POST ONE OF FOUR
1) REGARDING ADAM HAVING BOTH MALE AND FEMALE SEX ORGAN AS A JEWISH DOCTRINE JEWS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BELIEVE IN
Clear said : “While you admitted “that is not doctrine that we are required to believe in, (rosends post #67) the simple denial that the doctrine is a doctrine will not work in the face of so much evidence to the contrary that readers can easily access.
Rosends said : “How is that an admission? I said it is not a doctrine that we are required to believe in. That’s a statement.”
Yes, it is an admission that it is a Jewish religious doctrine, religious belief, religious principle or religious position that is not seen as sacred enough and not respected enough to require belief in, even by Jews themselves.
Your admission places this Jewish doctrine on a “lower level” of sacredness such that it demonstrates that not all Jewish doctrines are worthy of belief, even by the Jews themselves.
2) REGARDING A RESPECT FOR ANCIENT PROPHETIC JUDAISM WHILE RECOGNIZING THE LATER RABBINIC JEWISH SECT AS HAVING MAN-MADE LAWS AND OTHER CONTAMINATIONS IN THEIR “ORAL LAW”
Clear said : “ I think there is an extraordinary amount of truth in prophetic and historic Judaism and honor the Prophets and those in Israel who sacrificed so very much so that we might have a record of Jehovahs dealings with mankind. We owe an extreme debt to those individuals.”
I am describing authentic “prophetic and historic Judaism” and its truths. I’m not referring to the later Rabbanite faction of Judaism with its many accretions and many man-made traditions, doctrines, and rules they created. The divine portions of Judaism are wonderful.
This is in distinction of the man-made accretions and traditions, doctrines and rules created by the Jewish leaders.
I simply used the Jewish doctrine of Adam having been created with both male and female sex organs as one of many, many, many, many examples of doctrines that could be used as examples.
I also used the rule of ceremonial washing pyrex and aluminum dishes (but not can openers) in a Jewish Mikvah while saying a specific prayer is an example of a man-made rule and is not divine.
I also used the rule against entering a hospital on the sabbath to visit the sick because temperature measurement of visitors was a violation of work on the sabbath. This is another man-made rule and a modern interpretation and not a divine rule.
While I love authentic and prophetic Judaism, I feel no obligation to like the man-made changes to authentic religion. (post #94)
Rosends replied : “Ah, so you are only trying to delegitimize Judaism as it exists in reality, now.”
You are confused and are misrepresenting my statements.
I think ancient
authentic prophetic Judaism is perfectly fine and the prophets were inspired of God.
I agree with the Jewish Rabbis that feel the rabbanite sect of Judaism is contaminated with many, many, man-made rules and doctrines that are not divine.
It is specifically the contamination of religion with man-made doctrines and rules that are presented as “divine” that I am critical of.
3) REGARDING RABBI GLASNERS’ AND RABBI GRUBERS CONCLUSIONS THAT MAN-MADE LAWS CONTAMINATE JEWISH ORAH TORAH
Rosends said : “So you read page 66 in which Glasner says that the Oral law was handed to Moses at Sinai?
Yes, Rabbi Glasner does believe that some sort of oral law was given to moses.
HOWEVER. You should have read and considered HOW HE DESCRIBES “Oral Torah” NOT as “true” per se, and how he relates the many, many man-made rules that contaminate and mix with divine laws.
Other rabbis and Torah scholars agree and give their own examples of how Oral law is contaminated with “man-made” laws and doctrines.
Let me give you some examples from Torah scholars Rabbi Glasner and Rabbi Gruber :
REGARDING THE CONTAMINATION OF MOSAIC TORAH WITH MAN-MADE “TORAH”
Rabbi Glasner describes Oral law is no longer reflecting that which was given to Moses but he admits the Oral law changes with varying opinions and interpretations of those who create Oral law.
Like Rabbi Gruber, Rabbi Glasner describes an arbitrary Oral Torah that is whatever the Jewish leaders say it is,
even if one “true” law is rescinded and an opposite law takes hold, then the conflicting law becomes “true”.
Rabbi Gruber relates the rule that “
[If} the great court derived [a law]…and after them a new court arose to reverse [that law], [that later court] may reverse the law as they deem correct,…]
This sort of religion is arbitrary to the extent that it is subject to the opinion and interpretation of men.
FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GLASNER :
The nature of Scribal “torah” is also different in that it is arbitrary and dependent upon the opinions of those men who are creating the laws/Torah. When the text tell us “they legislated” or “they opine” a principle as “true”, the next group of scribes may “legislate” the opposite position as “true”.
Rabbi Glasner tells us that
“the Oral Torah is not absolute truth” but rather is
“conventional” (e.g. traditional). Glasner does what you do in that he seeks to re-define and use words such as “truth” in a relative fashion. He says :
Rabbi Gruber writes "...the Oral Torah is not absolute truth but rather conventional. Only that which the sages agree upon is true [in this sense]. When they contradict that which was [accepted as true] until then, their new interpretation becomes the true one [for their generation]; so we have been commanded by Him, may he be blessed, that we "should not depart from the thing (the sages of that generation) tell us either to the right or left. --even if they uproot that which was agreed upon until now..."
This strange attempt to re-define the word “true” or “truth” is unsettling because it is somewhat arbitrary and changes, depending upon the opinion of the Jewish leaders in charge in each generation.
REGARDING THE RABBINIC ORAL LAW AS A SERIES OF INNOVATIONS BY JEWISH LEADERS
In the same context, the Mishnaic text itself has many references to expressions referring to man-made laws such as
the “scribes innovated a new law” or “he legislated”. While such claims may have frustrate you in prior posts when I use the same words as Rabbi Gruber uses, such as “innovate”, Still, your own text should witness to you that this is true.
FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GRUBER:
And, strangely, Jews are to do what the Judges tell them
“even if they are in error in one matter, it is not fitting for us to dispute them, but we must act according to their error.”
FOR EXAMPLE , RABBI GLASNER WRITES :
REGARDING THE RABBINIC EDICT THAT RABBINIC JEWS ARE REQUIRED TO DEFEND THE LEGITIMACY OF THE SCRIBAL LAWS
Rabbi Glasner describes the man made laws (‘Scribes Laws”) which mSanhedrin 11:3 tells Jews that they must defend the legitimacy of these laws at the expense of “what we would call Oral Torah) (his words). It is the scribes themselves who create laws that tell Jews that they must defend the man-made laws created by the scribes.
There is no surprise there.
However, it should surprise us.
FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GRUBER:
In a similar vein of self-preservation, Rabbi Glasner described the motive of writing down “oral Torah”
“to prevent later generations from disputing the views of their predecessors.”
FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GLASNER :
SOME RABBINIC RULES WERE CREATED FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS - SUCH AS THE RICH
Rabbi Gruber also give the example of rules created for other special interests such as the rich. The following example is from mEruyvin 4:9
FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GRUBER:
INNOVATIONS OF NEW RABBINIC DECREES AND RABBINIC RULES HAPPENED SO OFTEN THERE WERE CATEGORIES OF THEM
The innovation of laws and rules and doctrines by the rabbis happened so often that there are formulaic expressions which introduce man-made laws. Rabbi Gruber describes many of these formula such as
“they decreed” or “he decreed”, etc.
FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GRUBER :
POST TWO OF FOUR FOLLOWS
νεσιδρω
7)
