@Clear
Yes, the definition of “silly” is "having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment; absurd and foolish."
I think many of the Laws created by Rabbis show a lack of common sense.
Great – so you admit that you are letting your own personal judgment and opinion guide your thinking.
The rabbinic rule that because the ancient Israel army were told to kill women who’ve had sex and to kill boys and keep the young girls as their slaves and to purify with fire all spoils of war that can withstand the fire and they should wash their spoils in water, then nowadays the Jews should wash utensils given them by friendly non-jews shows a lack of common sense to apply an ancient rule of war to friendly relationships.
You are actually mixing a few things here. The only rabbinic rule from that paragraph is that utensils owned by non-Jews must be washed in a particular way to ensure that they are clean from any non-kosher food, and immersed to assume a particular spiritual status You think that is silly and that’s great – you have an opinion about a rabbinic rule. So, you know what? Don’t follow it. But your opinion about what is silly has no bearing on your original post (unless it is the agenda setting aspect of your thinking) and certainly is not a persuasive argument because it is so deeply connected to your particular point of view and not any objective facts.
To me using this rule of war when no war, no spoils, no killing is going on is absurd and foolish.
Great – to you it is. That’s fantastic. Also irrelevant, but good for you for having a personal opinion.
The fact that it is NOT biblical IS the point.
But since no one claimed it was biblical, why is that your point? No one claimed it was oral law, either. So what is the point? You bring it up to criticize it because of your personal opinion. So what?
The definition of “coherent” regarding an argument or theory is that it is logical and consistent”. It is illogical historically to create a doctrine that maintains the man adam had both male and female sex organs.
Why is that illogical, if it is consistent with the wording of the text? Why is that illogical if you are starting with a divine being creating a universe ex nihilo? Your sensibility about what is illogical is as unpersuasive as any of your other personal opinions.
The historical connection is that both rules are rabbinic innovations and THAT is the historical connection between the different rules created by the Rabbis.
The historical connection between 2 rabbinic rules is that they are both rabbinic? Wow. Amazing, indeed.
They are not “completely different” in terms of their source but are from the same source, Rabbis.
Sure they are from different sources. One has a specific textual allusion to hint to it and one doesn’t.
Yes, they are historically, detailed innovations created by the rabbis (i.e. “rabbinic” but not “Mosaic”) but not historically, created by Moses.
No one said they were. You are arguing against something no one said again.
I am not asking about them.
Then why do you keep bringing them up if their rabbinic origin was never in question?
4) THE USE OF NUM 31:23 AS EVIDENCE OF A VAST ORAL LAW HANDED DOWN BY MOSES,
This was never claimed
OR AS A TEXT TO SUPPORT RABBINIC RULES TO CEREMONIALLY WASH AND PRAY OVER DISHES GIVEN A JEW BY A NON-JEW.
Well, not wash, and they aren’t really a support for the rule, but something called a “hint” to a behavior.
You said regarding the Jewish rabbinic rule to ceremonially wash dishes in a mikvah while saying a prayer over the dishes : “an allusion to it is found biblically in Num 31:23.”
Yes, an allusion, not a proof, not a source, not a support. What I said “I didn’t” say was what YOU claimed
"If you are going to use Num 31:23 as an example, Can you explain how it is that Numbers 31:23 is an example of a specific rabbinic rule dictated by Moses to be handed down by memorization over eons of time which all Jews should obey by ceremonially washing dishes while praying over them. ?
I never said it was an example of a specific rule dictated etc.
Now you say were NOT referring to Numbers 31:23 as an actual "allusion" (reference) to the washing of dishes?
No, I was consistent in that I never claimed that washing or immersion is a specific rule dictated by Moses. I said that there was an allusion to it in the text. Are you saying that there isn’t? You seem unable to follow your own line of reasoning, mostly because you keep inventing things I said and can’t remember what I actually said and what you invented. You really aren’t very good at this.
I agree with the readers who recognized that Numbers 31:23 was never an applicable allusion to this rabbinic rule.
Awesome! More opinions from you. So what?
The "So" is that the various Jewish traditions, interpretations and innovations made up by the Rabbis which have no Mosaic authority and any attempt to present them as having Mosaic authority is historically, incoherent and misplaced.
Lots of problems here. First is that you ignore the distinction between things that are Sinaitic in source and those that aren’t. Next you say that the rabbinic ideas have no authority even though the text makes reference to the authority of the courts and leaders in each generation (which would now be the rabbis) to ensure proper practice, commanding the people to abide by the judgments and decisions of the religious and judicial leaders in each generation. Then you throw in your personal opinion about what is incoherent or misplaced.
So, if a “rabbinic edicts” is non-Mosaic, you are saying it needs to be obeyed "By rabbinic edict, yes", even though this rule did not come from Moses and is not divine and merely an innovation of the rabbis?
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
If such rules are not from God nor prophetic, but are instead, created through the interpretations of Jewish leaders, they do not have divine same authority.
Well, if you ignore that the text says to abide by them. But if you actually listen to the text, then you are wrong. But you are getting into a separate question of rabbinic authority. If you don’t like it, don’t listen to rabbis. I think that priests shouldn’t be listened to so I don’t listen to them. Go figure.
6) WHAT IS MORE LIKELY : NON-MOSAIC LAWS CREATED BY RABBIS OR SECRET LAWS FROM MOSES MEMORIZED OVER EONS?
Who said anything was “secret”? See, you do it again, loading up with words that betray your preconceived opinions and then you pretend like that opinion is some sort of fact.
However, It is even more logical to assume the source of these commanded laws were Jewish leaders interpreting and innovating rules and traditions rather than Moses handing down such laws by memorization.
Wait, hold on. Are you now saying that your position is “more logical” (which grants my position a logical footing) without any explanation as to how you are judging and weighing the logic in an objective sense? So your proof that your position is more logical is that you state that it is more logical? Wow.
Logic itself weighs against your claim.
No, your claim to logic sits there like a piece of uneaten cheese.
You mean like your initial claim that Numbers 31:23 (the rules for dealing with spoils of war) is an allusion to the modern rabbinic rule for washing dishes?
Nope. How would an allusion to a rabbinic edict be proof to a Sinaitic set of laws? You are really confused.
Or perhaps you are referring to your admission that the Jewish Doctrine that Adam had both male and female sexual organs is not a doctrine Jews necessarily believe in?
No, why would that, which I have said is non-Sinaitic (not a doctrine) be a proof? See, you are asking about things no one claimed so you have something to argue with. That doesn’t make you right, just foolish.
OR, perhaps you mean like your claim that Jews had lived non-mosaic rabbinic laws for a long time and therefor they must be part of a secret law that Moses gave the Jewish leaders that were never mentioned to any other group.
More stuff I never said. You like to reword and insert your opinion about things. That’s more intellectual dishonesty. You assume that I claimed that they lived by “non-mosaic rabbinic laws” and “secret” while neither is anything I spoke of. By the way, if they were rejected by other groups then the other groups are mentioning it...
I was merely pointing out that these “scholars” are Jewish rabbis and not individuals who have a grudge against the Jews.
Are there other kinds of rabbis? You still haven’t answered what I wrote. This just shows that you seem to be missing pretty basic stuff.
Probably in the same way you claim to know the ideas in those documents “doesn’t sit well with them.”
That’s because I looked up their background and personal attitude towards religion. If someone holds a particular belief and opinion of a theological position then it is straightforward to see what kind of proof he would want to find to support his position. What method did YOU use to decide what they would love?
You didn’t even realize the belief that Adam had both male and female sexual organs was a Jewish Doctrine.
Jeepers…you really don’t read well, do you. I am familiar with an idea, but I am pointing out that the idea is not a doctrine. You have invented that idea and then wonder why I disagree. I know substantially more about Judaism (past and present) than you do. I also am more precise with my words and am making a more fact-based set of claims, while you, by your own admission, are basing yourself on your own opinion.
Actually, the best evidence that many, many, many, many of these rules, traditions and doctrines from rabbinic Judaism come from the Jewish historical records themselves. If you had read my prior posts you would see multiple examples of evidence. For example, from post #51 I pointed out :
In post 51, all you did was show that there are people who don’t accept the oral law and that there are variant texts of the mishna (which is not identical with “the Oral Law”). That there are rules, traditions and doctrines that are rabbinic was never in doubt. None of that showed that anything was “far stronger.” In fact, no metric for deciding strength was introduced.
There are plenty of such examples and reasons why “the Mishna” (if a person can even choose which one to refer to) is not a divinely dictated document that shows it has not been memorized and transmitted from Moses’ day until the Rabbinic Jews (the Rabbanites) wrote it down.
But no one claimed that mishna is a divinely dictated document. You are again starting with an error and then arguing against the error. Weird.