I'm a Noahide

[Rival]

Technically, Christians can be or rather many are Noahides, but choosing to identify as a Noahide, is specific to Noahidism, /the label.

I never identified as a ''Christian'', by the way, and wouldn't do that. It seems like you think I did/would/?/ Why would i label myself a ''Christian'', now?

Yes, there are other labels, already aware of that.

What exactly do you believe? What do you say about Christ?

Tumah has already told you that Noahidism comes from the Talmud and not Torah, but you seem to dispute that. Why? I think someone who knew the ABCs of Noahidism would know it was not mentioned specifically in the Torah.

Well, anyway, this forum is not for debates. So I guess it's your call.

 

[Desert Snake]

What exactly do you believe? What do you say about Christ?

Tumah has already told you that Noahidism comes from the Talmud and not Torah, but you seem to dispute that. Why? I think someone who knew the ABCs of Noahidism would know it was not mentioned specifically in the Torah.

Well, anyway, this forum is not for debates. So I guess it's your call.

Yes, the label Noahide seems to be very problematic. Not to mention, I follow the Tanach, I do not follow //religious theistic related ideas, from the Talmud, respectively. So, ''Noahide'', is not a good label, generally.

 

[Rival]

Well, I wish you well on your spiritual journey.

 

[Desert Snake]

What exactly do you believe? What do you say about Christ?

Syncretic Theist, Modalism.

 

[Tumah]

Skimmed through that: no idea what ''problems'' you think are apparent, concerning what I wrote.

Here's a few off the top of my head:
The existence of Christianity - transgresses the prohibition to create a new religion. Creating any ritual seems to transgress that as well.
SDA's transgress the prohibition of a non-Jew keeping the Sabbath.
Sunday Sabbath Christians transgress the prohibition of making a religious day of rest any day of the week.

 

[Desert Snake]

Here's a few off the top of my head:
The existence of Christianity - transgresses the prohibition to create a new religion. Creating any ritual seems to transgress that as well.
SDA's transgress the prohibition of a non-Jew keeping the Sabbath.
Sunday Sabbath Christians transgress the prohibition of making a religious day of rest any day of the week.

*shrugs* Since I'm not using the label 'noahide', seems pretty irrelevant at this point. Perhaps start a new thread, in the debate area.

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

Yes, the label Noahide seems to be very problematic. Not to mention, I follow the Tanach, I do not follow //religious theistic related ideas, from the Talmud, respectively. So, ''Noahide'', is not a good label, generally.

Join the club.

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

*shrugs* Since I'm not using the label 'noahide', seems pretty irrelevant at this point. Perhaps start a new thread, in the debate area.

Ya, it can make an anti-noahide thread, that seems all the rage nowadays

 

[Desert Snake]

Ya, it can make an anti-noahide thread, that seems all the rage nowadays

Eh, doesn't bother me. A label is only useful if it reflects ones position; if the 'Noahide' label is that probelematic, not worth arguing over, in my opinion. It's fairly general label really, it /shouldn't/?/ affect peoples religious adherences either way, it wouldn't mine.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Hey syncretic, sorry I don't have time to read your thread now... but I was just wondering if you've seen the movie "Noah" and if you liked it. I have and I love it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hey syncretic, sorry I don't have time to read your thread now... but I was just wondering if you've seen the movie "Noah" and if you liked it. I have and I love it.

No..

 

[Desert Snake]

Here are some different statements regarding Noahidism, presented in the thread..

The idea of the Noahide is that there is, simply put, a set of seven commandments that were given to Noah and that all of mankind is meant to follow.

The specific commandments are:
The prohibition of idolatry.
The prohibition of murder.
The prohibition of theft.
The prohibition of sexual immorality.
The prohibition of blasphemy.
The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.

Any individual, whether they belong to an existing religion or not, who follows these 7 laws is a Noahide, and is considered a "righteous gentile". One can be a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, or a member of any other group, and still follow the Noahide covenant.

While there are modern movements who identify as their own religion, that isn't the sole meaning of the term.

^

The Noahide code is a view taken solely from a perspective from within Judaism.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia: “Laws which were supposed by the Rabbis to have been binding upon mankind at large even before the revelation at Sinai, and which are still binding upon non-Jews.” LAWS, NOACHIAN - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Note the word Rabbi. A Rabbi exists solely within Judaism. If Judaism is taken out of the equation the Noahide code is meaningless.

^

It gets really hard to tell the difference between Ben Noach/God-Fearer/Ger Toshav after a while. Of course I still believe Yeshua to be the messiah, but ehh my title is broad enough since my beliefs don't really totally agree with anyone.

^

Confusion......

^

The term "Noahide" is a polite word meaning "Gentile." All Gentiles are Noahides and are obligated to keep the Seven Laws of Noah. Those who keep the Seven Laws are observant Noahides. One could argue that if Judaism didn't exist, then the term "Gentile" would be meaningless. And yet, people of God have kept the Seven Laws for hundreds of years before there ever was such a person we call a Jew. So this way of life predates the Jewish people.

^

It looks like you also have your own view of what "Noahide" means.
The Hebrew phrase "son of Noah" literally includes every person on the planet, but is technically only used for those that accept on themselves the Noahide Laws which would preclude the possibility of being Christian. The English term"Noahide" refers to the latter.

^

That would only be true if you were to divorce Noahidism from its Talmudic source. In that case, I think it should be called something else, or at least change a letter like they do with Kaballah, Caballah and Qaballah. Because at that point, its no longer real Noahidism as expressed in the sources. So why give it the same name?

^

What exactly do you believe? What do you say about Christ?

Tumah has already told you that Noahidism comes from the Talmud and not Torah, but you seem to dispute that. Why? I think someone who knew the ABCs of Noahidism would know it was not mentioned specifically in the Torah.

Well, anyway, this forum is not for debates. So I guess it's your call.

Do you get your religious adherence from the Bible, or from your priest?

 

[Rival]

Here are some different statements regarding Noahidism, presented in the thread..



^


^



^


^


^


^


^


Do you get your religious adherence from the Bible, or from your priest?

From the Church and the Bible. Both are a part of Holy Tradition. The Church is the authority.

 

[Desert Snake]

From the Church and the Bible. Both are a part of Holy Tradition. The Church is the authority.

Contextually, this is a non-answer. The Noahide laws //Noahidism, are from the Torah, and codified in the Talmud. That doesn't mean that the laws are ''from'' the Talmud, or would not exist without the Talmud. Even aside from this, Noahidism isn't ''judaism'', and never was meant to be, obviously. If Noahidism is from the Talmud, then the precepts are actually false, or disingenuous, since the basis via Talmud explanation is that they clearly are from the /Torah.

 

[Tumah]

Contextually, this is a non-answer. The Noahide laws //Noahidism, are from the Torah, and codified in the Talmud. That doesn't mean that the laws are ''from'' the Talmud, or would not exist without the Talmud. Even aside from this, Noahidism isn't ''judaism'', and never was meant to be, obviously. If Noahidism is from the Talmud, then the precepts are actually false, or disingenuous, since the basis via Talmud explanation is that they clearly are from the /Torah.

The Talmud doesn't claim that the Noahide Laws are from the Torah. It uses the Torah as an asmachta for the Noahide Laws that they already knew. This is clear from the method the Talmud uses to explain the Laws.

The Noahide Laws are completely known from the Talmud. There are a number of opinions in the Talmud about what the Noahide Laws are. You only know about the opinion that is the most widely held in the Talmud and its commentaries.

And were it not for the Talmud, you wouldn't know about that either.

 

[Desert Snake]

The Talmud doesn't claim that the Noahide Laws are from the Torah. It uses the Torah as an asmachta for the Noahide Laws that they already knew. This is clear from the method the Talmud uses to explain the Laws.

They become de facto ''from'' the Torah, written or otherwise, when they /the Noahide laws,, are explained via Torah. The only way you could say that they 'aren't' from the Torah, is to claim that they are outside the Torah, in my opinion.

The Noahide Laws are completely known from the Talmud. There are a number of opinions in the Talmud about what the Noahide Laws are. You only know about the opinion that is the most widely held in the Talmud and its commentaries.

You are helping my argument. The fact there are a ''number of opnions'' concerning the Noahide laws, in the Talmud, indicates that as far a codified version, the laws must reach coalescence with the Torah, regardless of how one derives them. This is ''from'', hence. If they were not from the Torah, then no matching would be 'required'.

And were it not for the Talmud, you wouldn't know about that either.

Nonsense. The Noahidic Covenant is stated outright, in basic form, then codified laws are derived from the pre-existing /I'm not arguing that,, religious precepts, in general, concerning Hebraic belief. Aside from more //or less, actual written, or codified, list of laws, the laws are implied directly from the 'Torah', and the only thing one needs to figure that out is, the Torah//written Torah or otherwise. This is no different in methodology from various ideas in Christian religious paradigm, concerning what /if any', of the Torah laws are to be followed, and in what manner.

 

[Tumah]

They become de facto ''from'' the Torah, written or otherwise, when they /the Noahide laws,, are explained via Torah. The only way you could say that they 'aren't' from the Torah, is to claim that they are outside the Torah, in my opinion.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm claiming. They originate outside the Torah and the Rabbis create a hint to them inside the Torah. They aren't explained via the Torah. The Talmud first lists them as a statement of fact and then the Rabbis give a few verses to use as a mnemonic to recall them.

You are helping my argument. The fact there are a ''number of opnions'' concerning the Noahide laws, in the Talmud, indicates that as far a codified version, the laws must reach coalescence with the Torah, regardless of how one derives them. This is ''from'', hence. If they were not from the Torah, then no matching would be 'required'.

Its just the opposite. The ones that argue do so regardless of the verses from the Torah. Because the verses from the Torah are not the source of the ideas.

Nonsense. The Noahidic Covenant is stated outright, in basic form, then codified laws are derived from the pre-existing /I'm not arguing that,, religious precepts, in general, concerning Hebraic belief. Aside from more //or less, actual written, or codified, list of laws, the laws are implied directly from the 'Torah', and the only thing one needs to figure that out is, the Torah//written Torah or otherwise. This is no different in methodology from various ideas in Christian religious paradigm, concerning what /if any', of the Torah laws are to be followed, and in what manner.

Where are the Noahide Laws stated outright?

I can't figure out what you're saying after that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm claiming. They originate outside the Torah and the Rabbis create a hint to them inside the Torah. They aren't explained via the Torah. The Talmud first lists them as a statement of fact and then the Rabbis give a few verses to use as a mnemonic to recall them.


Its just the opposite. The ones that argue do so regardless of the verses from the Torah. Because the verses from the Torah are not the source of the ideas.


Where are the Noahide Laws stated outright?

I can't figure out what you're saying after that.

I'm going to make a presumptive conclusion to this argument of semantics, since we both clearly agree that they actually aren't ''from'' the written Torah, or the Talmud. They are merely codified in the Talmud. Hopefully you'll agree.
L'shalom

 

[Desert Snake]

Where are the Noahide Laws stated outright?

I wrote that the Noahidic Covenant was stated outright, /not codified laws,,
Genesis 6:18

 

[Tumah]

I'm going to make a presumptive conclusion to this argument of semantics, since we both clearly agree that they actually aren't ''from'' the written Torah, or the Talmud. They are merely codified in the Talmud. Hopefully you'll agree.
L'shalom

I'm not sure I would say that they're codified in the Talmud, but they are there, yes.

I wrote that the Noahidic Covenant was stated outright, /not codified laws,,
Genesis 6:18

That doesn't really matter if you don't know what the content of the covenant is.