The Instigator
celestialtorahteacher
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JP_Hatecraft
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Judaism is a false religion because rabbis do not know the true origin of the word "Torah"

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
JP_Hatecraft
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 714 times Debate No: 69580
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

celestialtorahteacher

Pro

Rabbis do not know the true origin of the word "Torah". As a Jew I found this rather hard to believe but I"ve asked rabbi after rabbi on internet Judaism religion sites if they know the true etymology of the word "Torah". It is simply amazing that no rabbis today know anything about the historical origin of the word "Torah" in ancient Egypt.

Remember, the Torah is Judaism"s most defining religious doctrine. But all rabbis know is what they"ve been taught which is Judaism"s traditional answer that the origin of the word "Torah" as being derived from the Hebrew language word "yareh" meaning "to point to" like in archery with the archer pointing at the target, this "pointing to" becoming tmean "to teach" as in pointing to answers in a rather unusual stretch of meaning in Hebrew, the world"s most manipulated for meanings language. This definition works out well for rabbis as the word "rabbi" also means "teacher". Another answer gives "Torah" as an anagram composed of the first Five Books of Moses. But these answers are not true etymology of the word "Torah".

Ancient priests of Judah pulled a historical fraud with a religious Wizard of Oz Show that was successfully sold to Jews and the world with its most excellent Scripts, great exciting stories filled with marvelous events writ large Hollywood style for ancient times readers and story-tellers. Stories to match the popular ones in ancient times of the Greeks, like Homer and his Odyssey. Great stories with philosophical issues to match the muses and musings of the Greek philosophers.

The Greeks were the Hebrew writers literary rivals but the ancient Egyptians and Canaanite priesthoods who could have exposed Judah"s rip-off of Egypt"s original theology from where the "Torah" of the Hebrews originated, were conveniently lost to history by the time Hebrews composed their Torah/Tanakh Scriptures. Alexander"s Egypt had forgotten the ancient gods and goddesses, their rituals and lore, except the ones that became transposed to the Greco-Roman Mystery Religions.

With no Egyptian priests to complain, Judaism got away with the Fraud of Israel because Judaism became the religious foundation of the Roman Empire and Western Civilization"s Christianity and Muhammad"s Islam. With Judaism being the anchoring Abrahamic religious belief system of these two major world religions, Judaism was secure from historical scrutiny even to this very day it or so it seems.

To research Judaism is not the easiest thing to do as Judaism protects itself from critics and criticism more so than any other religion except Scientology. Any religious scholar who tries to criticize what rabbis say about the origin of the Torah in the religion of Judaism will face a barrage of "anti-Semite" accusations hurled at them.

"When your entire culture is predicated on an idea, you can"t afford to be proven wrong."--Ted Klamatka, "Prophet of Bones".

Meet Taurowet, the fierce Mother Goddess

This is Taurowet, Egypt"s fierce mother goddess and the ancient world"s only pregnant goddess. Like many other ancient Egyptian deities she was an animal-human combination creature composed of a river horse with lion paws and a human torso. As a Nile River deity she was quite an important figure in ancient Egypt"s theology. Taurowet came to represent in Egypt several important spiritual concepts.
1st, Taurowet represented a Mother Goddess"s fierce protection of a special Child as in the Child of a God or Goddess, i.e. a young pharaoh or queen. And as a momma hippo and uncontested ruler of the Nile River, nobody messed with Taurowet. 2nd, Taurowet"s protruding pregnant belly gave rise to our word, "torus" which is the name for the convex rounded foundation mouldings of architectural pillars. 3rd, The word "Tarot" of the Roma "Gypsies" is also derived from Taurowet as this strange Egyptian hippo goddess came to represent the Egyptian grand cosmic "Order" and "Way". And this is precisely where Judaism"s Torah originates: in the ancient land of Egypt and Taurowet theology.

Hebrews learned Taurowet theology and many other Egyptian religious ideas from their forebearers, the ancient Israelites returning in defeat to Canaan as part of the failed Hyksos invasion and comparatively brief takeover of Egypt. The Story of Moses and the Exodus was fabricated as a reversal of this humiliation the ancient Israelites actually suffered. Again, not having Egyptian priesthoods around to say anything different when priests of Judah wrote their stories helped cement the Exodus mythology as real history.

The major gods of Egypt had their corresponding celestial representatives and Taurowet"s constellation, being the largest of Egypt"s native animals, was was the largest in the Egyptian Zodiac. Taurowet"s constellation was centered around the pole star and never dipped below the horizon, the horizon always being an important aspect as Horus of the Horizon theology is whole set unto itself.

Big and stable Taurowet thus represented to Egyptians the Divine Order of Creation, both the spiritual and material harmonious Way of the Universe. This was the theological concept that priests of Judah borrowed without attribution to remake into Judaism"s earthly man-made Torah. "Black fire" on "white fire" is how the Torah scholars put it as the cosmic origin of their Torah, i.e. writing words on scrolls reverses the Celestial Torah"s Sign Language of God, white stars on a black background. Judah priests discovered a simple way to make your religion stand out in a global sea of astrology based pagan religions.

n the etymological connection of the Egyptian Taurowet theology to Judaism"s Torah, Taurowet"s fierce Mother protectiveness reputation was coupled to another Egyptian theological aspect which was Taurowet"s relationship with the Egyptian god Set, the weird aardvark-human god, brother and murderer of Osiris, Egypt"s and the world"s original death and resurrection god-man. Set was the god of outsiders but still a quite important god to Egyptians and Jews.

One should bear in mind that ancient Egypt"s religion and whole culture was based around resurrection theology, far more so than in later Christianity. Judaism has no real resurrection theology, the idea of an afterlife not really a major concern of Judaism which is focused supposedly on living an ethical life in the present world although uses the term frequently, "in the World to Come" which remains undefined. "Sheol" is the shadow land for souls as shades in Judaism. Heaven in the Christian sense is not available to Jews in contrast to the thousands of near-death-experiences reported across time and cultures.
Set is intimately connected to Taurowet and thus Set is intimately connected to us Jews as well. Here"s the historical trail connecting Taurowet, Set, Torah and Jews all together. Do you see that crocodile mounted on the back of Taurowet? The crocodile represents Set"s Celestial Torah symbolic relationship as Set and Taurowet. In our times and astrological system, the Celestial crocodile is Draco the Dragon. n Set"s relationship with Taurowet, Set is represented by a crocodile mounting Taurowet. These are astro-theological concepts taken from Taurowet"s large constellation lying beside that of Draco which the ancient Egyptian"s saw as a crocodile. Set symbolized as a crocodile-dragon is intimate with Taurowet, their closeness is taken for such meaning by ancient Egyptians.

Dragons are famous for guarding their treasure. Taurowet was famous in Egypt for protecting her special child. These two ideas of protection combined to form Judaism"s idea of Jews as Keepers of the Torah.
JP_Hatecraft

Con

First I would like to point out that my opponent has failed to provide rules for the debate as well as definitions. As such I will take the liberty of inserting a few key ones. All of the following definitions are from Merriam Webster. (links provided, however in order to prevent the hyperlinks from activating and messing with my typing I seperated the h with a space, remove the space to use the link)

False:
1) not real or genuine

2)not true or accurate; especially : deliberately untrue : done or said to fool or deceive someone

3)based on mistaken ideas
h ttp://www.merriam-webster.com...;

Religion:
1)the belief in a god or in a group of gods

2)an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

3)an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
h ttp://www.merriam-webster.com...

My opponent has tried to declare Judaism a false religion becuase the religious leaders were misinformed about the roots of the word. He has provided no sources beyond a quote to prove the correst background, and has no sources to prove that Rabbis do not know this background. Due to the lack of evidence we can safely ignore his claim.

Furthermore, his claim does not even prove that Judaism is a false religion. By the definition of false we see that is must not truly fufill the requirements to be called false. The definition of religion is a belief in god/s, an organized system of belief, and/or an important interest to a person/group. Even if Rabbis didn't know the background of the word "Torah", Judaism still meets all 3 of the definitions for religion.

I would also like to remind readers and the Pro that due to the Pro's attempt to change the status quo and affirm the resolution that they bear the Burden of Proof and therefore that I need not prove the Judaism is a true religion but merely that is cannnot be proven false.

Finally in the Resolution it states "because rabbis do not know the true origin of the word "Torah". Therefore any contention that does not directly relate to the failure of Rabbis to know the origin of the word ought to be ignore by voters.

Good Luck to the Pro.











Debate Round No. 1
celestialtorahteacher

Pro

If you are not a rabbi or Jewish and well versed in Judaism, please leave this debate as you are not qualified to participate in it. This isn't a debate on atheism vs. theism which you are trying to make it into. So again, if you don't know what the debate topic is about and have no knowledge of Judaism tenets you are just trolling as another atheist stalking religious debates. Don't come here to divert the discussion. And no, it is content of my opponents argument against the topic that is what we are concerned with here, not your definitions of rules of debate.
JP_Hatecraft

Con

"If you are not a rabbi or Jewish and well versed in Judaism, please leave this debate as you are not qualified to participate in it."
I am not a Jew. However, I am knowledgable enough to debate this resolution.

"This isn't a debate on atheism vs. theism which you are trying to make it into. So again, if you don't know what the debate topic is about and have no knowledge of Judaism tenets you are just trolling as another atheist stalking religious debates."
I do not understand this. The resolution is not inherently religious. It questions whether or not Judaism is false because of a misconception common among Rabbis. That would make it a factual debate. An example of a religous debate is "Does God Exist" as there is no conclusive eviedence either way inside of the resolution. In addition, my case does not reflect atheism. I made no points that stated that God does not exist. Again, I do understand the debate topic. It is fairly self-explanatory. I am not trolling, my case was a serious rebuttal. As I said previously this is not a religious debate, nor do I understand or appreciate the negative remark towards atheists.

"Don't come here to divert the discussion. And no, it is content of my opponents argument against the topic that is what we are concerned with here, not your definitions of rules of debate."
I am in no way diverting the discussion. I made a resonable case which negated your points. It's true, the content of my case is important. However, we ought to also be concerned with the rules and etiqutte(such as Burden of Proof), as those allow the voters to make better descisions. We should also make a point of showing the definitions as these allow us to clear up the debate and make sure we are debating the same topic.

My opponent has made no new contentions nor rebutted mine. I extend all of my points.

Good Luck to the Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
celestialtorahteacher

Pro

You've effectively diverted this debate into semantic squabbling about rules of debate. There's no point in continuing this debate as it has been compromised now with not enough debate time to get back to the original topic. In the future, I will attempt to debate this topic with a rabbi if one will come forth, something I suspect rabbis are quite afraid of doing.
JP_Hatecraft

Con

I'm sorry you feel this way. It could have been an interesting debate.

Also, I would like to tell you that what I did was a reasonable debate case. You want to get back to the original topic? My case was on the original topic.

I did nothing overly semanatic. I didn't use crazy definitions, twist either of our words, nothing unreasonable. All I did was examine the resolution and state whether it was true or false. This time it being false.

If this is not what you wanted to debate, I have two suggestions for you

1) Make a more accurate resolution. There was no way for me to know you wanted to debate a Jew (there is no reason for this either, but to each his own). The resolution was also a factual one, ____ is _____ becuase _____. That is the layout for a factual resolution.

2) Debate on a Jewish forum. If you only wish to debate Jews, go to them. This website is for people to openly debate or challenge others to a debate, not to focus a particular religion.

I thank the readers for finishing this horribly off topic debate (Pro, off topic not becuase of semenatics. Because you stopped debating). I'm sorry we all had to deal with this.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by davidpneff 2 years ago
davidpneff
Bahahahahahahahaha!!! CelestialTorahTeacher, I'd love to debate with you.
Posted by JP_Hatecraft 2 years ago
JP_Hatecraft
@celestialtorahteacher I disagree. The resolution doesn't demand that I know any technical knowledge. You claim I am diverting the discussion however my case is directly related to the resolution and your case. In addition my contentions do not even imply atheism. I am saying that your premise is unproven and that your conclusion is not a logical extension of the premise. I do not understand how that becomes an atheist vs theist debate. Please create an argument against my case instead of trying to attack me.

@RavenDebaterr Thank you, I appreciate it.
Posted by RavenDebater 2 years ago
RavenDebater
Cons argument is valid. It does not matter if he is well versed in Judaism, he is debating about the topic at hand. You have stated that judiusm is a false religion. Since you failed to provide definitions of those words, Cons argument is still valid because his argument fits within the definitions he was forced to provide. Insulting your opponent without answering his points is not only unprofessional it is a horrible tactile desition
Posted by celestialtorahteacher 2 years ago
celestialtorahteacher
If you are not a rabbi or Jewish and well versed in Judaism, please leave this debate as you are not qualified to participate in it. This isn't a debate on atheism vs. theism which you are trying to make it into. So again, if you don't know what the debate topic is about and have no knowledge of Judaism tenets you are just trolling as another atheist stalking religious debates. Don't come here to divert the discussion. And no, it is content of my opponents argument against the topic that is what we are concerned with here, not your definitions of rules of debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
celestialtorahteacherJP_HatecraftTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started with a disjointed premise, but there may have been something to debate - he simply bickered about Cons credentials.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
celestialtorahteacherJP_HatecraftTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: While Pro gave a fascinating opening round, which may have made for an interesting article, it simply does not affirm the resolution, which explicitly requires Judaism be a false religion by virtue of the etymology of "Torah". Con gave a short but succinct rebuttal detailing that much and Pro conceded the debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
celestialtorahteacherJP_HatecraftTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a baseless argument which Con dismantled. Pro then refused to debate further.