With all due respect Mr Hoffman all the psychopathic genocidal racism is baked right into the Torah and old testament. Instead you single out the Talmud which is indeed bad, but isn't even what the genocidal, racist Zionist leadership of Israel reference...Amalek which is in the old testament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek. It is Deuteronomy that contains the following: "And the lord spake uno me saying...this day I begin to put the dread of thee and fear of the thee upon the nations that are under the whole of heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of theee...And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them...to drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art. to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance...and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shall smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them, neither shalt though make marriages with them....ye shall destroy their altars and break down their images...and thou shalt consume thy people which the Lord they God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have not pity upon them...Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours...even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be...of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing alive that breatheth...thou shalt lend unto many nations and thou shat not borrow" This sounds an awful like what is going on in Gaza!
This is the same tiresome regurgitation of various pagan critiques of the Old Testament and of Jesus! divine father Yahweh.
One track minds are incapable of processing the fact that Jesus and his disciples favorably quoted the Old Testament hundreds of times.
Jesus said he came to fulfill the Old Testament law.
Therefore, these attacks on the Hebrew Bible are attacks on Jesus.
Critics of the Old Testament should be more candid, and admit that they are not only deprecating the first half of the Bible they are also deprecating our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Moreover, orthodox Talmudism is not the religion of the Old Testament as the adherents themselves admit in their esoteric texts. Their holiest books are the Mishna and Gemara not the books of Moses or the authentic Torah.
But too often one cannot budge confirmation bias when people are addicted to it in defiance of the facts.
Ephesians 6:12 "For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." Could the Amalekites of the Old Testament have been a metaphorical construct, and not an actual ethnic group? I may have missed it, but I have not found any reference by Jesus or the Apostles to the Amalekite sections of the Old Testament (Genesis 36, Exodus 17, Deuteronomy 25, Judges, Numbers 14, and 2 Samuel, Psalm 83, 1 Chronicles).
Why do you keep bringing up red herrings Mr. Hoffman? Modern Orthodox Judaism? Jesus? This has nothing to do with my point.
The origin of modern Israeli supremacy, apartheid, slaughter of innocents are clearly in the Old Testament. It is the Old Testament they quote (https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133201/netanyahus-references-to-violent-biblical-passages-raise-alarm-among-critics)! The book of Joshua is literally a chronicle of the Israelite's slaughter of the inhabitants of that land and their settlement of the area. Numbers 31 is a chapter devoted to the distribution of the booty--livestock, girls (there is no distinction made). I suggest everyone read it. The modern Israelis are not wrong in finding justification for their behaviors in the Old Testament. It's plainly there.
The ten commandments narratively (and grammatically outside of the punctuated English translations) apply only to the "neighbor," that is your fellow tribesman Hebrew. This is abundantly clear where there is one set of ethical rules for neighbor an another for the other and yet another for the slaves/captives. This originates in the OLD TESTAMENT, not the Talmud. The Talmud takes this ethic to its logical conclusion it seems; I can only go off your books on the topic Mr. Hoffman. The NEW TESTAMENT clearly turns this "otherness ethic" on its head...the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Sermon on the Mount were rejected by the Jewish authorities in the New Testament precisely because they would have been rejected by most of the (supposed) authors and characters of the Old Testament--certainly Joshua, Samuel, Ezekiel. The entire idea of universal justice, human rights, eternal personal accountability for moral conduct...these are not of the Old Testament, they are products of Christian thinking and perhaps "pagan" as Rome had a universal set of laws, trials based on law, reason (not on magic temple dust: Numbers 5:11-31).
If you have not read the Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed I suggest you do. It provides the most cogent explanation I am aware of for reconciling the New and Old Testament.
Here we go again. I've read your spiel before (June 14). You appear to have a one-track mind which is not amenable to facts.
Please cease using this comments section as a bulletin board for your repetition of propaganda.
You do not attempt to counter my documentation. You merely regurgitate.
I will not forever publish your anti-Biblical stuff. This is the second time I have done so. Unless you have something new to add to the polemic, there will not be a third time.
Once again, I have read "The Controversy of Zion." It is promoted by people who are not literate in the Old Testament; who fundamentally don't know what they are talking about, as you can read here:
The Talmudists use the Old Testament as a prop. If they were to adhere to it they would have to agree with Isaiah that "Israel has unclean lips." Instead the Talmud states that the Old Testament prophet Isaiah was justifiably killed for making that humble and truthful statement.
Read Luke 11:45-52 and you will see Jesus upholding the prophets of the Old Testament and indicting the proto-Talmudic Pharisees and their ancestors for the murder of those holy men of the Old Testament. Douglas Reed did not know this.
Attacks on the Old Testament are fundamentally attacks on Jesus Christ.
Yet most critics are too dishonest to admit it.
Jesus and his disciples quoted the Old Testament favorably hundreds of time. This datum is the immovable object obstructing the movement to identify the Old Testament with the Talmud, which Douglas Reed (and many others) have attempted out of incomprehension or ill will.
Hitler's occult controller, Dietrich Eckart, was the author of "Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin." Today's Neo-Nazis are determined to alienate the people of the West from the Bible, beginning with the Old Testament. Read "Judaism Discovered" and open your eyes. https://truthfulhistory.blogspot.com/2016/02/judaica-books-and-resources.html
I read Judaism Discovered. I applaud you for it. But with almost every page I kept asking myself, why can't Hoffman recognize the OT patterns of the Talmud? For every thing you can quote favorably in the OT I can pick out something outrageous, like the story of Jephthah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jephthah), Psalm 137 (136 for Catholics) (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+137&version=NIV), Numbers 31, the book of Esther! All the modern Jewish holy days are celebrations of victorious slaughter over their adversary and are FOUND IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, not the Talmud!
You don't counter any of my arguments. I would really appreciate it if you could justify the slaughter of innocent children found in Exodus, Joshua, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Esther, the Books of Judges, the Psalms. Sorry. I just don't accept that babies can be murdered because their parents' conduct or heritage! I don't accept it 3000 years ago. I don't accept it in Gaza now. It's just clearly wrong. And most of the world recognized this moral principle long ago from Confucius to Jesus. Why don't you? Why didn't Moses? Or Joshua? Or Samuel? or Sampson? Or Jephthah? Or Ezekiel? You don't have to convince me the Talmud is highly toxic. Now explain to me (and the world) how the OT is free of the same toxin. Find me a Sermon on the Mount in the OT that isn't contradicted two sentences forward or backward.
I've read the NT. Jesus does use the Old Testament, more or less to make corrections and "fulfill" it. For example pointing out that divorce/polygamy is bad (which is promoted in the legislation of the OT, though it makes sure to make clear that you can only take non-Hebrew girls as concubines/sex slaves they cannot be afforded the inheritance rights of a wife: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phinehas ), as the ideal form represented by Pre-Fall Adam and Eve was a monogamous pair for life. He took the 10 commandments which applied only within the Hebrews and not only universalized them to all mankind but summarized them into Love God and Love all mankind as yourself, a moral duo that hasn't really been improved upon. Yes, some of the good prophets Jesus uses as examples (Douglas Reed goes heavily into this), and He doesn't spare in his commendations of the pharisees. There are numerous parts where he basically says I don't care what is written, I AM THE LAW. This is of course when the authorities seek to murder him, as their power/wealth is based in their ability to authoritatively interpret that law, becoming law-worshipers more than God worshipers (this is made abundantly clear in the Talmud where they out-argue God apparently, something I learned from you!). Jesus points out that the faith of Abraham is what is praiseworthy, which forms the covenant, but didn't condone Abraham's cowardliness, counsel to lie to Sarah, his attempted murder of Hagar/Ishmael. He didn't say that Jacob's deceptions were OK. Or Judah's betrayal of Joseph was Ok. Or that David's Adultery-Murder was Ok, yet you find in synoptic Gospels this attempt to demonstrate Jesus was descended from this line like it would be something to be proud of instead of ashamed. Who cares what your mother's ancestry is when your father is the Almighty?
Your anti- Laurent Guyenot article I read, and found it totally uncompelling. Judging by the comments section on UNZ which you don't have the power to curate, well over 80% of the comments were on Dr. Guyenot's side (who has academic credentials in biblical studies by the way), not yours.
I am looking at big narrative perspective. The Talmudic interpretation of the OT is quite reasonable, in fact I think it is more reasonable, than the Christian one. Christianity stands upon the NT where one can and does (at least I do) hear the Voice of the Shepherd, the word, the truth. This is why Isaiah proof texting isn't convincing to anyone really, but if it excites you go for it. For every pro-human quote in the OT you can find a dozen anti-Human, for every Jesus pre-figurement you can find as many conquering general Messiah pre-figurments, which is why Jews are so utterly recalcitrant to conversion. Jesus's statements stand as contradictions to some of the OT on a very fundamental level. Like who is and who is not your fellow man. The answer to that question in the OT (only other Hebrews) is not the same as the NT (all mankind). All Talmudic logic is downstream of this fundamental distinction.
"There are numerous parts where he (Jesus) basically says I don't care what is written, I AM THE LAW."
Hoffman replies:
No such anarchistic absurdity can be attributed to Jesus from the New Testament. Perhaps in a gnostic text. It is most certainly not in the Gospel. The notion that Jesus didn't care what His Father Yahweh had decreed is about as Talmudic as it gets.
Jesus declared: "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17).
His declaration puts paid to your entire argument. You are endeavoring to re-write the Bible according to your humanistic likes and dislikes. For example, like a Talmudist you claim (on zero evidence) that:
"Jesus points out that the faith of Abraham is what is praiseworthy, which forms the covenant, but didn't condone Abraham's cowardliness, counsel to lie to Sarah, his attempted murder of Hagar/Ishmael. "
Jesus also had nothing to say against sodomy, does that indicate he favored it?
His praise for Abraham was >unqualified.<
Talmudists invent qualifications and attribute them to Jesus.
I reject Talmudism in anyone, of any ethnicity, including you. The following statement of yours is highly revealing and self-indicting:
"The Talmudic interpretation of the OT is quite reasonable, in fact I think it is more reasonable, than the Christian one."
Anthony should attempt to acquire some modicum of Biblical literacy.
For example, " it is common for New Testament writers to apply an Old Testament passage that refers to Yahweh to Jesus. This arises from the theological conviction that it is entirely appropriate to do so since, granted Jesus identity, what is predicated of God can be predicated no less of Him." (G.K. Beale, "Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament" [2007).
Mr Hoffman, I hope you change your mind about allowing only paid subscribers to read Part Two of “The Whiskey Insurgency: The People vs. George Washington”.
I will once again have hope for the United States of America on the day when an American politician running for the presidency can condemn Israel's long history of crimes -- unambiguously and vehemently -- as part of his campaign platform, and nonetheless even be nominated never mind elected.
Charles Eisenstein. He's enormously popular. He's sort of a sacred warrior for justice in the tikkun olam way. See his website for a 6 minute oration on "Moving Towards Interbeing".
A friend, a Franciscan Deacon, sent me Eisenstein's book, "Sacred Economies" years ago, with the exhortation: must read. I hadn't yet read any of Michael Hoffman and did not know what "conjunction of opposites" meant, but everywhere stumbled across deep contradictions and shallow glosses of history to arrive at a "What the Bleep Do We Know" (remember that movie?) summation of world woes in the history of money. Also a kind of precursor to "you will own nothing and be happy" . Truly seductive reading with lovely language and utopian ideas and an elegant solution to everything.
Here's a quote: "Debt can endure forever. Wealth cannot, because it's physical dimension is subject to the laws of entropy." --Frederick Soddy, an economist of the 30's that he admires, p. 203, under chapter 12, on Negative Interest Economies.
On p. 454, in a discussion of quantum money, he quotes his "dear ex-wife, Patsy : " Money is not yours until you spend it."
Ah, the poetry of disguise and the credo of our consumer society. And the New Age religion.
On his essay "How to Heal the Wound of Gaza": I understand (despite my little brain) that Christ's combat with the Pharisees was mortal, and that he nowhere in the Gospel granted them amnesty. Salvation is not amnesty (correct me if I'm wrong).
St. John Chrysostom tells us that repentance involves first of all contrition -- recognition and responsibility for your sins BEFORE there can be forgiveness.
But sin isn't part of Eisenstein's thinking, and he quotes Rosseau and Marx frequently. And did he miss the part of one of Finkelstein's recent interviews about 97% of Israelis approving the destruction of Gaza? Still, E's writing is hauntingly seductive. "The righting of historical wrongs will emerge indirectly." ????? Creative solution: "Two states, one Homeland."
But what of all the Palestinian blood that has been shed? What of all the murdered children? This sounds like The Grand Inquisitor (tho' I told my Franciscan friend that E didn't seem to have read Dostoevsky, especially not "Crime and Punishment".) E mentions Christ twice in his book on Sacred Economies, if not disrespectfully, somewhat dismissively.
Sorry to be so wordy!!! But Eisenstein has captured young, New Age minds and is a force to be reckoned with.
"Christ's combat with the Pharisees was mortal, and that he nowhere in the Gospel granted them amnesty. Salvation is not amnesty (correct me if I'm wrong). St. John Chrysostom tells us that repentance involves first of all contrition -- recognition and responsibility for your sins BEFORE there can be forgiveness. But sin isn't part of Eisenstein's thinking...He mentions Christ twice in his book on Sacred Economies, if not disrespectfully, somewhat dismissively..."
Mr. Eisenstein is part of the tradition of Eastern religion which is popular now in the West predominately due to the very bad example set by CINOs (Christians in Name Only), who callously enthuse over the Israeli mass murder in Palestine. Moreover, they disparage Biblically-based jeremiads against the usurious renting of money as "Socialism."
In a milieu like that gurus and teachers of "luhv" and tolerance will prosper even when they, as you note, dismiss Jesus, the only Lord of Salvation in the whole of the cosmos.
so sad, for me and the world. I was soooo excited and believe RFK could have had a groundswell of ex-Bernie bros. Bernie raised millions from us and an army of texters, phone calls. I support so much of what he supports, but his stubborn insistence on looking the other way as tens of thousands are blown to bits, starved, their libraries, schools and hospitals ruined forever, not to mention their homes. No other word besides genocide.
and as you point out, this is an indigenous people. perhaps Charles would cheer on our genocide of the native peoples that were here when we "founded" America. I feel so badly to see well-intentioned people so captured by the "both sidism" and "woke" culture. was a dem all my life until I had to leave during the last election cycle and I am so sick of the righteous hatred of both sides, but especially the woke crowd. many of my friends/acquaintances are in that crowd and it's frustrating and maddening but I care for them.
Perfect!
With all due respect Mr Hoffman all the psychopathic genocidal racism is baked right into the Torah and old testament. Instead you single out the Talmud which is indeed bad, but isn't even what the genocidal, racist Zionist leadership of Israel reference...Amalek which is in the old testament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek. It is Deuteronomy that contains the following: "And the lord spake uno me saying...this day I begin to put the dread of thee and fear of the thee upon the nations that are under the whole of heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of theee...And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them...to drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art. to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance...and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shall smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them, neither shalt though make marriages with them....ye shall destroy their altars and break down their images...and thou shalt consume thy people which the Lord they God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have not pity upon them...Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours...even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be...of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing alive that breatheth...thou shalt lend unto many nations and thou shat not borrow" This sounds an awful like what is going on in Gaza!
This is the same tiresome regurgitation of various pagan critiques of the Old Testament and of Jesus! divine father Yahweh.
One track minds are incapable of processing the fact that Jesus and his disciples favorably quoted the Old Testament hundreds of times.
Jesus said he came to fulfill the Old Testament law.
Therefore, these attacks on the Hebrew Bible are attacks on Jesus.
Critics of the Old Testament should be more candid, and admit that they are not only deprecating the first half of the Bible they are also deprecating our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Moreover, orthodox Talmudism is not the religion of the Old Testament as the adherents themselves admit in their esoteric texts. Their holiest books are the Mishna and Gemara not the books of Moses or the authentic Torah.
But too often one cannot budge confirmation bias when people are addicted to it in defiance of the facts.
Ephesians 6:12 "For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." Could the Amalekites of the Old Testament have been a metaphorical construct, and not an actual ethnic group? I may have missed it, but I have not found any reference by Jesus or the Apostles to the Amalekite sections of the Old Testament (Genesis 36, Exodus 17, Deuteronomy 25, Judges, Numbers 14, and 2 Samuel, Psalm 83, 1 Chronicles).
Why do you keep bringing up red herrings Mr. Hoffman? Modern Orthodox Judaism? Jesus? This has nothing to do with my point.
The origin of modern Israeli supremacy, apartheid, slaughter of innocents are clearly in the Old Testament. It is the Old Testament they quote (https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133201/netanyahus-references-to-violent-biblical-passages-raise-alarm-among-critics)! The book of Joshua is literally a chronicle of the Israelite's slaughter of the inhabitants of that land and their settlement of the area. Numbers 31 is a chapter devoted to the distribution of the booty--livestock, girls (there is no distinction made). I suggest everyone read it. The modern Israelis are not wrong in finding justification for their behaviors in the Old Testament. It's plainly there.
The ten commandments narratively (and grammatically outside of the punctuated English translations) apply only to the "neighbor," that is your fellow tribesman Hebrew. This is abundantly clear where there is one set of ethical rules for neighbor an another for the other and yet another for the slaves/captives. This originates in the OLD TESTAMENT, not the Talmud. The Talmud takes this ethic to its logical conclusion it seems; I can only go off your books on the topic Mr. Hoffman. The NEW TESTAMENT clearly turns this "otherness ethic" on its head...the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Sermon on the Mount were rejected by the Jewish authorities in the New Testament precisely because they would have been rejected by most of the (supposed) authors and characters of the Old Testament--certainly Joshua, Samuel, Ezekiel. The entire idea of universal justice, human rights, eternal personal accountability for moral conduct...these are not of the Old Testament, they are products of Christian thinking and perhaps "pagan" as Rome had a universal set of laws, trials based on law, reason (not on magic temple dust: Numbers 5:11-31).
If you have not read the Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed I suggest you do. It provides the most cogent explanation I am aware of for reconciling the New and Old Testament.
Here we go again. I've read your spiel before (June 14). You appear to have a one-track mind which is not amenable to facts.
Please cease using this comments section as a bulletin board for your repetition of propaganda.
You do not attempt to counter my documentation. You merely regurgitate.
I will not forever publish your anti-Biblical stuff. This is the second time I have done so. Unless you have something new to add to the polemic, there will not be a third time.
Once again, I have read "The Controversy of Zion." It is promoted by people who are not literate in the Old Testament; who fundamentally don't know what they are talking about, as you can read here:
https://michaelhoffman.substack.com/p/the-gospel-according-to-laurent-guyenot
The Talmudists use the Old Testament as a prop. If they were to adhere to it they would have to agree with Isaiah that "Israel has unclean lips." Instead the Talmud states that the Old Testament prophet Isaiah was justifiably killed for making that humble and truthful statement.
Read Luke 11:45-52 and you will see Jesus upholding the prophets of the Old Testament and indicting the proto-Talmudic Pharisees and their ancestors for the murder of those holy men of the Old Testament. Douglas Reed did not know this.
Attacks on the Old Testament are fundamentally attacks on Jesus Christ.
Yet most critics are too dishonest to admit it.
Jesus and his disciples quoted the Old Testament favorably hundreds of time. This datum is the immovable object obstructing the movement to identify the Old Testament with the Talmud, which Douglas Reed (and many others) have attempted out of incomprehension or ill will.
Hitler's occult controller, Dietrich Eckart, was the author of "Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin." Today's Neo-Nazis are determined to alienate the people of the West from the Bible, beginning with the Old Testament. Read "Judaism Discovered" and open your eyes. https://truthfulhistory.blogspot.com/2016/02/judaica-books-and-resources.html
I read Judaism Discovered. I applaud you for it. But with almost every page I kept asking myself, why can't Hoffman recognize the OT patterns of the Talmud? For every thing you can quote favorably in the OT I can pick out something outrageous, like the story of Jephthah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jephthah), Psalm 137 (136 for Catholics) (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+137&version=NIV), Numbers 31, the book of Esther! All the modern Jewish holy days are celebrations of victorious slaughter over their adversary and are FOUND IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, not the Talmud!
You don't counter any of my arguments. I would really appreciate it if you could justify the slaughter of innocent children found in Exodus, Joshua, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Esther, the Books of Judges, the Psalms. Sorry. I just don't accept that babies can be murdered because their parents' conduct or heritage! I don't accept it 3000 years ago. I don't accept it in Gaza now. It's just clearly wrong. And most of the world recognized this moral principle long ago from Confucius to Jesus. Why don't you? Why didn't Moses? Or Joshua? Or Samuel? or Sampson? Or Jephthah? Or Ezekiel? You don't have to convince me the Talmud is highly toxic. Now explain to me (and the world) how the OT is free of the same toxin. Find me a Sermon on the Mount in the OT that isn't contradicted two sentences forward or backward.
I've read the NT. Jesus does use the Old Testament, more or less to make corrections and "fulfill" it. For example pointing out that divorce/polygamy is bad (which is promoted in the legislation of the OT, though it makes sure to make clear that you can only take non-Hebrew girls as concubines/sex slaves they cannot be afforded the inheritance rights of a wife: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phinehas ), as the ideal form represented by Pre-Fall Adam and Eve was a monogamous pair for life. He took the 10 commandments which applied only within the Hebrews and not only universalized them to all mankind but summarized them into Love God and Love all mankind as yourself, a moral duo that hasn't really been improved upon. Yes, some of the good prophets Jesus uses as examples (Douglas Reed goes heavily into this), and He doesn't spare in his commendations of the pharisees. There are numerous parts where he basically says I don't care what is written, I AM THE LAW. This is of course when the authorities seek to murder him, as their power/wealth is based in their ability to authoritatively interpret that law, becoming law-worshipers more than God worshipers (this is made abundantly clear in the Talmud where they out-argue God apparently, something I learned from you!). Jesus points out that the faith of Abraham is what is praiseworthy, which forms the covenant, but didn't condone Abraham's cowardliness, counsel to lie to Sarah, his attempted murder of Hagar/Ishmael. He didn't say that Jacob's deceptions were OK. Or Judah's betrayal of Joseph was Ok. Or that David's Adultery-Murder was Ok, yet you find in synoptic Gospels this attempt to demonstrate Jesus was descended from this line like it would be something to be proud of instead of ashamed. Who cares what your mother's ancestry is when your father is the Almighty?
Your anti- Laurent Guyenot article I read, and found it totally uncompelling. Judging by the comments section on UNZ which you don't have the power to curate, well over 80% of the comments were on Dr. Guyenot's side (who has academic credentials in biblical studies by the way), not yours.
I am looking at big narrative perspective. The Talmudic interpretation of the OT is quite reasonable, in fact I think it is more reasonable, than the Christian one. Christianity stands upon the NT where one can and does (at least I do) hear the Voice of the Shepherd, the word, the truth. This is why Isaiah proof texting isn't convincing to anyone really, but if it excites you go for it. For every pro-human quote in the OT you can find a dozen anti-Human, for every Jesus pre-figurement you can find as many conquering general Messiah pre-figurments, which is why Jews are so utterly recalcitrant to conversion. Jesus's statements stand as contradictions to some of the OT on a very fundamental level. Like who is and who is not your fellow man. The answer to that question in the OT (only other Hebrews) is not the same as the NT (all mankind). All Talmudic logic is downstream of this fundamental distinction.
Anthony wrote:
"There are numerous parts where he (Jesus) basically says I don't care what is written, I AM THE LAW."
Hoffman replies:
No such anarchistic absurdity can be attributed to Jesus from the New Testament. Perhaps in a gnostic text. It is most certainly not in the Gospel. The notion that Jesus didn't care what His Father Yahweh had decreed is about as Talmudic as it gets.
Jesus declared: "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17).
His declaration puts paid to your entire argument. You are endeavoring to re-write the Bible according to your humanistic likes and dislikes. For example, like a Talmudist you claim (on zero evidence) that:
"Jesus points out that the faith of Abraham is what is praiseworthy, which forms the covenant, but didn't condone Abraham's cowardliness, counsel to lie to Sarah, his attempted murder of Hagar/Ishmael. "
Jesus also had nothing to say against sodomy, does that indicate he favored it?
His praise for Abraham was >unqualified.<
Talmudists invent qualifications and attribute them to Jesus.
I reject Talmudism in anyone, of any ethnicity, including you. The following statement of yours is highly revealing and self-indicting:
"The Talmudic interpretation of the OT is quite reasonable, in fact I think it is more reasonable, than the Christian one."
Anthony should attempt to acquire some modicum of Biblical literacy.
For example, " it is common for New Testament writers to apply an Old Testament passage that refers to Yahweh to Jesus. This arises from the theological conviction that it is entirely appropriate to do so since, granted Jesus identity, what is predicated of God can be predicated no less of Him." (G.K. Beale, "Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament" [2007).
Mr Hoffman, I hope you change your mind about allowing only paid subscribers to read Part Two of “The Whiskey Insurgency: The People vs. George Washington”.
Is Truth Even Enough? My essay in learning and sharing ion this complicated topic: https://flybynews.wordpress.com/2023/12/29/is-truth-even-enough/
I will once again have hope for the United States of America on the day when an American politician running for the presidency can condemn Israel's long history of crimes -- unambiguously and vehemently -- as part of his campaign platform, and nonetheless even be nominated never mind elected.
Katya here.
Charles Eisenstein. He's enormously popular. He's sort of a sacred warrior for justice in the tikkun olam way. See his website for a 6 minute oration on "Moving Towards Interbeing".
A friend, a Franciscan Deacon, sent me Eisenstein's book, "Sacred Economies" years ago, with the exhortation: must read. I hadn't yet read any of Michael Hoffman and did not know what "conjunction of opposites" meant, but everywhere stumbled across deep contradictions and shallow glosses of history to arrive at a "What the Bleep Do We Know" (remember that movie?) summation of world woes in the history of money. Also a kind of precursor to "you will own nothing and be happy" . Truly seductive reading with lovely language and utopian ideas and an elegant solution to everything.
Here's a quote: "Debt can endure forever. Wealth cannot, because it's physical dimension is subject to the laws of entropy." --Frederick Soddy, an economist of the 30's that he admires, p. 203, under chapter 12, on Negative Interest Economies.
On p. 454, in a discussion of quantum money, he quotes his "dear ex-wife, Patsy : " Money is not yours until you spend it."
Ah, the poetry of disguise and the credo of our consumer society. And the New Age religion.
On his essay "How to Heal the Wound of Gaza": I understand (despite my little brain) that Christ's combat with the Pharisees was mortal, and that he nowhere in the Gospel granted them amnesty. Salvation is not amnesty (correct me if I'm wrong).
St. John Chrysostom tells us that repentance involves first of all contrition -- recognition and responsibility for your sins BEFORE there can be forgiveness.
But sin isn't part of Eisenstein's thinking, and he quotes Rosseau and Marx frequently. And did he miss the part of one of Finkelstein's recent interviews about 97% of Israelis approving the destruction of Gaza? Still, E's writing is hauntingly seductive. "The righting of historical wrongs will emerge indirectly." ????? Creative solution: "Two states, one Homeland."
But what of all the Palestinian blood that has been shed? What of all the murdered children? This sounds like The Grand Inquisitor (tho' I told my Franciscan friend that E didn't seem to have read Dostoevsky, especially not "Crime and Punishment".) E mentions Christ twice in his book on Sacred Economies, if not disrespectfully, somewhat dismissively.
Sorry to be so wordy!!! But Eisenstein has captured young, New Age minds and is a force to be reckoned with.
In short: when is a door not a door?
Katya wrote:
"Christ's combat with the Pharisees was mortal, and that he nowhere in the Gospel granted them amnesty. Salvation is not amnesty (correct me if I'm wrong). St. John Chrysostom tells us that repentance involves first of all contrition -- recognition and responsibility for your sins BEFORE there can be forgiveness. But sin isn't part of Eisenstein's thinking...He mentions Christ twice in his book on Sacred Economies, if not disrespectfully, somewhat dismissively..."
Mr. Eisenstein is part of the tradition of Eastern religion which is popular now in the West predominately due to the very bad example set by CINOs (Christians in Name Only), who callously enthuse over the Israeli mass murder in Palestine. Moreover, they disparage Biblically-based jeremiads against the usurious renting of money as "Socialism."
In a milieu like that gurus and teachers of "luhv" and tolerance will prosper even when they, as you note, dismiss Jesus, the only Lord of Salvation in the whole of the cosmos.
so sad, for me and the world. I was soooo excited and believe RFK could have had a groundswell of ex-Bernie bros. Bernie raised millions from us and an army of texters, phone calls. I support so much of what he supports, but his stubborn insistence on looking the other way as tens of thousands are blown to bits, starved, their libraries, schools and hospitals ruined forever, not to mention their homes. No other word besides genocide.
and as you point out, this is an indigenous people. perhaps Charles would cheer on our genocide of the native peoples that were here when we "founded" America. I feel so badly to see well-intentioned people so captured by the "both sidism" and "woke" culture. was a dem all my life until I had to leave during the last election cycle and I am so sick of the righteous hatred of both sides, but especially the woke crowd. many of my friends/acquaintances are in that crowd and it's frustrating and maddening but I care for them.