Questions about Jews, Judaism and so on.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ziggy
Ahem???

It was a joke about the stereotype of the complaining Jewish guy.

 

[civ2]

Ziggy
Jews are being stereotyped in so many ways, you can't even count them.
And still, this doesn't stop idiots from hating us, even though many stereotypes are actually mutually INCOMPATIBLE..!
(The reason I'm quite sensitive to it, is simply BECAUSE.)
Anyways, whatever.

 

[warpus]

warpus
Not so much offending, rather it's a grammatical mistake to begin with.
Like, there's "a Roman ceasar" and "Julius Ceasar" - a term and a name.

You did say that it was insulting. I meant no disrespect, I refer to God with a lowercase g when I'm talking about a generic deity - not a specific Christian or Jewish (or whatever) one. In this case we are talking about a specific deity - so spelling it as God is right.

Who says, no one is being born such even today???
Have you checked???

Are you saying that people are born every once in a while with a circumcised penis?

Has this been documented?

If you look at it from the point of the way CONVERSION (to Judaism) takes place, males have an obligation to be circumcised, whereas women "are considered circumcised" already.
So this all means that men have more problems they are told to fix, than women.

So if I want to convert to Judaism I HAVE to get circumcised? This is a requirement?

What if I'm not circumcised but claim that I am? Will they check?

 

[timtofly]

Where did you get the 900 years old thing? Is that in the Bible?

I also wonder when you think people stopped living to be a thousand years old? In Jesus' time, for example, the average age at which you died was 30 or so (I think). That's 2,000 years ago.

So...

6,000 years ago = 1,000 years old
5,000 years ago = 500 years old
4,000 years ago = 250 years old
3,000 years ago = 100 years old
2,000 years ago = 30 years old

Is that about right, in terms of how old you think the average human was when he/she died that many years ago?

And can you answer my question regarding penises?

I have seen "accounting" charts from ancient Egypt where there were residence who have lived to be 90+. It is not the fact that people did not live that long, but the normal age due to the hardships of life was 30.

Scientifically speaking, if the earth was perfect up until the "Flood" where the earth was terraformed significantly, then even life span could have drastically changed.

This essay explains why Egypt may be off in their caculations of years, due to such an event. Since I have been scoffed at by all here in my "waters" seperated by the firmament, or a vapor canopy and the fact that the mantle rested upon waters itself, this explanation may be plausible. I say that there were not even seasons until after the Flood. This perfect 360 day world, with a better protection against UV rays and a constant 72 degrees would seem to have the plausability to sustain life for a long time.

@ civ2

Adam was a Son of G-d. There are two theories that Adam was just one of the Son's of G-d, or Any "offspring" before being cast out of Eden were the Son's of G-d. It was Seth, who was the first "human" in the image of Adam, that changed the dynamics between humans and the Son's of G-d.

Any other thoery is "writing" in a lot of commentary. I understand that there is the oral tradition that is passed down and "secret". It seems to me though that anything "added" to the Torah or even different from the Word; that Seth was in the image of Adam may be suspect. All but Noah, the 8th person were destroyed, not because of their actions, but because their IMAGINATIONS were only evil continually. Sounds to me that there was no regenerative hope and that G-d deemed it best to start over again through Noah. Even in perfection, Man could not find it in their hearts to "please" G-d.

 

[civ2]

warpus

Are you saying that people are born every once in a while with a circumcised penis?

Has this been documented?

Some Wiki searching...
HERE
You can call it a "congenital condition" - I prefer to call it "closing on perfection".

So if I want to convert to Judaism I HAVE to get circumcised? This is a requirement?

What if I'm not circumcised but claim that I am? Will they check?

If we're talking about an Orthodox conversion (and I, as an Orthodox Jew, don't consider others as such, for some quite obvious QUALITY reasons):
This is one of the few things the male convert start his new life with.
Circumcision IS called "the covenant" anyways.
So, the convert is not only "checked", there's a chance that the very process will be documented (or maybe even done) by the same Rabbis that will accept him as a convert.

EDIT:
timtofly
Hi.
One of the main Torah commentators, Rashi, says:
See verse 22.

Day and night will never be suspended.

It can be inferred from this that they ceased during all the days of the Flood. For the constellations did not function and night and day were indistinguishable.

Also, that "son/s of G-d" thing definitely does NOT refer to Adam.
Would you mind bringing (or at least naming) your sources on this???

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I was under the impression that a male convert to Judaism was required to undergo ritual circumcision whether he had a foreskin or not. A convert could not get away with falsely claiming to already been circumcised (or have been born aposthic) in order to avoid the pain, because they would see through the ruse when they tried to draw blood from where the foreskin would have been. I've seen it claimed that drawing blood from the glans can actually be more painful than losing the foreskin.

 

[warpus]

warpus

Some Wiki searching...
HERE
You can call it a "congenital condition" - I prefer to call it "closing on perfection".

Neither condition has a particularly high incidence among Jews

Why would this be? Wouldn't God want to create more perfect Jews than other groups of people?

If we're talking about an Orthodox conversion (and I, as an Orthodox Jew, don't consider others as such, for some quite obvious QUALITY reasons):
This is one of the few things the male convert start his new life with.
Circumcision IS called "the covenant" anyways.
So, the convert is not only "checked", there's a chance that the very process will be documented (or maybe even done) by the same Rabbis that will accept him as a convert.

It's documented? So.. if I wanted to convert to orthodox judaism I'd have to get a picture of my penis taken by a rabbi?

What if I wanted to convert to Judaism, but not orthodox? I don't need a circumcision then?

 

[civ2]

Magister
In other words, he would either have to do the full procedure (if his foreskin was still there) or the "short" one - drawing a blood drop (if the actual circumcision would be technically inapplicable for whatever reason).
Also, even born Jews that went through "medical circumcision", if they wanna have it the RIGHT way, must do the blood drop thing anyways.
To make it short - the procedure laws and the end result are the same for all that do it.

 

[timtofly]

I know that you like sources, but I am very selective when quoting.

What is your definition of a Son of G-d? I think that it is the same as mine in that they are Created beings and not "born of man". They have neither mother nor father. Adam was "according to most" scholars the very first G-d created being without mother or father. It is true that the angels are also created beings, but they were not created to live on the earth. That would narrow down the field to those who do dwell on the earth. I think that it is quite impossible for an angel to have a human offspring, even a fallen one. There is nothing whatsoever in Scriptures other than Genesis 6 that would even be close to that ability. Cain was "of" that wicked one, but he was the offspring of Adam and Eve. He was not the offspring of the serpant and Eve.

The next mention of a Son of G-d is Melchizedek. Having neither father nor mother.

The third was Jesus, in that he had no human father. He would never be able to be human if he was not born of a virgin. Now the catholics speculate that Mary was virgin born also. I just say that God re-created an Adam, and having neither mother nor father was born a human and experienced everything that a human would experience in this life. Or Immanuel as in Isaiah 7:14. Jesus would also seem to have to be female also, as to experience all that a female would have to go through. Jesus never allegedly died. He gave back the "breath" of life to God, that God created Him with. While being in a human body, I do not think that it was possible for Jesus to die a physical death. Although this is getting in to a totally different subject.


On cirumcision:

Which is harder to do? one of the heart (inward) or one of the flesh (outward)

 

[civ2]

timtofly
OY!!!

What is your definition of a Son of G-d? I think that it is the same as mine in that they are Created beings and not "born of man". They have neither mother nor father. Adam was "according to most" scholars the very first G-d created being without mother or father. It is true that the angels are also created beings, but they were not created to live on the earth. That would narrow down the field to those who do dwell on the earth. I think that it is quite impossible for an angel to have a human offspring, even a fallen one. There is nothing whatsoever in Scriptures other than Genesis 6 that would even be close to that ability. Cain was "of" that wicked one, but he was the offspring of Adam and Eve. He was not the offspring of the serpant and Eve.

1. No!
And I don't have a "my" definition of it - I just stick to the sources, like you already said.
Also, the second opinion which I brought (in the name of Rashi) deals with SOCIAL relationships, not any BIOLOGICAL ones.
(Nobility oppressing poor people; also implies being "mighty" in social status, not anything else.)
2. How exactly angels were transformed into "humans", I don't know and don't care.
Anyways, even OUR souls are a huge mystery, how exactly they work and what they are.
3. I know of no JEWISH sources that talk of the "offspring of Eve and the serpent", though there are some (very "Midrashic", aka overly mystic) mentioning of some "demons" (meaning, spiritual entities, NOT humans) being born to Adam and Lilith, or whatever.
But the latter information is very unclear and borders on being mystical/ideological rather than actual/biological.

The next mention of a Son of G-d is Melchizedek. Having neither father nor mother.

Ahem???
Aka Melchizedek, king of Shalem, - Noah's son Shem???
See verse 18.
VERY funny.
Or rather ignorant.
EDIT:
Found your source.
Dude, somehow I prefer commentaries that stick more to the text, like, maybe, Rashi.

The third was Jesus, in that he had no human father. He would never be able to be human if he was not born of a virgin. Now the catholics speculate that Mary was virgin born also. I just say that God re-created an Adam, and having neither mother nor father was born a human and experienced everything that a human would experience in this life. Or Immanuel as in Isaiah 7:14. Jesus would also seem to have to be female also, as to experience all that a female would have to go through. Jesus never allegedly died. He gave back the "breath" of life to God, that God created Him with. While being in a human body, I do not think that it was possible for Jesus to die a physical death. Although this is getting in to a totally different subject.

1. Wrong thread to speak about.
And definitely wrong person.
2. I already discussed it with Yehoshua in his thread.
I brought quite a few sources on how this assumption is erroneous, but predictably was ignored...

Which is harder to do? one of the heart (inward) or one of the flesh (outward)

1. We mean quite different things when saying these words.
2. Obviously, perfecting ourselves inwardly is a much harder task, not yet finished in over 5000 years...
But soon, quite soon...

 

[timtofly]

timtofly
OY!!!

1. No!
And I don't have a "my" definition of it - I just stick to the sources, like you already said.
Also, the second opinion which I brought (in the name of Rashi) deals with SOCIAL relationships, not any BIOLOGICAL ones.
(Nobility oppressing poor people; also implies being "mighty" in social status, not anything else.)
2. How exactly angels were transformed into "humans", I don't know and don't care.
Anyways, even OUR souls are a huge mystery, how exactly they work and what they are.
3. I know of no JEWISH sources that talk of the "offspring of Eve and the serpent", though there are some (very "Midrashic", aka overly mystic) mentioning of some "demons" (meaning, spiritual entities, NOT humans) being born to Adam and Lilith, or whatever.
But the latter information is very unclear and borders on being mystical/ideological rather than actual/biological.

Ahem???
Aka Melchizedek, king of Shalem, - Noah's son Shem???
See verse 18.
VERY funny.
Or rather ignorant.
EDIT:
Found your source.
Dude, somehow I prefer commentaries that stick more to the text, like, maybe, Rashi.

1. Wrong thread to speak about.
And definitely wrong person.
2. I already discussed it with Yehoshua in his thread.
I brought quite a few sources on how this assumption is erroneous, but predictably was ignored...
1. We mean quite different things when saying these words.
2. Obviously, perfecting ourselves inwardly is a much harder task, not yet finished in over 5000 years...
But soon, quite soon...

I can empathize with you on that one.

Ok I realize that my source is the New Covenant, but bear with me. I am not trying to proselytize, or am I????

Hebrews 7

Spoiler :

1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

2To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

4Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

5And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

6But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

7And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

20And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

28For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

I have to apologize, but I see the Bible as whole containing Two Covenants and each fall flat without the other. And I am one of those who believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

I do like the back and forth though.

 

[civ2]

timtofly
Nothing personal, but for me this source is not an authority. Sorry.
Not to mention, that the main reason is that they actually contradict each other on too many occasions - in case of a deeper study of the subject.
Also, why would you ignore the most close-to-text commentary that quite clearly defines him as Shem?
There is no need to look for weirder opinions, at least I have no clue, WHY...

 

[timtofly]

timtofly
Nothing personal, but for me this source is not an authority. Sorry.
Not to mention, that the main reason is that they actually contradict each other on too many occasions - in case of a deeper study of the subject.
Also, why would you ignore the most close-to-text commentary that quite clearly defines him as Shem?
There is no need to look for weirder opinions, at least I have no clue, WHY...

For some reason in my "faith" I do not see the contradictions. While Rashi may be a scholar and he may have access to the geneology in which he obtained his knowledge, no offence, but my confidence is in G-d. That is the WHY.

Is there another passage in Scripture that tells us that the King of Salem is Shem?

What do you think of this web-site?

WHY? I am an English speaking person who has felt the "hand" of G-d his whole life. Only through the reading of the Bible and not really the commentary of man. Only the future will shake my faith. While my logic is on the fact that G-d cannot lie, and that He has revealed himself to me an English speaking person it is unneccessary to find G-d through complicated means. I went to college to learn Greek and Hebrew, but dropped out. English is the langauage that I can best communicate in.

 

[civ2]

timtofly
There is a very clear story that shows how the claims of "just the Written, not the Oral" are stupid and baseless:
There was a non-Jew who came to the great sages of that time, Shamai and Hilel, in order to convert.
But he said, he would only accept the Written Torah, not the Oral one.
Shamai simply got angry and sent him away.
Hilel, though, agreed.
They set to learn.
Hilel showed him the letters and said "This is Alef, this is Bet" - meaning, the first 2 letters of the Jewish alphabet.
(Make it A and B.)
The next day, the guy came for the lesson number 2.
Hilel started the lesson by showing the same letters and saying "This is Bet, this is Alef".
"HEY!!! You said THIS was Alef yesterday!!!"
To this, Hilel replied:
"So you see, even the LETTERS are part of the tradition, so much so the deeper knowledge."
The guy was very impressed, continued his learning and finally converted fully, accepting both parts of the Torah readily.
WHY I'm telling you this.
To show that there is NO such thing as "I'll stick to the text only, without need of the commentaries" - this does NOT work..!
(This is so even without mentioning that both parts of the Torah are equally G-dly, cause the "Oral" part was also given to Moses at Sinai, and the latter explanations/additions, like Talmud, were actually G-d-inspired, somewhat prophetical.)
And sorry, but it clearly says in the Torah: "Don't listen to false prophets, that try to cause you to LEAVE the Torah of G-d".
This requires no more explanations, it's quite obvious.
(I'm NOT telling YOU, what to believe in. I'm just saying, I'm not gonna start believing in such things.)
I wish you all the best, and mostly - the clarity of mind.

 

[warpus]

Hey, I want to know why more Jews are not born without foreskin.

 

[civ2]

Hey, I want to know why more Jews are not born without foreskin.

1. As I said, to born circumcised is a sign of a high spiritual personality (high soul).
Not all people are so high.
2. For the same reason that Abraham wasn't born circumcised despite being a great righteous person.
The very idea of a commandment implies that it is supposed to be done by the PERSON, not given as a GIFT from Above.
Therefore, Abraham had to personally circumcise himself and go through the pains the followed, even though he could very well be BORN circumcised.
But G-d told him specifically to do it himself, so that Abraham could MERIT a great spiritual reward for this deed.
3. Therefore, Jews are still born uncircumcised - and do the action themselves, to be the ones that reach out to G-d, not be fed the connection for free.

 

[timtofly]

timtofly
There is a very clear story that shows how the claims of "just the Written, not the Oral" are stupid and baseless:
There was a non-Jew who came to the great sages of that time, Shamai and Hilel, in order to convert.
But he said, he would only accept the Written Torah, not the Oral one.
Shamai simply got angry and sent him away.
Hilel, though, agreed.
They set to learn.
Hilel showed him the letters and said "This is Alef, this is Bet" - meaning, the first 2 letters of the Jewish alphabet.
(Make it A and B.)
The next day, the guy came for the lesson number 2.
Hilel started the lesson by showing the same letters and saying "This is Bet, this is Alef".
"HEY!!! You said THIS was Alef yesterday!!!"
To this, Hilel replied:
"So you see, even the LETTERS are part of the tradition, so much so the deeper knowledge."
The guy was very impressed, continued his learning and finally converted fully, accepting both parts of the Torah readily.
WHY I'm telling you this.
To show that there is NO such thing as "I'll stick to the text only, without need of the commentaries" - this does NOT work..!
(This is so even without mentioning that both parts of the Torah are equally G-dly, cause the "Oral" part was also given to Moses at Sinai, and the latter explanations/additions, like Talmud, were actually G-d-inspired, somewhat prophetical.)
And sorry, but it clearly says in the Torah: "Don't listen to false prophets, that try to cause you to LEAVE the Torah of G-d".
This requires no more explanations, it's quite obvious.
(I'm NOT telling YOU, what to believe in. I'm just saying, I'm not gonna start believing in such things.)
I wish you all the best, and mostly - the clarity of mind.

Thanks for the reply. Incidently the "Church" feels the same way in that there is no "sola scriptura". And I can honestly say I believe the same as both of you. You both rely on the oral traditions that have been passed down and "handed" from the apostles to the Bishops. That seems to be the "documented" concensus "historically" speaking. Or at the least the history that is given to the layman.

There is a slight detail (to me) that goes against both ideologies. It is called the Spirit of G-d. Not that the oral traditions are wrong or (not even needed). We have inside of us that part of G-d that does teach and guide us. If we cannot come together in agreement, then it is each individuals responsability to test and compare through others what is wrong and unclear in our thinking capacities. The Spirit is subjective and the oral teachings and written teachings are not as subjective. That is why in the New Testament comparisons do have to be made. Oral teachings can be more subjective than written ones, due to the fact that you do have to take one's word that it is true. The written can be changed but it is harder to keep changes secret if there are other exact copies that can be compared with. The scribes were supposed to keep error and discrepencies out. They were impartial to the meaning and flow of what was being written down as a means to keep error to a minimum.

I may come across as a defender of the Bible, but all I am trying to accomplish is comparing what is in the Bible to what people think is in the Bible. Yes, I interject my thoughts although, they are not from oral traditions, they are the thoughts that are in my head. It seems strange, but for the most part, what I have read of the oral, does make sense to me, and my thoughts. Hearing about Shem as the King of Salem though was the first. That is why I asked if there were other Scriptures that back up this commentary.

In etymology it seems that Zedek is in referrence to Jupeter or star/king of the night. In Abrahams time is was bright enough to be a "substantial" light or guide. Melchi (king) and Adoni (master) have been associated with it. It seems that Shem and Salem mean "perfect". Being born circumcised is associated with these words according to the Babylonian Talmud. The Catholics mysteriously place Shem as having moved to Palestine and was King. Even though this fact was never written, but is the oral tradition passed down to both Jews and Catholics?

And I am far fetched in saying that one without father and mother is a perfect human? Is it not plausible that every once in a while one is born PERFECT? Adam was created Perfect. Shem was born perfect, and in the similtude of perfection without mother and father one Immanual will be born and become the Messiah?

I may be crazy, but it seems to me that Judaism and Catholicism may be more similiar than what we have been given historically, but that would be too conspiratorial.

 

[civ2]

titmofly
Ohhhhh...

And I can honestly say I believe the same as both of you. You both rely on the oral traditions that have been passed down and "handed" from the apostles to the Bishops. Or at the least the history that is given to the layman.

Jews don't have "apostles" - we ALL (even unborn souls) were PRESENT at Mt. Sinai during the Ten Commandments!
Nor do we have "bishops" vs "laymen" - everyone is obligated to study as much as he can, just not everyone is capable or able to become a great scholar.

We have inside of us that part of G-d that does teach and guide us.

Except you need the deciphering code to understand it RIGHT.

Oral teachings can be more subjective than written ones, due to the fact that you do have to take one's word that it is true.

Except when the oral teachings are direct explanations of written texts - in details and depth.

Yes, I interject my thoughts although, they are not from oral traditions, they are the thoughts that are in my head.

EVERYONE does it.
The question is, how much do you rely on YOUR thoughts vs TRADITION.

In etymology it seems that Zedek is in referrence to Jupeter or star/king of the night.

Ajidica's mistake AGAIN?
"Tzedek" means "right" (as in "not wrong").
"Malki tzedek" becomes "my righteous king" - simply a compliment to a benevolent ruler.
"Avimelech", for example, means "my father - king", the same way as "Paro" is "big house".
Just nice ways to call your king or other leader.

Being born circumcised is associated with these words according to the Babylonian Talmud.

Link please, I don't know it by heart, obviously.

The Catholics mysteriously place Shem as having moved to Palestine and was King.

PARDON?!?
Since when Rashi...
(Not to mention, he bases it on an even older JEWISH source.)

And I am far fetched in saying that one without father and mother is a perfect human? Is it not plausible that every once in a while one is born PERFECT? Adam was created Perfect. Shem was born perfect, and in the similtude of perfection without mother and father one Immanual will be born and become the Messiah?

Well, there were ever only TWO such people: Adam and his wife, Eve.
ALL others humans were, are and will be born from HUMAN MOTHER and FATHER.
(OK, the "bnei elokim" before the Flood are in question, if they WERE angels... But I wouldn't then call them HUMANS anyways.)
So, Adam, being a direct Creation, was the perfect human that can be, at least physically.
His soul also included ALL the souls of later generations, so it's quite hard to say whether he was also the greatest in spirituality.
But one thing is to say, that the final goal of this world is to raise humanity's spiritual level BEYOND that of the Edem.
And thus BEYOND Adam too, seems at least.
Don't know for sure, though...
MOSHIACH will be a NORMAL HUMAN being (born to his Jewish mommy and daddy), JEWISH, great scholar, descendant of King David through his son Solomon, and the new Jewish King that will do great feats of uniting Jews AND also all the nations in the true awareness of G-d.

I may be crazy, but it seems to me that Judaism and Catholicism may be more similiar than what we have been given historically, but that would be too conspiratorial.

As long as you reach for G-d, you're on the right way.
Just don't forget that you might be NOT the fastest runner...

 

[timtofly]

Here

Except you need the deciphering code to understand it RIGHT.

It is called allowing G-d to do His Will in you. No freedom of choice, but full submission.
Not my will, but Thine be done.

It is not for everyone, and learning oral tradition may be less painful, except the part in becoming a Jew. There is still circumcision of the heart.

On Shem and Catholicism, I can only trust internet conversations, but they are there.

I am not saying that G-d did not have a representative there. This is good knowledge that has been given in the last 24 hours. A breakthrough into the oral teachings that have been previously unknown, without converting to either Catholicism or becoming a Jew. deciphering code much?

 

[civ2]

timtofly
I am kinda suspicious of such books, at least until I see it in readable form, not just page search.
But generally, as of now, I think it's quite ok.

It is called allowing G-d to do His Will in you. No freedom of choice, but full submission.
Not my will, but Thine be done.

Exactly what is done by/while fulfilling the commandments.
Not some random actions that were dictated to you by YOUR intellect (even if you ascribe it to being "G-d's Will in you"), but the exact actions that were detailed in the one and only Book by G-d Himself.
Sorry, if I actually misunderstood you here - please correct me then...

It is not for everyone, and learning oral tradition may be less painful, except the part in becoming a Jew. There is still circumcision of the heart.

Ever heard of Noahides???
The guys that try implementing the Seven Commandments (given to Noah) into the everyday life.
No one has to become a Jew (to serve G-d), unless he/she explicitly wants so.
There are clear and straight paths to G-d for non-Jews as well.
Circumcision of the heart is none other than transforming your "animal ENEMY" into your "animal ASSET".
All people have it inside - and all have the ability to harness the animalistic drives to actually serve G-d instead.

deciphering code much?

Hopefully.
As long as it brings YOU closer to G-d, it's OK.
Good luck.