Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, anyone can read the text if they know where to find it.
-
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!
Judaisms Core
- Thread starter Jimmy
- Start date
GoodAttention
Active Member
The first part of my comment was to direct the reader (you) about who was writing it.
You can’t be blamed for what you don’t see.
GoodAttention
Active Member
You really have it out for Terah don’t you.
What do you think is the meaning of “your fathers house” if not the place where he is buried!
Righteousness is everything. The very idea Abram wouldn’t bury his own father should make you question everything.
Spitting on Terah does not elevate Abram, that is an immoral way to think.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I'm not sure I agree. I've been a prolific writer all my life. In fact my minor at the University was English Composition. I think anyone could compare my writing back in 1980 to now and see the same style.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Read Isaiah. It will bolster your position. I am your friend. I AM ...
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
In support of your position:
Deut. 23:8-9 " You shall not abhor them...they may join the nation after 3 generations."
Those generations have long since passed. Edom and Mitzrayim came from Terah if I recall. And if Egypt can be forgiven, how much more so all the others? ( Kal v'chomer. It's Talmudic logic. When arguing with Ehav, Bring out the big guns. )
Torah Methodology #1 – Kal v’Chomer - The 13 Rules of Rabbi Yishmael - OU Torah
The most basic hermeneutical methodology is the kal v’chomer, known in Latin as an argument a fortiori, meaning “from the stronger case.” The nature of an argu
You are so right, and more. The fact that God placed Abram in the house of an idol maker is HUGE. Abram can become Abraham and he came from the House of Terah? How much more so for anyone anywhere in perpetuity.
( A kal v'Chomer is easily ID'd because the closing argument is almost always in the form of "Then how much more so ... )
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Isaiah 53 connects to Psalm 35 because of the righteous servant. The "friend" here is Judas.
False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge [things] that I knew not.
They rewarded me evil for good [to] the spoiling of my soul.
But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing [was] sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom.
I behaved myself as though [he had been] my friend [or] brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth [for his] mother.
Psalms 35:11-14
And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.
And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.
And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
Matthew 26:47-61
Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, [yet] found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
And said, This [fellow] said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
Matthew 26:59-61
GoodAttention
Active Member
I have only started Exodus recently so yet to read that far!And if Egypt can be forgiven, how much more so all the others? ( Kal v'chomer. It's Talmudic logic. When arguing with Ehav Bring out the big guns. )
Torah Methodology #1 – Kal v’Chomer - The 13 Rules of Rabbi Yishmael - OU Torah
The most basic hermeneutical methodology is the kal v’chomer, known in Latin as an argument a fortiori, meaning “from the stronger case.” The nature of an arguoutorah.org
We can say that Abram never considered the idols to be God. So with Terah, who lived before the commandments, made idols and also wealth in the religiously diverse Harran, such that it could be given to Abram!
The House of Terah financed God’s promise! This is poetic justice, not shame or blasphemous.
We should also see that Abram buried two people in his life, his father and his wife. I consider them equally important.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Where are you in the story? Which translation?
Why do you say that?
Are you sure?
The First Beit Midrash: The Yeshivah of Shem and Eber
The first historically known beit midrash probably began during the era of the Second Temple. The Pharisees, unlike the Sadducees, emphasized that Torah learning, and not only temple service, was a vital aspect of Jewish life. Thus, physical centers of Jewish learning slowly became the heart of...
Nice.... I like it. Great idea!
Really nice! Awesome observation. I never thought of that. Kudos.
GoodAttention
Active Member
Chapter 2 Moses is born! I switch between New International and Orthodox Jewish
I believe he knew and feared the true God as knowledge he inherited from Adam. I also don't believe God would have spoken to him otherwise. I understand Joshua says differently, but I don't believe it is a point of contention.
Yes. This is my belief, I don't see why they should have "existed" eternally.Are you sure?
The First Beit Midrash: The Yeshivah of Shem and Eber
The first historically known beit midrash probably began during the era of the Second Temple. The Pharisees, unlike the Sadducees, emphasized that Torah learning, and not only temple service, was a vital aspect of Jewish life. Thus, physical centers of Jewish learning slowly became the heart of...www.kolhamevaser.com
As they are commandments they must be spoken, communicated, to be "realized" by us.
Note how the Hittites call Abraham a "mighty prince", indirectly respecting Terah as a king (of Harran).
Abraham is also insistent that he pay for Sara's burial place, rather than accepting without, and this is Abraham returning the respect the Hittites have showed his father by using Terah's wealth (one could say) to do so.
One final gift to Abraham from the House of Terah so he could bury his beloved wife.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Judaism Core
Is that David's time of glory is somehow gained by them, please, right?
Israelites core is different altogether, right, please?
Regards
Is that David's time of glory is somehow gained by them, please, right?
Israelites core is different altogether, right, please?
Regards
Last edited:
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Dude! That is fantastic! Wow. wow. I am blown away, right now. No, I did not notice that. It could be that Abraham is a prince of the Al-mighty, but, still. Great insight. You could be right.
My vote? It's a solid theory. Well done. So, what are the implications of this? Besides that Terah the idol maker is an important part of the story? Anything else? What can we learn from it? How can I apply this in my life?
Side-bar: It's not a "Jewish" translation.
GoodAttention
Active Member
This is where I need to add potentially pagan information! Given it is the Hittities that are using the term "mighty prince" or "prince of God", they should also provide the explanation.
"The gods, the Sun-God and the Storm-God, have entrusted to me, the king, the land and my household, so that I, the king, should protect my land and my household, for myself." Hittite Old Kingdom ritual saying.
The king being referred to here would be Terah, although Harran was never a kingdom as such. Terah's wealth, evidenced through Abraham, and possession of land, evidenced by his burial in Harran, could suggest the term "prince of God" being used respectfully by the Hittites
It is worse to fear the pagan idol than it is to worship it. To deny it exists is to fear its existence.
Fear God alone by accepting this reality is his creation and our history, pagan, chosen, or otherwise.
Those who spit on Terah also spit on his/their children's faces.
Yes, I like the contrast in language!
Last edited:
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Again, what you presented is your personal interpretation and if again you are stuck with the fact if you are essentially saying you have made up or each time you read a text in the Hebrew language you have personal pronunciation that you have made up and that noone taught you. This is what I mean by what you are stating is your personal interpretation. If you are, for example, considering yourself to be an Ebionite this would also be the case because the Ebionites died out ~1,700 years ago.
Yet, I also get the impression that for the most part you don't read the text in Hebrew.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, the pronunciation is from an extant text, I didn't make it up.
If you want to see an example of someone making pronunciation up, all you have to do is take a look at how the Masoretes changed the meaning of Genesis 16:12.
Last edited:
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Greetings. No, I don't have it out for Terah. Let’s look at what various commentaries say about him.
Rashi states the Midrash and Aggada that Terah took Avram to Nimrud due to Avram’s actions against Terah’s avodah zara. Of course we all know the story of what Nimrud is stated to have judged against Avram. Thus, the Midrash and Aggada doesn’t paint Terah during that time in a favourable light.
Further to this, Rashi later addresses the concept of what Terah’s death is mentioned before Avram leaving Haran. I.e. Avram’s time in Haran would have placed him leaving before Terah’s death.
Ramban brings up both the Rashi above and other perspectives that state that during Terah’s life time he was not in the right situation with Hashem. The claim is made that because of the affect of his son Avraham, Terah made teshuva.
Those are just two sources for what Terah’s situation was. The Rashi above also addresses the issue of Avraham leaving Haran, before Terah’s death and its justification on the past events involving Terah’s death.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
There is no spitting on Terah going on here. There is simple an expression of what various sources state about the conditions of the world at the time of Avraham's taking up the directive of Hashem. The following by Rabbi Uri Sharqi may be of interest. It addresses the death of Terah in relation to the death Sara. It also addresses Terah's past in relation to his passing and to the life of Avraham.
Attachments
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Okay, so let's see what you mean. Please transliterate=(the process of transferring a word from the alphabet of one language to another) into English letters the following, based on your claim of pronunciation, so I can understand how you are saying the text should be correctly pronounced. Also, please mark ever place where a pause or stop is added.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
So, where did you find it and in what language did you find it?
GoodAttention
Active Member
I
I appreciate your response. I am only starting to understand the difference between written and oral tradition, and as a gentile I would consider it a great dishonour for a son not to bury his father regardless of his character.
Even more so if Nahor had to then travel some distance to give this rite. Additionally more so for Abraham to then take his inheritance from his dead father.
Thankfully the reading of the scripture places Terah’s death first, in addition to the reference of his house, signifying burial, as opposed to Abraham’s house, signifying death only.
Furthermore, he would not be regarded as righteous at all by any of the many tribes and peoples around him, and certainly not called a prince of God.
Lastly, if Abram didn’t bury his father this would have allowed Lot to do so and then rightfully claim the inheritance of Terah’s wealth.
I appreciate your response. I am only starting to understand the difference between written and oral tradition, and as a gentile I would consider it a great dishonour for a son not to bury his father regardless of his character.
Even more so if Nahor had to then travel some distance to give this rite. Additionally more so for Abraham to then take his inheritance from his dead father.
Thankfully the reading of the scripture places Terah’s death first, in addition to the reference of his house, signifying burial, as opposed to Abraham’s house, signifying death only.
Furthermore, he would not be regarded as righteous at all by any of the many tribes and peoples around him, and certainly not called a prince of God.
Lastly, if Abram didn’t bury his father this would have allowed Lot to do so and then rightfully claim the inheritance of Terah’s wealth.