rosends
Well-Known Member
And you still ignored the response.Mirroring me won't work. My point has priority because I brought it up first.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And you still ignored the response.Mirroring me won't work. My point has priority because I brought it up first.
Great, so you see the textual reference and the logical process that was followed to come to the understanding. You think that it is hiding to give the source material that makes clear how and why the interpretation was reached? Wow.I admit my Hebrew is not good so I went to my wife for her hebrew.
Rosends, If you did not have actual, good historical evidence, you could have simply told readers you had no data other than your opinion that you read in a commentary and your credibility would not have taken such a large hit..
And if you did not have any read logic behind the claim, you could have simply told readers this rather than intimate to us that Ohr Chadash provided logic and actual evidence to support your claim.
Readers : The hebrew is simply a repeat of the claim but it contains no significant historical data or logic or evidence for the claim that Rosends made that it was only the Amalekites that pretended to convert. The first quote simply makes this claim because it said it applied to the amalekites because it claim other peoples had less reason for fear than the amalekites.
So you admit that the commentator links his understanding to a biblical connection. It is just that you don’t like it. OK.In fact, it is a good example of my claim that Rabbinic Judaism often generated bizarre and extremely tenuous connections to biblical text in order to create a doctrine (or a theory in this case).
People are more than welcome to rely on google translate. A Hebrew speaker would know that google translate is ok, but often makes mistakes. A biblical scholar would know that trying to understand scholarly religious Hebrew (especially from 400 years ago) by using an algorithm steeped in simple dictionary definitions of modern Hebrew is bound to fail.Even if readers did not have access to individuals who could read hebrew, they could simply use Google translate to see that your quote was full of air and lacked historical evidence?
Did you not think that readers would not notice the deception? Bluffing in a card game and debate go bad when they don't work.
REGARDING ROSENDS CLAIM THAT SPECIFICALLY THE DESCENDANTS OF AMALEK WERE MEANT BY THIS SCRIPTURE..
Your quote is simply a repeat of the opinion that it was the Amalekites because they were enemies to Jews but there is NO evidence to support this claim. I asked for evidence for your claim.
Instead of evidence, you offer an irrational and illogical thought process where you arbitrarily pay no attention to the actual text which clearly says “Other nationalities” as a generic plural and you turn the scripture into a specific singular to agree with this silly theory.
How can your religion call such use of the scriptures “logical”?
Your claim is that you gave your quote in a language they do not understand in order to HELP them?
“Hiding” is purposely offering text to readers in a language they cannot understand and then tell them you were” trying to help them” understand.
ARE THERE ANY READERS ON THE FORUM WHO THINK OFFERING INFORMATION IN HEBREW TO ENGLISH SPEAKERS IS MEANT TO “CLARIFY” THE JEWISH POSITION?
It is worse, to then use sarcasm in blaming them for not understanding a foreign language.
And so, you offered them a foreign language to “HELP THEM” understand? Really?
Also, the Hebrew quote DOES NOT help explain Cohen’s statement.
Cohen says “many non-Jews” and “many Gentiles”. The scripture Ester 8:17 reference says “many people of other nationalities” and not “just Amalekites”. Neither Cohen nor the scripture makes reference to Amalekites at all.
No, your Hebrew reference does not “clarify”, but it “twists” and “obscures” and does not support your claim.
Could be, her Jewish instructors were the professors at the university of Jerusalem. Perhaps their Hebrew was flawed in teaching Hebrew.
To spend so much time criticising my wife's hebrew and education when you do not even know how she translated the text or what her education is, is irrational and seems like a bit of meanness coming through.
I neither like nor dislike his opinion.
Because of the issue of priority.And you still ignored the response.
Fantastic -- this is exactly what I have been asking for. Do you have evidence that the gardener wasn't Jewish? That would be perfect!It is not simply King Jehoiachin and his family that are called “Judeans” on the food ration lists, but even The gardner and Uru-Milki are specifically referenced as Judean.
Great! Can you show me that the people in the enclave based on geography weren't Jewish? That would be what I'm looking for.However, the deportee enclave of Alu sa Yahudaya was an ethnic enclave (as indicated by the ending “aya”). This was NOT a geographic designation, but an ethnic designation, indicating there were different term among the Babylonians for geography and ethnicity.
That doesn't deal with the issue of biblical matrilineality.If you read his book, he actually discussed how and when later Rabbinism abandoned biblical Patrilineality and came to adopt matrilineality.
So you deny an essential aspect of Judaism and then wonder why Judaism doesn't follow your position. Under Jewish law, there are human authorities who make decisions. They are trained and follow a set of specific rules and operate within specific parameters. That's from the bible as Judaism understands it. You want to deny that foundational element of Judaism so that anything that is related to it is not part of the original. You do that.It is correct that I do not see Rabbis of Rabbinic Judaism having any more authority to create and teach their personal interpretations than any other group that are educated and fair.
Not exactly true. Rabbinic authorities do have that authority. You just deny that.While Prophets had authority to say “Thus sayeth the Lord”, the rabbis (teachers) did not have such authority (though they are allowed to read what the prophets said and quote the prophets just as any other person is able to do).
Sure it is. You deny a basic element and say it isn't part of the system and therefore anything that uses that element is of another system. I deny Jesus was a particular figure in Christianity, my "Christianity" is therefore a new and different thing.Yes, I can see that is what you are doing with Messianic Judaism or Christianity. However, this is not what I am doing with Judaism.
Yup -- exactly. Now you are getting the hang of this. If you were ever in a Jewish school you would know that it is taught as one understanding and interpretation, but not as a doctrine. You're getting there. though.OH, it is a Jewish rabbinic “interpretive opinion” that is taught by Rabbinic Scholars, is in the Talmud, (in the Mishna) and elsewhere in Jewish literature which is taught to Jews, but not a religious “doctrine”?
did you read through these to see all the mentions of interpretation and other opinions?PAGE THREE OF THREE
REGARDING THE JEWISH "OPINION" THAT ADAM WAS CREATED WITH BOTH MALE AND FEMALE SEXUAL ORGANS. (CONTINUED)
View attachment 80912
View attachment 80913
View attachment 80914
View attachment 80915
View attachment 80916
View attachment 80917
So, as these many references show, (almost all are Jewish web sites), this "Jewish Opinion" (lets avoid the nasty word "doctrine" if you like) is widespread and very old and very ingrained into Jewish textual teaching (as anyone who can read can tell).
When you look as the Rabbinic justification for this Jewish "opinion", it is very whispy and tenuous at the very least and absolutely bizarre and irrational at the most. Dare we say that the religion of the Prophets / "Prophetic Judaism" would not have interpreted Adam to have both sets of sexual organs. And the Jewish "opinion" that Adam could, by some manner of self-copulation, have children without Eve.
These are very strange religious "opinions" from the rabbinic sources.
Let's discuss more examples after readers are able to digest this sort of rabbinic interpretation of the scriptures to see if I am off base in saying these sorts of religious "innovations" to religious doctrinal thought / belief / interpretation (whatever word sounds nicest and most correct) are not particularly correct biblical interpretations.
Clear
Modern Jewish seem to forget that first Christians were Jewish ...Very egocentric view of only one Christian religious perspective without acknowledging the Jewish perspective of what they believe.
Sure, the very first believers in Jesus were Jews. Heck, they even continued practicing Judaism -- their Nazarene faith was, at that time, a Jewish sect. However, a couple things happened. The first thing was the Paul turned Christianity into a gentile religion. At the same time, the Christians were kicked out of the synagogues for their heresies. The long and short of it is that by the second century, Christianity was set as a gentile religion, a completely separate religion from Judaism.Modern Jewish seem to forget that first Christians were Jewish ...
They, today, think they know better than those other Jews in the first century.
Like prophecies said:Sure, the very first believers in Jesus were Jews. Heck, they even continued practicing Judaism -- their Nazarene faith was, at that time, a Jewish sect. However, a couple things happened. The first thing was the Paul turned Christianity into a gentile religion. At the same time, the Christians were kicked out of the synagogues for their heresies. The long and short of it is that by the second century, Christianity was set as a gentile religion, a completely separate religion from Judaism.
It would not be perfect.
Sure it would. It would cement the claim that people were called Judeans when they weren’t Jewish.
For example the Historian Delorme, using the Babylonian Sippur tablets (maybe wiedner tablets) pointed out the that it was not merely the Judeans that were put in enclaves with other Judeans, but many (if not most) of the enclaves of prisoners from various geographical regions were place in enclaves that were, likewise, named after the regions they originated in.
If you are going to request that one prove the Judeans that had theophoric names that honored the Babylonian Gods Bel and Marduk (or uru-miliki named after the Babylonia god milik) were actually Jews worshiping the babylonian Gods Bel and Marduk then we’ll need to hear your justification for this. Still, they were called Judeans as a geographic term.
Now, lets compare your historical data underlying your counterclaim. Do you have any actual data from religious historians to support your counterclaim?
Actually that is NOT what you are looking for. You seem to be looking for any Justification to avoid admitting what pretty much any other reader can see. These are geographic terms for each of the above nations.
It is interesting that instead of giving me what I ask for, you decide I want something different so you can argue with that.
2) Regarding Rosends pointing out that the version of Ester 8:17 in the Jewish bible of (8th-11th century), the Masoretic, being different than the Septuagint (approx. 300 b.c.).
I agree with your point that the Masoretic (approx. 8th century a.d.) and the Septuagint (approx. 3rd century b.c.) are different.
We’ll have to leave that controversy alone unless you have a suggestion for any other objective data to confirm which is correct.
Again, you are speaking of “RABBINIC” Judaism (the Judaism emerging near the peri-c.e. period that rose in popularity nearer to the hasmonean period) and conflating it with Prophetic religion. Rabbinic Judaism had and still has NO PROPHETS. The two religions are different.
While I am extremely interested in and honor “PROPHETIC” Judaism and the “MESSIANIC JUDAISM” (the Judaism that accepted to Messiah Jesus)
Yes, you are describing “RABBINIC JUDAISM” in describing how leaders of RABBINIC Judaism, (once the prophetic gifts were taken from israel) create doctrines and rules etc.
Of course not, even though the Horizontal religion created by the Rabbis is not the original, Prophetic Judaism, the rabbis did carry with them much from the earlier Vertical Judaism just as the Judaism that accepted the Messiah (i.e. Messianic Judaism / Christianity) carried much of the doctrines and beliefs and texts of Prophetic religion with them.
After confirming that it actually IS a Jewish doctrine / opinion / belief / teaching / interpretation / etc that Adam was created with both Male and Female sexual organs (in post 307, 308 and 309) :
We can certainly call this Jewish doctrine/understanding/interpretation/belief/tradition that Adam was created with both male and female sexual organs a Jewish “opinion” if you want.
Yes, I did read through much of the Jewish literature to try to understand just why Rabbis came up with this bizarre Opinion / doctrine / understanding / interpretation / belief / tradition.
And, having looked for the rabbis justification for this Jewish opinion / doctrine / understanding / interpretation / belief / tradition I think the rabbinic thinking is irrational and they are coming up with interpretations based on very strange, bizarre and tenuous connections to scripture.
While I can describe the strange useage of scripture the rabbis used to come up with these “opinions / doctrines / understanding / interpretation / belief / tradition, Why don’t YOU describe for readers the various justifications and scriptures used by the rabbis in Jewish literature so you can show readers the justifications used by the rabbis?
We can then discuss it and allow readers to decide if there is solid and logical reasons for the rabbis and Jewish leaders to come up with this Rabbinic Jewish Opinion / doctrine / understanding / interpretation / belief / tradition.
" Instead of prophetic revelation as a source of religion, the Rabbis and leaders of Rabbinic Judaism” created “a set of specific rules and operate within specific parameters” which they created from their personal interpretations and opinions. "POST ONE OF TWO
1) Regarding Clear's claim that "Judean" in the early periods was used as a geographic term for "Judeans"
Clear said : You are confused The data from such historians Astola, Wright, Abraham, weidner, and others is not their opinion. They are reporting what the ancients themselves said and how they used the term..
For example, Astola is translating plates from Sippar during the 5th century and even plates specifically from the Babylonian conquest period. They are reporting what the ancients themselves said and how they used the term “Judean” in their language and in their time.
The fact that the texts from the Issar-taribi archive of 522 b.c. uses “Judean” as a geographical term is evidence of how the word “Judean” was used anciently.
The use of “Judean traders” in the Babylonian tablets from Sippar in 565 b.c. as a geographical term is evidence of how the word “Judean” was used anciently.
Because the term was used as a geographic term anciently, this same usage has become standard use for historians today to refer to “Judean” as a geographical term both for documents (texts from the “Judean desert” or “Judean Monasteries”) and for people anciently “Judean merchants”.
This applied to individuals who had theophoric names such as Bel-iddin (in honor of the Babylonian God “Bel”) and “Marduka” (in honor of the Babylonian God “Marduk”) who were non-Jews but still from Judean descent.
In describing the food ration lists in the Weidner tablets, all individuals taken captive from Judea are referred to as “Judeans” (i.e. from Judea) regardless of religion.
It is not simply King Jehoiachin and his family that are called “Judeans” on the food ration lists, but even The gardner and Uru-Milki are specifically referenced as Judean.
Archaeologists also use the term as a geographical term. For example, the King Mesha of Moab (traditionally a son of LOT, not of Abraham) who set up the Mesha Stone of 835 b.c. is a “Judean official”. It was a geographical term.
The Babylonians used different terms for the geographic “Judean” and an ethnic “Jew” from Judea during the Babylonian captivity.
In the time of the Babylonian deportation of the Kingdom of Judah, the deportees from Gaza (part of the northern kingdom) was sent to an enclave called “Hazatu” named after their geographical origin.
In like manner, the deportee enclave Al-Yahudu (From Judea) was a reference to deportees from Judea (a geographical term).
However, the deportee enclave of Alu sa Yahudaya was an ethnic enclave (as indicated by the ending “aya”). This was NOT a geographic designation, but an ethnic designation, indicating there were different term among the Babylonians for geography and ethnicity.
These are not simply opinions from modern historians, but they are telling us how the ancients used such terms.
Rosends said : Fantastic -- this is exactly what I have been asking for. Do you have evidence that the gardener wasn't Jewish? That would be perfect!
It would not be perfect.
What would be better is if you simply accepted the historical data in front of you and what is obvious to readers and give me the your countering data for your conflicting claim that I asked for so readers can compare historical data.
For example the Historian Delorme, using the Babylonian Sippur tablets (maybe wiedner tablets) pointed out the that it was not merely the Judeans that were put in enclaves with other Judeans, but many (if not most) of the enclaves of prisoners from various geographical regions were place in enclaves that were, likewise, named after the regions they originated in.
For examples, Alu sa Arbaya was for the Arabs. Alu sa Nerabya for the Neirabites, Bit-Syraya for the Syria-Canaanites, Bit-Tabalaya for the Tabalites, Al-Misiraya for the Egyptian (more like the semetic name than the modern name Egyptian), and Hazatu for the Gazaite deportees while the “keepers of the Torah” (the Samaritans increasingly inhabited Samaria back home as Judeans living in Judea.
If you are going to request that one prove the Judeans that had theophoric names that honored the Babylonian Gods Bel and Marduk (or uru-miliki named after the Babylonia god milik) were actually Jews worshiping the babylonian Gods Bel and Marduk then we’ll need to hear your justification for this. Still, they were called Judeans as a geographic term.
Now, lets compare your historical data underlying your counterclaim. Do you have any actual data from religious historians to support your counterclaim?
Rosends said : Can you show me that the people in the enclave based on geography weren't Jewish? That would be what I'm looking for.
Actually that is NOT what you are looking for. You seem to be looking for any Justification to avoid admitting what pretty much any other reader can see. These are geographic terms for each of the above nations.
Do you have ANY historical data to counter the historians? If you don’t this would be a wonderful time to admit it. If you either don’t have any data or never had any historical data, then that would end the controversy quickly and efficiently.
2) Regarding Rosends pointing out that the version of Ester 8:17 in the Jewish bible of (8th-11th century), the Masoretic, being different than the Septuagint (approx. 300 b.c.).
I agree with your point that the Masoretic (approx. 8th century a.d.) and the Septuagint (approx. 3rd century b.c.) are different.
Plus there is no Dead Sea Scrolls of esther that we can turn to in order to see which version is more accurate and I do not have an Old Testament Critical to see the various versions.
I also do not remember the Masoretes including Ester 8:17 as one of the scriptures they changed in creating their Jewish bible.
We’ll have to leave that controversy alone unless you have a suggestion for any other objective data to confirm which is correct.
3) REGARDING THE CONTAMINATION OF RELIGION CREATED BY PROPHETS BY RELIGION CREATED BY RABBIS.
Clear said : Certain Doctrines created by Rabbis are not particularly “biblical”.
Rosends replied : “Here is the problem. You don’t want to accept that the basis for rabbinic authority in interpreting and applying is, itself, a biblical mandate so you see rabbinic statements as separate from the bible-textual rules. “
Clear responded : It is correct that I do not see Rabbis of Rabbinic Judaism having any more authority to create and teach their personal interpretations than any other group that are educated and fair.
While Prophets had authority to say “Thus sayeth the Lord”, the rabbis (teachers) did not have such authority (though they are allowed to read what the prophets said and quote the prophets just as any other person is able to do).
However, as the Rabbis interpreted laws and created doctrines and traditions, many of these doctrines were based on “stretches of the imagination” or created to justify their own opinions. This is not a “Jewish” problem but it is human nature to a certain extent. (post #307)
Rosends responded : So you deny an essential aspect of Judaism and then wonder why Judaism doesn't follow your position. (post #310)
Again, you are speaking of “RABBINIC” Judaism (the Judaism emerging near the peri-c.e. period that rose in popularity nearer to the hasmonean period) and conflating it with Prophetic religion. Rabbinic Judaism had and still has NO PROPHETS. The two religions are different.
Regarding honoring the ancient "Prophetic Judaism" while criticising the later "Rabbinic Judaism" for innovations and apostasy
While I am extremely interested in and honor “PROPHETIC” Judaism and the “MESSIANIC JUDAISM” (the Judaism that accepted to Messiah Jesus) and the early Judaism that became known as “Christianity” It is specifically, the man-made religious innovations by the rabbis (i.e. the Judaism that rejected the Messiah and that became known as “RABBINIC Judaism”) that are bothersome.
Though Rabbis did not simply wake up one day and abandon Jehovah, they added piecemeal, innovations and doctrines (beliefs or teachings if the word “doctrine” is bothersome, - wink wink) that became increasing layered on to the earlier religion we often call “Judaism”.
4) THE REPLACEMENT OF VERTICAL JUDAISM BY HORIZONTAL JUDAISM
Rosends responded : “Under Jewish law, there are human authorities who make decisions. They are trained and follow a set of specific rules and operate within specific parameters. That's from the bible as Judaism understands it.”
Yes, you are describing “RABBINIC JUDAISM” in describing how leaders of RABBINIC Judaism, (once the prophetic gifts were taken from israel) create doctrines and rules etc.
Instead of prophetic revelation as a source of religion, the Rabbis and leaders of Rabbinic Judaism” created “a set of specific rules and operate within specific parameters” which they created from their personal interpretations and opinions.
As Goodenough from Yale described it, “Vertical Judaism” (the religious movement that received it’s religion from revelation/prophets), was replaced by “Horizontal Judaism” (the religious movement that created it’s religion from books about the earlier prophets and from their rabbis and other leaders.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS