The following discussion took place due to the Quora site question, “When God caused the flood, to wipe out, all the evil on Earth (which I think was the nephilim’s) do you think, some evil creatures or Nephilims, survived the flood, since conspiracy theorists say they live underground now?”
Yaakov Neugarten replied:
Yes, the midrash says that there were two giants that survived the flood; sichon and og. The water only reached up to their ankles (or maybe knees?), so tall were they. Many other’s were also that tall, but that wouldn’t help them against the fact that the water was boiling hot 🔥 mixed with all the magma that erupted from the earth 🌍. But they found the ark and sort of clung to it from outside, and god made a miracle that the waters just around the ark should be cool. They swore to noach that if he saves them they’ll be his (and his children’s?) servants forever. So he kept giving them out from the window, food 🍲 to sustain them the whole duration.
God especially wanted a sample of them to survive for future generations to see how tall and powerful people were then (and how corrupt they were?) so they would understand why he had to bring the flood. It’s also likely – i think – that these two happened to be relatively good, so God picked them to survive. Either way, many years later they turned bad, and fought the jews in the desert 🏜, moses killed them and their armies in battle, as is recorded later in the torah.
I, Ken Ammi, replied:
Yes, but by definition Midrashim are collections of sermons, they are homoletical and not historical. For example, it has Og surviving the flood even though he was not born until centuries after the flood—and he was a Repha, not a Nephil, and Rephaim did not exist until centuries post-flood. So you say “God picked them to survive” but Genesis 7:7, 23; and Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5 all affirm only 8 people (and some animals) survived.
Yaakov Neugarten
First of all don’t quote me from the Christian Bible, as a jew it has no significance to me.
About your source in genesis, verse 7 dosen’t explicitly say “only” them, it could very well be that god left out sichon and og. And verse 23 “and those with him in the ark”, could at least with some difficulty also include those “around” the ark.
True, midrashim “are “sometimes not to be interpreted literally, but there’s no good way and general rule (as far as i know) to help you ascertain what is literally and what is not, we have to see what our tradition says about any individual midrash: this one as far as I’m aware, has traditionally always been interpreted literally.
Also true there’s another midrash that seems to indicate that og was actually born after the flood. But that just means that there is a disagreement between the sages about it. That’s all. But as for this midrash “itself”, this is is what it claims.
Ken Ammi
I did not quote the Christian Bible and as a Jew I don’t commit the same genetic logical fallacy you did—but I find you prejudice fascinating.
As I proved, we are told various times who survived the flood. You are just inserting folklore from millennia after the Torah was written into texts in which it does not belong. In fact, why do so? What need do you have to manipulate the Tanakh’s concepts, contents, and contexts just to have it provide you post-flood Nephilim?
Besides, Sichon and Og did not live until centuries post-flood. Rabbi Shaul Wolf noted, “It remains difficult to reconcile the Midrash (footnote 15 [Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer 23]) that associates the Rephaim with the pre-Flood giants, with the Torah account of the Rephaim existing as a tribe in post-Flood times” which I would rewrite as “remains impossible.”
Yaakov Neugarten
Sorry, you “did” quote from the Christian Bible, (or maybe not quote, but you treated it as a credible source): read your original comment again!
And as a jew, you’re supposed to believe in the oral torah as well, and that our sages knew what they were talking about.
Ken Ammi
Well, I am afraid that you will have to quote me quoting the Christian Bible since I can’t see where I did so. By telling me that I’m “supposed to believe in the oral torah as well, and that our sages knew what they were talking about,” as if I can’t be skeptical mind you, you are speaking from the context of Rabbinic Judaism but I am not a Rabbinic Jew—nor was anyone in the entire Tanakh, of course.
Yaakov Neugarten
I didn’t say you quoted it: read my last message again.
And as for rabbinic Judaism. That’s an accompanying name for “Judaism”. Used by those who don’t want to accept the fact, that this type of Judaism is the real and authentic Judaism, and all others are fake.
If you don’t accept it. Then you tell me. What type of Judaism do “you” keep, and how do you know “that’s” the real Judaism?
Ken Ammi
I realize you said “quote” and then “quote…or maybe not quote, but you treated it as a credible source.” Bottom line is that you committed a genetic logical fallacy.
In any case, “Rabbinic Judaism” denotes a branch of “Judaism.” Now, if that “type of Judaism is the real and authentic Judaism” then where is the rabbinate in the Torah or Tanakh as a whole?
Yaakov Neugarten
So why did you treat the new testament as a credible source? You didn’t answer.
Deuteronomy 17 verse 8 till verse 13. For the second paragraph in your reply.
Ken Ammi
I am sure you can agree that people who were to judge disputes has virtually nothing to do with the Rabbinate.
The New Testament is about Jews who believed that the Jewish Messiah had come in the person of Jew Jesus as prophesied in the Jewish Tanakh.
Yaakov Neugarten
The torah doesn’t tell us the rabbis are only there to judge disputes. They are to judge in “any” matter which is concealed from us, and we don’t understand. Besides, who else do you think would be responsible for interpreting the torah? do you perhaps think everyone should interpret it the way he wants, and everyone practically have a different torah?
And i didn’t understand what you want with the fact that the new testament was made by Jews who thought jesus was the messiah. What does that have to do with anything?
Ken Ammi
Just be careful with the anachronistic nature of the rabbinate reaching back into history, into the Torah, in order to find itself therein.
Deuteronomy 17 mentions, “Thou shalt not sacrifice unto HaShem thy G-d” blemished animals, then, “man or woman, that doeth that which is evil” such as “hath gone and served other gods” so that “shalt thou inquire diligently” and may have to “stone them with stones…At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses,” etc. and that “If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment…then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which HaShem thy G-d shall choose. And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment.”
I am not arguing at the low-hanging fruit level that the word “Rabbi” does not appear ergo, the rabbinate is illegitimate but am just pointing out that the “Rabbi” covers “priests” and “Levites” and “judge” even when the Torah distinguishes those categorical offices—and there is not indication that priests, Levites, and judge are keepers of some sort of oral torah.
As for “interpreting the torah,” that gets us into Ezra territory (the priest, and scribe, Ezra 7:11).
What “the new testament was made by Jews who thought jesus” has to do with was when you contradicted the Tanakh, and I noted, “So you say ‘God picked them to survive’ but Genesis 7:7, 23; and Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5 all affirm only 8 people (and some animals) survived.”
Yaakov Neugarten
That’s exactly what i meant when I said that you treated the new testament as a credible source. By mentioning Hebrews and Peter.
I didn’t really understand your argument against the oral torah. But who else – do you think – has been given authority by god how to interpret it? Besides, our tradition says that all (or at least most) of the oral torah interpretations were already given by god at sinai, togather with the written torah, so the sages didn’t really invent anything, they just faithfully passed it on, and made sure it dosen’t get forgotten.
Ken Ammi
I own a Rabbinic Jewish Passover Haggadah that quotes the NT, what of it? It’s one of the earliest sources on how the rabbinate performed the Seder.
So, set aside Hebrews and Peter if you want, you still contradicted the Tanakh.
It’s circular to say that oral Torah is authoritative because the oral Torah claims that the oral Torah was promulgated at Sinai. There is no indication of any such thing in the entire Tanakh.
Yaakov Neugarten
I don’t know about your hagada. I guess it wasn’t written by a righteous religious jew.
About the circular reasoning claim. I understand. But “you” should understand that the point is, that the same way we know and proof we have that the written torah is divine, so too we know that the oral torah is. That proof is tradition: for our ancestors for all generations passed already, gave us over that this book is the truth and must be obeyed. And simple logic would suggest that there’s no chance that an entire nation of millions of people would all of a sudden come together and all agree that a certain religion and its book that claims that they themselves experienced all together so many supernatural miracles, is all true, unless it was. Definitely not if the religion is quiet a difficult one to keep.
So the same proof we have for the interpretations of the oral torah: there’s no way all of the jews (or even just our elite, our sages) would all come together and decide unanimously on how to interpret the torah. And in so many things they all agree, and nobody argues. Sure there are arguments as well, but that only proves that they each had a mind of their own, and whatever they did all agree upon, they did so because the tradition going back to Moses told them so
Ken Ammi
Friend, you are clearly very prejudice. Here you have no idea who dared to quote the NT merely as a historical reference but you are prepared to declare that person to not be a “righteous religious jew.” You should be deeply ashamed of yourself. We Jews have enough problems with persecution without other Jews ignorantly (literally ignorantly) declaring some Jews to not be “righteous religious jew” based on the mere fact that they dared to quote the NT merely as a historical reference whilst teaching Jews how to perform the Seder.
About the oral Torah, it is circular reasoning and quite unlike the written Torah. Let me ask you this: do you also believe that Moses received mystical teachings orally that are not part of the written Torah nor the oral Torah?
See, MILLENNIA after the Torah, Rabbinic Jews asserted that Moses also received oral Torah and then centuries or millennia after that Rabbinic Jewish Kabbalists decided to assert that Moses also receive oral mysticism.
Anyone can claims anything and merely assert authority based on what they claim—not based on any historical evidence whatsoever. Again, there is no indication in the written Torah that Moses receive an oral Torah: that’s just an assertion that was invented later so as to give some level of authority to Rabbinic Judaism.
So, the point is not to deny that there has developed an oral “Torah” but that there’s no reliable indication that Moses received it form HaShem.
Yaakov Neugarten
I already gave you the evidence that the oral torah is as true as the written torah, and you don’t even attempt to refute it. And regarding your question? Yes, moses did receive the mystical teachings as well (what we now call kabala).
Where the oral torah is mentioned in the written torah? You mean besides, what i showed you in deuteronomy how God tells us that the sages and judges have the authority how to interpret the law and so on? Well it’s mentioned in clear hints, in passing mention, so many a time, do you want me to try to make an inexhaustive list 📃?
Besides, every sane person that reads the written torah, would immediately realise that there’s so much missing here, that that can’t be all there is. God dosen’t give for any command clear instructions and details how to perform it. So obviously there must be “some” oral tradition as well here.
About your hagada by the way mentioning the nt, tell me what exactly it mentions and in what context, what it’s trying to prove, maybe then I’ll be able to judge better.
Ken Ammi
You assed you gave provided “evidence that the oral torah is as true as the written torah” and also that I “don’t even attempt to refute it” so please read our discussion since you are mistaken on both accounts. Now you add to the mix that “moses did receive the mystical teachings as well (what we now call kabala)” so where is that in the Torah?
But note how quickly you went from a very emphatic, “gave you the evidence” to “mentioned in clear hints, in passing mention.”
Indeed, much is missing in the written Torah in terms of details, how-to, etc. but that is the trap in which you got caught since it is a non sequitur to then jump to the conclusion that Moses received an oral Torah and mysticism to which we must adhere because those who asserted an oral Torah and mysticism asserted that Moses received an oral Torah and mysticism and that an oral Torah and mysticism were both binding on Jews, as binding as the written Torah.
I own circa 4,000 books, most of which are in boxes, so can only tell you generically that author was noting that the NT is one of our earliest sources about how the Seder was enacted two millennia ago.
Yaakov Neugarten
I see. Never mind then about your hagada mentioning the nt.
But you really think that all jews would agree to come together to conspire to corrupt the torah, by adding an oral tradition? And do you really think that all that we have from tradition going back all generations, suddenly some people come along and doubt that it wasn’t original, you should believe them?! After all, the written torah it itself, we also only know it’s true because of the “tradition” that says that all the events in it really happened. Without it it would be just like any other 📙 book!
And what do you mean that the fact that there’s so much missing in the written torah, doesn’t prove the oral torah? Do you really think that god expects us to perform the commands, without telling us exactly how to do them? Or is god not a reasonable god in your view? Or do you have some other suggestion?
As a matter of fact, you’re supposed to know,that without the tradition of our sages for guidance, we wouldn’t even know which books are included in the written torah – in the tenach!!!
Ken Ammi
I would not, necessarily, say that the oral tradition corrupts the Torah—that’s a very detailed issue. I’m saying that the Rabbinate is not in the Takakh.
So that what “we have from tradition going back all generations” is not actually “all” since there’s no indication of any such thing in the Tanakh.
Seems to me that after the first dispersal to Babylon our people started wondering how we could be Jews without the temple and thus, without the priesthood, without sacrifices, etc.
By the second time, we began setting up synagogues (also no in the Tanakh) and the Rabbinate as an answer to just that issues.
We have oral traditions (no question about it but just not having been given to Moses) about the “how to”: for example, written Torah says to sacrifice an animal and the “how to” do it was figured out and passed down as oral tradition.
Part of figuring out such stuff is, or so it seems to me, what led to our people having historically been known for our education, intellect, etc.
Yaakov Neugarten
So according to you all the written torah talks about is sacrifices? What about all the other commands?
And again: how would all jews come together to conspire that we have detailed traditions how to perform all those commands, and that they go back to Moses, if it was not the case so?
Ken Ammi
I have no idea where you get idea that according to me, “all the written torah talks about is sacrifices.”
I, and many, many, many, many, other Jews, are living proof that it is not the case “all jews come together to conspire” about that: that’s been the point all along.
Rabbinic Judaism, which in whatever forms it takes, established itself as the majority expression of “Judaism” and did so on the claim that those traditions go back to Moses.
We Jews have “have detailed traditions how to perform all those commands” but that “they go back to Moses” is the part that just an assertion apparently meant to lend authoritative weight to Rabbinic Judaism.
Recall that I noted that as per you, “Rabbi” covers “priests” and “Levites” and “judge” even when the Torah distinguishes those categorical offices.
Yaakov Neugarten
So again, according to you, where do those traditions come from? And how did the jews know how to perform those commands in detail, before those traditions were established?
And again: why should we doubt the tradition that these traditions go back to Moses?
Ken Ammi
So again, the issue is not even whether they came from Moses but whether they are as authoritative as the written Torah. You clearly don’t think they are since you don’t keep most of them.
Yaakov Neugarten
I think I’ve already given you the verses, that clearly tell us we must obey whatever the rabbis (judges) say.
What do you mean we don’t keep most of them? What exactly don’t we keep?
Ken Ammi
Recall that I showed you how the verse to which you directed me was not about “the rabbis (judges)” but about “the priests the Levites, and…the judge.”
Also, I did not say “we don’t keep most of them” but that “You clearly don’t think they are since you don’t keep most of them.”
Yaakov Neugarten
Which most of them exactly don’t I keep.
And what’s the difference if it mentions also priests and Levites, as long as It “also” mentions the “judge”?
Ken Ammi
Friend, you don’t keep 99% of them. But I shouldn’t assert so rather, please inform me the next time you sacrifice an animal.
As for “what’s the difference” is that it refers to priests, Levites, and judges—not Rabbis nor a Rabbinate.
Yaakov Neugarten
Sacrificing animals? You “do” understand that we’re in no situation to be able to perform those rites nowadays at time of writing when we don’t have a temple? Do you? You do understand that god dosen’t expect you to do what you can’t? Do you?
You’re right that the judges in the verse, refers to the times when there was still sunhedrin who had legal authority based on ‘ordination’, going back to Moses himself.
But do you really think that god has to tell us that we should interpret scripture according to our oral tradition? That he already told us in the tradition itself. I mean even the entire torah itself, we also know is true, only because of our oral tradition. Even that verse itself we know how to interpret only by tradition.
What God is clearly telling us here, is that whenever a question comes up for which there is no clear tradition (or the law was forgotten), the judges have the authority to decide which way to rule, and everyone must abide by their ruling, even if their decision is based on their own human logic and understanding, not on prophecy or tradition.
True, nowadays, rabbis don’t usually need to be obeyed (at least according to many opinions, i heard) when they rule based on their own logic. But most of the oral torah we have today is either still from moses himself, or is at the very least from logical decisions made by the judges at the time we still “had” sunhedrin. Once they decided, It’s for all generations until the messiah comes.
Ken Ammi
The issue was not that “we’re in no situation to be able to perform those rites nowadays” but that “You clearly don’t think they are since you don’t keep most of them” so you agree with me.
But Moses’ line of ordination was of judges, Aaron’s was of priests, etc. But, again, Rabbinic Judaism came along millennia later and decided that Rabbis take the place of judges, priests, and introduced something that had been historically, and certainly Tanakhically, unknown: that Moses received oral tradition and that it was as authoritative as the written Torah.
So, if we only know the written Torah itself is true only because of our oral tradition then how do you know that the oral tradition is true?
No, not “based on their own human logic and understanding, not on prophecy or tradition” but based on the written Torah and based on individual applications of the written Torah—which some may come to term oral Torah.
Recall that I already noted, “the point is not to deny that there has developed an oral “Torah” but that there’s no reliable indication that Moses received it form HaShem.”
Sometimes Moses would ask God for insights into very specific issues and sometimes he would apply the written Torah to specific issues.
So since “It’s for all generations until the messiah comes” what now that the Messiah has come?
Yaakov Neugarten
I don’t understand your first paragraph at all!
again: rabbis merely relate to us nowadays the traditions of moses and what was then decided by the judges, when we still had them. Now we don’t have them anymore, so what are we supposed to do exactly? What do you think god expects from us now? How do we deicide what to do, when something new comes up, that wasn’t discussed before in the oral torah?
How we know the oral tradition is true? Because we can safely assume that parents don’t lie to their children, definitely not about matters so important. And if they told us that they themselves all experienced all the miracles of the exodus and in the desert, and especially the sinai revelation when the torah was given, then it must be all true. And if it’s all true, Then obviously the oral torah which is an integral part of it all, is also true.
We can get into discussions of proofs for the oral torah, from the text of the written torah itself also by the way. Or proofs that the written torah can’t stand on its own, because it doesn’t make any sense, unless you apply the teachings of the oral torah to it. But these would be long essays. And i prefer you would ask them as separate questions, if you want to.
Your last paragraph i don’t understand either: the messiah has come? When? How come nobody told me? Why didn’t I hear it in the news 📰?!
Ken Ammi
First paragraph revisited: the issue was not that “we’re in no situation to be able to perform those rites nowadays” but that “the issue is not even whether they came from Moses but whether they are as authoritative as the written Torah. You clearly don’t think they are since you don’t keep most of them” so you agree with me.
Rabbis merely (claim to) relate to us nowadays the traditions (supposedly) of Moses (which may or may not be the case) and what was then decided by the judges, when we still had them.
What we do when something new comes up, that wasn’t discussed before in the written or “oral torah” is to apply the spirit of the law? As I put it when I debated an Atheist: the spirit of the law is the parchment upon which the letter of the law is written.
To go from “How we know the oral tradition is true?” to “Because we can safely assume” seems like a non-sequitur.
As for “parents don’t lie to their children, definitely not about matters so important” I supposed you want to bypass the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause then.
Yes, that generation of our people “experienced all the miracles,” et al. but our current parents did not and Rabbinic Judaism is saturated with Rabbinic folklore, innovations, etc.
I can’t know why nobody told you the Messiah has come but it’s been in the news for two millennia.
Yaakov Neugarten
First paragraph again: if you’re referring to rites we can’t possibly do nowadays, then how does it prove we don’t think they’re important if we don’t do them?
About the tooth fairy and santa 🎅 Clause, find me any adult child whose mother or father didn’t tell them eventually when they grew up that it’s all just a joke, or somebody else told them, and they told their parents they know the truth already and their parents readily admitted, or at least didn’t seem to care that much that their children don’t believe in it anymore. Go make a survey find one 👪 family where that’s not the case. And while you’re at it, explain also how those two examples are of matters so important..
The innovations that came later we can deal with another time. But surely the main story as a whole is all true. True our imidiate parents didn’t experience it. But they heard it from their parents and they from theirs up till the generation of those events. I mean it had to have started somewhere. Stories don’t get born out of thin air. And even if they do, This one definitely couldn’t, because again: parents don’t lie to their children about matters as important as religion.
I mean by such reasoning as yours how do you know anything that’s written in the common history books 📚 ever really happened? All the famous wars, empires, people, natural disasters, etc. None of that (except what happened in the last century or so) have been told to us by our imidiate parents? As a matter of fact you talked abut the messiah, how do you know he has come so long ago? Obviously your imidiate parents couldn’t tell you this (unless they’re 2ooo years old, which i highly doubt). See? You are committing a logical fallacy here, letting me defeat you through your own logic. (besides the whole concept of a messiah only comes from my religion, if you doubt the truth of my religion, then where did you get your messiah from to begin with?)
About the messiah indeed. Can you please explain how it’s possible for him to be here already and not everyone has yet heard of him? How it’s possible for him to be here already and the world is still in such a mess? Israel isn’t dwelling in peace yet? Most people don’t worship God yet, definitely not solo without any other idols as intermediary between them and god? and how come so many people openly rebel against God and his words? And how come the jews are still so much persecuted as they were the entire 2ooo years and before? And why isn’t the messiah yet king in Jerusalem and Israel, and King over the entire world? Why is the temple not rebuilt yet? Why did the resurrection not happen yet???
Ken Ammi
Friend, you have a very, very circular manner of discussing issues and also tend to move the goalpost: the fact that there are “rites we can’t possibly do nowadays” has utterly nothing to do with that “we don’t think they’re important if we don’t do them.”
Again, you moved the goalpost about Santa since I referred to Santa as an example against your assertion that “parents don’t lie to their children, definitely not about matters so important” and only talked about what they did after lying to them.
Of course, stories get born out of thin air: it happens all of the time. And perhaps “parents don’t lie,” and I hope we agree that to lie is to do something purposeful, “to their children about matters as important as religion” but they may accidentally mislead them, etc.
Okay, let’s go with knowing that the oral Torah was given to Moses and the knowledge of that was told to us by generation after generation: the key question is where is any such thing told to us BEFORE many millennia after the time of Moses, Rabbinic Jews wanted to puff up their self-appointed authority?
I got the whole concept of a Messiah from the Tanakh, not from your Rabbinic Judaism religion—even though much of what Rabbinic Jews have stated about the Messiah for millennia lines up with what the Tanahk states about Him.
Your questions “About the messiah indeed” are premised upon your myopic view of what only some Rabbinic Jews have myopically claims about a Messiah. Our people have proposed many expectations of what the Messiah would be like and the only you propose is merely one option.
Yaakov Neugarten
No idea what you mean by circular logic. What’s so hard to understand? Those rites are important, but since we can’t possibly do them, god understands!
You didn’t explain how santa 🎅 is a matter so important. Of course I didn’t mean to say parents never lie as a joke (or other reasons temporarily), but they don’t persist in their lie, after the child grows up. And don’t insist and make it obvious to the child that it’s so important to them the 👶 child believes it, as if their life depended on it. Again: definitely not in matters as important as religion, which santa isn’t, and again: all children when they become adults get to know the truth about “that”, and the parents have no problem with that. If it looks like I’m moving the goal posts, i can’t help it, I can’t always in one go explain an argument in its entirety, I like to keep my comments short. Sometimes I know what you’ll probably answer, but I’m waiting first for “you” to say it, and then I’ll answer again, and let the argument develop on its own.
Yes parents sometimes lie accidently. Then explain again: how you can believe anything that’s written in the history 📚 books!
But explain how it’s possible to accidentally be convinced that you’ve experienced a mount sinai revelation of god, and an exodus of Egypt, and 40 years in the desert 🏜 and everything, if it weren’t true.
If you’re asking about the oral torah again and authority of our sages to interpret it as they see fit. Then again, God explicitly mentions it in the torah. and since we know the torah is all true (as explained), we know this part is also true. Also the same tradition that tells us that the written torah is true, tells us that almost all of what the oral torah says has already been told to us by moses (from god) back then already.
Regarding what our expectations for the messiah should be. You clearly haven’t read the tenach I see, all our Jewish expectations of the messiah are based on clear – in no uncertain terms – verses that discuss the messiah. Go read the tenach again!
Ken Ammi
Now, you previously asked “What do you mean we don’t keep most of them? What exactly don’t we keep?” and now understand that “we can’t possibly do them” so we finally agree and can drop that.
Friend, speaking of what parents (all of them at all times and in all places) do is just too generic: there are literally TONS of examples of “family secrets” that parents kept for years, decades even and came out without them wanting them to.
The issue of historicity is tricky—that’s why people get their PhDs in it—my point’s that we have no history of an authoritative oral Torah given to Moses, we merely have Rabbinic Jews asserting that when they wanted to claim they were authoritative.
Where does “God explicitly mention” that “the oral torah…and authority of our sages to interpret it as they see fit”? What we do see is a judicial system that applied the written Torah to very specific cases—perhaps we can thereafter call that “case law” and it may have even been considered authoritative but that has nothing to do with a supposed oral Torah given at Sinai.
I’m unsure it’s helpful that you merely assert that I “haven’t read the tenach” since I read it cover to cover twice per year and have been doing so for longer than I can remember. That’s how I know that your view is myopic.
Yaakov Neugarten
Who was talking about family secrets? I was asking if you think parents would explicitly on purpose lie to their children about matters as important as religion that affect their eternity. Not telling the truth, and lying, are two entirely different things. What’s so hard to understand?
The issue of historicity is tricky? What a clever way to sneak yourself out, at least you admit you don’t know how to answer this one… i once read some article on the Internet about how historians verify the truth of historical accounts (sent to me by some atheist on quora, when we argued about this exact proof for the torah), and as far as memory serves, i saw how all the criteria historians use is passed with flying colours in the stories of Judaism’s origin.
But i know, you of course are addressing the oral torah specifically. So like I said: just like it’s ridiculous to assume that millions of Jews agreed to get together to conspire to pull of a joke for all future generations, when it comes to the written torah, so too is it ridiculous to think so when it comes to the oral torah. Also about where it is mentioned in the written torah, I gave you already the source that says we have to follow everything the Jewish Court says even what they rule based on their own logic, and not on tradition. But where many of the “traditions” indeed are hinted, that i told you already you’ll have to ask as a separate question, if you want to know.
About the messiah, i understand you agree that Judaism’s expectations of the messiah is based on the tenach. You merely claim that you also have a messiah, and the expectations you have for the messiah, are also based on tenach, even though they’re slightly different expectations. So can you please explain who’s your messiah, and what expectations you have for him? And how do you see it in the tenach? And how dosen’t it contradict what Judaism believes about the messiah (which you admit is also based on tenach)? And what exactly did he do 2000 years ago that qualifies him to the title of messiah?
Ken Ammi
I was simply giving you more than one example of that parents would explicitly on purpose lie to their children. You inserted that as a wedge in a discussion where it didn’t belong. I’m not interested in your games regarding me admitting things I never admitted. That “The issue of historicity is tric…
(more)
Yaakov Neugarten
First paragraph, that’s a lie again. All you gave me are examples where parents would keep some secret from their children. As i explained.
Second paragraph, I’m referring of course to the origin of our religion as told in the tenach, and explained by the oral torah. But even if you want to stick only with what it explicitly says in the tenach, that’s fine for now.
Third paragraph, not absolutely everything in the oral torah comes from tradition. But regardless, god commanded us to follow everything the Jewish court rules, even when it’s based on their logic, and not from tradition. But a huge lot of it is tradition. And anyone who just reads the torah simply, can at a glance see, that it’s totally incomplete on its own, and so there must have been an oral commentary to go along with it. Besides the fact that this oral commentary is mentioned here and there in many places. As i said.
Now about the messiah. What Judaism expects from the messiah, is clearly based on what the tenach says about him! Whether you acknowledge it or not! Now you who claim it was jesus because he ‘suffered’ and therefore fulfiled that suffering servant prophecy. Now assuming for a moment that we know for sure that that suffering servant is the messiah (which the scripture never openly says…): first of all what about all the other prophecies about the messiah (like those we mentioned we jews expect from him)? How could he have died without fulfilling them? You can’t pick and choose which prophecy you want to fulfil, can you? If you’re the messiah you have to fulfil all prophecies! And second of all, so many other people have suffered much worse then jesus, in their life and in their death ☠, even in his own time, even according to the ‘new’ testament itself, he didn’t suffer at all in his life, definitely not with the types of suffering that scripture says the messiah will suffer (again: if we interpret that as referring to the messiah). And according to the new testament he died quickly, and others in his time who were killed by crucifixion could linger in pain for days, as history says. And again This is far from the worst way to die…
P.s. See the hypocrisy, you don’t want to accept the torah of the rabbis, because you can see no proof that it’s all received tradition from moses. Yet you’re willing to accept everything the new testament says about jesus, even though, you have no proof that the new testament writers wrote from prophecy, or from tradition what they heard and saw from jesus. Or do you?
Ken Ammi
I’m unsure why you’re calling me a liar but I can assure you that I have not lied—neither could you know it if I had.
Is it kosher to eat mean with dairy?
Fascinatingly, you say “god commanded us to follow everything the Jewish court rules” even after admitting you don’t keep most of those rules—since you can’t.
If by “Judaism” you’re referring to the religion of the Tanakh then sure, “What Judaism expects from the messiah, is clearly based on what the tenach says about him!” but you’re what Rabbinic Judaism expects from the Messiah, is clearly based on what Rabbis du jour says about him!
Are you aware of Rabbinic speculation about one Messiah coming twice or two Messiahs coming one time each? This will answer some of your questions/charges.
So, what’s happening is that you’ve been told what to think the messianic expectations are rather than how to think about them thus, you only accept a conquering king Messiah which you can only do by ignoring the suffering servant messianic expectations that are found within the Tanakh and also within Rabbinic Judaism’s literature. Thus, you project when you refer to “pick and choose which prophecy you want to fulfil.”
To whom is Psalm 21 referring?
I’m unsure how being betrayed, abandoned, beaten, whipped, crucified, etc., etc., etc. does not amount to suffering.
Yaakov Neugarten
What do you mean i couldn’t know if you were a liar? If you tell me what you’ve previously said, and i go back and check that that’s not exactly what you said, then obviously I know you lied. It’s not rocket 🚀 science!
No idea what you want about the laws of kosher now. Can we please stick to the topic at hand?
According to you, god expects us to keep what we can’t possibly do? What kind of god are you worshipping? Does your god jesus throw you in hell for transgression what you couldn’t help yourself?
What we jews expect from the messiah is indeed based on what tenach says about him. There’s no such thing as ‘Rabinic Judaism’: there is only “Judaism”, and then there are all the fake versions, all the cheap imitations. The term ‘Rabinic Judaism’ has only been invented to emphasise the karaite opinion that the oral torah is an invention of the rabbis, so those who follow it need to be described with an accompanying adjective, to emphasise it’s not the real deal. But if you mean to claim that what we jews expect from the messiah is based only on the oral torah, but isn’t mentioned in tenach, than that’s not true, either: read the tenach again. And i told your already: you who only believe in the written word, it dosen’t say anywhere that the suffering servant is the messiah (it does say it’s the jews. By the way…). So if we’re already picking and choosing messianic prophecies, obviously it makes much more sense to pick those where he’s mentioned explicitly. Especially when as you claim those prophecies contradict each other. although i don’t see why a person can’t first suffer, and then rule the world. But your messiah died!
Moshiach ben yosef, if he’ll get killed, is a totally different person then moshiach ben David. So since jesus was Killed, Moshiach son of David he definitely can’t be. You can’t put into our sages words more then they said. Besides the fact that king David isn’t God’s ancestor, if you understand my meaning. And besides the fact that those same sages who you want to twist 🔀 their words to say jesus could have been the messiah, all totally rejected Christianity!
I didn’t say does not amount to suffering: i said there are many in history who suffered much much more. Besides, these are not necessarily the types of suffering described for the suffering servant. Besides, do you really think that God expects us to understand who the messiah is based on this sign 🤘 alone? Who suffers the ‘most’??? Everyone suffers in life, one more then the other!!! Who is to decide which suffering Is more and which suffering Is less? Is there even a way to measure these things?
Psalm 21 is obviously referring to the messiah! Indeed yet another pessage in scripture that describes a ruling messiah, defeating all his enemies and casting them into hell. Another proof it couldn’t have been jesus, who died helpless. No idea why you’re asking about this chapter? Why are you shooting yourself in the foot???
Ken Ammi
Apparently it is “rocket 🚀 science!” since if I tell you what I’ve previously said, and you go back and check that that’s not exactly what I said, then well, you can be prejudice and play mind-reader and pretend that you can know my motivations and thus know that I lied or you can be graceful and conclude that I’m simply mistaken. But we need to add lessons in ethics to this already multifaceted discussion.
No, no, no, it’s according to you that God expects us to keep what we can’t possibly do since you’re arguing that we are to keep the written and the oral laws which require us to keep what we can’t possibly do.
That “What we jews expect from the messiah is indeed based on what tenach says about him” (not “based only on the oral torah, but isn’t mentioned in tenach” and you’re “picking and choosing messianic prophecies”—or rather, they’ve been picked for you) is the whole point about you only being told to believe in certain parts of it when it comes to what is expected from the Moshiach.
We’ve discussed the issue of the difference between Rabbinic Judaism vs. the Tanakh’s religion all along: can you direct me to a synagogue in the Tanakh?
This also is why kosher laws pertain directly to one of the topics, plural, at hand.
Are you not aware of the Talmud Bavli’s concept of a “leper Moshiach”—I’d say that counts as suffering? Where does it “say it’s the jews.” And no, it’s not a suffering competition.
If you understood me as saying “those prophecies contradict each other” its only due to the options of the Moshiach being a conquering king, or a suffering servant, but that we Jew have attempted to reconcile, actually (as I already noted), by speculating about two Moshiachs coming one time each or one Moshiach coming twice. I’m just telling you what our sages have said for themselves.
Thus, yes, the Moshiach died and will return to fulfill the conquering king role. But when you argue about ben Yosef vs. ben David you’re arguing based on speculation so that’s not a standard.
Which of our prophets didn’t our people, including great sages, totally reject?
I just thought I’d ask about Psalm 21 since Rashi applies it to David.
Yaakov Neugarten
When did i say We’re required to keep the commands we can’t? They’re still applicable in the sense that they’re waiting patiently for the time we’ll be able to fulfil them again, that’s all. Let’s call them ‘dormant mitzvahs’.
Yes true, moshiach Is also meant as the suffering servant of isaiah 53, although it’s mainly the Jewish nation as a whole. But where does it say that he’ll have to die? And before having fulfiled his mission? Where does it say that there will be any need for a second coming?
I’m not arguing based on speculation: that’s what I heard from certain rabbis.
Psalm 21, apparently you didn’t notice rashi clearly saying that our sages attribute it to the king messiah. It’s just that rashi adds that it’s true that one can also attribute it to David himself. That’s all.
Another important point in all this: all you (think you) have, is refutations against my claim that jesus couldn’t have been the messiah. But you forget the main point: the burden of proof is on you. All proofs you’ve given me until now, don’t prove anything. His life wasn’t unique in any way. These things happen to everyone!
Ken Ammi
First you argued that we are to keep the written and oral laws and then you argued that they contain laws we can’t keep.
So, since it’s “true, moshiach Is also meant as the suffering servant of isaiah 53” you don’t need to argue with me anymore since we agree.
It’s Rabbinic Judaism that has outright stated that “he’ll have to die? And before having fulfiled his mission” and “that there will be any need for a second coming”: I already told you that more than once.
Rashi admitted urging the changing of the interpretation of Psalm 21 from what was taught by the ancient sages with the exclusive motivation to refute the minim.
When were you crucified to death?
Yaakov Neugarten
We agree that moshiach will have to die first? You mean moshiach son of yosef? I told you already, that’s a completely different person to moshiach son of David!
I don’t understand what you mean about rashi changing the interpretation of psalm 21, besides he didn’t change any interpretation, as i told you!
Where exactly does it say that the messiah will be crucified? Even Ben yosef! Besides, many Jews were crucified and suffered much much more. So you forgot again that the burden of proof is on you.
Ken Ammi
Yes, “We agree that moshiach will have to die first” but that this refers to “moshiach son of yosef” and “that’s a completely different person to moshiach son of David!” is just one of the speculations.
Another was that one Messiah would come twice.
I will give you a reliable Rabbinic Jewish source to elucidate the Rashi issue: the Jewish Publication Society of America published a text titled “Rashi” in 1906, which in p. 119 notes:
“The Church, it is well known, transformed chiefly the Psalms into predictions of Christianity. In order to ward off such an interpretation and not to expose themselves to criticism, many Jewish exegetes gave up that explanation of the Psalms by which they are held to be proclamations of the Messianic era, and would see in them allusions only to historic facts. Rashi followed this tendency…For instance, he formally states: ‘Our masters apply this passage to the Messiah; but in order to refute the Minim, it is better to apply it to David.’”
That’s not how it works: no one has ever claimed that every detail of the Messiah’s life had to have been prophesied.
I asked “When were you crucified to death?” and had also asked you about eating meat with dairy.
I posted a video wherein I touch upon Rabbinic Jewish Messianic concepts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPV_IwaWvPQ
Yaakov Neugarten
Rashi says our masters apply this to the messiah but in order to refute the minim it is better to applet it to David
Where exactly does rashi make such a statement? Definitely not On psalm 21 that you asked me about. Because on the contrary: all those prophecies about a ruling king messiah contradict Christianity, because jesus did not fulfil them! (We’ll get to the second coming concept soon…).
I asked when where you crucified to death ☠.
Well, I’ve already given my answer to this…
Also about eating meat with dairy.
I’ve already answered why I’m not answering this.
I really have no time for your pagan nonsense! But it’s worth it to suffer through your nonsense youtube lecture, in order to then send in my answers and refutations, so as in the day of judgment you’ll have no excuse for why you still believed in the wrong messiah and even worse, in the wrong god!:
It’s so baffling to the point of amusing to see how blind you are in your bias, that you don’t see how your very own sources actually refute your claims – not support you:
You say that the midrash says that the messiah will be in prison (for quiet a duration), all the nations will mock him and torture him or so… does that sound to you like jesus? Really? Last i checked he is revered and highly exalted by many nations and peoples across the world (such as yourself), maybe even the majority, because Muslims too believe in him, though not to the exalted extent as you Christians do, who even put him in the same league with god himself!!!
(besides for the fact that this midrash is clearly talking about messiah son of Joseph, who is the suffering servant, not the son of David messiah).
And again: when did jesus lead a life full of suffering and contempt? He suffered a humiliating death for maybe a few hours, died, and finished!
(another thing you mention from a midrash, is that after the destruction of the temple, god uses the messiah as his wipping boy to suffer instead of Israel. If so then let me remind you that jesus died Several decades before the temple was destroyed…)
Again: let’s not look about what our sages say about the messiah. Anyway you don’t believe a word they say (unless of course you can pervert them to fit your beliefs): let’s look at the verses in the tenach at face value ourselves. There are pessages that clearly are talking about the messiah and nobody would dispute this fact. Those about a conquering king who brings peace ✌ etc. So those we all agree have to be fulfiled. On the other hand in chapter 53 of isaiah for example, the burden of proof is on you that we’re talking about the messiah at all (and if already, that it’s son of David, and not son of Joseph…).
Our sages do say he’ll suffer a lot. But never that he’ll die and have to be resurrected! He will disappear for a while after his first revelation. Maybe even for 45 years! But disappearing and death ☠, are not necessarily the same thing.
Now about the second coming concept. Let’s say that indeed there is at least nothing in our scriptures that forbids a second coming concept, of even a moshiach who suffers and dies, and is absent for 2000 years plus ➕, and then finally comes back down from heaven to fulfil the conquering moshiach part of the mission:
But don’t you realise that all this is just an added assumption in order to answer away how it is still possible for jesus to be the messiah, but no proof whatsoever?! Don’t you realise what i keep saying that the burden of proof is on you guys???!!! Don’t you know one of the first rules in science is that the theory which can accommodate all the observations made (in this case all the relevant pessages in scripture, and the known history) with as “few assumptions added as possible” this is the most likely to be the truth (occams razor)? Because with enough and bizarre enough added assumptions you can always justify any theory about any subject in the world!!!
And why Is it that all of the prophecies that jesus ostensibly fulfiled in his first coming, are all things which you can’t actually prove that he fulfiled? And to his second coming are left all the ones which we’ll all be able to check if we can tick ✅ them of? That makes your religion completely unfalsifiable!!! Which means we have no reason to believe in it whatsoever!!!
(another thing you Christians keep forgetting when trying to find pessages from our sages in the oral torah that ostensibly support Christian doctrines. Is that all of these sages were devout (pharisee) jews, who completely opposed Christianity and prayed for its destruction three times a day, and to whom the new testament held as much authority as Harry Potter does to us. So you can’t use their words to prove that jesus was the messiah, when it’s so obvious that their words can’t mean that. Because they themselves didn’t believe that, despite their own words in other places that you want to pervert to say this is what they meant).
But if you really want my proof that jesus can’t possibly be the messiah (even though I’m not obligated to give you any, as i said). Then consider This: all the prophets tell us that the messiah will rebuild the temple and it will never again be destroyed. Not only didn’t jesus do that, but it was already built in his time, and was destroyed several decades after his death. All prophets write that the messiah will restore the kingdom of David to Israel, gather in the jews from all the corners of the world back to Israel. And exactly the opposite happened some decades after his death, when the jews went into exile again.
Even worse!!! All prophets write that the messiah will bring world peace, and jesus’s very influence on the world was for thousands of years the exact opposite. Think all the ridiculous petty religious wars that Christians kept fighting with other peoples and with each other for so long in Europe and so on. All prophets write that the jews will be exalted and served by all the nations of the world in the messianic era and will have no sufferings and sorrows at all, but immense pleasure and abundance. And jesus had the exact opposite influence on the world again. Jews were persecuted and tortured and killed for millennia (because Christians couldn’t live with the obvious fact, that the fact that his own people didn’t accept jesus, proves that he’s probably not the messiah after all. But they preferred to say that jews are blind and have a veil over their eyes, rather then accept the possibility that maybe it’s they the Christians who are blind after all…).
And the punchline: all prophets talked about how the messiah will lead the entire world to the knowledge of the one and only god, the god of Israel. And idolatry will completely cease from the world and the names of idols won’t be mentioned anymore. And again jesus had the exact opposite affect on the world. For thousands of years plus, so many nations worship him – jesus – as an idol in partnership with god or God in the flesh, or son of god (or even son of Satan, in the case of the illuminati, who by the way completely conquered the Vatican 🇻🇦 long ago, that even the official pope is now a satanist. But all that is a whole different can of worms I don’t really want to get into here, i just mentioned it in a by the way manner).
Ken Ammi
I gave you the citation so ask the Jewish Publication Society.
I already told you that Rabbinic Judaism speculated about one Messiah coming twice thus, prophecies about a ruling king Messiah in no way contradict Christianity.
I’m not going to reply to your essays if you just ignore issues and then just assert you didn’t ignore them. The Torah forbids eating a kid boiled in its mother’s milk. MILLENNIA later Rabbinic Judaism decided that no one can ever eat any meat with any dairy: that’s part of how you know they just made up stuff.
It’s fascinating that in my lecture I cited and quoted Rabbinic Judaism’s very own sources and you hate that they agree with me. Thus, you need to take it out on Rabbinic Judaism, not on me. This is why my book “Is Jesus the Messiah?” is subtitled “A Judaism vs. Judaism Debate.”
Sadly, your supposed refutations show that you are either stunningly unaware of the material you seek to debate or are so blind in your bias, that you don’t see how your very own sources actually refute your claims – not support you:
Facts: Jesus was arrested, He was incarcerated, He was mocked, He was tortured thus yes, that does sound like Jesus (besides that you don’t seem to understand that speculations are not meant to be detailed point-by-point predictions). Thus, this was about the Messiah and what would be done to Him personally, not about how people view Him centuries and millennia after His time: you committed a simple category error.
You ask when Jesus lead a life full of suffering and contempt which means you’ve not read the New Testament and are misapplying the Midrash that states nothing about the Messiah’s entire life.
Also, Midrash are not meant to be taken to be chronologically literal since, by definition, they are sermonizing homilies. The point was just how many (many, many, many) times in Rabbinic Jewish sources we have admissions that the Messiah would suffer. Recall that you originally pretended that THE only Jewish view was of a conquering king Messiah until I began proving you wrong.
There’s SO MUCH evidence from Rabbinic Jewish sources that Isa 53 is about the Messiah that I had to write two chapters about it in my book.
This is not science so don’t move the goalpost. You’re the one who merely asserted, “an added assumption.”
Can you tell me how, for example, I would prove (not evidence) that Jesus was born to Mary?
The point about “these sages were devout (pharisee) jews, who completely opposed Christianity…” is on point since you’d figure everything they said about the Messiah would be massaged to sound like the talking points you began with. Yet, I’ve proved that much of what they said actually lines up perfectly with the Messiah being as Jesus is.
So, someone can end up supporting a view they oppose when they are being honest about the facts—even if they do so tacitly and unconsciously. My book is utterly saturated with Rabbinic Jewish support for a Messiah like Jesus.
I’m fascinated by that you speak of “the temple” which “was destroyed several decades after his death” as if I’m like the people you fool with your talking points and I don’t know you’re talking about the Second Temple and so there’s no reason to think there will never be another.
You make another category error when you refer to that Jesus’s very influence on the world has been the exact opposite of world peace, which is utterly illogical. That would be like blaming Moses’s influence for what the state of Israel is doing today.
The rest of your tirade fails for the same reason you already know: you have kept directing me to Rabbinic Judaism for the written and oral Torah, I proved that Rabbinic Judaism teaches one Messiah coming twice (which implies not fulfilling everything the first time), and now you argue against Rabbinic Judaism just because you don’t like what they say. But wait, I thought they were in authority over you so, what gives?
Yaakov Neugarten
Again, it’s fascinating that you demand adherence to the dictates of the Rabbis but when I tell you what one of the most influential Rabbis in history did and said you say “I Don’t care…”
Likewise about “the prohibition of meat and milk: according to the written Torah there’s nothing wrong with eating 99% of meats with 99% of milk but according to the Chazal eating any meat with any milk (any dairy, actually) is sinful. Thus, the Chazal is to be ignored since it made a sin of something that is not sinful according to the written Torah. So, you’re right, in a way, “these decrees are only their additions , and are not biblical.”
It’s also fascinating that you make assertions, I prove them wrong, and you just move on as if nothing happened.
As for “as if Christianity doesn’t change anything from the torah, making all the laws obsolete except…” I’m sure you’re aware that the Talmud Bavli affirms that one after another, the prophets reduced the commandments until there was just one: the just shall live by faith.
That “Coming twice, dosen’t mean dying in the middle, necessarily” means that coming twice can mean dying in the middle so thanks for that affirmation. Thus, when you write of “the second coming added assumption” you should already know you’re mistaken.
Unsure you ask “Where does it say in isaiah 53 that the messiah will die?”
As far as I can see, the issue of the literalness of the Midrashim (which are not our only source for Messianic speculations), is that you wrote, “True, midrashim ‘are ‘sometimes not to be interpreted literally.” Also, you took me out of context since what I noted was, “Midrash are not meant to be taken to be chronologically literal.”
I’m unsure why you ask “Tell me, you really expect me to believe jesus was the messiah based only on the fact that he suffered?,” etc.
You too have suffered but were you born to the right geneology, at the right time, in the right place, fulfill prophecies, etc.?
Speaking of Rabbi Akiva, again, you demand adherence to the dictates of the Rabbis but Akiva, another of the most influential Rabbis in history hailed Bar Kochba as Messiah so, will you adhere to his proclamation about who the Messiah was?
Our sages have a long history of persecuting prophets and declaring false Messiahs to be Messiah. But off the top of my head, in terms of “why did none of them convert to Christianity eventually,” I can think of Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Saul of Tarsus, etc.
What I’m saying about “Israel’s wipping boy” is that those of you who begin by insisting on exclusively a conquering king Messiah need to be made aware of and admit a suffering Messiah as well: which you only did after I pulled it out of you. Christians do believe in a third temple since Revelation, for example speaks of it. Jesus suffer for our sins since the Torah’s sacrificial system was meant, in part, to direct us to the ultimate sacrifice which, as Abraham said, God would provide.
If “The point is that if that was the influence then he obviously failed miserably” then you are just confused because the point is that such was not His influence, such was actually the opposite of His influence, a violation of His influence. I mean, that’s like blaming the Torah for Jews who don’t keep kosher.
See my various books here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.