The Instigator
mosc
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
judaism
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Eish HaMilchama

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 787 times Debate No: 113945
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (73)
Votes (0)

 

mosc

Pro

Why did HaShem send Moshe to Egypt? HaShem did not send Moshe to Egypt carrying only the cloths on his back and a staff.

What did the plagues serve? To whom did the plagues attack? HaShem being an Eish Milchama as stated in the song of Moshe following the destruction of Par'o and his army in the Sea of Reeds.

Clearly the Gods whom Par'o and the Egyptians worshipped, these Gods live distinct and separate from the God of Moshe who sent Moshe to Egypt to make war upon what? Answer: the Gods of Egypt.

Not just that Par'o considered himself a God. Torah teaches spirituality NOT history lessons. People living 3000 years after the death of Par'o, they have no place to define the reality of the Gods whom Par'o worshipped. To do so, expressess both arrogance and utter stupidity. The Mishna teaches: that a person who contemplates that which is above him, behind him, or beneath him, such a person its better that he was never born!

A false witness claims to have personally witness that which he did not see. Its haughty puffed up pride for Jews to say that no Gods actually lived, not in the days of Moshe, nor in the days of Yehoshua, nor in the days of all the prophets of the NaCH literature wherein our people struggled with a strong conflict within our Yatzir to worship other Gods. Belief in the tenets of Monotheism represents the avoda zara expressed by both Islam and Reform Judaism. For modern Jews to poo poo the life of other Gods, these fools compare to self righteous false witnesses.

How did the slaves of Egypt stand before Par'o and thumb their noses in contempt before Par'o? Obviously the previous sentence requires qualification, due to the different language of the Torah text itself. How did Jews request silver, gold, spices, garments, ect from the Egyptians and the Egyptian taskmasters consent to give their wealth unto slaves? Does this make any sense what so ever? No.

The mitzva of tefillen centers upon swearing Torah oaths. The Rashi tefillen bases itself upon the oath sworn by Yehoshua and klall Yisroel at Gilgal. What defined that oath brit? A brit requires swearing a Torah oath. Therefore what oath did Israel bind upon their souls ie their future born children currently living in O'lam Haba?!!

The oath brit of Gilgal, to which our Rashi tefillen testifies to this very day, HaShem would war upon the Gods of Canaan just as did HaShem (Eish HaMilchama) did war in the days of Moshe upon the Gods worshipped by Par'o and Mitzraim.

The concept of faith that if we keep the commandments - better than did king Shaul - that HaShem shall war against the Gods worshipped by our enemies. Consequently, assuming the pre-conditions of this brit of Gilgal, and Israel upholds our obligations of the brit faith, then HaShem too shall War against the Gods worshipped by our Goyim enemies.

HaShem Eish HaMilchama prevails over these Gods whorshipped by the Goyim. As a consequence, the slaves of Egypt thumbed our noses at Par'o and his Egyptian people. Israel walked out of Egypt and the Egyptians mourned their losses. This mussar applies to both then and today.
judaism

Con

@mosc,

My answers are in the document:

https://docs.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
mosc

Pro

"""While it is true that the Mishna teaches [that a persn who contemplates that which is above him, behind him, or beneath him, such a person its better that he was never born.], you're taking [that Mishna] out of context."""

I made a paraphase of a Mishna. Mishna teaches a common law Case/Rule system. Each case law which the Mishna brings stands on its own. You claim that i took a Mishna out of context, but jump to "The Torah in Moses day etc". The following sentence bears nothing in common or supporting your previous sentence wherein you declare that i have taken a Mishna out of context. You want to view "The Torah in Moses day etc." as if the Torah qualifies as an historical document. No. The Torah teaches spirituality not history. Attempts to make Torah into a historical document, require independent eye witness testimony independent of Moses. No such independent testimony exists. Therefore not only does your follow up question make absolutely no sense, but it totally fails to support your charge that i took a Mishna out of context.

"""Yu say [the Torah] doesn't [mention the Name of God"". No you have made a fundamental error in basic reading. I said that the Xtian Bible and Arab Koran does not mention the Name of God. Honestly dude, you need to read what i wrote.

"""Yes, the first commandment doesn't mention His name, so what.""" Dude you do not even read the Torah correctly, at least your consistent! The first commandment of Sinai opens with the Name of HaShem!!!!

אלהים אחרים -- other Gods [plural]. Its seems clear to me that your knowledge of Hebrew - rather limited. The brit faith Israel cut with HaShem excludes faith in the worship of other Gods. The commandment point blank acknowledges other Gods...אלהים אחרים, again plural not singular. Its simple grammer 101. Furthermore you fail to address the logical inference learned from that commandment: do not worship other Gods directly indicates that there exists other Gods by which Israel could profane the commandment.

You bring a quote from the Mechilta and then immediately talk about Rashi. That's confusion. The Mechilta exist as a pre Mishnaic Tannaic Briita, Rashi post sealing of the Talmud, some 600 years after Rav Ashi sealed the Sha's - a clear secondary source!

Let's quote the 1st 2 commandments:אנכי ה' אלהיך [singular]. Second commandment: לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני [plural]. No where does the Torah state that other Gods do not live. Clearly the Egyptians worshipped other Gods as did the nations of Canaan. The Torah commands Israel not to assimilate and worship other Gods whom Goyim worship. The intent of the 2nd commandment therefore includes in this prohibition the worship of Jesus son of Zeus or Allah.

That you confuse the brit bein habatarim with brit melah proves that you read that brit as if Yishmael or Yitzak had already been born. Avram had no children at the time of the brit bein habatarim! Therefore that brit has nothing what so ever - absolutely no connection in the least - with the mitzva of brit mela! Brit does not mean covenant. You reliance upon translations - not good. Brit means "alliance". The first Book of the Torah - its all about cutting alliances/britot. How do 2 parties cut a brit alliance? This requires both parties to swear an oath. What oath did Avram swear to HaShem when he cut the brit bein habatarim? You do not know. That's pathetic.

You did not quote from the מחלתא but rather you quoted a translation of Rashi which bases his p'shat from that source. The exact quote of the Rashi: ת'ל לא יהלך (מחילתא). The quote from the Michilta directly quotes from the language of the Chumash itself. The דפתי חכמים a super commentary made upon the Rashi writes: on the quoted ת'ל -- that HaShem was the first, that HaShem as God His jealousy becomes aroused by His people worshipping other Gods.

The Michilta teaches an order of priority, first brit Israel accepts the Kingship of HaShem and then afterwards does HaShem as King issue decrees. If Israel does not accept the Kingship of HaShem then likewise Israel would not accept any decree made by HaShem. Point blank: What does Kingship mean? A blessing requires kingship YET the blessing of the Cohenim, the kre'a sh'ma and the shemone esri all lack kingship based upon the halachic ruling which Rabbi Yochannon made in ברכות. Specifically ברכות צריך שם ומלכות. Clearly seeing that the above mentioned sources excluded מלכות and yet define ברכות the meaning and intent of the term מלכות requires definition, for otherwise the halachic ruling made by Rabbi Yochannon makes no sense. Therefore what does Kingship mean?

The Promised Land ... to whom did HaShem promise this land? Avram had no children!!!! Therefore its a fundamental and basic error on your part to confuse the brit bein ha'batarim with brit mela!! The seed of Avram - born into the future - to this segula seed did HaShem swear to give the oath sworn land. Its this brit wherein the Torah teaches the concept of O'lam Ha'ba!!!!!!!

You wrote that you required clarification of my beliefs. Just as gravity requires no "belief" so too the Gods. Israel has a brit with HaShem as God. This brit, being a brit, depends upon the oaths sworn by our fathers upon their souls ie the future born (O'lam Ha'ba) children. "I know Avraham, that he shall command his children". HaShem, by the authority of our Torah made that quote. Do you accept the oath which Avram swore to HaShem at the brit bein habatarim? If you do, then tell me that specific oath? Your or my beliefs do not count for squat. The lives of other Gods, and how much more so HaShem, do not depend upon what I personally believe or do not believe. Brit does not mean convenant b/c covenant has no teaching that it requires the parties to the "covenant" to swear an oath. Brit does mean alliance because the Torah of בראשית specifically teaches that any alliance cut between 2 parties requires an oath. Yaacov and L'van cut an oath brit alliance. Yitzak and AviMelech cut an oath brit alliance. Avraham and AviMelech cut an oath brit alliance.

Avram did the mitzva of brit mela with the birth of Yishmael some 13 years or more after the brit bein ha'batarim. You like butchering Rashi quotes, Rashi at the Akada of Yitzak referred to Yishmael as a mule. Yishmael did not inherit the oath brit faith only Yitzak and his segula seed inherited the brit faith. Proof that Yishmael, the mule, did not inherit the brit faith - the Koran never once employs the language of "brit". The translation of covenant the Koran employs but not brit. The Koran never once brings the Name of HaShem. Do not again confuse the Torah which stands upon the Name of HaShem with the new testament and koran which never once bring the Name of HaShem into those Books of avoda zara.

Your "documentary hypothosis" LOL that's late 19th century Protestant higher critism!!! How utterly and totally pathetic. Gee i have less than 1000 characters remaining. I shall stop here. Have a great day.
judaism

Con

For readability, all my opponents quotes are italicized. You clearly have a lot of time on your hand, and I won"t be able to respond to every argument.

"While it is true that the Mishna teaches "that a person who contemplates that which is above him, behind him, or beneath him, such a person is better off never having been born," you're taking it [or that Mishna line] out of context."

Let me explain to you what this part of the Mishnah really teaches: It has to do with the first letter in Bereshit. From a paper I wrote a while back:

"This is why the Torah is so significant, because it was written by G-d, and every letter has importance, even the shape of the letters. So, for example, in the first words of Genesis, especially the first, we find that "beth - (בת ')" has meaning, which, without, we couldn't have possibly understood our universe. At first, such a small minute detail may sound stoic and peripheral, but the rabbis based all their knowledge off the tiniest letters of the Bible. When you someday study Kabbalah, you will find that this comprises the whole essence. One is to meditate and study the words of the Torah because they reflect reality.

So what's so important about the first Hebrew word of the Bible? "beth" means knowledge that cannot be investigated any further - because there is no time to reference, no information to munch upon - nothing, absolutely nothing. "beth" means that there was nothing before time, it is the very opening of time itself, and is first used in Genesis 1:1."

This Mishnah teaches us about this letter, that we cannot stud "above it, beneath it," and on. That"s the point. We"re not to phantom the creation of the universe.

The Mishnah, to my understanding and education, is just commentary on the Torah. Since the Torah is partly made up of laws (it"s also part narrative, see Genesis; in this case, a history book teaching about spirituality), it too teaches on law. Mostly regarding spiritual law. The reason why I still believe you took it out of context is because you"re trying to say that we shouldn"t understand the Torah today, that it"s an old, dead document, and cold as stone. That we cannot phantom what Moshe knew, and you try and prove that by stating that Moshe knew more than one G-d. Therefore, they do "bare" resemblance, stop trying to make me the fool.

Yes, the Torah"s main focus is spiritual, but I bet you no one would listen to it if you were to say the Exodus (a historical event) never happened. Go and obey your G-d because I [Moshe] say so. Come on! Of course the Torah teaches a bit of history, it"s the best friend of archaeologists! That"s what makes it so powerful, like the Gemara itself, Torah teaches, practically everything! You say there were no independent eyewitnesses to the giving of Torah? The whole nation of Israel were eyewitnesses!

You then accuse me of misreading your post, but I clearly recall you saying that there is no Name of G-d in the first commandment.

""Yu say [the Torah] doesn't [mention the Name of God". No you have made a fundamental error in basic reading. I said that the Xtian Bible and Arab Koran does not mention the Name of God. Honestly dude, you need to read what i wrote."

That"s not what I got out of that. It seemed to me that you"re just saying the name of G-d isn"t in Torah. That"s your fault, not mine.

""Yes, the first commandment doesn't mention His name, so what." Dude you do not even read the Torah correctly, at least your consistent! The first commandment of Sinai opens with the Name of HaShem!!!!"

Yes, I agree with that. Here it is:

אָֽנֹכִ֨י יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֽוֹצֵאתִ֩יךָ֩ מֵאֶ֨רֶץ מִצְרַ֜יִם מִבֵּ֣ית עֲבָדִ֗ים:

The Holy Name (אֱלֹהִים) as a judge (אֱֱלֹהִים). This name is one name of HaShem. His true name, (י ה ו הR36;)R36;, is mentioned. That was my point.

Yes, other gods is in the plural (אלהים אחרים), but it doesn"t mean they exist! If they do exist, are the gods of Egypt more powerful than HaShem? Can Zeus kill Thor? And I never confused the two, Brit Milah was just an example. As I said, he circumcised himself and his servants. I know the covenant between Abraham and HaShem, it"s Yeshiva 101; why do you think I do not know? He did not make a promise with spiritual children, but a physical descendants, that"s the whole point of the chapter! G-d promises Abraham future children!

I didn't bring up the Documentary Hypothesis because I beleive it, on the contrary! It"s garbage theology! You misunderstood my point.

I have nothing else to say.
Debate Round No. 2
mosc

Pro

"""""The Mishnah, to my understanding and education, is just commentary on the Torah. Since the Torah is partly made up of laws (it"s also part narrative, see Genesis; in this case, a history book teaching about spirituality), it too teaches on law. Mostly regarding spiritual law. The reason why I still believe you took it out of context is because you"re trying to say that we shouldn"t understand the Torah today, that it"s an old, dead document, and cold as stone. That we cannot phantom what Moshe knew, and you try and prove that by stating that Moshe knew more than one G-d. Therefore, they do "bare" resemblance, stop trying to make me the fool.""""

The Mishna brought to this debate has nothing what so ever to do with obstruse discussions about Hebrew letters. One obstruse commentary holds that the Torah begins with ב and not א because ברוך comes from ב while ארור comes from א; the difference between blessing and cursing. You want kabbala, then study the T'NaCH liturature - its called kabbala. Kabbala sounds like something mysterious. Bunk. Kabbala its just a word for masoret which means tradition.

""""Yes, the Torah"s main focus is spiritual, but I bet you no one would listen to it if you were to say the Exodus (a historical event) never happened.""""

Bunk. Your idle speculation proves nothing. The mythology of the Greek Gods never in fact happened. While learning in public school I studied Greek mythology in the 9th grade. The Gospels of the New Testament never happened. Proof the earliest Book of Mark was written 60 to 80 years after the fact. The Book of John - some 200 years after the imaginary man walked the earth. Jesus son of Zeus - a simple myth just like his father! Furthermore, all the Books of the New Testament, including the letters of Paul, originally written in Greek - not Hebrew or Aramaic - the language of the Jewish people. Therefore, the target audiance - Goyim not Jews.

The question stands against the New Testament fraud - events that never really happened but people read these mythologies and believe them to be true - why did the letters of Paul, written about 50 ce, come after the Gospel Books? [allot of Gospel Books were excluded from the Cannon, Gospel of Judas (https://en.wikipedia.org...), a Gospel written about the same time as that of John]. The Gospels claim to give eye witness testimony, but that's clear false witness testimony. What does the Torah say about false witnesses?

Why did the letters of Paul, written about 50 ce, come after the Gospel Books? This question requires further analysis, but its quite complicated.

A simple reading of the Book of Acts suggests that Paul served as an Agent Provocateur for Rabban Gamliel, the Nassi of the Great Sanhedrin. Paul travelled to Syria and was stoned. Syria its a dispute among the Sages whether its part of the land of Israel. Syria was conquerred by king David. But that [real] dispute aside, Paul, no Sanhedrin tried him for a Capital Crimes offense - the worship of Jesus as God, a new God which the fathers of Israel never knew. A Torts Court of 3 judges tried Paul - both in Syria and in Rome! The Judges who try civil damages cases do not have a legel degree to judge Capital Crimes cases under Jewish law. Yet, wonder of wonders, in both Syria and Rome, a Torts Court tried Paul for a Capital Crime offense! The judicial authority of the Sanhedrin, its limited only to the land of Israel. Hence Syria according to 50% of the rabbis lay outside of Israel!

Torts Court in Syria ruled Paul guilty of the Capital Crime of avoda zara. That ruling clearly based itself upon the sin of worshipping foreign Gods. Paul was stoned. But not according to halacha - Jewish law! Stoning, according to halacha, a prisoner - taken to a 3 story scaffold, naked. The prisoner the authorities bound hand and foot. Then pushed off the scaffold unto a jagged boulder below. The Talmud teaches that no man ever survived such a traumatic impact. Yet Paul was stone by people throwing stones - not Jewish law - and walked away from the stoning on his own power!

If the Jews sought to infiltrate an Agent Provocateur among the early Xtians, then this charade of justice worked. Paul immediately started preaching that Goyim were not under the Law - a true statement. Goyim never accepted the brit of Sina and therefore have no obligation of "we shall do and hear" to obey the laws of Moshe! Paul next preached that brit mela did not apply to Goyim who accepts Jesus son of Zeus as God. This caused all Jewish followers of this avoda zara to abandon this new God.

Another Torts Court in Rome tried Paul and found him innocent of committing the Capital Crime of avoda zara. Paul left the Court and started preahing Jesus the King of the Jews; Jesus the Son of God. This preaching threatened Ceasar. Ceasar held that he was both Son of God and King of the Jews. The polytheistic - multiple Gods - society of Rome, Paul injected a limited monotheistic belief system. The law of revolutions, which Yechuda Maccabee injected into the Greek Syrian empire, the Maccabbees challenged not only the authority of the King of Syria, they challenged the validity of his worship of the Gods as well! As an Agent Provocateur, Paul accomplished the exact same strategy with his preaching of Jesus son of Zeus.

The Great Sanhedrin sought to undermine the Roman civilization by cracking its "ethical containment force", meaning the collective soul of that specific civilization. For example: the French, Russian, Nazi, and Iranian revolutions of the 18th and 20th centuries all accomplished by the "cracking of the ethical containment force" of those societies. Robespierre attacked both the validity of king and church. Lenin and Troskii did the same in Russia. Hitler challenged the validity of both domocracy and the Judeo-Christian tradition; Ayatollah Khomeini not only denounced the Shah as illegitament, he attacked the value of the morals embraced by the western democracies!

Pauls letters, written in the 50s CE had no knowledge what so ever of the later Gospels. Jesus son of Zeus - an imaginary mythical man.

""""I clearly recall you saying that there is no Name of G-d in the first commandment.""""

We communicate by writing to each other. ""Saying"", that's utterly absurd. """It seemed to me that you"re just saying the name of G-d isn"t in Torah.""" Dude the Name of the God of Israel its found throughout the Torah. Duh! You even admitted to your error. """""Yes, the first commandment doesn't mention His name, so what." Dude you do not even read the Torah correctly, at least your consistent! The first commandment of Sinai opens with the Name of HaShem!!!!"

Yes, I agree with that.""" Next you write: """His true name, (י ה ו הR36;)R36;, is mentioned. That was my point."""

Where in the New Testament or the Koran is this Divine Name written? NO WHERE. Therefore the new testament avoda zara and the Koran avoda zara worship other Gods. Next you write, you do not "say" - fundamental error. ""Yes, other gods is in the plural (אלהים אחרים), but it doesn"t mean they exist!"" That's what you write. The people who worship Zeus and Thor they reject your arrogance.

"""Brit Milah was just an example. As I said, he circumcised himself and his servants.""" Please pull your pants up. Brit melah came no less than 13 years after the brit ha'batarim. Next you write ""He did not make a promise with spiritual children, but a physical descendants, that"s the whole point of the chapter! G-d promises Abraham future children!""

Bunk. The brit bein ha'batarim teaches the faith of O'lam Ha'ba and the resurrection of the dead!

""I didn't bring up the Documentary Hypothesis because I beleive it, on the contrary! It"s garbage theology! You misunderstood my point.""

YOU brought up worthless garbage not at all connected to the discusson! This represents the point i made both then and now
judaism

Con

I know what Kabbalah means, it's received wisdom, that's the literal definition. No one book makes up the Kabbalah. Though it is mystical oriented, beware of commercialized Kabbalah.

I wrote that the Torah taught some history, especially the Exodus, and you claim now that it isn't true? Wow. . . your the first non-Reform Jew claiming that! Did the flood happen, did Joshua enter the promised land? If none of it ever happened, what are we doing trusting in G-d and following His laws? How do we know any of its true!

You say that the NT never happened, even though people believe it. Cannot the same standard be applied to Torah? What makes Torah more truer than the NT? This is a philosophical question. How do you know there were witnesses to the giving of the Torah anymore than Paul's beliefs?

You then go on to write a lot about Paul, but I don't see how it means anything to our conversation. By the way, Paul was never a student of Gamaliel. You're getting this from the Christians.

You write that I claimed the name of HaShem is not found throughout Torah, but I never said that. You then write that the Name isn't anywhere in the other sacred writings of the nations. They are in there, they just didn't write in Hebrew. It's a joke to say Allah was a moon god, He was HaShem, the name of G-d to their beliefs, though I'm not advocating for the Koran.

I don't think you understand either the Brit ha'batarim or milah. You say, correctly, that the former was given before milah. Okay, let's go with that, all scholars and rabbis know there isn't a hint of Olam HaBa nor the resurrection in Torah. Not a hint. I'm not saying it isn't true/going to happen, as I believe in the prophets too, but the concept isn't in Torah.

You lastly state that I brought up garbage "theology," meaning, the Documentary Hypothesis. Firstly, get rid of this Lutheran/Protestant theory, it never happened. Those people were atheists, they weren't Christian. You brought up Paul, what does that have to do with our conversation? Secondly, the link below explains your views, and where they came from. I can't type it all up here:

https://www.haaretz.com......

In conclusion, I hope we had a fair debate, and I'll let the viewers (if anyone cares for Jewish theology!) decide who's right.
Debate Round No. 3
73 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
mosc
The baali tosafot held that the Rambam was a heretic. I agree with the French Rabbis.
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
mosc
Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina determine the halacha NOT the Rambam.
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
mosc
You do not know when that condemnation was etched into his grave stone. I have seen graffiti etched into the stones which made up the walls of Herod Temple which declare that the coming of the Moshiach is near!! LOL Nut jobs live in every generation.
Posted by judaism 4 months ago
judaism
Also on there are the words: "From Moshe to Moshe, none arose like Moshe [meaning, Rambam!]" Not everyone hated him as you do.
Posted by judaism 4 months ago
judaism
Anyway, we're not sure where exactly he's buried anyway.
Posted by judaism 4 months ago
judaism
Well, if that's so, that's just horrible. The Rambam wasn't a heretic. You and I disagree on some stuff, but there are plenty of rabbis who follow him. That's all. That etching is graffiti, may it be blotted out!
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
mosc
When will you stop stuttering I, I, I, I, this discussion involves more than just yourself.
"my rabbi follows the Rambam, EVERYONE follows Rambam." That's a racist statement comparible to all blacks hang from trees and eat bananas. You have never visited the Rambam's kever in Tiberias. I have. Etched upon his grave the word Min! Min means heretic.
Posted by judaism 4 months ago
judaism
Keep this up, will reach a 100 comments! Your goal to do 1,000?
Posted by judaism 4 months ago
judaism
What? No. My rabbi's email won't be put on a site for all to see and harash without his permission. I proved to you I'm not Jews for Jesus, you just keep boasting it for some reason, maybe because I'm a nicer guy who isn't afraid to make Christian friends? Y'know, they'll really nice people, you ought to know one yourself. Perhaps then anti-Semites wouldn't look upon us as being so closed? By the way, my rabbi follows the Rambam, EVERYONE follows Rambam.
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
mosc
Warmonger, such metaphors! LOL Notice you have not presented any definition from the Torah for the concept of king. A blind man ask you what does the color blue look like and you "prove" that blue is blue. LOL what a total joke.
No votes have been placed for this debate.