Question on the Word in John

[Rival]

You're meddling in an exchange that doesn't concern you. The only reason I posted my response to Ehav in this thread was to answer his questions to me. As soon as he agrees to take our exchange elsewhere, I will.

I thought you said something wrong, and I'm allowed to comment. You're free to ignore it, but it just caught my attention. If I think I see something that will mislead an audience, I feel the need to jump in and ask for the statement to be qualified.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

re: #1. IMO, a two-person discussion "thread" continues until one or the other loses interest or until an irreconcilable difference puts an end to it, in which case a new discussion thread--if there is one--can replace the abandoned thread.
re: #3. LOL! No. If you ever catch me trying to steal your shoes, feel free to call me on it. On the other hand, Jews and I live in the same universe, at least for now. So, I'd expect to find a couple of things in common.
re: #4. No, not really. More like: questions to discover a Torah-observant Jew's perspective on something, with or without source citations although I like source citations. That said, I'm not interested in a HJ or RJ viewpoint, or a Noachide viewpoint.
re: #5. To name a few:

• Yes
• No
• I don't know, I've never thought about it
  
• Got me, I don't know
  
• I don't understand the question
  
• That doesn't make sense to me
• Avod Zara or the Ramban says
• English and occasional transliterations
• If you want a response to that, you're going to have to Skype me

re: #2. Parameters?
Private conversation thread to keep the RF riff-raff out. (There are a lot of crazy people here, and I haven't gotten around to "Ignoring" all of them, ... yet.)

Okay. Understood. If you would like I don't have a problem with taking part in a conversation with the above parameters. One question though. I think I understand that RJ is Reform Judaism. Is HJ Humanist Judaism?

 

[Terry Sampson]

I thought you said something wrong, and I'm allowed to comment. You're free to ignore it, but it just caught my attention. If I think I see something that will mislead an audience, I feel the need to jump in and ask for the statement to be qualified.

Mislead an audience? If anything misleads anybody, I think it's this:

I would like to point out here that there is not any such thing as a 'Noachide viewpoint'; I'm not sure where you're getting this or what you mean? Noachides are, by and large, associated with and believe the exact same things as Orthodox Jews and we make the exact same arguments. Noachides and Jews believe the same thing.

• If there is no such thing as a Noachide viewpoint, does that mean Noachides are clueless or that, as far as they are concerned, they should be considered Orthodox Jews, with all rights, privileges, responsibilities, and obligations that Orthodox Jews have?
• If Noachides are, by and large, associated with and believe the exact same things as Orthodox Jews, how does "by and large" equal "the exact same things"?
• If Noachides are, by and large, associated with and believe the exact same things as Orthodox Jews, which of the seven laws addresses remembering and observing the Sabbath?
• If all Jews do not believe the same thing, how do you propose to explain how Noachides and Jews believe the same thing?

By the by, allow me to point out that, in the sentence containing the phrase which offended you, I wrote: "That said, I'm not interested in a HJ or RJ viewpoint, ..." By HJ, I meant "Humanist Jews"; and by RJ, I meant Reform and Reconstructionist Jews. Having expressed my lack of interest in HJ and RJ views, I decided--wisely or unwisely--to include Noachides, although Noachides don't even get "honorable mention" in RF's list of sub-Judaism categories.

Now, if, in spite of all that, you still think you've got a right to share your opinion on a topic that I want to address in a private conversation with Ehav, fine; have at it:
Does Judaism subscribe to Einstein's nonsense special theory of relativity and to the ridiculous Big Bang theory?

 

[Terry Sampson]

I think I understand that RJ is Reform Judaism. Is HJ Humanist Judaism?

RJ covers Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism and, yes, by HJ, I meant Humanist Judaism.

 

[Rival]

If there is no such thing as a Noachide viewpoint, does that mean Noachides are clueless or that, as far as they are concerned, they should be considered Orthodox Jews, with all rights, privileges, responsibilities, and obligations that Orthodox Jews have?

No. It means Noahides by and large share the same viewpoint as OJs. I say by and large because in every group there are outliers.

If Noachides are, by and large, associated with and believe the exact same things as Orthodox Jews, how does "by and large" equal "the exact same things"?

See above.

If Noachides are, by and large, associated with and believe the exact same things as Orthodox Jews, which of the seven laws addresses remembering and observing the Sabbath?

None, because keeping Shabbat is part of the Mosaic Covenant, not the Noahide Covenant. Noahides believe that Jews have to keep Shabbat because we believe, as they believe, that this is part of their covenant. Noahides need Jews for these explanations because we are not a separate religion. We're one religion with separate covenants.

If all Jews do not believe the same thing, how do you propose to explain how Noachides and Jews believe the same thing?

I'm giving room for the differences that we find in all religions. Noahides are 99% associated with OJ because more left-leaning streams, as far as I am aware and from reading what they've had to say on here, don't really have a Noahide concept nor really care to. So many Noahides are joined to the Orthodox Jewish tradition and will believe things that are considered acceptable according to Orthodox Jewish rabbis. So their differences will be the same differences that already exist between OJs but will be just as acceptable.

By the by, allow me to point out that, in the sentence containing the phrase which offended you, I wrote:

You haven't offended me. I was just confused and concerned.

although Noachides don't even get "honorable mention" in RF's list of sub-Judaism categories.

No, because it was decided there aren't enough of them. We can post in the Judaism sub.

 

[Terry Sampson]

@Harel13
Can I leave now?

 

[Harel13]

@Harel13
Can I leave now?

Yes..?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

• If there is no such thing as a Noachide viewpoint, does that mean Noachides are clueless or that, as far as they are concerned, they should be considered Orthodox Jews, with all rights, privileges, responsibilities, and obligations that Orthodox Jews have?
• If Noachides are, by and large, associated with and believe the exact same things as Orthodox Jews, how does "by and large" equal "the exact same things"?
• If Noachides are, by and large, associated with and believe the exact same things as Orthodox Jews, which of the seven laws addresses remembering and observing the Sabbath?
• If all Jews do not believe the same thing, how do you propose to explain how Noachides and Jews believe the same thing?

I may be able to help here.

1. According to Torah and Halakha Adam was given 6 mitzvoth by Hashem. The 7th mitzvah was given during the generation of Noach and his sons, after the flood. These mitzvahs are termed as the 7 Mitzvoth or as the "Noachide Laws." They are considered the mitzvahs that all humans are created to hold by - i.e. all humans are considered to be Noachides, if you will. Some have followed/follow these mitzvah's many don't or only partially do.
2. During the time of Abraham, he and his household accepted another mitzvah of circumcision. During the time of Isaac and Jacob more mitzvah's were accepted that set them apart from the nations around them.
3. When the Torah was given at Mount Sinai, all of Jacab's descendants and some of the mixed multitude accepted the 613 mitzvah's as a nation based on Torah together.
4. In the mitzvahs, given at Mount Sinai, there were also the reality of both the Geir Tzedeq (a non-Jew who converts and lives exactly as a Jew) and a Geir Toshav (a non-Jew who accepts the 7 Mitzvoth/Noachide Laws and is allowed to live in/pass through Israel. A geir toshav is not a convert like a Geir Tzedeq.) Often the english translations are not clear on this issue and they often categorize both of them as "the stranger." The Hebrew is more clear and so is Jewish law.
5. Both the Torah given at Mount Sinai to the people of Israel and the 7 Mitzvoth/Noachide imcumbant on the entire world come from Hashem.
6. Thus, there is no requirement for a non-Jew to become a Jew in order to be in the favor of Hashem or to have a portion in the world to come. If a non-Jew follows the 7 Mitzvoth/Noachide laws they are doing the will of Hashem for the non-Jewish nations.

Thus, that is what Rival means. I think sometimes the English terminology makes it hard to understand or the term "movement" can be a bit misleading. I hope that helps.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

RJ covers Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism and, yes, by HJ, I meant Humanist Judaism.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Rival]

I didn't mean to turn this thread upside down I was just trying to clarify something

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I didn't mean to turn this thread upside down I was just trying to clarify something

Just FYI. I started a new thread out of this thread with the above definition of what a Noachide is.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, to correct this a bit. This is why the Hebrew language is important here.

Hashem, the Creator of all things did not tell Moses he would be a "God" as in how the word means in the western English language. He told Moses, in Hebrew:

ודבר-הוא לך, אל-העם; והיה הוא יהיה-לך לפה, ואתה תהיה-לו לאלהים​

(Translation) He [Aaron] wil speak for you, to the people, and he [Aaron] will be for you for a mouth, and you [Moses] will be to him Elohim.

The word of focus is (אלהים) "Elohim." The word Elohim, on it own, does not denote a type deity, or something of worship. When used concerning "the" source of creation, Hashem, it talking about the aspects of power, strength, judgement, of Hashem. Elohim in general, comes from the Hebrew root (א-ו-ל) or (א-י-ל) which denotes power, strength, being the head of, etc. The term, in the Hebrew Tanakh, is used to denote also humans who do the will of Hashem or who stand as judges according to the Torah. It would be like saying, power(s), or strong people, things, or what humans perceive to be strong/powerful.

For example, Exodus 21:6 uses the term Elohim to describe Judges when a servant decides to stay in the service of his master.

והגישו אדניו, אל-האלהים​

(Translation) And his master will present him/bring him to meet, to the Elohim/Judges.....

So, Pharoah never once thought that Mosese was the Creator of all things. He simply saw Moses as someone who potentially had a certain power/strength which at first Pharoah's servants could imitate but over time it started to become clear that Moses was in charge some powers that came from Hashem. This is why Pharaoh not once regarded Moses as the source of what was happening but instead knew, Hashem was the source it. Some Jewish sources say that initially Pharoah simply thought Moses was able to predict some events based on understanding nature and in a sense forcasting the weather so to speak.

In the video below I explain the root of the word.

That is all very interesting, but to many people, including translators, Elohim is translated usually as God. The idea that the Almighty spoke through Moses to Pharaoh is clear. And Pharaoh learned a hard lesson because he did not listen to Moses by doing what he told him to do. Thank you for your input.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, to correct this a bit. This is why the Hebrew language is important here.

Hashem, the Creator of all things did not tell Moses he would be a "God" as in how the word means in the western English language. He told Moses, in Hebrew:

ודבר-הוא לך, אל-העם; והיה הוא יהיה-לך לפה, ואתה תהיה-לו לאלהים​

(Translation) He [Aaron] wil speak for you, to the people, and he [Aaron] will be for you for a mouth, and you [Moses] will be to him Elohim.

The word of focus is (אלהים) "Elohim." The word Elohim, on it own, does not denote a type deity, or something of worship. When used concerning "the" source of creation, Hashem, it talking about the aspects of power, strength, judgement, of Hashem. Elohim in general, comes from the Hebrew root (א-ו-ל) or (א-י-ל) which denotes power, strength, being the head of, etc. The term, in the Hebrew Tanakh, is used to denote also humans who do the will of Hashem or who stand as judges according to the Torah. It would be like saying, power(s), or strong people, things, or what humans perceive to be strong/powerful.

For example, Exodus 21:6 uses the term Elohim to describe Judges when a servant decides to stay in the service of his master.

והגישו אדניו, אל-האלהים​

(Translation) And his master will present him/bring him to meet, to the Elohim/Judges.....

So, Pharoah never once thought that Mosese was the Creator of all things. He simply saw Moses as someone who potentially had a certain power/strength which at first Pharoah's servants could imitate but over time it started to become clear that Moses was in charge some powers that came from Hashem. This is why Pharaoh not once regarded Moses as the source of what was happening but instead knew, Hashem was the source it. Some Jewish sources say that initially Pharoah simply thought Moses was able to predict some events based on understanding nature and in a sense forcasting the weather so to speak.

In the video below I explain the root of the word.

If I understand you correctly, it's like saying "his word is God..." Let's say in a family relationship. In other words, one must listen and obey, otherwise..there are consequences. This is what happened in exodus 4. Moses' word was made to be "God" by God to Pharaoh. Hope that helps.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

That is all very interesting, but to many people, including translators, Elohim is translated usually as God. The idea that the Almighty spoke through Moses to Pharaoh is clear. And Pharaoh learned a hard lesson because he did not listen to Moses by doing what he told him to do. Thank you for your input.

Greetings,

Translations, that ignore the language and culture behind what they are translating are to be quite honest not worth the paper they are written on. Most compentant translations will place notes to explain concepts that are important for their readers to know IF their goal is that the reader undrestands them, as close as possible to someone who knows the language and culture behind the language. If their goal is to just give someone something to quickly read w/o and understanding of its correct meaning, then yes they will settle for words that may be or are foreign to the text and never explain the origin of the original.

This is why for thousands of years within in Jewish communities making sure that kids can read and understand ancient Hebrew has been a high priority.

Again, Elohim on its own in Hebrew history and culture does not mean what God means in English. Thus, Moses was not being equated to the Creator of all things. He was being equated to someone was"strong and powerful" something that was understand in all of the ancient languages in this part of the world. (Middle East and Africa) This concept can be easily misunderstand or not understand by someone reading a translation that either a) does not translate with the proper context or b) doesn't supply the context at all.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

If I understand you correctly, it's like saying "his word is God..." Let's say in a family relationship. In other words, one must listen and obey, otherwise..there are consequences. This is what happened in exodus 4. Moses' word was made to be "God" by God to Pharaoh. Hope that helps.

No.

It is like saying.

"Moses, when you go to Pharaoh Aaron will speak for you. Since you say that you are not good at speaking. Otherwise, like I told you before you go speak to Pharaoh. Aaron will be your mouth peice to Pharaoh and you will appear to be the one in charge/i.e. an Elohim/strong one/ruler/Judge/etc.."

The Hebrew text of the Torah does not make Moses' words to be anything more than regular words.

 

[YoursTrue]

Greetings,

Translations, that ignore the language and culture behind what they are translating are to be quite honest not worth the paper they are written on. Most compentant translations will place notes to explain concepts that are important for their readers to know IF their goal is that the reader undrestands them, as close as possible to someone who knows the language and culture behind the language. If their goal is to just give someone something to quickly read w/o and understanding of its correct meaning, then yes they will settle for words that may be or are foreign to the text and never explain the origin of the original.

This is why for thousands of years within in Jewish communities making sure that kids can read and understand ancient Hebrew has been a high priority.

Again, Elohim on its own in Hebrew history and culture does not mean what God means in English. Thus, Moses was not being equated to the Creator of all things. He was being equated to someone was"strong and powerful" something that was understand in all of the ancient languages in this part of the world. (Middle East and Africa) This concept can be easily misunderstand or not understand by someone reading a translation that either a) does not translate with the proper context or b) doesn't supply the context at all.

Agreed, thank you for your post. Of course, having read some portions of the Talmud, opinions do vary. But that is not what we're discussing now in your post. I agree with your post and thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

No.

It is like saying.

"Moses, when you go to Pharaoh Aaron will speak for you. Since you say that you are not good at speaking. Otherwise, like I told you before you go speak to Pharaoh. Aaron will be your mouth peice to Pharaoh and you will appear to be the one in charge/i.e. an Elohim/strong one/ruler/Judge/etc.."

The Hebrew text of the Torah does not make Moses' words to be anything more than regular words.

Except there was the One backing it up. With power and mighty portents.

 

[YoursTrue]

No.

It is like saying.

"Moses, when you go to Pharaoh Aaron will speak for you. Since you say that you are not good at speaking. Otherwise, like I told you before you go speak to Pharaoh. Aaron will be your mouth peice to Pharaoh and you will appear to be the one in charge/i.e. an Elohim/strong one/ruler/Judge/etc.."

The Hebrew text of the Torah does not make Moses' words to be anything more than regular words.

I wouldn't think the words in the Torah would start jumping on to the platform.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Agreed, thank you for your post. Of course, having read some portions of the Talmud, opinions do vary. But that is not what we're discussing now in your post. I agree with your post and thank you.

You have to be careful with the Talmud. Learning Talmud requires one to know Tanakh in Hebrew and also Aramaic. It also requires that one learns it from someone who themselves have been through it thorougly. W/o understanding the termology and what the statements in the Talmud are getting at one who can get confused. For example, there are some situations where Tanakh is quoted not to prove a point about the Tanakh but instead to seek the source of a particular halakha. Also, when one gets into aggada one needs to really know what is being discussed.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Except there was the One backing it up. With power and mighty portents.

The text though does not make the words that Moses was being sent to say, through Aaron, to be anything more than words. Again, as a Jew I go by what the text says in its pure written form. The text doesn't imply anything about the words. I.e. the words were not being called Elohim.