Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes. More mitzvot, more opportunities to please G-d and do what He wants. This is an exceedingly good thing.
My heart would break for you, except rather than actually answering my question, you just claim that your heart breaks for me at my "intellectual elitism" and call my religion dung. So no, my heart doesn't break for you. How about actually answering the question instead of dodging? (I'll give you a tip: You could likely find the answer on Wikipedia and act as though you knew it all along).
Same reason other ancient Judaic texts were unpreserved: They were not deemed holy enough for us to give our fortunes and lives over their preservation. You must be aware of how the sages viewed the translating of the Torah. If you want to know what they thought of the translating of the Nach, I recommend reading Rabbi Reuven Margolies's המקרא והמסורה, where he has an essay dedicated to the sages' view of the Septuagint.
So...you know about five rabbis, at best, I take it?
Yes, others read what I write.
I can extol stuff about "the "word"" alright, but I don't think you'll be happy to hear what I have to say about him.
Torah/teachings will be magnified! Isaiah 42:21
Yeah, Jesus was always quoting talmud. I can see why that would bother you. Maybe you should be a Karaite.
Hi -- nice to meet you. I relax on shabbat and I feel the love of God every day! Of course, I balance my love for God (and his for me) with my fear of him because fear is textually demanded of me as well.
I'm okay with this. The one good thing the Roman Empire did was show how non-Jewish Christianity is.
Sounds creepy, I must say. Good thing I'm not open-minded, or I'd find myself in the incapable hands of the people who made GOD.TV a thing in Israel (until they were shut down, that is).
Reminds me of this quote,
But it is based on the chain of transmission of practices and understandings as understood through a particular and consistent lens making the Judaism of today simply a continuation of (and not distinct from) any earlier form of Judaism. We are still using the rules and precedents that have been used, in the way that they have been used for thousands of years.
Well, Judaism would not say it is arbitrary. The practice of reconciling variant texts has a long history so within Judaism, there is a way of establishing what is "right" and normative with faith grounding the end result in a particular position of authority that other versions would not have. The process was not about honoring anyone or thing, but about maintaining a tradition and keeping within it. Therefore, as the process is true to a tradition, the end result is not suspect. Outside texts which are inconsistent are. And the legal system developed based on those same, internally consistent texts is one that continues to be consistent with earlier legal precedent, tradition and method. But I guess that considering it capricious relying on a view that the text must in some way be whimsically decided upon is a perfectly reasonable view from outside the system.
But knowing that similar committees within the realm of Jewish historical scholars (with the bona fides to prove it) have come up with a different conclusion calls into question the supremacy of the other committees. Each uses a rationale of its own. Opting for one over another must be informed by some other agenda. I know mine.
Side question -- would you suggest that the Reform and Conservative movements have Torah texts which differ?
In this sentence, the order of statements is questionable. One could easily say "the Essenes produced their own text which differs from the accepted Masoretic text's sources". Assuming that the Masoretic text is invariably the changed one (and not one reconciled in accordance with the source text) presents a presupposition which might not be true.
No, that they reconciled when presented with variant texts. A flat out change, unprecedented and arbitrary? I don't think so.
To whom? And why would, if it had historical importance, it not have been included in any earlier canonized version? It seems that the finding of one set of external scrolls has convinced you of their authority, sans any real provenance.
And you also cite the linguistic, theological and textually based rule that they employed so while you think that they should not have done something, they would say that they were undoing something that was an error in light of the rest of the text and the historical and religious context in which the text was generated.
but the laws are more than just soundbites and their application is more complex than simply labeling a single behavior "they did X". We speak about "spilling blood" but in Jewish law, that goes well beyond murder, or even assault. If one wishes to understand, one should eschew such convenient reductions, and read through source material.
What might have been known about the sins of the Jews is one thing, one which can be gleaned by reading Jewish texts, but a claim that there is a "prophetic religion" or that God punished the Jews by giving something to other groups is simply a claim made by others in a form of replacement theology.
Yes, that is answered here.
And I do not see how the establishing of a religion which accounts for future events which will require the application of different, already extant, laws makes the later application into a different religion. If the text tells us how to connect with God in the absence of sacrifices, then when there are no sacrifices and we use the other textually mandated system, we aren't practicing a different religion. The underlying religion has the same characteristics and demands.
Also, we have absolutely no evidence of such a thing. @Clear, I don't know if you read my reply to you where I quoted the Jerusalem Talmud, but it says there clearly that the way the texts were corrected was by comparing the majorities - they didn't invent any words themselves. I tried to explain that to you about the Masoretes - "Masoretic text" does not mean that they changed of their own accord the text - it means that they compared a large amount of scrolls with variants and saw which textual variants made up the majority. They then wrote newly accurate scrolls in order to create a standard for the Jewish people. This seems to be something quite a few people do not understand about the Masoretes. I've seen such claims by other people. They believe that the Masoretes, being people who lived in the 8th-9th centuries, must've pulled their texts out of thin air, when that was not the case at all.
The judges were the elders, who knew the law and were trusted enough, respected enough, that their decisions would not be questioned. Today these are known as Rabbis. Rabbis attend years of rabbinical school to learn all the minutiae of the Law, both Torah and Talmud, and a great deal of Tradition to boot. If a congregant has a question regarding the application of the law, they can with confidence go to their rabbi for an answer. Such an ordained Rabbi can also sit on a Beit Din (Jewish tribunal) and render decisions on cases exactly like the judges of old.
The People of Israel are simply the descendants of the Patriarch Israel, via his 12 sons, or those who have been adopted into the People via a halakhic (lawful) conversion, like Ruth (who was born a Moabite but died a Jew).
No its not.
Noah, like Adam, is not a historical person. The story of the flood is there in the sacred texts to teach us how much God hates sin.
Besides the prophets that Jezebel killed, please list all the many prophets that the Jews killed up till Malachi. Can't find any? Thought so.
It's not. The medical symbol has TWO snakes, as well as wings. Nor is being a doctor a priesthood position. Please don't go weird on me.