Total posts: 905
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
In brief, "sometimes." The Talmud records statements that establish decision making as it relates to certain sages, about certain kinds of discussions, in certain contexts. I will try, tomorrow to find some sort of list so you can see what kinds of complex variables are at play. One quick example is that in almost all cases when the opinion of Hillel and of Shammai disagree, we hold like Hillel. That doesn't speak to when Hillel disagreed with anyone else.
The Talmud also has a generational hierarchy. Hillel wax Rabban Gamliel's grandfather so odds are, the text would not record a conflict in position between the two. And I can't figure out why Christians refer to him with the extra A (Gamaliel).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Interesting. So the view of the Talmud is vastly different than how Catholics would view tradition, that it is one unbroken line of proper oral tradition passed down in perfection and disagreeing with it means you are wrong. Am I correct in this?
The oral law starts with the Mishna which is a set of statements which are sourced at Sinai, contemporaneous with the written text. The transmission was required to be oral but when there was a fear of the text's being lost because of persecution, it was written down. But there are discussions about the precise application and meaning of certain ideas and those get discussed and argued in the gemara (together, those 2, plus the braita and tosefta make up the talmud). These all were passed down but there is an understanding that in the process, before they were written, there might be some changes and, yes, even errors. The talmudic text will occasionally say "he learned it wrong" or "that was written down incompletely."
The Talmud, it sounds like, is more like consulting a vast library of commentaries and seeing what they all agreed upon, and when there is disagreement, to choose the viewpoint that makes the most sense. Am I understanding what you're saying?
There are rules about "when two sages argue, according to whom do we rule" but there are also many commentaries who explain and explore, plus codes of law which don't always accord with each other, and different communities might develop slightly different rules about things. One cannot arbitrarily choose (there are rules about this as well), but people end up not having precisely identical takes on things.
So it isn't like the Talmud is a "THIS IS IT! BELIEVE THIS OR ELSE!" book. It is more like consulting commentaries and seeing what they say. They can disagree with each other but it doesn't mean there is no truth in it.
If sage A says _____ but sage B says ------- we have a method for determining our normative practice. One who then follows the other understanding is outside of the accepted norm. This is a bad thing.
I apologize if I am grossly oversimplifying. There are libraries of books on each of the issues you mention and I'm trying to hit a tiny percentage of the ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
May I ask, which interprets the other? Does the Talmud interpret the Torah or does the Torah interpret the Talmud? It sounds like you are saying the Talmud interprets the Torah (and also the rest of the Scriptures). Is this the case?
The Oral Law does a variety of things (as there are different parts of it). It complements, supplements, explicates and applies. So in some sections, it provides material that isn't in the written Torah while in other sections, it provides anecdotes about the lives of the sages, or recipes which they used to heal. And other stuff.
If so, what if the Talmud has a contradiction? What happens then?
The talmud doesn't have a contradiction because the talmud is a collection of conversations so the question is what happens when sage A seems to contradict another instance of sage A. Those are challenged and discussed and reconciled.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I cited it to show historical proof of meticulous records about the disciples and such of the Rabbis. I don't endorse the theology in it entirely. It just shows how there were meticulous records of who followed and served the Rabbis.
There were some records of which scholars learned from which other scholars. There is actually very little about who served (the names of actual servants are talmudically few and far between. But to use that site which is mired in error to show any sort of accurate record keeping is questionable.
I perceive you are an Orthodox Jewish person, am I correct in my assumption?
yup
If so, can I pick your brain sometime? I have questions on the nitty gritty of Orthodox Judaism, such as whether the Jerusalem Talmud is preferred to the Babylonian Talmud. Why one over the other? And what happens when the Torah disagrees with the Talmud (like in Genesis, where God refers to Himself in plural form)?
The Babylonian Talmud is USUALLY given deference to but that is because it is more complete. More is missing from the Jerusalem talmud so we rely on the B"T. Their rhetorical methodologies are also different -- see here for more discussion
and https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/92735/why-is-talmud-bavli-studied-more-than-yerushalmi
I think you would have a hard time convincing any Orthodox Jew that the Torah disagrees with the Talmud. The talmud cites the use of the plural in 1:26 (if that's to what you refer) and doesn't try to hide it -- it just understands the phrase differently from how you do.
Would you be up to answering a few questions sometime? I don't have any Orthodox Jewish friends so I can't really ask them lol. And a lot on the internet has serious contradictions on what Orthodox really means.
feel free to ask, always.
Oh, and which Talmudic translations do you consider the best for us English speakers? I already know the JPS Tanakh is the one Jewish people recommend for the Tanakh and Torah. I just don't know for the Talmud and Mishnah and such.
A translation of the Talmud is difficult. For years, people relied on the Soncino version but it was very difficult to understand. But there's a reason -- in the talmud, every phrase is actually a shorthand for a larger thought so any "translation" needs all sorts of explication and fleshing out to understand what is going on. The Soncino was mostly just a direct translation with a few notes. If you look at the version available on sefaria.org, that helps a bunch. When I was in high school (and this mirrors the way most students learn), we didn't use a translation but instead, read it in the Hebrew/Aramaic and worked on translating/explaining as we moved through.
Generally now, we also use the Artscroll series version which translates and provides a lot of explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
A side note -- the discussion of "blasphemy" seems stilted as there is a very specific concept of blasphemy in Judaism which does not seem to be present in the accounts of Jesus' behavior so i have no idea what people think the Sanhedrin would be judging in that regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
There were extensive notes for whom disciples of rabbis were in that time period. Working in the temple was considered a position of prominence, even if just a servant.
Hi --
I looked through that website and there is a LOT wrong there. The talmudic translation is way off, and various roles are conflated when diascussed in English. While being a "disciple" might have a particular value, your word was "servant" which is a very different concept in the talmud. I would suggest taking the website with a grain of salt -- if your corroboration for the claim is simply an interpretation of the gospel text and a misunderstanding of the talmud then that's fine, but you should understand that that's what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Being a servant of a Rabbi was rather important of a position.
do you have any sort of corroboration for this claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If resurrection was just an initiation ritual, why is it unique to Christianity ?
in what sense is resurrection unique to Christianity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Great, maybe you could start by explaining the phrase "ascension into modernity" as it, as a phrase, does not lend itself to any clear meaning, and then you can shift the entire thread into a discussion of faith and religion and not about any historical claims. Then you can point out that there are people today who believe in Jesus' divinity and those who don't, and you can draw whatever conclusions you want about those people (though it, too, will have nothing to do with the claim of divinity). Have fun with that. Shmini Atzeret is starting in a few minutes so I am signing off, still without having commented on the stated focus of the thread, intentionally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
This was done to give a background of the people the Jews that Jesus had to convince before the gentiles accepted him as God.This explains the transitioning of Jesus from the historical Jesus to becoming a God. It also help us understand why he was portrayed differently in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and received differently in the New Testament culminating in his crucifixion, resurrection and finally the celebrated God in Christianity.
So you are giving background about the claimed divinity when the thread is explicitly about the historical Jesus. Got it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
But at some point in time it has to occur to them they are up against 2 billion Christians who side with Jesus. And there are less than 14 million Jews who still reject Jesus.Stealing Palestinian lands isn’t improving Jewish security in a world dominated by Christians and Muslims, Rabbi Rosends.
How do these statements advance your thread in the direction you chose when you started it? You stated in post 57 "The thread is about the case for the Historical Jesus." In post 68 you wrote, "This thread is about the case for the Historical Jesus." Post 10 has "The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical fact." You said something similar in post 24.
Do those statements contribute to that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
My claims are simply the case for the historical Jesus.
You made a different claim as well and I was responding to it. If you wish to keep this thread focused, then you shouldn't make unrelated claims.
Another uncaring Jew. It’s 2000 years since Jesus was crucified. Jesus’s crucifixion was demanded by the Jews of his time. Yet to continue to harbour the same strong Jewish resentment whenever Yehoshua is mentioned.
Ah, so either you say that I must be happy about what you think I should be happy about or I am "uncaring" as if that's synonymous with "I don't care." And you then reference the gospels which have no value to me to make some sort of statement. Finally, you invoke some phantom "Jewish resentment" when not only isn't that an extant concept, but I never made any statement that would lead to that conclusion. In fact, if you were to use the name "Yehoshua" at least then you wouldn't be making the other errors you made. Why would I resent that?
Your post was addressed.
No, it wasn't. You ignored the corrections I offered and moved to an unrelated statement about how I must feel.
We read “Jesus” in our English Bibles, but what is Jesus’ name in Hebrew?Jesus’ name in Hebrew is Yehoshua (Yeh-HO-shoo-ah), which, over time, became contracted to the shorter Yeshua (Yeh-SHOO-ah). Yehoshua, and therefore Yeshua as well, means “the Lord is salvation.”
It did not become contracted over time if it was the accepted biblical nickname (which it is) for Yehoshua. And the nickname doesn't mean the same as the full name because the nickname omits certain parts which contribute to the meaning.
In the Greek New Covenant, the word used for Jesus is Iesous (ee-ay-SOOS). Iesous is not a translation of Jesus’ name in Hebrew, but rather it is a transliteration.A translation takes the meaning of a word in one language and assigns it the equivalent word with the same meaning in a different language. For instance, translated into Spanish, the English word “red” is “roja.”A transliteration takes the letters of a word from one language and finds like-sounding letters of the second language to create a new word in that language. For example, the English word “baptize” is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo (bap-TID-zo), meaning to immerse.In the late 4th century, Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, a manuscript known as the Vulgate. In it, the Greek Iesous became the Latin Iesus. The English Bible eventually changed the Y sound of the Latin I to the letter J, which we now have in Jesus.So, from Yehoshua/Yeshua – Jesus’ name in Hebrew – we get the Greek transliteration Iesous, which was transliterated into Latin as Iesus and later became the English name, Jesus.
Great, so you found a webpage which addresses the problems you made and you copy/paste from it even though it disproves your claim. Finally, jewishvoice.org is useful for something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
So you are disputing the spelling of Yeshua, Yehoshua, Jesus. But you are not disputing the person is a historical person behind the name/names.
I am not commenting at all about the historical existence of anyone, nor am I disputing the spelling of anything -- just the claims made in your statement.
You must be pleased the name Jesus further separates the man from his Jewish roots more than yehoshua would.
Must I be? Because I don't really care.
I did, notice, though, that you couldn't counter the statements I made so you are changing course. Did that website not have anything for you to copy and paste in response?
Created:
Posted in:
Just a side note, the following statement was made:
"Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua"
that statement is wrong on at least 3 different levels.
The biblical nickname Yay-shOO-ah is a shortened form of Yehoshua. That name, Yehoshua, is generally rendered into English as Joshua.
So the name "Jesus" would not have been written in Hebrew as "Yeshua" because it was not a formal name, just a nickname. The sound of the Hebrew nickname is the same as for the word Y'shu'ah, which means "being saved" and it figures that someone would conflate them over time and through the lens/agenda of theology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
funny...I don't see any Assyrians or Babylonians around and the Egyptians today aren't really as advanced as the Israelis in many areas. So I don't know what your point is. If you want to go off on a tangent and try to deny the underpinnings of Judaism, feel free to do so here as you have elsewhere. it is a non-starter. You are denying the three major western religions that way and that's fine by me. Throwing together unrelated sentences, false statements and conspiracy theories can be your fun pastime. You will have to pursue it without me. If you ever develop any actual questions about Judaism, let me know. Meanwhile, I'll let your statements which amount to nothing just sit here and fester, as they have elsewhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
reruns? You have posted this often and have nothing new to say.
So I guess you deny the entirety of the Torah and therefore the gospels are built on nothingness and are similarly invalid. OK. Good luck to you with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Old Testament did not work for the Jews. The Jews were repeated punished by God who even allowed their neighbours to invade and occupy their homeland throughout their history.The New Testament and the Gospels confirmed that.How does picking one over the other help your case Rabbi?
The Torah did work for the Jews and it still does. In fact, your statement proves it, so thanks!
The gospels are just add ons that have no relevance.
How does attaching to fiction help your case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I haven't denied the bible, just the gospels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If it was not a Jewish custom that involves releasing someone found guilty of a crime, at Passover or at any other time. the Jewish crowd would have denounce or rejected Pilate’s fabrication of Jewish customs.
Or this is just more proof that the account is inaccurate. If, without corroboration, you see the text of the gospels as self-proving, then that's fine. It is ahistorical and counter to other texts, but if that's the way you go, then best of luck with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Other than this reference in John, do you have any evidence that this supposed practice actually existed? There is nothing in Jewish law that involves releasing someone found guilty of a crime, at Passover or at any other time.
Of course, crucifiction wasn't allowed under Jewish law and the judicial methods bear no resemblance to Jewish law, so a random non-Jewish reference seems equally useful.
Created:
-->
@Shila
where do you show any disagreement between Jews? Your quote (which had the error) was from "Chicago Bible Students" which isn't a Jewish site.
Created:
-->
@Shila
your cut and paste material is wrong
the statement "I AM WHO I AM" (spelled he, yod, he in Hebrew)
that spelling means "I was"
there is no present tense "I am" in Hebrew as a stand alone form of the to-be verb.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Jews love to interpret everything so that it suits their interests.
you have pretty explicitly and repeatedly crossed any line drawn dividing respectful discourse and (in)formal debate into fallacies and disrespectful language. You have proven a lack of knowledge of Judaism, history, geography, logic and theology. Among others. Your trolling is really poor and your insincerity is apparent. If one were to summarize your anti-Semitic position using the phrase that I quoted, I think that that would apt. Fortunately, with schools opening up, you will be kept busy with Earth Science homework and pre-Algebra tests. Good luck with that.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Are the Jews distancing themselves from Jesus because Jesus claimed dead Jews could forgive sins?
Jews ignore Jesus because he failed and doesn't matter. Silly claims are just icing on the cake.
And the world rejoiced and started sacrificing Jews in proportion to the growing Christian population of sinners so that they would be forgiven.
if you characterize Christians as rejoicing when Jews are killed then you should take that up with Christians.
But Jews sacrificing Palestinians by killing them and stealing their land is an act of murder and blasphemy. Dead Palestinians cannot forgive sins only Jews can.
so many errors in one statement. Well done. Is there any field in which you actually know anything?
Created:
Jews have tried to distance themselves from Jesus and their role in his crucifixion.
mostly because the gospel accounts are inconsistent and historically inaccurate
But the world holds the Jews responsible and labels the Jews circumcised Christ killers. How can a Rabbi rewrite Jewish history when the facts are so overwhelming?
Ah, "the world" -- a false monolith. By the way, I don't recall rewriting any history. Show me where I did.
Think where the jews would be today If they just let Jesus complete his mission?
As he failed before he died he had no particular mission.
Imagine where the world would be if it hadn't repeatedly, try to kill all the Jews.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Jesus quoted from 24 books in the Old Testament. The Jews rejected Jesus because of his adherence to the Old Testament. He was preparing them for their next exile.
Jews rejected him because he advocated breaking God's rules, he was not eligible to be the messiah, and he was a failure. And now, he's also a dead failure.
Created:
-->
@Shila
wow...look! more quotes from books that fdon't mean anything. Then you make a claim about prophecy which is different from what you stated earlier! You can't even keep track of your own points. You are hilarious.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The purpose and mission of the prophets were completely lost to the Jews.
so your essential argument is that Jews don't understand Judaism and Jewish ideas. OK.
But all these prophets could not help Jews to defend their homeland from the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Medians, the Greeks, and now under Western rule(Holocaust).
and yet this claim has no relation to the role of the prophet
Created:
-->
@Shila
American Jews are no different. Speed limits are seen as necessary. It took Moses 40 years to reach the promised land which according to modern scholars was a months journey by foot. Jews imposed speed limits on their exiled Jews then and will do so again.
completely irrelevant. You made a claim about the purpose of laws and now you have moved to somewhere else because you have been proven wrong. Moving on...
We were talking about Judaism producing other false messiahs and prophets.
No, you made a claim that producing false messiahs was a Jewish phenomenon and I showed otherwise. Your response is to give a list of all the Jewish prophets as determined talmudically.
But all these prophets could not help Jews to defend their homeland from the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Medians, the Greeks, and now under Western rule(Holocaust).
If you think that this is relevant then you have no idea what the purpose of a prophet is.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Why would these rules be given to Jews unless it was to prepare them for future exiles.
so America has a speed limit in order to prepare people for a future exile. Got it. That also explains the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Brilliant.
Judaism has more prophets than any other religion.
yes, but not what we were speaking about. Instead of dealing with the stupidity of your earlier statement you go in a completely different direction and cut and paste something which I already know and which doesn't relate to your erroneous claim.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Moses running away from the Pharaoh became the greatest hero in Jewish history.
I'm not sure how you define hero, and why you take a moment of fleeing to save your life as a mark against someone, and ignore everything else. Jesus cried out on the cross like a coward and he became the greatest hero in Christianity.
God gave Moses 613 commandments to prepare the Jews for future exiles starting with the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Medians, the Greeks, and now under Western rule(Holocaust).
No, one does not give people rules to prepare them for exiles. Your logic never ceases to implode.
So producing false prophets is a Jewish phenomenon.
No, not uniquely.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The ancient Jews never contributed to science, Medicine, mathematics and even their religion is suspect. They were a tribal group struggling for survival when Egypt was a dominant empire in the Middle East.
And we survived. Is Egypt still dominant? You seem rather set against the idea that Judaism has succeeded. You should read more Mark Twain.
But they did produce Jesus a Jew with strong convictions about an alternate reality. Unfortunately the Jews rejected Jesus and Jesus showered his blessings on the followers of his New Covenant.
Judaism also produced other false messiahs. What aren't you a Sabbatean?
Created:
But you do being a Rabbi and you also confirm the Jews still reject Jesus as their promised messiah.
Yes, because he wasn't.
One can only see Judaism as having failed the Jews who are living on land a fraction of what it’s Arab Muslim neighbours own. Arabs own land 650 times the size of Israel.
No, one can see Judaism as having succeeded, living in palces all around the world. I'm not sure what you consider "success". First you look at number of adherents and yet you admit that there are more Hindus that Chisitians so by that metric Christianity is a failure. Then you look at a little bit of geography but Vatican city os tine.
What have the Jews done with their covenant with God? The majority of Jews live in exile.
We have continued that covenant. Yes, we are in exile. And Jesus is dead.
I dealt with the Finkelstein issue in another thread. Your fixation with him (and with not reading things, and with repeating content) is noted.
Created:
-->
@Shila
For all intents and purposes, the Jewish practice of animal sacrifice ended in AD 70, the year that the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. With the temple gone, there is no longer a place for the sacrifices to be offered according to the Mosaic Law (see Deuteronomy 12:13–14). Repeatedly in the Old Testament, the point is made that sacrifices were required to make atonement for sin (e.g., Exodus 29:36; Leviticus 4:31; 9:7; 14:19; 15:15; Numbers 15:25). The shedding of blood is what consecrated things and people to the Lord (Leviticus 16:19; cf. Hebrews 9:22).With no blood sacrifice today, the Jews have no lawful way of atoning for their sin. Passover is still observed, but without the sacrifice. Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is still on the calendar, but there is never an offering made for sin. The stipulations of the Mosaic Law remain unchanged, but the Jewish people cannot make things right with God—they cannot find forgiveness—without an animal sacrifice.Imaging the collective guilt and sin carried by the Jewish people since?
So you don't understand Jewish law. Got it. You realize that the biblical text provides other methods of atonement, right? And that even in biblical times, animal sacrifices were only one option, and only accounted for a specific and limited section of sins No, no you don't. Your ignorance is pretty standard though -- people regurgitate little soundbites that they are fed by equally ignorant people and delude themselves into thinking that they know something. Newsflash -- you don't.
Theological usage of the term “atonement” refers to a cluster of ideas in the Old Testament that center on the cleansing of impurity (which needs to be done to prevent God from leaving the Temple), and to New Testament notions that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3) and that “we were reconciled to God .
Oh look -- you are trying to support your misundersatnding of Judaism by quoting non-Judaic texts. How refreshingly useless!
I wonder what is left for a Rabbi to teach when all of the major denominations of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist) have rejected Messianic Judaism as a form of Judaism. And by doing so denied the Jews the promises of the messianic period in the Hebrew Bible.
You wonder because you don't understand Judaism at all. Why you are so proud to parade your ignorance is the real mystery. I can't wait for you to repeat exactly what you wrote again, as if that will change anything.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Looking at Jewish history. Jews achieve atonement by animal sacrifice and the shedding of blood in the Temple.
ooh, swing and a miss.
Imaging the collective guilt and sin carried by the Jewish people since?
none because your presupposition is wrong. Strike two.
We can understand the resentment Jews have towards Jesus.
resentment? I say we giggle.
He was sent to save the Jews but failed as much as the blame rest on the Jews for rejecting Jesus.
well, he did fail, I'll give you that. Sad that so many people were forced to glom onto a failure.
You just cancelled the Jews again by declaring, “We don't need his help. Try again.”
it doesn't cancel Jews to say that hjews don't need Jesus. It cancels Jesus. Try to keep up.
Are you suggesting a third attempt might be need by Jesus just for the Jews because the spiritually unwashed Jews need more time to repent having lost the ability to seek atonement through animal sacrifice?
A third attempt? So you are admitting he failed twice? And yet you still hitch your horses to that? And again, you don't understand biblical atonement, so strike three.
Created:
-->
@Shila
When Christ returns to earth and sets up the Kingdom of God, He will restore a repentant Israel to its position of leadership in the world (Isaiah 11:12; 14:1-2). A humbled, obedient people will then serve in the capacity God intended for them.
I checked. No mention of Jesus there. We don't need his help. Try again.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Judaism still works for the Jews. And quoting a text which has no value to Jews in order to "prove" some claim about Jews is useless.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Fair point.nit as good as a boy band. Maybe like a Barney version.
Created:
-->
@Shila
When what the Jews rejected (Jesus) launched a new religion Christianity with over 2 billion followers. Should be humbling and a revelation to any Jewish Rabbi
No, it makes us laugh. It is like watching people cheer for a boy band cover of a Beatles song.
Created:
-->
@Shila
So when in Kings a man is resurrected it became an actual thing in Judaism, well before Jesus was born, died and failed to fulfill anything akin to the role of messiah for so, so many reasons. And if Jesus was resurrected then he already had a second coming and failed twice. Great job.
And, yes, a prediction incorporates a concept. One cannot predict something which isn't an idea, so in Judaism, resurrection is a concept, the subject of many prophecies. You need to learn how to use words correctly.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Should we start by pointing out that you responded with a non sequitur? Or just that you are using a rhetorical fallacy of appealing to popularity?
Does it matter to you that there are more Hindus than Christians so you are a minority?
When you are ever ready to have a productive conversation in which you deal with issues at hand and recognize your own ignorance about Judaism, let me know. Till then I'll just watch your ineffective trolling and giggle.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Among Orthodox Jews, belief in the resurrection is still generally understood as a literal prophecy that will come to fruition when the messiah comes.
yes, that makes it a concept within Judaism. Thank you.
So until then resurrection is a Christian concept.
No, until then it is still a Jewish concept that Christianity lifted when it tried to appropriate Jewish concepts.
Whereas in Judaism it is still an unfulfilled prophecy.
In Christianity it is still an unfulfilled prophecy also unless you see Jesus as being alive again. Is your argument that an idea within a system isn't a concept?
Though, in Jewish texts there are tales of resurrection (such as 2 Kings 13), so that would make it something which happened within the Jewish system and therefore not only a prophecy of the future.
Your use of "concept" is very unclear. The fact that there has not yet been a 3rd temple built (something that Jews pray for every day) means that there is no "concept" of the 3rd temple in Judaism? That's absurd.
Created:
-->
@Shila
actually, I said that it is explicit in Judaism (check post 97). If you read through this thread you will see that my position is that the claim isn't evidenced by the texts cited in the original post, not that the concept isn't in Judaism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
For sure.Group activities can be fun.And we find comfort in routine.And safety in the pack.But whether or not a pragmatic God would finds rituals dedicated to it necessary, is unlikely.
You decide what is unlikely, and decide differently from what I decide. Ritual is more than just routine and group-identity. It is connection (in fact, if it becomes routine, that's a bad thing).
On my sabbath I will be donning my lycra and cycling 50 miles with my pack of MAMIL'S.
Be safe with that and I hope you find safety with your pack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In my opinion ritualism isn't the remotest bit sensible. It's people doing daft stuff for no real reason.
And in my opinion, ritual is incredibly useful, sensible and practical. I see a different end, so I understand different means. I see clear reasons so I see pragmatism in assigning the method.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
pragmatic
adjective
adjective
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
prag·mat·ic | \ prag-ˈma-tik \
variants: or less commonly pragmatical \ prag-ˈma-ti-kəl \
Definition of pragmatic
1: relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistica pragmatic leadera pragmatic [=practical] approach to health care
2: relating to or being in accordance with philosophical pragmatism
Maybe someday, you'll be right about something. Maybe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You somehow pushed four factual errors into four sentences. That's incredible 1:1 ratio of error to sentence. That's amazing!
When you grow up into an adult, maybe you can study what we adults like to call "history" and you might even learn something. Good luck, I know the pre-teen years are hard, but you'll get there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
It wasn't my being agreeable. It was my celebrating that you said something in the realm of "correct."
Sadly you then devolved back into gibberish. Have a great day!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Why would ritualism be the requirement of a pragmatic GOD?
God wants to give us opportunities to improve ourselves and to show our understanding of our place in the world. Ritual both in its internal parts and its entirety affords that opportunity.
I'm not sure, though, what you mean by a "pragmatic" God.
Created: