Abrahamic Only: Who is Jehovah?

[nothead]

Notice how I said "speaker" and you changed it to "commentator"? Then how you asked questions based on the use of the word "commentator"? That's called a "straw man" you just set up. It is a rhetorical fallacy and not very useful in real conversation.

Rabbis don't speak?

 

[nothead]

Rabbis don't speak?

Um correction, I got me mixed up with you. Rabbis don't comment on the original?

 

[rosends]

Th

Um correction, I got me mixed up with you. Rabbis don't comment on the original?

Those who comment, comment. If I were mentioning them, I would call them "commentators." I didn't and wasn't. I said "speaker." You turned it into "commentator." If you need to jot down notes, do that. I'll wait.

 

[nothead]

Th

Those who comment, comment. If I were mentioning them, I would call them "commentators." I didn't and wasn't. I said "speaker." You turned it into "commentator." If you need to jot down notes, do that. I'll wait.

So why do you think a COMMENT on the original is as good or equal to the original? Like when I'm color commentating, I don't even SEE MYSELF as pristinely holy as the original is...why wherefore and for what purpose, oh man? I mean, rabbi?

 

[rosends]

So why do you think a COMMENT on the original is as good or equal to the original? Like when I'm color commentating, I don't even SEE MYSELF as pristinely holy as the original is...why wherefore and for what purpose, oh man? I mean, rabbi?

Why are you asking about comments again? I wasn't. I mentioned "speaking" certain laws and you have turned this into a focus on the commentating on those laws. Those are your words, not mine.

 

[Levite]

All revelatory communication is inspired, but the writings with a thread of truth inerrant are supremely inspired. You can have an inspired oral testimony which is half-true and inspired along the spectrum of that 50%...or you can have the Word of God SENT by which any error you communicate is punishable as blasphemy and for being a traitor to God.

That's your opinion. It is not the traditional way that revelation and text is approached in Judaism, and it is not the way that revelation and text is approached in liberal Judaism today. We have a number of different ways of doing so, but none rely on this kind of rigid literalism.

This is why later Jewish Theologians took the bulk of writings and determined which was what. Same process in the NT, for instance those which make God's will for every man to not be married, contradicts Jesus' own teachings about a spiritual eunuch who is more blessed for being chaste. And the other things may be of the Way, however the cognitive dissonance of the evil yeast in the dough so to speak has too much implication for the writing to be held in general as true.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here.

The optimism of rabbi-add is the same optimism down the post you make for our later fathers in Christianity. The principle still holds, those sent of God are the communicators of God, and their oral or written testimony has to be affirmed in general with the benefit of doubt given complex passages.

Rabbis are not prophets. We don't expect them to be "communicators of God," or to speak for God, nor do we have the concept of "testimony" as it exists in Christianity, because that's not how Torah works. Authority to interpret Torah, judge, and make law based on Torah was given to the Jewish People along with the Written Torah: those authorities are part of the Oral Torah, and represent a segment of our role as partner in the Covenant with God.

This is what happens when you have no further need of a prophet to turn you back to Core. Even your Messiah cometh in the future will not have this function eh? As you pined for another prophet to come, now you DO NOT pine for the coming Messiah to tell you the contextually PRESENT will of God? Is this advisable, sir?

Most Jews do not believe the messiah will be a prophet. There is not even general agreement about whether there will once again be prophets in the messianic age.

And I don't pine for anyone to tell me the contextually present will of God, because that's not how Torah and halachah work. See above.

Rather shows what you have not paid attention to, since you despise...give evidence or cry in your chicken soup on this one.

You can start here:

Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet you will not find anything he said which you either must change in your own theology, or consider as being affirmative to your religion.

Uh...yes? It is true, I find nothing in anything he said which persuades me to change anything in my theology, and I also find nothing in the Christian scriptures that affirms Judaism. Because they're Christian scriptures. They belong to another religion. They have nothing to do with Judaism. Or me.

[/QUOTE]I endeavor to proclaim the first two gen saints of Jesus to be the true Christianity. AND of our shared Judeo-Christian religion.[/QUOTE]

We do not have a shared Judeo-Christian religion. There is no such thing. We have Christianity and Judaism, two different religions. I am a Jew. You are a Christian. We can speak to each other as members of two different religions, but we cannot speak as members of a shared religion, because we don't share a religion.

Whether the first generation or even two of the disciples of Jesus and their followers were still functionally and effectively Jewish even amidst their devotion to Jesus as alleged messiah (if nothing more) is irrelevant. That was 1800 years ago and more. We don't live then. That ship sailed a long time ago. It's done. The moment passed long before either of us were ever born.

And it cannot be reinstated. You have no direct teachings of Jesus to go by, you are not Jewish (he would have been speaking to Jews), your patterns of theology and intepretation have been massively shaped by the last 1800 years of Christian thought, and in addition to the wide theological gulf that separates us, there is 1800 years of Christian oppression of Judaism, which makes us a little less sympathetic to Judaizing Christians that we might have been 1800 years ago.

 

[nothead]

Why are you asking about comments again? I wasn't. I mentioned "speaking" certain laws and you have turned this into a focus on the commentating on those laws. Those are your words, not mine.

Yes, because mishnah is the expounding upon law and comments on the original writings of the Patriarchs and prophets...where did I miscontsrue? To you, misconstrue? Or did you instead misconstrue, what Mishnah is, sir?

I mean, rabbi?

 

[nothead]

Why are you asking about comments again? I wasn't. I mentioned "speaking" certain laws and you have turned this into a focus on the commentating on those laws. Those are your words, not mine.

So then you have no idea what an inspired speaker is, as opposed to one which only STUDIED Torah or Mishnah? One is from God, another is simply a student, yeah idnit? See how you've STILTIFIED and made RIDGID your own scripture?

The Shekinah presence of God and the heart knowing of being SENT by God to communicate His Word is primary to the original Jewish faith. You deny this and to the detriment of your own, sir.

 

[rosends]

Yes, because mishnah is the expounding upon law and comments on the original writings of the Patriarchs and prophets...where did I miscontsrue? To you, misconstrue? Or did you instead misconstrue, what Mishnah is, sir?

I mean, rabbi?

No, the mishna is not expounding on "original writings of the patriarchs." There's your problem. You misconstrue what the mishna is and, it seems, you misunderstand what the written text is also. That would explain your problem here.

 

[rosends]

So then you have no idea what an inspired speaker is, as opposed to one which only STUDIED Torah or Mishnah? One is from God, another is simply a student, yeah idnit? See how you've STILTIFIED and made RIDGID your own scripture?

The Shekinah presence of God and the heart knowing of being SENT by God to communicate His Word is primary to the original Jewish faith. You deny this and to the detriment of your own, sir.

Now you have gone from inventing things I never said to telling me what I know and don't know. You compound your error this way but that is your prerogative. And then you invent the word "stiltify." Nice job.

 

[nothead]

Now you have gone from inventing things I never said to telling me what I know and don't know. You compound your error this way but that is your prerogative. And then you invent the word "stiltify." Nice job.

Get inspired, be happy. Get stiltified, know spelling. Law of nothead, knowing Law.

 

[nothead]

]

That's your opinion. It is not the traditional way that revelation and text is approached in Judaism, and it is not the way that revelation and text is approached in liberal Judaism today. We have a number of different ways of doing so, but none rely on this kind of rigid literalism.

Shekinah wiki:

The Talmud also says that "the Shekhinah rests on man neither through gloom, nor through sloth, nor through frivolity, nor through levity, nor through talk, nor through idle chatter, but only through a matter of joy in connection with a precept, as it is said, But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him". [2Kings 3:15] [Shabbat 30b][citation needed]

The Shekinah is associated with the transformational spirit of God regarded as the source of prophecy:

After that thou shalt come to the hill of God, where is the garrison of the Philistines; and it shall come to pass, when thou art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a band of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a timbrel, and a pipe, and a harp, before them; and they will be prophesying. And the spirit of the LORD will come mightily upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.

—1 Samuel 10:5–6
The prophets made numerous references to visions of the presence of God, particularly in the context of the Tabernacle or Temple, with figures such as thrones or robes filling the Sanctuary, which have traditionally been attributed to the presence of the Shekinah. Isaiah wrote "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and his train filled the Temple." (Isaiah 6:1). Jeremiah implored "Do not dishonor the throne of your glory" (Jeremiah 14:21) and referred to "Thy throne of glory, on high from the beginning, Thy place of our sanctuary" (Jeremiah 17:12). The Book of Ezekiel speaks of "the glory of the God of Israel was there [in the Sanctuary], according to the vision that I saw in the plain." (Ezekiel 8:4)[not in citation given]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here.

Might behoove you to know how a pentecostal Christian thinks, in order to debate, yeah?

Rabbis are not prophets. We don't expect them to be "communicators of God," or to speak for God, nor do we have the concept of "testimony" as it exists in Christianity, because that's not how Torah works. Authority to interpret Torah, judge, and make law based on Torah was given to the Jewish People along with the Written Torah: those authorities are part of the Oral Torah, and represent a segment of our role as partner in the Covenant with God.

Being a member of Judaism, authorizes one to TEACH Judaism? Huh?

Most Jews do not believe the messiah will be a prophet. There is not even general agreement about whether there will once again be prophets in the messianic age.

And I don't pine for anyone to tell me the contextually present will of God, because that's not how Torah and halachah work. See above.

Not either the FACE of YHWH, either pleasant and full of blessing as opposed to hateful and judgemental, OR the flexible (to us) WILL of God in the here and now, sir? Sad.

You can start here:

Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just tell me your own oddball paradigms, I don't have to sift through a COMPENDIUM of data in order to figure out which is your own, sir.

Uh...yes? It is true, I find nothing in anything he said which persuades me to change anything in my theology, and I also find nothing in the Christian scriptures that affirms Judaism. Because they're Christian scriptures. They belong to another religion. They have nothing to do with Judaism. Or me.

Well then what are we here for, BUT to change your attitude, youngun? I change you change we all change for the better.
If I can't change enough to make you think, then what are we here for? I already learnt some stuff here. I ain't an old dog can't learn new tricks, sir...can even do a backflip ifn the reward is good.

[/QUOTE]I endeavor to proclaim the first two gen saints of Jesus to be the true Christianity. AND of our shared Judeo-Christian religion.[/QUOTE]

We do not have a shared Judeo-Christian religion. There is no such thing. We have Christianity and Judaism, two different religions. I am a Jew. You are a Christian. We can speak to each other as members of two different religions, but we cannot speak as members of a shared religion, because we don't share a religion.

You not my brother, brother even from anudder mother, brudder? I don't know your mother's udder, but as a brother would not even know THIS udder, udder brudder?

Whether the first generation or even two of the disciples of Jesus and their followers were still functionally and effectively Jewish even amidst their devotion to Jesus as alleged messiah (if nothing more) is irrelevant. That was 1800 years ago and more. We don't live then. That ship sailed a long time ago. It's done. The moment passed long before either of us were ever born.

Maybe we should go back to pristine and original FAITH then, udder brudder?

And it cannot be reinstated. You have no direct teachings of Jesus to go by, you are not Jewish (he would have been speaking to Jews), your patterns of theology and intepretation have been massively shaped by the last 1800 years of Christian thought, and in addition to the wide theological gulf that separates us, there is 1800 years of Christian oppression of Judaism, which makes us a little less sympathetic to Judaizing Christians that we might have been 1800 years ago.

Ifn you was Buddhist or Meganuevo Hippy Gnostic, then maybe. The Judeo-Christain faith is inextricably linked for all time.

 

[nothead]

No, the mishna is not expounding on "original writings of the patriarchs." There's your problem. You misconstrue what the mishna is and, it seems, you misunderstand what the written text is also. That would explain your problem here.

What is Mishnah then? Inform this dog, and he might even lick you. I mean like you.

 

[Levite]

]The Shekinah is associated with the transformational spirit of God regarded as the source of prophecy:
...1 Samuel 10:5–6
The prophets made numerous references to visions of the presence of God...

All of which has no relevance here. The age of prophets and prophecy ended around the beginning of the Second Temple Era. There will certainly be no further prophets until the time of the messiah, and perhaps not even then-- we don't know.

And I already pointed out, rabbis do not pretend to be prophets.

Might behoove you to know how a pentecostal Christian thinks, in order to debate, yeah?

If I were debating Christianity, no doubt. Since however a Pentecostal Christian thinks, it is not Jewishly but in a Christian fashion, I am unsure why I need thorough grounding in one of the innumerable Protestant sects in order to discuss Judaism.

Being a member of Judaism, authorizes one to TEACH Judaism? Huh?

Being a member of the Jewish People who has committed oneself to deep study of Torah and Jewish Law, and who has been recognized by teachers similarly committed to deep study of Torah and Jewish Law authorizes one to teach Torah, to make such interpretations of the Written Torah as are permissible at the time, and to make such law based upon prior interpretations of the Written Torah and legal interpretations and establishments done in previous generations.

That we follow the rule of halachah (Jewish Law) according to the methods and operations found in the Written and Oral Torah together, and do not change the law even for what might appear to be prophetic moments is established in Bava Metzia 59a and b.

Remember, it's hard to discuss Judaism, or understand Judaism, if all you know is a translation of the Written Torah. You need to know Oral Torah also.

Not either the FACE of YHWH, either pleasant and full of blessing as opposed to hateful and judgemental, OR the flexible (to us) WILL of God in the here and now, sir? Sad.

I have no idea what you mean. The will of God for Jews is that we follow Torah-- both Written and Oral together, using the methods and operations found in that tradition-- and live Jewish lives. Whatever the will of God is for non-Jews we don't know, because that's not our business.

God has no literal face, so I am assuming you mean a metaphorical "face." In which case, I really don't know what you mean, because the face of God is never hateful, even in judgment.

None of which has any relevance to the point that we live be halachah (Jewish Law) and not by prophecy, or what may appear to be prophecy.

Just tell me your own oddball paradigms, I don't have to sift through a COMPENDIUM of data in order to figure out which is your own, sir.

Nope. You need to do your own research.

Well then what are we here for, BUT to change your attitude, youngun? I change you change we all change for the better.
If I can't change enough to make you think, then what are we here for?

By "here" I assume you mean on this forum. In which case, I have not come to have my mind changed, or to change the minds of others. I came to engage in dialogue where I can, for the purposes of education and interfaith friendship where possible; to teach about Judaism to those who wish to understand it better; and to offer public clarification for any to see when someone is saying things about Judaism or Jews that are not correct.

You not my brother, brother even from anudder mother, brudder? I don't know your mother's udder, but as a brother would not even know THIS udder, udder brudder?...Ifn you was Buddhist or Meganuevo Hippy Gnostic, then maybe. The Judeo-Christain faith is inextricably linked for all time.

Nope. There is no Judeo-Christian faith. There has been nothing even remotely like one for over 1800 years, if ever there was such a thing at all. Just because Christianity has historical roots in Judaism does not mean the two religions remain connected, or are part of a spectrum, or that Jews and Christians are theological brethren. We share the brotherhood of humanity, and perhaps the commonality of monotheism, and that's about it.

The notion of "Judeo-Christian" is fluff and nonsense, it's just a Christian way to try and subsume Judaism, a subtle missionizing of Judaism and Judaizing of Christianity.

Maybe we should go back to pristine and original FAITH then, udder brudder?

There is no such thing. The search for "pristine and original faith" is a theological romanticization of a past that never existed, and usually is symptomatic of an overly simplistic approach to theology rather than a more difficult and complex approach that seeks to find holiness and opportunities for sanctification in what is and what will be, rather than what was.

 

[rosends]

What is Mishnah then? Inform this dog, and he might even lick you. I mean like you.

Here. The info above the table of contents summarizes it

Oral Torah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nothead]

No, the mishna is not expounding on "original writings of the patriarchs." There's your problem. You misconstrue what the mishna is and, it seems, you misunderstand what the written text is also. That would explain your problem here.

Okay I did a wiki study, par for the course, for golfers...

Mishnah is categorization of scripture by subject, as opposed to historical Biblical order of Books. OR the oral tradition which may also be categorized in subject order.

Gemara is the commentaries of.

Is this correct?

 

[nothead]

Now you have gone from inventing things I never said to telling me what I know and don't know. You compound your error this way but that is your prerogative. And then you invent the word "stiltify." Nice job.

God speaks to the original authors. Did he speak to later rabbis? Or did they just study to get their expoundings upon the original writings? This is a valid question for me. Why not you?

The disparity between rival rabbis should TELL you that study of scripture is not the end all of authority.

 

[rosends]

Okay I did a wiki study, par for the course, for golfers...

Mishnah is categorization of scripture by subject, as opposed to historical Biblical order of Books. OR the oral tradition which may also be categorized in subject order.

Gemara is the commentaries of.

Is this correct?

In a very simplified sense, the second part is an accurate start. No Jew would ever use the word "mishna" to refer to a categorization of scripture. The gemara is not exactly the commentaries on the mishna. It is significantly more than that. TO call it a commentary is to miss a point about the entire nature of the talmud and the development of law.

 

[rosends]

God speaks to the original authors. Did he speak to later rabbis? Or did they just study to get their expoundings upon the original writings? This is a valid question for me. Why not you?

The disparity between rival rabbis should TELL you that study of scripture is not the end all of authority.

God spoke to Moses. He inspires or directs others to varying degrees. The study of Talmudic hermeneutics might help you a bit as well. When we have difference in understanding, we also have an authoritative way of settling the difference (in most cases). You can't just dip a toe in and assume you understand an ancient tradition. This is a lifetime's worth of study that you are trying to reduce to soundbites and single lines.

 

[nothead]

In a very simplified sense, the second part is an accurate start. No Jew would ever use the word "mishna" to refer to a categorization of scripture. The gemara is not exactly the commentaries on the mishna. It is significantly more than that. TO call it a commentary is to miss a point about the entire nature of the talmud and the development of law.

Sounds like you are pushing to make commentaries of equal weight to the originals...my first objection, sir.