so many signs falling into place, nor have some even been possible before now. I actually noticed something of great significance myself just lately. Also, 2000 years is a lot to man, but not to God.

>>21284308
yeah but the self depreciation is inherent in the gentile form of judaism, ie christinaity, and since the day judeo-atheism took over, it remained at the core. See al the male comedians who love self depreciation.
This is also why female comedians all suck, because females are glorified in all cultures, since men compete for women in all cultures, but it's even more pronounced in judeo atheist democracies were women thrive so much thanks to the liberalization of their sexual market.
Now this is individualistic self depreciation

the social self depreciation was created after ww2 in europe precisely by the jews who milked the shoah as much as they could. Especially in France. You have to understand that France was riddled with communists and socialists in all layers of society (especially the higher layers) and jews like Henry-Levy loved to push for self-depreciation on the gentiles.

Now you combine this with the faux-introspective desire by women as an attempt to NOT pass as shallow entitled princesses living an easily life precisely thanks to the 1000s orbiters they have thanks to the liberalization of the sex market, and you get a whole industry based on theatrical self depreciation.

Judaic religion:
>Chronology currently accepted

I. Myths concerning Mesopotamian gods which were later taken up in Judaism 3000 BC
>The Sumerian god Enki - 3000 BC
3000 years before our era the Sumerians tell in the epic of Atrahasis and Gilgamesh a story close to the Garden of Eden5,6,7,8, to Noah and to the Flood.
>The Akkadian god Ea - 2500 BC
Around 2500 BC, the Akkadians changed the name of Enki into Ea
The Akkadians develop the myth of Adapa from which the myth of the serpent watching Eve is said to have originated11.
>The oldest form of the name Yahweh: Yah
Older forms of Yahweh, such as Yah,12 appear 25 times in the Old Testament. This original god Yah may be another form of the name Ea13. The original etymology of this name is unknown, as the Hebrew tetragrammaton יהוה (yhwh) itself is interpretable in several ways (Peshat, Remez, Drash, or Sod): its approximate meaning could be "I am that which All is "14.


II. Ugarit -1500 to -1200

>Date of this discovery
In 1928, the French archaeologists C. Schæffer and R. Dussaud excavate a site known as Ras Shamra. They discovered a necropolis 150 meters from the Mediterranean Sea, then a city and a royal palace about 1000 meters from the sea. The greatest discovery made at the site is a collection of tablets engraved with a cuneiform writing then still unknown, which was deciphered in 1932 and called "writing of Ugarit.

>Importance of Ugarit
The history of Ugarit is very long: it begins in the Neolithic period, about 6000 BC. The earliest written evidence of the city's name is found in texts from the nearby city of Ebla, dating back to 1800 BC. At that time, Ebla and Ugarit were under Egyptian hegemony. The population of Ugarit was then 7635 people. The city of Ugarit continued to be under Egyptian rule until 1400 BC. During the period 1200-1180 BCE, the population of the city declined sharply and then mysteriously disappeared, probably destroyed by the "Sea Peoples", as did most of the civilizations of the region. All the tablets found in Ugarit were written during the last period of its existence (about 1300-1200 BC). The texts found were written in one of the four languages: Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurritan and Ugaritic. These texts are very important for the study of the early Israelites and their religion. The analyses show that Ugarit and Israel share a common literary and linguistic heritage. Our knowledge of the religion of ancient Palestine-Syria and Canaan has been greatly enhanced by the Ugaritic texts. It is as if we have a window into the culture and religion of Israel in its early period.

>>21287283

>Differences of Ugaritic texts from the Bible
Concerning the origin of Judaism, one can consider the texts discovered in Ugarit closer to historical reality than the biblical texts. First of all, by their dating, the texts of Ugarit found date between 1500 and 1200 BC. They are therefore contemporary with the times when the people worshipped Yahweh. The biblical texts concerning this period were written at the earliest during the Babylonian exile between 500 and 622 B.C., that is to say nearly a millennium after the events they describe. Of these texts we have kept no trace. The oldest biblical writings found, which would be a copy, are those of the Dead Sea Scrolls around 200 BC. Secondly, the analysis of the biblical writings shows that they have been largely modified and expurgated during the centuries in order to defend the dogmas of the nascent Jewish religion. The scribes wanted to show that the all-powerful god Yahweh had suddenly imposed himself as the only god on the Israelites at the time of Moses in 1200 B.C. and that a kingdom dominating the whole of the Near East, that of David and Solomon in the tenth century B.C., had allowed Yahweh and his legends to spread to other peoples. The reality was quite different, and we only began to understand this reality with the discovery of Ugarit. As the archaeologist J.-B. Humbert expressed it in 1997: "the discovery at Ugarit of another Canaanite literature (only one was known: the Bible), threw a very vivid light on a religion close to that of ancient Israel. Many preconceived ideas were shaken up. The famous Jerusalem was then only a big block of houses, and the temples of the very powerful Yahweh were no bigger than sacristies. Israel proved to be a remote province, under the influence of its powerful neighbors, and whose inhabitants sought only to imitate the arts, and manners."

>The Ugaritic religion - 1500 to 1200 B.C.
The writings from the civilization of Ugarit are dated from 1500 to 1200 BC. This civilization, which developed on the territory of present-day Syria, used a Canaanite dialect from which Hebrew was derived. It is therefore normal that the people of Israel, whose first historical trace goes back to the end of the Ugaritic civilization around 1200 BC, was strongly inspired by this mythology.

The main god of Ugarit was El, and there was animosity between his two sons: Baal, the god of thunder, and Yam/Yaw, the god of rivers and seas. El is also the creator of humanity, which is called "adm" in the Ugaritic language. A goddess is in turn the wife of El and Yam: Asherah. Finally, for the first time in history we read the term "YW" (i.e. "Yahweh"). In the KTU tablet (i.e. Keilalphabetische Text aus Ugarit, 1.1 IV 14), it is written "sm. bny. YW. ilt." or "The name of the Son of God, Yahweh". This seems to indicate that for the Ugarites, Yahweh was considered not as "the" god but as one of the many sons of El.

>>21287285

>The structure of the Ugaritic religion
Ugaritic polytheism is considered to be a monism of two structures: the divine assembly and the divine family. Both structures are in fact similar to a single entity with four levels15 :

>the "king of the gods," El and his wife Asherah ;
>the 60 "divine children" (including Baal, Ashtarte, Anat, probably Reshef, Shapshu the sun goddess, Yerak the moon god) considered as "the stars of El and Asherah";
>Kothar wa-Hasis, the "butler" of the divine family;
>the servants of the divine family (in Hebrew: malakhim), whom the Bible calls "angels" (i.e. "messengers of the gods").
//
>Concordance of the Ugaritic myths and languages with those of the first Israelites
Humanity adm in Ugaritic evokes the Hebrew word adam designating "the first man" but also Yam, Ugaritic god of rivers and seas: yam in Hebrew means "sea"; as for El, in the plural Elohim, it also evokes Yaw (Yahweh). In Hebrew, ha-adama, "the earth", "clay "16 allows the etymological play on words of the biblical translator by analogy with the Latin "homo" which derives its origin from "humus "17. This popular etymology, which makes Adam come from adama, ignores the way words are formed in Hebrew from the shortest to the longest, in parallel with the development of concepts: it is thus Adam who gives adama and not the reverse. In the text, the earth is named adama only after God formulates the plan to make Adam. Before that, it is called eretz. In the expression Eretz Yisrael this historical rather than mythological meaning was preferred. Several mythological accounts were inspired by the account of Adam in Genesis: this is the case of the goddess Nintu who, in the Mesopotamian epic of Atrahasis, uses clay to make mankind, or of Egyptian mythology, where the potter-god Khnum shapes men with clay18. In any case, the name ha adam ("human") is taken in its collective sense in the first part of the Adamic narrative19 . In the Rabbinate Bible, it only becomes an individual proper name for the character of Adam in Gen 4:25.20 But Adam could also derive from another Semitic root: adom, "red" as in blood, and refer to the Babylonian epic of Enuma Elish in which Ea kills Kingu and, with his blood, creates humanity.21

>>21287286

III. Appropriation of the Ugaritic religion by the first Israelites : The Yahwehists


Andre Lemaire writes "The tablets of Ugarit from the thirteenth century B.C., written in a language close to Phoenician and ancient Hebrew, have echoes in the oldest texts of the Bible evoking the great god El, or the young god Baal, or Yahweh sitting in the divine assembly (Psalms 29:1; 82:1; 89:6-13; Job 1:6; 2:1). The first Israelites seem to have practised a variant of the Ugaritic religion which has been called Yahwehism. This cult is addressed to Yahweh, who seems to have been originally a god of armies (Yahweh sabaot ) and of storms, associated with a mountain or mountains. He is not the only God because he is sometimes mentioned as a member of an assembly of deities, and may have had a goddess named Ashera; moreover, the ancient Israelites recognized that each people had its own god. Yahweh is described as "jealous" and forbids his people to serve other deities.

>Polytheism of the ancient Israelites - 1200 to 722 BC
The Hebrews remained polytheistic for a very long time. The inscriptions of De Kuntillet h'Ajrud and Khirbet-el-Qôm date the reigns of Amasias (~802-776 B.C.) of Judah and Joash of Israel (~803-790 B.C.). These inscriptions show that the Israelites associated Yahweh with a goddess, his goddess, Asherah. The cult of "Yahweh and his Asherah" was certainly practiced for a very long time23. Few written traces exist in Canaan apart from these two inscriptions because these worships were forbidden by the religion of Israel. Nevertheless, they did not erase the extra-biblical Amorite inscriptions of Asherah, nor the Jewish papyri from the island of Elephantine in Egypt, which keep track of the importance of this goddess wife of Yahweh24.

>Hebrew - 800 BC
To date, no written record of the Israelites of these times has been found. And the rare data coming from their neighbors do not evoke a particular religion. Indeed, according to Amihai Mazar25 , who found a fine example from the northern hills, "the bull is the symbol of Baal, the principal Canaanite god, and of El, the master of gods in the Canaanite pantheon. The first archaeological traces of the cult of YHWH will appear with writing, much later.

>>21287290

>First stage of the evolution of the Ugaritic religion by the first Israelites
The four-tiered structure of the divine family and council apparently underwent a number of changes in the early centuries of Israel's existence. In the first stage, Yahweh appears to have been one of the seventy children of the second level - children who would each become patron gods of seventy nations. This idea appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as in the Deuteronomy paragraph of the Septuagint translation. In this passage, El is the head of the divine family, and each member of the divine family receives a nation from his own salvation: Israel is Yahweh's portion. The Massoretic text is of course in opposition to the polytheism expressed in the expression "according to the number of the sons of the divine. The writers therefore rewrote it "according to the number of the children of Israel" (keeping the number seventy). Psalm 82 also presents the god El presiding over a divine assembly in which Yahweh rises and makes his accusations against the other gods. Here we see how the text of the Bible tries both to speak of the ancient religions and at the same time to denounce them in order to conform to the monotheistic dogma.


IV. Progressive differentiation of the future Jewish religion from the surrounding religions

>Yahweh becomes the chief of the gods to be idolized in priority: monolatry
Like all peoples, the Yahwehists considered their god to be the most important and could not allow him to be dominated by another El. So they merged the two entities into one Yahweh/Elohim (which is the plural of El). so by the end of the monarchic period (sixth century b.c.), it is clear that the god El was identified with Yahweh. It follows that El Yahweh is the husband of the goddess, Asherah. Hence the inscriptions relating the cult of Yahweh and his Asherah. Such a situation was retrospectively condemned by the writers of the Bible who criticized the worship of Asherah in the temple of Jerusalem. In 722 B.C. when the kingdom of Israel collapsed and its population fled to the kingdom of Judea, King Josiah took this to mean the victory of Yahweh over Baal. Although he still believed in the existence of many gods, he then ordered that only the one god Yahweh be worshipped in Jerusalem, which is called monolatry. This monolatry is not an isolated form in the West Semitic context of the time. Epigraphy gives numerous indications of similar cults, such as the cult of Kamosh among the Moabites26.

>>21287293

>Monotheism: Yahweh is the only god
In this form, religious devotion to Yahweh gives him the role of divine king reigning over all other deities. This religious perspective appears, for example, in Psalm 29:2, where "the sons of God" are called to worship Yahweh, the divine king. The Temple, which continues to be the place where the various gods of polytheism are worshipped, becomes, in addition, the palace of Yahweh which is populated by the gods under his power. The text "Ezekiel 8:10" suggests such an image. This image of royal power developed from the 8th century BC to the 6th century leading to monotheism. The other gods became mere expressions of Yahweh's power, and the divine messengers were seen more as minor deities, mere expressions of Yahweh's power. In other words, the head of the gods has become the head of the god. The others are not other gods but his arms and legs of the same and only god. With the establishment of the kingdoms Israel and Judah, Yahweh became the national god and absorbed the characteristics of the ancestral deities of the region, the Els, including El Elyon, the Most High God, creator of heaven and earth. The competitors: Baal from Tyre, star gods from the Assyrian world... were eliminated; ancient symbols (stones or steles, trees) which sometimes became objects of worship for their own sake, were forbidden, the individualization of the Yahwehs of the various sanctuaries combated.27

>Putting this monotheistic concept into writing, the beginning of the writing of the Bible
In 587 BC the kingdom of Judah itself was destroyed and its elite transferred to Babylon. There, the idolaters of Yahweh meet the Zoroastrians who also believe that their god Ahura Mazdâ is the only god, the scribes begin under this influence28 to write the Bible, its monotheistic dogma, they add, sometimes almost word for word, the legends of the peoples who had dominated the region, whose successors are all found at this time in Babylon. They simply attribute all these legends to Yahweh alone. Finally, they reinvent the history of their own people by imagining that they have always been monotheistic and that the deities that they worshipped in the past were in fact always fought by their ancestors. All this forms the premise of the Old Testament.

>>21287297

VI. Reception of this historical version by the Jewish religious authorities

Since the nineteenth century, archaeological and historical discoveries have called into question many biblical claims that have proven to be unprovable. With each new discovery, the religious authorities (whatever they may be) have the choice between three attitudes:

>the integralists (from the Latin ad integrum, "in its entirety", who interpret the biblical texts as historical narratives to be understood at face value) generally tend to refute, in historical and archaeological discoveries and in archaeological, scientific and historical-critical analysis, everything that contradicts or casts doubt on the complete veracity of the biblical narrative (literalism): they concede nothing and are still convinced of the total reliability of the Bible, of a creation as described in Genesis and of a human history that begins in monotheism, some 5,700 years ago, with Adam and Eve living in communion with God in the Garden of Eden, and then continues, after their disobedience and expulsion from the Garden of Eden, with human "history" exactly as it is described in the Bible, including the Flood;

>the mystics, as they define themselves, accept the versions of the archaeologists and scientific historians by underlining that the Bible is a spiritual symbol: it is, for them, "a set of fundamentally metahistorical texts where all the interest consists in going to the origin of each word to know how this word makes sense, in and beyond the narrative that I read. In the Bible the world is measured in pages and letters";

>In between, the "open traditionalists", as they define themselves, recognize the mythical side of much of the early part of the biblical narrative, considering as historical the later part of it, generally from the birth of Abraham in Ur.

The absence of a supreme authority in Judaism, in contrast to what happens in Catholicism, for example, does not allow for a common interpretation, officially recognized by all.

>>21283299
>tfw no qt jewess gf

>>21287311
Moar!

>>21287021
>if you're like an atheist, most agree that your punishment is for your soul to cease to exist
So do you guys believe that God is archiving your consciousness after death if you adhere to the rules in your book? Regardless, what about the Torah do you find so compelling in terms of evidence of an afterlife? What convinces you that it's got more legitimacy than all the other holy books that claim to know the motives of the Creator?
>but I will draw attention to the disingenuity of "better message"
Telling people to not let others die, just because it's the Sabbath is a pretty good message in comparison.
>and the meaninglessness of "objectively evil."
Do you disagree that putting a man to death simply over dissenting words is evil?
>but I'll just add that I've never met a Jew who cared about that (including myself)
The ADL threatened Iceland that it would get flooded with neo-nazis if they banned the practice on children. The practice is barbaric and has no place being practiced on children in modern society. Don't pretend like all your rabbis won't freak shit whenever the such bans are suggested.
>Just want to note here that just like it's absurd to the Atheist to consider such a contradictory work to be holy
What makes you think I find it holy in the slightest? I don't find the Torah holy either. I find them to be fiction and folklore. They contain millennia of various human souls incrementing, replicating, and altering their contents. What about the Torah do you find more real than Aesop's Fables? I know it sounds snarky, but it's a genuine question. What convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that the Torah contains the will of a Divine creator?

>>21287071
>when read in the original greek
If you feel something is mistranslated, feel free to add corrections. English is flexible enough that you can express anything you want with it.
>as the math textbook it is
You serious?
>>21287229
>It's important to watch for the signs the Bible gave us, anon. There has never been a time with so many signs falling into place, nor have some even been possible before now
Confirmation bias. Literally every generation has a bunch of people going off about the signs of the End Times or the coming of a Messiah. The fact of the matter is, there is nobody coming to save humanity if we fuck up. If we manage to go extinct, that's it for our level of intelligent life, at least for a few million years. I don't see reason to believe someone is gonna save the day and magically make everything better if we fuck ourselves over. The only people to make things better are ourselves.

>>21287481
>confirmation bias
No, friend. It is real. You can read it for yourself, and judge it for yourself it you would like. I can also share at least some of what I know now if you wish, but the errors of some men do not equate with a negation of prophecy, but only the strength of their desire for Christ's return being stronger than their attention to the signs of His coming.

Neither is Christ coming to save humanity. He has already saved it. He is coming to reign.

>>21286367

>died without doing anything particularly Messianic

Pic related, even the genealogy of Jesus identifies him as the Messiah:

Adam = Man (is)
Seth = Appointed
Enosh = Mortal
Kenan = Sorrow, (but)
Mahalalel = The Blessed God
Jared = Shall come down
Enoch = Teaching
Methuselah = His death shall bring
Lamech = The despairing
Noah = Comfort, rest

I don't know which specifications Orthodox Jews believe in though I'm curious to know which they are.

>>21287553
>No, friend. It is real.
No, it just seems that way from your perspective. Any bozo can spin vague prophecies, then claim precognition every time something loosely matches one. This kind of thing is why Astrology is easy money for charlatans.
>Neither is Christ coming to save humanity. He has already saved it. He is coming to reign
Save humanity from what? Extinction? I don't even think your God can save us from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Even gods die when nobody is left to remember them.

>>21287600
>He would be born of a virgin
Lmao this was just copypasted from older religions. There is literally no evidence Mary was a virgin when she gave birth.
>He would rise from the dead
Also literally no evidence of this.

>>21287600
If you read Isaiah 7:14 you'll see it doesn't actually say virgin. Look up every interpretation and you'll see a disconnect between the Hebrew phrasing and the English one. Basically, Almah is the Hebrew word and in no other English translation is Almah used as virgin, except this one verse. So it is not cross-examined properly.

Psalms 22: 14-17 we have the same issue. David is describing being mauled by lions, but the english translation somehow turns that into being pierced through the hands and feet.

Psalm 16:10 is not a prophecy. Plus, I think only two out of the four Gospels talk of Jesus rising from the dead. I can only assume this was added to the original theology later since the other two Gospels did not even bother to mark down what would have been such a historical event.

>>21287600
>>21288529
I'll add that Hosea 11 is explicitly about Israel, not the Messiah
Micah 5:2 is probably referring to the House of David

>>21288529

Wouldn't Isaiah have used the word Betula instead of Almah then? And wouldn't it make sense that he was announcing a virgin birth in particular, since otherwise it wouldn't be much of a sign if a young woman gave birth to a child, something that happens all the time, you know?

Psalm 22:17 is more peculiar in that it specifies being hurt at the hands and feet in the first place, why would a "lion" go for those parts otherwise?

>>21288502

Hundreds of witnesses plus the Shroud of Turin are some evidence.

>>21288537

Jesus does come from the House of David, although not by blood but through adoption by Joseph, which is very important that it happens this way in order to escape the blood curse on the line of David that God had placed on Jeconiah, in Jeremiah 22:30.

>>21288603
>Hundreds of witnesses
Mass delusion is not uncommon in history. All it takes for most people to believe obvious bullshit is an authority figure and their social crowd repeating it a few times
>plus the Shroud of Turin are some evidence
lmao people still believe this? It was called out as bullshit back in the 1300s. Radiocarbon dating placed it between 1260 and 1390, which is right around when it was first "discovered."
Your pic is loaded with a crazy amount of lies too. There is literally no evidence indicating it's older than the 13th century.

>>21288603
That's the point; Isaiah didn't use the word Betulah, he used the term Almah, which always means "young woman." The prophecy, which is directed to Ahaz (who lived way before Jesus), was that a certain woman would give birth to a child with a certain name (note: not "Jesus").
The Hebrew word in Psalm 22:17 is literally "Lion."
I think even Christians know how weak the House of David argument is.

>>21288603
>Betula
Exactly. This explicitely means virgin as we see in Lev 21:13 for instance. But in Proverbs 30:19-20 we see the word adulteress as translated as B'Almah. Sometimes Almah is even used to describe young men. Or even time itself. Because the way Hebrew is written, you know explicitly the meaning if you follow its root meaning. Almah in the case of Isaiah is specifically talking of a young woman, not an old woman, giving birth.

Psalm 22: 17 he mentions they are like dogs that surround him and attack like lions at his hands and feet. David is setting poetic imagery about the taunting his enemies are setting on him. The english turns the "lion" into "piercing." But even the Dead Sea Scrolls and some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Syriac; most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text describe the Hebrew כָּ֝אֲרִ֗י to mean a lion attacking the hands and feet. Not a "piercing" at the hands and feet. It is a subtle change, but the subtle changes are the worst offenders of the truth.

>>21288665

A young woman giving birth to a child, what a portentous prophecy, truly deserving of its own verse!
I wasn't focusing on the lion itself, which indeed can have a variety of meanings, I was trying to underline how the hands and feet were being pointed out specifically, which is a strange thing to otherwise make notice of to the reader.
What's wrong with Jesus being part of the House of David?

>>21288646

It's fine if you've made up your mind on not believing in the Shroud of Turin.

>>21287463
>Archiving
Like I said, unclear
>What convinces you
Don't worry about it
>Rest of the post
You seem to have misunderstood a lot of what I said. I was unclear about this, though: when I said I've never met a Jew who cared, I meant I've never met a Jew who was bother about the fact that he was circumcised.

>>21288688
>It's fine if you've made up your mind on not believing in the Shroud of Turin.
Why don't you find the carbon dating compelling? Carbon14 only gets replaced in the upper atmosphere and the halflife is predictable, which is why it's extremely useful for detecting when organic matter stopped cycling new carbon.

>>21288688
> I was trying to underline how the hands and feet were being pointed out specifically

The only reason you feel it to be strange to say is exactly because of the mistranslation. It does not translate at all to "piercing" it is literally "lion". The mistranslation itself makes you look at hands and feet in a totally different light.

>>21288603
> Hundreds of witnesses plus the Shroud of Turin are some evidence.
It is one thing to say there were hundreds of witnesses, and another to have evidence of said witnesses talking and describing it, for which there are none. The shroud of Turin, I remember hearing certain flowers that wouldn't have grown in the time of Jesus were used to embalm.

>>21288701
>Don't worry about it
Why not. Clearly it's compelling enough to dedicate your life to this kind of nonsense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdbkvJznmwU
Can't you back up your own beliefs? Why shy away from it?
>I meant I've never met a Jew who was bother about the fact that he was circumcised
Have you considered it has to do with the fact that they'd be shunned by their entire social group if they did complain? What about all the children that died of STDs or bloodloss because of the practice? It's not like they ever got a chance to complain as adults. How about the kid that had too much snipped and was raised as a girl, eventually resulting in his suicide?

>>21288708

The study has been done on a specific corner that's been sewed on in the 12th century to fix some damage, the dating is correct... on the sewed corner.
This alone wouldn't be very convincing, it is the sum of the collected evidence that makes me believe that the carbon dating has been truly been done on a sewed piece alone: the AB authentic blood with the correct haplogroup for the area, the autoptic study showing that the wounds on his flesh correspond to those caused by a Roman Flagellum (which has a very specific shape), there was pollen found on the Shroud that also corresponded to the flora of the region, the correct positioning of the nails on his wrists instead of his hands as per popular Medieval depictions, the crown of thorns being more of a skullcap instead of a circlet as was the proper Roman customs...

I've summed up the picture for you, I understand it's quite a read that requires a certain commitment.

>>21288688
What makes more sense in context:
>A: In attempt to dissuade Ahaz, Isaiah prophesizes that a certain (contemporaneous, probably present) young woman will give birth to an Immanuel, and before he grows up, the two kings mentioned earlier will be gone
>B: In attempt to dissuade Ahaz, Isaiah prophesizes that, centuries in the future, a young woman will give birth to a boy who's metaphorically called Immanuel but is actually named Jesus, and before he grows up, the kings will be gone, since, you know, it's centuries in the future
More seriously, though, the "virgin birth" is based on a verse that doesn't predict a virgin birth

>>21283299
Trifles for a Massacre by Louis Ferdinand Celine
The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald
The Jewish Strategy by Revilo Oliver

>>21288490
They aren't vague, nor are their fulfilments, nor the signs currently unfolding. Rather than assuming, read.

Also, I don't like to brag, so I've avoided bringing it up, but since you keep bringing up scientific concepts as though I'd be unfamiliar I'll tell you - I majored in physics/maths, and my roommate and his wife were both ph.d chemists specializing in nanopolymers. I have friends in various STEM fields - all are Christians. Don't assume just because someone is a person of faith, they'll quake at the knees when you mention scientific principles even known among high schoolers and pop sci enthusiasts. Don't worship man, and man's vastly incomplete knowledge. It is feeble and in a state of perpetual reevaluation and adjustment. Rather than empty speculation and memeing your way through conversations, just pick up the Good Book and check for yourself. This is /lit/ after all. If you're unwilling to, then you were never sincere to begin with, and only interested in waving your own opinions around for the sake of ego.

If you don't even know what Christ saved the Earth from, then you are far, far to uneducated on the subject of Christianity to be debating it here with such confidence. It is basic knowledge. We're in a Judaism thread, so here's a Jewish, Biblical proverb which will never go out of style, "He who judges a matter before hearing it, it is folly and shame to him."

>>21283299
GOD I would still simp for post wall Natalie

>>21283493
>>21284252

So that leaves... The coptic church and the oriental christian church (not eastern) as the pure and uncorrupted of the christian faith? Copts are getting assraped by muslims in egypt tho,

>>21288719
>Why not
I've got my reasons for believing, but I see no reason to justify them to you. I'm not trying to proselytize. I would suggest, though, that you try to look for G-d in the world independently of any religious text. You're on /lit/ - maybe read Kierkegaard?
>Kosher switch
This sort of thing isn't accepted by anybody for normal use. Anyway, Jewish "legalism" is a key aspect if our faith, but it's multifaceted and you don't seem very interested
>Shunned
Weak conjecture
>David Reimer
This example doesn't make any sense, go to his wikipedia page
As I've said, though, I'm not defending the practice outside of Judaism.

>>21288719
>Have you considered it has to do with the fact that they'd be shunned by their entire social group if they did complain?
For haredim (ultra-orthodox) maybe, but for the overwhelming majority of jews that is not the case. They would definetly be shunned if they did so publicly (on TV/book etc....) but not if they complained to friends/family members (jewish or not). I can back up what he said, i have never met a jew who is bothered by his circumcision

t.jew

>>21288729
>The study has been done on a specific corner that's been sewed on in the 12th century to fix some damage, the dating is correct... on the sewed corner
If that's true, why not just grab another sample and show them up?
> the AB authentic blood with the correct haplogroup for the area, the autoptic study showing that the wounds on his flesh correspond to those caused by a Roman Flagellum (which has a very specific shape), there was pollen found on the Shroud that also corresponded to the flora of the region, the correct positioning of the nails on his wrists instead of his hands as per popular Medieval depictions, the crown of thorns being more of a skullcap instead of a circlet as was the proper Roman customs
Forensics suggest that the wounds don't even match up. It's also worth noting that this artifact just popped up in the 14th century. It has never been proven to be Jesus's shroud in the first place.
But let's assume that it is 100% legit the shroud that wrapped Jesus's crucified body. How does that in any way prove he was resurrected?

>>21288853
That’s presumably because it’s part of the covenant. I was cut for “hygienic” reasons because that’s what was recommended at the time. I’m not hung up on it, but it’s not at all the same.

>>21288853
well according to leftists this social pressure is what prevents you from hearing more complains.

>>21288769
>Don't worship man, and man's vastly incomplete knowledge. It is feeble and in a state of perpetual reevaluation and adjustment
I prefer an honest and humble man stating he doesn't have all the answers, than a bold man falsely stating he knows the divine truth (or contains it in a book).
>Don't assume just because someone is a person of faith, they'll quake at the knees when you mention scientific principles even known among high schoolers and pop sci enthusiasts
People are quite capable of suppressing cognitive dissonance when their social life is on the line. The Abrahamic faiths are notorious for discouraging difficult questions and dismissing conflicting thoughts without further examination.
>Rather than empty speculation and memeing your way through conversations, just pick up the Good Book and check for yourself.
I find the stories entertaining, but I'm not going to believe them as fact when they stand in opposition to everything that has been proven. How do you contend with the creation of the rest of the universe? Is all that just infinite background for God's focus on a single species on a tiny blue dot?
>If you don't even know what Christ saved the Earth from, then you are far, far to uneducated on the subject of Christianity to be debating it here with such confidence.
He didn't save the world from anything. He was wrongly killed for his beliefs and this is a good warning tale of the monstrosity of mob mentality, but he didn't save the world.
>"He who judges a matter before hearing it, it is folly and shame to him."
I'm all ears. Present to me the matter at hand. The Bible wasn't convincing, neither Old Testament or New. What piece of the puzzle am I missing?
To give you a baseline of my Godless beliefs, I stand by that simple things interact with each other and create new more complex things, that are greater than the sum of their parts, in a process known as Emergence. Our consciousness is just another step on the ladder of increasing complexity.

>>21288869

It proves the resurrection in a very peculiar way: first, the way the image of his body is taken in the first place. It appears that the image was "flash-burnt" on the linen not just on the surface of the textile but on the entire thickness of it, which supposedly requires an immense amount of energy (in the form of light) to acquire. Secondly, the image on the Shroud appears to be "smudged" in certain places, particularly the legs and the arms, suggesting that they were moving during the "image capturing" process, which is unique for a corpse that was covered in burial clothing.
There is no pigment on the Shroud at all, the image is burnt on it much like a photo.

>>21288853
>but for the overwhelming majority of jews that is not the case
>They would definetly be shunned if they did so publicly (on TV/book etc....)
This is a blatant contradiction.
>but not if they complained to friends/family members (jewish or not)
I believe the term for going public with such abuse, instead of keeping it within the Jewish community, is Mesirah. The very fact such a policy even exists is evidence of your people abusing infants and covering the abuse up. This practice alone is enough to justify disgust with your religion.

>>21288603
>Jesus does come from the House of David, although not by blood but through adoption by Joseph,
Isn't Mary descented of David as well? At least seems so, as one reads Luke 3:23-38.

>>21289019

I'm only sure that she's from the tribe of Judah... I cannot help you there...

>>21288931
>This is a blatant contradiction.
It's not a contradiction. If i was against circumcision i could tell friends or family and they wouldn't agree, perhaps, but would not treat me as an outcast. It doesn't matter whether these friends/family members are jewish or not. However, if i went on TV and started talking about how barbaric a practice it is, then yes, i might be shunned. not because it's an opinion that is shunned, but because talking about it on TV might encourage antisemitism and is generally seen as 'bad for the jews' (but of course talking to a non-jewish friend won't encourage antisemitism).

> I believe the term for going public with such abuse, instead of keeping it within the Jewish community, is Mesirah

I'm not talking for religious yeshiva jews, but for the majority of jews, that is to say traditionalist secular jews, most of whom do not know about that, so it's irrelevant to how most jews will react to a jew complaining about circumcision. i personally have never heard that term used.

>The very fact such a policy even exists is evidence of your people abusing infants and covering the abuse up. This practice alone is enough to justify disgust with your religion.

No, assuming it is what you say it is, it's evidence of pogroms starting whenever a jew commits a crime.

>>21288931
Mesirah is a general prohibition against reporting Jews to non-Jewish authorities (police/courts), especailly when a trial in Jewish courts is possible. The idea is firstly that Persian/Roman/Christian/etc. courts persecuted us, and secondly that we should keep justice within our own system. Because of the nature of this law, its application in practice is actually somewhat limited, dramatically more so when contrasted with the precept of "Dina D'Malchuta Dina" - that we're halachically bound to follow the laws of the land that we live in, whenever they don't seriously prevent us from practicing our religion.
What you're referring to is a serious problem from a few years ago, when certain ultra-orthodox rabbis were abusing kids and getting their communities to cover it up since they claimed to do otherwise would be mesirah. When this was unearthed, the practice was decried, and leading rabbis around the world ruled that mesirah doesn't apply there, it's forbidden to cover up these crimes, and they must be reported to the police.

>>21289048
>but because talking about it on TV might encourage antisemitism and is generally seen as 'bad for the jews'
Might I remind you that we are talking about the ritual sacrifice of piece of a child's cock to your God? Such antisemitism is absolutely justified in this case. If you didn't want the, much deserved, hatred of your religion, maybe save the cock-cutting for consenting adults.
>it's evidence of pogroms starting whenever a jew commits a crime
Have you considered the primary reason the entire tribe is implicated is because of their attempts to cover it up, rather than just letting the individual be tried?

>>21289057
In light of what you posted: how do you feel about the Sanhedrin using the Romans to execute Jesus? My understanding was that the mosaic law forbade capital punishment and that they essentially manipulated Pilate into doing their dirty work for them. This all assumes the validity of the scriptural presentation of the events, and I intend no disrespect. I appreciate your contributions.

Just going to post in this thread and out myself as a Jew who despises the fact that he was circumcised (MUTILATED) and is currently restoring his foreskin. Fuck the infant mutilators and all that defend them, go to fucking hell if you are running interference for genital mutilation in this thread.

>>21289185
Sorry, it turns out I was grossly mistaken regarding Mosaic law and capital punishment: many offenses warranted death under the original covenant. That said, my original question (albeit modified) stands: How do you reconcile mesirah with the proceedings surrounding the (story of the) death of Jesus?

>>21283329
Catholicism is just another sect you Mary worshipping heretic!

>>21289057
>Mesirah is a general prohibition against reporting Jews to non-Jewish authorities (police/courts), especailly when a trial in Jewish courts is possible.
Essentially saying that it's a Jew's responsibility to cover up for other Jews to the nation's authorities.
>The idea is firstly that Persian/Roman/Christian/etc. courts persecuted us
Sacrificing infant body parts to your god is worthy of persecution. Given they all were in on the cover-up, it's no wonder so many nations wanted them purged from their countries.
>and secondly that we should keep justice within our own system
Which means completely disregarding the nation's authority of law.
>Because of the nature of this law, its application in practice is actually somewhat limited, dramatically more so when contrasted with the precept of "Dina D'Malchuta Dina" - that we're halachically bound to follow the laws of the land that we live in, whenever they don't seriously prevent us from practicing our religion.
> whenever they don't seriously prevent us from practicing our religion.
That's a huge caveat, given the practice of your religion permits cutting off and sacrificing an infant's body parts to your God.

>>21289185
>>21289249
Thanks so much for being chill.
In all honesty, I'm not too acquainted with the details here. He was definitely liable to the death penalty on our side. The question is whether we should have given him over instead of just killing him ourselves. For one thing, I think it was the sadducees that did that. If it wasn't, then it's possible that, since he was liable to the death penalty anyway and had basically cut himself off from the Jewish people (mesirah may not have applied), and since I think we can't carry out death penalties on passover, we might have wanted to quickly deal with the issue while appeasing the Romans by letting them execute a rebel. Again, though, I don't know the exact details, and I also don't know how accurate the NT account of the trial is. It's understood that there was rampant corruption at that time, though, especially among the sadducees, so I wouldn't be surprised if handing him over was the wrong thing to do.

>>21289328
Yeah, in giving it a little more thought (and based on my admittedly limited understanding) it’s consistent with the system as you described it: under Roman occupation they agreed to abide by their laws, and if heresy/blasphemy was punishable by death under the Mosaic code then it’s not as though they were making an exception in that regard. Thanks again for your contributions. Please don’t let the hate you encounter here (or anywhere) bring you down.

>>21288853
r/foreskinrestoration
r/restoringdickisrael

I am a jew who is bothered by my circumcision, I am one of many. You have met me now. Go fuck yourself, my body my choice. If you perpetuate this violence on your children you are a sick fuck.

>>21283299
>Where to begin with Judaism?
1) Lend money to random people with huge interest
2) Spiritualize that
3) Thank a Semitic cacodemon Yahweh for your success

>>21289425
Jewish femanon here, I actually think circumcised penises look way nicer so don't let it bother you.

>>21289433
Nice try Shlomo