My thanks to Lisa and Rivka for being so useful in their recent comments on Judaism.
Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that Christianity can often come across as Judaism's haughty bastard brother (disowned cousin if we really irk you).
I guess what I would really like to understand the Jewish perspective on some of the texts I apparently mistake as common between Christians and Jews.
I was under the impression that the entire Old Testament was considered canon by both Jews and Christians. I'd like to know just what is the Jewish perspective on the writings beyond the Talmud. Beyond the Law just how are other books of the Old Testament viewed? Is the book of kings considered an accurate history? Was Isaiah really a prophet speaking the words of God? When we reach Malachi are we in effect done with prophets as far as Judaism is concerned? I have MANY more questions I'd like answered but it remains to be seen if anybody cares to answer them.
I should also warn any respondents that I will probably ask you about your answers and once we close the book on one, fire another question in your direction. If you tire of my curiosity I understand, I just want to mine as much information as I can out of those who know these things.
It really does bother me that I do not really grasp what Judaism is. I'm hoping to remedy that problem to some extent, you assistance is always appreciated.
[ November 03, 2006, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that Christianity can often come across as Judaism's haughty bastard brother (disowned cousin if we really irk you).
*amused* Something like that.
quote:I was under the impression that the entire Old Testament was considered canon by both Jews and Christians.
1) The term "Old Testament" is generally offensive to Jews. Instead of OT, try MT (for Masoretic Text). 2) For starters (and Dana gets mad at me every time I say this, but it really is true for the most part), ours is in Hebrew (except for the volume in Aramaic), and yours is in English. No translation can grasp every nuance. Or even come close.
quote: I'd like to know just what is the Jewish perspective on the writings beyond the Talmud.
Huh? The Talmud is distinct from the MT. The MT is what is often referred to as the Written Torah; the Talmud is the Oral Torah (which was written down about 2000 years ago to guard against it being lost in times when oral transmission became increasingly difficult).
quote: Is the book of kings considered an accurate history?
For the most part.
quote: Was Isaiah really a prophet speaking the words of God?
Yes. However, you will find that Christian translations of Isaiah defer noticeable from what we would consider an accurate translation.
quote: When we reach Malachi are we in effect done with prophets as far as Judaism is concerned?
(I assume you saw my response to you in the Rebbetzin thread earlier?)
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:I was under the impression that the entire Old Testament was considered canon by both Jews and Christians.
Assuming we're not including the Apocrypha, this is correct.
quote:I'd like to know just what is the Jewish perspective on the writings beyond the Talmud.
Beyond the Talmud? The Talmud's something else entirely... notes from the Oral Law, written down cryptically to keep it from being forgotten. Its redaction came after the Written Law.
quote:Beyond the Law just how are other books of the Old Testament viewed?
I don't know what you mean by "Law" in this context, but here's the short answer: the 24 books of the "Old Testament" (or Tanach; from the Jewish standpoint, it hasn't been superceded by anything newer) are all considered holy, but are placed in three divisions. The Pentateuch was dictated by God to Moses, letter for letter. The Prophets include prophesies from God, as related by humans. The Writings are Divinely inspired, but not the verbatim word of God Himself. (I'm painting with broad strokes here, mind you. See also this page.)
quote:Is the book of kings considered an accurate history?
Pretty much, yes.
quote:Was Isaiah really a prophet speaking the words of God?
Absolutely.
quote:When we reach Malachi are we in effect done with prophets as far as Judaism is concerned?
There's some disagreement about exactly when prophecy ended and whether it's going to return before the Messiah does. (You might also argue that it's never ended inasmuch as Elijah has never died, but now we're splitting hairs.)
I highly recommend Judaism 101; the author's done a remarkable job of writing clear and concise explanations of Jewish topics for a general audience while avoiding any number of possible pitfalls.
(Edited to add that Rivka and I hit most of the same points, but I'll keep this up anyway.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry not Torah, but Pentateuch, or 5 books of Moses. Is everything beyond Deuteronomy until Malachi accepted at least as true within the Hebrew translation?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sorry not Torah, but Pentateuch, or 5 books of Moses. Is everything beyond Deuteronomy until Malachi accepted at least as true within the Hebrew translation?
The Torah, at least in the most common usage of the word, is the Pentateuch,
I thinks you meant "Sorry, not Talmud".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: I highly recommend Judaism 101; the author's done a remarkable job of writing clear and concise explanations of Jewish topics for a general audience while avoiding any number of possible pitfalls.
I could not possibly agree more. It is a marvelous site. I've learned stuff I didn't know there, and I survived 14 years in Jewish schools.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The Torah, at least in the most common usage of the word, is the Pentateuch.
Not true. The most common usage is far vaguer, and refers to ALL of Tanach, as well as the Talmud, and the body of responsa since (which also constitute the continued explication of the Oral Law). Second most common usage refers to the entire Tanach. I'd say that using it to refer to Torah as explicitly only the Pentateuch is about the third most common usage. Partly because calling it the word Chumash is more commonly used in that case.
(The page Shmuel linked to explains this in a bit more detail.)
The 24 volumes of Tanach can be seen here but exclude the "extra bits" in the Apocrypha Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, one more thing.
Alliteration is fun and all that. But the thread title is NOT working for me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: For starters (and Dana gets mad at me every time I say this, but it really is true for the most part), ours is in Hebrew (except for the volume in Aramaic), and yours is in English. No translation can grasp every nuance. Or even come close.
*amused*
I don't disagree with that at all. I've got a copy of the Masoretic text on the shelf over my desk, and while I'm not fluent enough (yet) to read much of it without study aids, I do use it. There are some Christians that consider particular English translations authoritative (if the King James Version was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for them!), but I'm not one of 'em.
Wait, I guess I do disagree with the statement that that's a difference between the "Christian" and the "Jewish" Bible. The difference would be that more Jews can read the actual Bible in its original language and most Christians require someone else to translate it for them. But that doesn't mean they're using a different Bible, just that they're an extra step removed from the same text.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: My thanks to Lisa and Rivka for being so useful in their recent comments on Judaism.
Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that Christianity can often come across as Judaism's haughty bastard brother (disowned cousin if we really irk you).
It depends on who is saying it and to whom. Christianity, from a Jewish point of view, is actually a lot worse than that. Consider Satanist cults. Most of them actually start from a Christian point of view, and just reverse it. They take the concept of Satan straight out of Christianity, but worship it, rather than God.
For a lot of Christians I've spoken to, that's the most horrifying thing there can be. It's not just wrong, but a distortion of everything they hold holy. Christianity is a lot like that for us. Some of the most basic concepts, which a cursory glance might see as being shared between Judaism and Christianity, are actually only common labels given to utterly different concepts.
We say God is One. You say you're monotheists, but have a trinity. We've had a concept of an anointed king, and you've merged the concepts of messiah and savior, and turned a human being into a deity. We have a God who gave us "eternal statutes" for "all our generations", and you have a deity who either changed his mind or wasn't entirely truthful about the whole "eternal" thing.
Medically, there's a term for when a part of your own body turns against you and tries to kill you. For most of the history of Christianity, it's been exactly like that. Something born as a Jewish heresy, at least in part, which became malignant.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I guess what I would really like to understand the Jewish perspective on some of the texts I apparently mistake as common between Christians and Jews.
I was under the impression that the entire Old Testament was considered canon by both Jews and Christians. I'd like to know just what is the Jewish perspective on the writings beyond the Talmud. Beyond the Law just how are other books of the Old Testament viewed?
Here is an old post where I addressed this a little. I assume that you meant the Torah, rather than the Talmud.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Is the book of kings considered an accurate history?
Absolutely. But understand... it's not a history the way we're used to history books nowadays. Everything related in it is historically true, but it's not the whole story. It's the parts that teach the lesson that its author(s) meant to teach. It's a didactic history.
For example, suppose the Egyptians invaded Judah during the reign of King Uzziah. There's no mention of any such thing in the books of Kings and Chronicles. Relating such an invasion at that time would have taught a lesson. And perhaps that was not an appropriate lesson. So it was left out.
Not that there actually was such an invasion. I'm speaking hypothetically. There might have been, but we don't know, because Kings and Chronicles do not purport to be a comprehensive history.
Sometimes, when someone gets ill, it's because God is sending them a message. Sometimes, though, it's just because they got sick. If we were to read that King David got sick, the assumption would be that he did something to deserve it. If that wasn't actually the case (and remember, the book of Kings was written by prophets, so they know), then such an illness would have been left out, and we'd never even know about it.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Was Isaiah really a prophet speaking the words of God?
Yes.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When we reach Malachi are we in effect done with prophets as far as Judaism is concerned?
Malachi was the last of the prophets. But you have to understand that what we mean by prophet and prophecy is not the same thing that you do. There will be prophecy again, and even after Malachi... well, the difference between prophecy and what we call Ruach HaKodesh (divine spirit) is only a matter of degree.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I have MANY more questions I'd like answered but it remains to be seen if anybody cares to answer them.
I'll answer anything. And please believe me (I know there are people here who won't, because they've made it clear in the past), but my bluntness is not because I'm trying to insult you. The enormous and insuperable differences between Judaism and Christianity almost ensure that any frank talk about these concepts will offend one side or the other. Generally both. As a consequence, most people refuse to actually deal with the issues, and prefer to obscure them with politically correct niceties.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I should also warn any respondents that I will probably ask you about your answers and once we close the book on one, fire another question in your direction.
I'll give you detailed answers to anything you want to ask. Or, if I can't, I'll point you in the direction where you can get the answers. Or... in the case that it's inappropriate to answer a question, I'll explain why.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If you tire of my curiosity I understand, I just want to mine as much information as I can out of those who know these things.
No problem here. Incidentally, last year, I started a blog (which, like most blogs, never really got maintained) called Torah 101. One of the 4 entries on that site is the initial post in the Torah 101 thread I linked to before. You may find it useful.
Oh. Jargon. There's a lot of technical jargon involved. It's a specialized field of knowledge, Torah is, and translations, as Rivka pointed out, are never really translations. They're approximations, at best. But it's important to say things so that they'll be understood. It's kind of a balancing act. So if I use jargon, I'll try and make a point of explaining it. If I don't, please call me on it, and I'll be sure to explain what I was talking about.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It really does bother me that I do not really grasp what Judaism is. I'm hoping to remedy that problem to some extent, you assistance is always appreciated.
I live to serve. <grin>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The Torah, at least in the most common usage of the word, is the Pentateuch.
Not true. The most common usage is far vaguer, and refers to ALL of Tanach, as well as the Talmud, and the body of responsa since (which also constitute the continued explication of the Oral Law). Second most common usage refers to the entire Tanach. I'd say that using it to refer to Torah as explicitly only the Pentateuch is about the third most common usage. Partly because calling it the word Chumash is more commonly used in that case.
For those of you who live in California, or remember the Chumash Indian curse put on Xander in an episode of Buffy, note that the Hebrew term chumash, denoting either one of the five books of the Pentateuch, or all five of them (depending on the context) is pronounced with the same initial sound as Hanukkah/Chanukah. It's not pronounced like the English \ch\ or \sh\.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If the vast majority of Christians consider one or more of the English translations authoritative (and that is certainly both my impression and that of many people, Christian and not, that I have asked), then I disagree. Christians (IME, anyway) do not refer to an English-only text as a translation, but as a Bible.
Even when some dispute over wording arises, people argue about which version to use, not whether they should be using translations at all.
If not using a translation were important to most lay Christians, Greek and Hebrew would be considered necessary. Certainly anyone becoming a religious Jew (either born Jewish or otherwise) will find it virtually impossible to do so without at least SOME ability to read and understand Hebrew!
A translation cannot ever be equivalent to the original. It is not just "a step removed"; it is a substantially different text in a million small and not-so-small ways.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Oh, one more thing.
Alliteration is fun and all that. But the thread title is NOT working for me.
<nod> I keep hearing Thomas Dolby saying, "She joggled me with Judaism!"
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:If the vast majority of Christians consider one or more of the English translations authoritative (and that is certainly both my impression and that of many people, Christian and not, that I have asked),
I don't believe that a vast majority of Christians do. And I am surprised and saddened that enough do that you have that impression.
At an "official" level it's not true of any of the mainline Protestant denominations, and I'm pretty sure not the RC, although they have an "authorized" translation. Hebrew and/or Greek at at least a basic level are required for clergy in many denominations (at least among the ones that have educational requirements for their clergy) and graduation from most seminaries. Certainly anyone who considers him or herself a Biblical scholar will be studying in the original languages.
And lay Christians who are serious about Bible study will either study with someone who knows some Hebrew/Greek or (at the very least) compare several translations and consult comentaries written by people who are fluent in Hebrew (or Greek, for the NT).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And lay Christians who are serious about Bible study
The fact that the larger group is not virtually identical to the group included with the modifier is my point. They're not even close.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Well, no. But that isn't a difference, there are also Jews who are not serious about their religion, right?
Granted there are probably more nominal Christians than non-practicing Jews, but I wouldn't dare to guess at it as a percentage basis. I have no idea.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It depends on who is saying it and to whom. Christianity, from a Jewish point of view, is actually a lot worse than that.
This is probably obvious, but I'd like to say that this is a Jewish point of view, but decidedly not the Jewish point of view. While granting that Christianity and Judaism have fundamental differences, there are different ways of seeing their relationship. (Maimonides, for instance, saw Christianity as a step toward bringing a more monotheistic outlook to the non-Jewish world.)
quote:Originally posted by dkw: But that isn't a difference, there are also Jews who are not serious about their religion, right?
A fair point.
The few Christians I've talked religion with have been very well aware of the translation issues, for whatever that's worth.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: This is probably obvious, but I'd like to say that this is a Jewish point of view, but decidedly not the Jewish point of view. While granting that Christianity and Judaism have fundamental differences, there are different ways of seeing their relationship. (Maimonides, for instance, saw Christianity as a step toward bringing a more monotheistic outlook to the non-Jewish world.)
This is a good (and important) point. The Meiri actually was of the opinion that while Christianity is forbidden for Jews, it is not problematic for bnei Noach (non-Jews).
Dana, I don't meant to ignore your post. But to properly answer it I would have to get into what it means to be a "practicing" Jew versus what it means to be a "practicing" Christian. And I simply don't have the energy. I will point out that "Jewish atheist" is not an oxymoron, but I'm pretty sure that "Christian atheist" would be.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Christianity is basically seen as a perversion.
It is the golden calf, only a million times worse. Instead of praying to a chunk of metal, you pray and worship a human being instead of God. It's seen as idolatry at it's most obscene.
The notion of God taking a physical form is blasphemous. The notion that there are three Gods, or God divided up into a trinity, is blasphemous.
Basically, Christianity is seen as a cult started by a charismatic leader who managed to convert some weak-willed Jews who were too eager for the real messiah to arrive. And from there, his new religion started to eat away and wound the last real believers in the true God--the God of Abraham and Issac--the Jews.
The advent of Christianity was basically the worst man-made thing that could have happened to Judaism because, not only did it draw more and more people away from the true God, but it is also a key factor to the state of subjugation the Jews found themselves for thousands of years.
And then Islam--a cult of a cult--came and continued the same trend.
Almost everything in Christianity--Catholicism, especially--is a distortion. The thought of talking to God through a middle man is unimaginable to Jews.
A simple analogy would be: Christianity is to Judaism as The Branch Davidians are to Christianity.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Now, I've been studying the Tanak (as well as the New Testament) and learning about all of this stuff, so its' nice to read others talking about something I'm now learning about!
But I do have a question about the Torah, the first third of the Tanak. (Torah, Na'im(?), and... gah, what was the Hebrew for the Writings?)
It's said that it was dictated to Moses by God Himself.
This includes the parts in which it describes Moses's death, and the events afterward...?
Forgive me for finding that a bit strange. I'd certainly imagine that should Moses actually get those words from Yahweh beforehand, it'd, um... affect the future events. (it would if I got said commandments. Regardless of who I was.)
And was not Deuteronomy not first found in the Temple during renovations in the time of King Josiah? At a rather convenient time, just in time for King Josiah's religious reforms?
If my questions annoy you, please remember that as one who is not a Jew, I'm going to question it. The way I question most everything, including my own religion, so it's not an attack, it's just my MO, especially when I find something that doesn't seem to make perfect sense to me. I have nothing but respect for Judaism (and the Yahwism that preceeded it before the Babylonian Exile) and if you forgive the probably heretical questions, I'd like to hear what you say about such matters.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:But I do have a question about the Torah, the first third of the Tanak. (Torah, Na'im(?), and... gah, what was the Hebrew for the Writings?)
Torah, Nevi'im, Kesuvim
quote:It's said that it was dictated to Moses by God Himself.
Yup.
quote:This includes the parts in which it describes Moses's death, and the events afterward...?
You are not the first person to ask this question. The usual two possibilities given:
The last few verses were written by Yehoshua (Joshua) after Moshe's death.
The verses were dictated by God to Moshe shortly before his death, and Moshe wrote them "b'dima'ot" -- in tears. (The Hebrew word could mean either while crying, or using the tears as ink, just as the English phrase can.)
I like the second one better, but I'm sappy.
quote:And was not Deuteronomy not first found in the Temple during renovations in the time of King Josiah? At a rather convenient time, just in time for King Josiah's religious reforms?
Nope. But it's not the first time I've heard this claim, which is based on a mistranslation (IIRC).
quote:If my questions annoy you, please remember that as one who is not a Jew, I'm going to question it.
*snort* I get far worse than this over on the Torah.org forums.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It depends on who is saying it and to whom. Christianity, from a Jewish point of view, is actually a lot worse than that.
This is probably obvious, but I'd like to say that this is a Jewish point of view, but decidedly not the Jewish point of view. While granting that Christianity and Judaism have fundamental differences, there are different ways of seeing their relationship. (Maimonides, for instance, saw Christianity as a step toward bringing a more monotheistic outlook to the non-Jewish world.)
Well... yes and no. What he actually says is that Christianity is a terrible error, but that God's ways aren't ours, and everything is part of His plan. And that Christianity and Islam, for all that they aren't true, have had the side-effect of making everyone on earth aware of the Torah, thereby prepping them for the Messianic era, when the truth will triumph.
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: But that isn't a difference, there are also Jews who are not serious about their religion, right?
A fair point.
The few Christians I've talked religion with have been very well aware of the translation issues, for whatever that's worth.
And I've run into a vast number of Jews who are blissfully unaware of the translation issues. So I have to agree with Dana on this one.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: This is probably obvious, but I'd like to say that this is a Jewish point of view, but decidedly not the Jewish point of view. While granting that Christianity and Judaism have fundamental differences, there are different ways of seeing their relationship. (Maimonides, for instance, saw Christianity as a step toward bringing a more monotheistic outlook to the non-Jewish world.)
This is a good (and important) point. The Meiri actually was of the opinion that while Christianity is forbidden for Jews, it is not problematic for bnei Noach (non-Jews).
It's not just the Meiri. I wouldn't actually use the Meiri as the sole authority on this, because the only extant version of the Meiri was found in the Vatican. We don't actually know whether his views in this matter were what we currently see in print.
Nevertheless, the prevailing view is that Christianity is not idolatry for non-Jews. It is, of course, for Jews.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If the vast majority of Christians consider one or more of the English translations authoritative (and that is certainly both my impression and that of many people, Christian and not, that I have asked),
I seriously doubt it's the vast majority, too. It's not been in my experiences with Catholics or evangelicals (in the current imprecise sense in which the term is used).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: But I do have a question about the Torah, the first third of the Tanak. (Torah, Na'im(?), and... gah, what was the Hebrew for the Writings?)
Torah, Nevi'im (plural for Navi, or Prophet), and Ketuvim (Writings). You'll also see it written "Kesuvim", and the original pronunciation was probably "Kethuvim".
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: It's said that it was dictated to Moses by God Himself.
This includes the parts in which it describes Moses's death, and the events afterward...?
Forgive me for finding that a bit strange. I'd certainly imagine that should Moses actually get those words from Yahweh beforehand, it'd, um... affect the future events. (it would if I got said commandments. Regardless of who I was.)
Reasonable question. Although, if you don't mind, using the name you're using for God is very offensive from a Jewish POV. A religious Jewish POV, that is. It'd be greatly appreciated if you could use something else. God, or Hashem (which literally means "the Name", and is the way we deal with not pronouncing the Tetragrammaton).
There are different views on whether God gave the entire Torah to Moses during his 40 days up on Sinai, or whether he received it bit by bit in the 40 years in the desert. There's a midrash that says about the last 8 verses of the Torah, "God spoke it, and Moses wrote it in tears."
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: And was not Deuteronomy not first found in the Temple during renovations in the time of King Josiah? At a rather convenient time, just in time for King Josiah's religious reforms?
Nope. Moses wrote 13 copies (original master copies) of the Torah. One for each tribe, and one to be kept in the Ark. When Josiah became king, it was after 2 years of his father Amon and 55 years of his grandfather Menasseh. Two of the worst kings we ever had. The Torah had been neglected. Idols had been worshipped in the Temple itself.
When they started the Temple renovations, they came across one of the original copies of the Torah, and it was open to the section in which God promises major curses on us if we screw up, as we basically had at that point for a good half century.
That's why they freaked. Read the actual text, and you'll see that the whole idea that they first found Deuteronomy then is very forced. It wasn't Deuteronomy, and it wasn't "first found" at that time.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: If my questions annoy you, please remember that as one who is not a Jew, I'm going to question it. The way I question most everything, including my own religion, so it's not an attack, it's just my MO, especially when I find something that doesn't seem to make perfect sense to me. I have nothing but respect for Judaism (and the Yahwism that preceeded it before the Babylonian Exile) and if you forgive the probably heretical questions, I'd like to hear what you say about such matters.
I don't have any problem with your questions. And although you aren't asking here, I will point out that Judaism didn't come into being after the Babylonian Exile. It was the same thing before and after.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Maimonides, for instance, saw Christianity as a step toward bringing a more monotheistic outlook to the non-Jewish world.
I just wanted to follow up on this with the actual quote of what the Rambam said:
quote:Even of Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, but was put to death by the court, Daniel had prophesied, as it is written: And the children of the violent among thy people shall lift themselves up to establish the vision; but they shall stumble [Daniel 11:14]. For has there ever been a greater stumbling than this? All the prophets affirmed that the Messiah would redeem Israel, save them, gather their dispersed, and confirm the commandments. But he caused Israel to be destroyed by the sword, their remnants to be dispersed and humiliated. He was instrumental in changing the Torah and causing the world to err and serve another beside God.
But it is beyond the human mind to fathom the designs of the Creator; for our ways are not His ways, neither are our thoughts His thoughts. All these matters relating to Jesus of Nazareth and the Ishmaelite [Muhammad] who came after him, only served to clear the way for King Messiah, to prepare the whole world to worship God with one accord, as it is written: For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord to serve Him with one consent [Zephaniah 3:9]. Thus the messianic hope, the Torah, and the commandments have become familiar topics--topics of conversation [among the inhabitants] of the far isles and many peoples, uncircumcised of heart and flesh. They are discussing these matters and the commandments of the Torah. Some say: "Those commandments were true, but have lost their validity and are no longer binding." Others declare that they had an esoteric meaning and were not intended to be taken literally, that the Messiah has already come and revealed their occult significance. But when the true King Messiah will appear and succeed, be exalted and lifted up, they will forthwith recant and realize that they have inherited naught but lies from their fathers, that their prophets and forbears led them astray. [Laws of Kings and Wars 11:4; this passage was deleted from most of the editions published since the Venice edition of 1574]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
And BlackBlade, you might find this page of interest:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Torah, Nevi'im, Kesuvim
Ketuvim Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: Christianity is basically seen as a perversion.
It is the golden calf, only a million times worse. Instead of praying to a chunk of metal, you pray and worship a human being instead of God. It's seen as idolatry at it's most obscene.
...it's not seen this way by the overwhelming majority of us, I daresay, even confining "us" to the Orthodox.
At any rate, the question of just how Jewish people view Christianity seems at best tangental to the thread in general, so I can't see why y'all are choosing to dwell on it.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Torah, Nevi'im, Kesuvim
Ketuvim
You say "Ketuvim" I say "Kesuvim" I say "Kesuva" And you say "Ketuba" Ketuba, Kesuva Ketuvim, Kesuvim Let's call the whole thing off...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: At any rate, the question of just how Jewish people view Christianity seems at best tangental to the thread in general, so I can't see why y'all are choosing to dwell on it.
I agree. It think it stems from BlackBlade's initial post, where he said:
quote:Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that Christianity can often come across as Judaism's haughty bastard brother (disowned cousin if we really irk you).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Torah, Nevi'im, Kesuvim
Ketuvim
It's one thing when you use Ivrit Moderni pronunciation when speaking in general. If speaking to an Israeli, so do I!
But when discussing sifrei kodesh, to suggest that it is wrong to use lashon hakodesh is laughable. And kind of sad.
Even if it did inspire Shmuel's amusing ditty. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: 1) The term "Old Testament" is generally offensive to Jews. Instead of OT, try MT (for Masoretic Text).
What about "Hebrew Bible"? I ask because I had a college course on the text, and the professor exclusively referred to it as such.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It's one thing when you use Ivrit Moderni pronunciation when speaking in general. If speaking to an Israeli, so do I!
But when discussing sifrei kodesh, to suggest that it is wrong to use lashon hakodesh is laughable.
In fairness, there's more than one dialect of lashon hakodesh out there now. Sefardit predates Modern Hebrew. (And the Taymanim are probably closer to the original than we Ashkenazim, for that matter.)
...I think we're demonstrating the truth of the adage that when you put three Jews in a room, you end up with four opinions. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Five.
And as narr is Ashkenazi, your (quite valid) points about Sephardim and Taymanim don't really help him much.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Oh my -- are you all seeing a Google banner ad for Chrismukkah at the bottom of the page?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: 1) The term "Old Testament" is generally offensive to Jews. Instead of OT, try MT (for Masoretic Text).
What about "Hebrew Bible"? I ask because I had a college course on the text, and the professor exclusively referred to it as such.
Eh. You will find academics using it. But it's a bit misleading -- to refer to the original text as though IT were the translation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: Oh my -- are you all seeing a Google banner ad for Chrismukkah at the bottom of the page?
Ick. No.
Thank God for AdBlock Plus.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Five.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The Torah, at least in the most common usage of the word, is the Pentateuch.
Not true. The most common usage is far vaguer, and refers to ALL of Tanach, as well as the Talmud, and the body of responsa since (which also constitute the continued explication of the Oral Law). Second most common usage refers to the entire Tanach. I'd say that using it to refer to Torah as explicitly only the Pentateuch is about the third most common usage. Partly because calling it the word Chumash is more commonly used in that case.
The OED as well as all of the first ten links found by google on the subject (many written by Rabbi's) define the Torah as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. I'm willing to accept that other definitions are in common usage in certain orthodox jewish schools, but my research confirms that it is the most common usage of the word among English speakers.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by narrativium:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Torah, Nevi'im, Kesuvim
Ketuvim
It's one thing when you use Ivrit Moderni pronunciation when speaking in general. If speaking to an Israeli, so do I!
But when discussing sifrei kodesh, to suggest that it is wrong to use lashon hakodesh is laughable. And kind of sad.
Especially because Ketuvim isn't any more correct than Kesuvim.
But I don't know that I'd call the Ashkenazis pronunciation "Lashon HaKodesh" like that. For one thing, Sephardim are just as kodesh as Ashkenazim, and for another, just because Germans couldn't pronounce the unvoiced \th\ sound and replaced it with a \s\ instead doesn't make it "authentically Jewish".
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: ...I think we're demonstrating the truth of the adage that when you put three Jews in a room, you end up with four opinions.
See, and I'd always heard it was "two Jews, three opinions" (she said, proving both adages correct).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The OED as well as all of the first ten links found by google on the subject (many written by Rabbis) define the Torah as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. I'm willing to accept that other definitions are in common usage in certain orthodox jewish schools, but my research confirms that it is the most common usage of the word among English speakers.
Given that a large chunk of those who use the word on a daily basis don't use the internet except for work, I don't consider Google (or any online source) particularly relevant.
You know, Rabbit, I would not have the chutzpah to correct you on a Mormon-specific word usage.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I vote for either Jewish Bible, Bible, or Tanach. Or Tanakh, for purists. Or even TaNaKh. <grin>
In terms of the ad, I see "How Funny is Franken". How can you have an ad for a fake holiday invented on a TV show?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The OED as well as all of the first ten links found by google on the subject (many written by Rabbis) define the Torah as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. I'm willing to accept that other definitions are in common usage in certain orthodox jewish schools, but my research confirms that it is the most common usage of the word among English speakers.
Given that a large chunk of those who use the word on a daily basis don't use the internet except for work, I don't consider Google (or any online source) particularly relevant.
You know, Rabbit, I would not have the chutzpah to correct you on a Mormon-specific word usage.
Torah is used exactly as Rabbit says. That's one of its uses. And it's not at all uncommon even among Orthodox Jews.
When you're discussing the Torah, as opposed to the rest of Tanach, Torah is by far the most common term used. A Torah scroll, or Sefer Torah, is called just that. A chumash is specifically a printed copy of the Torah.
Yes, Torah also means the entire corpus of law and lore given to us at Sinai and passed down and studied for the past 33+ centuries. But there's no reason to keep giving Rabbit a hard time for what's basically a correct statement.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The most common usage is far vaguer, and refers to ALL of Tanach, as well as the Talmud, and the body of responsa since (which also constitute the continued explication of the Oral Law). Second most common usage refers to the entire Tanach. I'd say that using it to refer to Torah as explicitly only the Pentateuch is about the third most common usage.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: When you're discussing the Torah, as opposed to the rest of Tanach, Torah is by far the most common term used.
You're both right. The most common word used for the Pentateuch is "Torah" (with "Chumash" being in second place, I'd say), but the most common meaning of "Torah" -- by a fairly wide margin -- refers to the entire corpus of Written and Oral Law down to present-day writings. Context is everything. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I will point out that "Jewish atheist" is not an oxymoron, but I'm pretty sure that "Christian atheist" would be.
This is interesting. I've heard this before. Is this just another way of saying someone who is Jewish by birth/culture/heritage, but who's personal religious views are athiestic?
I'm curious because it'd describe me pretty well. I'm an athiest, but I was raised Jewish, attended an orthodox Hebrew school for 8 years(half day hebrew studies, half day english studies), I have a strong sense of identity with the Jewish people and still consider myself "Jewish" to a large degree.
Do practicing Jews really not have a problem with that phrase?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:This is interesting. I've heard this before. Is this just another way of saying someone who is Jewish by birth/culture/heritage, but who's personal religious views are athiestic?
Pretty much.
quote:Do practicing Jews really not have a problem with that phrase?
With the phrase? I don't think so. With the concept? Well, it saddens me. But it doesn't offend me or anything.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:I will point out that "Jewish atheist" is not an oxymoron, but I'm pretty sure that "Christian atheist" would be.
This is interesting. I've heard this before. Is this just another way of saying someone who is Jewish by birth/culture/heritage, but who's personal religious views are athiestic?
I'm curious because it'd describe me pretty well. I'm an athiest, but I was raised Jewish, attended an orthodox Hebrew school for 8 years(half day hebrew studies, half day english studies), I have a strong sense of identity with the Jewish people and still consider myself "Jewish" to a large degree.
Do practicing Jews really not have a problem with that phrase?
Well, of course we have a problem with it. But it doesn't change the fact that "a Jew who sins is still a Jew". Cardinal Lustiger is a Jew. Becoming an atheist or converting to another religion doesn't stop a person from being Jewish. It just means they aren't currently doing the right thing. Tomorrow, maybe they will.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I was raised Jewish, attended an orthodox Hebrew school for 8 years(half day hebrew studies, half day english studies),
Can I ask where?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
It was called New Haven Hebrew Day school back when I went there. They changed the name recently to Southern Conecticut Hebrew Academy.
Lisa, Rivka thank you thus far for your answers. Per your requests Ill change the subject line to a less alliterative type.
But for now more questions.
1: Lisa you mentioned in your Torah 101 post about how we ought to be read the text with your, "Please exit through the back door," analogy. Is that a way of viewing the Law, or that also a way of viewing all sacred writ?
2: From a Jewish person's perspective How likely is it that the oral torah has remained completely intact from the day it was first uttered? Why is it so important that it not be written down? Is there an ethical grounds for this? Or is this more of a "Thats the protocol, that's how we do it," thing?
3:
quote: Malachi was the last of the prophets. But you have to understand that what we mean by prophet and prophecy is not the same thing that you do. There will be prophecy again, and even after Malachi... well, the difference between prophecy and what we call Ruach HaKodesh (divine spirit) is only a matter of degree.
Could you elaborate?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Interesting but I am not completely convinced that there reasoning makes sense. Could anybody offer an instance where the Oral Torah specifically clarifies a principle in the Written Torah?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Certainly. The Written Torah refers to tefillin, phylacteries, but offers no instructions on how they should be constructed, although it does allude to such instructions existing.
The instructions were entirely oral.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: 2: From a Jewish person's perspective How likely is it that the oral torah has remained completely intact from the day it was first uttered? Why is it so important that it not be written down? Is there an ethical grounds for this? Or is this more of a "Thats the protocol, that's how we do it," thing?
Well, it has been written down with increasing degrees of explicitness over the millennia. I'll get back to that point in a bit.
There are at least two reasons given for the division between written and oral.
One explanation is simply that the Torah as given on Sinai is not universally applicable, and is specifically meant for the Jews. Providing a written text that couldn't be properly understood without the accompanying oral tradition effectively kept it out of the hands of outsiders.
Another -- and I confess I prefer this one -- is that book learnin' is qualitatively different from personal instruction. This is especially true in the case of Torah, where the laws themselves are only a part of what's being transmitted; equally important is an ethos, taught by example as much as by instruction.
For that matter, as one might infer from the fact that "Torah" is used for the entire body of learning from Sinai down to today, Torah study is seen as being part of one large conversation spanning the centuries, with scholars from every generation participating. This is different from having a static book set down in writing Way Back When which succeeding generations look at as a complete work.
Returning to your original question, this is reflected in the way the Oral Law has been written down. The reason for the writing is precisely because, after centuries of turmoil and exile, the Oral Law was in serious danger of being forgotten.
The first take on codifying it was the Mishnah, which concisely gave the outlines of what various rulings were and how they were arrived at. The idea was to provide a set of notes that would still require the oral tradition for full understanding.
Eventually, even that wasn't enough, and the Gemora was codified. This, presented as a commentary on the Mishnah, went into much more detail, but was still written in a cryptic fashion, requiring personal instruction from somebody with the oral tradition to be understood. (The Mishnah and Gemora together compose the Talmud. But note that this is a simplified narrative.)
This pattern has continued to the present day, with each generation's writings getting more and more explicit and nuanced as necessary. It's been accurately said that if a generation had been completely wiped out somewhere along the way, breaking the tradition, the following one would never have been able to figure out what to make of what had been written down until that point.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Certainly. The Written Torah refers to tefillin, phylacteries, but offers no instructions on how they should be constructed, although it does allude to such instructions existing.
The instructions were entirely oral.
Ditto the prescribed method for slaughtering animals.
(And, ooh, that article's a good one.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Isn't it? Aish is great. Regardless of their feelings about my dad. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Certainly. The Written Torah refers to tefillin, phylacteries, but offers no instructions on how they should be constructed, although it does allude to such instructions existing.
The instructions were entirely oral.
Ok that makes sense. In the Old Testament they mention stuff to the effect of, "If you want to know more, is it not all written down in the book of X." Book X not being found in The Old Testament or if you prefer the Hebrew Bible (I forgot the M word and its in another thread!)
Say book X was found via the Dead Sea Scrolls style are there any protocols about judging its authenticity and canonizing it?
If there is still the possibility of prophets within Judaism, is there a recognized format for how a Prophet is called and how to recognize one?
Roman siege of Jerusalem and the diaspora for all practical purposes destroyed the Sanhedrin. Three questions. Is there a generally held belief as to why the Jews were allowed to be expelled from their land? Are their prophetic utterances precluding it, or explaining it? Why is it impossible to form the Sanhedrin now?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: 1: Lisa you mentioned in your Torah 101 post about how we ought to be read the text with your, "Please exit through the back door," analogy. Is that a way of viewing the Law, or that also a way of viewing all sacred writ?
I'm not sure what you mean by "sacred writ". It's how the Torah works, how the Prophets work, and how the Writings work. And we kept it up with the Mishnah, and to a lesser extent with the Gemara/Talmud. When it comes to later sources, we generally consider the works of Moses Maimonides (particularly his legal code, the Mishneh Torah) to have been composed with an extreme precision of words, to the point that we can do the same with that. In jargon, we'd say that you can be medayek in the words of the Rambam.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: 2: From a Jewish person's perspective How likely is it that the oral torah has remained completely intact from the day it was first uttered?
Both 100% and 0%. It depends on how you mean it. For example, there's a midrash that says that during the month of mourning after Moses' death, large numbers of laws were forgotten, and that Othniel son of Kenaz (the Judge who followed Joshua) restored them by means of the rules used in the halakhic system.
The important thing to remember is, it's a system. Whatever comes out of the system when it's used correctly is correct. Is God's will.
If you think of the Oral Torah as something that can be listed/enumerated, then it's certainly changed. Heck, it's changed over the past 10 years. There didn't use to be a ruling about roller blades on Shabbat, for example. But we have God's promise that His Torah will not pass from us. And what with the whole omnipotence/omniscience thing, that pretty much settles it.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why is it so important that it not be written down? Is there an ethical grounds for this? Or is this more of a "Thats the protocol, that's how we do it," thing?
Think about it. Once you write something down, it's pretty much open season on it. I've had people tell me that a character in a story I wrote had intention X, when I wrote it with intention Y in mind. A written word can be misinterpreted in a way that a living tradition that requires that concepts be explained to each generation in terms that are currently understandable cannot.
I'll give you an example. In the days of King James, the word "kill" meant to wrongly take a life. Basically what we'd use the word "murder" for, today. How did they express what we mean by "kill"? That is, the taking of life, whether right or wrong? It was "slay".
So the KJV says "Thou shalt not kill". And it was a legitimate translation in its day. But language shifts, and now it's a bad translation. But I've heard people declare their opposition to any killing at all, basing themselves on this commandment. A commandment which doesn't say what they think it does.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: 3:
quote: Malachi was the last of the prophets. But you have to understand that what we mean by prophet and prophecy is not the same thing that you do. There will be prophecy again, and even after Malachi... well, the difference between prophecy and what we call Ruach HaKodesh (divine spirit) is only a matter of degree.
Could you elaborate?
I would be happy to. It's going to have to wait at least until I get home, though. Possibly until tomorrow night. Shabbat cometh, you know, and with daylight savings time gone, it's earlier. Candle lighting is at 4:22 today, here in Chicago, and I have to get home from the Loop and shower and have everything done by then.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Isn't it? Aish is great. Regardless of their feelings about my dad.
?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Torah "codes."
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Say book X was found via the Dead Sea Scrolls style are there any protocols about judging its authenticity and canonizing it?
The canon is now closed. Rediscovered books might be interesting for historical background, but that's about it.
quote:If there is still the possibility of prophets within Judaism, is there a recognized format for how a Prophet is called and how to recognize one?
Yes. Though the laws concerning that haven't been practically relevant for a very long time.
quote:Roman siege of Jerusalem and the diaspora for all practical purposes destroyed the Sanhedrin. Three questions. Is there a generally held belief as to why the Jews were allowed to be expelled from their land?
We didn't do what God wanted. Those sections of curses Lisa mentioned earlier? He wasn't kidding.
quote:Are their prophetic utterances precluding it, or explaining it?
Umm, yeah. The warnings and explications are all over Tanach.
quote:Why is it impossible to form the Sanhedrin now?
The short answer is that it consists of ordained rabbis, and the chain of ordination that had run from Moses on down was broken due to Roman persecution. (Modern ordination does not have the same legal status.) Opinions differ as to exactly how it can and will be reestablished by the Messianic age.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
First off I am quite happy with how willing people are to take time to help me understand Judaism.
Might I request a favor before this thread proceeds any further.
Please explain things in such a manner that the average person could comprehend it.
Call me stupid, but when I as a Mormon attempt to explain something out of say the Book of Mormon to a Catholic or a Protestant. I do not say, "The 4th book of Nephi is explicit on the matter."
Even people who are acquainted with Mormon doctrine do not know who Nephi, Mosiah, Moroni, Omni, Shiblon, Gidgidonah, Helaman, Laman, Alma, etc are. Even using terms like Gold Plates, or Brass Plates confuses the uninitiated.
I know its difficult, but when speaking to protestants I attempt to incorporate their vocabulary as much as possible when describing my own faith. I call the sacrament, "Communion" because thats what they call it. I call ordinances, "Sacraments," because again that makes more sense to them.
Having said that I REALLY do want to know all the terms Jews use in describing Judaism, just please clarify what something is before using the term.
I do not know what, "Tanach" is. I do not know what, "Mishnah" is, or the "Gemara/Talmud." Just to name a few.
But I am still guilty of this as well. I used the phrase, "sacred writ." Without clarifying its meaning, when I should know better that that term is more germane to Mormonism.
Sacred writ is any writing that is sacred. Sacred in that it was either spoken by God and written down by man. Or spoken by a prophet under the inspiration of God.
Lisa/Rivka: I think I understand the rationale behind maintaining an Oral Torah. I guess I am approaching it with Christian biases in that I believe God's words should be written down, and any disagreements on what they mean can be prayerfully and thoughtfully considered. Issues that remain unresolved are clarified by God's spokesman the prophet.
Did God himself command that an Oral Torah be kept? Is there a scripture I might look up that indicates this? How was the tradition started?
Shmuel: You stated the Canon is closed, who made this announcement? If Book X containing additional teachings and prophecies by say Joshua was found, would it really be disregarded? Or is it simply impossible to in any official way canonize new scripture and require all Jews to abide by it?
Is it possible for you to outline the laws you mentioned dealing with recognizing and accepting a prophet? Are they too numerous and comprehensive to outline?
Clearly Moses was given his authority to act as a prophet from God. Whether he was ordained by somebody or from God himself I won't say. Is it impossible for God to call such a man in these days to fill the same role?
In regards to a direct line back to Moses within the Sanhedrin. How is that possible? Reading about Josiah by itself seems to indicate that the worship of Yahweh had been discontinued until a priest found the scroll of the Torah in the treasury and then Josiah pronounced that Yahweh was the only God that the kingdom of Judah would worship.
Is there something missing in the history, or am I reading too much into it and in fact there were still a handful of true believers left who kept up everything Moses had said by Oral tradition? I dunno, it just seems there are a handful of events between Moses and Malachi that make the claim of an unbroken line from Moses to Caiaphas hard to back up.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
(Temporarily derail thread)
This is not really a question, but I have to share it and I think that readers of this thread will find it somewhat interesting. I just found out that I was sent to a Jewish preschool (or kindergarten, not sure which). Being a Catholic, I was quite surprised.
(/derail)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: (Temporarily derail thread)
This is not really a question, but I have to share it and I think that readers of this thread will find it somewhat interesting. I just found out that I was sent to a Jewish preschool (or kindergarten, not sure which). Being a Catholic, I was quite surprised.
(/derail)
I went to a private Lutheran school for 8 years. As a Mormon it had its moments.
Shame on you for derailing this thread, I'm self declaring dictatorship status on this thread so that the trains start running on time again.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Lisa/Rivka: I think I understand the rationale behind maintaining an Oral Torah. I guess I am approaching it with Christian biases in that I believe God's words should be written down, and any disagreements on what they mean can be prayerfully and thoughtfully considered. Issues that remain unresolved are clarified by God's spokesman the prophet.
Um, you mean Mormon biases, not Christian biases. Most Christians do not believe that unresolved issues are clarified by your prophet, and I would be surprised if most Christians believed that God's words should be written down for the reasons you state. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:Lisa/Rivka: I think I understand the rationale behind maintaining an Oral Torah. I guess I am approaching it with Christian biases in that I believe God's words should be written down, and any disagreements on what they mean can be prayerfully and thoughtfully considered. Issues that remain unresolved are clarified by God's spokesman the prophet.
Um, you mean Mormon biases, not Christian biases. Most Christians do not believe that unresolved issues are clarified by your prophet, and I would be surprised if most Christians believed that God's words should be written down for the reasons you state.
Do you disagree that for non Mormons if Jesus comes again and says, "Bob over here is my spokesman, he will take your questions," that people would then say, "Hey wait a second JC, you can't call any more prophets!"
Didn't say MY prophet, I said A prophet.
If you wanted to get nitpicky I could say thats how the CHRISTIAN perspective SHOULD be, and any other way is an apostate version.
But I will concede that there are Christians who do not share my view of things, and might argue it is not true.
But even from an Old Testament perspective coming from a Christian background. Prophets told people what God thought about things, and nobody was above them. Perhaps to some things have changed, but it still WAS that way in the Old Testament.
Sorry if my statement was misleading. Why do you think its important that the Bible was written down?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
No, you didn't say A prophet, you said THE prophet. It's right there, three times when you count your post and me quoting you and you quoting me quoting you. Most Christians do not recognize a current prophet, so I think it's reasonable for me to think you're talking about THE Mormon prophet, since y'all are the largest denomination that currently has one.
To answer your question, I'm not sure I do think it's important that the Bible was written down. At least, not important enough to say that that method is inherantly better than an oral tradition. Both have their advantages. Written scripture is certainly currently more easily accessable by more people, although there have been times in history when the literacy rate was such that that wasn't so.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I do not know what, "Tanach" is. I do not know what, "Mishnah" is, or the "Gemara/Talmud." Just to name a few.
The message in which I referred to the Mishnah and Gemara defined them; actually, the definition was the point in that message, and the labels were more or less a side note.
Tanach, as I think Rivka explained back on the first page, is what you'd call the Old Testament, variously referred to elsewhere in this thread as the Masoretic Text or the Hebrew Bible.
quote:I guess I am approaching it with Christian biases in that I believe God's words should be written down, and any disagreements on what they mean can be prayerfully and thoughtfully considered. Issues that remain unresolved are clarified by God's spokesman the prophet.
Yeah, traditional Judaism doesn't go along with any of that. The oral tradition is crucial, and unresolved issues are argued about for generations. Prophecy isn't needed and frankly wouldn't help; clarifying legal issues is not its function.
quote:Did God himself command that an Oral Torah be kept?
Yes.
quote:Is there a scripture I might look up that indicates this?
No. Except arguably by inference, inasmuch as the text requires explication.
quote:How was the tradition started?
God and Moses had a long conversation...
quote:You stated the Canon is closed, who made this announcement?
quote:If Book X containing additional teachings and prophecies by say Joshua was found, would it really be disregarded? Or is it simply impossible to in any official way canonize new scripture and require all Jews to abide by it?
Yes, and yes.
quote:Is it possible for you to outline the laws you mentioned dealing with recognizing and accepting a prophet? Are they too numerous and comprehensive to outline?
They are, and I'm going to pass. I will note, however, that one requirement is that he make a specific prediction about the future which comes true. (Incidentally, the penalty for false prophecy, evidenced by making a specific prediction that doesn't come true, is death.)
quote:Clearly Moses was given his authority to act as a prophet from God. Whether he was ordained by somebody or from God himself I won't say.
Oh, I have no trouble whatsoever saying it was God. (Though ordination pertains to being a rabbi, and is a seperate issue from prophecy.)
quote:Is it impossible for God to call such a man in these days to fill the same role?
The same role as Moses? Ain't ever gonna happen. (Of course, the question isn't whether it's impossible for God to do, the affirmation of which would be a logical absurdity, but whether He would.)
quote:In regards to a direct line back to Moses within the Sanhedrin. How is that possible?
I'm not going to recite the entire chronology and chain of transmission. Suffice it to say that we do have one.
quote:Reading about Josiah by itself seems to indicate that the worship of Yahweh had been discontinued until a priest found the scroll of the Torah in the treasury and then Josiah pronounced that Yahweh was the only God that the kingdom of Judah would worship.
I believe Lisa covered this earlier.
It's after sundown here, and while I'm not Sabbath-observant myself these days, I think I'll wait till tomorrow night before making any further responses in this thread; it feels perverse for me to keep posting in this context.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: No, you didn't say A prophet, you said THE prophet. It's right there, three times when you count your post and me quoting you and you quoting me quoting you. Most Christians do not recognize a current prophet, so I think it's reasonable for me to think you're talking about THE Mormon prophet, since y'all are the largest denomination that currently has one.
To answer your question, I'm not sure I do think it's important that the Bible was written down. At least, not important enough to say that that method is inherantly better than an oral tradition. Both have their advantages. Written scripture is certainly currently more easily accessable by more people, although there have been times in history when the literacy rate was such that that wasn't so.
You are right ElJay I did say THE prophet, conciously in my mind I could remember saying A prophet, so my bad. But within the context of the statement I honestly did not mean the LDS church's prophet. Ill try to do a better job of clarifying in the future.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Okay, I lied. One last point, as this came in before I posted the last bit:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Prophets told people what God thought about things, and nobody was above them. Perhaps to some things have changed, but it still WAS that way in the Old Testament.
Actually, no. The laws were established by God through Moses. None were added or subtracted afterward, and interpretation of them was the province of rabbis, not prophets. In fact, any prophet trying to make a permanent change in any the rules Moses established would ipso facto be considered a false prophet.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Perhaps, rather than doing a better job of clarifying in the future, you should just try to go back and read the post before jumping down someone's throat. And, after having done so, some might consider an apology in order. "so my bad" doesn't count.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:
quote:How was the tradition started?
God and Moses had a long conversation...
quote:
quote:You stated the Canon is closed, who made this announcement?
quote:Is it impossible for God to call such a man in these days to fill the same role?
The same role as Moses? Ain't ever gonna happen. (Of course, the question isn't whether it's impossible for God to do, the affirmation of which would be a logical absurdity, but whether He would.)
It is in fact a tenet of Jewish belief, that there never was and never will be a prophet like Moshe, who spoke with God directly, not through visions or dreams. See Yigdal, a part of the daily prayers.
quote:
quote:In regards to a direct line back to Moses within the Sanhedrin. How is that possible?
I'm not going to recite the entire chronology and chain of transmission. Suffice it to say that we do have one.
Yeah, my daughter knows it (she had to learn it for school), but I'm pretty sure I would get stuck if I tried to recite it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In an hour, I too will stop posting. Shabbos starts early this time of year!
Please do me a favor, BB. While we're all offline for Shabbos, please go back and re-read some of the longer answers. As Shmuel pointed out, several of the questions you asked today were already answered -- and in detail.
It doesn't make too much sense for us to write out detailed answers if you aren't going to read them. This is starting to feel like some Q&As I've been a part of before, where the point was less for the Christian asking questions to get answers, and more about trying to convince me that Christianity really wasn't in conflict with Judaism.
I'm not saying that actually IS your motivation. Just that not paying attention to some of our answers and harping on certain issues feels awfully reminiscent of conversations I've had where that was the motivation.
(If I were actually convinced that were your motivation, I would simply refuse to continue this conversation. Unlike Christians, Jews do not believe they have any obligation to convince others of the rightness of their religion.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rivka: I'm honestly trying to sift through the information. But its an aweful lot to soak in. You guys simply drop, "yes in Yavne" and I have to go look around and figure out what that is, usually theres a lot to know about it. Theres a temptation to skip seemingly irrelevant factors and get to the meat, but I admit I can mess up in that process. I admit today I was torn between actively participating in this thread and typing a paper for class while at work. Not to mention my wife's work situation is a mess. I will read back over everything said in this thread. I honestly have no motivation to prove Christianity RIGHT or WRONG. If I say, "Well in Christianity we believe X." Its an invitation for you to provide the Jewish counterpoint, or even same conclusion through a different thought process.
Just throwing this out there for curiousities sake. How do you say cat in hebrew? I know in Biblical times they had dogs, but they were not really domesticated, did they have house cats?
Eljay:
quote:Sorry if my statement was misleading
I was not trying to jump down your throat, just disagree with you. Even with emoticons its not always clear how I mean things in a forum. But having said that if you felt I was unduly rude to you I am sorry I came across that way, such was not my intention.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I'm honestly trying to sift through the information.
Good.
quote:But its an aweful lot to soak in.
Understood.
quote: You guys simply drop, "yes in Yavne" and I have to go look around and figure out what that is, usually theres a lot to know about it.
Hmm. That was more for Shmuel than for you. I was confirming that he was correct, and giving a detail that I assumed (incorrectly) you would ignore, and he would understand.
quote:Theres a temptation to skip seemingly irrelevant factors and get to the meat
Of course. But what you think is "the meat" seems often not to be what I would so identify.
quote: I admit today I was torn between actively participating in this thread and typing a paper for class while at work.
And there would be nothing wrong if you had said, "RL is busy today. I'll get back to you on Monday."
quote:I honestly have no motivation to prove Christianity RIGHT or WRONG.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't believe you. EVERY religious person has a strong emotional investment in their religion being correct!
quote: If I say, "Well in Christianity we believe X."
That is not at all what I was being made uncomfortable by. But regardless, I accept that you are in this primarily to learn, and that's fine.
quote:Just throwing this out there for curiousities sake. How do you say cat in hebrew?
חתול -- chah-TOOL
quote: I know in Biblical times they had dogs, but they were not really domesticated, did they have house cats?
No idea.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Added: BB --
I'm not sure why you are quoting that statement. I was not asking for an apology for your original misleading statement, but for the way you reacted to my correction of it, which was in the same post as the quoted statement, so it could hardly be expected to count.
Thank you for giving it now. Just for clarity, I didn't think you needed to apologize for being unduly rude. Although if you don't want people to think you're being rude, I would highly recommend adopting italics or bolding for emphasis instead of all caps. Most people online interpret all caps as shouting.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You know, Rabbit, I would not have the chutzpah to correct you on a Mormon-specific word usage.
Perhaps not, but you do seem to have the chutzpah to attack me for saying something that has been supported by other Jews in this forum. Forgive me for daring to suggest I might just know something about Judaism.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I am Jewish and I just learned more about my religion than I ever knew... hmmm... my parents weren't very religious.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If there is still the possibility of prophets within Judaism, is there a recognized format for how a Prophet is called and how to recognize one?
The way a prophet is recognized is fairly simple. He goes before the Sanhedrin, and has to do a few things to prove himself. They give him the stamp of approval, and he's a prophet.
That doesn't end it, however. You should understand that a looney wandering down the street and muttering that he's a prophet is not what the Torah calls a "false prophet". It's what we call a looney. A false prophet is someone who has passed the tests I mentioned before, and is known to actually be capable of prophecy. And who then turns around and tries to get us to do something that isn't part of the Torah. Such a person gets killed dead. He's a bad guy, even if his intent is good.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Roman siege of Jerusalem and the diaspora for all practical purposes destroyed the Sanhedrin.
Well, it wasn't the siege. It was the laws they passed more than a century later banning the practice of smicha (genuine ordination). And killing anyone and everyone who attempted to carry it out.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why is it impossible to form the Sanhedrin now?
Who says it's impossible?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm gonna back rabbit on this one.
Jews, most jews (cause most of us aren't orthodox), in english, use the word "torah" to refer to genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, and deuteronomy.
We might also refer to it to mean other things, but thats how its most commonly used, even among american jews.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I do not know what, "Tanach" is. I do not know what, "Mishnah" is, or the "Gemara/Talmud." Just to name a few.
I apologize. If you read the essay I posted on the Torah 101 blog (it's also up here), it'll explain to you what the Mishnah is. Also, what the Talmud is. Gemara is an alternative term for Talmud, because some people use Talmud to refer to the combination of the Mishnah and the Gemara.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Did God himself command that an Oral Torah be kept? Is there a scripture I might look up that indicates this? How was the tradition started?
When God gave us the Torah at Sinai, it consisted of an Oral component and a Written component. I'm reiterating this, because I understand that it's possibly very counter-intuitive to you. But the written Torah (the Pentateuch) is not the source of God's law. It's an important component of that law, but it's the oral part which is the primary source of Torah law.
For example, you're familiar with the verse "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". The actual law is not literal retaliation in this way. It's actually monetary compensation. But that was not something the rabbis made up in order to "modify" the law. On the contrary. The law was always that monetary damages are paid in cases of damages. The phrasing in the written Torah is a mnemonic that can be used as an aid in recalling the law.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Shmuel: You stated the Canon is closed, who made this announcement? If Book X containing additional teachings and prophecies by say Joshua was found, would it really be disregarded?
Disregarded? Maybe and maybe not. How would you establish its provenance? How would you actually know it was written by Joshua?
But even if we had some way of actually knowing this for certain, it wouldn't matter. In fact, if archaeologists were to find a copy of the Torah in a cave and dated it to the time of Moses, and it differed from ours, we still wouldn't pay it any mind. We'd know that it must have been a bad copy someone made. Or a deliberate distortion. God promised that we wouldn't lose the Torah. It isn't possible that we could have gone centuries without pertinent information.
I'll get back to this more in a separate post about prophecy.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Or is it simply impossible to in any official way canonize new scripture and require all Jews to abide by it?
Correct. At least now. In theory, when the Sanhedrin is reestablished, they could do so. Heck, they could canonize the New York Times, if they had sound reasons for doing so.
Understand... the books that were not included in the canon weren't all excluded because there was something wrong with them. The Wisdom of Ben Sira, for example, almost made it in. And it was on a level of "inspiration" that approached the books of the Writings. It just didn't quite make it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Is it possible for you to outline the laws you mentioned dealing with recognizing and accepting a prophet? Are they too numerous and comprehensive to outline?
Okay, here's the thing. Even most Christians would probably find their idea of what prophecy is different than ours. As a Mormon, your idea is probably vastly different from ours.
Let me give you a little background, first. Understand that God is everywhere. I mean, there's nowhere that God isn't. We hold (and I know that Mormonism doesn't, so this is another difference) that God is omnipotent. Literally. God can do anything. And God defines everything. Geoff Card once mentioned that in Mormonism, God is God because He is good. We say that good is good because it's what God does. Nothing defines Him; He defines everything.
But even though God is everywhere, you don't see Him. We aren't normally equipped to perceive Him directly. Like a dog can't see color, and like a blind person can't see light at all, we can't just see God. We can only see that which God has done.
Have you ever looked at those Magic Eye pictures? When I first saw them, I couldn't see a thing. Just a repeating design. The actual image hidden in the pictures might just as well not have been there for all that I could see it. And I know people who've tried for years, and just can't see them.
It took practice, but I figured out how to see them. It's still not easy, but I can do it. Perceiving God is also a discipline. And it's one that used to be taught openly in Israel back before the Babylonian Exile.
Regular Torah, like the stuff that's learned in Yeshivot (Rabbinic academies) was like grade school stuff back then. Maybe even middle school. The higher stuff wasn't taught to everyone, but it was available to anyone who had the capacity and/or interest.
And you have to understand what it means to perceive God. God is the source of everything. Perceiving God means perceiving God's intent and God's plan. And there are degrees of perceiving Him. No one can perceive Him wholly. Doing that would wipe out your existence. We only exist by virtue of the way in which God's presence is somewhat obscured from us. Filtered, you might say.
The highest level of perception of God is called Torah. An individual who achieves that degree of perception is called... well, he's called Moses. You don't need a general term when there's only ever been one person in the category.
A lesser degree of perception of God is called Nevua. We translate that as "prophecy". A Navi is a person who can do this.
A still lesser degree of this same perception is called Ruach HaKodesh, or Holy Spirit. We don't have a term for a person who attains this level. And in fact, there've been people who've attained this level, but not suffiently for what they've written to be included in the canon.
(Note, btw, that the term Ruach HaKodesh is what Christians have translated as "holy ghost".)
And don't think of it as something with three notches. It's a continuous spectrum. Isaiah experienced greater perception of God than Ezekiel did, for example. And a single person could perceive God at different levels at different times. For example, the prophet Samuel wrote most of the book bearing his name (some of it was written by the prophets Nathan and Gad), and he did so under the influence of prophecy, while he wrote the book of Ruth only under the influence of holy spirit. That's why Samuel is in the Prophets and Ruth is in the Writings.
So. This perception could actually be a double-edged sword. It allowed you to perceive aspects of reality that not everyone else could see, and it was sometimes possible to manipulate physical reality this way. And there were unsafe shortcuts that could be taken to use these techniques. Since they were forbidden, they wound up being practiced in the guise of worship of other deities. And since these deities didn't really exist, and couldn't forbid it, it was a free-for-all.
After the Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians, and after Babylon fell and we returned to our land, the Sanhedrin had some very important decisions to make. Things were very different. Some 80% of the Jews in the world continued to live in Exile. And the threat of worse and worse exile still existed. It was clear that the single biggest threat to the continued existence of the Jewish people was idolatry. That was why God let us be exiled. But idolatry was almost inevitable so long as people saw the "magic" associated with it as real and working.
So the Sanhedrin took a radical step. They severely limited the teaching of the techniques necessary for prophecy. By doing this, over the course of a generation, they essentially wiped out the temptation for idolatry among our people.
In so doing, they also ended the era of the prophets, but it was a decision they felt was justified.
See, the prophets had a purpose. The laws of the Torah are clear. What's not always clear is nuance. When you committed a sin, you needed to repent, and you needed to bring a sacrifice. But which was the more important of the two? Was the sacrifice the essential act, and repentance just something that went along with it, or was the opposite true?
Prophets weren't allowed to add to the Torah or take away from the Torah. But they sure could berate us for our shortcomings vis a vis the Torah, and they were able, because of their heightened perceptions, to instruct us about nuances.
And they needed to, particularly in the case of sacrifices. See, the written Torah spends almost half of itself talking about the details of the sacrifices. That's because there were a lot of details. Repentance, for all that it's far more important, is relatively simple. It's also something that varies a lot more in application from individual to individual. So the written Torah, by its nature, spends a lot more time on it. And a lot of people got the false idea from this that sacrifices were a bigger deal than they were. The prophets were able to speak to this misunderstanding.
By the time of the Second Commonwealth (the period after the Babylonian Exile and before the Roman destruction), that was pretty well accomplished. Now, particularly with 80% of the people in Babylon, it was time to start consolidating and formulating things. It wasn't going to be like before, where little children knew the complicated laws of "purity" and "impurity" (imprecise terms, but I didn't figure tahara and tum'ah would be of much use to you) the same way little kids in our time know about germs and that red means stop and green means go.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Clearly Moses was given his authority to act as a prophet from God. Whether he was ordained by somebody or from God himself I won't say. Is it impossible for God to call such a man in these days to fill the same role?
The same role? No. God locked that in Himself. And yes, Moses was ordained by God. And he was more than just a prophet, as I explained above. His perception of God was unique in human history. The Sages say that while the rest of the prophets saw God as though through a distorted glass, Moses saw Him through a clear glass.
But yes, there could be prophets today. But they'd need to be vetted by the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin is the body God established to determine God's will for us here.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: In regards to a direct line back to Moses within the Sanhedrin. How is that possible? Reading about Josiah by itself seems to indicate that the worship of Yahweh
Would you mind please not using that name? It really is offensive.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: had been discontinued until a priest found the scroll of the Torah in the treasury and then Josiah pronounced that Yahweh was the only God that the kingdom of Judah would worship.
Only publically. Even in the Soviet Union, where Judaism was banned for decades, there were always Jews who managed to learn in private. The same was true under the Romans. And the same was true under Menasseh and Amon.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Is there something missing in the history, or am I reading too much into it and in fact there were still a handful of true believers left who kept up everything Moses had said by Oral tradition? I dunno, it just seems there are a handful of events between Moses and Malachi that make the claim of an unbroken line from Moses to Caiaphas hard to back up.
Caiaphas? Are you referring to the Hellenist high priest? What does he have to do with anything?
In any case, there weren't just a handful of true believers. You know how the world was back then, right? Villages all over the place. It wasn't the centralized kind of society that we had later, starting with the Romans. All Menasseh and Amon controlled, probably, was Jerusalem and its immediate environs.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The term "Old Testament" is generally offensive to Jews. Instead of OT, try MT (for Masoretic Text).
Jews seem to be really delicate creatures these days.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Umm, "old testament" has ALWAYS been offensive. Calling it the "old" testament implies it is no longer valid, it has been overwritten by something new, and therefore anyone who still follows it is hopelessly misguided.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think a lot of Christians simply have no idea how offensive some of their terms are to us. For most of their history, it's been worth our lives to point it out to them.
There's nothing Old about our Bible, Storm Saxon. It's the current and only Testament.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"There's nothing Old about our Bible, Storm Saxon. It's the current and only Testament."
Which is about as offensive as saying "old testament."
Not that I disagree with you, but in these sorts of conversations, maybe its best to use "tanakh" and "christian canon" or similar terms. Then we all avoid stepping on everyone's toes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I just want to be clear - you think it's OK for people to be offensive in this manner, right? I'm at a loss to see a qualitative difference between using "Old Testament" and this:
quote:There's nothing Old about our Bible, Storm Saxon. It's the current and only Testament.
I don't see either one as offensive, mind you, but I'm wondering if you see a qualitative difference between them. (Other than you think you're right about this, of course. If that's your only basis for distinction, then I can happily continue to use OT knowing that by your standards of offensiveness I'm not being offensive, merely disagreeing with you about the ultimate nature if God.)
Edit: this was in response to Lisa, obviously.
Also, I wouldn't use OT in the context of a thread about judaism unless necessary to make a point such as this one.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I had a few minutes, but I could not do justice to all that has been said, that will have to wait until Sunday or even perhaps Monday. But I did want to get to some of Lisa's comments as I stepped on some toes with some of my posts.
quote: So the Sanhedrin took a radical step. They severely limited the teaching of the techniques necessary for prophecy. By doing this, over the course of a generation, they essentially wiped out the temptation for idolatry among our people.
In so doing, they also ended the era of the prophets, but it was a decision they felt was justified.
Could you supply me with a general year as to when this happened?
I fully agree with you that prophecy or the holy ghost can certainly be available at different degrees to different people. I never thought being a prophet entitled you to X amount of inspiration.
As for the role of a prophet, I think I understand how you see prophets better. What of the function as God's spokesman? In the Masoretic text there a numerous cases where kings, and the people in general ask prophets what the Lords will concerning the people of Israel is. Is it possible within modern day Judaism to have prophets filling that role today, say regarding the modern state of Israel?
Within Mormonism, say an Apostle dies. It is stated that the other apostles and first presidency (Prophet + his 2 councelors) pray and receive divine inspiration as to who ought to fill the vacant seat. The new apostle is presented before the church who sustain (or oppose) and usually members of the church pray for individual confirmation.
Within Judaism what keeps say the Sanhedrin honest? In a religion class we learned that there were Rabs Rabbis and Rabonis during the days of Jesus. Has this always been the case, is it the case today?
Do Jews acknowledge the possibility of corruption amongst the church leadership? I guess I am wrestling just alittle bit with the idea that if God called a spokesman to call say the nation of Israel to repentance that he has to answer to a body of men if he does so.
quote: Well, it wasn't the siege. It was the laws they passed more than a century later banning the practice of smicha (genuine ordination). And killing anyone and everyone who attempted to carry it out.
See this is what I mean, who decided this? Does the Torah give anybody the power to make such a decision?
quote: Would you mind please not using that name? It really is offensive.
Sincere Apologies, it was an honest mistake, sorry that I was dumb enough to make it, I should have known better. Does Adonai or just plain God work better?
quote: Caiaphas? Are you referring to the Hellenist high priest? What does he have to do with anything?
In any case, there weren't just a handful of true believers. You know how the world was back then, right? Villages all over the place. It wasn't the centralized kind of society that we had later, starting with the Romans. All Menasseh and Amon controlled, probably, was Jerusalem and its immediate environs.
Caiaphas is the last high priest I know of based on my use of the Bible as my only source of Jewish history. I know he likely was not the LAST high priest (in fact I know so) but with the absense of any name after Caiaphas I decided to tag him as the last high priest before the Roman siege of Jerusalem (in 90AD approx I believe.)
Thats for clarifying that point on how the Oral Torah could remain intact. Makes sense.
Also thanks for clarifying my understanding on canonization as it relates to Judaism.
Last question for now. "im" makes words plural. So when the bible speaks of Cherubim and Seraphim its plural. In Genesis 1:1 we've got "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Or does "organized" better fit the bill then "created?" Anyway within that passage I believe it is written in the Hebrew version of the bibles as Elohim. Or even without the Elo or Eloi are we to understand that the "im" in that verse indicates a plurality of Gods? That's how Mormons view that passage, I was wondering if within the MT text it is still written that way, and if thats a spurious translation? How do Jews see that passage?
Rivka/Shmuel Ill get to your comments as soon as I can, promise.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Also, I wouldn't use OT in the context of a thread about judaism unless necessary to make a point such as this one.
And that's my point.
In terms of what the difference is, the difference, obviously, is that I don't go around referring to Tanach as "The Current and Only Testament". I said that purely in response to (a) the continued use of OT by people in this thread, and Storm Saxon's post about how objecting to OT was in some way hypersensitive on our parts.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote: Well, it wasn't the siege. It was the laws they passed more than a century later banning the practice of smicha (genuine ordination). And killing anyone and everyone who attempted to carry it out.
See this is what I mean, who decided this? Does the Torah give anybody the power to make such a decision?
indeed it does, in Deutronomy ch 17: [8] If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; [9] And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: [10] And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: [11] According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
the torah gives the rabbis/sanhedrin of the time the power to make legal decisions (such as forbidding smicha), and everyone is obligated to act according to their decisions.
quote: Would you mind please not using that name? It really is offensive.
Sincere Apologies, it was an honest mistake, sorry that I was dumb enough to make it, I should have known better. Does Adonai or just plain God work better?
God is fine. the other name is not fine. We don't use that name unless we're praying or reading directly from the Tanach.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I had a few minutes, but I could not do justice to all that has been said, that will have to wait until Sunday or even perhaps Monday. But I did want to get to some of Lisa's comments as I stepped on some toes with some of my posts.
I didn't get the sense that you did so on purpose, however. I (and I imagine the others) were just trying to point things out, so that conversation might flow more smoothly. I hope we didn't ruffle your feathers too badly in response.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:So the Sanhedrin took a radical step. They severely limited the teaching of the techniques necessary for prophecy. By doing this, over the course of a generation, they essentially wiped out the temptation for idolatry among our people.
In so doing, they also ended the era of the prophets, but it was a decision they felt was justified.
Could you supply me with a general year as to when this happened?
Sure. Using the conventional chronology, in which the First Temple was destroyed in 587 BCE and Alexander the Great died in 323 BCE, the Great Assembly, which was the Sanhedrin at the beginning of the Second Temple period, flourished from around 500 to 330 BCE. So it'd be somewhere in there. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi were members of the Great Assembly.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As for the role of a prophet, I think I understand how you see prophets better. What of the function as God's spokesman? In the Masoretic text there a numerous cases where kings, and the people in general ask prophets what the Lords will concerning the people of Israel is.
Well, sure. Because they had the ability to use the techniques they knew to see God's Will, so to speak, and find out what God's view was on the subject. But they weren't generally oracles.
Think of it this way. There are people who have a spooky sense of direction. Who always know which way they're facing. Which way is north. If I was lost, I might ask such a person which way I needed to go in order to get to a certain place. Why? Because they have a perception that I lack. Or even leaving such unusual talents aside, I might ask that question of a person with a map if I didn't have a map. Because they had the tools with which to come up with a good answer, while I lacked such tools.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Is it possible within modern day Judaism to have prophets filling that role today, say regarding the modern state of Israel?
Theoretically, sure. But we know that prophecy won't return like that until very near to the coming of the Messiah (which begs the question, I realize), and we have no way today of distinguishing between a real prophet and a fruitcake.
And you need to understand: God gave us His Torah. He gave us His will. Prophets are just the icing on that cake. We don't need prophets to know what's right and wrong. We have God's own Word.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Within Judaism what keeps say the Sanhedrin honest?
Depends. The Sanhedrin during the last century BCE wasn't. It'd been taken over by Sadducees. But that wasn't really the Sanhedrin; just a body carrying that name. God gave us rules in the Torah (it's in the written Torah) for what to do in a case when the Sanhedrin turns out later to have made a mistake.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: In a religion class we learned that there were Rabs Rabbis and Rabonis during the days of Jesus. Has this always been the case, is it the case today?
The title Rabbi wasn't always used. Hillel the Elder, for example, was never "Rabbi Hillel". But the role always existed. Moses was the first rabbi.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Do Jews acknowledge the possibility of corruption amongst the church leadership?
"Church"?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I guess I am wrestling just alittle bit with the idea that if God called a spokesman to call say the nation of Israel to repentance that he has to answer to a body of men if he does so.
We don't have such a body today. And yes, there are rabbis today who would never, ever, ever be admitted into the Sanhedrin if it did exist.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Well, it wasn't the siege. It was the laws they passed more than a century later banning the practice of smicha (genuine ordination). And killing anyone and everyone who attempted to carry it out.
See this is what I mean, who decided this? Does the Torah give anybody the power to make such a decision?
It was the Romans who banned smicha. We didn't. We tried to evade the ban. We failed.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Would you mind please not using that name? It really is offensive.
Sincere Apologies, it was an honest mistake, sorry that I was dumb enough to make it, I should have known better. Does Adonai or just plain God work better?
God. Or Hashem, if you want to use something that specifically refers to the name that you were using.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Caiaphas? Are you referring to the Hellenist high priest? What does he have to do with anything?
In any case, there weren't just a handful of true believers. You know how the world was back then, right? Villages all over the place. It wasn't the centralized kind of society that we had later, starting with the Romans. All Menasseh and Amon controlled, probably, was Jerusalem and its immediate environs.
Caiaphas is the last high priest I know of based on my use of the Bible as my only source of Jewish history. I know he likely was not the LAST high priest (in fact I know so) but with the absense of any name after Caiaphas I decided to tag him as the last high priest before the Roman siege of Jerusalem (in 90AD approx I believe.)
Ah. The Second Temple fell in 70 CE. And there hadn't been a true high priest for quite a while at that point. All the high priests were Roman-appointed time-servers.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Last question for now. "im" makes words plural. So when the bible speaks of Cherubim and Seraphim its plural. In Genesis 1:1 we've got "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Or does "organized" better fit the bill then "created?" Anyway within that passage I believe it is written in the Hebrew version of the bibles as Elohim. Or even without the Elo or Eloi are we to understand that the "im" in that verse indicates a plurality of Gods?
In English, a final "s" denotes a plural. Does that mean that the word "glass" is plural?
Verbs and adjectives in Hebrew match the nouns they modify in number and gender. And when God is referred to as Elohim, it's always with singular verbs and adjectives. So no, God is One.
As far as create/organize/etc, I'll get to that soon. I need to go and pick up my daughter from a pseudo-slumber party.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Caiaphas is the last high priest I know of based on my use of the Bible as my only source of Jewish history.
Ahh. I think we've got another cultural misunderstanding here. "High priest" is not synonymous with "head rabbi." The high priest was in charge of the worship in the Temple; this is an entirely different function than safeguarding the Law. (Some high priests were indeed great scholars, but this was not a given.)
quote:Or even without the Elo or Eloi are we to understand that the "im" in that verse indicates a plurality of Gods?
Old question, along with "let Us make man." The simplest answer is that it's the majestic plural, understood in the same way as Queen Victoria's "We are not amused."
(There are other explanations. None involve a plurality of deities. The Jewish conception of God is fundamentally One singular, indivisible, and unparalleled Being.)
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And as narr is Ashkenazi, your (quite valid) points about Sephardim and Taymanim don't really help him much.
Actually, you're wrong, rivka - a significant portion of narr's family is Sephardi or at least part Sephardi. (Or maybe it would be more correct to say Mizrachi.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Really? Cool!
I thought he had said different at some point.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Very Illuminating Lisa thank you.
quote: It was the Romans who banned smicha. We didn't. We tried to evade the ban. We failed.
Ok see that makes ALOT more sense. More questions to come.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: In Genesis 1:1 we've got "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Or does "organized" better fit the bill then "created?"
I just wanted to mention this. I imagine that the "organized" thing is a Mormon understanding, since, if I'm not mistaken, you guys don't believe in creation ex nihilo (something from nothing). Correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, as I've mentioned before, terminology in Judaism is very precise. There are three different words for "making", and each denotes something different.
Bara means creation of something from nothing. It's generally translated as "created".
Yatzar means the creation of something from something. The raw materials already exist. This is generally translated as "formed".
Asah means making something more complex from things that have already been formed. And it's usually translated as "made".
I say "usually" in all of those cases, because I don't know if whatever translation you may use is rigorous about the how it translates each of these terms.
When God created the world, He created it from nothing. There was nothing there but God, who has no substance.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Umm, "old testament" has ALWAYS been offensive. Calling it the "old" testament implies it is no longer valid, it has been overwritten by something new, and therefore anyone who still follows it is hopelessly misguided.
Or it just means that Christians believe one thing and Jews another, and you're taking umbrage where none is intended or is really needed.
quote: I said that purely in response to (a) the continued use of OT by people in this thread, and Storm Saxon's post about how objecting to OT was in some way hypersensitive on our parts.
Maybe you might want to spend less time being offended and more time just understanding that different cultures have a way of looking at things than Jews, which doesn't negate how Jews see things.
So, yeah, Jews call their stuff one thing and Christians call their stuff another. Being offended at a Christian, or someone from a Christian tradition, calling a synagogue a 'church' or referring to your MT as the OT is over the top and not conducive to conversation.
I would think a much better way of pointing out that Jews see things differently might be to just point out the difference and move on. Why be offended when no offence is meant unless there's something wrong with Christianity, or unless you're just looking to be a passive-aggressive jerk?
Am I saying that the differences between Judaism and Christianity aren't meaningful and that they shouldn't be pointed out? No, not at all.
I am saying, again, that being 'offended' by something that is clearly not meant to be offensive and is, to me, clearly meant as a best-faith effort at conversation shouldn't be greeted as an attempt to smear Judaism or a slur on Judaism.
Keep in mind the context of the statements in this thread. They seemed to me not to be, this is wrong because you're talking about the MT. They're more, we take offense at the term in general because we find Christianity offensive and a perversion of Judaism.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: Umm, "old testament" has ALWAYS been offensive. Calling it the "old" testament implies it is no longer valid, it has been overwritten by something new, and therefore anyone who still follows it is hopelessly misguided.
Or it just means that Christians believe one thing and Jews another, and you're taking umbrage where none is intended or is really needed.
Hmm... let me think about that.
Nah. You're wrong. BlackBlade started a thread asking Jews about Judaism. In that context, it's perfectly acceptable for us to ask that certain terms offensive to us not be used. I haven't asked him not to use AD, though it's occurred to me.
I don't go into threads where someone is asking about Catholicism or Mormonism and tell them not to use OT. But yeah, I'll ask that here. Because frankly, if someone is asking me for information, I'm okay with requesting that they do so in a respectful way.
BlackBlade doesn't seem to have any problem with the request. He understands that we're not angry with him or anything. That we're simply asking him to not use certain terms here. If he doesn't have a problem with it, what's your problem?
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Being offended at a Christian, or someone from a Christian tradition, calling a synagogue a 'church' or referring to your MT as the OT is over the top and not conducive to conversation.
In your opinion. <shrug> But then, I hadn't noticed you being a part of this conversation except to take offense. Which is a little ironic, don't you think?
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Why be offended when no offence is meant unless there's something wrong with Christianity, or unless you're just looking to be a passive-aggressive jerk?
Or you could, I don't know, bite me.
I didn't say I was offended. I said the term is offensive. It is. But it's understandable, if someone doesn't know that it's offensive. That's why it's appropriate to let someone know. I mean, if no one tells me that calling JC a dead guy on a stick is offensive to Christians, I might use that phrase. Personally, I'd rather know, so that I can avoid using a term that offends people. And I expect that BlackBlade, who actually seems interested in learning things that he didn't previously know, unlike yourself, would also like to know it if he's saying something that bugs people.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Keep in mind the context of the statements in this thread. They seemed to me not to be, this is wrong because you're talking about the MT. They're more, we take offense at the term in general because we find Christianity offensive and a perversion of Judaism.
Well, actually, not all Jews feel that way. I do, but that doesn't mean I feel antagonism towards Christians themselves.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
storm- the origins of the terms "old testament" and "new testament" were meant to imply to jews that they were hopelessly misguided.
Using the term once in a conversation with jews, we'll usually just point out that it is offensive. If you do it a second time, then you are either forgetful, or meaning to give offense in exactly the way the terms were designed to be offensive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't really get why OT means outdated/replaced or whatever.
In context, it suggests that there is a newer testament. Jews explicitly reject this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Using the term once in a conversation with jews, we'll usually just point out that it is offensive.
This is the part I have a problem with if I'm interpreting you correctly. If I understood Lisa correctly, she wouldn't have a problem or find it offensive were I discussing my beliefs and used "OT" to refer to the pre-Gospel scriptures of my faith - even if Jews were participating. I find that reasonable and thank her for the correction (assuming I interpreted her right).
Here, where a lot of people are taking a lot of time to answer questions about Judaism, it seems only rational and polite to use the Jewish terms. It seems doubly so when the non-Jewish term causes offense.
But a general request not to use OT in the presence of Jews? Not something I'll agree to nor would I be impolite for not doing so.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theca: I don't really get why OT means outdated/replaced or whatever. To me it just means OLD. Which it is... not only the Christians are newer than the OT but Judaism itself must be different in certain ways since the second temple was destroyed.
See, we disagree. Judaism was the same before and after the First Temple was destroyed, and before and after the Second Temple was destroyed.
Yes, there were surface differences. For example, there was always an obligation to pray, but at the beginning of the Second Temple period, a particular formula was introduced, because it was deemed necessary. The rules, however, didn't change.
quote:Originally posted by Theca: If the lds have a special name for the NT since the BOM is much newer than that, would I feel offended? I've been ruminating over that and I've decided I wouldn't be.
But that could be because you're already comfortable with the idea of multiple testaments. God told us otherwise.
Look, when there's only one of something, you don't need modifiers. We reject the additions in the Christian scriptures as being any kind of testament whatsoever. The Tanach does not take a modifier, because it's the only Testament. I get that you disagree. Do you get that we do?
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Not so much a religious question here, more of a social one.
I'm not a practicing Jew, but recently have been hankering for participation in the some of the cultural aspects of Judaism. Is there some kind of mechanism built into the system for Jews like me, or do I have to actually join a temple to partake of real Jewishness?
I realize being in GA doesn't help things much, but whatever.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Is there some kind of mechanism built into the system for Jews like me, or do I have to actually join a temple to partake of real Jewishness?
Just show up at synagogue. They do not check membership ID at the door.
Chabad is famous for their outreach and for making the unaffiliated feel that they have a place. You can look them up.
Chabad. They're everywhere they want to be. Even Georgia.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Is there some kind of mechanism built into the system for Jews like me, or do I have to actually join a temple to partake of real Jewishness?
Just show up at synagogue. They do not check membership ID at the door.
And you don't even have to do that. If I understand what you're asking, you're interested in learning something about Judaism without immediately immersing yourself in observance. If that's the case, you can find any number of classes and/or activities at local synagogues. They usually have flyers describing such things. If you live anywhere there's a Jewish periodical, you can pick up a copy, and you'll find a lengthy listing of activities.
If you want to e-mail me, feel free to. I'm good at searching such things out online. Which leads me to another possibility, which is online stuff.
I know there's a reasonably sized Jewish community in Atlanta, fwiw.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I had a professor who referred to the two sections of the Christian Bible as "The Older Testament" and "The Not Quite As Old Testament."
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
I would also recommend Chabad. Each Chabad center is run by a family who "specialize" in bringing "Jewishness" to Jews who aren't familiar with it. For example, their prayer books are in Hebrew, English, and transliteration. They are also among the least judgemental people I know.
Be careful with them, though. If they seem to think that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe in the messiah, run, and do not walk. These are a sect of Lubavitchers who just couldn't cope with his death. Sort of like what happened about 2000 years ago.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
I missed this earlier:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: But even if we had some way of actually knowing this for certain, it wouldn't matter. In fact, if archaeologists were to find a copy of the Torah in a cave and dated it to the time of Moses, and it differed from ours, we still wouldn't pay it any mind. We'd know that it must have been a bad copy someone made. Or a deliberate distortion. God promised that we wouldn't lose the Torah. It isn't possible that we could have gone centuries without pertinent information.
Well... sort of. Not really.
It is true that -- at least in the case of the Pentateuch -- there are extremely rigorous laws ensuring that what we've got now is pretty much exactly what Moses wrote. And it's true that we've got hard evidence confirming this from communities that had been seperated for hundred of years; scrolls from the seperate traditions differ only on a few letters that don't change the meanings of the words in question.
So it's true that any older manuscripts with variants would be subject to the usual rules for quality-assurance and would probably be disregarded, but the rationale would be that we stick with the usual, tried-and-true process for maintaining the integrity of the text, not that it's literally impossible that something got lost or distorted along the way.
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Chabad. They're everywhere they want to be. Even Georgia.
Y'know, the proof that there are no Jews on the Moon is that there's no Chabad House there.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Be careful with them, though. If they seem to think that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe in the messiah, run, and do not walk. These are a sect of Lubavitchers who just couldn't cope with his death. Sort of like what happened about 2000 years ago.
While I think they're wrong about that (and did even when the Rebbe was alive), it's not nearly that cut-and-dried. Given their premises -- which you can consider beyond the pale only if you take the view that all Chassidic groups are Bad and Wrong -- it's not an unreasonable conclusion.
(But if you wanna get into that, start a new thread. It's waaay off the subject here.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Be careful with them, though. If they seem to think that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe in the messiah, run, and do not walk. These are a sect of Lubavitchers who just couldn't cope with his death. Sort of like what happened about 2000 years ago.
While I think they're wrong about that (and did even when the Rebbe was alive), it's not nearly that cut-and-dried. Given their premises -- which you can consider beyond the pale only if you take the view that all Chassidic groups are Bad and Wrong -- it's not an unreasonable conclusion.
(But if you wanna get into that, start a new thread. It's waaay off the subject here.)
I'm not sure it is. Judaism is very clear that when a potential messiah dies, it's over. That's one of many reasons why we don't believe in JC, and it's one that Chabad itself was very loud about stating back before the Rebbe died. The fact that there are now Chabadniks who have reversed their position because they can't handle the disappointment... it's not justifiable in terms of Hassidic thought.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Judaism is very clear that when a potential messiah dies, it's over.
The Abarbanel explicitly said Moshiach can come from the dead. If you want to place him outside the range of Jewish thought, that's your problem, not theirs. (Chassidic thought comes into play only in justifying the belief that it'll specifically be the Lubavitcher Rebbe, not the posthumous possibility.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Judaism is very clear that when a potential messiah dies, it's over.
The Abarbanel explicitly said Moshiach can come from the dead. If you want to place him outside the range of Jewish thought, that's your problem, not theirs. (Chassidic thought comes into play only in justifying the belief that it'll specifically be the Lubavitcher Rebbe, not the posthumous possibility.)
The Abarbanel said no such thing. Would you care to cite a source that he did? And I don't mean a meshichist source that plays fast and loose with the text, but an actual quote from the Abarbanel.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Thanks, Rivka.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Actually, not really. That analysis sets up a straw man or two.
quote:Later, we will return to the vast chasm between what Lubavitchers have possibly proven from the gemara (i.e. that Moshiach might turn out to be someone who has already lived and died) and what they actually needed to prove: that Moshiach can start the final redemptive process, earn a positive and confident identification by the Jewish people as Moshiach, and then die in the middle of it all, only to be resurrected when the generation is ready to "greet him."
(emphasis added)
"that Moshiach might turn out to be someone who has already lived and died" is precisely the sum total of what they needed to prove.
At most, that article provides a strong argument that Lubavitcher Rebbe will not be the messiah. I wholeheartedly agree that he will not be. There are, in fact, things I disagree with on religious grounds espoused by a number of Orthodox Jewish groups. I'm not saying they're right, just that they're not outside the bounds of normative Judaism.
The core of it does come down to this:
quote:As chasidim loyal to the words of their Rebbe, they can't conceive that he could have been mistaken in any way
That the Rebbe believed he was Moshiach is unquestionable from what he said before the stroke. I think he was wrong. I think he was a great man in some ways who was thoroughly deluded on this point. Chassidim of all stripes would consider that an untenable option; while this is one reason I was never a chassid, I'm not prepared to claim that they're beyond the bounds of Jewish thought.
Given the premise that the Rebbe is always right, and given a way in which -- no matter how much of a doichek -- he can still be Moshiach within the bounds of Jewish thought, it's not untenable for them to suppose that this'll still happen.
Again, I have no question that the Rebbe was wrong. I don't think he fit the necessary qualifications for Moshiach in his lifetime, and I don't think anybody is immune to making big mistakes. I furthermore think that those who think the Rebbe was right can find alternate explanations that don't require him to return from the dead to finish the job. I have spent a very long time arguing against the Meshichist viewpoint since 1991, in fact, and could easily spend hours expounding on why I disagree with it. But there's room for more than one perspective here.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Dagonee-
"But a general request not to use OT in the presence of Jews? Not something I'll agree to nor would I be impolite for not doing so."
No? Its not impolite to call people hopelessly deluded, or misguided? I disagree.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Its not impolite to call people hopelessly deluded, or misguided?
It is impolite to do that. Using "OT" does not do that.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Its not impolite to call people hopelessly deluded, or misguided?
It is impolite to do that. Using "OT" does not do that.
Yes it does. What if Muslims refered to the Christian bible as the OT in relation to the Koran? See how that belittles it?
What's so hard about respecting a simple request.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"It is impolite to do that. Using "OT" does not do that."
Yes it does. the old/new distinction refers to one testament replacing the other.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: the old/new distinction refers to one testament replacing the other.
No it does not. The early church was extremely clear that both testaments are part of the Canon -- the first is in no way "replaced."
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
It may not be replaced, but the term "old" connotates a second-fiddle view of it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yes, part of the canon. But the covenant of jesus did indeed replace the covenant of moses, according to the early church.
Maybe "replace" is the wrong word.
"Expand."
Either way, the point stands. Jews haven't accepted either the "Expansion" or "replacement."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:See how that belittles it?
No, I don't. Because it doesn't.
quote:What's so hard about respecting a simple request.
You can stop presuming that this has anything to do with difficulty.
"Old" and "New" are chronological adjectives, and accurate in this context.
If Lisa says, "The Messiah hasn't come yet," that could be interpreted as saying I'm hopelessly deluded or misguided. In fact, each and every person on this board who does not believe Jesus was the Messiah thinks I'm at least misguided.
I'm not going to ask them not to say it.
We have different beliefs about a lot of things. I'm sorry Paul interprets those names in the manner he does. Is he going to stop asking us to refer to the NT as the NT? It carries the same message to the exact same extent.
The idea of an old and new covenant is inherent in my beliefs. I'm not going to rework the language of my faith to hide that.
Again, in the context of discussing Jewish beliefs, I wouldn't do it. In the context of a general demand, I have to say the same thing to you that you would say if I asked you not to deny that Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the Jewish scriptures in my presence: No. As you said, to you, it's a perversion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, part of the canon. But the covenant of jesus did indeed replace the covenant of moses, according to the early church.
And you expect me to reword the labels of my faith's scripture to hide that fact?
And it still doesn't mean the one testament has replaced the other.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
yeah, but dagonee... when you can change a single term, and not lose meaning (in fact gain meaning), and refuse to do so after someone has said that the term you are using is offensive... you're being impolite.
Now, if someone asks you about your religious beliefs, I have no problem with you describing those beliefs. But to say "hebrew bible" or "tanakh," or "torah," or "old testament," to you, I don't see how any of it means anything DIFFERENT... but to me, and millions of other jews, there's a huge difference.
Why would you NOT change usage? I really don't understand... to me, it looks like clinging to the word "nigger" simply because its what people had used previously. (I'm not saying its the same. This is what it looks like).
So a clarification of how you're going to lose your ability to communicate what you are talking about by choosing a different term would be nice.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Either way, the point stands. Jews haven't accepted either the "Expansion" or "replacement."
I get that. They don't accept most of my religion. I'm not sure why that makes it rude.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I get that. They don't accept most of my religion. I'm not sure why that makes it rude."
*Sigh* I already said why its rude. You disagree. Fine. I'm still offended by use of the term, and so are millions of other jews.
What reasoning do you have not to change your language in a way that not hinder meaning, but would be less offensive?
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: We have different beliefs about a lot of things. I'm sorry Paul interprets those names in the manner he does. Is he going to stop asking us to refer to the NT as the NT? It carries the same message to the exact same extent.
The idea of an old and new covenant is inherent in my beliefs. I'm not going to rework the language of my faith to hide that.
Again, in the context of discussing Jewish beliefs, I wouldn't do it. In the context of a general demand, I have to say the same thing to you that you would say if I asked you not to deny that Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the Jewish scriptures in my presence: No. As you said, to you, it's a perversion.
I don't refer to Jesus as the Messiah, but I also don't refer to him as a cult-leader, either.
Asking someone to refer to the OT as the MT is a change in a single letter, not a change in the entire concept of the religon. So, no, it's not a degree of dificulty. It's more stuborness.
Refering to the OT as the MT in no way dilutes Chritianity the way it does Judaism.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Get used to what, exactly? You never get used to seeing your religon be demened. You get disgusted and tired of it.
And you're going to play the ignorance card as a reason not to be respectful? Nice.
quote:Originally posted by Theca: Seems like the word should be less insulting by now, considering nobody else thinks it is insulting.
Who is nobody? Nobody who is Jewish, you mean?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:yeah, but dagonee... when you can change a single term, and not lose meaning (in fact gain meaning), and refuse to do so after someone has said that the term you are using is offensive... you're being impolite.
It's not up to you to say what this meaning is to me. You are asking me to make the change precisely because you want that part of it that expresses this important event to be obscured.
quote:I don't see how any of it means anything DIFFERENT... but to me, and millions of other jews, there's a huge difference.
I don't have your definitions. To me "OT" and "NT" express the continuity of scripture and the fulfillment of prophecy made in one being described in the other.
You don't accept that extension. Assuming you now accept "replacement" is the wrong word, you are offended precisely because the usage suggest that Scripture as given by God was not complete when the Jewish canon closed. That's why you want me to change it.
So clearly it does convey lots of meaning. And that meaning is important to me, just as it is to you.
I've seen this repeatedly in several contexts here lately. "That's not a big deal to you" or "the differences between our beliefs and your beliefs are small." The problem is that both those statements presume to tell me what I believe and how important that belief is to me.
The presence of the latter here a couple of times of late is probably why I'm more sensitive to the request now - as in, why I didn't simply not respond. But both types of statements derive from someone else telling me what it is I believe and why.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ok.
So, belittling other people in conversation is not rude, as long as the reason you belittle people is important to the speaker.
Got it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Asking someone to refer to the OT as the MT is a change in a single letter, not a change in the entire concept of the religon. So, no, it's not a degree of dificulty. It's more stuborness.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW what those letters/adjectives mean to us. It's not for you to determine what that change means to me.
It's very nice that so many people in this thread feel qualified to tell me what my motives are. At least Paul had the grace to acknowledge that he was saying how it seemed to him.
You, however, seem to feel qualified to determine why I do and don't do certain things. Take it from the only one who posts on this board capable of knowing my reasons: me. It's more (or mere, if that's what you meant) stubborness.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Dagonee, since the ordering of these testaments is important to your faith, would you object to first and second testament?
Edit: Also, is it necessary to convey the continuity of testaments when speaking casually? For example, would "tanakh" or "hebrew bible" be terms you can't say for reasons of faith, or that would, to you, be belittling of your own faith?
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I don't know what it means to you, but YOU know what those letters mean to US, and you still use them.
To me, the word nigger could be synonymous with a brightly colored tulip, but I keep it to myself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Dagonee, since the ordering of these testaments is important to your faith, would you object to first and second testament?
Object? Not to someone else using those words. I wouldn't use them.
quote:Edit: Also, is it necessary to convey the continuity of testaments when speaking casually? For example, would "tanakh" or "hebrew bible" be terms you can't say for reasons of faith, or that would, to you, be belittling of your own faith?
Yes, it is. Unless I'm talking about the tanakh in the context of discussing it with a Jewish person.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Theca, when you're still living under this false notion--
quote:Seems like the word should be less insulting by now, considering nobody else thinks it is insulting
--it's not a surprise to me you use the term and brazenly defend it. I don't think you understand just how offensive it is. I mean, say what you will, I'm not here to lecture you. I'm here to tell you that I, and a lot of other Jews find it offensive. There are other terms to be used that still have the same meaning.
Dag, to put it simply, using the term is as offensive to Jews as not using it is as offensive to Christians.
Let's agree to disagree.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Object? Not to someone else using those words. I wouldn't use them."
Why not? Whats the objection? What is it about "old" and "new" that is NECESSARY to the extent that you must use them even when you know they are offensive to people you are speaking to? (or might be in your audience).
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"You know, I responded to that by pointing out that most people I speak to don't KNOW any other terms"
I've listed a few other terms that would be acceptable on this site. I think its also true that most of the time if someone corrects you, they might say "can you please use X instead?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why not? Whats the objection? What is it about "old" and "new" that is NECESSARY to the extent that you must use them even when you know they are offensive to people you are speaking to? (or might be in your audience).
Because in our scriptures this is what they are called, by someone intimately familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures.
I'm sorry, but you're not going to best St. Paul in this.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with Dags' position. I happen to think it is unrealistic (for a number of reasons) to expect a Christian to not use the term OT in general. I do expect that they not use it specifically when discussing Tanach with me. And will politely correct anyone who insists on doing so.
But in general conversation? How is that remotely reasonable?
However. This:
quote:And Jews have had almost 2000 years to get used to the word. Seems like the word should be less insulting by now, considering nobody else thinks it is insulting.
Wow.
That is a disgusting attitude. And I am sorry to be so harsh, Theca. I like you very much. But to say, well, you've had 2000 years of oppression and crusades and pogroms and holocausts -- aren't you used to it yet?
That is simply horrifying. And while I am sure it is not what you meant, it is what it MEANS to say "you've had 2000 years to get used to the word."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And will politely correct anyone who insists on doing so.
And I will politely accept such correction, should I forget in that context.
Theca, I think the first use in writing we have today was in 2 Corinthians.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Dags,
Theca, because it's not like most of the past 2000 years haven't had repeated, and often unrelenting, instances of Christians killing Jews for their faith, or sometimes even if they renounced their faith?
Oh, wait . . .
USED TO you? Good grief. We're just getting used to the notion that you might not want to kill us. Because of those 2000 years, only the last 10% or so has had much of that.
If you do not understand the HUGE historical and emotional weight carried by the weight of the words you use, might I recommend reading some history. I can recommend specific books tomorrow, if you like.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
This guy says the first usage of the term "old testament" was NOT by Paul. And, of course, the gospels refer to the tanakh in a variety of different ways.
So, again, whats wrong with some of those other ways of referencing that aren't offensive to Jews?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Paul, but note what his official title and that of his department is.
Really, this is a dead horse.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This guy says the first usage of the term "old testament" was NOT by Paul.
quote:The word "testament", Hebrew berîth, Greek diatheke, primarily signifies the covenant which God entered into first with Abraham, then with the people of Israel. The Prophets had knowledge of a new covenant to which the one concluded on Mount Sinai should give away. Accordingly Christ at the Last Supper speaks of the blood of the new testament. The Apostle St. Paul declares himself (2 Corinthians 3:6) a minister "of the new testament", and calls (iii, 14) the covenant entered into on Mount Sinai "the old testament". The Greek expression diatheke is employed in the Septuagint for the Hebrew "berîth". The later interpreters Aquila and Symmachus substituted for diatheke the more common syntheke, which probably agreed more with their literary taste. The Latin term is "f dus" and oftener testamentum", a word corresponding more exactly to the Greek.
As regards Christian times, the expression at an early period came to signify the whole of God's Revelation as exhibited in the history of Israelites, and because this old covenant was incorporated into the Canonical Books, it was but an easy step to make the term signify the Canonical Scriptures. Even the text referred to above (2 Corinthians 3:14) points to that. So, the Scriptures are called "books of the Old Testament" by Melito of Sardis and Clement of Alexandria (ta palaia biblia; ta tes palaias diathekes biblia). It is not clear whether with these authors "Old Testament" and "Scriptures of the Old Testament" mean the same. Origen shows that in his time the transition was complete, although in his writing signs of the gradual fixing of the expression may be still traced. For he repeatedly speaks of the "so-called" Old Testament, when meaning the Scriptures. With the Western writers this use of term in the most ancient period cannot yet be proved. To the lawyer Tertullian the Sacred Books are, above all, documents and sources of argument, and he therefore frequently calls them "vetus and novum instrumentum". Cyprian once mentions the "scriptur veteres et nov ". Subsequently the Greek use of the term becomes established among the Latins as well, and through them it has been made common property of the Christian world. In this meaning, as signifying the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, the expression "Old Testament" will be used in what follows.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Perhaps it is a dead horse.
But, so far, I haven't seen any reasoning put forth that demonstrates that "old testament" is the only viable term that dagonee can use... and, as such, since he knows its offensive to some members of the forum, I don't (yet) see a difference between what he does and using the word "nigger" because "its what i used growing up."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
*checks my list of people to whom I need to support my conceptions of courtesy to with reasoning to their satisfaction*
Sorry, Paul, you're not on that list.
If you really feel as you stated in the last sentence - having used this odious comparison of a word which describes a people as subhuman and a word which describes Scripture in the context of my deeply held faith - twice now - then you're not even on the list of people I want to explain my reasoning to.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theca:
So... your opinion of me is that I'm bad because of history? Why do you spend so much time meeting us and talking to us if we are so terrible?
I don't expect that you really think that. And I don't need to read any books to find out more about why you feel that you've earned the right to sound this way. Or to understand how you can feel ok about bringing up the holocaust when I'm talking about the word OT.
But I truly don't mean anything bad by what I said.
I feel like you are not reading what I am saying.
I already said that I think it is perfectly reasonable for Christians to use the terms Old Testament/OT/etc among themselves. I objected solely to your expectation that 2000 years should have accustomed us to these words, so that we should have no reaction to them -- as though the 2000 years in question had no weight of their own, no horrible things done to Jews in the name of those books!
If you do not understand why that expectation is actually far more offensive than the term itself, then I stand by my suggestion that you read some histories.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yes, I really feel as I stated in the last sentence dagonee... ie, that using derogatory or belittling language when you know its derogatory or belittling language, is rude.
There are, of course, degrees of offensiveness of the terminology that are different in this case.
But your reasoning so far, hasn't demonstrated to me why you MUST use the term that is offensive, rather then other terms that are used by your own scripture that are not offensive. As such, the reasoning I'm seeing does not strike me as any different then using terminology you grew up with to describe people in ways that are offensive to them.
And, of course, I'm probably not on your list of people who you feel you need to describe your reasoning to. I'll think less of you, you'll think less of me, and we'll accomplish nothing. Thats fine. But not optimal outcome.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:using derogatory or belittling language when you know its derogatory or belittling language, is rude
Just as I have not convinced you that there is no other suitable word, you have not convicned me that it is derogatory or belittling. Yes, I know you've "explained why" several times now. Here's a hint: you aren't the arbiter of either ferogatory or rude.
I know why people find the n-word rude. I agree with them that it is rude. I don't agree with you that this is rude when the specific context is not the Jewish Scriptures. And if you are incapable or unwilling to see the difference in the two situations, and to see why it is not the same as merely using language I grew up with, then you are not engaging in good faith discussion.
It's not that you've said "using the OT is as bad as using the n-word." It's that you've said, essentially, "If you don't take my word for it that what you are doing is offensive, then the only reason you have - absent some reason I find acceptable - is because you are the type of person who would be using the n-word today had you grown up with it."
Please at least acknowledge that you comprehend the difference in the situations here.
quote:But not optimal outcome.
Apparently optimal outcome is you using your definitions to tell me that I know I'm being offensive when I, in fact, know no such thing.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote: the old/new distinction refers to one testament replacing the other.
No it does not. The early church was extremely clear that both testaments are part of the Canon -- the first is in no way "replaced."
Fine. It implies that our Bible is incomplete. If you want to say that your Bible has something additional, fine. But ours is not incomplete.
Be my guest and use Christian supercessionalist terminology all you like. But this issue arose here on this thread, where Jews were being asked for information. In that context, we asked for it to not be used. Storm Saxon derided us for that. My feeling was basically, screw him.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Yes, part of the canon. But the covenant of jesus did indeed replace the covenant of moses, according to the early church.
Maybe "replace" is the wrong word.
"Expand."
Either way, the point stands. Jews haven't accepted either the "Expansion" or "replacement."
You know, maybe you and some others should stop telling the Christians here what they believe. It's every bit as offensive as what you're objecting to.
I have no problem at all with them calling it the OT in their own context. No more problem, at any rate, than I have with Christianity as such.
Why is it so important to you to prove to them that they mean something other than what they say they mean?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If Lisa says, "The Messiah hasn't come yet," that could be interpreted as saying I'm hopelessly deluded or misguided. In fact, each and every person on this board who does not believe Jesus was the Messiah thinks I'm at least misguided.
That's right. Not hopelessly, I don't think, but other than that, you're right. But again, I'm not about to go into one of the threads where people are asking Catholics for info on their religion and announce that they're all misguided.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: We have different beliefs about a lot of things. I'm sorry Paul interprets those names in the manner he does. Is he going to stop asking us to refer to the NT as the NT? It carries the same message to the exact same extent.
What I understand from your earlier post, Dag, is that you'll respect the request in the context of this thread. That's all I've asked. Paul absolutely does not speak for me when he's trying to get you not to use the term at all.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: yeah, but dagonee... when you can change a single term, and not lose meaning (in fact gain meaning), and refuse to do so after someone has said that the term you are using is offensive... you're being impolite.
Now, if someone asks you about your religious beliefs, I have no problem with you describing those beliefs. But to say "hebrew bible" or "tanakh," or "torah," or "old testament," to you, I don't see how any of it means anything DIFFERENT... but to me, and millions of other jews, there's a huge difference.
Why would you NOT change usage? I really don't understand... to me, it looks like clinging to the word "nigger" simply because its what people had used previously. (I'm not saying its the same. This is what it looks like).
So a clarification of how you're going to lose your ability to communicate what you are talking about by choosing a different term would be nice.
For crying out loud, Paul, don't you get that you might as well ask them to stop calling JC "messiah"? After all, that's exactly as offensive to us as calling the Tanach the "Old Testament". You're asking them, for the sake of courtesy, to jettison their religion. That's completely unreasonable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What I understand from your earlier post, Dag, is that you'll respect the request in the context of this thread.
Yep. I already regret starting in on this tangent, mostly because it's interrupted a very interesting thread and because the mere discussion requires using the name "OT" in this thread.
I should have started a different thread if I couldn't resist answering Paul's blanket demand, but I didn't think of it until too late.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Dagonee, since the ordering of these testaments is important to your faith, would you object to first and second testament?
And that, somehow, is better for you than "old" and "new"? I can't even imagine where you're coming from.
And frankly, Paul, you aren't even an Orthodox Jew. I don't know where your hypersensitivity is coming from. I do know that it's damned embarrassing.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Theca, thank you for deleting your earlier comment.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Being Orthodox doesn't make one more of a Jew.
On a lighter note:
quote:jettison
I really like this word a lot. Always have. I would like to campaign that it be used more in everyday vernacular.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
It may not make one more of a Jew, Gecko, but BlackBlade very specifically aimed this thread at Rivka and me. Check the first post. Paul hasn't contributed the first thing to this thread in terms of information about Judaism, and he's actually not in much of a position to do so. All he's done is help derail the hell out of the thread with utterly ridiculous demands that he'd never accept if they were aimed at him.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko:
quote:jettison
I really like this word a lot. Always have. I would like to campaign that it be used more in everyday vernacular.
You know, I used the term tabula rasa during a meeting at work last week, in a context that seemed perfectly normal and unremarkable. I got comments about it for days. One person asked me if I'd used it deliberately to make one of the managers at the meeting feel dumb.
Sometimes I'm just blown away by what's considered overly highbrow nowadays.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
It's just a superstition. Question withdrawn.
[ November 05, 2006, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Gecko ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Never heard of such a thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
O_O
Nor have I. In fact, I cannot think of anything that is associated with the notion "his kin will be cursed for the next two generations."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Context, context, context.
It is every bit offensive to Christians (or it could be) to ask them to rephrase it as it is for Jews (some of them) to hear it spoken of in those terms.
Since we are trying to have a Q&A session, and most people are trying to be serious about it and not offend anyone, how about both sides extend the benefit of the doubt to each other?
OT isn't meant to be inflammatory, not like calling Christ a "cult leader". If a Christian (at least the ones I see in this thread) uses it, he is using the terms he knows of to destinguish between two books of the bible that he knows. He isn't assuming that you accept both as relevent, and refute your own faith or beliefs. By the same token, if a Jewish person, in the same discussion, refuses to call it the NT, he isn't slamming the Christian's faith, but being true to his/her own.
Too much political correctness interferes with both conversation and goodwill. In some ways it is as disruptive as a complete lack of it would be.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I'm surprised no one has brought up using BCE instead of BC.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I believe Lisa mentioned it. At this point, most academics use BCE and CE, and certainly those are my preference.
But I figured I'd wait until the furor over the last acronym issue died down before raising another one. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Because I don't care if they use BC and AD. I know what they're talking about, and frankly, that's the source of the dating we use.
On the contrary; I've been told by a number of Christians that my use of BCE and CE is offensive to them. I remember a big debate that raged in the letter column of Biblical Archaeology Review way back when on this subject. But it should be clear to Christians that we're not going to use something like AD in dates, because he ain't our dominus.
How did this get so freaking out of control? We asked that a few terms not be used in this thread, and it's turned into a political correctness festival. Get over it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Attempt to get back on topic:
I recently finished reading One People, Two Worlds. One of the topics that struck me the most was the argument the Orthodox writer used in regards to the legitamacy of the events at Mt. Sinai. He bascially said that just the fact that the events took place in front of the entire Nation of Israel at the time, that it proves itself. I understand what he is saying, that if the events really didn't take place then all of the great grandchildren would have said, "Nope never heard of it." In a way it does make sense to me because in almost every other event and religion, it seems that God shows miracles in a much more private manner.
I just feel there is something missing from that argument. Obviously the Reform writer never would have said this (his writing made it seem like he was always afraid to sound faithless), but a non-believer could just say it was all made up much later anyways. That someone could have just told everyone that it happened, that they are special, and this is how their descendents are supposed to live and continue eveything.
I realize it always comes down to faith anyways. Either you believe or you don't. It just seemed like I missed something in the Orthodox writer's attempts to prove the events happened logically.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I just feel there is something missing from that argument. Obviously the Reform writer never would have said this (his writing made it seem like he was always afraid to sound faithless), but a non-believer could just say it was all made up much later anyways. That someone could have just told everyone that it happened, that they are special, and this is how their descendents are supposed to live and continue eveything.
The question is how somebody could have successfully sold an entire generation on the truth of something that had personally happened to all of their ancestors.
The central point of the Passover seder is retelling the story of the exodus from Egypt, leading up to the giving of the Torah on Sinai. This is not just because it makes a good story, or to keep us drilled on the dogma. It's another piece of the oral tradition. My father told me that his father told him that his father told him, and so on, stretching back through time, that he was there at Sinai and saw it personally.
Supposing this tradition didn't exist until five years ago. How would you get every-- heck, let's make this easier, and confine it to a smaller group --every Orthodox Jewish parent to go along with this and start telling the same story? Is this comparable in difficulty to convincing everyone that a miracle occurred, witnessed by only a handful of reliable observers?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
An example of a historical event that's actually fallen off the radar is the "Kingdom" of Ephraim. I know I didn't learn about it in Hebrew school; it wasn't until college that any textbooks I had covered it.
Back in the early 1700s, a group of Jews from Europe came to North America and migrated west. They were all refugees from the various pogroms that were constantly going on in the old country, and they set up settlement in what's now northeastern Wyoming.
The members of this community actually set up a society that seems to have operated more or less according to Jewish law. Although they referred to themselves as a "kingdom", they had no king; they probably used that term for lack of a better one. Modern Hebrew hadn't been invented, and they spoke (wrote, at any rate) in a mixture of Yiddish and Ladino, which suggests that there were both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews among their populace.
Remains were found of their settlement, which is how we know about them. They had little to no communication with other Jewish communities, because of the distances involved. Some scraps of what may have been letters to members of the community were found, but they were too badly damaged to be read.
Historians are unsure about what caused the settlement to fail. There were no signs of violence, so disease or famine is considered the most likely cause.
I mention the Ephraimites because they're an example of something that is both historically true, and verifiable, and yet when I've spoken with other Jews, they have all claimed never to have heard of such a thing.
Another example is something that I experienced personally when I was living in Israel. And it was brought to mind recently when we went off of Daylight Savings Time.
One year (sometime between 1987 and 1995), Israel went off of Daylight Savings Time in the middle of a Friday afternoon. It was kind of cool, actually, because it gave us an extra hour to get ready for Shabbat. They never did it again, though.
When I was back in Israel from 1998 to 2001, I remember mentioning this to people. Coworkers, friends, etc. And not a single one of them remembered it. It turned into a joke at work, because people honestly didn't remember it. And it was unusual. You'd think that kind of thing would stick in your head, right? A country of 4-5 million people, and the closest I could come was one person who said that it maybe rang a bell. Most people not only didn't remember it, but were absolutely convinced I was misremembering.
Yeah... I don't buy the whole idea of the events at Sinai being an invention. It doesn't jibe with the nature of the Jewish people. You can't get 100 of us to whistle Dixie at the same time.
[ November 06, 2006, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Incidentally, the thing with the Daylight Savings Time really happened. The Kingdom of Ephraim is something I made up about 10 years ago. I've been trying unsuccessfully to get people to buy it ever since.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: The central point of the Passover seder is retelling the story of the exodus from Egypt, leading up to the giving of the Torah on Sinai. This is not just because it makes a good story, or to keep us drilled on the dogma. It's another piece of the oral tradition. My father told me that his father told him that his father told him, and so on, stretching back through time, that he was there at Sinai and saw it personally.
Supposing this tradition didn't exist until five years ago. How would you get every-- heck, let's make this easier, and confine it to a smaller group --every Orthodox Jewish parent to go along with this and start telling the same story? Is this comparable in difficulty to convincing everyone that a miracle occurred, witnessed by only a handful of reliable observers?
But what about from a psychological stand point? A recent show I watched dealt with how stereotyping people in itself can make the stereotypes true when heard by the victims enough (maybe being labeled a bunch of rich bankers isn't such a bad thing?). It made me think back to the book and I wondered if the reverse could be true here. Could one or many of our ancestors used that technique to make their descendents feel special enough to believe?
I wish I was a better writer, I can't seem to type the questons in my head that I am really trying to get at.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Incidentally, the thing with the Daylight Savings Time really happened. The Kingdom of Ephraim is something I made up about 10 years ago. I've been trying unsuccessfully to get people to buy it ever since.
You had me sold. You should try sending a mass email of the story pretending like someone sent it to you in a forward.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
And yet, Stephan, we never bought into the whole "international bankers" thing, did we? Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that if we really were, I wouldn't be so deeply in debt.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Incidentally, the thing with the Daylight Savings Time really happened. The Kingdom of Ephraim is something I made up about 10 years ago. I've been trying unsuccessfully to get people to buy it ever since.
You had me sold. You should try sending a mass email of the story pretending like someone sent it to you in a forward.
Okay, but the core of the Jewish people has always been those of us who are pretty stubborn about sources. I mean, if a copiest thought there was a mistake in a page of the Talmud, he didn't "correct" it. He just put a note in the margin. Try and convince people like that that they've always known about this Jewish kingdom in Wyoming.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Okay, but the core of the Jewish people has always been those of us who are pretty stubborn about sources. I mean, if a copiest thought there was a mistake in a page of the Talmud, he didn't "correct" it. He just put a note in the margin. Try and convince people like that that they've always known about this Jewish kingdom in Wyoming.
Instead of telling other Jews, maybe try telling it to the people of Wyoming, especially those with ancestors going back a couple of hundred years. Tell them they are descendants of these lost Jews. That your recently discovered letters actually have been deciphered, and they talk about God wanting Wyoming to be the true holy land.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
<shrug> Good luck.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:One year (sometime between 1987 and 1995), Israel went off of Daylight Savings Time in the middle of a Friday afternoon. It was kind of cool, actually, because it gave us an extra hour to get ready for Shabbat.
But doesn't Shabbat begin at sundown and sundown is most certainly not effected by when you change your clock.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think they got home from work with more time before sundown than they would have had otherwise, hence having more time to prepare.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Precisely.
Except for one thing. Going off DST actually costs you an hour. Two Fridays ago, Shabbos started here at a quarter to 6. This past Friday, it began at 20 to 5.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Actually, we were working Sunday through Thursday, so there was no work on Friday anyway.
Hmm... maybe they did it when we switched to DST. I'm not sure.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Could it have been Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur rather then Shabbos?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
hey StarLisa, just curious as to why you asked where I attended school?
Were you just curious yourself?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: One year (sometime between 1987 and 1995), Israel went off of Daylight Savings Time in the middle of a Friday afternoon. It was kind of cool, actually, because it gave us an extra hour to get ready for Shabbat. They never did it again, though.
The change to DST is made early Friday morning; from DST has varied; it's now set as early Sunday morning, but was early Friday morning for a few years. I can't find anything indicating a Friday afternoon timechange. I wonder whether your experience wasn't a matter of official policy, but of your work or school choosing to stick with the old system for that day, effectively postponing the change till you went home?
(That's happened with Pesach back in the U.S.; in my experience, the shul schedules specified that they were sticking with Daylight Time until the holiday ended, even though the clock officially changed partway through.)
Not that I am trying to sidestep the recent conversation that is going on in this thread. I personally didn't create the thread, in order to debate any topic on any extended basis. You are all welcome to continue civilly debating as you see fit. I personally am going to go on asking and responding.
I am content to at least to some commonly accepted degree, learn the Jewish terms as I profit intellectually from knowing them. If it makes conversation smoother and less prone to tangent that in of itself is worth it to me.
rivka:
quote:Of course. But what you think is "the meat" seems often not to be what I would so identify.
Right, which is why its a temptation and not something I am actively practicing within this thread.
quote: Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't believe you. EVERY religious person has a strong emotional investment in their religion being correct!
Oh I won't take it the wrong way. As long as I can question and still get answers it matters not how you perceive my motives.
Shmuel:
quote: The Abarbanel explicitly said Moshiach can come from the dead. If you want to place him outside the range of Jewish thought, that's your problem, not theirs. (Chassidic thought comes into play only in justifying the belief that it'll specifically be the Lubavitcher Rebbe, not the posthumous possibility.)
I vaguely recall being informed that not all Jews (as in theist Jews) believe in a messiah. I think I recall hearing that messianic prophecies all relate to a great prophet/leader, who will restore the kingdom to the Jews, but nothing along the lines of a demigod or a savior in the sense the Christians see a messiah as being.
Do Jews not all believe in a messiah of any type? Are there various interpretations of who the Messiah will be? As in what he will be like? Does the MT indicate that he will be born of a virgin? Whats the low down on all this? If its too complicated I understand. -----
I read Rivka's link and I must confess it was hard reading for me, as it should be, I obviously am not use to discussing Jewish doctrine. Was the Daniel in the article the MT's Daniel? As in the one who was cast into the lion's den? Or is it another Daniel. So is there a debate that the messiah (or whatever term you choose) could come either from the dead OR the living?
Could somebody explain to me how the Sabbath fell on friday for Jews? Is it just a traditional thing or was saturday "the first day?" I just have no idea how this came to be, does anybody?
I already understand that it was early Christians who moved their sabbath to sunday to correspond with Jesus' death/ressurection. Just looking for the Jewish side of things.
One more question on the statement that God has promised that the Jewish people will never lose the Torah, where is this said? Can it be quoted if its not in the MT? Also do Jews not see promises from God as being contingent on faithfulness? At least from Mormonisms perspective God could promise me that I would have many children for example and they would honor me in their deeds throughout the ages. But when such promises are made it is understood that if I disobey God's council that the promise is then void because I have not held my end of the bargain. For Mormons its embodied in the following phrase,
"I the Lord God am bound when ye do as I say, but when ye do not ye have no promise."
From the Jewish perspective how do God's promises work? I understand that Lord can say, "Blessings if your good, curses when you are evil." And that can be true regardless of the peoples behavior as all the bases are covered. But for example if Abraham had failed to even go to offer up Issac on the alter God had already said that through his seed the nations of the earth would be blessed. Say Abraham had despaired and killed himself rather then sacrifice Isaac. Would God be bound by the words he had already uttered prior to commanding Abraham to do sacrifice Isaac?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: hey StarLisa, just curious as to why you asked where I attended school?
Were you just curious yourself?
I was just wondering whether we might have gone to the same school.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: One year (sometime between 1987 and 1995), Israel went off of Daylight Savings Time in the middle of a Friday afternoon. It was kind of cool, actually, because it gave us an extra hour to get ready for Shabbat. They never did it again, though.
The change to DST is made early Friday morning; from DST has varied; it's now set as early Sunday morning, but was early Friday morning for a few years. I can't find anything indicating a Friday afternoon timechange. I wonder whether your experience wasn't a matter of official policy, but of your work or school choosing to stick with the old system for that day, effectively postponing the change till you went home?
No, it was official. I'm pretty sure that 2pm became 1pm. I remember I used to listen to the English news at 1pm, and I wondered that day whether they were going to play it again when it became 1pm again. <grin>
Short of slippage and/or insanity, it actually did happen, though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I vaguely recall being informed that not all Jews (as in theist Jews) believe in a messiah.
I guess that's true, if you are including Reform and Reconstructionist.
quote:I think I recall hearing that messianic prophecies all relate to a great prophet/leader, who will restore the kingdom to the Jews, but nothing along the lines of a demigod or a savior in the sense the Christians see a messiah as being.
Correct.
quote:Does the MT indicate that he will be born of a virgin?
quote:Could somebody explain to me how the Sabbath fell on Friday for Jews?
It doesn't. It falls on Saturday. However, by Jewish law, days begin not at midnight or daybreak, but at sunset/full dark of the previous evening. So Shabbos begins Friday night, the beginning of the seventh day.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I vaguely recall being informed that not all Jews (as in theist Jews) believe in a messiah. I think I recall hearing that messianic prophecies all relate to a great prophet/leader, who will restore the kingdom to the Jews, but nothing along the lines of a demigod or a savior in the sense the Christians see a messiah as being.
More or less. Belief in the eventual coming of the Messiah, who will lead the Jews out of exile into Israel, re-establish the Temple, and so on, is one of the fundamental beliefs of Orthodox Jewish faith. However, he absolutely will not be born of a virgin, and differs considerably from the Christian conception of the term. I'll let the late, great Aryeh Kaplan provide the job description. (It's written for a general audience.)
quote:Could somebody explain to me how the Sabbath fell on friday for Jews?
Friday? That's the Muslims. It's Saturday for us. The thing is, "days" start at sundown on the Jewish calendar. ("And it was evening and it was morning; day one," not vice-versa.)
quote:From the Jewish perspective how do God's promises work? I understand that Lord can say, "Blessings if your good, curses when you are evil." And that can be true regardless of the peoples behavior as all the bases are covered. But for example if Abraham had failed to even go to offer up Issac on the alter God had already said that through his seed the nations of the earth would be blessed. Say Abraham had despaired and killed himself rather then sacrifice Isaac. Would God be bound by the words he had already uttered prior to commanding Abraham to do sacrifice Isaac?
In a word, yes. Goodness only knows what we would have had to go through to get to that point, but yes.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
Friday? That's the Muslims. It's Saturday for us. The thing is, "days" start at sundown on the Jewish calendar. ("And it was evening and it was morning; day one," not vice-versa.)
There really is something neat about getting off work and starting a new day.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I vaguely recall being informed that not all Jews (as in theist Jews) believe in a messiah. I think I recall hearing that messianic prophecies all relate to a great prophet/leader, who will restore the kingdom to the Jews, but nothing along the lines of a demigod or a savior in the sense the Christians see a messiah as being.
No Jews believe in any kind of demigod or savior in that sense. The messiah is a person. He's a descendent of King David, and he's a leader.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Do Jews not all believe in a messiah of any type? Are there various interpretations of who the Messiah will be? As in what he will be like?
The believe that the messiah will come is one of the 13 articles of faith formulated by Maimonides. No Orthodox Jew rejects that. By definition.
We have sects/movements of Jews who have left observance, and they believe in pretty much whatever suits them at the moment. So yes, some of them don't believe there's going to be a messiah.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Does the MT indicate that he will be born of a virgin? Whats the low down on all this? If its too complicated I understand.
The "virgin" thing was a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. You can't be born of a virgin, because being born requires having sex. Though nowadays, that's not entirely true any more.
But still, he can't be born of a virgin, even if such a thing were possible, because tribal and familial descent among Jews goes by the patrilineal line (even though being Jewish goes by the matrilineal line). To be a legitimate descendent of David, and qualified to be the messiah, your father must be descended from David. And adoption doesn't count. It's blood relation that matters.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I read Rivka's link and I must confess it was hard reading for me, as it should be, I obviously am not use to discussing Jewish doctrine. Was the Daniel in the article the MT's Daniel? As in the one who was cast into the lion's den? Or is it another Daniel.
Just the one Daniel.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So is there a debate that the messiah (or whatever term you choose) could come either from the dead OR the living?
Honestly, no. There is a phenomenon that's been going on for about a decade or so, where members of a particular group of Hassidic Jews who were unable to cope with the death of their leader and all that death implied, have been scraping at the source material and trying to find some way to cling to the idea that their dead leader really is the messiah. But he fulfilled none of the things that the messiah must fulfill, and more than anything else, he's dead.
This group, mind you, utterly rejected the idea that a dead man could return to be the messiah. Until their leader died. Now, they're just desperate. For some context, there was a charismatic false messiah a few centuries ago named Shabbtai Tzvi. He went before the ruler of the Ottoman Empire, and was told to convert to Islam or die. He converted. Even after he converted, he still had followers who maintained that he was the messiah. Eventually, they died out. Hopefully, the Lubavitch meshichistim (Hebrew for "messianics") will follow that pattern rather than the Christian one.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Could somebody explain to me how the Sabbath fell on friday for Jews? Is it just a traditional thing or was saturday "the first day?" I just have no idea how this came to be, does anybody?
The Sabbath is on Saturday. Our days begin and end at sundown. They go sundown-to-sundown, and not midnight to midnight. Just as it's described in the Torah. "And there was evening, and there was morning". The first day of the week is Saturday night through Sunday. The second day is Sunday night through Monday. See?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: One more question on the statement that God has promised that the Jewish people will never lose the Torah, where is this said? Can it be quoted if its not in the MT?
No. But it is. Isaiah 59:21.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also do Jews not see promises from God as being contingent on faithfulness?
Here are some quotes. Obviously not the last three, but the rest are pertinent.
And try Leviticus 26:44. This is at the end of the nastiest string of curses that God promises to visit on us if we mess up, and even so:
quote:Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them; for I am Hashem their God.
The promises that God says are contingent on our behavior, are contingent on our behavior. He promised us peace and plenty in the land he swore to our forefathers to give us. But he made that contingent on our behavior, which is why were were exiled.
But what isn't stated as contingent is not contingent on anything. It is as fixed and inalterable as the laws of nature. Moreso, because God promised it.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For Mormons its embodied in the following phrase,
"I the Lord God am bound when ye do as I say, but when ye do not ye have no promise."
Is that from your scriptures? It can't be from ours, because the idea of God being "bound" by anything is completely outside the realm of any concept we have of God.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But for example if Abraham had failed to even go to offer up Issac on the alter God had already said that through his seed the nations of the earth would be blessed. Say Abraham had despaired and killed himself rather then sacrifice Isaac. Would God be bound by the words he had already uttered prior to commanding Abraham to do sacrifice Isaac?
Not bound, but He would have kept His promise nevertheless. How, I don't know, because it didn't happen that way. But "God is not a man, that He should lie". That's from the book of Samuel (forgive me if I'm too lazy to look it up).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:I vaguely recall being informed that not all Jews (as in theist Jews) believe in a messiah.
I guess that's true, if you are including Reform and Reconstructionist.
And Conservative and Renewal.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't know what Renewal is. And Conservative's official position, last I checked, is that there will be a Moshiach, but no renewal of the sacrifices.
Oh, and I shouldn't have included Reconstructionist. They're not theists.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So is there a debate that the messiah (or whatever term you choose) could come either from the dead OR the living?
Sorry; missed this on the first cut'n'paste pass. Only very technically. There is an obscure minority viewpoint which regards Moshiach being somebody who's returned from the dead as a tenable, if very unlikely, option. While I stand by my contention that this is enough to keep that viewpoint from being outside the acceptable boundaries of Jewish thought, virtually nobody expects it to happen that way, outside of one rather small group. Virtually all Jewish literature takes for granted that he'll be alive the whole way through.
That said, it's not a very significant point one way or the other. If somebody does return from the dead and goes on to fulfill every one of the necessary criteria, I don't think any of us will have a problem with him being Moshiach. Thus far, nobody's managed it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I don't know what Renewal is.
Link. It's New Agey nuttiness. Sort of like Reform Hassidism.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And Conservative's official position, last I checked, is that there will be a Moshiach, but no renewal of the sacrifices.
Link. They hedge, as usual.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Um, I only know one reconstuctionist Jew and only found out yesterday that that is the "flavor" she is, but from what she's said about her beliefs she is certainly a theist and believes there will be a messiah. Is she an exception, or are you disputing something about reconstructionist beliefs that doesn't measure up to Orthodox standards for theism or messiah?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
Does the MT indicate that he will be born of a virgin? Absolutely NOT. Messianic criteria.
So then how do Jews view Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-16? Does this pertain to an ordinary prophet and not the messiah? Isaiah 53 (the entire chapter) what could this chapter mean to most Jews? Are these prophecies not neccesarily about a person but are metaphorical? I've read that there are rules to prophecying within Judaism and if one is not aquainted with it, its hard to understand but perhaps anybody could illuminate how Jews see these passages.
About those criteria you listed Rivka, laying aside the actual merit of the arguments. You could claim partiality on the part of the NT authors, though I am not sure there is a strong case for this, they often listed the criticisms leveled against Jesus. With the accurate keeping of genealogy amongst the Jews not once was Jesus' lineage to David questioned. Just thought I would point that out, it's surprising the charge of being of the wrong genealogy was never brought up.
quote:Could somebody explain to me how the Sabbath fell on Friday for Jews? It doesn't. It falls on Saturday. However, by Jewish law, days begin not at midnight or daybreak, but at sunset/full dark of the previous evening. So Shabbos begins Friday night, the beginning of the seventh day.
Who decided days begin at sunset?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Um, I only know one reconstuctionist Jew and only found out yesterday that that is the "flavor" she is, but from what she's said about her beliefs she is certainly a theist and believes there will be a messiah. Is she an exception, or are you disputing something about reconstructionist beliefs that doesn't measure up to Orthodox standards for theism or messiah?
The more fringe the movement, Dana, the less they have in the way of any basic rules. So there could be a Reconstructionist Jew who holds the beliefs you describe. On the other hand, I'm not sure that she's using the words the way you or I would use them. For example, here's the definition of "God" as put forth by Mordechai Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionism:
quote:God is a functional, rather than substantive, noun, thus denoting that power in the cosmos, including man, which makes for the salvation of men and nations.
Yeah... it brings to mind OSC's recent column about pseudo-intellectual babble.
A semi-humorous definition of Reconstructionism goes like this: "There is no God, and Mordechai Kaplan is his prophet". Kaplan wrote books like "Judaism without Superstition", and was very strongly against any supernatural anything in Reconstructionism. But the thing about starting a movement without rules is that you can't tell your followers that they can't believe in such things if they want to.
Hopefully, your friend will eventually wind up Orthodox.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Could somebody explain to me how the Sabbath fell on Friday for Jews? It doesn't. It falls on Saturday. However, by Jewish law, days begin not at midnight or daybreak, but at sunset/full dark of the previous evening. So Shabbos begins Friday night, the beginning of the seventh day.
Who decided days begin at sunset?
Dude, have you been reading what we've written? Both Shmuel and I cited "and there was evening, and there was morning" from the first chapter of Genesis. God decided.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
As usual, I should point out that, especially lisa, and rivka to some extent, should not be considered reliable sources on non-orthodox judaism, for exactly the same reasons that you shouldn't ask a catholic about protestantism.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So then how do Jews view Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-16?
It doesn't say "virgin" in that verse. That's a mistranslation. The word is almah, which simply means "young woman". The word for virgin is betulah.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Isaiah 53 (the entire chapter) what could this chapter mean to most Jews? Are these prophecies not neccesarily about a person but are metaphorical?
The suffering servant is the Jews.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I've read that there are rules to prophecying within Judaism and if one is not aquainted with it, its hard to understand but perhaps anybody could illuminate how Jews see these passages.
Exactly.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: With the accurate keeping of genealogy amongst the Jews not once was Jesus' lineage to David questioned.
I'm sure it would have been, had there been an actual person like JC. But look, even the genealogies in Luke and Matthew completely disagree.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Just thought I would point that out, it's surprising the charge of being of the wrong genealogy was never brought up.
It may well have been. Just because it's not in your gospels doesn't mean it wasn't raised.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: As usual, I should point out that, especially lisa, and rivka to some extent, should not be considered reliable sources on non-orthodox judaism, for exactly the same reasons that you shouldn't ask a catholic about protestantism.
Paul, that was a direct quote from Emet V'Emunah. If you didn't read the link, here it is in full:
quote:Emet Ve-Emunah, the Conservative movement's statement of principles, states:
"Since no one can say for certain what will happen in the Messianic era each of us is free to fashion personal speculation. Some of us accept these speculations are literally true, while others understand them as elaborate metaphors... For the world community we dream of an age when warfare will be abolished, when justice and compassion will be axioms of all, as it is said in Isaiah 11: "...the land shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." For our people, we dream of the ingathering of all Jews to Zion where we can again be masters of our own destiny and express our distinctive genius in every area of our national life. We affirm Isaiah's prophecy (2:3) that "...Torah shall come forth from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
"We do not know when the Messiah will come, nor whether he will be a charismatic human figure or is a symbol of the redemption of humankind from the evils of the world. Through the doctrine of a Messianic figure, Judaism teaches us that every individual human being must live as if he or she, individually, has the responsibility to bring about the messianic age. Beyond that, we echo the words of Maimonides based on the prophet Habakkuk (2:3) that though he may tarry, yet do we wait for him each day."
Don't argue with me; argue with your own movement.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Well Christians believe Jesus had no earthly father, correct? That means he could not have been descended from David through patrilineal descent.
[ November 06, 2006, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Bingo.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa: Luke and Matthew disagreeing means nothing to me personally. I personally believe there ARE mistakes within the entire Bible. Perhaps Jesus' geneologies have mistakes, perhaps they do not. I have seen quite convincing studies about the differences in the two gospels.
I was merely saying the gospel writers did not balk at pharises/sadducees calling Jesus, "A liar, a false prophet, a blasphemer, worthy of death, a deceiver, etc." They frequently reported when Jesus' claims were challenged, it was simply interesting that if his geneology was questioned I think the pharisee and sadducees would have jumped on that point. I think the weigh of evidence points that no charge was made, and not that the charge was made but the gospel writers failed to acknowledge it.
I can be wrong, thats just my opinion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, that was a direct quote from Emet V'Emunah."
I am not arguing a specific point, I am alerting everyone to the fact that you do not accurately represent non-orthodox jews on many points.
"Don't argue with me; argue with your own movement."
I am not arguing with you. I refuse to engage... and I am not reconstructionist.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Well Christian's believe Jesus had no earthly father correct? That means was could not have been descended from David through patrilineal descent.
I honestly wan't to avoid if possible any extended debate on Jesus as a messiah.
But if we accept that Jesus in fact did not have a human father, and that it was God. Instead of Joseph being Christs de facto father, do we really want to claim that, "The son of God can't be the messiah because Joseph isn't his real father?"
Certainly the non believing Jews believed Jesus' real father was Joseph, "Is not this the son of Joseph the carpenter?" so either Jesus' real father is Joseph or God. In either case I'd argue it still keeps him within the limits of messianic status.
Seperate questions,
If an Israelite several hundred years ago from say the tribe of Levi was adopted by a Danite would he always be listed as a Levite and never as a Danite?
Are the laws concerning tribal adoption found within the oral/written Torah? Or do they precede Moses?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: As usual, I should point out that, especially lisa, and rivka to some extent, should not be considered reliable sources on non-orthodox judaism, for exactly the same reasons that you shouldn't ask a catholic about protestantism.
Fair enough. I not only have never claimed to be, I try to only cite official movement positions (to the best of my knowledge).
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I was merely saying the gospel writers did not balk at pharises/sadducees calling Jesus, "A liar, a false prophet, a blasphemer, worthy of death, a deceiver, etc." They frequently reported when Jesus' claims were challenged, it was simply interesting that if his geneology was questioned I think the pharisee and sadducees would have jumped on that point. I think the weigh of evidence points that no charge was made, and not that the charge was made but the gospel writers failed to acknowledge it.
This is hardly a convincing argument to anyone who does not already accept the validity of the gospels.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If an Israelite several hundred years ago from say the tribe of Levi was adopted by a Danite would he always be listed as a Levite and never as a Danite?
Correct. For sources, look at the daughters of Tzelofchad and the prophet Shmuel (Samuel) -- who was never considered a cohen, despite having been adopted and raised by one.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I was merely saying the gospel writers did not balk at pharises/sadducees calling Jesus, "A liar, a false prophet, a blasphemer, worthy of death, a deceiver, etc." They frequently reported when Jesus' claims were challenged, it was simply interesting that if his geneology was questioned I think the pharisee and sadducees would have jumped on that point. I think the weigh of evidence points that no charge was made, and not that the charge was made but the gospel writers failed to acknowledge it.
I can be wrong, thats just my opinion.
I can't explain why the authors of the gospels included some things and didn't include other things. As you know, I think they're fiction from start to finish. But even if they weren't, I still couldn't answer for their literary choices.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:I was merely saying the gospel writers did not balk at pharises/sadducees calling Jesus, "A liar, a false prophet, a blasphemer, worthy of death, a deceiver, etc." They frequently reported when Jesus' claims were challenged, it was simply interesting that if his geneology was questioned I think the pharisee and sadducees would have jumped on that point. I think the weigh of evidence points that no charge was made, and not that the charge was made but the gospel writers failed to acknowledge it.
Well, think this through. The people challenging the claims wouldn't have believed Jesus was anything but Joseph's son, and therefore of Davidic descent. In order to disagree, they'd have to accept the virgin birth claim in the first place, which his detractors naturally wouldn't.
(And to answer a point in your later post, no, if he were somehow the son of God, that would not be good enough.)
At any rate, you're entitled to your opinion. Just... I'd love to be wrong about this, BlackBlade, but you're coming across less as being interested in Judaism per se and more about wanting to know why our own rules don't require us to accept Jesus, or something along those lines.
Bits like...
quote:With the accurate keeping of genealogy amongst the Jews not once was Jesus' lineage to David questioned. Just thought I would point that out, it's surprising the charge of being of the wrong genealogy was never brought up.
...aren't questions about Judaism; we don't accept the gospels in the first place. I'm also not sure why, if you're really not interested in getting into the question of Jesus as the messiah, you'd want to narrow down to technical questions about tribal affiliation when you're still having trouble getting down the basics.
I mean, I respect your right to have your own opinion about the divinity of Jesus; I just don't see what it's doing in a thread in which you're asking for an unrelated perspective. (And it's certainly your right to derail your own thread; I'm just getting less inclined to answer.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Paul, that was a direct quote from Emet V'Emunah."
I am not arguing a specific point, I am alerting everyone to the fact that you do not accurately represent non-orthodox jews on many points.
"Don't argue with me; argue with your own movement."
I am not arguing with you. I refuse to engage... and I am not reconstructionist.
Damn, Paul, Emet V'Emunah is a Conservative document. It's what your movement issued as a statement of "principles" a few years back.
And your caveat is worth very little. I grew up Conservative. Well educated Conservative, at that. I went through 9 summers of Camp Ramah, from whence most Conservative leaders arrive, and I damn near went to JTS for college. I'm actually in a better position to speak about that movement than you are, regardless of who your mother is (knowledge isn't hereditary, or else I'd be a surgeon).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But if we accept that Jesus in fact did not have a human father, and that it was God. Instead of Joseph being Christs de facto father, do we really want to claim that, "The son of God can't be the messiah because Joseph isn't his real father?"
Yup. Because we're all sons and daughters of God. And God Himself made it clear that the messiah was not some supernatural being, but rather a human being, descended from David. It actually says "his seed". That's as physical as it gets.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Certainly the non believing Jews believed Jesus' real father was Joseph, "Is not this the son of Joseph the carpenter?" so either Jesus' real father is Joseph or God. In either case I'd argue it still keeps him within the limits of messianic status.
Suit yourself. It doesn't in Judaism.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Seperate questions,
If an Israelite several hundred years ago from say the tribe of Levi was adopted by a Danite would he always be listed as a Levite and never as a Danite?
Correct. Here's a joke that you probably won't get. You kind of have to be Jewish to get it.
A guy walks into the synagogue and asks to talk to the rabbi. When the rabbi meets with him, the man says he wants to donate a large sum to the synagogue.
The rabbi is happy, naturally. But the man says he has a condition. "I want you to make me a Kohen," he says.
(Note: A Kohen is an Aaronite priest. A direct male descendent of Aaron, Moses' brother.)
The rabbi is upset, and tries to explain to the man that he can't do that. The man says that's his condition, take it or leave it. So the rabbi, with regrets, tells him he's sorry, and the man leaves.
The next week, the man comes back, and offers twice the money. The rabbi tries to explain to him that it isn't a matter of the money. It just can't be done. The man offers a stunningly large sum, and the rabbi's resolve weakens. Feeling incredibly guilty about the deceit he's about to perpetrate, he tells the man he'll do it.
He puts together a ceremony and performs it. And he tells the man that he's now a Kohen.
The man is incredibly grateful. He thanks the rabbi with tears in his eyes. The rabbi sits him down and asks him, "Look. I really have to know. Why was it so important to you to be a Kohen?"
The man replies, "Well, rabbi. My father was a Kohen. His father was a Kohen. His father was Kohen. So I wanted to be a Kohen as well."
The joke here is that he already was. You're born that way, or you aren't. Adoption makes no difference.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Are the laws concerning tribal adoption found within the oral/written Torah? Or do they precede Moses?
There are no laws concerning tribal adoption. It's a concept that doesn't even exist in Jewish law. Your biological parents are your parents. My daughter is my adopted daughter, so I'll well acquainted with the law. She owes me the respect due a parent, because I'm raising her, but technically, we're not related at all in the eyes of the Torah.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
starLisa, while it may be true that you grew up a well-educated conservative Jew, your remarks show you to be fairly well-distanced from the mainstream of the conservative movement of today.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Let me add, BlackBlade, that the fact that there's no such thing as tribal adoption is why the Torah warns us over and over to be good to converts. "And you shall love the stranger". "Stranger" is a bad translation for ger, which means "convert". A convert, or someone like Stephan, whose father wasn't Jewish, has no tribe. So we're warned by God to be particularly careful not to treat such people poorly, merely because they don't have a tribe. Back when tribal affiliation determined land ownership, this was overwhelmingly important.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: At any rate, you're entitled to your opinion. Just... I'd love to be wrong about this, BlackBlade, but you're coming across less as being interested in Judaism per se and more about wanting to know why our own rules don't require us to accept Jesus, or something along those lines.
Bits like...
quote:With the accurate keeping of genealogy amongst the Jews not once was Jesus' lineage to David questioned. Just thought I would point that out, it's surprising the charge of being of the wrong genealogy was never brought up.
...aren't questions about Judaism; we don't accept the gospels in the first place. I'm also not sure why, if you're really not interested in getting into the question of Jesus as the messiah, you'd want to narrow down to technical questions about tribal affiliation when you're still having trouble getting down the basics.
I mean, I respect your right to have your own opinion about the divinity of Jesus; I just don't see what it's doing in a thread in which you're asking for an unrelated perspective. (And it's certainly your right to derail your own thread; I'm just getting less inclined to answer.)
I agree with Shmuel. And I mentioned this issue on Friday, but I'm not seeing much difference since you assured me that was not your intent.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela: starLisa, while it may be true that you grew up a well-educated conservative Jew, your remarks show you to be fairly well-distanced from the mainstream of the conservative movement of today.
Well, sure, Ela. I certainly don't agree with it. But when I moved to Chicago in 2003, I went for a while to a Conservative congregation in the area (we were afraid that we'd be treated poorly by an Orthodox one). While we no longer go there, I can assure you that I'm quite up to date on the Conservative movement.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: I mean, I respect your right to have your own opinion about the divinity of Jesus; I just don't see what it's doing in a thread in which you're asking for an unrelated perspective. (And it's certainly your right to derail your own thread; I'm just getting less inclined to answer.)
I agree with Shmuel. And I mentioned this issue on Friday, but I'm not seeing much difference since you assured me that was not your intent.
On the other hand, I'm both pessimistic and argumentative. Being pessimistic, I'm not at all surprised, and being argumentative, I actually enjoy these sorts of things.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
I went to a Reconstructionist shul when I was in Indiana, and they certainly seemed to be theists. They seemed somewhere in between Reform and Conservative to me. They had BYOB and the Rabbi checked to make sure all of the wine was kosher.
I only went for the social event. I didn't actually daven there, so I could be mistaken.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thank you for your responses Lisa, Rivka, and Shmuel. Thank you to everyone else who participates.
Shmuel: If you do not wish to continue posting in the thread for ANY reason, its certainly your prerogative. I understand that I am completely at the mercy of others to answer my questions. If nobody chooses to participate in the thread then I am left with only that which you guys have already given me. Its quite a bit to be sure.
Please note that I said, "I honestly want to avoid if possible any extended debate on Jesus as a messiah." I meant that. Though there is no way to prove it, I was not going to press the issue any further, Rivka provided a link to a site stating Messianic requisites and how Jesus did not fulfill any of them. I was reminded of something I studied relating to Jesus. I don't intend for the topic to become the future of this thread.
Lisa: Somehow I missed 1 quite extended post of yours answering many of my questions from page 4, my apologies.
I cannot find where you and Shmuel indicated where its written that days begin at sundown. Is this simply an oral rule or is it written down? Don't mean to be frustratingly slow, I looked through the pages.
I try and request where things are written down just so I can read it in text. I understand alot of the specifics of the law are not written down but are part of the Oral Torah. Feel free to simply throw at me, "In the Oral Torah, sorry can't help you."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Somehow I missed 1 quite extended post of yours answering many of my questions from page 4, my apologies.
No problem. I'm glad you found it, and I hope it was helpful.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I cannot find where you and Shmuel indicated where its written that days begin at sundown. Is this simply an oral rule or is it written down? Don't mean to be frustratingly slow, I looked through the pages.
Genesis 1:5: "And there was evening, and there was morning, one day."
Genesis 1:8: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a second day."
Genesis 1:13: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a third day."
Genesis 1:19: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day."
Genesis 1:23: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day."
Genesis 1:31: "And there was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day."
See, evening precedes morning.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I try and request where things are written down just so I can read it in text. I understand alot of the specifics of the law are not written down but are part of the Oral Torah. Feel free to simply throw at me, "In the Oral Torah, sorry can't help you."
I will, if necessary. But it's often not necessary.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BB, you can pick up a Bible (Christian or Hebrew); it is in Genesis where it is stated that the day starts at sundown. They mentioned it on page 3 or 4.
-Bok
Edit: err, what lisa said.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
But a lot less verbose.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Somehow I missed 1 quite extended post of yours answering many of my questions from page 4, my apologies.
No problem. I'm glad you found it, and I hope it was helpful.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I cannot find where you and Shmuel indicated where its written that days begin at sundown. Is this simply an oral rule or is it written down? Don't mean to be frustratingly slow, I looked through the pages.
Genesis 1:5: "And there was evening, and there was morning, one day."
Genesis 1:8: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a second day."
Genesis 1:13: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a third day."
Genesis 1:19: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day."
Genesis 1:23: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day."
Genesis 1:31: "And there was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day."
See, evening precedes morning.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I try and request where things are written down just so I can read it in text. I understand alot of the specifics of the law are not written down but are part of the Oral Torah. Feel free to simply throw at me, "In the Oral Torah, sorry can't help you."
I will, if necessary. But it's often not necessary.
Lol its funny because as soon as you said to the effect, "It's in YOUR bible too" I immediately thought of my King James Version of the bible and heard the words, "The evening and the morning were the third day." I thought, "oh hey yeah it does say that."
So used to being told, "Your English Old Testament botches everything up and you need the Hebrew version." that I didn't even think about the wording of the KJV of the bible when discussing the beginning and end of days.
Color me embarrassed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Before I get back to doctrinal questions, I had 2 miscellaneous questions dealing with Judaism.
How come so many comedians are Jewish, can any of you identify what within the Jewish culture produces them?
Clarinets in Jewish music. Whats the deal? I played clarinet for 7 years and one of my good friends from Israel sat next to me and played too. I've always wondered about it, yesterday new Simpsons Halloween episode brought it up again. They had a clay golem and every transition had a quick clarinet bar, much like Seinfeld and the slap bass.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: How come so many comedians are Jewish, can any of you identify what within the Jewish culture produces them?
The ability to find joy despite suffering and sorrow.
As for clarinets, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: How come so many comedians are Jewish, can any of you identify what within the Jewish culture produces them?
It's been claimed that one way we've dealt with millennia of oppression has been by developing a sense of humor about it. Whether that has any truth to it, I don't know. I doubt anybody knows for sure.
(Stop me if you've heard this one: Mr. Goldstein arrives at Heaven and asks for an audience with God. This is granted. "I am the representative of the Jewish people," he says, "and we have a question. Is it true that we are the Chosen People?" God replies in the affirmative. "Well," says Goldstein, "would you mind choosing somebody else for a change?")
quote:Clarinets in Jewish music. Whats the deal? I played clarinet for 7 years and one of my good friends from Israel sat next to me and played too. I've always wondered about it, yesterday new Simpsons Halloween episode brought it up again. They had a clay golem and every transition had a quick clarinet bar, much like Seinfeld and the slap bass.
Well, for one thing, it's portable.
Seriously, it's often used in klezmer, which may explain the Simpsons reference. (I haven't seen that episode.) I'm not aware of clarinet playing being especially widespread among Jews, but that doesn't mean it isn't. I have no clue.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Clarinet is a focal instrument [EDIT: of that style of music].
-Bok
Maybe, I've been googling around and keep getting links to Klesmer music.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: How come so many comedians are Jewish, can any of you identify what within the Jewish culture produces them?
If you don't laugh, you have to cry.
But more than that, humor is about cognitive dissonance. We laugh when something doesn't fit. When something doesn't go the way you'd expect. "Why'd the chicken cross the road?" You expect a reason. When you get something as simple as "To get to the other side", it stops you in your tracks, and you laugh.
At least, it did when the joke was new. Nowadays, there are attempts to refresh it, like "Why'd the monkey fall out of the tree?" "It was dead." "Why'd the chicken fall out of the tree?" "It was stapled to the monkey." Incongruities. Things that defy expectation.
Our lives were full of incongruities and things that defined expectation. So we learned to look at the world that way. We can laugh at anything.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: (Stop me if you've heard this one: Mr. Goldstein arrives at Heaven and asks for an audience with God. This is granted. "I am the representative of the Jewish people," he says, "and we have a question. Is it true that we are the Chosen People?" God replies in the affirmative. "Well," says Goldstein, "would you mind choosing somebody else for a change?")
A Cubs fan dies and goes to heaven. When he gets there, he asks God, "Will the Cubs ever win the World Series again?" God says, "Not in my lifetime."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
BTW I liked your joke Shmuel Unfortunately Ill probably never find an audience that would appreciate it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It has been said here that a Jew can't stop being a Jew. Are there any limitations to this?
For example (and this is actually true), I understand that one is Jewish if ones mother is Jewish. My mother's, mother's, mother's, mother came from a family who we believe, but can not prove, were Jews who fled from Spain to England during the Spanish inquisition. If this story is true, am I Jewish? If not, why not? If it is true, then I imagine that there could be millions of people out there who are Jews, and therefore bound by the Mosaic Law, but do not know it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I am not sure how to say what I want to, or even if it ought to be said, but the thought has been on my mind since midway through today when this thread got on the topic of Christ's genealogy.
I feel a little bit like the premise of this thread has faded. Where initially it was a simple, "Let me ask questions, please answer them." It feels like, at least to me that it is now, "BlackBlade created a thread with the stated purpose of satisfying curiosity, but really with the pretext to convert."
I don't much enjoy being called dishonest, but at the same time if that is how people are perceiving my intent it might quite possibly be my fault that this feeling exists. A small chunk keeps suggesting, "BlackBlade this is all in your head, nobody believes that."
I flip flop from annoyance at being called false, and disappointed with myself that I appeared that way, with brief moments of, "Thats not how it is at all, just keep asking questions."
If I am wrong, then great I hope to continue to learn from all of you. If I am right I am not sure how the thread can be salvaged. I don't want to ask questions to folks who believe I do so with any intent other then curiosity. I don't want the carefully crafted statements of somebody who expects debate, nor the quick substanceless reply of one who thinks the person being responded to does not really care, but lurkers might.
If I might request two favors. Please help me understand how I might best avoid giving the vibe that I am not really interested in Judaism so much as how to proselyte Christianity to Jews.
And the other favor, please give me some slack as Ill admit this is my first thread where I have gone into it without the aim to debate and to purely understand. I've posted in hundreds of threads purely for purposes of discussion and persuasion, I HAVE had to make a conscious effort to not bring some of that mindset or vocabulary into this thread. I've got 5 good pages of information, which is hundreds of times more numerous then the last 24 years of my life combined. I've honestly enjoyed this thread, even with this slight unpleasantness, I really do hope I can mine more information from you folks.
Thank you for considering my words.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: My mother's, mother's, mother's, mother came from a family who we believe, but can not prove, were Jews who fled from Spain to England during the Spanish inquisition. If this story is true, am I Jewish?
I can't pretend to be qualified to answer anything about the specifics; this is beyond my area of direct knowledge, and it's something that'd need to be handled on a case-by-case basis by a rabbi.
Speaking in generalities, it seems likely (but not certain) to me that the decision would center on the evidence. If, from a religious standpoint, it were ruled certain that your mother's mother's mother's mother was Jewish, then, yes, you'd be Jewish. If it were ruled certain that she wasn't, then you wouldn't be. If it were somewhere in the middle... you're not going to get a practical answer to that on a message board.
quote:If it is true, then I imagine that there could be millions of people out there who are Jews, and therefore bound by the Mosaic Law, but do not know it.
Taking out the phrase "and therefore bound by the Mosaic Law," you're absolutely right.
As for the phrase in the middle... yes and no. If somebody is raised as a non-Jew (the classical definition is someone captured by non-Jews as a child) and honestly doesn't know any better, they're not held accountable for violating Mosaic Law. But, yes, it'd still be their birthright, and they'd be welcomed back into the fold if they found their way back.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I feel a little bit like the premise of this thread has faded. Where initially it was a simple, "Let me ask questions, please answer them." It feels like, at least to me that it is now, "BlackBlade created a thread with the stated purpose of satisfying curiosity, but really with the pretext to convert."
I'm sorry if I said anything that gave you that impression. I don't think you're being dishonest in that way. To be completely honest, it wouldn't matter to me if you were, but I don't get that vibe.
If you ever want to ask me anything via e-mail, feel free to do so.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: A guy walks into the synagogue and asks to talk to the rabbi. When the rabbi meets with him, the man says he wants to donate a large sum to the synagogue.
The rabbi is happy, naturally. But the man says he has a condition. "I want you to make me a Kohen," he says.
(Note: A Kohen is an Aaronite priest. A direct male descendent of Aaron, Moses' brother.)
The rabbi is upset, and tries to explain to the man that he can't do that. The man says that's his condition, take it or leave it. So the rabbi, with regrets, tells him he's sorry, and the man leaves.
The next week, the man comes back, and offers twice the money. The rabbi tries to explain to him that it isn't a matter of the money. It just can't be done. The man offers a stunningly large sum, and the rabbi's resolve weakens. Feeling incredibly guilty about the deceit he's about to perpetrate, he tells the man he'll do it.
He puts together a ceremony and performs it. And he tells the man that he's now a Kohen.
The man is incredibly grateful. He thanks the rabbi with tears in his eyes. The rabbi sits him down and asks him, "Look. I really have to know. Why was it so important to you to be a Kohen?"
The man replies, "Well, rabbi. My father was a Kohen. His father was a Kohen. His father was Kohen. So I wanted to be a Kohen as well."
Cohen! Mystery solved! That's kinda caste-ish isn't it?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Seriously? Yes, Cohen and Kohn and Kahan and Cohn and Kahn and Katz (Kohen Tzedek = Ka"tz) and Kahane and Kaplan are all Kohanic names. Although not everyone with that name is a Kohen any more. And there are families of Kohanim named Rapoport and Atlas, as well. And Levi and Levine and Levitan and Levin and Segel (Segan Levi = Seg"el) and Siegel are all Levite names. But the same caveat applies.
I was once a counselor at a Conservative summer camp in Wisconsin. I was one of the two counselors in our age group who was in charge of prayers. So at the beginning of the summer, we'd collected index cards from all of the campers with their names, their Hebrew names, their father's names, and in the case of the boys, whether they were Kohen, Levi, or Yisrael (meaning Jews not descended from Levi).
One boy, named Joel, had marked down that he was a Levi. And about halfway through the summer, I was talking with him, and he happened to mention that his father was a convert. It took a few seconds for this to percolate through, and then I asked him, "Joel, if your father is a convert, why did you mark down that you were a Levi?" Joel replied that his mother's father was a Levi, and that they didn't want him to be a "mere" Yisrael, so they decided he could be a Levi, too.
That was towards the end of my association with the Conservative movement, and I think it probably accelerated my leaving. Particularly when the powers that be (my boss, Jane) insisted that we continue to treat him like a Levi. <sigh>
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
BlackBlade, I do not think you are being dishonest.
However, I do get tired of certain types of questions. Not from you, specifically. But you are neither the first Christian, nor even the first Mormon I have had some of these conversations with. That means there are certain roads I will hesitate to go down, and others I just will not go down at all.
That does not mean I won't answer any more questions, though. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
What was the difference in treatment between the groups?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Seriously? Yes, Cohen and Kohn and Kahan and Cohn and Kahn and Katz (Kohen Tzedek = Ka"tz) and Kahane and Kaplan are all Kohanic names. Although not everyone with that name is a Kohen any more. And there are families of Kohanim named Rapoport and Atlas, as well.
Also Dweks.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And Katzin (but not my relatives with that name) and Kahaneman. And I think the Katzenellenbogens are kohanim.
Kwea, there are certain sections of the Torah reading that are done only by kohanim, and others only by levi'im. There are a couple other things as well.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Seriously? Yes, Cohen and Kohn and Kahan and Cohn and Kahn and Katz (Kohen Tzedek = Ka"tz) and Kahane and Kaplan are all Kohanic names. Although not everyone with that name is a Kohen any more. And there are families of Kohanim named Rapoport and Atlas, as well.
Also Dweks.
So is Douek also?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Kwea, like Rivka said, the main difference nowadays for Levi'im (plural of Levi) is that they get called up for the second reading when the Torah is read. Kohanim get called up for the first.
In the case up at camp, obviously we couldn't call Joel up for the second reading any more. But Jane said we couldn't treat him as a Yisrael. So we just didn't call him up again for the rest of the summer. He never even noticed.
Kohanim have other differences as well. A Kohen may not marry a convert or a divorcee. He may not go into a cemetary except to bury a parent, a child, a sibling or a spouse. There's a real issue with him going into a hospital, because of the possibility (probability) that there's a dead body in there when he's there, and many Kohanim won't become doctors because of this.
During morning prayers, Kohanim bless the congregation. In Israel, this is done every morning. Out of Israel, it's only done during the mussaf prayer on certain holidays.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Theca, thank you for deleting your earlier comment.
Oh, I didn't do it because I was sorry. I had the mistaken idea that there was some sort of mutual respect here between all these peoples and religious groups. I was so wrong. The very idea that we be respected enough to have our own words and beliefs that are important to us after all these centuries of existence gets me compared to the holocaust and chastised in front of hundreds of people. The idea that you might be used to us by now gets me reminded that I need to research how evil Christians have been for persecutions in the past. Right. I didn't realize I was supposed to in the doghouse on Hatrack for things I never did or thought.
This has been a pretty rude awakening for me. I thought we were all friends and equals. I thought we were having an educational discussion for mutual understanding. This isn't the place I thought it was.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theca:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Theca, thank you for deleting your earlier comment.
Oh, I didn't do it because I was sorry. I had the mistaken idea that there was some sort of mutual respect here between all these peoples and religious groups. I was so wrong.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess you really don't understand how horrifying it was to hear you say that we shouldn't be offended by something because "we should be used to it by now". That kind of comment is really over the top.
When I saw the comment, I was going to post pretty much the way the others did. But you'd already deleted it. I couldn't understand why the reply thing kept coming up blank. <grin>
But seriously, and without invective, do you honestly not get how telling someone who has been abused over and over and over again that they should just get over it, and that they should be used to it by now, is going to cause a pretty harsh reaction? If not, I suggest that you need to read some history, and try and get a real grasp of the absolute horrors that we suffered, for centuries, all because Christians were offended that we still existed.
Instead of having hurt feelings about how we reacted to what you said, maybe you should actually think about it, and ask yourself, "Okay, Lisa is a bitca, so we expect harshness from her. But Rivka is almost always nice to most people, and Shmuel seems like a nice person as well. What could I possibly have said to get such a unanimous reaction of disgust from all of them?"
quote:Originally posted by Theca: The very idea that we be respected enough to have our own words and beliefs that are important to us after all these centuries of existence gets me compared to the holocaust and chastised in front of hundreds of people.
Ah, but that's not exactly what you said, Theca. You didn't say, "After all this time, don't we have a right to use our own terms?" You said that we should be over it by now. If you'd said the other, I would have argued that, sure, use whatever terms you want, but not in this thread, where Jews are being asked for information. I would have argued the merits of it with you. But you didn't say that.
quote:Originally posted by Theca: The idea that you might be used to us by now gets me reminded that I need to research how evil Christians have been for persecutions in the past. Right.
Yes, right. If you want to understand why what you said elicited the reaction it did, rather than just taking offense about it, that's probably what you should do. Maybe have a little empathy for people who have suffered at the hands of a culture that thought "we should be used to it by now".
You say "persecutions in the past" as though there were a few little peccadillos, rather than literally centuries of murder and oppression. If you think we have a persecution complex, well, maybe we do. And maybe there's a reason for that. And while we don't blame individual Christians today for it, we're quite aware that this could just be a bubble in history. How many times do you have to have your people herded into a synagogue that's then set on fire before you lose the ability to take Christian terminology as just words?
quote:Originally posted by Theca: I didn't realize I was supposed to in the doghouse on Hatrack for things I never did or thought.
You were criticized (attacked), not for things you never did or thought. You were criticized for saying that we should be used to it by now. And I'm flabbergasted by the fact that you seem unable to understand the distinction. It shows a serious lack of empathy on your part.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Instead of having hurt feelings about how we reacted to what you said, maybe you should actually think about it, and ask yourself, "Okay, Lisa is a bitca, so we expect harshness from her. But Rivka is almost always nice to most people, and Shmuel seems like a nice person as well. What could I possibly have said to get such a unanimous reaction of disgust from all of them?"
Actually, I missed this one entirely, not having seen the original post. I think I've stayed out of the nomenclature debate, seeing as how I have no problem with "Old Testament." It's a term readily understood by those of all stripes, and I don't find it to be inherently offensive. But that's me.
Not having seen the post in question, I can only suppose that what Theca intended to say and what Rivka and Lisa heard are two different things. In the absence of further information -- and before somebody does some cutting and pasting, I'm really not looking for any -- I'm content to assume it's a matter of the same words meaning very different things to people from different cultural contexts, and that everybody might benefit from taking a deep breath and perhaps a nice cup of tea.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Seriously? Yes, Cohen and Kohn and Kahan and Cohn and Kahn and Katz (Kohen Tzedek = Ka"tz) and Kahane and Kaplan are all Kohanic names. Although not everyone with that name is a Kohen any more. And there are families of Kohanim named Rapoport and Atlas, as well.
Also Dweks.
So is Douek also?
Yes. It's a variant spelling of the same name. I've also seen it spelled Dweck.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
starLisa, I take exception with your comments about the Conservative movement. None of my experiences were remotely like yours and the shuls I attended in my childhood, as well as the ones I attended as an adult, were much closer to Orthodox shuls than the Conservative ones you've described. I am appalled at the Levite incident you described and it would never happen in any of my shuls. It seems to me that you feel comfortable speaking for the Conservative movement and I would like to say that, as a Conservative Jew, I do not feel comfortable being represented by you.
I'd also like to point out that there are many Conservative shuls that are unaffiliated with the USCJ.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The only things I've mentioned about the Conservative movement in this thread are the story that happened up at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin (the flagship of the Ramah camps, which are run under the auspices of the Jewish Theological Seminary, as a big sign lets us know when we drive into the camp), and a quote from the Conservative Movement's official statement of principles. You can't blame me for the latter, and the former... well.
When I was going to that Conservative congregation in Chicago, Neil Gillman came to speak. As you may know, he's a well known professor at JTS. He asked us what percentage of our congregation kept kosher. At all. To any degree. He was told that it was upwards of 95%. And that at least 40% of us wouldn't buy any food unless it was marked as being under rabbinic supervision.
He was shocked. Because he speaks at Conservative synagogues all over the US, and the answer to his question is generally between 5% and 10%. Tops.
So you can tell me all you want about how the Conservative shuls you went to as a kid were more traditional, and I believe you. So was the one I went to. But it's exceptional. Very exceptional. And even so, microphones are used if there's a bar or bat mitzvah and the family wants to, and about a third of the congregants drive to shul on Shabbat, while about half of those who don't drive do drive on Shabbat, but they live close enough to walk.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well I am back, I feel a bit rejuvenated.
Topical question this time.
Two Anecdotes that give me a background for wishing to understand this.
I was dating a Jewish girl, I am not sure what denomination the relationship did not last long, this had more to do with her personality and not because she was Jewish. But once when I was with her a mutual aquaintance found out we were together and became quite condecending (Lutheran private school, its to be expected I suppose, Mormon + Jew = Some new breed of damnation). Anyway he attempted to drive a wedge between me and this girl by making her answer the question about whether or not I had a soul. According to this guy Jews do not believe gentiles have souls, or that their souls no longer exist when they die, something like that. The guy was a jerk, but it did make me wonder just how Jews view the afterlife.
BTW I think the girl was conservative but I am not sure. She had to say certain prayers our of a book if she ate bread, or other types of food. Definately kept Kosher, and she apparently was allowed to date whoever she wanted, but her parents were arranging her marriage.
2nd Anecdote: My best friend (coincidentally also a mormon) was dating a girl (coincidentally also a Jew) again not sure which denomination I never asked. Somebody in our school died in an accident and she was friends with the boy. She took his death really hard and asked my friend what he believed in the afterlife as she herself had no idea what it was like or if there even was one. It reaffirmed in my mind at least that I do not know if Jews have a universal concept of the afterlife, how it works? Or if there are varying beliefs on the matter.
Anything you guys can offer is appreciated. Nice screen name Lisa. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Everyone has a soul. In fact gentiles have an easier chance of a good afterlike then Jews do.
Ask 10 Jews about the afterlife and you will probably get 11 answers. Though there is some consensus. There is no Hell for instance.
[ November 07, 2006, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
While Jews agree that the souls of Jews and non-Jews are in some (not easily defined) way different, the notion that non-Jews do not have souls is not generally accepted.
It does exist among some Jewish thinkers. So you will hear it on occasion, particularly among some segments of the Jewish population.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: There is no Hell for instance.
This is absolutely true . . . for certain values of "Hell." Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: According to this guy Jews do not believe gentiles have souls, or that their souls no longer exist when they die, something like that.
Ew. That's nasty.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The guy was a jerk, but it did make me wonder just how Jews view the afterlife.
We don't think about it a whole lot. Except to say that it exists, and that there's reward and punishment (though no eternal damnation or anything of that kind).
We say "The righteous of all nations have a place in the World to Come". That's the afterlife.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: BTW I think the girl was conservative but I am not sure. She had to say certain prayers our of a book if she ate bread, or other types of food. Definately kept Kosher, and she apparently was allowed to date whoever she wanted, but her parents were arranging her marriage.
Fascinating. Observant, but dating a non-Jew. That's kind of interesting.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It reaffirmed in my mind at least that I do not know if Jews have a universal concept of the afterlife, how it works? Or if there are varying beliefs on the matter.
I can't speak for the movements (though that won't stop me if I feel like speaking for them anyway), but in terms of Torah Judaism, what's called "Orthodox", and which was just called "Judaism" until a few centuries ago, belief in the afterlife is one of those 13 fundamentals of faith I mentioned earlier:
Belief in the existence of the Creator, be He Blessed, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists.
The belief in G-d's absolute and unparalleled unity.
The belief in G-d's noncorporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling.
The belief in G-d's eternity.
The imperative to worship Him exclusively and no foreign false gods.
The belief that G-d communicates with man through prophecy.
The belief that the prophecy of Moses our teacher has priority.
The belief in the divine origin of the Torah.
The belief in the immutability of the Torah.
The belief in divine omniscience and providence.
The belief in divine reward and retribution.
The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era.
The belief in the resurrection of the dead.
Any Jew who rejects any of these is considered an apostate. Though most non-Orthodox Jews are exempted from the negative aspects of that category, because most of them don't know better, having been raised outside of Judaism.
If you want a really excellent description of a fairly standard view of the afterlife in Judaism, check out the essay, "The Real You", by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. There's a list of essays by R' Kaplan here.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Nice screen name Lisa.
Thanks. <smile>
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
"Why, this is hell, nor are we out of it."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: While Jews agree that the souls of Jews and non-Jews are in some (not easily defined) way different, the notion that non-Jews do not have souls is not generally accepted.
It does exist among some Jewish thinkers. So you will hear it on occasion, particularly among some segments of the Jewish population.
Back to our good friends at Chabad. <sigh>
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not just them. And I was being vague on purpose . . .
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:While Jews agree that the souls of Jews and non-Jews are in some (not easily defined) way different.
I find that concept to be very deeply disturbing and fundamentally racist.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Converts gain a Jewish soul. So how is it racist?
Additionally, as Stephan pointed out above, it is actually easier for non-Jews to fulfil their task in this world and achieve a place in the World to Come than it is for Jews.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:While Jews agree that the souls of Jews and non-Jews are in some (not easily defined) way different.
I find that concept to be very deeply disturbing and fundamentally racist.
Racist seems like the wrong word. Sectist? Race just seemed off.
Not only that, while its quite possible the differences could be Jewish souls > Gentile souls, I wouldn't assume it has negative aspects Rabbit.
Rivka did not in anyway specifically state the nature of the differences at all.
Though if any Jewish folks want to elaborate on how they think they might be different thats fine.
I was also wondering why it is that in the sense of form, the Jewish description of God very closely resembles many Christian models. Or if not could you clarify, I am getting the impression that
God is without form, he is everywhere but in not particular place at once.
That particular seemed to be the gist of things.
I'd appreciate a Jewish description of God. If anybody feels up to it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
While the United States Supreme Court may have ruled that "separate but equal" is not valid for education, it has yet to become a law of nature.
The souls of men and women are also different. Judaism is about differences. Distinctions. It's a very basic concept with us. A Kohen is not the same as a Levi is not the same as a Yisrael. A Jew is not the same as a non-Jew. A man is not the same as a woman. A mamzer is not the same as a non-mamzer. A convert is not the same as a born Jew. An adult is not the same as a child.
All of these have areas of commonality. And all of them have areas where they differ.
If you find the concept to be disturbing and racist, it's because you're making assumptions about what we mean by it that are entirely unjustified.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd appreciate a Jewish description of God. If anybody feels up to it.
I don't have time for a long one right now, but you might want to read an essay I once wrote. It's here, on my website. You can ignore the first few paragraphs, since they deal with Objectivism, which is a whole other deal. But starting under the line, about 5 paragraphs down, is an answer.
You'll notice that a lot of what's in this essay is stuff I've mentioned in different contexts earlier in this thread.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd appreciate a Jewish description of God. If anybody feels up to it.
I don't have time for a long one right now, but you might want to read an essay I once wrote. It's here, on my website. You can ignore the first few paragraphs, since they deal with Objectivism, which is a whole other deal. But starting under the line, about 5 paragraphs down, is an answer.
You'll notice that a lot of what's in this essay is stuff I've mentioned in different contexts earlier in this thread.
I read it, existing in God's, "Memory" seems alittle hard for me to grasp. Almost as if we don't really exist physically, but we are more of a dream that is playing out in God's mind. I dunno, I hope you can give me more details later when you are not busy.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: There is no Hell for instance.
This is absolutely true . . . for certain values of "Hell."
Yup. We do believe in purgatory, though that isn't an exact translation either.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I can't speak for the movements (though that won't stop me if I feel like speaking for them anyway), but in terms of Torah Judaism, what's called "Orthodox", and which was just called "Judaism" until a few centuries ago, belief in the afterlife is one of those 13 fundamentals of faith I mentioned earlier: [...] Any Jew who rejects any of these is considered an apostate.
Well, according to Maimonides, anyway. I think it is fair to say that any congregation/movement that doesn't accept all thirteen can no longer be considered Orthodox. The status of individuals who reject one or more of them is less cut-and-dried. (It depends in part on the definitions of "rejects" and "apostate.")
quote:Still Lisa, re: non-Jews not having souls Back to our good friends at Chabad. <sigh>
Gratuitous and inaccurate! Double points!
Actually, the Ba'al HaTanya's position (upheld by the most recent Rebbe) isn't that non-Jews don't have souls at all, just that they're fundamentally extremely different from those of Jews. On the one hand, he was -- and they are -- very far from alone on that viewpoint, both in the Chassidic and wider Orthodox worlds; on the other, it's an abstract position in their case, not a practical one. (For better or for worse, Chabad's the only Jewish group I know of that does active outreach to non-Jews to follow the Noachide Laws, not to mention pouring a lot of resources into community programs benefitting Jews and non-Jews alike.)
quote:In fairness, Lisa also wrote: The souls of men and women are also different. Judaism is about differences. Distinctions. It's a very basic concept with us. A Kohen is not the same as a Levi is not the same as a Yisrael. A Jew is not the same as a non-Jew. A man is not the same as a woman. A mamzer is not the same as a non-mamzer. A convert is not the same as a born Jew. An adult is not the same as a child.
Well put, and exactly right. You might also note that a soldier is not the same as a sailor, who is not the same as a member of the air force, who is not the same as a nuclear physicist. None of them are inherently better than the others; they just carry out different roles.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd appreciate a Jewish description of God. If anybody feels up to it.
quote:Racist seems like the wrong word. Sectist? Race just seemed off.
From what has been said here, one is Jewish if ones mother is Jewish and one cannot choose not to be Jewish. In that context I think it is completely reasonable to say that Judaism is a race and it is racist to to say that the souls of Jews are different from the souls of non-Jews.
Similarly, I believe its sexist to say that the souls of men and women are different even though I also believe that is true. Inherent in that statement is the idea that men and women differ in eternal and unchangable ways which transcend the differences in the physical bodies. It is a sexist idea and even though I accept that premise, I find it disturbing.
I find it disturbing because people through history have used such ideas as a justification for mistreatment and oppression. It is far too easy to jump from the idea that men and women, black and white, Jew and non-Jew are different to the idea that one is superior to the other. Once that jump has been made, it becomes trivial to rationalize restricting the rights of the inferior group or even to deny them the most basic rights of life and liberty. In the stories of the many native American tribes, the tribes name for themselves meant "people" and other tribes were not fully considered people. This idea which rivka has claimed is accepted by all Jews smacks of that same type of tribalism which I believe to be highly dangerous.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:While Jews agree that the souls of Jews and non-Jews are in some (not easily defined) way different.
I find that concept to be very deeply disturbing and fundamentally racist.
This is different than believing that if I don't accept some guy that died almost 2000 years ago as my personal savior, I'm going to be tortured eternally after I die?
Seems like Jewish souls being different in some undefined way pales in comparison.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: [QUOTE]In fairness, Lisa also wrote: The souls of men and women are also different. Judaism is about differences. Distinctions. It's a very basic concept with us. A Kohen is not the same as a Levi is not the same as a Yisrael. A Jew is not the same as a non-Jew. A man is not the same as a woman. A mamzer is not the same as a non-mamzer. A convert is not the same as a born Jew. An adult is not the same as a child.
Well put, and exactly right. You might also note that a soldier is not the same as a sailor, who is not the same as a member of the air force, who is not the same as a nuclear physicist. None of them are inherently better than the others; they just carry out different roles.
But for me at least there is a clear distinction between the classes "sailor", "air force", and "nuclear physicist" and the types of classes Lisa mentions. Lisa classes are all things which are unquestionably outside the control of the individual. A child is not a child because he/she has chosen not to be an adult. A mamzer did not choose an illigitimat birth. A woman did not chose not to be a man. And while not everyone has the ability to be a nuclear physicist, there are many who have the ability and yet choose another field of study. It does not distrurb me to say that nuclear physicist are different from sailors because we are differentiating based on their behavior over which I believe they have some choice.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:This is different than believing that if I don't accept some guy that died almost 2000 years ago as my personal savior, I'm going to be tortured eternally after I die?
Seems like Jewish souls being different in some undefined way pales in comparison.
Why are the two being compared? That is not a belief I have ever espoused on this forum or anywhere else and I can see no logical reason why I must accept one or the other.
The simple fact that you can find more objectionable beliefs in other peoples religions is hardly a justification for the offensive beliefs you hold.
Please note that I would not ask anyone to alter their religious beliefs because I find them offensive. If it is true, you should believe it regardless of who is offended. I just find the response of "well I find the beliefs of some Christians to be even more offensive" to be poor justification.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I find it disturbing because people through history have used such ideas as a justification for mistreatment and oppression.
Is there any set of ideas held by a group in power that has not been used as a justification for mistreatment and oppression? Offhand, communism, capitalism, atheism, every sort of theism, mysticism, and rationalism all flunk that test with drooping colors.
Ideas don't repress people; people using ideas repress people. And they can and will use any tool at hand.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:While Jews agree that the souls of Jews and non-Jews are in some (not easily defined) way different.
I find that concept to be very deeply disturbing and fundamentally racist.
What's racist about it? Different isn't better or worse, it's just...different.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Ela, I take it you didn't read my second post.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Racist seems like the wrong word. Sectist? Race just seemed off.
From what has been said here, one is Jewish if ones mother is Jewish and one cannot choose not to be Jewish. In that context I think it is completely reasonable to say that Judaism is a race and it is racist to to say that the souls of Jews are different from the souls of non-Jews.
That's just silly. If Judaism was a race, you wouldn't be able to convert in. The fact that you can't convert out can't overrule the fact that you can convert in.
Judaism is not a race, though it has aspects of a race. It is not a tribe, though it has aspects of a tribe. It is not a religion, though it has aspects of a religion. It is not a nation, though it has aspects of a nation. It is not a culture, though it has aspects of a culture. It is not an ideology, though it has aspects of an ideology.
It is, in part, all of those things, yet it is none of those things. It is sui generis, one of a kind, and as such, it doesn't really matter that there is no general category into which it falls.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Similarly, I believe its sexist to say that the souls of men and women are different even though I also believe that is true.
So you have a personal issue with differences. You've swallowed the idea that to be of equal value, you must be the same. That's a real shame.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Inherent in that statement is the idea that men and women differ in eternal and unchangable ways which transcend the differences in the physical bodies. It is a sexist idea and even though I accept that premise, I find it disturbing.
You're not really making a lot of sense, here. If you accept it, and you think it's sexist, then you're basically saying that you're sexist. Fine. Then deal with your own sexism. We don't have to use your labels for things.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I find it disturbing because people through history have used such ideas as a justification for mistreatment and oppression.
That's the essence of the ad hominem fallacy. Because X has been used for evil, X must be evil. That's utterly fallacious. It's like saying "Hitler was a vegetarian, so there's something wrong with vegetarianism." Or "John Wayne Gacy used to dress up as a clown for children's birthday parties, so clowns are serial killers."
We don't need to answer for all of the abusers of a concept throughout history. We've held this way for thousands of years, and we have yet to fall down the slippery slope you're so frightened of.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Ideas don't repress people; people using ideas repress people. And they can and will use any tool at hand.
That's very poor rationalization. Tribalism (of which racism and sexism and semitims or anti-semitism are examples) is the idea that members of my tribe are fundamentally different in the eyes of God from people who are not of my tribe. That idea has nearly always lead to two sets of moral codes. One which governs how we treat the members of our tribe and another which allows us to treat members of the other tribe differently. The dualism has been used to justify war, slavery, rape and even genocide.
Certainly tribalism is not the only idea people have ever used to justify their mistreatment of other people but it has been one of the most popular for all of human history.
If you want to pursuade me that the Jewish belief that Jewish souls are different from non-Jewish souls is benign, you must persuade me that other Jewish beliefs restrain Jews from using this idea to justify a lower moral standard for dealing with non-Jews.
[ November 07, 2006, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I read it, existing in God's, "Memory" seems alittle hard for me to grasp. Almost as if we don't really exist physically, but we are more of a dream that is playing out in God's mind. I dunno, I hope you can give me more details later when you are not busy.
Okay... try this. We see creation as consisting of different realms, each further and further veiled (so to speak) from awareness of God. We're in the world we call Asiya. Above this is the world called Yetzira, and above that is the world of Briya. And so on. And when I say "above", I'm not talking physically above, but rather spiritually above. Less veiled from God's Presence.
Now picture our souls as extending through a cross-section of this creation. So that part of your soul exists in this world, while part of exists in the next, and the next and the next. Four worlds up, we actually share a kind of oversoul (Yay, Jung). Think of our separate souls that cut through all worlds as metasouls.
Now think of our bodies in this world as a kind of portal. It's the only open portal for our metasoul while we're alive and awake, except for when we use the techniques I've mentioned a few times to peek through on a higher level.
When we die in this world, all it means for our souls is that this window is closed. And perhaps another window opens in the world of Yetzira. And perhaps there's even a kind of body that we can't imagine in that world that serves the same purpose in that world that our current bodies do in this world. We know very little about what that world is like, and we're all going to find out eventually, so it isn't all that important.
For our purposes in this world, the higher worlds don't exist. We can't perceive them ordinarily. But they exist in parallel with this one, and our souls exist in those worlds in parallel with this one. So when we cease in this world, it's like casting off a shell.
I don't know. It's sometimes hard to put this kind of stuff into words.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you want to pursuade me that the Jewish belief that Jewish souls are different from non-Jewish souls, you must persuade me that other Jewish beliefs restrain Jews from using this idea to justify a lower moral standard for dealing with non-Jews.
"Must"? You crack me up. Your neuroses do not constitute something that I "must" do anything about.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Lisa, If you read carefully, which I presume you can, you will note that my statement was conditional. If you want to persuade me --- you must.
I never said you must do something about it.
Are you capable of engaging in an honest civil conversation without diliberate distortion of other peoples statements and throwing out epitets like "neuroses"?
I suppose that after your a year and a half at hatrack, I should know the answer to that question with out bothering to ask.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Lisa, If you read carefully, which I presume you can, you will note that my statement was conditional.
In which case we'll also notice that the "if" clause is missing a verb and a referrant, or that the first "that" should be an "of," but never mind that...
quote:If you want to persuade me --- you must.
Who wants to persuade you? I certainly don't.
Edited to add, a bit more verbosely: you're laying down a moral challenge in a thread specifically predicated on the notion that nobody's trying to persuade anybody of anything, and that we're strictly fielding informational questions about Judaism. Within that context, insisting on persuasion is both out of place and a bit irksome. Nothing personal.
[ November 07, 2006, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Shmuel ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:In which case we'll also notice that the "if" clause is missing a verb and a referrant, or that the first "that" should be an "of," but never mind that..
yes, that clause should have ended with an "is benign" or something like that.
quote:Who wants to persuade you? I certainly don't..
Then why did you respond?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I read it, existing in God's, "Memory" seems alittle hard for me to grasp. Almost as if we don't really exist physically, but we are more of a dream that is playing out in God's mind. I dunno, I hope you can give me more details later when you are not busy.
Okay... try this. We see creation as consisting of different realms, each further and further veiled (so to speak) from awareness of God. We're in the world we call Asiya. Above this is the world called Yetzira, and above that is the world of Briya. And so on. And when I say "above", I'm not talking physically above, but rather spiritually above. Less veiled from God's Presence.
Now picture our souls as extending through a cross-section of this creation. So that part of your soul exists in this world, while part of exists in the next, and the next and the next. Four worlds up, we actually share a kind of oversoul (Yay, Jung). Think of our separate souls that cut through all worlds as metasouls.
Now think of our bodies in this world as a kind of portal. It's the only open portal for our metasoul while we're alive and awake, except for when we use the techniques I've mentioned a few times to peek through on a higher level.
When we die in this world, all it means for our souls is that this window is closed. And perhaps another window opens in the world of Yetzira. And perhaps there's even a kind of body that we can't imagine in that world that serves the same purpose in that world that our current bodies do in this world. We know very little about what that world is like, and we're all going to find out eventually, so it isn't all that important.
For our purposes in this world, the higher worlds don't exist. We can't perceive them ordinarily. But they exist in parallel with this one, and our souls exist in those worlds in parallel with this one. So when we cease in this world, it's like casting off a shell.
I don't know. It's sometimes hard to put this kind of stuff into words.
No that helps alot. I've never thought of it like that, but its interesting.
Why don't Jews observe the year of jubilee every 50 years anymore? Is it just not practical? Or maybe they do and I just didn't realize they do.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks Rivka, never caught the part about being settled in the land of Israel by tribes as being a requisite for that, thank you for pointing that out.
I vaguely remember somebody mentioning something about animal sacrifice earlier in the thread, would sacrifices be offered again if the temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes and no. When yovel (the Jubilee year) is not observed, shmitta (the Sabbatical year) is not observed either. There are a few more laws which are dependent upon yovel.
In the case of shmitta, we observe it as a remembrance of the real shmitta. It is, today, only a rabbinic enactment, since the shmitta commanded by the Torah is not currently operative.
Among other issues, this is why the prosbul works. When shmitta is observed d'Orayta (by the authority of the Torah, rather than the indirect authority of the rabbis), prosbul may not work at all.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I thought there was some debate as to whether shemittah was currently d'oraisa or d'rabanan? I confess that as someone who has never had to deal with the matter except as a visitor, I don't know as much about shemittah as I should.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Wikipedia is a bad source. Yes, they will be performed in the future. No commandments will ever be annulled. That's what "eternal statute for your generations" means.
People who cite sources to the contrary are taking those sources out of context.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Are there Levites with proof of their heritage enough to fill that function were it restored?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wikipedia is a bad source.
Granted, but the point stands. I've heard several shiurim on the subject and while there are certainly those who concur with your perspective, what it boils down to is what Rivka said: "that is debated."
We'll find out when the time comes, I suppose.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Are there Levites with proof of their heritage enough to fill that function were it restored?
The short answer is: could be. Plus tradition holds that Elijah the Prophet will return at the appropriate time and sort out everyone's actual lineage, though I'm not clear on where that would fall in the overall timetable.
With that said... this may be one of the least of the difficulties to overcome in order to re-establish the Temple. Almost nobody pretends to know exactly how it'll happen, even those working on preparing for various aspects of it. All we know for sure is that somehow all the pieces will fall into place when they need to.
(The Book of Esther would be an excellent example of pieces of the puzzle being arranged well in advance to achieve what must have looked like a very sudden and unforseeable reversal of fortune at the time.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Are there Levites with proof of their heritage enough to fill that function were it restored?
There are far more Kohanim with a solid pedigree than there are Levites.
That said, Judaism is, among other things, a system of laws. And like all systems of law, it has a mechanism for how to deal with, and when to grant, a legal presumption.
So absolute proof may not be needed in all cases. It's something that the rabbis will need to determine when the time comes.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wikipedia is a bad source.
Granted, but the point stands. I've heard several shiurim on the subject and while there are certainly those who concur with your perspective, what it boils down to is what Rivka said: "that is debated."
We'll find out when the time comes, I suppose.
Not really. No one has the authority to set aside commandments. Not even the Sanhedrin can do that. If a putative messiah tries to do it, we'll either kill him or ignore him. But this is one of those areas that God Himself cannot change, since He locked it in tight over 33 centuries ago. If He wants to change it, He has to change it back then. And obviously, He didn't.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:There are far more Kohanim with a solid pedigree than there are Levites.
Really? Thats fascinating!
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Genetic testing has actually proven many who claim to be Kahanim and Levites actually share a common patrilineal ancestor. Whether or not that will count when the times comes is probably up for debate.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No one has the authority to set aside commandments.
That begs the question of whether the commandments at issue will be applicable then. Unless you're claiming that we all ought to be put to death for claiming that sacrifices shouldn't be carried out right this minute...
Like I said, we're not at all certain just how the Messianic scenario will play out. Wait and see.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Question going back to tribal affiliation, just out of sheer curiosity. What if everything in my family was reversed, meaning my father was Jewish and was part of a tribe and my mother was not Jewish. If I had married a Jewish woman, and converted in an Orthdox manner, would my children belong to the tribe of my father?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:There are far more Kohanim with a solid pedigree than there are Levites.
Really? Thats fascinating!
It stands to reason, really. A Kohen can't go into a cemetary or marry a divorcee or convert. A Levite can do any of those things. It's a lot more pertinent in the case of Kohanim.
In fact, DNA evidence shows that the vast majority of Kohanim really are legit. Link.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Question going back to tribal affiliation, just out of sheer curiosity. What if everything in my family was reversed, meaning my father was Jewish and was part of a tribe and my mother was not Jewish. If I had married a Jewish woman, and converted in an Orthdox manner, would my children belong to the tribe of my father?
Nope. First of all, a convert is not related to any of his blood relatives after converting. Two brothers who convert are no longer brothers in the eyes of Jewish law.
Second of all, a convert has no tribe regardless of blood. That's just the way it works.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, but the other online sources I found had lots of Hebrew, so I opted for one that BB could read.
I find it fascinating that you discount not only Rav Kook but the Rambam. (And yes, I am aware of alternate understandings. But that doesn't mean that no one takes them literally.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I do not discount the Rambam at all. Nor would I call what he says in his legal code "an alternative understanding" to something he wrote in a book addressed specifically to non-frum Jews.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm fascinated that you are arguing over whether something is debated.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
(BlackBlade: you can skip this message. We're just arguing about exactly what is or isn't a position Maimonides might have held regarding sacrifices.)
Granted, he does mention the restoration of sacrifices in Hilchos Malachim 11:1, ( המלך המשיח עתיד לעמוד, ולהחזיר מלכות בית דויד ליושנה הממשלה הראשונה, ובונה מקדש, ומקבץ נדחי ישראל. וחוזרין כל המשפטים בימיו, כשהיו מקודם: מקריבין קרבנות, ועושין שמיטין ויובלות ככל מצותן האמורה בתורה), though that might possibly be sidestepped by pointing out that (a) this is an introduction, and that point isn't recapitulated in the laws that follow; and (b) he doesn't explicitly specify animal sacrifices. I will grant that both are a stretch. It's been a long time since I last looked into this specific point; I remember it ending up as still a disputed question, but not precisely how that was arrived at.
On the whole, given the wide multiplicity of viewpoints and uncertainty of the divisions between the Messianic Age, the World to Come, and the stages in between (and/or following), I think it's fair and appropriate to punt the question. (ולעולם לא יתעסק אדם בדברי ההגדות, ולא יאריך בדברי מדרשות האמורים בעניינים אלו וכיוצא בהן; ולא ישימם עיקר--שאינן מביאין לא לידי אהבה, ולא לידי יראה. וכן לא יחשב הקיצין; אמרו חכמים, תפוח דעתן של מחשבי קיצין. אלא יחכה ויאמין בכלל הדבר, כמו שביארנו)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm fascinated that you are arguing over whether something is debated.
<blink> I'm fascinated that that's fascinating. I guess it must seem strange to someone not used to this.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: (The mere fact that he details the laws of sacrifices doesn't provide any evidence in itself; the Rambam is known for including halachos that will never be practically relevant.)
Actually, that's not true. What makes you think that anything in Hilchot Mamrim, even Ben Sorer uMoreh, won't be relevant? And if you've ever learned through the Sefer HaMitzvot and the Rambam's introduction to the Mishnah Torah, he actually goes through and enumerates what things are and are not included in the 613 mitzvot he presents. One of the rules he sets down for himself is that things that were only the law for a time. Such as laws that were only in effect during the first 14 years under Joshua, or the laws having to do with people or animals going onto the mountain during Matan Torah (the Revelation at Sinai).
If it's in the Mishnah Torah, it's because the Rambam held that it was a mitzvah for the past and for the future (and for the present, if it's possible).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have some questions about Maimonides. I know that he was a late 12th century Rabbi whose writings are considered virtual canon (forgive me if that is the wrong word) among Orthodox Jews. I also understand that his teachings were extremely controversial during his life time.
Since Maimonides lived after the era of the prophets, why are his writings considered so important to Orthodox Jews? When exactly did they become accepted? What were the competing schools of thought during his life? Are divisions between the different Jewish schools today based on acceptance/rejection of Maimonides? Are they related to the reasons he was controversial during his own life or are the divisions in modern Judism based on solely modern interpretations.
[ November 08, 2006, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm fascinated that you are arguing over whether something is debated.
<blink> I'm fascinated that that's fascinating. I guess it must seem strange to someone not used to this.
Oh no. I've engaged in fairly similar discussions with in my own field of scholarship, some of them here at Hatrack. Though the act of debating whether something is debated seems contradictory, that is only because the term "is debated" is poorly chosen. I assume that in this case what is really meant is "is disputed by recognized authorities" or "is a source of controversy among leading scholars".
What I find fascinating is that the 3 orthodox Jews who are here have such differences in who they recognize as authorities and how they understand the teachings of those authorities on this question. I find that fascinating because Orthodoxy (and by this I mean all Orthodox and not just Jewish Orthodoxy) has a tendency to present itself in immutable absolutes which leave no room for interpretation.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
From just the little I have studied on Orthodoxy, there is definitely differences in interpretation. It was one of my favorite arguments in the book I mentioned earlier, One People, Two Worlds.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Actually, that's not true. What makes you think that anything in Hilchot Mamrim, even Ben Sorer uMoreh, won't be relevant?
Because the Gemora explicitly says that Ben Sorer uMoreh is strictly there to be learned, but will never actually be applicable? (Sanhedrin 71a: אלא לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר)
A mitzvah, yes. Practically applicable, never.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It is not true that the Rambam's writings are canon, virtually or otherwise. His Thirteen Principles of Faith (longer version) are accepted as fairly canonical, but he didn't make a single one up. He simply took various accepted ideas, and formulated them in his own words. In fact, that is what many of his books do, although his own opinions and side comments are naturally interspersed as well.
Not only are his writings not canon (at least, not to most Orthodox Jews), his controversy has been exaggerated. And was within his lifetime. Several rabbis who went to confront him found that his detractors had spread false rumors based on ignorance or malice or both. Most of his loudest detractors were themselves quite controversial.
However, it is absolutely true that some specifics of his writings remain hotly controversial, especially those influenced by Aristotle. One almost never examines just the Rambam on an issue. Generally, one would also see what the Ramban (Nachmanides) (and perhaps the Maharal) have to say -- at the very least. (The Rambam was a rationalist, the Ramban a mystic, and the Maharal was a bit of both.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm fascinated that you are arguing over whether something is debated.
<blink> I'm fascinated that that's fascinating. I guess it must seem strange to someone not used to this.
Oh no. I've engaged in fairly similar discussions with in my own field of scholarship, some of them here at Hatrack. Though the act of debating whether something is debated seems contradictory, that is only because the term "is debated" is poorly chosen. I assume that in this case what is really meant is "is disputed by recognized authorities" or "is a source of controversy among leading scholars".
What I find fascinating is that the 3 orthodox Jews who are here have such differences in who they recognize as authorities and how they understand the teachings of those authorities on this question. I find that fascinating because Orthodoxy (and by this I mean all Orthodox and not just Jewish Orthodoxy) has a tendency to present itself in immutable absolutes which leave no room for interpretation.
We didn't come up with the term Orthodox. That was foisted upon us by the Reform movement.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Actually, that's not true. What makes you think that anything in Hilchot Mamrim, even Ben Sorer uMoreh, won't be relevant?
Because the Gemora explicitly says that Ben Sorer uMoreh is strictly there to be learned, but will never actually be applicable? (Sanhedrin 71a: אלא לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר)
A mitzvah, yes. Practically applicable, never.
That's one view in the Gemara. Another view is stated by one of the Tannaim (I believe) who said that there was such a case, and he saw the grave. (למעשה הוא אמר שהוא ישב על קברו אבל זה נשמע מגעיל באנגלית)
In any case, it is the halakha, and will never not be the halakha. The same is true of the sacrifices.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, it is the halakha, and will never not be the halakha. The same is true of the sacrifices.
Never said it wasn't halacha. The key word was "practical."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have some questions about Maimonides. I know that he was a late 12th century Rabbi whose writings are considered virtual canon (forgive me if that is the wrong word) among Orthodox Jews.
I wouldn't say that. His code of law is considered highly authoritative, but that's due to the extremely high level of scholarship of the work.
The rabbis can be broken up historically into historical stages.
The sages up to and including the Men of the Great Assembly (during the Persian Empire) were called Soferim, or Scribes.
Those from that point up until Hillel the Elder (1st century BCE) are called Zugot, or Pairs.
Those from Hillel through the finalizing of the Mishnah (2nd century CE) are called Tannaim.
Those from that point through the finishing of the main work of the Gemara (about the 6th century CE) are the Amoraim.
The Savoraim existed for about a generation after that.
The Geonim were the heads of the academies in Babylon, and went through about the end of the 10th century CE.
The Rishonim were next, and ran through the 15th century. Maimonides was a Rishon.
After that were the Achronim. I don't know if we're still in the period of the Achronim, or if that ended and we're in some other period.
We have a general rule that rabbis from a later period can't argue with rabbis from an earlier period. Rashi (c.970) can have a different opinion on what it says in the Talmud than the Rambam does, but neither one of them can argue with stuff from the Talmud. So in a sense, there's a certain type of semi-canonization, in that when a period ends, the material from the preceding period can't be disputed. On the other hand, if the Rambam says X, and Rashi says Y, later rabbis are entitled to say that they think Rashi's views on the issue make more sense. But if there wasn't another Rishon saying Y, we wouldn't be able to dispute the Rambam saying X.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I also understand that his teachings were extremely controversial during his life time.
Not really. The main controversy was that the Rambam wrote his code of law without giving the sources. It was a procedural thing. It may seem strange to you that such a thing would cause a great controversy, but that's us. In any case, later rabbis went and wrote compositions linking every single thing the Rambam said with its source in the Talmud. Those are printed surrounding the text of the Rambam's code in most editions.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Are divisions between the different Jewish schools today based on acceptance/rejection of Maimonides?
Nah.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Are they related to the reasons he was controversial during his own life or are the divisions in modern Judism based on solely modern interpretations.
If you mean the various movements, that's another story entirely. I'll give you the answer to that, and then Paul and Mrs. M and others can tell me I'm a poopy-head.
When the Enlightenment hit, all of a sudden, a lot of places were willing to accept Jews as people. But it was conditional, implicitly, on Jews acting like everyone else. You can't really have it both ways, right? If you want to stay separate and have separate food and stay by yourselves one day a week and so on, you can't really expect to be embraced as being like everyone else.
So a lot of Jews, tired to death of all the pogroms and such, jumped for the opportunity. They threw off a lot of things that would keep the non-Jews from seeing them as "just folk".
There are stories of Jews coming to America, and throwing their tefillin (prayer phylacteries) overboard as soon as they got on the ship from the old country.
But they felt bad about it. How not? We'd gone through so much, and here they were, blowing off everything that'd ever been important to us.
A lot (most) Jews, upon arrival in New York, found that most jobs were only available to them if they'd work on Saturdays. They needed to feed their families, right? Some of them said, "Forget it. We may be hungry, but we're not going to desecrate Shabbat." But many of them bent to what they saw as necessity.
There are people who can do something they think is wrong, and maintain their principles on the inside. You know, never make excuses, and just do what they feel they need to do, but recognize that it's not right. But that's rare. For most people, it's a really untenable situation.
This created a demand. A need for someone who would tell them they were okay. And the demand created the supply. A supply of rabbis and lay people who decided to come up with an ideology for why eating pig was actually okay. For why working on Shabbat was actually okay. These people called themselves the Reform movement, and they modeled themselves consciously on Protestantism (Reform, after the Reformation). In the early days, they'd have their main services on Sundays, and their rabbis and cantors would wear black robes. It was all very high church.
A little over a hundred years ago, the Reformers pushed a little too hard, and the conservative wing of their movement broke away, calling itself the Conservative movement. They came up with a different ideology to help justify not being Torah Jews any more, but were more conservative about the way in which they moved away from tradition.
Those are the main movements. Neither one of them was founded upon any ideology or school of thought whatsoever. They were responses to a social need. They are both highly demand-driven. By which I mean, if the membership really wants something, they'll generally find a way to permit it. In the case of Reform, fast. In the case of Conservative, more slowly.
They're cultural movements. They aren't schools of thought within Judaism, but rather movements of Jews who don't observe Judaism.
Fire away, Paul.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, it is the halakha, and will never not be the halakha. The same is true of the sacrifices.
Never said it wasn't halacha. The key word was "practical."
A subjective term. If the conditions for a ben sorer umoreh were to happen, the halakha would pertain, and we'd do it. Same with the sacrifices. When the Temple is rebuilt, we'll offer them.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Since Maimonides lived after the era of the prophets, why are his writings considered so important to Orthodox Jews?
This might be a good time to reiterate that prophecy has no place in matters of determining Jewish law.
Anyway. It's not so much that Maimonides is univerally accepted, but that he wrote a major codification of Jewish law. It was designed to cover the complete range of legal topics whether or not they were relevant to day-to-day life... which was not the case for most later codifiers.
This has a few effects, one being that there are some subjects on which there are few other major halachic [Jewish law] authorities to have made a clear ruling. Subjects like prophecy and the Messiah being cases in point. If we were discussing laws of kosher or Shabbos or something else along those lines, (a) we'd be probably citing later authorities, and (b) we'd probably be agreeing more.
Another effect is that Maimonides provided a useful framework for discussion to form around, even among those who disagreed with him. In many cases, he's used as a starting point before moving on to more accepted rulings.
(It also depends on the community. The Sephardic tradition tends to follow Maimonides' rulings more than the Ashkenazic tradition.)
The above regards his legal writings. As Rivka says, his philosophical writings have never stopped being hotly debated.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I don't know if we're still in the period of the Achronim, or if that ended and we're in some other period.
We're still in the period of the Achronim. But I'm pretty sure no one gets referred to as an Achron until they've been dead at least 20 years. Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: (למעשה הוא אמר שהוא ישב על קברו אבל זה נשמע מגעיל באנגלית)
(The actual wording turns out to be אמר ר' יונתן אני ראיתיו וישבתי על קברו but the point is taken.)
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: We're still in the period of the Achronim.
Predictably, this too is debated, though I'm pretty sure that's still the majority viewpoint. The dividing line between the preceding groups has been kinda fuzzy, and probably could be pointed to only in hindsight. This may hold true here, too.
(I've heard that the Chofetz Chaim held he was the last of the Achronim, while others from his generation disagreed, but I've never actually seen that backed up in print. There definitely are those who view him as a throwback on the stature of the previous generation, such as has been found at the other generational transitions.)
I'm trying, and failing, to remember the name that's been proposed for the current generation by those who consider it a new one. Something along the lines of "the collectors," I think.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: We're still in the period of the Achronim.
Predictably, this too is debated, though I'm pretty sure that's still the majority viewpoint.
My rav says it's true, so it must be. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: This has a few effects, one being that there are some subjects on which there are few other major halachic [Jewish law] authorities to have made a clear ruling. Subjects like prophecy and the Messiah being cases in point.
Actually, to the best of my knowledge, there've only been two codifications that dealt with everything, including things like sacrifices, which won't be applicable again until the Temple is rebuilt. The other one was written at the beginning of the 20th century, and is called the Aruch HaShulchan/Aruch HaShulchan HeAtid.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: I'm trying, and failing, to remember the name that's been proposed for the current generation by those who consider it a new one. Something along the lines of "the collectors," I think.
Tachtonim.
Sorry. <grin>
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: I'm trying, and failing, to remember the name that's been proposed for the current generation by those who consider it a new one. Something along the lines of "the collectors," I think.
Tachtonim.
Sorry. <grin>
I've heard that one before, but it's still funny.
[For the non-Hebrew speakers: it doesn't matter what language you use, a play on words involving "underwear" will always be funny. It's a universal law of comedy.]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Why is it impossible for another tabernacle to be used seeing as how that was the rational used so that in the absense of a temple, sacrifice could still be offered.
Since there WAS a temple does that then mean you cannot go back to the previously used method of a tabernacle, until such a time that the temple is once again available?
I ask because at least for Mormons, if there is no temple, temple ordinances can still be performed in the privacy of the mountains.
Or is this one of those things where its safer to just wait for the Messianic period to clear things up?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: ask because at least for Mormons, if there is no temple, temple ordinances can still be performed in the privacy of the mountains.
I'd like to see a reference for that because I don't believe its accurate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Since there WAS a temple does that then mean you cannot go back to the previously used method of a tabernacle, until such a time that the temple is once against available?
Correct.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote: ask because at least for Mormons, if there is no temple, temple ordinances can still be performed in the privacy of the mountains.
I'd like to see a reference for that because I don't believe its accurate.
D/C 124:29-31
I am trying to find the scriptures that state the mountains as an acceptable spot for temple endowments. But I am positive that during the time this revelation was given, members of the church were doing proxy baptisms for their dead in rivers right along side baptisms for the living.
Sorry for the derailment of the thread folks.
/derail.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
BB, That reference pretty much contracts your assertion. If I recall correctly, when JS first taught the doctrine of baptism for the dead, there were numerous baptism performed in the Mississippi river. This practice was stopped almost immediately and no more baptisms for the dead were performed until the temple was built. Similar stories are are told regarding some of the other temple ordinances. It appears that the ordinances were performed for JS and some of the apostles prior to the completion of the Nauvoo temple. This was a one time exception and not a general principle. After the saints fled Nauvoo and the Nauvoo Temple was destroyed, no temple ordinances were performed until the endowment house (a temporary temple) was built. So while I will agree that in the earliest years temple ordinances were performed before temples were built, I have seen no suggestion that they may in general be performed in the mountains whenever a temple is not available.
In fact, church history is much more consistent with the Jewish position. Once the Nauvoo temple was built, God no longer accepted ordinances performed outside a temple even during the period after the Nauvoo temple was built and before the next temple was built.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: I'm trying, and failing, to remember the name that's been proposed for the current generation by those who consider it a new one. Something along the lines of "the collectors," I think.
Tachtonim.
Sorry. <grin>
hahahahaha i think i'll stick with Achronim...
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:I ask because at least for Mormons, if there is no temple, temple ordinances can still be performed in the privacy of the mountains.
This is accurate. Brigham Young held endowmentsessions on Ensign Peak just north of Salt Lake City. Indeed, an endowment house, which was specifically a provisional substitute for temples, was constructed during Young's presidency. This was necessary given that it was thirty years after the exodus from Nauvoo before a new temple was built and even longer before there was one on the Wasatch Front. Once the SLC temple was completed the endowment house was removed.
See David Buerger's book Mysteries of Godliness and Tom Alexander's Mormonism in Transition for more information.
Edited for commas. I'm kind of punchy today.
[ November 09, 2006, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: MattB ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
So General Sax's thread got me thinking, though Ill say now I would be quite upset if this thread went the way of that thread.
That and I don't really like that the thread ended on a note of Mormon Doctrine.
I was wondering what are the current perceptions of the Messiah? Are there non Messianic Jews? Of those who do believe is there a consistent view of who he will be? What are the signs of his coming? What will he do? Will he ultimately die, or is he eternal?
I guess I just want to get a feel for how Jews see the Messiah. Anything you guys can offer me is appreciated.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I would avoid using the term "Messianic Jew" -- it means something rather different.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction Rivka
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
If you're interested, there's a novel called Murderer in the Mikdash, which takes place in Israel, during the transitional period after the Messiah comes. I liked it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hey, if Gil Student liked it, I have to read this book.
Thanks for the recommendation, Lisa.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: If you're interested, there's a novel called Murderer in the Mikdash, which takes place in Israel, during the transitional period after the Messiah comes. I liked it.
Perhaps Ill take a look at it, seriously.
I vaguely remember reading a novel once in 6th grade where its set just before 0CE and a robin hood like character who flouts the Romans is believed by many to be the Messiah. A boy joins this band and believes it more and more until he is ultimately let down. I do not remember how it ends, but I am pretty sure Jesus is never mentioned. I wish I could remember the name of the book.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: If you're interested, there's a novel called Murderer in the Mikdash, which takes place in Israel, during the transitional period after the Messiah comes. I liked it.
And there's your review for it, right on Amazon!
I'll see if they have it at my public library.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry to dredge up this thread I know thread necromancy is not exactly kosher but Blayne's thread is not very interesting to me right now and I had another question. Also, I kinda miss Dagonee posting in these boards.
Lisa and I discussed the temple and she seemed adamant that it needed to be rebuilt. Does the temple need to exist on the same plot of land as Solomon's temple, or will anywhere in the holy land suffice? Obviously Herod's temple differed from Solomon's in design, but the MT does a pretty decent job of describing Solomon's temple. What would be essential features (rooms more specifically) of a rebuilt temple?
2nd Kings mentions a "brasen sea" that was stolen from the temple by the Chaldees. Is that some sort of baptismal font? I vaguely recall a religious professor telling me that baptism used to exist in Judaism. I don't know much on the subject but is there any sort of baptism in the Jewish faith or has there been? If it isn't a font what purpose did the brasen sea serve?
Temples at least in the MT are described as "The House of G-d" If the temple were rebuilt is there some sort of rite or artifact (like the an ark of the covenant) that would in essence dedicate the structure as being the house of G-d?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Does the temple need to exist on the same plot of land as Solomon's temple
Yes. The Bais Hamikdash can only be built on the Har haBayit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Also, did you read the book Lisa recommended? Not only is it quite good, I think it might answer many of your questions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rivka: I haven't had a chance to read it, it wasn't at my library, but I've kept an eye out for it at book deals and what not. But with so many glowing recommendations I might just have to buy it. I should have some space for a book pretty soon once I finish Bitterwood and Dragonforge.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If you were closer, you could borrow my copy. Alas!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa and I discussed the temple and she seemed adamant that it needed to be rebuilt. Does the temple need to exist on the same plot of land as Solomon's temple, or will anywhere in the holy land suffice? Obviously Herod's temple differed from Solomon's in design, but the MT does a pretty decent job of describing Solomon's temple. What would be essential features (rooms more specifically) of a rebuilt temple?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: 2nd Kings mentions a "brasen sea" that was stolen from the temple by the Chaldees. Is that some sort of baptismal font? I vaguely recall a religious professor telling me that baptism used to exist in Judaism. I don't know much on the subject but is there any sort of baptism in the Jewish faith or has there been? If it isn't a font what purpose did the brasen sea serve?
The link I gave above, if you go to the bottom of the page, shows the sea, which was used by the priests to wash their hands and feet before going into the Temple or bringing sacrifices there.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Temples at least in the MT are described as "The House of G-d" If the temple were rebuilt is there some sort of rite or artifact (like the an ark of the covenant) that would in essence dedicate the structure as being the house of G-d?
Well, the ark wasn't present in the Second Temple, and it still counted. But yes, there would be a dedication ceremony.
Oh, and the high court of the Jewish people, the Sanhedrin, will be headquartered on the Temple Mount, adjacent to the Temple itself.
This page has some videos about some of the preparations that are already underway.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thanks Lisa, those are fascinating links, I'll look em over now.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Isn't the site of the Second Temple now a Moslem holy place? You would start a war if you rebuilt the Temple on the same site.
And there is no indication the Ark of the Covenant does not still exist. It is probably still in the cave where Jeremiah and his Levite companions hid it, just prior to the Babylonian conquest. In the list of artifacts the Babylonians took from the Temple, the Ark is not mentioned. Nor is it included in the list of artifacts belonging to the house of God that were returned from Persia. Furthermore, there is no historical account from any source that indicates the Ark of the Covenant was ever disturbed since it was hidden.
When the Ark of the Covenant is found (and of course, it is NOT in a warehouse at Area 51), that will have to have a profound impact. Would the Israelis use that as an excuse to try to rebuild the Temple?
I would be more interested in the impact on the world when the tables of stone containing the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God, are revealed.
In light of Numbers 15:38, 39, I wonder if the stone tablets are blue. Perhaps even sapphire blue, like the throne of God in Ezekiel 1:26 (compare Exodus 24:10).
Where would the Israelis find anyone who could touch the Ark, without being struck dead? In the Bible, only the Levites were allowed to touch the Ark. It would be interesting if no Jew anywhere could be found who could touch it and survive, and then finally some Christian ministers who believe in keeping all the commandments were allowed to touch it and bring it out.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Where would the Israelis find anyone who could touch the Ark, without being struck dead?
Oh, that's easy. We've got Chuck Norris on speed dial.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Did Ron's last post strike anyone else as profoundly bizarre?
1) Most Jews await the age of the messiah and the craziness that will probably ensue at the time. At present, the vast majority of Jews (religious and otherwise) do not have secret plans to start wars against the Muslims to remove the dome of the rock and rebuild the temple.
2) Most ISRAELIS are secular. They would be very unhappy should the Messiah come.
3) Most Orthodox Jews still believe that they are in Galut - Exile. Even though many Jews live in the holy land, Jews are still at the mercy of the whims of the nations of the world. The dome of the rock is perhaps the biggest symbol of this.
4) Jews still have Priests and Levites. Any Jews you know with the last name Cohen or Katz? They are descendents of the priestly families. Any Lowensteins? Lowe? Rob Lowe, the levite could be carrying the Ark.
5) Religion isn't stupid. It is a reflection of God's will. Silly calculations like - oh, why not ask the people in the diaspora to stop reproducing so the majority of people could be in Israel, or what will happen because no one can touch the ark - is ridiculous. I doubt God is such a bureaucrat.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Many of Ron's posts on religion strike a lot of people as profoundly bizzare. Which is why many people have given up discussing it with him. Please don't take the fact that there aren't a bunch of Christians jumping in to say "that's not what we believe" to indicate that he is speaking for anyone besides himself.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Nah, i realized that long ago. With a billion Christians, the personality possibilities are endless.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Is that really bizarre or just wish fulfilment? It seems like the ark being discovered and then handled only by this specific group of Christians (all commandments?) would be something that Ron would be very happy to see.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Where would the Israelis find anyone who could touch the Ark, without being struck dead?
Oh, that's easy. We've got Chuck Norris on speed dial.
Who knew there existed a Chuck Norris joke that not only didn't make me roll my eyes, it actually made me laugh?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Religion isn't stupid. It is a reflection of God's will.
Unless God doesn't actually exist, in which case religion is stupid.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Isn't the site of the Second Temple now a Moslem holy place? You would start a war if you rebuilt the Temple on the same site.
It's going to happen eventually, one way or another.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And there is no indication the Ark of the Covenant does not still exist. It is probably still in the cave where Jeremiah and his Levite companions hid it, just prior to the Babylonian conquest.
Who said it doesn't exist? King Josiah (not Jeremiah) hid it away under the Temple Mount. But it was not in the Holy of Holies of the Second Temple.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: When the Ark of the Covenant is found (and of course, it is NOT in a warehouse at Area 51), that will have to have a profound impact. Would the Israelis use that as an excuse to try to rebuild the Temple?
In order to get to the Ark, we'll have to plow up the Temple Mount, which is something we'll be doing in the process of building the Temple. So there's no way it could become an excuse for the building.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I would be more interested in the impact on the world when the tables of stone containing the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God, are revealed.
I'm sure someone will try and check for fingerprints.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Where would the Israelis find anyone who could touch the Ark, without being struck dead?
<snicker> Why should that be a problem? I mean, aside from the fact that Uzzah didn't die only because he touched it, but because he tried to steady it, rather than relying on God to take care of it, we can always move it by its staves.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In the Bible, only the Levites were allowed to touch the Ark. It would be interesting if no Jew anywhere could be found who could touch it and survive, and then finally some Christian ministers who believe in keeping all the commandments were allowed to touch it and bring it out.
And then ET would make the bicycle fly. Wait, is that the same movie?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: 4) Jews still have Priests and Levites. Any Jews you know with the last name Cohen or Katz? They are descendents of the priestly families. Any Lowensteins? Lowe? Rob Lowe, the levite could be carrying the Ark.
Well. There are plenty of Cohens and Katzes these days who aren't Cohanim. A growing number who aren't even Jewish, R'L. There are families that are known to be Kohanim meyuchasim, though, who have records. The Rapaport and Atlas families are among them.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: I would be more interested in the impact on the world when the tables of stone containing the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God, are revealed.
How exactly would we know they were written by God and not some dude with a chisel?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote: I would be more interested in the impact on the world when the tables of stone containing the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God, are revealed.
How exactly would we know they were written by God and not some dude with a chisel?
It would be like the crystal skulls no sign of tool marks anywhere. *wonders how long we can keep tying Indiana Jones to this*
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
There'll be about a liter and a half of manna in there as well. And a staff that flowered (and is probably still in flower. And the broken pieces of the first tablets. And best of all (from my POV), a copy of the Torah (five books of Moses) written in Moses' own hand. The only one remaining of the 13 he wrote.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Except the "Torah" that Moses wrote was a list of 611 commandments.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
First of all, the number you're looking for is 613. If you're going to be a troll, at least be an accurate troll. Second of all, the Torah Moses wrote went from "In the beginning" at the beginning of Genesis through "all Israel" at the end of Deuteronomy.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
611. Look at the gematria.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
6+1+1=8
um . . .
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
400+200+6+5=611
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah.
And that is why gematria is used for "divrei cute" rather than "divrei serious". Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I wanted to say that I wasn't here when this thread got started and so I missed it; thus I'm glad it got revived, I've enjoyed re-reading it. Well, to be honest (confession!) I skipped some of the arguments but that's hardly the point. I wanted to thank those who had participated (both good questions and good answers) it's been enlightening to me though I hardly claim to have understood all of it.
One thing, I know no one cares because a) This thread isn't about Mormon doctrine, and b) This was posted in November, 2006 but...
quote:We hold (and I know that Mormonism doesn't, so this is another difference) that God is omnipotent
It is LDS doctrine that He's omnipotent (and omniscient and omnipresent, though the last one most likely utilizes a different defenition that a lot of people... hard to tell as it can get kind of fuzy).
Anyways, sorry for that, my OCD nature made me post it, don't blame me!
I actually have a question. One of the things that stuck out to me was the diversity of beliefs within Judaism. Is there some "level" of Judaism (level of organization I guess) at which one would expect the doctrine to be the same? Or, that all those who are members of: _____ theoretically share identical beliefs (removing the human/level of understanding factor)?
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is LDS doctrine that He's omnipotent...
Yes, but you don't mean it. Your version of God has rules that He has to follow in order to remain God.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you there, Hobbes. The omnipotence of God we believe in is quite different from the common usage of the word. By the common usage, our God definitely is not omnipotent.
The LDS version of God's omnipotence is not that God can do anything, but that God can do anything that can be done. No, God cannot save us in our sins, but that doesn't detract from his omnipotence (LDS definition), because that is a thing that cannot be.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'll certainly concede the point that we use the word differently but Joseph Smith (or whoever you want to call the author of Lectures on Faith) made it clear that an essential attribute of God was omnipotence, to the point that if you don't believe that than you don't have sufficient faith to be saved. I always (as in, even when I was a non-thiest) understood the definition of "omnipotence" to be having all the power there is, which fits LDS beliefs, but I agree "can do anything" doesn't if there's no limitations placed on that sentence. However, I really didn't intend to turn this into a discussion of LDS beliefs (that's meant for a Prop 8 thread! ).
I want to clarify my previous question: it doesn't get at what I want to know so I think instead of trying to come up with the right question I'll try to explain what I want to get out of the answer. Basically, if a Jewish person tells me that their belief runs such and such, how wide can I apply this? I recognize that in any religion there will always be personal interpretations and conjectures, but is there some point at which it is reasonable to expect that two people from that same group (whatever it is) will have the same doctrine?
I recognize this is very nebulous since there will always be differences, but hopefully you'll be able to see through the confusion of sentences to what it is I actually meant.
Hobbes Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: One of the things that stuck out to me was the diversity of beliefs within Judaism. Is there some "level" of Judaism (level of organization I guess) at which one would expect the doctrine to be the same? Or, that all those who are members of: _____ theoretically share identical beliefs (removing the human/level of understanding factor)?
In all sincerity, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "doctrine."
There are a very few beliefs that are considered fundamental, such that any group that rejects one of them is ipso facto outside the boundaries of [Orthodox] Judaism. The most widely accepted formulation of these beliefs is a list of thirteen principles enumerated by Maimonides, also known as the Rambam. You can see a concise summary of those, and a possible answer to your question, on the What do Jews believe? page of Judaism 101.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, I am a little curious about something. I know a number of Jewish sects disagree on the specifics of certain interpretations of various religious requirements (just as an example). This is, as I understand it, partly why there are so many different "Kosher" certifications. If it turns out that someone has lived their whole life in loving and dutiful accordance with the wrong interpretation of the Law, what's God's POV on that from the Jewish perspective?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:In all sincerity, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "doctrine."
Nonetheless, your answer was still informative.
In all honesty I'm not sure what I mean by "doctrine" either when it comes to Judaism. I'm trying to understand that how to apply the answers in this thread, and ones I have or potentially will find later IRL. Some beliefs are clearly held by all Jews but no very many it seems. Then as we break down into groups like "Orthodox" we get a few more beliefs that are common to all. Or so it seems. I guess the real problem comes when you try to determine when you've reached the point where all beliefs that actually essential are shared as I wouldn't know how to determine what "essential" meant. But that is what I'm asking anyways. I guess to put this is a more practical light if I take something Rivka says as an "important part" of her beliefs, how far from Rivka can I get before I find it's not believed by others?
Once again I recognize this can't be nailed down with an exact answer due to the inexactness of words like "important" and "essential" but I'm hoping that clarifies it at least a little.
Hobbes Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, I am a little curious about something. I know a number of Jewish sects disagree on the specifics of certain interpretations of various religious requirements (just as an example).
The differences are pretty minor in general, but granted.
quote: If it turns out that someone has lived their whole life in loving and dutiful accordance with the wrong interpretation of the Law, what's God's POV on that from the Jewish perspective?
As with most matters of outlook, I think opinions will differ widely on that one. (They'll all agree that you're required to do your best to get it right, though.)
Ultimately, we don't know what weight God assigns to the myriad factors in one's life, only that there is a judgment, and a system of reward and punishment.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Some beliefs are clearly held by all Jews but no very many it seems.
One source of confusion might be that we'd make a distinction between "Jews" and "Judaism." With the rare exception of converts, the state of being Jewish is independent of one's religious practices and beliefs; if your mother was Jewish, you're Jewish, whether you like it or not. And there are a large number of Jews who consider themselves culturally Jewish without actually practicing Judaism. So by that definition of "all Jews," you're not going to find a consensus on anything.
quote:Then as we break down into groups like "Orthodox" we get a few more beliefs that are common to all.
This may or may not help, but unless specified otherwise, Lisa, Rivka, and I pretty much take "Orthodox" for granted when we refer to "Judaism." (Others may vary.)
quote:I guess to put this is a more practical light if I take something Rivka says as an "important part" of her beliefs, how far from Rivka can I get before I find it's not believed by others?
Would you happen to have an example of this?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Then as we break down into groups like "Orthodox" we get a few more beliefs that are common to all.
This may or may not help, but unless specified otherwise, Lisa, Rivka, and I pretty much take "Orthodox" for granted when we refer to "Judaism."
While this is true, there are some large and significant differences between the three of our perspectives. None of us is typical of an Orthodox viewpoint, I think it is safe to say. I, for example, was raised by two academics. And that's enough to make anyone a bit twisted. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Ultimately, we don't know what weight God assigns to the myriad factors in one's life, only that there is a judgment, and a system of reward and punishment.
My Calculus teacher in H.S. gave partial credit for showing your work, and I consider her quite nice and fairly just.
I must then assume, God being Ultimately Good and Just, that since I can show my work for being an atheist, I should get quite a bit of credit.
MightyCow's wager is much more fun than Pascal's. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: 400+200+6+5=611
Dude, seriously? Frum? Ex-frum? What's your deal?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I go to Virginia for shabbos and miss all the fun...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I actually have a question. One of the things that stuck out to me was the diversity of beliefs within Judaism. Is there some "level" of Judaism (level of organization I guess) at which one would expect the doctrine to be the same? Or, that all those who are members of: _____ theoretically share identical beliefs (removing the human/level of understanding factor)?
I'll give the answer that the others were too polite to give. Up until a little more than 200 years ago, there was a basic core set of beliefs shared by all Jews. There may have been individuals who differed, but there was no institutionalized difference. Some of the basic core tenets:
God exists.
God gave us the Torah (written and Oral) at Mt. Sinai. Literally, and not figuratively.
The laws of the Torah are obligatory for all Jews.
Among these laws are the requirements to keep kosher, keep Shabbat, keep family purity, etc, and with minor variations, there was a commonality of understanding about what this meant. There were minor differences between far flung communities (owing to the distance, the lack of telephones or faxes or email, and the lack of a centralized deciding body), but people who lived in one place held by the same laws.
And like I said, this situation held until the "Enlightenment". When the walls of the ghettos were relaxed, it was so liberating for some Jews that they got drunk on it. They were so enthralled by the idea that they could be part of Gentile society that the laws which kept them from being a full part of that society chafed. Even Orthodox Jews today, unless they're part of an extremely insular community, like Kiryat Yoel in New York, experience the way in which Jewish law keeps us separate. We can't make plans with our non-Jewish friends on Shabbat. We can't eat out with them unless they come with us to a kosher restaurant, and except in big cities, those are rarely available.
So a lot of Jews stopped observing. And it's not as though no Jews ever did that before. They've always been people who fell away to one extent or another. Sometimes they came back eventually, and sometimes they disappeared from the Jewish people, but it was an individual thing. But with the "Enlightenment", the numbers were huge.
When Jews went "off the path", as we say, they generally didn't try and justify it. They did what they did, but they still knew that Judaism was Judaism. And it's hard to live that way. Knowing that what you're doing is wrong, but feeling that you have to do it anyway. It makes you feel guilty, and no one likes that.
But there were so many people in this situation, that they were able to support one another, and eventually, some of them came up with rationales (rationalizations) for why it was actually okay for them to stop observing this or that commandment. "Pork was only forbidden because you can get trichanosis from it when there's no refrigeration, but now we have refrigeration, so we can eat pork." "The prophets all talked about social justice, so that's what's really important. Not all this legal stuff."
It was a bailout of sorts. Instead of debt-relief, it was guilt-relief. There was a demand for leaders who would tell them that they weren't doing wrong by abandoning Judaism; that in fact, they weren't abandoning Judaism. Rather, they were reforming Judaism. Bringing it back to its prophetic roots.
And people went for it big time. These reformers (or Reformers) were the beginning of the Reform movement. But about a century ago or so, there was a split in this movement. There was a banquet (that became known as the treyfe (non-kosher) banquet), held by the Reform movement in the US, at which shrimp and other blatantly non-kosher food was served. A lot of the people who'd gone with the Reformers felt uncomfortable going that far. Eating beef, even if it wasn't kosher, still felt like eating kosher beef. Eating shrimp and pork... that was something else entirely. So they broke away and started what became the Conservative movement. They called themselves Conservative because compared to the Reform, they were.
Today in the US, most non-Orthodox Jews have this fuzzy image in their head of Judaism always having been like Baskin-Robbins, with several "flavors" of Judaism. Meanwhile, Orthodox Jews just shake their heads and cry a little inside and hope that their family will come back.
But the movements keep coming. Back in the 1960s (I think; I don't feel like looking it up), a Reform rabbi named Sherwin T. Wine noticed that a poll of Reform rabbis showed that most of them didn't actually believe in God. Well, they didn't put it that way, but it was clear that the word "God" wasn't being used for anything like a deity. He decided (correctly, I think) that this was hypocritical. Why use the word God when you don't really mean it. So he started the "Movement for Humanist Judaism", which is explicitly atheistic.
So no, there's no common denominator of beliefs among all Jews. There's Orthodox Judaism, and there are the movements. Incidentally, "Orthodox" is a term that was originally given to us by the Reformers. It was a pejorative. But we eventually started using it ourselves.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, I am a little curious about something. I know a number of Jewish sects disagree on the specifics of certain interpretations of various religious requirements (just as an example). This is, as I understand it, partly why there are so many different "Kosher" certifications. If it turns out that someone has lived their whole life in loving and dutiful accordance with the wrong interpretation of the Law, what's God's POV on that from the Jewish perspective?
Actually, the different kosher certifications, except for a very small number of ones done by the Conservative movement, are about very minor differences. Some are just more careful about specific issues than others. In some cases more careful than is actually required by law, but there are people who prefer the extra mile. In most cases, though, the main difference between certifications is simply geographic. The rabbinic council of Baltimore has one symbol. The rabbinic councils of Boston and Chicago and so on have theirs. Most of the time, they're all equally okay. There are some, like the Triangle-K, which a lot of communities have a problem trusting, because of certain leniencies that they are known to rely on.
But as far as someone who is raised without knowing what Judaism really says, and has been sincere in their actions, a person like this is considered a "captive child", and their culpability for their non-halakhic actions is greatly (according to some, fully) diminished.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:MightyCow's wager is much more fun than Pascal's. [Evil Laugh]
I like that idea MC.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: While this is true, there are some large and significant differences between the three of our perspectives. None of us is typical of an Orthodox viewpoint, I think it is safe to say.
Oh, absolutely, on both counts.
In my case, I was frum [religiously observant] from birth. Lubavitch parents, but went to Litvish Yeshivish schools from kindergarten onward, including six years of beis medrash [seminary] after high school. I stopped being observant just before I turned 30, in 2003. The upshot of which is that I know what I'm talking about, but that it's safe to say I have Issues.
(Any terms you don't understand in the above are best ignored. They're there strictly for those who do know 'em.)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Lisa, great post.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: beis medrash [seminary]
*blink* That's probably a reasonable translation. It did startle me for a moment. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I appreciate the responses, very informative!
quote:One source of confusion might be that we'd make a distinction between "Jews" and "Judaism." With the rare exception of converts, the state of being Jewish is independent of one's religious practices and beliefs; if your mother was Jewish, you're Jewish, whether you like it or not. And there are a large number of Jews who consider themselves culturally Jewish without actually practicing Judaism. So by that definition of "all Jews," you're not going to find a consensus on anything.
Fair point, I meant those who believe and practice their (Jewish) religion, but clearly you understood that already despite my poor wording.
quote:Would you happen to have an example of this?
I think Lisa answered the thrust of my question but since you were kind enough to answer my question I guess I should answer yours, huh?
quote:Rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If an Israelite several hundred years ago from say the tribe of Levi was adopted by a Danite would he always be listed as a Levite and never as a Danite?
Correct. For sources, look at the daughters of Tzelofchad and the prophet Shmuel (Samuel) -- who was never considered a cohen, despite having been adopted and raised by one.
Here's an example, nothing special just the first I could find. Other responses made it clear that at least those who are posting here agree that this is true. My question has nothing to do with how far this bit of doctrine extends but rather how far I can assume anything like it extends? Lisa either answered that or gave me enough information to come to my own conclusions on it, but there was my example.
Hobbes Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:I go to Virginia for shabbos and miss all the fun...
Where in Virginia? I'm in Richmond and we now attend a Modern Orthodox shul (a lady in our shul laughingly refers to us as BT-in-training).
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: beis medrash [seminary]
*blink* That's probably a reasonable translation. It did startle me for a moment.
What's so startling?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M:
quote:I go to Virginia for shabbos and miss all the fun...
Where in Virginia? I'm in Richmond and we now attend a Modern Orthodox shul (a lady in our shul laughingly refers to us as BT-in-training).
That's so funny. I think that's the shul I'm attending. Knesseth Beth Israel? I'm staying at a friend who lives on Bevridge?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm jealous. We were in Virginia a couple of weeks ago for my niece's bat mitzvah, and it would have been lovely to have gone to a frum shul. That said, this time they actually let us stay in the shul's library, instead of having to rent a camper and park behind the shul.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: beis medrash [seminary]
*blink* That's probably a reasonable translation. It did startle me for a moment.
What's so startling?
Beis medrash == boys Seminary == girls Shmuel =! girl
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
It's actually nice to see the place. It's nice to see a non-NY Jewish community every once in a a while.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: It's nice to see a non-NY Jewish community every once in a a while.
You should get out more. Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by adenam:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: beis medrash [seminary]
*blink* That's probably a reasonable translation. It did startle me for a moment.
What's so startling?
Beis medrash == boys Seminary == girls Shmuel =! girl
Hehe you're right.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:Rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If an Israelite several hundred years ago from say the tribe of Levi was adopted by a Danite would he always be listed as a Levite and never as a Danite?
Correct. For sources, look at the daughters of Tzelofchad and the prophet Shmuel (Samuel) -- who was never considered a cohen, despite having been adopted and raised by one.
Here's an example, nothing special just the first I could find. Other responses made it clear that at least those who are posting here agree that this is true. My question has nothing to do with how far this bit of doctrine extends but rather how far I can assume anything like it extends? Lisa either answered that or gave me enough information to come to my own conclusions on it, but there was my example.
Ah. Yes. I had mistakenly taken "doctrine" as referring to beliefs, not practice.
As far as that goes, there's a sharp distinction between matters of halacha, or Jewish law, and hashkafa, or outlook. The former is practical, and deals with the rules for living your life. The latter embraces why you ought to do it that way, and other theoretical matters pertaining to Life, The Universe, and Everything.
My earlier post was talking about hashkafa, where there's wide variation outside of the basic defining beliefs. In matters of halacha, ideally everybody would agree on everything; in practice, thanks to millennia of diaspora and the lack of a central rabbinical court, there are minor variations among communities. However, I would stress that those are matters of fine points, stringencies, and customs.
The bit you quote above is a straightforward matter of halacha: does adoption alter one's tribal affiliation? Answer: no. Period. By contrast, Tom's question -- how does God treat somebody in a particular situation? -- is in the realm of hashkafa. There's no universal answer to that one.
(Nothing in the above is meant to give short shrift to hashkafa, which is vitally important. It just works differently.)
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
A fair point, Rivka. But it's still the best cross-cultural translation I can think of!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't disagree. It just gave me pause.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
We tend to use seminary as girls' yeshiva, but seminary in the rest of the world means a place where you study religion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
<-- neither stupid nor oblivious, just more conversant with her own culture than anyone else's
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I usually have to pause for a split second when LDS members use "seminary" in their posts. For the LDS it's religious education for high school students. For mainline Christian denominations it's graduate school.
So I totally understand rivka's mental hiccup.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Ah.
And that is why gematria is used for "divrei cute" rather than "divrei serious".
quote: Using this system, the word Torah itself was found to equal exactly 613. This might seem to be too bad, since, by the traditional count, the Torah was said to contain 613 commandments. Unless...that was precisely the point! God Himself had spoken the first two commandments directly to Israel, and then Moses took over: "Torah [that is, 611] were commanded to us by Moses as an inheritance [to be passed on] to the people of Jacob."
quote:God Himself had spoken the first two commandments directly to Israel, and then Moses took over: "Torah [that is, 611] were commanded to us by Moses as an inheritance [to be passed on] to the people of Jacob."
The source for this being the Talmud, Makkos 23b-24a.
I'd still file it under "cute mneumonic." Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Is that a mnemonic filled with hot air?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
...oops. I guess so! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:I think that's the shul I'm attending. Knesseth Beth Israel? I'm staying at a friend who lives on Bevridge?
That's my shul! We haven't been for the last 2 weeks b/c we were hit by rotovirus followed by a stomach bug. Isn't it a great congregation? We absolutely love it there. Do you have plans to come back?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Can't believe I missed you. It was beautiful. I really enjoyed Richmond. I'm part of an acapella group and one of our members lives in Richmond - we actually did some singing at shaleshuddis.
Hope you're feeling better!
(Yup - I'm sure I'll be back!)
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
What's your group called?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
The Maccabeats. Yeshiva University's Acapella group.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Noemon, why the groan?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Is the name of your group not a pun?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
A very bad one. Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
Is it possible for there to be an accapella group whose name is not a bad pun?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rockapella . . .
Ok, I see your point.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: A very bad one.
Hence the groan!
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
I assume you're the Jewish one.
Do you guys ever begin a song with "It's Hammer time!"
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm the Jewish one? We're all Jewish...
Yes - it is traditional for an acapella group to have a pun as a name.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: I assume you're the Jewish one.
Do you guys ever begin a song with "It's Hammer time!"
Worst. Movie. Ever. A million hours (that's what it felt like) that I'll never get back...
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
There was another video, with them singing their national anthem. It turns out that it's "The Star-Spangled Banner", just like ours.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: There was another video, with them singing their national anthem. It turns out that it's "The Star-Spangled Banner", just like ours.
You know they follow it up with the national anthem of the state of Israel?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm pretty sure the announcer says that...
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Why is this night different from any other night?
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: Why is this night different from any other night?
Because tonight, a co-worker of mine who is engaged has to go to what sounds like an awfully dull dinner and answer that question Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
awfully dull? then you aren't doing it right. We voluntarily stay up till about 3 in the morning - it's awesome!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
^ What he said. I'm hoping the one I'm going to tonight doesn't run quite that late though.
I'm tired!
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Not related and might have been covered, but why hasn't the temple in Jerusalem been rebuilt?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Because Moshiach (the Messiah) has not come yet.
May he come speedily and soon. Next Pesach in Yerushalayim!
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Thanks!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I have a question that has little to do with singing, youtube, or puns. Though I suppose if I tried hard enough I could include the last one ...
I've read several times that "Jewish Tradition" and "Rabbinical Teachings" declare that "Abraham followed the law before he knew it." Implying, I think, two different things. The first being that Abraham discovered the need for, and at least partially the nature of, God without anyone to teach him. Which I guess comes in the context of an idolatrous father. Second, that before it was given him, or anyone, Abraham followed the law of Moses. This second part is implied in a more iffy manner but I have seen it. Can anyone comment on the accuracy of these things from the Jewish perspective?
Also, there are many different ages given for the patriarchs from Noah down to Abraham in different texts. It's been claimed that the Jewish texts, the Masoretic that of course also form the basis of part of the KJV, were altered so that Shem was alive long enough to have been Melchizedek, and thus bypass the problem of the "chief priest" (I don't even want to get into what that means in different religions! ) in Abraham's time, to whom he paid tithes, not being a direct part of that lineage. Aspersions on Jewish record keeping aside, is there a tradition [aka 'teachng', I'm not sure about the best way to phrase that] that Melchizedek was Shem in Judaism?
Hobbes Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Armoth: I dunno, she did say on the bright side that last time there was alcohol which combined with some quality of the food made her tipsy? *shrug* There was also the claim that there seemed to be a suspicious lack of lion-dancing or fireworks for a holiday.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: Why is this night different from any other night?
Because tonight, a co-worker of mine who is engaged has to go to what sounds like an awfully dull dinner and answer that question
Traditionally it's the youngest person there who has to answer. Does your coworker know Hebrew?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
She's Chinese, hence the differing expectations on what makes an exciting holiday.
I guess she would count as the youngest because of the engagement thing.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
It's the youngest person who has to ask, not answer.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
The question and the four answers are generally all done as one recitation by the same person.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Actually, the "leader" of seder answers the questions.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Actually there's only one question.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
It's one question in four parts .
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
It's one question in one part, followed by an answer in four parts. Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: It's one question in one part, followed by an answer in four parts.
Sorry, Dobbie; Minerva's right. Why do you think it's called "The Four Questions"?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Hobbes:
On the question of the patriarchs having observed the commandments. Yes. There are many midrashim and talmudic sources that say that the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob kept the laws of the Torah before it was given.
There is a great book by Akiva Tatz called "Letters to a Buddhist Jew" - which takes questions from a Buddhist man and answers them, illustrating some of the most basic fundamentals of Judaism in a wonderful way. Maybe I enjoyed it more because I am Jewish, but ::shrug:: Aaaaanyways, he attacks this question in a cool way.
Rabbi Tatz explains that according to the Bible's genealogy, Adam was a contemporary of Noah and Noah was a contemporary of Abraham.
We are often taught (Jews in Yeshiva) that Abraham was the father of monotheism - that Abraham discovered God by observing the world and by deriving that there must be a creator. However, this is not exactly true. The people in Abraham's generation, or their parents, need only ask Adam - "Hey Adam, whose your daddy?" - Adam would reply: "God is my daddy!"
Rabbi Tatz, through use of Jewish sources explains that the people of that generation saw God has completely separate from this world. He compares worship of God to a more Christian worship - that this world is unholy and sinful, and that one must separate himself from this world to connect with God. Or to a Buddhist mentality - that one must leave the physicality of this world and enter a more spiritual realm.
What Abraham did was reject the assumption that to connect to the creator one must separate himself from the pleasures of this world. He discovered how to worship God through use of the physical world - uniting the spiritual and physical realms.
Jewish theological sources explain that the Torah does just this. Sex is not a sin, it is a commandment. Jews are commanded to rejoice on holidays with meat and wine, to enjoy life, but all according to God's precepts. The commandments of the Torah are the guidelines to use this world, to bring the spiritual to elevate the physical, and not reject it.
Back to the midrashim and talmudic sources that state the the patriarchs kept the laws of the Torah. Often, these midrashim are not meant literally but are meant to convey a certain idea. I believe that this is the idea they were trying to convey. The Patriarchs probably did keep some of the laws of the Torah, and may have even communicated with God as to the specific laws that were ultimately commanded later - but I think the point of these sources is to convey the message that the patriarchs worshiped differently than the religious men that preceded them. That they knew how to use the physical spiritually (and therefore "kept the laws of the Torah").
As for your second question. Yes. Many Jewish sources affirm that Shem was Malchizedek. Btw - in line with the answer to the previous question, Rabbi Tatz tries to show that Shem was a religious man but one who did not know how to use the physical in a spiritual way. He had to disconnect from this world in order to relate to God.
(Again, this post reflects my humble understanding and some opinion)
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Second, that before it was given him, or anyone, Abraham followed the law of Moses. This second part is implied in a more iffy manner but I have seen it. Can anyone comment on the accuracy of these things from the Jewish perspective?
There are midrashim to that effect. Whether those are meant to be taken literally is an open question; it's possible, but really not important either way.
quote:Aspersions on Jewish record keeping aside, is there a tradition [aka 'teachng', I'm not sure about the best way to phrase that] that Melchizedek was Shem in Judaism?
Yes. Though I'd say this one doesn't matter terribly much either. I'm not aware of any problem that would arise if he were somebody else.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
"Why is this night different than all other nights"
and then a demonstration of 4 differences.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
"Ma nishtana ..." actually means "How does .... differ?" The four statements are four different ways that it differs.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: These are statements, not questions.
On the contrary; they're questions. Or if you prefer to parse it that way, they're items in the overall question. In each case, the query is WHY do we act in such a manner tonight, mixing signs of degradation and opulence in such a seemingly inconsistent manner?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Not related and might have been covered, but why hasn't the temple in Jerusalem been rebuilt?
Contrary to what Rivka said, while there are views that we have to wait for the Messiah to come and the Temple to fall from the sky, these ideas have very little basis to them. In fact, Maimonides writes that one of the things a person has to do in order to be recognized as the Messiah is rebuild the Temple. Which obviously can never happen if we wait for the Messiah to come first.
The immediate reason the Temple hasn't been rebuilt is that the Muslims would be somewhat irked if we were to clear off the Temple Mount to do so. And by "somewhat irked", I mean that it would make all of the violence that they're currently engaged in, and all of the violence that they've engaged in throughout history, all rolled together, look like a schoolyard squabble by comparison.
That's not a real problem, of course. The bigger issue is that the government of the State of Israel is deeply secular. Even the religious members of the Knesset are, by and large, secular in their outlook, viewing religion as something for the home and the synagogue, but not something that has relevance on a national level. They all hate and fear the changes that will take place once the Temple is up again.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: "Ma nishtana ..." actually means "How does .... differ?" The four statements are four different ways that it differs.
You're parsing the questions incorrectly.
Why is this night different than all other nights, so that (1) while we eat leavened stuff and matzah on all other nights, we eat only matzah tonight; so that (2) while we eat other vegetables on all other nights, we eat bitter herbs tonight; so that (3) while we don't dip even once on other nights, we do it twice tonight; so that (4) while we eat either sitting or reclining on other nights, we all recline tonight?
Yes, it's a run-on sentence, but that's the sense of it. The answer begins, "We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt..."
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Contrary to what Rivka said, while there are views that we have to wait for the Messiah to come and the Temple to fall from the sky, these ideas have very little basis to them. In fact, Maimonides writes that one of the things a person has to do in order to be recognized as the Messiah is rebuild the Temple. Which obviously can never happen if we wait for the Messiah to come first.
Without addressing the merits of either side, I would just note that Lisa represents the viewpoint of a small minority here. The mainstream opinion, on religious grounds, is that it would be wrong to try to rebuild the Temple prematurely. Most hold that this would still be the case even if the land were unused by anybody else.
(Though the political ramifications do indeed add to the other religious reasons. The claim that bulldozing another religion's holy site and potentially setting off World War III is "not a real problem" is... mind-boggling, to put it mildly.)
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Armoth: I dunno, she did say on the bright side that last time there was alcohol which combined with some quality of the food made her tipsy? *shrug* There was also the claim that there seemed to be a suspicious lack of lion-dancing or fireworks for a holiday.
In addition to 4 questions there are 4 cups of wine.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Without addressing the merits of either side, I would just note that Lisa represents the viewpoint of a small minority here.
Ma nishtana?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Without addressing the merits of either side, I would just note that Lisa represents the viewpoint of a small minority here.
The Rambam says what the Rambam says. It doesn't matter how many people ignore it, it's still there.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The Rambam says what the Rambam says. It doesn't matter how many people ignore it, it's still there.
The other side would agree with that, but with the opposite intention. The Rambam sets out a longer sequence of events than you're describing: rebuilding the Temple does not come first, nor would he seem to allow for it to be attempted by anybody not otherwise qualified to be Moshiach.
At any rate, I don't think either side ignores the Rambam. They differ over how to interpret and apply what he wrote.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
So I feel the need to bring this thread back to life as I had new questions.
Somebody in church today made the comment that the Jews hold Elijah to be second only to Moses in prominence. While I don't put much stock in what the average Mormon says about Jewish beliefs I do seem to recall Lisa once explaining that there are varying degrees of ability when it comes to prophecy, and that Moses was at the top of the totem pole.
Is there some sort of actual ladder with all the prophets in the MT? Are these rankings disputed? Or is it simply that some prophets are acknowledged for their closeness with the word of G'd while others are not?
I also had another question regarding Jeremiah. In his introductory chapter (Jeremiah 1:5) we read the phrase, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and ordained you a prophet to the nations."
What does this mean to Jews? Do people have a type of existence before birth? Is this pre-ordination something specific to Jeremiah or something more applicable to all the prophets God chooses?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I've never heard that Elijah thing. I don't know where it comes from, unless they're referring to the end of Malachi, where it says that God will send Elijah to us before the "great and terrible day of God". Our tradition says that Elijah never died, which gives him a special status. In a way it gives him something that even Moses doesn't have, which is a knowledge of how the Torah has developed over the centuries.
I've always understood that statement in Jeremiah as referring to God's "foreknowledge" (a tough concept, because it's really just God's knowledge, which isn't bound by time, so "fore" doesn't mean anything there except in our frame of reference).
I just checked, and none of the commentaries I have deal much with it other than to read it as "Before you were born, I already knew that you'd be worthy of prophecy."
[ August 01, 2010, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Moses's prophecy is important as the foundation for all prophecy. There are commentaries that explain that the mass revelation at Sinai only occurred so that the people would taste what prophecy was and then go on to to be faithful to the prophecy of Moses and successive prophets.
As Lisa mentioned Elijah has a special place, especially as he relates to Messiah. There is a tradition that Elijah visits the circumcision of every boy in Israel, and that he visits the Passover meal. All over the talmud, when there is an unresolved dispute or a question that is unanswered, the Talmud writes that we leave this question unresolved until Elijah comes to resolve it for us.
But hierarchies? Not really. Jews pray to the God of Abraham, God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Not the God of Moses. There are other special significances for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, David and Solomon. And Psalms singles out Moses, Aaron and Samuel at one point. Ezekiel has a special status for having "seen" prophecy of highest heights.
So...yea.
As for Jeremiah - It's a good question. It isn't clear that everyone in the world is born with the same potential. There are different sources - some say that the level of prophecy is attainable for the regular person - if they achieve spiritual enlightenment through effort, and such (at the period of history where prophecy was possible). Others believe that it is a special potential set aside for a select group.
Read simply, Jeremiah did not just earn his status as prophet, in his case, the verse makes the point that that point in history demanded the role of Jeremiah, and so God set it up.
As for existence before birth - I'm not aware of any such doctrine beyond the metaphorical.
Posted by Hedwig (Member # 2315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Our tradition says that Elijah never died, which gives him a special status.
Neither did I.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: There is a tradition that Elijah visits the circumcision of every boy in Israel, and that he visits the Passover meal.
I always figured that the only way he could make it to everyone's seder was by borrowing Santa's sleigh. I mean, it isn't being used that time of year, right?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: All over the talmud, when there is an unresolved dispute or a question that is unanswered, the Talmud writes that we leave this question unresolved until Elijah comes to resolve it for us.
Eh. As one rabbi said at a place where I was learning, if he does that, we'll have to kill him. Prophets aren't there to settle questions of halakha. If he's able to settle it because of his direct halakhic knowledge, fine, but if he tries to settle it by prophecy, he's a false prophet, and we kill him dead.
Also, teiku is simply the Aramaic for "let it stand". The folklore that it's an acronym for tishbi yetaretz kushyoteinu u-she'eiloteinu is just that. Folklore.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: And Psalms singles out Moses, Aaron and Samuel at one point.
Sort of, but in reverse. Psalms says that like Moshe was, and like Aaron was in his priesthood, so was Samuel among those who call God's name. And the rabbis learn from that that Moses and Aaron were in their generation like Samuel was in his generation, and Samuel in his generation was like Jephthah in his generation.
That doesn't mean that Samuel's prophecy was equal to Moses'. The only person ever to prophecy as clearly as Moses was Balaam. And that was so that the nations of the world couldn't come with the claim that we had an unfair advantage with Moses.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Ezekiel has a special status for having "seen" prophecy of highest heights.
WADR, not really. On the contrary. The Sages say that Isaiah saw much more than Ezekiel, but that Isaiah was like someone raised in the palace describing the palace, while Ezekiel was like someone from the sticks describing the palace.
They also say that even a handmaiden among those who crossed the Red Sea saw more than Ezekiel ever did, prophecy-wise.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Sigh. Yes Lisa, I'm with you on Elijah and prophecy in settling of disputes. And my quote from Psalms and Ezekiel weren't to give competitors to Moses, it was just to show that Judaism has its heroes and we don't have a hierarchy, other than Moses that Moses was the most clear form of prophecy.
And I mentioned Ezekiel exactly in light of that medrash - there was a reason why it compared a handmaiden to Ezekiel rather than to Jonah or something.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:but if he tries to settle it by prophecy, he's a false prophet, and we kill him dead.
Psh, good luck. Ahab certainly was unsuccessful at the job. Plus Elijah would evade your death strokes and taunt you while doing it. It'd be positively infuriating.
I was trying to read up on this but is a "Tishbite" a person from Gilead? I've read it could also indicate that Elijah was a "stranger" but how could that be consistent with how Obadiah reacted when he ran into him on the road on his way to visit Ahab?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm not sure anyone knows what Tishbi means. It may just have been the name of the town he was born in. As far as Gilead, I'm not convinced that it's referring to the region by that name. There are indications that the word Gilead was also used for the Temple Mount, and more specifically for the Sanhedrin which had its meeting place there, adjacent to the Temple. "Is there no balm in Gilead" would also refer to that.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:but if he tries to settle it by prophecy, he's a false prophet, and we kill him dead.
Psh, good luck. Ahab certainly was unsuccessful at the job. Plus Elijah would evade your death strokes and taunt you while doing it. It'd be positively infuriating.
I was trying to read up on this but is a "Tishbite" a person from Gilead? I've read it could also indicate that Elijah was a "stranger" but how could that be consistent with how Obadiah reacted when he ran into him on the road on his way to visit Ahab?
I'd rather have Elijah taunt me than have Elisha summon two bears to kill me.
2nd Kings Chapter 2 Verses 23-24 reads:
23) And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24) And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
I'll take taunting any day.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'd rather have Elijah taunt me than have Elisha summon two bears to kill me.
Well, presumably Elisha would lose the ability to summon bears once he became a false prophet, right? Unless the bear-summoning was not actually something God did on his behalf?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
a redacted version of my favorite retelling of bible stories
quote:God will send ------- bears to eat your ------- face, and other Bible Stories
2 Kings 2:23-25
So one day, this dude named Elisha was all a prophet and ----, and walking around between prophet gigs. And some kids come out and are all "Hey baldy! What's up, cueball? How is it...having...uh...no hair? Because you don't have any so you would know." There were, like, 42 kids here. There was NOT a lot to do back then. Bald guys were like Disney World for these people.
"Hey," Elisha said, "I've got an idea: Go ---- yourselves. In the name of the Lord."
God heard the prophet's cry, and resolved to educate the young lads in a way to better respect their elders, that they could grow into the fullness of righteous worshipers of the Lord. But then he got distracted, and just sent some bears to eat them all. And lo, those bears ------- ate them all.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's what somebody makes when they go a little punch drunk getting their theology degree.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Hello.
My question: does "goyim" really mean "cattle"?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
NO.
Who starts these stupid rumors?
Goyim is plural for goy, which simply means "nation". Jews are referred to as a goy multiple times in the Torah as well, as in the phrase goy kadosh, "a holy nation". Common modern usage of goy and goyim sets them roughly equivalent to "Gentile" in English.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Oh, dear God. Figures. No. Goy means nation. Goyim is nations. Israel is called goy echad ba'aretz, which means one nation in the land.
Because of the commonness of the phrase k'chol ha-goyim (like all the nations), goyim came to mean gentiles, or non-Jews, and the singular goy came to mean a non-Jew.
The "goyim means cattle" idiocy is antisemitic babble. Given your Arabic name, I can see how you might have been exposed to it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(Hah! Won by a few seconds. )
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Who starts these stupid rumors?
It's an old one. I remember when I was reading Leo Frankowski's Conrad books, and Conrad, as narrator, explained to the readers that Jews called gentiles goyim, which meant cattle. I wrote to him, but I guess he was an antisemitic as he was misogynistic, because I never got a response.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (Hah! Won by a few seconds. )
I shouldn't have gone back and put the italics in. Darn.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah. I put mine in on edit.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The "goyim means cattle" idiocy is antisemitic babble. Given your Arabic name, I can see how you might have been exposed to it. [/QB]
Thank you for answering my question. My second question is about "anti-semetism." Why have so many nations and peoples through out history been "anti-semetic"? Did all these people suddenly and inexplicably turn hateful or did they all collectively come to see the same unpleasant aspects about Jews? Also, isn't it disturbing that Jews have these names for non-Jews and their use isn't controversial amongst Jews? It is bad for a Christian to say "heathens" or a Muslim to say "infidel" but Jews have all these disparaging terms for non-Jews.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
How about this one: isn't the Jewish law that says it's okay to practice usury upon non-Jews, but not among Jews, kind of sickening? Doesn't that effectively mean "it's okay to exploit non-Jews but not your fellow Jews"? Is it possible that this sort of behavior has historically provoked anti-semitism amongst people who hosted Jews?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
So, have you made up your mind or will you keep editing your post?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: How about this one: isn't the Jewish law that says it's okay to practice usury upon non-Jews, but not among Jews, kind of sickening?
Yes, and the way that they then take their jew gold and clutch it sinisterly and sneer their twisted grins at us from beneath their huge crooked jew noses really doesn't help that perception. I mean if only the jews could quit being so sickening all the time!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I love that this starts right before the Sabbath, when the people being attacked won't be able to respond for 24 hours (even if they wanted to).
Sa'eed, rather than anonymously attacking people you don't know, why don't you introduce yourself?
-Bok
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Do we want Sa'eed to introduce himself? I mean, this isn't really a case of a newbie getting off on the wrong foot, is it?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sure, there's always a chance. (Not much of one, but still, I'm the optimist).
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: So, have you made up your mind or will you keep editing your post?
Or you could just not borrow money, nobody's making you accept interest.
Also, I'd *really* like this thread to remain aloof from the sort of moral debates you can have on any of the other threads. TIA.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Sa'eed, rather than anonymously attacking people you don't know, why don't you introduce yourself?
Can I? Can I introduce him?
*ahem*
ladies and gentlemen, I would like you all to give a resounding welcome to
THE SOMALIAN/CLIVE CANDY'S 7th REUNION TOUR ACCOUNT
*applause*
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Also, isn't it disturbing that Jews have these names for non-Jews and their use isn't controversial amongst Jews? It is bad for a Christian to say "heathens" or a Muslim to say "infidel" but Jews have all these disparaging terms for non-Jews.
Ok people, please don't burn me at the stake for saying this but I actually think that is an interesting point. I know you all hate this guy but I'm very curious to hear some opinions about this.
Now I'm not a Jew (or Christian or Muslim for that matter) so I have no idea of the precise meanings, context or intent within the culture of all these words Jews have for other people so I can't comment on their appropriateness and have never given it any thought before but I can see where some more sensitive types might take exception.
Your rational thoughts please.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
How did I miss this thread?
Okay. Good questions that should be answered:
1) Jews have disparaging names for non-Jews.
Not true. Goyim, as mentioned above, means nations. The word goy is used to refer to the Jewish nation as well. It is colloquially used to refer to a non-Jew, as in, "he is a goy" - or a non-Jew.
If someone uses it disparagingly, it is morally abhorrent. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with Judaism if someone uses the word "goy" in a disparaging way, and only to do with racism and stupidity, which some rare Jews are capable of.
2) The differences between money-lending.
Great question. First of all, it needs to be asked whether or not money-lending with interest is inherently immoral.
I would argue that it is not. Why? Because if you don't like the fact that I'm charging you interested, don't borrow from me. I charge incredibly high rates? Great. Don't borrow from me. If I rent you my house, you expect to pay, if I rent you my money, you should expect to pay.
Now, in order to understand why Jews can lend to Jews and not to non-Jews, a complicated understanding of Judaism's position towards non-Jews is necessary. And it should be noted, that Judaism is different from other religions in the sense that the goal of Judaism isn't to make everyone Jewish, but only that everyone keep the 7 noahide commandments. Judaism's relationship with the rest of the world is kind of priestly - there is one nation with stricter commandments that is supposed to serve to help others (Jews and non-Jews alike), whether actively, or by example, to recognize God.
Because of the specific role of Jews in Judaism, Jews are meant to relate to one another in a familial way so as to create a strong sense of national identity so as to better help facilitate their role. Just as a brother or parent would lend to their brother or child without interest, Jews are forbidden to lend with interest, so as to promote this sort of kinship.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The "goyim means cattle" idiocy is antisemitic babble. Given your Arabic name, I can see how you might have been exposed to it.
Thank you for answering my question. My second question is about "anti-semetism." Why have so many nations and peoples through out history been "anti-semetic"? Did all these people suddenly and inexplicably turn hateful or did they all collectively come to see the same unpleasant aspects about Jews? Also, isn't it disturbing that Jews have these names for non-Jews and their use isn't controversial amongst Jews? It is bad for a Christian to say "heathens" or a Muslim to say "infidel" but Jews have all these disparaging terms for non-Jews. [/QB]
I would love to study sociology and Jewish History with you.
One hypothesis is that the Jews are evil.
There are many others. I urge you to be intellectually honest in pursuing your conclusion.
I'm happy to help you along the way if you have any specific proofs, amalgamations of proofs, and the like.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Ok people, please don't burn me at the stake for saying this but I actually think that is an interesting point. I know you all hate this guy but I'm very curious to hear some opinions about this.
Now I'm not a Jew (or Christian or Muslim for that matter) so I have no idea of the precise meanings, context or intent within the culture of all these words Jews have for other people so I can't comment on their appropriateness and have never given it any thought before but I can see where some more sensitive types might take exception.
Your rational thoughts please.
...and isn't it disturbing that you haven't stopped beating your wife, Wingracer? I mean, it's an interesting point.
It's not like I've given the matter any thought before, and I suppose I don't know just how you've been doing it, but I can certainly see where more sensitive types might take exception.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Understood Armoth but people seem to get touchy when you call them something they would not call themselves.
The word "barbarian" (or barbaros in ancient Greek) originally only meant "one who is not Greek." Nothing offensive there. But would you like someone calling you a barbarian?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Ok people, please don't burn me at the stake for saying this but I actually think that is an interesting point. I know you all hate this guy but I'm very curious to hear some opinions about this.
Now I'm not a Jew (or Christian or Muslim for that matter) so I have no idea of the precise meanings, context or intent within the culture of all these words Jews have for other people so I can't comment on their appropriateness and have never given it any thought before but I can see where some more sensitive types might take exception.
Your rational thoughts please.
...and isn't it disturbing that you haven't stopped beating your wife, Wingracer? I mean, it's an interesting point.
It's not like I've given the matter any thought before, and I suppose I don't know just how you've been doing it, but I can certainly see where more sensitive types might take exception.
C'mon. Let's not get riled up.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: ...and isn't it disturbing that you haven't stopped beating your wife, Wingracer? I mean, it's an interesting point.
It's not like I've given the matter any thought before, and I suppose I don't know just how you've been doing it, but I can certainly see where more sensitive types might take exception.
What? Please explain.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Understood Armoth but people seem to get touchy when you call them something they would not call themselves.
The word "barbarian" (or barbaros in ancient Greek) originally only meant "one who is not Greek." Nothing offensive there. But would you like someone calling you a barbarian?
If you were in Israel, people would call you an Ish or Isha - a Man or Woman, depending on your gender. Would you call yourself an Ish or Isha? Surely your logic isn't that we can't call people words that they wouldn't use in their own language. Otherwise we'd all stop speaking, or all learn the same language.
Goy is a word. It does not mean Barbarian. It means Nation. It is fondly used at times - a "shabbos-goy" is a non-Jew who helps out on the Sabbath.
I understand your apprehensiveness about a culture you are not familiar with. That's what this thread is for. Familiarize yourself. But I hope you are open enough to really learn about who we are.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The "goyim means cattle" idiocy is antisemitic babble. Given your Arabic name, I can see how you might have been exposed to it.
Thank you for answering my question. My second question is about "anti-semetism." Why have so many nations and peoples through out history been "anti-semetic"? Did all these people suddenly and inexplicably turn hateful or did they all collectively come to see the same unpleasant aspects about Jews? Also, isn't it disturbing that Jews have these names for non-Jews and their use isn't controversial amongst Jews? It is bad for a Christian to say "heathens" or a Muslim to say "infidel" but Jews have all these disparaging terms for non-Jews.
I would love to study sociology and Jewish History with you.
One hypothesis is that the Jews are evil.
There are many others. I urge you to be intellectually honest in pursuing your conclusion.
I'm happy to help you along the way if you have any specific proofs, amalgamations of proofs, and the like. [/QB]
In no way do I believe any group of human beings is "evil." I suspect that Jews have unhealthy attitudes towards non-Jews, and that the tribal behavior of Jews has throughout history inevitably provoked tribalism in others. I suspect this tribalism stems from the usury laws and others that, in effect, say Jews should consider members of their tribe to be more deserving of humane treatment and consideration.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The "goyim means cattle" idiocy is antisemitic babble. Given your Arabic name, I can see how you might have been exposed to it.
Thank you for answering my question. My second question is about "anti-semetism." Why have so many nations and peoples through out history been "anti-semetic"? Did all these people suddenly and inexplicably turn hateful or did they all collectively come to see the same unpleasant aspects about Jews? Also, isn't it disturbing that Jews have these names for non-Jews and their use isn't controversial amongst Jews? It is bad for a Christian to say "heathens" or a Muslim to say "infidel" but Jews have all these disparaging terms for non-Jews.
I would love to study sociology and Jewish History with you.
One hypothesis is that the Jews are evil.
There are many others. I urge you to be intellectually honest in pursuing your conclusion.
I'm happy to help you along the way if you have any specific proofs, amalgamations of proofs, and the like.
In no way do I believe any group of human beings is "evil." I suspect that Jews have unhealthy attitudes towards non-Jews, and that the tribal behavior of Jews has throughout history inevitably provoked tribalism in others. I suspect this tribalism stems from the usury laws and others that, in effect, say Jews should consider members of their tribe to be more deserving of humane treatment and consideration. [/QB]
Two people needed a transplant, one is a stranger, the other is your brother. You can only pay for one. They are equal in all senses. Same age, gender, same religion, same moral valuableness (if you can define that), would you flip a coin? Or would you give to your brother? How about if they were unequal in some ways? Would you not still consider giving to your brother?
There is a moral value toward identifying with your family. I'd argue that family values are morally universal, you'll find them in all other religions, and among atheists. There are reasons for that - it may be more efficient for us to focus on those close to us and allow good to spread.
Judaism is a family. At the same time Judaism believes in roles. We believe in different roles for men and women, different roles for priests and non-priests, and for Jews and non-Jews. I believe moral value to be commensurate with effort and as such, I don't see a distinction between a non-Jew who puts in moral effort and a Jew who puts in moral effort.
Jewish law is meant to establish certain relationship framework. The interest law is meant to develop a familial framework among Jews so they can better fulfill their unique role in the world.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: ...and isn't it disturbing that you haven't stopped beating your wife, Wingracer? I mean, it's an interesting point.
It's not like I've given the matter any thought before, and I suppose I don't know just how you've been doing it, but I can certainly see where more sensitive types might take exception.
What? Please explain.
Check your premises. Your question contains at least two unsupported (and ill-defined) allegations on the same order.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: If you were in Israel, people would call you an Ish or Isha - a Man or Woman, depending on your gender. Would you call yourself an Ish or Isha? Surely your logic isn't that we can't call people words that they wouldn't use in their own language. Otherwise we'd all stop speaking, or all learn the same language.
Goy is a word. It does not mean Barbarian. It means Nation. It is fondly used at times - a "shabbos-goy" is a non-Jew who helps out on the Sabbath.
I understand your apprehensiveness about a culture you are not familiar with. That's what this thread is for. Familiarize yourself. But I hope you are open enough to really learn about who we are.
Believe me, I am very open minded and I am not asking these questions to start a flame war or accuse anyone of anything. While I am not a particularly religious man, I do have an intense interest in culture, history and religion. Also, if I ever were to turn to religion, I think I would seek out a Rabbi to talk to first. Based on my limited, outsiders understanding, Jews seem to have a very practical and rational approach to religion that appeals to me.
Now back to words. I hear what you are saying and do not disagree. Especially from a Jew's perspective, I can see where no malicious intent exists (except perhaps for the few racist Jews you mentioned). But I think your example of ish and isha are a bad analogy. If what you said is correct, they are a direct translation of he and she. Goy is not a direct translation of "white" or "male" or "American" or "Technician" or any of the other words I might use to describe myself.
What I mean is that throughout history, any word with a meaning and/or usage even remotely similar to "one who is somehow different from me and my people" has either become a disparaging word when used by those people, or comes to be taken as disparaging by those being called by it.
Now, this is my first encounter with the word "goy" so I am just trying to understand it better and see what people think about it. While you say it has no foul meanings, I get the impression that if I went up to any of the few Muslims I know and called them that, they might not appreciate it. Is this true or not? Not that I intend to do it, just trying to understand.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'd agree that many Jews have an unhealthy attitude toward non-Jews. Just as many non-Jews have an unhealthy attitude toward Jews.
You have to realize that Jews developed as an alienated in minority in Christian lands largely due to the fact that Christianity developed from Judaism and that Christians used an oppressed Judaism as the proof to their own religion.
Jews lived similarly, albeit, not as oppressed under Muslim rulership.
One perspective is to look at the sad and awful oppressiveness that is inherent in human nature, that arises time and time again under many different cultures, and to rise from it. Another is to say that there is a people who exhibits tribalism, they're jerks, and so of course no one likes them.
Honestly, get to know us. We're not so bad.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Check your premises. Your question contains at least two unsupported (and ill-defined) allegations on the same order.
It would not surprise me if that is true but if you do not explain, I may not figure that out and continue wallowing in ignorance. Without explanation, you just sound like a bitter man that wants to attack me for no good reason. So again, if my allegations are unsupported and ill-defined, please tell me why.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I've started a new thread for this, so that we don't have to worry about getting this one locked. What I hope is that if anyone wants to respond to something on the subject, they can write their response, but instead of cliking "Add Reply" here, copy the contents of this textbox and paste it into the textbox on the other thread, so that this whole thing gets moved over.
Too bad Shmuel doesn't seem to want to play. If you want people to understand you and your religion, you are going to have to talk to them, not down to them. Wasn't that the whole point of this thread?
Armoth, I am enjoying this, please continue if you feel like it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Win, I appreciate your tone in your last post. Made me feel comfortable in engaging in discussion with you.
As was said above, the literal translation of "goy" is nation, and saying that someone is a goy means they are a member of a nation other than Israel.
Calling a non-Jew a goy would not be bad. I'm not even sure a Muslim would know what it meant if he were called a goy. Perhaps the only time calling someone a goy would be bad is if you called a Jew a "goy."
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Perhaps the only time calling someone a goy would be bad is if you called a Jew a "goy." [/QB]
Interesting that you pointed that out as I just read something about Mormons using the word "Gentile" to mean all non-members of the church, including Jews.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I've started a new thread for this, so that we don't have to worry about getting this one locked. What I hope is that if anyone wants to respond to something on the subject, they can write their response, but instead of cliking "Add Reply" here, copy the contents of this textbox and paste it into the textbox on the other thread, so that this whole thing gets moved over.
While I'd prefer not to have this thread locked, for the time being, I'd prefer not to have this conversation framed in terms of anti-semitism. At least, not with Wingracer.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: As was said above, the literal translation of "goy" is nation, and saying that someone is a goy means they are a member of a nation other than Israel.
Would that include Jews who are not Israeli?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The "goyim means cattle" idiocy is antisemitic babble. Given your Arabic name, I can see how you might have been exposed to it.
Thank you for answering my question. My second question is about "anti-semetism." Why have so many nations and peoples through out history been "anti-semetic"? Did all these people suddenly and inexplicably turn hateful or did they all collectively come to see the same unpleasant aspects about Jews? Also, isn't it disturbing that Jews have these names for non-Jews and their use isn't controversial amongst Jews? It is bad for a Christian to say "heathens" or a Muslim to say "infidel" but Jews have all these disparaging terms for non-Jews.
I would love to study sociology and Jewish History with you.
One hypothesis is that the Jews are evil.
There are many others. I urge you to be intellectually honest in pursuing your conclusion.
I'm happy to help you along the way if you have any specific proofs, amalgamations of proofs, and the like.
In no way do I believe any group of human beings is "evil." I suspect that Jews have unhealthy attitudes towards non-Jews, and that the tribal behavior of Jews has throughout history inevitably provoked tribalism in others. I suspect this tribalism stems from the usury laws and others that, in effect, say Jews should consider members of their tribe to be more deserving of humane treatment and consideration.
Two people needed a transplant, one is a stranger, the other is your brother. You can only pay for one. They are equal in all senses. Same age, gender, same religion, same moral valuableness (if you can define that), would you flip a coin? Or would you give to your brother? How about if they were unequal in some ways? Would you not still consider giving to your brother?[/QB]
Two people need a transplant. One is a Jew and the other is a white person of Northern European background. Another person of the same background as the European decides to give the transplant to his fellow White on the basis of racial kindship/tribalism. Would you as a Jew be understanding and forgiving of that?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: As was said above, the literal translation of "goy" is nation, and saying that someone is a goy means they are a member of a nation other than Israel.
Would that include Jews who are not Israeli?
No. I was using the term Israel to be more correct. Judaism is the name for the religion practiced by the tribe of Judah, 1/12th of the original nation of Israel. I realize that's confusing as Israel is also the name for the culture.
There is no difference in religious identity between a Jew who is a citizen of Israel and Jew who is not.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The "goyim means cattle" idiocy is antisemitic babble. Given your Arabic name, I can see how you might have been exposed to it.
Thank you for answering my question. My second question is about "anti-semetism." Why have so many nations and peoples through out history been "anti-semetic"? Did all these people suddenly and inexplicably turn hateful or did they all collectively come to see the same unpleasant aspects about Jews? Also, isn't it disturbing that Jews have these names for non-Jews and their use isn't controversial amongst Jews? It is bad for a Christian to say "heathens" or a Muslim to say "infidel" but Jews have all these disparaging terms for non-Jews.
I would love to study sociology and Jewish History with you.
One hypothesis is that the Jews are evil.
There are many others. I urge you to be intellectually honest in pursuing your conclusion.
I'm happy to help you along the way if you have any specific proofs, amalgamations of proofs, and the like.
In no way do I believe any group of human beings is "evil." I suspect that Jews have unhealthy attitudes towards non-Jews, and that the tribal behavior of Jews has throughout history inevitably provoked tribalism in others. I suspect this tribalism stems from the usury laws and others that, in effect, say Jews should consider members of their tribe to be more deserving of humane treatment and consideration.
Two people needed a transplant, one is a stranger, the other is your brother. You can only pay for one. They are equal in all senses. Same age, gender, same religion, same moral valuableness (if you can define that), would you flip a coin? Or would you give to your brother? How about if they were unequal in some ways? Would you not still consider giving to your brother?
Two people need a transplant. One is a Jew and the other is a white person of Northern European background. Another person of the same background as the European decides to give the transplant to his fellow White on the basis of racial kindship/tribalism. Would you as a Jew be understanding and forgiving of that? [/QB]
Completely and totally. To the extent to which he identifies with that person more than the Jew, and to the extent to which he does not believe in Judaism, I'd argue that it is morally valuable.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: How about this one: isn't the Jewish law that says it's okay to practice usury upon non-Jews, but not among Jews, kind of sickening? Doesn't that effectively mean "it's okay to exploit non-Jews but not your fellow Jews"? Is it possible that this sort of behavior has historically provoked anti-semitism amongst people who hosted Jews?
There's no Jewish law that says anything of the sort. Jewish law says that we can charge non-Jews interest. Period. Something that most people find entirely normal in society. We're specifically prohibited from charging one another interest, or paying it to one another. What does that have to do with you?
That's the point--this law facilitates an exploitative attitude towards non-Jews. Whereas Christians forbid usury in principle, Jews forbid it only amongst themselves and think it fine to practice it on non-Jews. The reason usury is forbidden is, I gather, not arbitrary but because it brings about unpleasantness. It's okay in Jewish law to inflict that unpleasantness on non-Jews.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: As was said above, the literal translation of "goy" is nation, and saying that someone is a goy means they are a member of a nation other than Israel.
Would that include Jews who are not Israeli?
No. I was using the term Israel to be more correct. Judaism is the name for the religion practiced by the tribe of Judah, 1/12th of the original nation of Israel. I realize that's confusing as Israel is also the name for the culture.
There is no difference in religious identity between a Jew who is a citizen of Israel and Jew who is not.
Excellent, thank you. That is what I thought but wanted to be sure.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The "goyim means cattle" idiocy is antisemitic babble. Given your Arabic name, I can see how you might have been exposed to it.
Thank you for answering my question. My second question is about "anti-semetism." Why have so many nations and peoples through out history been "anti-semetic"? Did all these people suddenly and inexplicably turn hateful or did they all collectively come to see the same unpleasant aspects about Jews? Also, isn't it disturbing that Jews have these names for non-Jews and their use isn't controversial amongst Jews? It is bad for a Christian to say "heathens" or a Muslim to say "infidel" but Jews have all these disparaging terms for non-Jews.
I would love to study sociology and Jewish History with you.
One hypothesis is that the Jews are evil.
There are many others. I urge you to be intellectually honest in pursuing your conclusion.
I'm happy to help you along the way if you have any specific proofs, amalgamations of proofs, and the like.
In no way do I believe any group of human beings is "evil." I suspect that Jews have unhealthy attitudes towards non-Jews, and that the tribal behavior of Jews has throughout history inevitably provoked tribalism in others. I suspect this tribalism stems from the usury laws and others that, in effect, say Jews should consider members of their tribe to be more deserving of humane treatment and consideration.
Two people needed a transplant, one is a stranger, the other is your brother. You can only pay for one. They are equal in all senses. Same age, gender, same religion, same moral valuableness (if you can define that), would you flip a coin? Or would you give to your brother? How about if they were unequal in some ways? Would you not still consider giving to your brother?
Two people need a transplant. One is a Jew and the other is a white person of Northern European background. Another person of the same background as the European decides to give the transplant to his fellow White on the basis of racial kindship/tribalism. Would you as a Jew be understanding and forgiving of that?
Completely and totally. To the extent to which he identifies with that person more than the Jew, and to the extent to which he does not believe in Judaism, I'd argue that it is morally valuable. [/QB]
You wouldn't consider him an anti-semite for making that decision?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The "goyim means cattle" idiocy is antisemitic babble. Given your Arabic name, I can see how you might have been exposed to it.
Thank you for answering my question. My second question is about "anti-semetism." Why have so many nations and peoples through out history been "anti-semetic"? Did all these people suddenly and inexplicably turn hateful or did they all collectively come to see the same unpleasant aspects about Jews? Also, isn't it disturbing that Jews have these names for non-Jews and their use isn't controversial amongst Jews? It is bad for a Christian to say "heathens" or a Muslim to say "infidel" but Jews have all these disparaging terms for non-Jews.
I would love to study sociology and Jewish History with you.
One hypothesis is that the Jews are evil.
There are many others. I urge you to be intellectually honest in pursuing your conclusion.
I'm happy to help you along the way if you have any specific proofs, amalgamations of proofs, and the like.
In no way do I believe any group of human beings is "evil." I suspect that Jews have unhealthy attitudes towards non-Jews, and that the tribal behavior of Jews has throughout history inevitably provoked tribalism in others. I suspect this tribalism stems from the usury laws and others that, in effect, say Jews should consider members of their tribe to be more deserving of humane treatment and consideration.
Two people needed a transplant, one is a stranger, the other is your brother. You can only pay for one. They are equal in all senses. Same age, gender, same religion, same moral valuableness (if you can define that), would you flip a coin? Or would you give to your brother? How about if they were unequal in some ways? Would you not still consider giving to your brother?
Two people need a transplant. One is a Jew and the other is a white person of Northern European background. Another person of the same background as the European decides to give the transplant to his fellow White on the basis of racial kindship/tribalism. Would you as a Jew be understanding and forgiving of that?
Completely and totally. To the extent to which he identifies with that person more than the Jew, and to the extent to which he does not believe in Judaism, I'd argue that it is morally valuable.
You wouldn't consider him an anti-semite for making that decision? [/QB]
Correct. I would not consider him an anti-semite for making that decision. And again, to the extent to which he does not believe in Judaism, I believe his decision to be morally valuable.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Follow your logic, Amroth. Would it be okay for white americans to decide to prefer only people like themselves in immigration policy? They used to do that, you know, from the 20s to the 60s and Jews weren't very understanding of that tribal behavior.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: How about this one: isn't the Jewish law that says it's okay to practice usury upon non-Jews, but not among Jews, kind of sickening? Doesn't that effectively mean "it's okay to exploit non-Jews but not your fellow Jews"? Is it possible that this sort of behavior has historically provoked anti-semitism amongst people who hosted Jews?
There's no Jewish law that says anything of the sort. Jewish law says that we can charge non-Jews interest. Period. Something that most people find entirely normal in society. We're specifically prohibited from charging one another interest, or paying it to one another. What does that have to do with you?
That's the point--this law facilitates an exploitative attitude towards non-Jews. Whereas Christians forbid usury in principle, Jews forbid it only amongst themselves and think it fine to practice it on non-Jews. The reason usury is forbidden is, I gather, not arbitrary but because it brings about unpleasantness. It's okay in Jewish law to inflict that unpleasantness on non-Jews.
Not at all. Which is why we went through the exercise of discussing whether or not money-lending is morally abhorrent. You can't subject someone to unpleasantness if they have to agree to BE subject to it. And as I said, renting money is a service and you should be paid for it.
Jews cannot lend to other Jews for reasons of kinship.
And also note, Christians did not derive this law on their own. They took it from....Judaism. And to the extent to which it was meant to foster kinship among Christians, I suppose that is a good thing for them.
Note this: It is not only forbidden for Jews to lend with interest, it is forbidden for a Jew to BORROW from another Jew with interest. Isn't that fascinating? You can be punished for BORROWING from another Jew with interest, even if it is your own choice!
Again, the idea is that the prohibition is meant to foster kinship. Not because moneylending is evil. Christians could have leveled a decree that you are also forbidden to borrow with interest, rendering Jewish money-lending impossible. But that didn't happen.
I hope you can see this perspective.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Follow your logic, Amroth. Would it be okay for white americans to decide to prefer only people like themselves in immigration policy? They used to do that, you know, from the 20s to the 60s and Jews weren't very understanding of that tribal behavior.
It depends on what you are making decisions about. If you are building a nation on cultural identity, then don't let in people who don't fit. But that's not what America is founded on. Our nation is not built on cultural identity.
To the extent to which building kinship is morally valuable, then build kinship. To the extent to which it is not, then don't.
This nation decided to build kinship around ideals that didn't include race.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Follow your logic, Amroth. Would it be okay for white americans to decide to prefer only people like themselves in immigration policy? They used to do that, you know, from the 20s to the 60s and Jews weren't very understanding of that tribal behavior.
It depends on what you are making decisions about. If you are building a nation on cultural identity, then don't let in people who don't fit. But that's not what America is founded on. Our nation is not built on cultural identity.
The very legal philosophy which America was founded on allowed the overwhelmingly majority in this country in 1924 to legally implement a restrictive immigration policy with the aim of keeping Jews and non-Northern Europeans out of this country. It was an act of tribalism carried out by those who were descendant from the founding stock of this nation. The issue isn't that the country wasn't built on a specific cultural identity but that by the 20s a cultural identity had developed which congress felt deserved to be protected. But Jews weren't very understanding of this even though in theory they should be considering their tribal ways.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't understand the argument.
Can you demonstrate that it was an act of triablism carried out by those who were descendant from the founding stock of this nation, and not, indeed, anti-semitism? Realize that there are Jews amongst the founding stock of this nation, albeit, not a large number, but they were there.
Also realize that American anti-semitism was rampant at the time.
And again, my argument isn't that "tribalism is cool" - it's cool when it has a specific purpose.
Kinship is important to build when your kin forms a productive unit. It is important to focus on the homefront before looking outward.
Helping your fellow co-worker, your family, may be more valuable than helping your fellow blonde, or your fellow yankee-fan.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Hey Armoth, since you have been kind enough to talk to me, could you please explain what I did to suddenly get branded antisemitic? I honestly don't know.
I know I was asking essentially for clarification on something that Sa'eed said and I knew that might stir up some trouble (though that was not my intention) but this seems a bit extreme to me.
I would greatly appreciate an explanation and since my accusers are refusing to explain themselves, perhaps you could help.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Hey Armoth, since you have been kind enough to talk to me, could you please explain what I did to suddenly get branded antisemitic? I honestly don't know.
I know I was asking essentially for clarification on something that Sa'eed said and I knew that might stir up some trouble (though that was not my intention) but this seems a bit extreme to me.
I would greatly appreciate an explanation and since my accusers are refusing to explain themselves, perhaps you could help.
I'm not sure why I'm being asked to defend Lisa and Shmuel. Is it because we're all Jewish?
I think they're wrong, and I hope they apologize or explain themselves.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Too bad Shmuel doesn't seem to want to play. If you want people to understand you and your religion, you are going to have to talk to them, not down to them. Wasn't that the whole point of this thread?
It is the whole point of the thread, a point which Sa'eed is transparently abusing. Your discussions might benefit from recognition of this instead of treating him like another well-meaning inquirer. It leads to you getting some splash from him.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It is the whole point of the thread, a point which Sa'eed is transparently abusing. Your discussions might benefit from recognition of this instead of treating him like another well-meaning inquirer. It leads to you getting some splash from him. [/QB]
I guess I should have made it clear that I wasn't agreeing with him but still wanted to discuss a point he made.
Sorry for being an objective outsider. My best friend in grade school was a Jew, I have had some wonderful discussions about life with a couple of Muslim friends and one of the smartest (and most dangerous) men I have ever known is a Buddhist so I tend to see all sides.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: How did I miss this thread?
Okay. Good questions that should be answered:
1) Jews have disparaging names for non-Jews.
Not true. Goyim, as mentioned above, means nations. The word goy is used to refer to the Jewish nation as well. It is colloquially used to refer to a non-Jew, as in, "he is a goy" - or a non-Jew.
If someone uses it disparagingly, it is morally abhorrent. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with Judaism if someone uses the word "goy" in a disparaging way, and only to do with racism and stupidity, which some rare Jews are capable of.
To note: That goy/goyim can be (and is) used disparagingly is about the person using the word that way, not about the word itself. People use "Jew" and "Black" (etc) disparagingly but it doesn't demonstrate that the word is pejorative rather than descriptive. Not until it crosses a threshold where people begin to stop using the word non-disparagingly because it is taken to easily as an insult due to its disparaging use.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't understand the argument.
Can you demonstrate that it was an act of triablism carried out by those who were descendant from the founding stock of this nation, and not, indeed, anti-semitism? Realize that there are Jews amongst the founding stock of this nation, albeit, not a large number, but they were there.
Also realize that American anti-semitism was rampant at the time.
And again, my argument isn't that "tribalism is cool" - it's cool when it has a specific purpose.
Kinship is important to build when your kin forms a productive unit. It is important to focus on the homefront before looking outward.
Helping your fellow co-worker, your family, may be more valuable than helping your fellow blonde, or your fellow yankee-fan.
Given the generality of the law and the way it was aimed also at southern europeans, it's clear that it wasn't stemming just from anti-semitism. But then we go back to just what anti-semitism is. Considering how Jews have these particular moral circles (i.e, relentlessly preferring their own tribe) wouldn't it have been rational for Americans back in the day to decide: okay, let's not have more of that? For members of an individualistic society, Jewish tribalism is quite unnerving.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Hey Armoth, since you have been kind enough to talk to me, could you please explain what I did to suddenly get branded antisemitic? I honestly don't know.
I know I was asking essentially for clarification on something that Sa'eed said and I knew that might stir up some trouble (though that was not my intention) but this seems a bit extreme to me.
I would greatly appreciate an explanation and since my accusers are refusing to explain themselves, perhaps you could help.
I'm not sure why I'm being asked to defend Lisa and Shmuel. Is it because we're all Jewish?
I think they're wrong, and I hope they apologize or explain themselves.
And I think you're an idiot. I can almost see replying to Wingracer, who seems more ignorant than evil, but to continue this while Sa'eed el-Kalb continues spouting his trash simply facilitating evil.
I most certainly will not apologize. I wish you were capable of seeing that you're the one who should be apologizing. Continuing this the way you have is tantamount to vandalism. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
(Post Edited by Janitor Blade)
[ August 08, 2010, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Lisa just called me a dog. fyi
"Sa'eed el-Kalb"
Says the Shrieking Harpy.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And I think you're an idiot. I can almost see replying to Wingracer, who seems more ignorant than evil, but to continue this while Sa'eed el-Kalb continues spouting his trash simply facilitating evil.
I most certainly will not apologize. I wish you were capable of seeing that you're the one who should be apologizing. Continuing this the way you have is tantamount to vandalism. I hope you're proud of yourself.
And I have apologized even though you still will not tell me why I should apologize. I will let ignorant slide since in this case, that is exactly what I am but you are not helping me to solve that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Lisa just called me a dog. fyi
"Sa'eed el-Kalb"
I modified that a bit on the other thread. Afwan.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And I think you're an idiot. I can almost see replying to Wingracer, who seems more ignorant than evil, but to continue this while Sa'eed el-Kalb continues spouting his trash simply facilitating evil.
I most certainly will not apologize. I wish you were capable of seeing that you're the one who should be apologizing. Continuing this the way you have is tantamount to vandalism. I hope you're proud of yourself.
And I have apologized even though you still will not tell me why I should apologize. I will let ignorant slide since in this case, that is exactly what I am but you are not helping me to solve that.
I answered that in the other thread.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I am, Lisa. I'm quite proud. Because I realize that when talking on the internet, I'm not just talking to one person, I'm talking to many who are reading along and forming impressions.
I'm also SUPREMELY aware of chilul Hashem. And while I have a great amount of love for you, I think you make mine and Rivka's life more complicated to the extent to which it is up to us to do Kiddush Hashem where you are engaged in chilul Hashem, even though your intentions are good.
You may be good with truth, but you're not so great with people.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: (Post Edit by Janitor Blade)
My conversation with you is now over. Should anyone else like to respectfully pick up Sa'eed's questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
It's unfortunate that you perpetuated a stereotype that Muslims are anti-semetic. One of my closest friends is Muslim. Good guy.
I hope you pursue your life with intellectual honesty. No matter where that leads you.
[ August 08, 2010, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think your wimpiness is a much bigger chillul Hashem. And I think that bending the truth in order to be better with people is a Very Bad Thing. This isn't a case of white lies, like "Yes, that dress is really pretty." This is a case of acting like it's perfectly acceptable for one person to spew antisemitism and another to ignore all responses to the first person and act as though they're being reasonable. It's a case of acting like you're afraid to stand up for who you are.
I'm sorry it took so long for you to stop pandering to ibn Kalba. I wish you were sorry as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Given the generality of the law and the way it was aimed also at southern europeans, it's clear that it wasn't stemming just from anti-semitism. But then we go back to just what anti-semitism is. Considering how Jews have these particular moral circles (i.e, relentlessly preferring their own tribe) wouldn't it have been rational for Americans back in the day to decide: okay, let's not have more of that? For members of an individualistic society, Jewish tribalism is quite unnerving.
Well, that's about as artful as anti-Semitism gets, I suppose, Sa'eed. Let's suppose for one moment that all of your assumptions and statements are correct (that's one helluva assumption, btw): you're talking as though individualistic, color-blind, race-blind America needed to protect itself from 'unnerving' Jews who, unlike Americans of the early 20th century, put up artificial boundaries between people.
Mix this up with a heaping helping of Not Helping by Lisa, and, well, an interesting and enjoyable thread goes down the crapper, or is certainly on its way.
Anyway, Wingracer, it would probably be wise to ignore Sa'eed, because either he's someone who we know around here as an infamous and pretty cowardly (for the Internet, and that's saying something) troll, or he's someone who came into a thought-provoking thread with seemingly polite but nonetheless remarkably similar 'questions' about Jews that are some of the most infamous hallmarks of anti-Semites since, well, for a very long time now.
Lisa, you'll find, is also best ignored when she gets into fanatic avenger mode.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I think your wimpiness is a much bigger chillul Hashem. And I think that bending the truth in order to be better with people is a Very Bad Thing. This isn't a case of white lies, like "Yes, that dress is really pretty." This is a case of acting like it's perfectly acceptable for one person to spew antisemitism and another to ignore all responses to the first person and act as though they're being reasonable. It's a case of acting like you're afraid to stand up for who you are.
I'm sorry it took so long for you to stop pandering to ibn Kalba. I wish you were sorry as well.
I'm okay with the reputation I've built for myself on this forum. If others believe I represent Judaism as a wimp, let them tell me so.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I am, Lisa. I'm quite proud. Because I realize that when talking on the internet, I'm not just talking to one person, I'm talking to many who are reading along and forming impressions.
Quite right. While you will probably never convince someone like Sa'eed to see things your way, you have done nothing but reaffirm my respect for Jews. While I can certainly understand Lisa's anger now that she has finally explained the misunderstanding; if I had any misgivings about Jews before, she would have just reinforced them to an enormous degree.
quote:I'm also SUPREMELY aware of chilul Hashem. And while I have a great amount of love for you, I think you make mine and Rivka's life more complicated to the extent to which it is up to us to do Kiddush Hashem where you are engaged in chilul Hashem, even though your intentions are good.
You may be good with truth, but you're not so great with people.
I am not familiar with those terms, though the context gives me a pretty good idea. Could you explain them please?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I meant them for internal conversation, although you may google them if you really want to know.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Kiddush Hashem is sanctifying God's name. Chillul Hashem is descrating God's name. Armoth thinks that by refusing to pander to inappropriate behavior, I'm making people lose respect for Jews, and thereby desecrating God's name. I think he's doing the same with his pandering.
Unlike Armoth, I believe in answering legitimate questions and not blowing them off.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Anyway, Wingracer, it would probably be wise to ignore Sa'eed, because either he's someone who we know around here as an infamous and pretty cowardly (for the Internet, and that's saying something) troll, or he's someone who came into a thought-provoking thread with seemingly polite but nonetheless remarkably similar 'questions' about Jews that are some of the most infamous hallmarks of anti-Semites since, well, for a very long time now.
Lisa, you'll find, is also best ignored when she gets into fanatic avenger mode. [/QB]
You will notice I only quoted him once and have made no mention of anything else he has said before or since.
As for Lisa, now that she has finally explained her anger I will gladly ignore her the moment she removes my name from the top of her post in the other thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'm okay with the reputation I've built for myself on this forum. If others believe I represent Judaism as a wimp, let them tell me so.
You actually do your best to recoup the damage Lisa does by association, what with how easily she can be baited into being a fanatical rageposter.
Ironically she's like the greatest ally someone like Clive Candy could hope for in a situation like this.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: As for Lisa, now that she has finally explained her anger I will gladly ignore her the moment she removes my name from the top of her post in the other thread.
Don't hold your breath. Unless you look good in blue.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Given the generality of the law and the way it was aimed also at southern europeans, it's clear that it wasn't stemming just from anti-semitism. But then we go back to just what anti-semitism is. Considering how Jews have these particular moral circles (i.e, relentlessly preferring their own tribe) wouldn't it have been rational for Americans back in the day to decide: okay, let's not have more of that? For members of an individualistic society, Jewish tribalism is quite unnerving.
Well, that's about as artful as anti-Semitism gets, I suppose, Sa'eed. Let's suppose for one moment that all of your assumptions and statements are correct (that's one helluva assumption, btw): you're talking as though individualistic, color-blind, race-blind America needed to protect itself from 'unnerving' Jews who, unlike Americans of the early 20th century, put up artificial boundaries between people.
But that's the thing: White Americans back then were most certainly not color/race blind. They had a tribal identity that excluded Jews (and others). Why was this wrong if tribalism is okay in principle?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
(Post edited by Janitor Blade)
[ August 08, 2010, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But that's the thing: White Americans back then were most certainly not color/race blind. They had a tribal identity that excluded Jews (and others). Why was this wrong if tribalism is okay in principle?
Transparent dishonest is transparent. You characterized white Americans of the early 1900s as though they were color and race blind.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Suppose those girls (and her parents) didn't specifically say negative things about others but just kept declaring concern/love for their people.
Then the offensive part would be removed. What minority religion/ ethnic group doesn't express an extremely strong connection to the group? If this bothers you, that's more your issue than anybody else's.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Suppose those girls (and her parents) didn't specifically say negative things about others but just kept declaring concern/love for their people.
Then the offensive part would be removed. What minority religion/ ethnic group doesn't express an extremely strong connection to the group? If this bothers you, that's more your issue than anybody else's.
Ah, no. There's a difference between having a connection and making that connection verbally explicit and the maintenance of that connection a substantive part of your identity. If those girls kept declaring love and concern for white people but didn't go out of their way to say disparaging things about other groups you think there would be no controversy? Or would they be similarly vilified?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So your question is, if they performed in a fundamentally different way, would they be treated differently?
Penetrating, though-provoking question, that.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Oh I SO want to respond to something our friend just said. I could definitely take him down a notch with this one but i think I had better be on my best behavior right now. Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So your question is, if they performed in a fundamentally different way, would they be treated differently?
You think it would be "fundamentally different" of them to basically keep singing songs about the glories of white America while not dropping the n word? Really?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Well, first off, being "white" doesn't count as an ethnic group. Second, in America, it certainly isn't the minority. People form identities based on the groups that offer them a meaningful way to express what's unique about them. While I may be white and middle class, those are so non-special that they're not things that are remotely close to my heart.
When people harp on about some quality that is not very unique (being white) it's almost always in order to critique the minority- which is of course offensive. If the girls were just singing about how much they loved their people, and America, and the greatness of America, I don't see the offense. Now if they stop to clarify that "their people" only consists of white people- they're implicitly criticizing non-white people and it's offensive. For a Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, Atheist to say they like their people has a completely different connotation and I imagine you see the difference.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: When people harp on about some quality that is not very unique (being white) it's almost always in order to critique the minority- which is of course offensive. If the girls were just singing about how much they loved their people, and America, and the greatness of America, I don't see the offense. Now if they stop to clarify that "their people" only consists of white people- they're implicitly criticizing non-white people and it's offensive. For a Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, Atheist to say they like their people has a completely different connotation and I imagine you see the difference. [/QB]
But Mormonism, Catholicism, and Atheism are multi-ethnic coalitions whereas Judaism is mostly defined by blood. The former three are a creed potentially open to all people whereas Judaism really does have a "people." Thus there's a tone of ethnic supremacy in a Jew declaring love for his people that is quite different from a Christian or an Atheist declaring love for his "people."
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Well, first off, being "white" doesn't count as an ethnic group. Second, in America, it certainly isn't the minority.
They will be in 2050. Will it be okay to sing white pride songs then?
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:But Mormonism, Catholicism, and Atheism are multi-ethnic coalitions whereas Judaism is mostly defined by blood. The former three are a creed potentially open to all people whereas Judaism really does have a "people." Thus there's a tone of ethnic supremacy in a Jew declaring love for his people that is quite different from a Christian or an Atheist declaring love for his "people."
Are you similarly bothered by other ethnic minorities declaring love for their people?
quote:They will be in 2050. Will it be okay to sing white pride songs then?
White people may be the minority in raw numbers by 2050, but they will still have a majority of the power. They'll be a minority in the way men are a minority. This is a flawed analogy.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Sa'eed: Your comment about antisemitism on the previous page that I edited was not OK. Any similar comments will necessitate a more aggressive response.
Consider yourself warned. I understand you are feeling a sort of resentment that many groups of people can celebrate their ethnicity but if white people do it, it's racism.
Perhaps we lost that privileged when we started going out and enslaving/killing people on account of them not being white. I don't have the answers to these questions, but they are difficult and provocative. Please discuss in good faith.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
The other thread got closed which is probably a good thing but if the moderators are watching, please don't close this one, especially for anything I may have inadvertently done. As for the other guy, I'm sure we can handle him. Let's give it a shot for a while.
I would like to ask a question (totally unrelated and I think uncontroversial topic) but maybe I should let things cool off a bit. Let me know if you all are willing to chat some more.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
You'll note the original starter of this thread is the moderator. Believe me he hates to see a thread he's gleaned so much information from, and from which he hopes to continue to learn in die.
But that's the nature of the thing, it takes a lot more work to discuss difficult topics civilly, than it does to just wreck a thread by making people mad.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Wingracer, I'm happy to answer any further questions you have.
As I've mentioned before and I will mention again, Judaism takes converts. It is defined by blood, yes, but it's not all that exclusive if anyone can convert.
The celebration of ethnicity, I'd say, happens largely to unify others with shared experience, laregely helping them overcome challenges of adversity, or at least, providing comfort. In law school there are a lot of ethnic student associations, the Latin Lawyer's student association, Jews, and even a Christian group.
Arbitrary celebration of ethnicity, I'd argue, is non-productive. If the unit you are tying yourself to has no purpose other than to make you feel good about yourself, unless you are currently being oppressed, it's non-productive.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Perhaps we lost that privileged when we started going out and enslaving/killing people on account of them not being white.
If that were the reason, then pretty much no group on earth would have that privilege.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If that were the reason, then pretty much no group on earth would have that privilege.
On the one hand I agree, but on the other hand...well, us (certain kinds of) European-descended white people have a legacy, if we're going to examine it, of being some of the best in the history of the world at that sort of thing.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Maybe. But "white" is so broad that it isn't a very accurate categorization.
Aside from that, I wonder who a person from China would point to as the most murderous race or nationality in history? I'd be surprised if it was "whites."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
(Post Edited by Janitor Blade)
[ August 08, 2010, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
(Post Edited by Janitor Blade. I wish I could have said the vitriol ended here.)
[ August 08, 2010, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
(Post Edited by Janitor Blade, posting about your own religion's (not that I'm actually convinced Islam is your religion) problems as a way to somehow make disparaging remarks about another religion more palatable doesn't work.)
[ August 08, 2010, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
(Post edited by JanitorBlade)
[ August 08, 2010, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
It's like you're both trying so desperately for passion's sake to play the characters that have been written for you.
Saeed. Come to know us. For real. Then pass your judgments.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Maybe. But "white" is so broad that it isn't a very accurate categorization.
Aside from that, I wonder who a person from China would point to as the most murderous race or nationality in history? I'd be surprised if it was "whites."
It would probably be "white", but you're right that the categorizations are pretty broad. But when you're working at the level of (black, white, "Asians", and maybe Native Americans) there's not a whole lot of choice.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
(Post edited by JanitorBlade)
[ August 08, 2010, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Bah, a pox on both your houses.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Bah, a pox on both your houses.
::takes offense::
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
This thread is getting locked, I don't know if it will ever be unlocked.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The usual two possibilities given: ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The way I question most everything, including my own religion, so it's not an attack, it's just my MO, especially when I find something that doesn't seem to make perfect sense to me. I have nothing but respect for Judaism (and the Yahwism that preceeded it before the Babylonian Exile) and if you forgive the probably heretical questions, I'd like to hear what you say about such matters. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Basically, if a Jewish person tells me that their belief runs such and such, how wide can I apply this? I recognize that in any religion there will always be personal interpretations and conjectures, but is there some point at which it is reasonable to expect that two people from that same group (whatever it is) will have the same doctrine?![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)