So... your opinion of me is that I'm bad because of history? Why do you spend so much time meeting us and talking to us if we are so terrible?
I don't expect that you really think that. And I don't need to read any books to find out more about why you feel that you've earned the right to sound this way. Or to understand how you can feel ok about bringing up the holocaust when I'm talking about the word OT.
But I truly don't mean anything bad by what I said.
I feel like you are not reading what I am saying.
I already said that I think it is perfectly reasonable for Christians to use the terms Old Testament/OT/etc among themselves. I objected solely to your expectation that 2000 years should have accustomed us to these words, so that we should have no reaction to them -- as though the 2000 years in question had no weight of their own, no horrible things done to Jews in the name of those books!
If you do not understand why that expectation is actually far more offensive than the term itself, then I stand by my suggestion that you read some histories.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I really feel as I stated in the last sentence dagonee... ie, that using derogatory or belittling language when you know its derogatory or belittling language, is rude.
There are, of course, degrees of offensiveness of the terminology that are different in this case.
But your reasoning so far, hasn't demonstrated to me why you MUST use the term that is offensive, rather then other terms that are used by your own scripture that are not offensive. As such, the reasoning I'm seeing does not strike me as any different then using terminology you grew up with to describe people in ways that are offensive to them.
And, of course, I'm probably not on your list of people who you feel you need to describe your reasoning to. I'll think less of you, you'll think less of me, and we'll accomplish nothing. Thats fine. But not optimal outcome.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:using derogatory or belittling language when you know its derogatory or belittling language, is rude
Just as I have not convinced you that there is no other suitable word, you have not convicned me that it is derogatory or belittling. Yes, I know you've "explained why" several times now. Here's a hint: you aren't the arbiter of either ferogatory or rude.
I know why people find the n-word rude. I agree with them that it is rude. I don't agree with you that this is rude when the specific context is not the Jewish Scriptures. And if you are incapable or unwilling to see the difference in the two situations, and to see why it is not the same as merely using language I grew up with, then you are not engaging in good faith discussion.
It's not that you've said "using the OT is as bad as using the n-word." It's that you've said, essentially, "If you don't take my word for it that what you are doing is offensive, then the only reason you have - absent some reason I find acceptable - is because you are the type of person who would be using the n-word today had you grown up with it."
Please at least acknowledge that you comprehend the difference in the situations here.
quote:But not optimal outcome.
Apparently optimal outcome is you using your definitions to tell me that I know I'm being offensive when I, in fact, know no such thing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: the old/new distinction refers to one testament replacing the other.
No it does not. The early church was extremely clear that both testaments are part of the Canon -- the first is in no way "replaced."
Fine. It implies that our Bible is incomplete. If you want to say that your Bible has something additional, fine. But ours is not incomplete.
Be my guest and use Christian supercessionalist terminology all you like. But this issue arose here on this thread, where Jews were being asked for information. In that context, we asked for it to not be used. Storm Saxon derided us for that. My feeling was basically, screw him.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Yes, part of the canon. But the covenant of jesus did indeed replace the covenant of moses, according to the early church.
Maybe "replace" is the wrong word.
"Expand."
Either way, the point stands. Jews haven't accepted either the "Expansion" or "replacement."
You know, maybe you and some others should stop telling the Christians here what they believe. It's every bit as offensive as what you're objecting to.
I have no problem at all with them calling it the OT in their own context. No more problem, at any rate, than I have with Christianity as such.
Why is it so important to you to prove to them that they mean something other than what they say they mean?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If Lisa says, "The Messiah hasn't come yet," that could be interpreted as saying I'm hopelessly deluded or misguided. In fact, each and every person on this board who does not believe Jesus was the Messiah thinks I'm at least misguided.
That's right. Not hopelessly, I don't think, but other than that, you're right. But again, I'm not about to go into one of the threads where people are asking Catholics for info on their religion and announce that they're all misguided.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: We have different beliefs about a lot of things. I'm sorry Paul interprets those names in the manner he does. Is he going to stop asking us to refer to the NT as the NT? It carries the same message to the exact same extent.
What I understand from your earlier post, Dag, is that you'll respect the request in the context of this thread. That's all I've asked. Paul absolutely does not speak for me when he's trying to get you not to use the term at all.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: yeah, but dagonee... when you can change a single term, and not lose meaning (in fact gain meaning), and refuse to do so after someone has said that the term you are using is offensive... you're being impolite.
Now, if someone asks you about your religious beliefs, I have no problem with you describing those beliefs. But to say "hebrew bible" or "tanakh," or "torah," or "old testament," to you, I don't see how any of it means anything DIFFERENT... but to me, and millions of other jews, there's a huge difference.
Why would you NOT change usage? I really don't understand... to me, it looks like clinging to the word "nigger" simply because its what people had used previously. (I'm not saying its the same. This is what it looks like).
So a clarification of how you're going to lose your ability to communicate what you are talking about by choosing a different term would be nice.
For crying out loud, Paul, don't you get that you might as well ask them to stop calling JC "messiah"? After all, that's exactly as offensive to us as calling the Tanach the "Old Testament". You're asking them, for the sake of courtesy, to jettison their religion. That's completely unreasonable.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I understand from your earlier post, Dag, is that you'll respect the request in the context of this thread.
Yep. I already regret starting in on this tangent, mostly because it's interrupted a very interesting thread and because the mere discussion requires using the name "OT" in this thread.
I should have started a different thread if I couldn't resist answering Paul's blanket demand, but I didn't think of it until too late.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Dagonee, since the ordering of these testaments is important to your faith, would you object to first and second testament?
And that, somehow, is better for you than "old" and "new"? I can't even imagine where you're coming from.
And frankly, Paul, you aren't even an Orthodox Jew. I don't know where your hypersensitivity is coming from. I do know that it's damned embarrassing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being Orthodox doesn't make one more of a Jew.
On a lighter note:
quote:jettison
I really like this word a lot. Always have. I would like to campaign that it be used more in everyday vernacular.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may not make one more of a Jew, Gecko, but BlackBlade very specifically aimed this thread at Rivka and me. Check the first post. Paul hasn't contributed the first thing to this thread in terms of information about Judaism, and he's actually not in much of a position to do so. All he's done is help derail the hell out of the thread with utterly ridiculous demands that he'd never accept if they were aimed at him.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I really like this word a lot. Always have. I would like to campaign that it be used more in everyday vernacular.
You know, I used the term tabula rasa during a meeting at work last week, in a context that seemed perfectly normal and unremarkable. I got comments about it for days. One person asked me if I'd used it deliberately to make one of the managers at the meeting feel dumb.
Sometimes I'm just blown away by what's considered overly highbrow nowadays.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Nor have I. In fact, I cannot think of anything that is associated with the notion "his kin will be cursed for the next two generations."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
It is every bit offensive to Christians (or it could be) to ask them to rephrase it as it is for Jews (some of them) to hear it spoken of in those terms.
Since we are trying to have a Q&A session, and most people are trying to be serious about it and not offend anyone, how about both sides extend the benefit of the doubt to each other?
OT isn't meant to be inflammatory, not like calling Christ a "cult leader". If a Christian (at least the ones I see in this thread) uses it, he is using the terms he knows of to destinguish between two books of the bible that he knows. He isn't assuming that you accept both as relevent, and refute your own faith or beliefs. By the same token, if a Jewish person, in the same discussion, refuses to call it the NT, he isn't slamming the Christian's faith, but being true to his/her own.
Too much political correctness interferes with both conversation and goodwill. In some ways it is as disruptive as a complete lack of it would be.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe Lisa mentioned it. At this point, most academics use BCE and CE, and certainly those are my preference.
But I figured I'd wait until the furor over the last acronym issue died down before raising another one. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I don't care if they use BC and AD. I know what they're talking about, and frankly, that's the source of the dating we use.
On the contrary; I've been told by a number of Christians that my use of BCE and CE is offensive to them. I remember a big debate that raged in the letter column of Biblical Archaeology Review way back when on this subject. But it should be clear to Christians that we're not going to use something like AD in dates, because he ain't our dominus.
How did this get so freaking out of control? We asked that a few terms not be used in this thread, and it's turned into a political correctness festival. Get over it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I recently finished reading One People, Two Worlds. One of the topics that struck me the most was the argument the Orthodox writer used in regards to the legitamacy of the events at Mt. Sinai. He bascially said that just the fact that the events took place in front of the entire Nation of Israel at the time, that it proves itself. I understand what he is saying, that if the events really didn't take place then all of the great grandchildren would have said, "Nope never heard of it." In a way it does make sense to me because in almost every other event and religion, it seems that God shows miracles in a much more private manner.
I just feel there is something missing from that argument. Obviously the Reform writer never would have said this (his writing made it seem like he was always afraid to sound faithless), but a non-believer could just say it was all made up much later anyways. That someone could have just told everyone that it happened, that they are special, and this is how their descendents are supposed to live and continue eveything.
I realize it always comes down to faith anyways. Either you believe or you don't. It just seemed like I missed something in the Orthodox writer's attempts to prove the events happened logically.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I just feel there is something missing from that argument. Obviously the Reform writer never would have said this (his writing made it seem like he was always afraid to sound faithless), but a non-believer could just say it was all made up much later anyways. That someone could have just told everyone that it happened, that they are special, and this is how their descendents are supposed to live and continue eveything.
The question is how somebody could have successfully sold an entire generation on the truth of something that had personally happened to all of their ancestors.
The central point of the Passover seder is retelling the story of the exodus from Egypt, leading up to the giving of the Torah on Sinai. This is not just because it makes a good story, or to keep us drilled on the dogma. It's another piece of the oral tradition. My father told me that his father told him that his father told him, and so on, stretching back through time, that he was there at Sinai and saw it personally.
Supposing this tradition didn't exist until five years ago. How would you get every-- heck, let's make this easier, and confine it to a smaller group --every Orthodox Jewish parent to go along with this and start telling the same story? Is this comparable in difficulty to convincing everyone that a miracle occurred, witnessed by only a handful of reliable observers?
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An example of a historical event that's actually fallen off the radar is the "Kingdom" of Ephraim. I know I didn't learn about it in Hebrew school; it wasn't until college that any textbooks I had covered it.
Back in the early 1700s, a group of Jews from Europe came to North America and migrated west. They were all refugees from the various pogroms that were constantly going on in the old country, and they set up settlement in what's now northeastern Wyoming.
The members of this community actually set up a society that seems to have operated more or less according to Jewish law. Although they referred to themselves as a "kingdom", they had no king; they probably used that term for lack of a better one. Modern Hebrew hadn't been invented, and they spoke (wrote, at any rate) in a mixture of Yiddish and Ladino, which suggests that there were both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews among their populace.
Remains were found of their settlement, which is how we know about them. They had little to no communication with other Jewish communities, because of the distances involved. Some scraps of what may have been letters to members of the community were found, but they were too badly damaged to be read.
Historians are unsure about what caused the settlement to fail. There were no signs of violence, so disease or famine is considered the most likely cause.
I mention the Ephraimites because they're an example of something that is both historically true, and verifiable, and yet when I've spoken with other Jews, they have all claimed never to have heard of such a thing.
Another example is something that I experienced personally when I was living in Israel. And it was brought to mind recently when we went off of Daylight Savings Time.
One year (sometime between 1987 and 1995), Israel went off of Daylight Savings Time in the middle of a Friday afternoon. It was kind of cool, actually, because it gave us an extra hour to get ready for Shabbat. They never did it again, though.
When I was back in Israel from 1998 to 2001, I remember mentioning this to people. Coworkers, friends, etc. And not a single one of them remembered it. It turned into a joke at work, because people honestly didn't remember it. And it was unusual. You'd think that kind of thing would stick in your head, right? A country of 4-5 million people, and the closest I could come was one person who said that it maybe rang a bell. Most people not only didn't remember it, but were absolutely convinced I was misremembering.
Yeah... I don't buy the whole idea of the events at Sinai being an invention. It doesn't jibe with the nature of the Jewish people. You can't get 100 of us to whistle Dixie at the same time.
posted
Incidentally, the thing with the Daylight Savings Time really happened. The Kingdom of Ephraim is something I made up about 10 years ago. I've been trying unsuccessfully to get people to buy it ever since.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: The central point of the Passover seder is retelling the story of the exodus from Egypt, leading up to the giving of the Torah on Sinai. This is not just because it makes a good story, or to keep us drilled on the dogma. It's another piece of the oral tradition. My father told me that his father told him that his father told him, and so on, stretching back through time, that he was there at Sinai and saw it personally.
Supposing this tradition didn't exist until five years ago. How would you get every-- heck, let's make this easier, and confine it to a smaller group --every Orthodox Jewish parent to go along with this and start telling the same story? Is this comparable in difficulty to convincing everyone that a miracle occurred, witnessed by only a handful of reliable observers?
But what about from a psychological stand point? A recent show I watched dealt with how stereotyping people in itself can make the stereotypes true when heard by the victims enough (maybe being labeled a bunch of rich bankers isn't such a bad thing?). It made me think back to the book and I wondered if the reverse could be true here. Could one or many of our ancestors used that technique to make their descendents feel special enough to believe?
I wish I was a better writer, I can't seem to type the questons in my head that I am really trying to get at.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Incidentally, the thing with the Daylight Savings Time really happened. The Kingdom of Ephraim is something I made up about 10 years ago. I've been trying unsuccessfully to get people to buy it ever since.
You had me sold. You should try sending a mass email of the story pretending like someone sent it to you in a forward.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet, Stephan, we never bought into the whole "international bankers" thing, did we? Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that if we really were, I wouldn't be so deeply in debt.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Incidentally, the thing with the Daylight Savings Time really happened. The Kingdom of Ephraim is something I made up about 10 years ago. I've been trying unsuccessfully to get people to buy it ever since.
You had me sold. You should try sending a mass email of the story pretending like someone sent it to you in a forward.
Okay, but the core of the Jewish people has always been those of us who are pretty stubborn about sources. I mean, if a copiest thought there was a mistake in a page of the Talmud, he didn't "correct" it. He just put a note in the margin. Try and convince people like that that they've always known about this Jewish kingdom in Wyoming.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Okay, but the core of the Jewish people has always been those of us who are pretty stubborn about sources. I mean, if a copiest thought there was a mistake in a page of the Talmud, he didn't "correct" it. He just put a note in the margin. Try and convince people like that that they've always known about this Jewish kingdom in Wyoming.
Instead of telling other Jews, maybe try telling it to the people of Wyoming, especially those with ancestors going back a couple of hundred years. Tell them they are descendants of these lost Jews. That your recently discovered letters actually have been deciphered, and they talk about God wanting Wyoming to be the true holy land.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One year (sometime between 1987 and 1995), Israel went off of Daylight Savings Time in the middle of a Friday afternoon. It was kind of cool, actually, because it gave us an extra hour to get ready for Shabbat.
But doesn't Shabbat begin at sundown and sundown is most certainly not effected by when you change your clock.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they got home from work with more time before sundown than they would have had otherwise, hence having more time to prepare.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Except for one thing. Going off DST actually costs you an hour. Two Fridays ago, Shabbos started here at a quarter to 6. This past Friday, it began at 20 to 5.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: One year (sometime between 1987 and 1995), Israel went off of Daylight Savings Time in the middle of a Friday afternoon. It was kind of cool, actually, because it gave us an extra hour to get ready for Shabbat. They never did it again, though.
The change to DST is made early Friday morning; from DST has varied; it's now set as early Sunday morning, but was early Friday morning for a few years. I can't find anything indicating a Friday afternoon timechange. I wonder whether your experience wasn't a matter of official policy, but of your work or school choosing to stick with the old system for that day, effectively postponing the change till you went home?
(That's happened with Pesach back in the U.S.; in my experience, the shul schedules specified that they were sticking with Daylight Time until the holiday ended, even though the clock officially changed partway through.)
posted
Not that I am trying to sidestep the recent conversation that is going on in this thread. I personally didn't create the thread, in order to debate any topic on any extended basis. You are all welcome to continue civilly debating as you see fit. I personally am going to go on asking and responding.
I am content to at least to some commonly accepted degree, learn the Jewish terms as I profit intellectually from knowing them. If it makes conversation smoother and less prone to tangent that in of itself is worth it to me.
rivka:
quote:Of course. But what you think is "the meat" seems often not to be what I would so identify.
Right, which is why its a temptation and not something I am actively practicing within this thread.
quote: Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't believe you. EVERY religious person has a strong emotional investment in their religion being correct!
Oh I won't take it the wrong way. As long as I can question and still get answers it matters not how you perceive my motives.
Shmuel:
quote: The Abarbanel explicitly said Moshiach can come from the dead. If you want to place him outside the range of Jewish thought, that's your problem, not theirs. (Chassidic thought comes into play only in justifying the belief that it'll specifically be the Lubavitcher Rebbe, not the posthumous possibility.)
I vaguely recall being informed that not all Jews (as in theist Jews) believe in a messiah. I think I recall hearing that messianic prophecies all relate to a great prophet/leader, who will restore the kingdom to the Jews, but nothing along the lines of a demigod or a savior in the sense the Christians see a messiah as being.
Do Jews not all believe in a messiah of any type? Are there various interpretations of who the Messiah will be? As in what he will be like? Does the MT indicate that he will be born of a virgin? Whats the low down on all this? If its too complicated I understand. -----
I read Rivka's link and I must confess it was hard reading for me, as it should be, I obviously am not use to discussing Jewish doctrine. Was the Daniel in the article the MT's Daniel? As in the one who was cast into the lion's den? Or is it another Daniel. So is there a debate that the messiah (or whatever term you choose) could come either from the dead OR the living?
Could somebody explain to me how the Sabbath fell on friday for Jews? Is it just a traditional thing or was saturday "the first day?" I just have no idea how this came to be, does anybody?
I already understand that it was early Christians who moved their sabbath to sunday to correspond with Jesus' death/ressurection. Just looking for the Jewish side of things.
One more question on the statement that God has promised that the Jewish people will never lose the Torah, where is this said? Can it be quoted if its not in the MT? Also do Jews not see promises from God as being contingent on faithfulness? At least from Mormonisms perspective God could promise me that I would have many children for example and they would honor me in their deeds throughout the ages. But when such promises are made it is understood that if I disobey God's council that the promise is then void because I have not held my end of the bargain. For Mormons its embodied in the following phrase,
"I the Lord God am bound when ye do as I say, but when ye do not ye have no promise."
From the Jewish perspective how do God's promises work? I understand that Lord can say, "Blessings if your good, curses when you are evil." And that can be true regardless of the peoples behavior as all the bases are covered. But for example if Abraham had failed to even go to offer up Issac on the alter God had already said that through his seed the nations of the earth would be blessed. Say Abraham had despaired and killed himself rather then sacrifice Isaac. Would God be bound by the words he had already uttered prior to commanding Abraham to do sacrifice Isaac?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: One year (sometime between 1987 and 1995), Israel went off of Daylight Savings Time in the middle of a Friday afternoon. It was kind of cool, actually, because it gave us an extra hour to get ready for Shabbat. They never did it again, though.
The change to DST is made early Friday morning; from DST has varied; it's now set as early Sunday morning, but was early Friday morning for a few years. I can't find anything indicating a Friday afternoon timechange. I wonder whether your experience wasn't a matter of official policy, but of your work or school choosing to stick with the old system for that day, effectively postponing the change till you went home?
No, it was official. I'm pretty sure that 2pm became 1pm. I remember I used to listen to the English news at 1pm, and I wondered that day whether they were going to play it again when it became 1pm again. <grin>
Short of slippage and/or insanity, it actually did happen, though.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I vaguely recall being informed that not all Jews (as in theist Jews) believe in a messiah.
I guess that's true, if you are including Reform and Reconstructionist.
quote:I think I recall hearing that messianic prophecies all relate to a great prophet/leader, who will restore the kingdom to the Jews, but nothing along the lines of a demigod or a savior in the sense the Christians see a messiah as being.
Correct.
quote:Does the MT indicate that he will be born of a virgin?
quote:Could somebody explain to me how the Sabbath fell on Friday for Jews?
It doesn't. It falls on Saturday. However, by Jewish law, days begin not at midnight or daybreak, but at sunset/full dark of the previous evening. So Shabbos begins Friday night, the beginning of the seventh day.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I vaguely recall being informed that not all Jews (as in theist Jews) believe in a messiah. I think I recall hearing that messianic prophecies all relate to a great prophet/leader, who will restore the kingdom to the Jews, but nothing along the lines of a demigod or a savior in the sense the Christians see a messiah as being.
More or less. Belief in the eventual coming of the Messiah, who will lead the Jews out of exile into Israel, re-establish the Temple, and so on, is one of the fundamental beliefs of Orthodox Jewish faith. However, he absolutely will not be born of a virgin, and differs considerably from the Christian conception of the term. I'll let the late, great Aryeh Kaplan provide the job description. (It's written for a general audience.)
quote:Could somebody explain to me how the Sabbath fell on friday for Jews?
Friday? That's the Muslims. It's Saturday for us. The thing is, "days" start at sundown on the Jewish calendar. ("And it was evening and it was morning; day one," not vice-versa.)
quote:From the Jewish perspective how do God's promises work? I understand that Lord can say, "Blessings if your good, curses when you are evil." And that can be true regardless of the peoples behavior as all the bases are covered. But for example if Abraham had failed to even go to offer up Issac on the alter God had already said that through his seed the nations of the earth would be blessed. Say Abraham had despaired and killed himself rather then sacrifice Isaac. Would God be bound by the words he had already uttered prior to commanding Abraham to do sacrifice Isaac?
In a word, yes. Goodness only knows what we would have had to go through to get to that point, but yes.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Friday? That's the Muslims. It's Saturday for us. The thing is, "days" start at sundown on the Jewish calendar. ("And it was evening and it was morning; day one," not vice-versa.)
There really is something neat about getting off work and starting a new day.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I vaguely recall being informed that not all Jews (as in theist Jews) believe in a messiah. I think I recall hearing that messianic prophecies all relate to a great prophet/leader, who will restore the kingdom to the Jews, but nothing along the lines of a demigod or a savior in the sense the Christians see a messiah as being.
No Jews believe in any kind of demigod or savior in that sense. The messiah is a person. He's a descendent of King David, and he's a leader.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Do Jews not all believe in a messiah of any type? Are there various interpretations of who the Messiah will be? As in what he will be like?
The believe that the messiah will come is one of the 13 articles of faith formulated by Maimonides. No Orthodox Jew rejects that. By definition.
We have sects/movements of Jews who have left observance, and they believe in pretty much whatever suits them at the moment. So yes, some of them don't believe there's going to be a messiah.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Does the MT indicate that he will be born of a virgin? Whats the low down on all this? If its too complicated I understand.
The "virgin" thing was a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. You can't be born of a virgin, because being born requires having sex. Though nowadays, that's not entirely true any more.
But still, he can't be born of a virgin, even if such a thing were possible, because tribal and familial descent among Jews goes by the patrilineal line (even though being Jewish goes by the matrilineal line). To be a legitimate descendent of David, and qualified to be the messiah, your father must be descended from David. And adoption doesn't count. It's blood relation that matters.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I read Rivka's link and I must confess it was hard reading for me, as it should be, I obviously am not use to discussing Jewish doctrine. Was the Daniel in the article the MT's Daniel? As in the one who was cast into the lion's den? Or is it another Daniel.
Just the one Daniel.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So is there a debate that the messiah (or whatever term you choose) could come either from the dead OR the living?
Honestly, no. There is a phenomenon that's been going on for about a decade or so, where members of a particular group of Hassidic Jews who were unable to cope with the death of their leader and all that death implied, have been scraping at the source material and trying to find some way to cling to the idea that their dead leader really is the messiah. But he fulfilled none of the things that the messiah must fulfill, and more than anything else, he's dead.
This group, mind you, utterly rejected the idea that a dead man could return to be the messiah. Until their leader died. Now, they're just desperate. For some context, there was a charismatic false messiah a few centuries ago named Shabbtai Tzvi. He went before the ruler of the Ottoman Empire, and was told to convert to Islam or die. He converted. Even after he converted, he still had followers who maintained that he was the messiah. Eventually, they died out. Hopefully, the Lubavitch meshichistim (Hebrew for "messianics") will follow that pattern rather than the Christian one.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Could somebody explain to me how the Sabbath fell on friday for Jews? Is it just a traditional thing or was saturday "the first day?" I just have no idea how this came to be, does anybody?
The Sabbath is on Saturday. Our days begin and end at sundown. They go sundown-to-sundown, and not midnight to midnight. Just as it's described in the Torah. "And there was evening, and there was morning". The first day of the week is Saturday night through Sunday. The second day is Sunday night through Monday. See?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: One more question on the statement that God has promised that the Jewish people will never lose the Torah, where is this said? Can it be quoted if its not in the MT?
No. But it is. Isaiah 59:21.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also do Jews not see promises from God as being contingent on faithfulness?
Here are some quotes. Obviously not the last three, but the rest are pertinent.
And try Leviticus 26:44. This is at the end of the nastiest string of curses that God promises to visit on us if we mess up, and even so:
quote:Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them; for I am Hashem their God.
The promises that God says are contingent on our behavior, are contingent on our behavior. He promised us peace and plenty in the land he swore to our forefathers to give us. But he made that contingent on our behavior, which is why were were exiled.
But what isn't stated as contingent is not contingent on anything. It is as fixed and inalterable as the laws of nature. Moreso, because God promised it.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For Mormons its embodied in the following phrase,
"I the Lord God am bound when ye do as I say, but when ye do not ye have no promise."
Is that from your scriptures? It can't be from ours, because the idea of God being "bound" by anything is completely outside the realm of any concept we have of God.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But for example if Abraham had failed to even go to offer up Issac on the alter God had already said that through his seed the nations of the earth would be blessed. Say Abraham had despaired and killed himself rather then sacrifice Isaac. Would God be bound by the words he had already uttered prior to commanding Abraham to do sacrifice Isaac?
Not bound, but He would have kept His promise nevertheless. How, I don't know, because it didn't happen that way. But "God is not a man, that He should lie". That's from the book of Samuel (forgive me if I'm too lazy to look it up).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what Renewal is. And Conservative's official position, last I checked, is that there will be a Moshiach, but no renewal of the sacrifices.
Oh, and I shouldn't have included Reconstructionist. They're not theists.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So is there a debate that the messiah (or whatever term you choose) could come either from the dead OR the living?
Sorry; missed this on the first cut'n'paste pass. Only very technically. There is an obscure minority viewpoint which regards Moshiach being somebody who's returned from the dead as a tenable, if very unlikely, option. While I stand by my contention that this is enough to keep that viewpoint from being outside the acceptable boundaries of Jewish thought, virtually nobody expects it to happen that way, outside of one rather small group. Virtually all Jewish literature takes for granted that he'll be alive the whole way through.
That said, it's not a very significant point one way or the other. If somebody does return from the dead and goes on to fulfill every one of the necessary criteria, I don't think any of us will have a problem with him being Moshiach. Thus far, nobody's managed it.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I don't know what Renewal is.
Link. It's New Agey nuttiness. Sort of like Reform Hassidism.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And Conservative's official position, last I checked, is that there will be a Moshiach, but no renewal of the sacrifices.
posted
Um, I only know one reconstuctionist Jew and only found out yesterday that that is the "flavor" she is, but from what she's said about her beliefs she is certainly a theist and believes there will be a messiah. Is she an exception, or are you disputing something about reconstructionist beliefs that doesn't measure up to Orthodox standards for theism or messiah?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Does the MT indicate that he will be born of a virgin? Absolutely NOT. Messianic criteria.
So then how do Jews view Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-16? Does this pertain to an ordinary prophet and not the messiah? Isaiah 53 (the entire chapter) what could this chapter mean to most Jews? Are these prophecies not neccesarily about a person but are metaphorical? I've read that there are rules to prophecying within Judaism and if one is not aquainted with it, its hard to understand but perhaps anybody could illuminate how Jews see these passages.
About those criteria you listed Rivka, laying aside the actual merit of the arguments. You could claim partiality on the part of the NT authors, though I am not sure there is a strong case for this, they often listed the criticisms leveled against Jesus. With the accurate keeping of genealogy amongst the Jews not once was Jesus' lineage to David questioned. Just thought I would point that out, it's surprising the charge of being of the wrong genealogy was never brought up.
quote:Could somebody explain to me how the Sabbath fell on Friday for Jews? It doesn't. It falls on Saturday. However, by Jewish law, days begin not at midnight or daybreak, but at sunset/full dark of the previous evening. So Shabbos begins Friday night, the beginning of the seventh day.
Who decided days begin at sunset?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Thus far, nobody's managed it.
