Abrahamic Only: Who is Jehovah?

[nothead]

Well, you feel free to believe whatever you like.

But Deut. 30 has nothing to do with the Shma specifically. And nothing-- nothing at all-- is only pshat. It's just not the case.

And in fact, we do know names like Yaweh and Jehovah (or Jahveh, which is ridiculous, as is having an "Israelite" friend 2000-odd years after we ceased referring to ourselves as Israelites) are incorrect, because we know precisely how those mistransliterations occurred.

I have no idea where you found such ideas, but if you are uninterested in learning from professional Judaics scholars where they are incorrect or insupportable, that is your affair.

I do not deign to PRONOUNCE "YHWH." I think it is only the conventions or assumptions of men. YHWH is in fact still too sacred to pronounce. But and yet the name will ever be the only name of God. At least the DEFINITIVE one.

And this is fundamental, if not the considerations of so-called scholars.

And sir, contrary to the considerations of later Jews, that this passage in Deut 30 refers to the Whole Law as they knew it, the ONLY LAW they knew up until the passage across the river Jordan were these only. The Ten, previously, and the Shema, upon "this day."

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My grasp of "elohim theology" will in fact amaze many.

Seriously?

 

[nothead]

Seriously?

If you disagree with him, after having read the free PDF online, then say where. I stated his PHD comes partly in the Languages including Hebrew and you stopped your accusations then. But did you read it, "What is an elohim?" Sir?

So stop with your grandiose considerations of your own scholarship if you cannot do this, please.

 

[metis]

I do not deign to PRONOUNCE "YHWH." I think it is only the conventions or assumptions of men. YHWH is in fact still too sacred to pronounce. But and yet the name will ever be the only name of God. At least the DEFINITIVE one.

And this is fundamental, if not the considerations of so-called scholars.

And sir, contrary to the considerations of later Jews, that this passage in Deut 30 refers to the Whole Law as they knew it, the ONLY LAW they knew up until the passage across the river Jordan were these only. The Ten, previously, and the Shema, upon "this day."

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

The "Law" refers to all 613 Commandments that are found in Torah-- not just 10. See Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

 

[nothead]

The "Law" refers to all 613 Commandments that are found in Torah-- not just 10. See Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

I thee thaid the blind man. Exegesis' number one Rule, Gordon Fee. Consider the historical context, overall.

What was the Law when the passage was given, sir? The 613 as you know now, or the Ten and the Shema as they knew as they were crossing into the Land of Plenty?

CORE LAW are just these, and the Golden Rule, Mk 12. Deut 6 ifn you just a Jew and not Christian.

 

[Levite]

And this is fundamental, if not the considerations of so-called scholars.

And sir, contrary to the considerations of later Jews, that this passage in Deut 30 refers to the Whole Law as they knew it, the ONLY LAW they knew up until the passage across the river Jordan were these only. The Ten, previously, and the Shema, upon "this day."

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Repeating things like these without precedent or proof is indicative of nothing.

There is no significant commentator or Rabbi I am aware of who has said anything akin to the interpretation you are trying to present as pshat-- which, needless to say, is in no way the actual pshat of the text, it is a drash, and not a cohesive one. It is by no means self-evident from the text-- a piece of text, by the way, which is widely used for other halachic proofs in other matters altogether-- and in fact it seems entirely contradictory to any sensible understanding of the text, given that you appear to use the notion of "the Law" in a Christian fashion, whereas we always understand that what is sometimes rendered as "the Law" means the whole Torah.

Indignant uses of capitalization and colored text do not make up for the fact that there is simply nothing to support this interpretation, which you appear to have pulled out of thin air.

 

[metis]

I thee thaid the blind man. Exegesis' number one Rule, Gordon Fee. Consider the historical context, overall.

What was the Law when the passage was given, sir? The 613 as you know now, or the Ten and the Shema as they knew as they were crossing into the Land of Plenty?

CORE LAW are just these, and the Golden Rule, Mk 12. Deut 6 ifn you just a Jew and not Christian.

The Law was given to Moshe on Mt. Sinai, all of it according to our tradition, but Moses gave the Law to the people over time. There is no such thing as the "CORE LAW" as all 613 have importance. If you are a Christian, the Mosaiic Law does not pertain to you, and that includes the Decalogue. And your terminology "just a Jew" is rather telling, but in a rather pathetic way.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But did you read it, "What is an elohim?" Sir?

Depending on context, an example of the concretized abstract plural.

 

[nothead]

Repeating things like these without precedent or proof is indicative of nothing.

There is no significant commentator or Rabbi I am aware of who has said anything akin to the interpretation you are trying to present as pshat-- which, needless to say, is in no way the actual pshat of the text, it is a drash, and not a cohesive one. It is by no means self-evident from the text-- a piece of text, by the way, which is widely used for other halachic proofs in other matters altogether-- and in fact it seems entirely contradictory to any sensible understanding of the text, given that you appear to use the notion of "the Law" in a Christian fashion, whereas we always understand that what is sometimes rendered as "the Law" means the whole Torah.

Indignant uses of capitalization and colored text do not make up for the fact that there is simply nothing to support this interpretation, which you appear to have pulled out of thin air.

Okay then, the commandment given THAT DAY has no bearing on anything, since the Whole of Torah is what is meant, all 5 Books and maybe even the Targums concerning et all.

Okay then, Peshat Law was not given then, so that they would do the Shema, plainly said so that they will do it.
Neither are the Ten Peshat, since no one seems to know what they mean. Not even children who at least know to fear the One True God, but not how to Fear God, but by doing the Ten, and the Shema. We know not much about these, mystically said, and mystically meant for us to be confused about.

Now I am wholly with you AND confused. Are you happy, brother?

 

[nothead]

Depending on context, an example of the concretized abstract plural.

Are you saying God is plural, oh abstract and gnostic Jew?

 

[nothead]

The Law was given to Moshe on Mt. Sinai, all of it according to our tradition, but Moses gave the Law to the people over time. There is no such thing as the "CORE LAW" as all 613 have importance. If you are a Christian, the Mosaiic Law does not pertain to you, and that includes the Decalogue. And your terminology "just a Jew" is rather telling, but in a rather pathetic way.

Core Law is in Jewish terminology, mishpatim. Extensions of Law are something else, even given by later rabbis. Yes, I am pathetic, since I believe in NT. But not as pathetic as someone who does not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you saying God is plural, ...

No. I am saying that 'elohim is, in the words of Burnett's "A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim," an example of the concretized abstract plural

..., oh abstract and gnostic Jew?

Try to be less childish.

 

[nothead]

No. I am saying that 'elohim is, in the words of Burnett's "A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim," an example of the concretized abstract plural

Try to be less childish.

Not having the Book, I read this about it:

he argues that ilanu possessed the further connotation of an abstract plural that encompassed the properties inherent in the concept, a classification known in biblical Hebrew, i.e., deity/divinity, as opposed to a specific god.

So then how does this refute me, oh abstract plural scholar? Can you elucidate this abstract thing called, "elohim?"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you saying God is plural, oh abstract and gnostic Jew?

So then how does this refute me, oh abstract plural scholar?

Yes, I am pathetic, since I believe in NT. But not as pathetic as someone who does not.

Infantile ...

 

[nothead]

Infantile ...

Well, ignore it and answer, please. What does a concretization of the plural elohim mean?

 

[rosends]

Core Law is in Jewish terminology, mishpatim. Extensions of Law are something else, even given by later rabbis.

According to whom? The torah speaks of chukim, mitzvot, mishpatim, edot and other things. How can you decide that the "core" is only one category? What is your source that a certain thing is "Jewish terminology"?

 

[Levite]

Okay then, the commandment given THAT DAY has no bearing on anything, since the Whole of Torah is what is meant, all 5 Books and maybe even the Targums concerning et all.

Okay then, Peshat Law was not given then, so that they would do the Shema, plainly said so that they will do it.
Neither are the Ten Peshat, since no one seems to know what they mean. Not even children who at least know to fear the One True God, but not how to Fear God, but by doing the Ten, and the Shema. We know not much about these, mystically said, and mystically meant for us to be confused about.

Now I am wholly with you AND confused. Are you happy, brother?

Whatever. I'm not interested in playing more games with you. If at some point you decide you're actually open to learning how Torah study works, and how actual Jews read actual Jewish text, let me know.

 

[nothead]

According to whom? The torah speaks of chukim, mitzvot, mishpatim, edot and other things. How can you decide that the "core" is only one category? What is your source that a certain thing is "Jewish terminology"?

All good for the Jewish Lawyer. Not for a Gentile grafted-in. I FEAR God, my first requirement. I don't have to learn all the sublaws and commentaries and margins and ceremonials and eatin law and sacrificial law. Temple Law died with the Temple, ma'am.

 

[nothead]

Whatever. I'm not interested in playing more games with you. If at some point you decide you're actually open to learning how Torah study works, and how actual Jews read actual Jewish text, let me know.

Will you kill me for picking up sticks on the sabbath too?

Do you know that the "book" in Deut 30 is really the Book of Deuteronomy only, sir? Not the other four books of Torah?

 

[rosends]

All good for the Jewish Lawyer. Not for a Gentile grafted-in. I FEAR God, my first requirement. I don't have to learn all the sublaws and commentaries and margins and ceremonials and eatin law and sacrificial law. Temple Law died with the Temple, ma'am.

So you are saying that you have no source even though you claimed that you were quoting from authorities. OK ma'am, I'll make a note that what you say is not supported.