posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Theca: I don't really get why OT means outdated/replaced or whatever.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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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).
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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?"
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The word "testament", Hebrew berīth, 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 "berīth". 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.
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."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
