rosends
Well-Known Member
And you still ignored the response.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jewish Messiah
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
rosends
Well-Known Member
@Clear
Since when is it MY opinion? I was reporting what others had written about it which helped explain Cohen’s restatement. You are, again, assuming that reporting something means that one means that same thing. So sad.
You were asking for the source and logic of the Ibn Yahya. I brought in the Ohr Chadash to provide what I said was “a slightly different way” of connecting to Amalek. I never said that the Ohr Chadash was providing an explanation as to why Amalek was scared – that is a grand title you created and included the Ohr Chadash under it. You need to be more careful when you read and recap.
Why do you then mislead the “readers” by claiming that I brought the Ohr Chadash in to support a claim about Amalek when I explicitly brought it in to show a different connection to Amalek? And your wife’s Hebrew is either really flawed or her understanding of the language of the commentators is really limited. Had she been more learned she might have helped you understand what the Ibn Yahya is really saying.
Relying on your “wife” for her clearly lacking Hebrew, or relying on google translate is a poor way to understand primary sources. I wonder if we could find a Russian who studies the American Constitution in a translation provided by google translate and see if what he comes up with is exactly the same as what American scholars understand.
Don't play cards with an expert and ask your wife if your hand is any good.
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.
Since when is it MY opinion? I was reporting what others had written about it which helped explain Cohen’s restatement. You are, again, assuming that reporting something means that one means that same thing. So sad.
You were asking for the source and logic of the Ibn Yahya. I brought in the Ohr Chadash to provide what I said was “a slightly different way” of connecting to Amalek. I never said that the Ohr Chadash was providing an explanation as to why Amalek was scared – that is a grand title you created and included the Ohr Chadash under it. You need to be more careful when you read and recap.
Why do you then mislead the “readers” by claiming that I brought the Ohr Chadash in to support a claim about Amalek when I explicitly brought it in to show a different connection to Amalek? And your wife’s Hebrew is either really flawed or her understanding of the language of the commentators is really limited. Had she been more learned she might have helped you understand what the Ibn Yahya is really saying.
So you admit that the commentator links his understanding to a biblical connection. It is just that you don’t like it. OK.
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.
Relying on your “wife” for her clearly lacking Hebrew, or relying on google translate is a poor way to understand primary sources. I wonder if we could find a Russian who studies the American Constitution in a translation provided by google translate and see if what he comes up with is exactly the same as what American scholars understand.
Don't play cards with an expert and ask your wife if your hand is any good.
THE SCRIPTURE AT THE CORE OF THE DISCUSS :
ESTER 8:17 “And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.” (NIV)
8) REGARDING ROSENDS CLAIM THAT SPECIFICALLY THE DESCENDANTS OF AMALEK WERE MEANT BY THIS SCRIPTURE..
Rosends claims : Ibn Yahya says that this refers specifically to descendants of Amalek because they knew they were targeted.”
Clear responded : All other historians both you and I have referenced do NOT make this claim, but simply refer to non-Jews as a categorical term.”
Who is ibn Yahya and what are his historical qualifications to render an opinion?
Can you provide any proof to readers regarding Ibn Yahya’s claim that the these people who were scared of Jewish reprisals were only descendants of Amalek and no others?
I asked you to provide historical proof...
Rosends responded : “You are asking me to provide whatever it was that a 16th century scholar used to come to his understanding?
Clear responded : "No, this subtle rewording is NOT what I asked you to do.
You asked for historical proof which I gave, I was simply asking you for proof for your position as well.
I am asking you to provide proof of Ibn Yahya’s claim is historically correct rather than simply a strange opinion.
If you cannot do it, then simply tell readers clearly that you cannot do it.
Then, in a bizarre twist, Rosends starts cutting and pasting hebrew for english readers to "read" saying :
Rosends said : "I can’t do more right now than provide exactly what he wrote and in it, you can see the logic and text he uses to establish his deduction
ורבים מעמי הארץ וגומר. אחשוב כי המתיהדים האלה היו מזרע עמלק ולכן היו מתפחדים מפני גזרת מרדכי. שאם היו משאר עמי הארץ מה להם לפחוד ממרדכי אף כי היה גדול אם לא פשעו כנגדו. ומה שנאמר מחה תמחה את זכר עמלק גזירת שעה היתה. וזרעו לא נמנע מלבוא בקהל. ואולי כי לא נודע הדבר כי אם אחרי שנים רבות. ועשו גם המה בערמה כאשר עשו הגבעונים כדי להחיות את נפשם
The Ohr Chadash (16th century) also connects it to Amalek but in a slightly different way and you can read his sources and logic
"ובכל מדינה ומדינה וגו' ורבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים וגו'" (פסוק יז). דבר זה לא נמצא בשאר גאולות, רק בכאן, שהוא נצוח עמלק. לפי שגורם עמלק לבטל אחדות השם יתברך, וכדכתיב (עובדיה א, כא) "ועלו מושיעים לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה' המלוכה וגו'". ולכך בכאן שהפילו עמלק, היו רבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים, כאשר היה בטל כח המן
Clear said : Rosends, it is silly for you to cut and paste hebrew for English speaking readers.
Do you think they do not know what you are trying to do by trying to hide the data behind a wall of Hebrew so readers cannot see the data?
This is silly.
If you’ve been able to read this in hebrew, then simply give us the data in English so they can see what you are trying to hide.
Even readers of Hebrew see the attempt to obscure your data and will not want wade through the hebrew in order to pull back the curtain of Hebrew you have put in their way to obscure any deficiency of evidence you have.
Rosend responded : "I like how you claim “trying to hide” when I have given you the answer and you just can’t read it. Anything you don’t get must be obfuscation? Hilarious. If you can’t read and understand it, just say so.
Clear responded : I admit my Hebrew is not good so I went to my wife for her hebrew.
NOW I UNDERSTAND why you tried to hide behind the 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.
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).
Rosends. Why on earth would you think that you could hide behind hebrew? Where is there ANY evidence to support your claim?
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 THE CLAIM THAT YOU OFFERED ENGLILSH READERS INFORMATION IN A FORM THEY WERE NOT EXPECTED TO UNDERSTAND
Rosends said : “Great, so you see the textual reference and the logical process that was followed to come to the understanding.
NO. Your textual reference does nothing of the sort.
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”?
This is not logic. This is wrestling the scripture to support an illogical conclusion.
This is another example of the tendency for Rabbinic Judaism to wrestle with and mis-use a scriptural text to support a tradition.
Rosends said : You think that it is hiding to give the source material that makes clear how and why the interpretation was reached? Wow
Your claim is that you gave your quote in a language they do not understand in order to HELP them?
Do you think readers believe you offered data in a language they do not read was an attempt to help them understand?
“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?
ARE THERE ANY READERS IN THE FORUM THAT AGREE THAT THIS IS “HELPFUL” TO OFFER INFORMATION TO READERS IN A LANGUAGE MOST WILL NOT UNDERSTAND?
ARE THERE ANY READERS IN THE FORUM THAT CHANGING THE MEANING OF SIMPLE SCRIPTURE THIS WAY TO SUPPORT THE JEWISH POSITION IS PROPER?
It is worse, to then use sarcasm in blaming them for not understanding a foreign language. SURELY you do not really thing you were trying to help readers by offering them text they could not understand.
Claiming you offered non-Jewish readers data in a language they do not read to "help them" understand seems like a self-serving self deception.
Rosends said : “I was reporting what others had written about it which helped explain Cohen’s restatement.”
And so, you offered them a foreign language to “HELP THEM” understand? Really?
Also, the Hebrew quote DOES NOT help explain Cohen’s statement.
Instead, it simply is another good example misapplying one quote to try to make Cohen say something he did not say.
Rabbi Cohen was clear in telling us “… not that many non-Jews converted to Judaism but that they pretended to be Jews: they professed themselves to be something they were not. They did so because they feared for their lives; the Jews had just been given carte blanche by the king to kill their enemies, and therefore many gentiles pretended to be Jews in order to protect themselves” ( from the book “The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties”. Location 2022 of 6465).
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.
Rosends said : “And your wife’s Hebrew is either really flawed or her understanding of the language of the commentators is really limited”
. Could be, her Jewish instructors were the professors at the university of Jerusalem. Perhaps their Hebrew was flawed in teaching Hebrew.
However, her hebrew is certainly better than mine.
Rosends said : “ Had she been more learned she might have helped you understand what the Ibn Yahya is really saying.”
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 understand trying to offend in order to create an emotional response is a tactic, but it is illogical without data.
Why don’t you tell forum readers what the Ibn Yahya was “really saying” in English so readers can understand.
Rosends said : “So you admit that the commentator links his understanding to a biblical connection. It is just that you don’t like it.”
I neither like nor dislike his opinion.
I think his opinion is interesting, but again, it lacks historical evidence to support the opinion and is a wonderful example of how Rabbinic Judaism comes to create many of their doctrines and traditions and changes the meaning of scriptural text without sufficient supporting evidence.
I asked for historical evidence from you to support your claim. Do you actually have any historical evidence?
Why don’t you explain to me and readers (in English) why you think this man’s opinion is evidence to support your claim?
Clear
ESTER 8:17 “And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.” (NIV)
8) REGARDING ROSENDS CLAIM THAT SPECIFICALLY THE DESCENDANTS OF AMALEK WERE MEANT BY THIS SCRIPTURE..
Rosends claims : Ibn Yahya says that this refers specifically to descendants of Amalek because they knew they were targeted.”
Clear responded : All other historians both you and I have referenced do NOT make this claim, but simply refer to non-Jews as a categorical term.”
Who is ibn Yahya and what are his historical qualifications to render an opinion?
Can you provide any proof to readers regarding Ibn Yahya’s claim that the these people who were scared of Jewish reprisals were only descendants of Amalek and no others?
I asked you to provide historical proof...
Rosends responded : “You are asking me to provide whatever it was that a 16th century scholar used to come to his understanding?
Clear responded : "No, this subtle rewording is NOT what I asked you to do.
You asked for historical proof which I gave, I was simply asking you for proof for your position as well.
I am asking you to provide proof of Ibn Yahya’s claim is historically correct rather than simply a strange opinion.
If you cannot do it, then simply tell readers clearly that you cannot do it.
Then, in a bizarre twist, Rosends starts cutting and pasting hebrew for english readers to "read" saying :
Rosends said : "I can’t do more right now than provide exactly what he wrote and in it, you can see the logic and text he uses to establish his deduction
ורבים מעמי הארץ וגומר. אחשוב כי המתיהדים האלה היו מזרע עמלק ולכן היו מתפחדים מפני גזרת מרדכי. שאם היו משאר עמי הארץ מה להם לפחוד ממרדכי אף כי היה גדול אם לא פשעו כנגדו. ומה שנאמר מחה תמחה את זכר עמלק גזירת שעה היתה. וזרעו לא נמנע מלבוא בקהל. ואולי כי לא נודע הדבר כי אם אחרי שנים רבות. ועשו גם המה בערמה כאשר עשו הגבעונים כדי להחיות את נפשם
The Ohr Chadash (16th century) also connects it to Amalek but in a slightly different way and you can read his sources and logic
"ובכל מדינה ומדינה וגו' ורבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים וגו'" (פסוק יז). דבר זה לא נמצא בשאר גאולות, רק בכאן, שהוא נצוח עמלק. לפי שגורם עמלק לבטל אחדות השם יתברך, וכדכתיב (עובדיה א, כא) "ועלו מושיעים לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה' המלוכה וגו'". ולכך בכאן שהפילו עמלק, היו רבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים, כאשר היה בטל כח המן
Clear said : Rosends, it is silly for you to cut and paste hebrew for English speaking readers.
Do you think they do not know what you are trying to do by trying to hide the data behind a wall of Hebrew so readers cannot see the data?
This is silly.
If you’ve been able to read this in hebrew, then simply give us the data in English so they can see what you are trying to hide.
Even readers of Hebrew see the attempt to obscure your data and will not want wade through the hebrew in order to pull back the curtain of Hebrew you have put in their way to obscure any deficiency of evidence you have.
Rosend responded : "I like how you claim “trying to hide” when I have given you the answer and you just can’t read it. Anything you don’t get must be obfuscation? Hilarious. If you can’t read and understand it, just say so.
Clear responded : I admit my Hebrew is not good so I went to my wife for her hebrew.
NOW I UNDERSTAND why you tried to hide behind the 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.
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).
Rosends. Why on earth would you think that you could hide behind hebrew? Where is there ANY evidence to support your claim?
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 THE CLAIM THAT YOU OFFERED ENGLILSH READERS INFORMATION IN A FORM THEY WERE NOT EXPECTED TO UNDERSTAND
Rosends said : “Great, so you see the textual reference and the logical process that was followed to come to the understanding.
NO. Your textual reference does nothing of the sort.
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”?
This is not logic. This is wrestling the scripture to support an illogical conclusion.
This is another example of the tendency for Rabbinic Judaism to wrestle with and mis-use a scriptural text to support a tradition.
Rosends said : You think that it is hiding to give the source material that makes clear how and why the interpretation was reached? Wow
Your claim is that you gave your quote in a language they do not understand in order to HELP them?
Do you think readers believe you offered data in a language they do not read was an attempt to help them understand?
“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?
ARE THERE ANY READERS IN THE FORUM THAT AGREE THAT THIS IS “HELPFUL” TO OFFER INFORMATION TO READERS IN A LANGUAGE MOST WILL NOT UNDERSTAND?
ARE THERE ANY READERS IN THE FORUM THAT CHANGING THE MEANING OF SIMPLE SCRIPTURE THIS WAY TO SUPPORT THE JEWISH POSITION IS PROPER?
It is worse, to then use sarcasm in blaming them for not understanding a foreign language. SURELY you do not really thing you were trying to help readers by offering them text they could not understand.
Claiming you offered non-Jewish readers data in a language they do not read to "help them" understand seems like a self-serving self deception.
Rosends said : “I was reporting what others had written about it which helped explain Cohen’s restatement.”
And so, you offered them a foreign language to “HELP THEM” understand? Really?
Also, the Hebrew quote DOES NOT help explain Cohen’s statement.
Instead, it simply is another good example misapplying one quote to try to make Cohen say something he did not say.
Rabbi Cohen was clear in telling us “… not that many non-Jews converted to Judaism but that they pretended to be Jews: they professed themselves to be something they were not. They did so because they feared for their lives; the Jews had just been given carte blanche by the king to kill their enemies, and therefore many gentiles pretended to be Jews in order to protect themselves” ( from the book “The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties”. Location 2022 of 6465).
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.
Rosends said : “And your wife’s Hebrew is either really flawed or her understanding of the language of the commentators is really limited”
. Could be, her Jewish instructors were the professors at the university of Jerusalem. Perhaps their Hebrew was flawed in teaching Hebrew.
However, her hebrew is certainly better than mine.
Rosends said : “ Had she been more learned she might have helped you understand what the Ibn Yahya is really saying.”
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 understand trying to offend in order to create an emotional response is a tactic, but it is illogical without data.
Why don’t you tell forum readers what the Ibn Yahya was “really saying” in English so readers can understand.
Rosends said : “So you admit that the commentator links his understanding to a biblical connection. It is just that you don’t like it.”
I neither like nor dislike his opinion.
I think his opinion is interesting, but again, it lacks historical evidence to support the opinion and is a wonderful example of how Rabbinic Judaism comes to create many of their doctrines and traditions and changes the meaning of scriptural text without sufficient supporting evidence.
I asked for historical evidence from you to support your claim. Do you actually have any historical evidence?
Why don’t you explain to me and readers (in English) why you think this man’s opinion is evidence to support your claim?
Clear
rosends
Well-Known Member
@Clear
Ooh, you still don’t get it. It isn’t my claim. I am pointing out the 400 year old statement regarding the verse.
And then all you do is cut and paste the entire back and forth again? What a waste of bandwidth and characters.
My reference was to an interpretation which provided textual evidence and logical method to develop the opinion.
Since you don’t know the Hebrew and can’t figure out what it says, your assessment that it is irrational and illogical makes no sense.
Why would anyone care that you think it is illogical?
No. Why would you impute that claim to me? I gave the original and authentic quote as a primary source because to give a translation would be to insert a mediating force. Working in the original is superior to working with a translation. Does it require that one studies the language and entire theological/linguistic context? Sure. Study and learning require hard work.
I posted a statement with textual content and reference and logical thinking. You don’t like it. Tough.
If there are any English speakers who would want to send me a message, asking for a discussion of the Ibn Yahya, I can try to work through it, word by word so that said English reader can understand.
I don’t recall doing that. Making up claims in order to argue with them is intellectually dishonest.
You keep using that phrase “help them” and you put it in quotes and present it as if it is something I said. It isn’t.
I will try and help you understand (and I’ll type slowly)
You mentioned Cohen’s claim that mityahadim means that there were people who professed to be Jews but who did not convert (post 188). You couched that in a more general claim that this instance was “a particular violent expression of Jewish power” which is not in Cohen (still 188), nor have you presented any information about that, but that's not important.
I said that Cohen’s position about the non-actual-conversion reflects a specific commentator. You asked for it and I pointed to 3 sources:
The Emanuel of Rome quote which says that people were afraid so they professed but did not convert (this is exactly what Cohen said), the Ibn Yahya who says that those who were afraid and therefore fake-converted were Amalekites and he gives the reason they did so in this particular case (specifically because of their nationality) and the Ohr Chadash who says that those who says that those who fake-converted were the weak people (thus disagreeing with the Ibn Yahya).
First, that's not what the Hebrew says in 8:17. It does not say "many people of other nationalities". The text reads
וּבְכׇל־מְדִינָ֨ה וּמְדִינָ֜ה וּבְכׇל־עִ֣יר וָעִ֗יר מְקוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר דְּבַר־הַמֶּ֤לֶךְ וְדָתוֹ֙ מַגִּ֔יעַ שִׂמְחָ֤ה וְשָׂשׂוֹן֙ לַיְּהוּדִ֔ים מִשְׁתֶּ֖ה וְי֣וֹם ט֑וֹב וְרַבִּ֞ים מֵֽעַמֵּ֤י הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ מִֽתְיַהֲדִ֔ים כִּֽי־נָפַ֥ל פַּֽחַד־הַיְּהוּדִ֖ים עֲלֵיהֶֽם׃
And in every province, and in every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a holiday. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.
This is why I actually wrote in post 196 “that R. Cohen was reflecting one specific classic commentator about this one situation” (emphasis added). Note how I connected Cohen to one specific commentator. The other two explain the application and the specific iteration of what that one commentator said, trying to understand what the reference of "people of the land" is to. And while that specific verse does not mention Amalek, the nationhood of Amalek is important in understanding the entire book and it helps one understand (according to what Ibn Yahya explains) why this one group might have fake-converted as opposed to other groups.
Maybe for you because your wife’s Hebrew and Jewish knowledge aren’t very good.
As evidenced by your flawed restatement of the Ibn Yahya, that does seem to be the case. Not every professor of English can explain the legal language of the Constitution.
I know that the conclusions you draw are flawed and if she is your source of understanding and that understanding leads to error, then the error must be with her lack of education. That’s irrational? That's mean? She’s your source and you got it wrong. Either your understanding is poor, or her Hebrew/Judaic knowledge is wrong. Which is it?
So calling something irrational and illogical and dismissing it reflects that you don’t dislike it? Got it.
You keep making the mistake of attributing to me a “claim.” I presented the textual background and the authority whose position is reflected by Cohen. I gave other commentators who agree with that explanation and go further in applying it. I could have quoted the Shelom Esther who gives an interesting understanding of the psychology of the fake conversion (שהם אמרו בלבבם אם ימיתונו נודה לדתם ונמיר דתינו ובזה נתנצל – ask your wife to translate; the google translation is really pretty bad)
One additional note -- it might be, and I'll freely admit that, that Cohen wasn't reflecting a specific commentator, but a specific translation (JPS 1917) which reads
And in every province and in every city, when the king’s command and decree arrived, there was gladness and joy among the Jews, a feast and a holiday. And many of the people of the land professed to be Jews, for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them.
but then you need to go back into the translation and decide why the translator chose the phrase "professed to be Jews". That would be where the understandings of the commentators informed the reading. So maybe Cohen was just relying on the secondary source (the translation) and not looking at the original and investigating its meaning. Could be...you make a fine point.
Ooh, you still don’t get it. It isn’t my claim. I am pointing out the 400 year old statement regarding the verse.
And then all you do is cut and paste the entire back and forth again? What a waste of bandwidth and characters.
My reference was to an interpretation which provided textual evidence and logical method to develop the opinion.
Since you don’t know the Hebrew and can’t figure out what it says, your assessment that it is irrational and illogical makes no sense.
Why would anyone care that you think it is illogical?
No. Why would you impute that claim to me? I gave the original and authentic quote as a primary source because to give a translation would be to insert a mediating force. Working in the original is superior to working with a translation. Does it require that one studies the language and entire theological/linguistic context? Sure. Study and learning require hard work.
I posted a statement with textual content and reference and logical thinking. You don’t like it. Tough.
If there are any English speakers who would want to send me a message, asking for a discussion of the Ibn Yahya, I can try to work through it, word by word so that said English reader can understand.
I don’t recall doing that. Making up claims in order to argue with them is intellectually dishonest.
You keep using that phrase “help them” and you put it in quotes and present it as if it is something I said. It isn’t.
I will try and help you understand (and I’ll type slowly)
You mentioned Cohen’s claim that mityahadim means that there were people who professed to be Jews but who did not convert (post 188). You couched that in a more general claim that this instance was “a particular violent expression of Jewish power” which is not in Cohen (still 188), nor have you presented any information about that, but that's not important.
I said that Cohen’s position about the non-actual-conversion reflects a specific commentator. You asked for it and I pointed to 3 sources:
The Emanuel of Rome quote which says that people were afraid so they professed but did not convert (this is exactly what Cohen said), the Ibn Yahya who says that those who were afraid and therefore fake-converted were Amalekites and he gives the reason they did so in this particular case (specifically because of their nationality) and the Ohr Chadash who says that those who says that those who fake-converted were the weak people (thus disagreeing with the Ibn Yahya).
First, that's not what the Hebrew says in 8:17. It does not say "many people of other nationalities". The text reads
וּבְכׇל־מְדִינָ֨ה וּמְדִינָ֜ה וּבְכׇל־עִ֣יר וָעִ֗יר מְקוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר דְּבַר־הַמֶּ֤לֶךְ וְדָתוֹ֙ מַגִּ֔יעַ שִׂמְחָ֤ה וְשָׂשׂוֹן֙ לַיְּהוּדִ֔ים מִשְׁתֶּ֖ה וְי֣וֹם ט֑וֹב וְרַבִּ֞ים מֵֽעַמֵּ֤י הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ מִֽתְיַהֲדִ֔ים כִּֽי־נָפַ֥ל פַּֽחַד־הַיְּהוּדִ֖ים עֲלֵיהֶֽם׃
And in every province, and in every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a holiday. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.
This is why I actually wrote in post 196 “that R. Cohen was reflecting one specific classic commentator about this one situation” (emphasis added). Note how I connected Cohen to one specific commentator. The other two explain the application and the specific iteration of what that one commentator said, trying to understand what the reference of "people of the land" is to. And while that specific verse does not mention Amalek, the nationhood of Amalek is important in understanding the entire book and it helps one understand (according to what Ibn Yahya explains) why this one group might have fake-converted as opposed to other groups.
Maybe for you because your wife’s Hebrew and Jewish knowledge aren’t very good.
As evidenced by your flawed restatement of the Ibn Yahya, that does seem to be the case. Not every professor of English can explain the legal language of the Constitution.
I know that the conclusions you draw are flawed and if she is your source of understanding and that understanding leads to error, then the error must be with her lack of education. That’s irrational? That's mean? She’s your source and you got it wrong. Either your understanding is poor, or her Hebrew/Judaic knowledge is wrong. Which is it?
So calling something irrational and illogical and dismissing it reflects that you don’t dislike it? Got it.
You keep making the mistake of attributing to me a “claim.” I presented the textual background and the authority whose position is reflected by Cohen. I gave other commentators who agree with that explanation and go further in applying it. I could have quoted the Shelom Esther who gives an interesting understanding of the psychology of the fake conversion (שהם אמרו בלבבם אם ימיתונו נודה לדתם ונמיר דתינו ובזה נתנצל – ask your wife to translate; the google translation is really pretty bad)
One additional note -- it might be, and I'll freely admit that, that Cohen wasn't reflecting a specific commentator, but a specific translation (JPS 1917) which reads
And in every province and in every city, when the king’s command and decree arrived, there was gladness and joy among the Jews, a feast and a holiday. And many of the people of the land professed to be Jews, for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them.
but then you need to go back into the translation and decide why the translator chose the phrase "professed to be Jews". That would be where the understandings of the commentators informed the reading. So maybe Cohen was just relying on the secondary source (the translation) and not looking at the original and investigating its meaning. Could be...you make a fine point.
Last edited:
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Because of the issue of priority.
1) REGARDING THE USE OF THE WORD “JUDEAN” AS A GEOGRAPHICAL REFERENCE ANCIENTLY
Clear said : “You asked for historical “evidence”, you have no right to complain when I am able to provide it.”
Rosends responded : “But you gave no evidence, just the claim of a person about his interpretation and you like that interpretation.” (post #292)
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.
2) REGARDING THE EMERGENCE OF RABBINIC JUDAISM AS A DIFFERENT RELIGION FROM PROPHETIC JUDAISM WITH IT’S MANY DIFFERENCES
Regarding Matrilineality
Clear said : “If you have read his history book, you will remember that one of Rabbi Shaye Cohen points is that “matrilineality” was an innovation of the Rabbis and rabbinic religion and was not part of the prophetic religion of ancient Israel.
Rosends responded : So that’s his claim. Have you asked him how he deals with the biblical origin.
If you read his book, he actually discussed how and when later Rabbinism abandoned biblical Patrilineality and came to adopt matrilineality.
Regarding the contamination of Prophetic Judaism by the leaders during the emergence of the later Rabbinic Judaism
Clear explained : “Rabbinic Judaism is contaminated with many innovations and doctrines and rules that are simply based on their varying and often conflicting opinions and personal interpretation of scriptures.”
Rosends replied : More of your opinion, but OK.
I understand why you keep using that word opinion for historians who are providing objective data from ancient sources and to my opinion.
But they (and I) I have historical reasons for making this observation (which is true of Christianity and Islam as well).
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. “
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.
Rosends said : “I deny that Jesus was at all connected to God so I undercut the entirety of Christianity. (rosends post 292).
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.
I think ancient “prophetic Judaism” is authentic revelatory religion and is unquestionably and profoundly important.
It is the innovations and accretions created by rabbis and leaders and passed down to their membership where we find most of the differences between ancient prophetic Judaism (i.e. religious concepts originating by prophets and prophetic gifts) and the later emergence of rabbinic Judaism (i.e. religious concepts originating by rabbis and by their interpretations and opinions).
The example of the Jewish Doctrine that Adam was created with Both Male and Female sex organs as an example of unusual Jewish interpretation of Text :
Clear said : The Jewish doctrine that Adam was created with BOTH male and female sex organs is a jewish doctrine that I think is simply based on a bizarre interpretation of the biblical text.
Rosends responded : “Not a Jewish doctrine. An interpretive opinion”
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”? You are correct that we've discussed this in the past and that you've made the same claim that Rabbinic Judaism is based on your interpretation of prior Prophetic religion and I have taken the position that the religion led by rabbis is not the same religion as the religion led by prophets.
Lets take yet another look at some cut and pastes that any reader can find simply by googling Adam hermaphrodite, or Adam Adrogenus, etc.
Page two of two follows
Clear said : “You asked for historical “evidence”, you have no right to complain when I am able to provide it.”
Rosends responded : “But you gave no evidence, just the claim of a person about his interpretation and you like that interpretation.” (post #292)
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.
2) REGARDING THE EMERGENCE OF RABBINIC JUDAISM AS A DIFFERENT RELIGION FROM PROPHETIC JUDAISM WITH IT’S MANY DIFFERENCES
Regarding Matrilineality
Clear said : “If you have read his history book, you will remember that one of Rabbi Shaye Cohen points is that “matrilineality” was an innovation of the Rabbis and rabbinic religion and was not part of the prophetic religion of ancient Israel.
Rosends responded : So that’s his claim. Have you asked him how he deals with the biblical origin.
If you read his book, he actually discussed how and when later Rabbinism abandoned biblical Patrilineality and came to adopt matrilineality.
Regarding the contamination of Prophetic Judaism by the leaders during the emergence of the later Rabbinic Judaism
Clear explained : “Rabbinic Judaism is contaminated with many innovations and doctrines and rules that are simply based on their varying and often conflicting opinions and personal interpretation of scriptures.”
Rosends replied : More of your opinion, but OK.
I understand why you keep using that word opinion for historians who are providing objective data from ancient sources and to my opinion.
But they (and I) I have historical reasons for making this observation (which is true of Christianity and Islam as well).
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. “
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.
Rosends said : “I deny that Jesus was at all connected to God so I undercut the entirety of Christianity. (rosends post 292).
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.
I think ancient “prophetic Judaism” is authentic revelatory religion and is unquestionably and profoundly important.
It is the innovations and accretions created by rabbis and leaders and passed down to their membership where we find most of the differences between ancient prophetic Judaism (i.e. religious concepts originating by prophets and prophetic gifts) and the later emergence of rabbinic Judaism (i.e. religious concepts originating by rabbis and by their interpretations and opinions).
The example of the Jewish Doctrine that Adam was created with Both Male and Female sex organs as an example of unusual Jewish interpretation of Text :
Clear said : The Jewish doctrine that Adam was created with BOTH male and female sex organs is a jewish doctrine that I think is simply based on a bizarre interpretation of the biblical text.
Rosends responded : “Not a Jewish doctrine. An interpretive opinion”
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”? You are correct that we've discussed this in the past and that you've made the same claim that Rabbinic Judaism is based on your interpretation of prior Prophetic religion and I have taken the position that the religion led by rabbis is not the same religion as the religion led by prophets.
Lets take yet another look at some cut and pastes that any reader can find simply by googling Adam hermaphrodite, or Adam Adrogenus, etc.
Page two of two follows
Last edited:
PAGE THREE OF THREE
REGARDING THE JEWISH "OPINION" THAT ADAM WAS CREATED WITH BOTH MALE AND FEMALE SEXUAL ORGANS. (CONTINUED)
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
REGARDING THE JEWISH "OPINION" THAT ADAM WAS CREATED WITH BOTH MALE AND FEMALE SEXUAL ORGANS. (CONTINUED)
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
Last edited:
rosends
Well-Known Member
Fantastic -- this is exactly what I have been asking for. Do you have evidence that the gardener wasn't Jewish? That would be perfect!
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.
That doesn't deal with the issue of biblical 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.
Not exactly true. Rabbinic authorities do have that authority. You just deny that.
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.
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.
rosends
Well-Known Member
did you read through these to see all the mentions of interpretation and other opinions?
And when you see that, you decide that certain views and explanations are "whispy and tenuous" or "bizarre and irrational." Those are your opinions and judgments speaking. You think things are strange, but who cares what you think?
Modern Jewish seem to forget that first Christians were Jewish ...
They, today, think they know better than those other Jews in the first century.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
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:
Hos. 2:23 And I shall certainly sow her like seed for me in the earth, and I will show mercy to her who was not shown mercy, and I will say to those not my people: “You are my people”; and they, for their part, will say: “my God.”
Mal. 3:16 At that time those who fear Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance was written before him for those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.
17 “And they will be mine,” says Jehovah of armies, “in the day when I produce a special property. I will show them compassion, just as a man shows compassion to his son who serves him. 18 And you will again see the distinction between a righteous person and a wicked person, between one serving God and one not serving him.”
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
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
Last edited:
POST TWO OF TWO
5) REGARDING THE PARTS OF RABBINIC JUDAISM THAT ARE GOOD AND WONDERFUL AND VALUABLE
Rosends said : “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.”
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.
All three Judaisms I am referring to adopted the Bible/TaNaKh, all three quote from these earlier prophetic texts (though they often interpret them differently), all three took the 10 commandments and other elements of Prophetic religion with them, etc.
The texts and commandments originated from Prophetic religion.
6) REGARDING CALLING THE JEWISH TEACHING/BELIEF THAT ADAM HAD BOTH MALE AND FEMALE SEXUAL ORGANS AN “OPINION” RATHER THAN A “DOCTRINE”.
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) :
Rosends said : “ 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.
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.
Rosends said : did you read through these to see all the mentions of interpretation and other opinions? And when you see that, you decide that certain views and explanations are "whispy and tenuous" or "bizarre and irrational." Those are your opinions and judgments speaking.
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?
You can describe it in your own words and thus control the presentation. Your presentation will probably be kinder than mine.
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.
For example : Rabbinic discussions about the two versions of Creation and the androgyne can be found in Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah, which are collections of midrashim about the books of Genesis and Leviticus.
In Genesis Rabbah the rabbis wonder whether a verse from Psalms offers insight into the first version of Creation, perhaps indicating that ‘adam was actually a hermaphrodite with two faces: “’You have formed me before and behind’ (Psalms 139:5)…
Rabbi Jeremiah b. Leazar said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first ‘adam, He created it with both male and female sexual organs, as it is written, ‘Male and female He created them, and He called their name ‘adam,’ (Genesis 5:2).
Simply using Genesis 5:2 and combining it with Psalms 139:5 is, to me, a very tenuous connection which does not justify the Jewish Rabbinic belief/claim/opinion, etc.
Rabbi Samuel b. Nahmani said, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first ‘adam, He created him with two faces, then split him and made him two backs – a back for each side.” (Genesis Rabbah 8:1)
Again, this is another strange conclusion based upon very little data. How does any scripture tell us specifically that Adam had “two faces” and where does the text tell us God “split” adam and “made him two backs” for the two “front sides” they say Adam was created with.
So, According to this discussion, Genesis 1 actually tells us about the creation of a hermaphrodite with two faces. Then in Genesis 2 this primal androgyne is split in half and two separate beings are created – a man and a woman.
A similar discussion can be found in Leviticus Rabbah 14:1 where Rabbi Levi states: “When man was created, he was created with two body-fronts, and He [God] sawed him in two, so that two backs resulted, one back for the male and another for the female.”
While the concept of the androgyne allowed the rabbis to reconcile the two accounts of Creation, The scriptures simply don't tell us God “sawed” Adam in half, or that he specifically had two sets of sexual organs (both male and female). The text doesn’t tell us Adam was able to have sex with himself and have children without the need for Eve (as another rabbinic opinion tells us).
Rosends, why don’t YOU describe how rabbis came to this opinion/teaching/doctrine/ understanding, belief, etc and tell us how the scriptures really justifies this belief?
Clear
5) REGARDING THE PARTS OF RABBINIC JUDAISM THAT ARE GOOD AND WONDERFUL AND VALUABLE
Rosends said : “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.”
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.
All three Judaisms I am referring to adopted the Bible/TaNaKh, all three quote from these earlier prophetic texts (though they often interpret them differently), all three took the 10 commandments and other elements of Prophetic religion with them, etc.
The texts and commandments originated from Prophetic religion.
6) REGARDING CALLING THE JEWISH TEACHING/BELIEF THAT ADAM HAD BOTH MALE AND FEMALE SEXUAL ORGANS AN “OPINION” RATHER THAN A “DOCTRINE”.
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) :
Rosends said : “ 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.
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.
Rosends said : did you read through these to see all the mentions of interpretation and other opinions? And when you see that, you decide that certain views and explanations are "whispy and tenuous" or "bizarre and irrational." Those are your opinions and judgments speaking.
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?
You can describe it in your own words and thus control the presentation. Your presentation will probably be kinder than mine.
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.
For example : Rabbinic discussions about the two versions of Creation and the androgyne can be found in Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah, which are collections of midrashim about the books of Genesis and Leviticus.
In Genesis Rabbah the rabbis wonder whether a verse from Psalms offers insight into the first version of Creation, perhaps indicating that ‘adam was actually a hermaphrodite with two faces: “’You have formed me before and behind’ (Psalms 139:5)…
Rabbi Jeremiah b. Leazar said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first ‘adam, He created it with both male and female sexual organs, as it is written, ‘Male and female He created them, and He called their name ‘adam,’ (Genesis 5:2).
Simply using Genesis 5:2 and combining it with Psalms 139:5 is, to me, a very tenuous connection which does not justify the Jewish Rabbinic belief/claim/opinion, etc.
Rabbi Samuel b. Nahmani said, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first ‘adam, He created him with two faces, then split him and made him two backs – a back for each side.” (Genesis Rabbah 8:1)
Again, this is another strange conclusion based upon very little data. How does any scripture tell us specifically that Adam had “two faces” and where does the text tell us God “split” adam and “made him two backs” for the two “front sides” they say Adam was created with.
So, According to this discussion, Genesis 1 actually tells us about the creation of a hermaphrodite with two faces. Then in Genesis 2 this primal androgyne is split in half and two separate beings are created – a man and a woman.
A similar discussion can be found in Leviticus Rabbah 14:1 where Rabbi Levi states: “When man was created, he was created with two body-fronts, and He [God] sawed him in two, so that two backs resulted, one back for the male and another for the female.”
While the concept of the androgyne allowed the rabbis to reconcile the two accounts of Creation, The scriptures simply don't tell us God “sawed” Adam in half, or that he specifically had two sets of sexual organs (both male and female). The text doesn’t tell us Adam was able to have sex with himself and have children without the need for Eve (as another rabbinic opinion tells us).
Rosends, why don’t YOU describe how rabbis came to this opinion/teaching/doctrine/ understanding, belief, etc and tell us how the scriptures really justifies this belief?
Clear
Last edited:
rosends
Well-Known Member
So people were put into an enclave named after other Judeans? So they were subsequently named after the enclave outside of Israel not after the people or the religion. It would be like if I moved to Rome, New York. That would make me “Roman” right?
I don’t recall asking that but it does bring up the possibility. As I said, names are not a good way to decide religion etc.
My counter claim? I have a claim based only in your lack of evidence to support your affirmative claim.
Did I say that? I just rechecked the entire thread. This is the first mention of this. Do you need to make it a practice to lie and claim things that weren’t part of discussion so you can pontificate about them?
There is no controversy. You invented this entire point. Why would you do that? Have you no intellectual integrity?
Nope, I’m talking about Judaism. You deny certain basic elements of it and want to rename it to justify your thinking. The two religions are the same – the named authorities within them change over time. Before the prophets, the biblical text refers to judges and policemen and elders as authorities.
You mean “Christianity”. Wait, you don’t agree when someone else renames the religion? Exactly.
I am describing Judaism as it has been. Moses appointed judges to adjudicate and apply laws way back when. They weren’t prophets and yet they had a set of rules by which to know how to explain and apply laws in varying situations. Moses passed that authority along so that leaders (be they prophets, kings or elders or others) can develop edicts and applications as the world changes. It was almost always without any prophetic revelation, even for the prophets. You don’t have to like it.
You make the initial mistake of invoking some weird notion of “prophetic Judaism” – had you been alive then, would you have railed at them saying that their new “prophetic Judaism” is unconnected to the “Mosaic Judaism” because they replaced judges, elders and policemen with prophets?
The fact that Christianity took certain aspects of Judaism and inserted a false messianic figure into there doesn’t seem to bother you. OK.
You never confirmed anything. You asked me “ 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”?”
and I said that, yes, that’s exactly right. That shows that you are here, lying again about some phantom “confirm.”
but we can’t call it a doctrine.
GREAT! Notice you inserted “I think” in there. But who cares what you think?
I could list hermeneutic rules and give links to the various levels and types of rules and practices in Judaism if anyone wanted to read all about how the various authorities understand text. It is very complex and immersive (which is one reason that ignorant people look at it superficially and decide it is “strange, bizarre and tenuous.”)
There isn’t much to defend. People either cede to an authority or don’t. I’m not in this to make anyone else believe anything. The text used an unexpected word so interpreters who insist on the precision and exactitude of the text tried to find explanations for that word. There have been a few different understandings. Because all are just interpretations with no real practical application, and each is based in the logical method of the person who made it, Jews are free to accept, reject or question any and all of them. There are supporting texts in midrash that can be invoked but the very nature of midrash makes that a dicey proposition. The student of Judaism understands that midrash might be a really bad way to support any contention, so that might make that conclusion problematic. Others would say that midrash has a particular place and function and as a supporting text, it is very useful. None would say that the conclusion is strange or tenuous, or question the volume or ultimate validity of the data as you do.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
" 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. "
A wonderful point of our friend @Clear , can one please elaborate?:
Why did the Judaism people tempted/degenerate to the lesser " Rabbinic Judaism" by leaving the truthful/spiritual "Prophetic Religion" based on Word of Revelation, please?
Regards
Last edited:
POST ONE OF TWO
REGARDING THE EARLY JEWISH TRADITION THAT ADAM WAS BORN WITH BOTH SETS OF SEX ORGANS :
From THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA (in purple)
Rabbinical literature knows both the mythical and the real hermaphrodite: the former in the Haggadah, the latter in the Halakah. The notion of bisexuality must have been derived from Hellenic sources, as the Greek form of the word proves. The other form, "hermaphrodite," never occurs in rabbinical writings. The principle of the sexual generation of the world is not of Greek origin: its phallic character pointing to India as its birthplace…..
In the Haggadah.
Transmitted and developed through dualistic Gnosticism in the East, the notion of an androgynous creation was adopted by the Haggadists in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of the Bible. In Gen. ii. 7 and 18 et seq., the separate creations of man and of woman are described, while in chap. i. 27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," their creation is described as coincident. In connection with the latter verse the Midrash states (Gen. R. viii.): "Jeremiah, son of Eleazar, says: God created Adam androgynous, but Samuel, son of Naḥman, says, He created him 'double-faced,' then cutting him in twain and forming two backs, one to the one and the other to the second" (see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 547, iii. 585). The same statement is given in Moses ha-Darshan's Bere**** Rabbati ("Pugio Fidei," p. 446, Paris, 1651).
I might point out that medically, a hermaphrodite is a single individual who has both sexual characteristics (e.g. they may have both sets of organs, male and female), whereas the “double-faced” Jewish version seems to have two individuals of different sexes, melded into in one body, but facing different directions (like the mythical Janus, whose face looks both forward and backward).
Thus, the Jewish encyclopedia explains that : according to Jeremiah's opinion, Adam had both sexes, and was thus a real hermaphrodite in the old mythical sense….
This represents ADAM as a hermaphrodite since, as Rabbi Hirsch points out, “Eve was created later”, after Adam and not at the same time.
The midrash in Stones Chumash (a printed Torah. Not a scroll) elaborates regarding the creation of Eve as a “companion” to Adam. “God knew that Adam needed a companion. Her purpose was not for reproduction, for Adam had been created with that function.”
The Jewish encyclopedia further explains that “In all the parallel passages in the Talmud, the opinion of Samuel b. Naḥman alone prevails, for we find regularly Adam (bifrons, double-fronted), as, for example: 'Er. 18a, Ber. 61a, etc. (Jastrow, "Dict." s.v., p. 304, 1). The opinion expressed by Jeremiah is, however, very old and wide-spread, for we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"; Augustine writes against it in his commentary on Genesis, ad loc. ch. 22. Strabos,agreeing with Augustine, declares this opinion to be one of the "damnatæ Judæorum fabulæ." Others revive the question, and Sixtus Senensis in his "Bibliotheca Sacra" devotes to it a special chapter (ed. Colon. 1586, fol. 344, 345). An alchemic interpretation has been given to "Adam androgynus," by Guil. Menens, "Aurei Velleris libri tres, Theatrum chemicum," vol. v., p. 275, Argent., 1660.
In the Halakah.
In the halakic writings only "Androgynos" is used, never "duoprosopin" (bifrons), and always in the physiological sense of "bisexual." In the Mishnah Bikkurim, the whole of section iv. is devoted to the minute description of the legal position and abnormities of the Androgynos. In some particulars he is to be treated as a man, in others as a woman, as he partakes of both natures; not so the "ṭum-ṭum," an individual whose sex can not be determined. This Androgynos is a common figure in classical tradition. Pliny mentions him ("Historia Naturalis," vii. 34), and Gellius ("Noctes Atticæ," ix. 4, 16). Special attention was paid to the Androgynos in the old writers on physiognomy. Compare "Scriptores Physiognomonici Græci et Latini," ed. Foerster, Leipsic, 1893, under "Androgynos," in Index Græcus (ii. 368). For the further legal treatment of the Androgynos in Hebrew law, see Isaac Lampronti in his "Paḥad Yiẓḥaḳ," s.v., and Löw, "Lebensalter."
Obviously the early and widespread Jewish tradition that an "andro / gynus" (male / female) adam had organs of both sexes was a very widespread and deeply footed tradition in orthodox Judaism. However, it does not exist in any detail in the tanakh (Hebrew bible) but is simply exegetal speculation and irrationality run wild.
This sort of irrational and illogical speculation that creates a bisexual/two-bodied adam with a tail (the tail is in other Jewish literature) is similar to the same sort of irrational and illogic that creates similar strange metaphors out of simple words and seeks to contaminate the early judeo-christian traditions with Jewish mythology. The forced marriage of the two theologies historically will not work in this way and Jews should NOT try to create this artificial relationship between two, differing theologies simply because one or two words are shared between them.
For example, When Christians use the words "Adam was created in the image of God", early Christians did NOT adopt a widespread tradition that Adam had both sex organs and that Adam could, by use of both sets of sex organs together, create children without eve. This may be Jewish, but it is not represented in any widespread fashion in sacred early Christian texts and, as the Jewish encyclopedia admits, "we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"
I have wondered if this insistent Jewish tendency not to take God at his obvious word, but, rather to change his word by mythologizing and spiritualizing and metaphorizing Gods word so as to not even recognize the basic and simple meanings of words, was part of what angered God against the Jews and contributed to God taking away the prophetic Gifts from the Jews transfering prophecy and revelation to the early Christian movement.
How did such a tradition originate and become so detailed and ingrained in Jewish tradition in the context of Tanahk (i.e. the hebrew bible / Old Testament). Deut 12:32 tells the Jews regarding the Torah, "....do not add to it or take away from it.".
Perhaps this Jewish insistence on metaphorizing and re-defining and contributed to the reasons God took away their temple and its associated worship out of the midst of the Jews and left them with synagogues instead, or why he took away their active priesthood associated with the temple worship and left them with teachers (rabbis) instead.
There are certain things which God said fairly clearly and which the early Christians took much more at face value than the Jews, they did not add nor subtract to the text nearly so much as the Jews did with the creation of their many traditions and rules (which were never part of the Old Testament / Tanakh in the first place).
How does one create such detailed and deep-seated traditions like this without adding speculations and illogical conclusions and irrational considerations to the text? It's obvious, the Jews had to add to Tanakh to create such traditions.
1) GODS ANGER AGAINST THE JEWS AND THEIR PUNISHMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT “MEANINGS” AND TRADITIONS
As I explained in my last post, there was an underlying cause to God’s anger against the Jews which resulted in his taking away their prophets and prophetic gifts, leaving them only with texts and teachers, something which caused him to remove his temple from their midst, which left them with synagogues instead, and something which motivated him, in his anger, to remove the priesthood from their midst and leave them with rabbis (teachers without priesthood) instead.
Part of the source of Gods anger against the Jews was not just how they persecuted prophets he sent to them, but how they treated the words he sent to them. It is an early, tentative model that seems to arise when I look at how they developed their theology as a rabbi-derived model.
For example, Deut 12:32 warns the Jews regarding Gods words given them, "....do not add to it or take away from it.".
The problem created by Jewish theology and tradition created by Rabbis and then delivered to a Jewish population is that though this system did not alter the written word a great deal, the Jewish traditions created by this rabbinical system systematically added to and took away from the meanings of God’s word.
Through attempts at logic and reasoning, add to and elaborate upon very simple and fairly straight forward texts delivered from God, rather than as a tanakh-derived model. I think the Jewish traditions surrounding the creation of Man (Adam) is a good model regarding how a basic truth can be elaborated, twisted, changed to the point where the finished theology of the people is quite different than what God actually gave them. To be fair, this is similar to the problems created for Christians when they began to create theology through theologians (which theology was then delivered to and adopted by Christian populations in the later Christian movement).
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
REGARDING THE EARLY JEWISH TRADITION THAT ADAM WAS BORN WITH BOTH SETS OF SEX ORGANS :
From THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA (in purple)
Rabbinical literature knows both the mythical and the real hermaphrodite: the former in the Haggadah, the latter in the Halakah. The notion of bisexuality must have been derived from Hellenic sources, as the Greek form of the word proves. The other form, "hermaphrodite," never occurs in rabbinical writings. The principle of the sexual generation of the world is not of Greek origin: its phallic character pointing to India as its birthplace…..
In the Haggadah.
Transmitted and developed through dualistic Gnosticism in the East, the notion of an androgynous creation was adopted by the Haggadists in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of the Bible. In Gen. ii. 7 and 18 et seq., the separate creations of man and of woman are described, while in chap. i. 27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," their creation is described as coincident. In connection with the latter verse the Midrash states (Gen. R. viii.): "Jeremiah, son of Eleazar, says: God created Adam androgynous, but Samuel, son of Naḥman, says, He created him 'double-faced,' then cutting him in twain and forming two backs, one to the one and the other to the second" (see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 547, iii. 585). The same statement is given in Moses ha-Darshan's Bere**** Rabbati ("Pugio Fidei," p. 446, Paris, 1651).
I might point out that medically, a hermaphrodite is a single individual who has both sexual characteristics (e.g. they may have both sets of organs, male and female), whereas the “double-faced” Jewish version seems to have two individuals of different sexes, melded into in one body, but facing different directions (like the mythical Janus, whose face looks both forward and backward).
Thus, the Jewish encyclopedia explains that : according to Jeremiah's opinion, Adam had both sexes, and was thus a real hermaphrodite in the old mythical sense….
This represents ADAM as a hermaphrodite since, as Rabbi Hirsch points out, “Eve was created later”, after Adam and not at the same time.
The midrash in Stones Chumash (a printed Torah. Not a scroll) elaborates regarding the creation of Eve as a “companion” to Adam. “God knew that Adam needed a companion. Her purpose was not for reproduction, for Adam had been created with that function.”
The Jewish encyclopedia further explains that “In all the parallel passages in the Talmud, the opinion of Samuel b. Naḥman alone prevails, for we find regularly Adam (bifrons, double-fronted), as, for example: 'Er. 18a, Ber. 61a, etc. (Jastrow, "Dict." s.v., p. 304, 1). The opinion expressed by Jeremiah is, however, very old and wide-spread, for we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"; Augustine writes against it in his commentary on Genesis, ad loc. ch. 22. Strabos,agreeing with Augustine, declares this opinion to be one of the "damnatæ Judæorum fabulæ." Others revive the question, and Sixtus Senensis in his "Bibliotheca Sacra" devotes to it a special chapter (ed. Colon. 1586, fol. 344, 345). An alchemic interpretation has been given to "Adam androgynus," by Guil. Menens, "Aurei Velleris libri tres, Theatrum chemicum," vol. v., p. 275, Argent., 1660.
In the Halakah.
In the halakic writings only "Androgynos" is used, never "duoprosopin" (bifrons), and always in the physiological sense of "bisexual." In the Mishnah Bikkurim, the whole of section iv. is devoted to the minute description of the legal position and abnormities of the Androgynos. In some particulars he is to be treated as a man, in others as a woman, as he partakes of both natures; not so the "ṭum-ṭum," an individual whose sex can not be determined. This Androgynos is a common figure in classical tradition. Pliny mentions him ("Historia Naturalis," vii. 34), and Gellius ("Noctes Atticæ," ix. 4, 16). Special attention was paid to the Androgynos in the old writers on physiognomy. Compare "Scriptores Physiognomonici Græci et Latini," ed. Foerster, Leipsic, 1893, under "Androgynos," in Index Græcus (ii. 368). For the further legal treatment of the Androgynos in Hebrew law, see Isaac Lampronti in his "Paḥad Yiẓḥaḳ," s.v., and Löw, "Lebensalter."
Obviously the early and widespread Jewish tradition that an "andro / gynus" (male / female) adam had organs of both sexes was a very widespread and deeply footed tradition in orthodox Judaism. However, it does not exist in any detail in the tanakh (Hebrew bible) but is simply exegetal speculation and irrationality run wild.
This sort of irrational and illogical speculation that creates a bisexual/two-bodied adam with a tail (the tail is in other Jewish literature) is similar to the same sort of irrational and illogic that creates similar strange metaphors out of simple words and seeks to contaminate the early judeo-christian traditions with Jewish mythology. The forced marriage of the two theologies historically will not work in this way and Jews should NOT try to create this artificial relationship between two, differing theologies simply because one or two words are shared between them.
For example, When Christians use the words "Adam was created in the image of God", early Christians did NOT adopt a widespread tradition that Adam had both sex organs and that Adam could, by use of both sets of sex organs together, create children without eve. This may be Jewish, but it is not represented in any widespread fashion in sacred early Christian texts and, as the Jewish encyclopedia admits, "we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"
I have wondered if this insistent Jewish tendency not to take God at his obvious word, but, rather to change his word by mythologizing and spiritualizing and metaphorizing Gods word so as to not even recognize the basic and simple meanings of words, was part of what angered God against the Jews and contributed to God taking away the prophetic Gifts from the Jews transfering prophecy and revelation to the early Christian movement.
How did such a tradition originate and become so detailed and ingrained in Jewish tradition in the context of Tanahk (i.e. the hebrew bible / Old Testament). Deut 12:32 tells the Jews regarding the Torah, "....do not add to it or take away from it.".
Perhaps this Jewish insistence on metaphorizing and re-defining and contributed to the reasons God took away their temple and its associated worship out of the midst of the Jews and left them with synagogues instead, or why he took away their active priesthood associated with the temple worship and left them with teachers (rabbis) instead.
There are certain things which God said fairly clearly and which the early Christians took much more at face value than the Jews, they did not add nor subtract to the text nearly so much as the Jews did with the creation of their many traditions and rules (which were never part of the Old Testament / Tanakh in the first place).
How does one create such detailed and deep-seated traditions like this without adding speculations and illogical conclusions and irrational considerations to the text? It's obvious, the Jews had to add to Tanakh to create such traditions.
1) GODS ANGER AGAINST THE JEWS AND THEIR PUNISHMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT “MEANINGS” AND TRADITIONS
As I explained in my last post, there was an underlying cause to God’s anger against the Jews which resulted in his taking away their prophets and prophetic gifts, leaving them only with texts and teachers, something which caused him to remove his temple from their midst, which left them with synagogues instead, and something which motivated him, in his anger, to remove the priesthood from their midst and leave them with rabbis (teachers without priesthood) instead.
Part of the source of Gods anger against the Jews was not just how they persecuted prophets he sent to them, but how they treated the words he sent to them. It is an early, tentative model that seems to arise when I look at how they developed their theology as a rabbi-derived model.
For example, Deut 12:32 warns the Jews regarding Gods words given them, "....do not add to it or take away from it.".
The problem created by Jewish theology and tradition created by Rabbis and then delivered to a Jewish population is that though this system did not alter the written word a great deal, the Jewish traditions created by this rabbinical system systematically added to and took away from the meanings of God’s word.
Through attempts at logic and reasoning, add to and elaborate upon very simple and fairly straight forward texts delivered from God, rather than as a tanakh-derived model. I think the Jewish traditions surrounding the creation of Man (Adam) is a good model regarding how a basic truth can be elaborated, twisted, changed to the point where the finished theology of the people is quite different than what God actually gave them. To be fair, this is similar to the problems created for Christians when they began to create theology through theologians (which theology was then delivered to and adopted by Christian populations in the later Christian movement).
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Last edited:
POST TWO OF TWO
2) ADAM CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD - THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION COMPARED TO THE JEWISH TRADITION
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him. Male and female created he them.
As you will see, the two theological models differ on whether this specific sentence “God created man in his own image” really meant “[a single man] in his own image” or if this sentence meant “God created man, and woman, and the rest of mankind in his own image”. (since other verses make clear all of mankind, are, in some way, created in his image)
3) INTERPRETATION OF A SINGLE WORD AS THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM
If the early Christian tradition is correct then this sentence refers specifically to ADAM who is created in the virtual image of his creator. If this is correct, then the sentence as given, and the rest of Genesis and the other early Judeo-Christian textual traditions regarding Adam appearance, make perfect sense without any elaboration, additional tradition, rationalizations, and an illogical hermaphrodite adam with two sets of sex organs (as are created in the Jewish tradition. The Second sentence “Male and female created he them” is simply referring to the later creation of Eve and other mankind which occurred later (since they were NOT created at the same time)
IF the Jewish model is correct that this specific sentence refers not only to ADAM as “mankind” , but to females and all other men as well, then it makes sense that the rabbis would feel the need to create tradition to add onto the text, in order to reconcile the problems created by such an interpretation. It would make sense that the Rabbis would add onto the biblical text, a traditions which could explain how “GOD” could make BOTH male and female and all other of mankind “in his image”. I think this theory of hermaphroditism was distasteful to them, especially given their moral stance towards sexual deviancy, but they did not see a way out of the quandary, their interpretation created.
1) REGARDING CALLING THE JEWISH TEACHING/BELIEF THAT ADAM HAD BOTH MALE AND FEMALE SEXUAL ORGANS AN “OPINION” RATHER THAN A “DOCTRINE”.
After confirming that the Rabbinic Judaic Rabbis taught that Adam had both Male and Female Genitalia actually IS a Jewish doctrine / opinion / belief / teaching / interpretation / etc in posts 307, 308 and 309) :
Rosends said : did you read through these to see all the mentions of interpretation and other opinions? And when you see that, you decide that certain views and explanations are "whispy and tenuous" or "bizarre and irrational." Those are your opinions and judgments speaking.
Clear responded : "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?
You can describe it in your own words and thus control the presentation. Your presentation will probably be kinder than mine.
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.
For example : Rabbinic discussions about the two versions of Creation and the androgyne can be found in Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah, which are collections of midrashim about the books of Genesis and Leviticus.
In Genesis Rabbah the rabbis wonder whether a verse from Psalms offers insight into the first version of Creation, perhaps indicating that ‘adam was actually a hermaphrodite with two faces: “’You have formed me before and behind’ (Psalms 139:5)…
Rabbi Jeremiah b. Leazar said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first ‘adam, He created it with both male and female sexual organs, as it is written, ‘Male and female He created them, and He called their name ‘adam,’ (Genesis 5:2).
Simply using Genesis 5:2 and combining it with Psalms 139:5 is, to me, a very tenuous connection which does not justify the Jewish Rabbinic belief/claim/opinion, etc.
Rabbi Samuel b. Nahmani said, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first ‘adam, He created him with two faces, then split him and made him two backs – a back for each side.” (Genesis Rabbah 8:1)
Again, this is another strange conclusion based upon very little data. How does any scripture tell us specifically that Adam had “two faces” and where does the text tell us God “split” adam and “made him two backs” for the two “front sides” they say Adam was created with.
So, According to this discussion, Genesis 1 actually tells us about the creation of a hermaphrodite with two faces. Then in Genesis 2 this primal androgyne is split in half and two separate beings are created – a man and a woman.
A similar discussion can be found in Leviticus Rabbah 14:1 where Rabbi Levi states: “When man was created, he was created with two body-fronts, and He [God] sawed him in two, so that two backs resulted, one back for the male and another for the female.”
While the concept of the androgyne allowed the rabbis to reconcile the two accounts of Creation, The scriptures simply don't tell us God “sawed” Adam in half, or that he specifically had two sets of sexual organs (both male and female). The text doesn’t tell us Adam was able to have sex with himself and have children without the need for Eve (as another rabbinic opinion tells us).
Rosends, why don’t YOU describe how rabbis came to this opinion/teaching/doctrine/ understanding, belief, etc and tell us how the scriptures really justifies this belief?
REGARDING ROSENDS CLAIM THAT HE IS NOT ENGAGING IN THIS DEBATE TO AFFECT BELIEFS.
Rosends responded : There isn’t much to defend. People either cede to an authority or don’t. I’m not in this to make anyone else believe anything.
Yes, such a Rabbinic belief would be incredibly hard to defend just like many, many of the teachings and rules the rabbis created.
Of course you want individuals to believe in the authority of Rabbinic Judiasm, else you would not argue in favor of it's having authority..
2) REGARDING "UNEXPECTED WORDS", "DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS", "JUST INTERPRETATIONS", "PERSONAL LOGIC"
Rosends responded : The text used an unexpected word so interpreters who insist on the precision and exactitude of the text tried to find explanations for that word. There have been a few different understandings. Because all are just interpretations with no real practical application, and each is based in the logical method of the person who made it,
3) REGARDING JEWISH FREEDOM NOT TO BELIEVE IN RABBINIC TEACHINGS
Rosends said ; "Jews are free to accept, reject or question any and all of them. "
You claim you are free as a Jew to "reject or question" the teachings of "Rabbinic Judaism".
That is all that I and others are doing.
I am questioning how in the world your leaders came up with such bizarre doctrines on so little actual objective data.
I am questioning what sort of logic underlies such bizarre Rabbinic beliefs.
4) REGARDING USING ANY JEWISH TEXTS TO SUPPORT THIS BELIEF BEING A "DICEY PROPOSITION"
Rosends : There are supporting texts in midrash that can be invoked but the very nature of midrash makes that a dicey proposition. The student of Judaism understands that midrash might be a really bad way to support any contention, so that might make that conclusion problematic.
I did not ask you to support this Jewish belief with Midrashim along but you are welcome to use Old Testament Text and then simply explaining the logic underlying such bizarre Rabbinic Teachings.
Since the Rabbis are quoting old testament texts and then giving their personal interpretations of these texts to create this Jewish doctrine, perhaps you could start there?
REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT "NONE WOULD SAY" THE JEWISH BELIEF THAT ADAM HAD BOTH MALE AND FEMALE SEX ORGANS IS "STRANGE" OR "TENUOUS"
Rosends claimed : " None would say that the conclusion is strange or tenuous, or question the volume or ultimate validity of the data as you do."
While this belief that Adam had both male and female sex organs may not be "strange" to Jewish students, it is a very strange and Bizarre belief on the planet where many of the rest of us come from.
Can you explain to readers why this belief is NOT "strange" or "tenuous" in it's usage of the Old Testament text to come to this belief?
I've asked you to do this already.
However, if you do not have any supporting data or supporting logic, then why do you assume the Rabbis have any more authority to create such doctrines/beliefs and teach them to others without data or supporting logic.
The individuals who teach the Old Testament text does not give us reason to believe Adam was created with both male and female genitalia have the same authority to teach the opposite of the rabbis.
Do you actually have ANY data or logic to support this teaching of Rabbinic Judaism?
If you do, will you provide it to readers?
Clear
2) ADAM CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD - THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION COMPARED TO THE JEWISH TRADITION
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him. Male and female created he them.
As you will see, the two theological models differ on whether this specific sentence “God created man in his own image” really meant “[a single man] in his own image” or if this sentence meant “God created man, and woman, and the rest of mankind in his own image”. (since other verses make clear all of mankind, are, in some way, created in his image)
3) INTERPRETATION OF A SINGLE WORD AS THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM
If the early Christian tradition is correct then this sentence refers specifically to ADAM who is created in the virtual image of his creator. If this is correct, then the sentence as given, and the rest of Genesis and the other early Judeo-Christian textual traditions regarding Adam appearance, make perfect sense without any elaboration, additional tradition, rationalizations, and an illogical hermaphrodite adam with two sets of sex organs (as are created in the Jewish tradition. The Second sentence “Male and female created he them” is simply referring to the later creation of Eve and other mankind which occurred later (since they were NOT created at the same time)
IF the Jewish model is correct that this specific sentence refers not only to ADAM as “mankind” , but to females and all other men as well, then it makes sense that the rabbis would feel the need to create tradition to add onto the text, in order to reconcile the problems created by such an interpretation. It would make sense that the Rabbis would add onto the biblical text, a traditions which could explain how “GOD” could make BOTH male and female and all other of mankind “in his image”. I think this theory of hermaphroditism was distasteful to them, especially given their moral stance towards sexual deviancy, but they did not see a way out of the quandary, their interpretation created.
1) REGARDING CALLING THE JEWISH TEACHING/BELIEF THAT ADAM HAD BOTH MALE AND FEMALE SEXUAL ORGANS AN “OPINION” RATHER THAN A “DOCTRINE”.
After confirming that the Rabbinic Judaic Rabbis taught that Adam had both Male and Female Genitalia actually IS a Jewish doctrine / opinion / belief / teaching / interpretation / etc in posts 307, 308 and 309) :
Rosends said : did you read through these to see all the mentions of interpretation and other opinions? And when you see that, you decide that certain views and explanations are "whispy and tenuous" or "bizarre and irrational." Those are your opinions and judgments speaking.
Clear responded : "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?
You can describe it in your own words and thus control the presentation. Your presentation will probably be kinder than mine.
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.
For example : Rabbinic discussions about the two versions of Creation and the androgyne can be found in Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah, which are collections of midrashim about the books of Genesis and Leviticus.
In Genesis Rabbah the rabbis wonder whether a verse from Psalms offers insight into the first version of Creation, perhaps indicating that ‘adam was actually a hermaphrodite with two faces: “’You have formed me before and behind’ (Psalms 139:5)…
Rabbi Jeremiah b. Leazar said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first ‘adam, He created it with both male and female sexual organs, as it is written, ‘Male and female He created them, and He called their name ‘adam,’ (Genesis 5:2).
Simply using Genesis 5:2 and combining it with Psalms 139:5 is, to me, a very tenuous connection which does not justify the Jewish Rabbinic belief/claim/opinion, etc.
Rabbi Samuel b. Nahmani said, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first ‘adam, He created him with two faces, then split him and made him two backs – a back for each side.” (Genesis Rabbah 8:1)
Again, this is another strange conclusion based upon very little data. How does any scripture tell us specifically that Adam had “two faces” and where does the text tell us God “split” adam and “made him two backs” for the two “front sides” they say Adam was created with.
So, According to this discussion, Genesis 1 actually tells us about the creation of a hermaphrodite with two faces. Then in Genesis 2 this primal androgyne is split in half and two separate beings are created – a man and a woman.
A similar discussion can be found in Leviticus Rabbah 14:1 where Rabbi Levi states: “When man was created, he was created with two body-fronts, and He [God] sawed him in two, so that two backs resulted, one back for the male and another for the female.”
While the concept of the androgyne allowed the rabbis to reconcile the two accounts of Creation, The scriptures simply don't tell us God “sawed” Adam in half, or that he specifically had two sets of sexual organs (both male and female). The text doesn’t tell us Adam was able to have sex with himself and have children without the need for Eve (as another rabbinic opinion tells us).
Rosends, why don’t YOU describe how rabbis came to this opinion/teaching/doctrine/ understanding, belief, etc and tell us how the scriptures really justifies this belief?
REGARDING ROSENDS CLAIM THAT HE IS NOT ENGAGING IN THIS DEBATE TO AFFECT BELIEFS.
Rosends responded : There isn’t much to defend. People either cede to an authority or don’t. I’m not in this to make anyone else believe anything.
Yes, such a Rabbinic belief would be incredibly hard to defend just like many, many of the teachings and rules the rabbis created.
Of course you want individuals to believe in the authority of Rabbinic Judiasm, else you would not argue in favor of it's having authority..
2) REGARDING "UNEXPECTED WORDS", "DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS", "JUST INTERPRETATIONS", "PERSONAL LOGIC"
Rosends responded : The text used an unexpected word so interpreters who insist on the precision and exactitude of the text tried to find explanations for that word. There have been a few different understandings. Because all are just interpretations with no real practical application, and each is based in the logical method of the person who made it,
3) REGARDING JEWISH FREEDOM NOT TO BELIEVE IN RABBINIC TEACHINGS
Rosends said ; "Jews are free to accept, reject or question any and all of them. "
You claim you are free as a Jew to "reject or question" the teachings of "Rabbinic Judaism".
That is all that I and others are doing.
I am questioning how in the world your leaders came up with such bizarre doctrines on so little actual objective data.
I am questioning what sort of logic underlies such bizarre Rabbinic beliefs.
4) REGARDING USING ANY JEWISH TEXTS TO SUPPORT THIS BELIEF BEING A "DICEY PROPOSITION"
Rosends : There are supporting texts in midrash that can be invoked but the very nature of midrash makes that a dicey proposition. The student of Judaism understands that midrash might be a really bad way to support any contention, so that might make that conclusion problematic.
I did not ask you to support this Jewish belief with Midrashim along but you are welcome to use Old Testament Text and then simply explaining the logic underlying such bizarre Rabbinic Teachings.
Since the Rabbis are quoting old testament texts and then giving their personal interpretations of these texts to create this Jewish doctrine, perhaps you could start there?
REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT "NONE WOULD SAY" THE JEWISH BELIEF THAT ADAM HAD BOTH MALE AND FEMALE SEX ORGANS IS "STRANGE" OR "TENUOUS"
Rosends claimed : " None would say that the conclusion is strange or tenuous, or question the volume or ultimate validity of the data as you do."
While this belief that Adam had both male and female sex organs may not be "strange" to Jewish students, it is a very strange and Bizarre belief on the planet where many of the rest of us come from.
Can you explain to readers why this belief is NOT "strange" or "tenuous" in it's usage of the Old Testament text to come to this belief?
I've asked you to do this already.
However, if you do not have any supporting data or supporting logic, then why do you assume the Rabbis have any more authority to create such doctrines/beliefs and teach them to others without data or supporting logic.
The individuals who teach the Old Testament text does not give us reason to believe Adam was created with both male and female genitalia have the same authority to teach the opposite of the rabbis.
Do you actually have ANY data or logic to support this teaching of Rabbinic Judaism?
If you do, will you provide it to readers?
Clear
Last edited: