posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(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)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.]
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, did you read the book Lisa recommended? Not only is it quite good, I think it might answer many of your questions.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah, i realized that long ago. With a billion Christians, the personality possibilities are endless.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
