OK, I want to know how those of the Jewish faith regard Christ. I know they don't believe He was the Messiah. Was He a prophet who got a little misguided? Did He really not call Himself the Son of God? Are the things He said, as recorded in the NT, at all valid?
I'd also like to know why those who follow Judaism don't keep all those OT laws - or do they?
My understanding is that he was a radical rabbi (teacher) who threatened the existing power structure of the time.
The NT is not canon according to Jewish law.
There are various sects of Judaism (as there are with any religion). The Orthodox sects do follow all 613 mitzvot as written in the Torah. The Reform and Conservative do not (they have assimilated to varying extents).
Also, please note, many Jewish scholars (I am not sure which traditions they follow) believe that the Torah was written at various times. The texts provide clues in their verbage, for example, there are at least 2 texts -- the "J" school and the "E" school. The J school uses JHVH to refer to HaShem (G-d), whereas the E school uses the word Elohim to refer to HaShem.
Deuteronomy appears to have been written way after the fact.
Oh, and by the way, lest anyone accuse me of hypocrisy, I don't believe the Torah is the literal word of G-d. I simply say that those who do believe so can't pick and choose (re my above post).
I went to a Jewish day school until grade 6 (a conservative one) and they once implied that the Torah is not literal, but rather should be read as parables attempting to make a point. Personally, I prescribe to the conservative view that what is more important is the intent behind the law, as opposed to what is written down, as that it subject to interpretation and possibly corrupted. For example, the laws regarding keeping kosher can be hard to keep sometimes. I often spend a yearly vacation at my dad's for example, and he lives in a small town. You can't get kosher food there. So I would then say to myself ok, what is the intent behind it? The intent is to recognize that human beings depend on other living things like animals or plants for food, and the laws are supposed to promote respect and recognition of this. So if I find myself in a situation where I can't control whether the food is kosher, I could look for some other way to honor this principle. This is a liberal conservative approach. Reform Jews often would just disregard it, and orthodox Jews would never allow themselves to be out in situations they can't control. But then, some of their interpretations of laws are not literal either.
Non Kosher Foods not availible? You must have been really out in the sticks.
Fun Fact: Look on boxes of food. If you see a U with a cicle around it, it's Kosher. If it has a D by it Don't eat it with milk. A K also counts. (Yes I know you you know that, it's just a fun fact :-)
The actual biblical prohibition is "Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk". In other words, it a humaneness issue, you don't slaughter a kid, milk the mother goat and make a stew out of it. The rabbis of the Talmudic era interpreted the passage and created a blanket prohibition on milk and meat together... to prevent accidental breaking of this commandment.
Incidentally, this is why fish is pareve (pareve can be eaten with either dairy or meat). Fish don't give milk, so there is no chance of breaking the biblical prohibition. I don't know why poultry falls under the meat category, though.
Also, Jennifer, we don't refer to him as "Christ". We refer to him as Jesus. "Christ" has Messianic connotations, which Jews do not believe in.
Note, there is a sect called "Messianic Jews" who believe that Jesus WAS the Messiah. In my opinion, that would make them Christians, but then, that's just my opinion.
Boinging into the fray with an Orthodox perspective...!
Poultry, ScottN, was placed into the "meat" category by the rabbis at a later date, because... well... it looked like meat, and people might see a conspicously obsevant Jew eating a turkeyburger with cheese (or the eighth-century equivalent) and get misled.
According to what I was taught (Jewish day school, Conservative), Jesus was a man of prophetic stature (he was not an ordained rabbi) whose prophecies were deemed inapplicable by the governing rabbis because they dealt with throwing out some of the commandments. If Jesus did claim to be the Messiah (I'm not an expert on the NT), Jewish tradition maintains that he was not, mainly because of his anti-Torah-law prophecies, but also because the Jewish ideal os the Messianic era is rather rigid, and historically, Jesus ushered in no such era. Nowadays, Jesus is placed in the general category of other-Gods-worshipped-by-other-monotheists-but-not- by-us-but-they're-monotheists-so-we-respect-their -beliefs and given the respect due to him there.
The JEPD scholars to whom ScottN refers are very left-wing. Right-wing Conservative and Orthodox scholars agree that the Torah (5 Books O' Moses) was written by one author and divinely inspired, if not divinely dictated.
Obviously, all the OT commandments about bringing sacrifices in the Tabernacle are not followed by anyone. (No Temple, no sacrifices, prayer instead, carry on, quoth the ancient rabbis.) The rest (don't bear false witness, don't kindle fire on the Sabbath, wear ritual fringes on the corners of your garments, etc.) are followed by the Orthodox exactly (again, according to rabbinical interpretation, not according to the OT letter of the law), like ScottN said. Conservative and Reform Jews pick and choose among the various OT commandments based on their theories of the divine origin (or lack thereof) of the Torah.
Um... a "D" by the O-U signifies "Dairy," so don't eat it with meat. (That's what you meant, right?)
Shira, I was using the term "rabbi" in the original sense of "teacher".
Also, Shira, I was raised Reform, so I am a bit rusty on my Orthodox perspectives...
Didn't mean to preach or condescend, ScottN-- sorry if I cam across that way. I am equally rusty on my Reform perspectives. We're just coming from different sides.
But I still stand by my earlier comment that Jesus was not a rabbi (an ordained teacher). Ordination in early rabbinic times was not a license to preach, but a certificate of background, saying that you were a scholar instructed by a teacher who had learned the Written Torah and the Oral Tradition from a teacher who had learned it from a teacher... who had learned it from Moses after the Revelation at Sinai. It was the equivalent of a degree in Judaic studies from the major accredited university. I found it noteworthy that Jesus did not have rabbinic ordination, because it accentuated his message of, "Forget the little stuff, just love God and do justice," an attitude he would not have learned from a teacher in the Mosaic tradition.
I find it odd that the Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah when the Old Testament was filled with prophecies about him.
Isn't the OT a Christian book, though?
Nope. The OT dates from before Christ and is therefore considered a Jewish book. Christians technically do not have to follow the laws set in the OT (circumcision, dietary laws, etc.) but some do, and some don't. It is kind of hard to have the NT without any idea of what went before and why everything is so significant, so the OT must be kept around. Not that I am advocating anything else, mind you.
So if the OT is considered a Jewish book, is the NT one also? Or no? I'm totally baffled now...
No. It is not. As far as I know, followers of the Jewish faith do not consider Jesus to be the Messiah and so do not pay any attention to what the NT says. At least, I think. ScottN? Little help?
Oh...
From what I have always believed, the Old Testament is a Jewish book, and the Old and New Testaments are Christian books. The Jewish people just don't believe in the NT.
Rene: I believe the Jews believe that Jesus was just a prophet or something, and that the real Messiah is still coming. I believe their calendar is still BC.
Regarding "OT" and "NT":
The Five Books of Moses, the Hebrew Prophets, and the Hebrew writings compose the Jewish Bible. Jews do not call their Scriptures "The Old Testament" because we do not believe that there is a second edition, an updated version, a "New Testament." For Jews, the Old Testament is the Only Testament. The OT dates from about 3500 years ago (more or less?).
The NT dates from a little less than 2000 years ago and contains the words of those who believe Jesus was the Messiah. As such, Jews have nothing to do with it-- they treat it like the Koran and the Upanishads and Other-Peoples'-Holy-Books.
I find it odd that the Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah when the Old Testament was filled with prophecies about him.
According to us, the Hebrew Bible is filled with prophecies about the Messiah. And Jesus just wasn't him. There have been plenty of honest upright people in Jewish history who claimed to be the Messiah (or were believed by others to be the Messiah, whether they said so or not) and turned out to be wrong: Bar Kochba, Shabbatai Tzvi, even the Lubavitcher Rebbe. (The Rebbe never claimed to be anything more than a rabbi, he just had some... really enthusiastic... followers.) Finally, there are some significant differences between the OT and the Hebrew Bible. Some of the most popular passages said to refer to Jesus have always been translated differently.
As to what the Jews think Jesus was, and what his place in history was... that's getting into potentially offensive territory. Personally I think Jesus had some pretty great ideas about love and faith and concentrating on being a good person rather than minding all the little nits of observance. I just don't think he was the Son of God or the Messiah or anything. (Please do not flame.)
Shira - I don't see why anyone would flame you. You're stating your beliefs, and I'd hope that everyone here would respect your beliefs. You're certainly entitled to them, and boo to anyone who thinks otherwise. :)
Thanks Shira for answering Rene. MPatterson, you're right about the Messiah thing.
Rene, also, if you are specifically referring to Isaiah, the text is not "The virgin shall conceive", but the orignial Hebrew reads "The young woman shall conceive". The Greeks mistranslated the word.
Oh, and Rene, It's generally not a good idea to start out a debate/discussion by telling people they are •••••• for not interpreting their own holy books the way you want them to.
Uh, ScottN? There are scholars who will argue that the word in context *does* mean virgin. There's always another side =)
No, the original hebrew word is "alma", which does NOT mean virgin.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Jennifer in this context, ScottN. The Christian Bible scholars are rather clear on that point. (Naturally, I think it's a mistranslation, but on this board every group has the right...)
But God spoke to Jesus Christ directly on three
occasions, with witnesses. And many people
saw Christ after his dead.
Many prophecies were fulfilled concerning Christ.
Where he was born, his lineage, etc.
And all the miracles Christ performed.
I never said people were •••••• for not believing
Christ. I said it was odd.
And what's the point of keeping all the traditions and requirements of the Old Testament
if they are obselete.
Rene: While I believe this and you do, many people do not. I believe the Bible, which provides the evidence, in my opinion. For many, including the Jewish people, they regard the New Testament as little more than stories, and Jesus as a prophet.
I don't quite understand your second statement. The Jewish people DO keep the traditions and requirements, the majority of Christians do not.
But God spoke to Jesus Christ directly on three occasions, with witnesses. And many people saw Christ after his dead. Many prophecies were fulfilled concerning Christ. Where he was born, his lineage, etc.
A few million people say the same things about Mohammed, but I don't see you praying 5 times a day in the local mosque. "It's recorded in the Bible," just doesn't fly as rational proof. All this prophecy and revelation biz happened so very long ago that anyone who doesn't have faith can easily write it off as myth. Christians, by definition, have faith that what's in the Gospels is true. Jews, by theology, don't.
And what's the point of keeping all the traditions and requirements of the Old Testament if they are obselete.
Some Christians practice circumcision for health reasons. Some people avoid pork and shellfish for health reasons too. Sort of like Reform Judaism, it's a matter of picking and choosing which ideas were divinely inspired and which are merely the social relics of ancient society.
Rene, there's a wonderful article in Guideposts magazine I saw a month or two ago about a woman who just decided to start keeping kosher. I can't really describe wat the meaning was, but if I can find what issue it was I'll post it here. (It seems to me that it's not better or worse, just different.) In fact, they may even have that article online, I don't know.
That not what I meant : There's a difference
between doing something because health reasons
and doing it because you think it's what God
requires of you.
I don't jive your bag, man. Are you implying that Christians do that? All the Christians I know, don't. Are you implying that the Jewish people do that? Of course--they are still living by Old Testament law, and it would be even more shocking if they didn't.
Rene,
Jews keep kosher because the requirements are NOT obsolete. Remember, the NT is NOT CANON FOR JEWS!
Not to change the subject or anything :) but I've been wondering a few things about Judaism.
1. I live near a Jewish cemetary & see people leaving small rocks on top of the grave stones. What's this all about?
2. How much of what the Christians consider the Old Testament is in the Torah? Is is the whole thing, just the first 5 books, or something in between? Is there anything in the Torak that's not in the Christian OT?
3. Why do Hasidic (& maybe Orthodox too, or is it the same thing?) women have to wear long dresses & wigs all the time?
2.
The Torah consists of the first five books:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
The Jewish bible also consists of the "Prophets" and Writing). Basically everything from Joshua through II Chronicles.
3.
Modesty. Orthodox women do not need to wear wigs, but (esp. married women) should cover their hair at all times (scarf, hat, wig, etc...)
You said it, Scott! A few additional remarks:
1. To leave a pebble on the grave of someone is a gesture of respect to the dead person, a visible indication that the departed is mourned and missed. On the gravestone of Yitzchak Rabin, for instance, there are so many rocks that some of them must be cleared away to leave the name visible.
2. Like Scott said, the Jewish "Torah" literally refers to the Five books of Moses. However, the term "Torah" (literally means "Law") is also used in Jewish circles to describe the whole Bible (OT, but the order is a bit different), and even sometimes used to describe the entire extent of Jewish law (OT+ the Oral Tradition).
3. All Hasidic Jews are Orthodox, but not all Orthodox Jews (specifically, the Modern Orthodox) are Hasidic. And like Scott said, physical modesty and not wearing revealing clothing is a very important tennet to all branches of Orthodoxy; it goes with the general prinicple of not flaunting one's sexual beauty in front of anyone but a spouse.
Thanks. The pebbles on the graves makes a lot of sense, in my opinion. Rocks won't wither or blow away, like flowers, & they won't get stolen either. I think it's a nice custom.
Okay, here's more questions.
1. What is the Talmud? I know it's different from the Torah, but I'm not sure what it is. Why can only men read it?
2. Why can't the name of our Creator be spelled out?
I hope you don't mind all these questions. I've been curious about the Jewish faith for a long time.
...and more answers!
1. The Talmud is the Oral Tradition which I mentioned in my last post: an exhaustive concordance of the discussions, debates, quibbles, parables, and legal rulings of the great rabbis from about 200 B.C. (the really early stuff) to 500 A.D. (when it was written down and canonized). It is the thorough legal extrapolation of the Jewish Bible as brought down by the ancient rabbis. Opinions about the divinity of the Talmud vary: Reform theologians describe it as post-biblical case records, ideas conjured up by the rabbis themselves, while the Orthodox stoutly maintain that every piece of Talmudic law was given by God to Moses at Sinai and passed down orally through the generations of rabbis until it came to be written down.
2. God's true names (there are many, according to Jewish mysticism) are inherently, ineffably holy; according to Jewish mysticism, there are a source of powerful spiritual energy. To speak the Name aloud in daily chatter is to profane its holiness, like wearing a $200,000 wedding dress to do custodial work. Certain divine names and forms of address are recited in prayer, such as "Elohim" and "El Shaddai"; others, such as JHVH and the ones of kabbalistic power are so holy that to use them in prayer is... well... like trying to light a taper with an acetelyne blow torch, and are only used in the prayers of the Day of Atonement, and even then, not pronounced out loud.
So... to answer your question, JHVH and certain other divine names are not written, or are written without vowels, to ensure that no one will read them aloud by mistake.
Also, the Name of God, any name of God, cannot be thrown in the trash can, but must be properly buried, as befits a sacred article. Writing a Name of God means accepting responsibility never ever ever to throw that piece of paper away!
OK. That's it for now. I may add some more later. Have I hopelessly confused you?
Hm. Interesting. How does that apply to electronic writing? For example, would a rabbinical student writing a paper on his computer not delete a written Name of God during revisions?
He wouldn't. He would use a euphemism such as El Shaddai, JHVH, Elohim, Hashem, etc...
Wow. This is fascinating. I never realized how much there is to the Jewish faith. I think it's amazing that all this has survived for these thousands of years, without being altered, or watered down, you know?
I've been thinking about visiting a synagogue, to see what the services are like. Is that allowed? I'm Christian, and don't want to offend anyone by showing up at the wrong time or doing something wrong.
Grin. OK.
How does that apply to electronic writing?
Worldwide rabbis have agreed that the Names of God as written on a computer screen "don't count." The argument centers
around the principle that the Hebrew letters JHVH on a computer screen are merely word-proccessing translations of binary
machine-language, which if you actually printed it out would not actually _say_ JHVH, but 100111010101 or whatever. The
technicality basically involves the definition of the adjective "written."
A rabbinical student writing his paper by hand, however, would be careful never to write the Name of God, because then he could
not erase it during revisions. And he would have to treat his paper with the same revenence as a prayerbook.
Why can only men read [the Talmud]?
Well... first of all, women most certainly can study it! Or I should say, women can study it _now_. Frankly, in a religion over 3000
years old, it's pretty much a given that a sizable percentage of the interpreters of the Law have been sexist pigs and have
colored their interpretation of God's words with their prejudices. The enormous gaps between men's and women's education in
traditional Judaism are only being bridged in this century, and even now there is a traditional bias for girls to probe the depths of
the scriptures while boys are trained in legal logic. In all fairness, since the study of Talmud itself traditionally culminates in
rabbinical ordination, it has not been seen until recently as a profitable track for women.
Is that allowed? I'm Christian, and don't want to offend anyone by showing up at the wrong time or doing something wrong.
Sure it's allowed! Education is free for all. You might want to start by visiting a Reform synagogue, since Reform prayerbooks use
more English readings and fewer Hebrew texts-- also because, well, Reform services are shorter. Talk to the rabbi and tell him
you're a Christian who's curious about Judaism, and if he's worth his fine silk prayer shawl, he'll be more than happy to answer
your questions and give you a schedule of services. Another thought: if the synangogue you visit is small and friendly (like mine,
for instance!), be prepared to graciously decline some ecclesiastical honors-- it's important in Judaism to be Kind and Welcoming
to strangers, especially in synagogue!
If you're really really excited about the prospect, Margie, I could probably dig up the names of a few nice synagogues in your area.
Wow, that would be great! I live in Queens, New York. I've included my email address so you can send me any info. Thanks!
Good for you margie! I hope you enjoy the experience! It's always good to learn about others. I, myself, have attended a Mass, and some other (non-catholic) Christian ceremonies. I would love to attend services in a mosque to learn more about it, but I don't believe I'd be welcome [alas], and I don't know any Arabic... so most of my (very small amount of) learning about Islam comes from books...
Shira, about Reform services being shorter... Depends on the Rabbi... I have known some Rabbis who are in love with the sound of their own voice, and their sermons go on and on and on and on and on and on and...
Touche, Scott!
Ugh… Mass… don't know how you sat through it… I've only been once or twice, once at a regular service, once at a funeral. My problems with the Catholic Church have been spelled out elsewhere, so let's just say that unless somebody dies, I ain't going back. (Unfortunately, 90% of my mother's side of the family is Catholic, so I probably won't have much choice.) These people take "excruciating adherence to tradition" to a new level… or maybe it's just me.
Oh, it wasn't so bad... I just played "anthropologist" and observed quietly and respectfully.
I did attend Mass once for a funeral, since one of my relatives was Catholic. It was interesting--the church was very beautiful. I didn't agree with some of the prayers read (I don't believe you can do anything for the soul once the person is dead), but I was respectful.
It wasn't really a gay old time...but it's a funeral. Weren't not to be.
Shira, if you've been trying to reach my email, try this address. I can't seem to access the other one anymore.
One question-
What event is the Jewish Calender based on. I tried to figure this out once but realized Lunar-Solar translation is too much math.
Comment- St. Matthew was refering to the Seputant OT, not the Hebrew OT. Thus the 72 men translated the propecy, Virgin With child in Greek
I'm not sure, but the Jewish calendar was formalized around 358 CE by Hillel II (see http://www.frontiernet.net/~labomb32/calendar.html).
BTW, year 0 is approximately 3760BCE. This may derive from the Babylonian calendar (see above reference) or possibly be Hillel's calculated date of creation (Bishop whatever his name is came up with 4004BCE, and it's in the same ballpark).
According to Orthodox teachings, the first instant of year 0 on the Jewish calendar corresponds to the creation of mankind, which would make this year the 5,761st year after the creation of Adam. Whether this teaching is historically accurate or not remains to be seen, but lot's of people today will claim that they're counting from that particular event.
The Hebrew calendar requires seasonal holidays to fall in the correct time of year, so the solar-lunar to solar conversion over a long period isn't too terribly mathematical. The Hebrew calendar includes an extra month every 3 years or so, so the approximation (1 Gregorian year) = (1 Hebrew year) is valid over a long span of time.
My sister & her fiance just bought a co-op. On the side of the doorway is a little container holding a scroll with what looks like Hebrew writing. The container has a couple of characters on it. The first looks like the letter that's on a dreidel that looks like a "w". What is this? What does it mean? Can they leave it there, being they are not Jewish?
Ooh, your sister has found a mezuzah on her doorpost!
It says in Deutoronomy, "And let these things which I teach you today be upon your heart. You shall teach them to your children... and write them upon the doorposts of you houses (Heb. doorpost='mezuzah') and upon your gates." Since antiquity, Jews have taken scrolls inscribed with the Shema (the Declaration of Faith), this passage, and two others, inserted them into containers marked by the Hebrew letter Shin (Shin for Shaddai, Shaddai being the nurturing name of God), and nailed them to their doorposts, in accordance with this commandment. You'll see these boxes on the doorposts of all observant Jewish homes and synagogues.
I'm actually surprised that the previous owners of the co-op didn't take the mezuzah with them-- those things are pretty expensive 'cuz that have to be written out on special parchment by a highly qualified scribe. There's absolutely no problem with your sister leaving it there, as long as it stays safe and dry... but it might be nice to ask the superintendant if the previous residents want it back... or maybe call a local rabbi (no shortage of rabbis in Queens, I can give you a phone number if ya like) and ask him if he has any needy congregants who could use a good mezuzah. I don't know quite what the proper protocol is for these cases... usually people take their mezuzahs with them when they move...! ;)
But in any case please please please tell you sister not to throw the parchment out... if it's still in perfect condition it's very useful and rather expensive and even if it's damaged it's still holy. And any rabbi anywhere will be happy to take it off your hands and give it the proper ritual burial for a holy book.
::A rabbinical student writing his paper by hand, however, would be careful never to write the Name of God, because then he could not erase it during revisions. And he would have to treat his paper with the same revenence as a prayerbook.:: Shira Karp
Why is God's name held in such high esteem? I can understand holding Him in high esteem, but why the name?
One of the Ten Commandments is
"Thou shalt not take the L-rd's name in vain."
Thank you! I forwarded the info to my sister. She really appreciates it!
::One of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not take the L-rd's name in vain.":: J. Goettsche
I know, but how is writing the name taking it in vain or being disrespectful to God? I mean it's not like you're cursing God or being blasphemous about Him.
Writing isn't taking the Lord's name in vain at all... ya can't write a Torah scroll without writing God's name umpteen hundred times. However, once you've written the Name, you're responsible for making sure that the written Name isn't desecrated by being stepped on, splashed on, thrown out, or even erased. Writing God's name is to make whatever you're writing into a holy book, and unless you're ready to take that responsibility, you'd best not monkey with the Name. In response to your ealier question, God is holy and his name is holy.
Ummm ok, I guess I have to ask a very specific question. Why is the name itself held in as high esteem and reverence as God Himself? Why is his Name considered holy just because He is considered holy? I really don't know and that's why I'm asking.
Scripture makes lots of refernces to God's holy name.
"Neither shall you profane my holy name, but I will be hallowed among the Children of Israel."
--Leviticus 22:32
"Glory in his holy name, and let all those who seek the Lord rejoice."
--Psalm 105:3
Beyond that I can't give you a more concrete answer. Will ask my rabbi and get back to you.
Shira, I think I understand, but what I don't get is why writing the name makes that thing it was written on Holy......you're not destroying God by throwing that piece of paper away. I really doubt God would get mad at a piece of paper being thrown away just because one of God's names was written on it. That would be kind of petty, don't you think?
I think it's like the respect we show for the American flag (if you live in the U.S., that is.) We pledge allegience to the flag, (well, sometimes), and if you handle a flag, you must make sure it never touches the ground. Flag burning is controversial. Flags that are not all-weather flags are taken down when it rains. All this work just for a piece of cloth. Why? Certainly not because the flag itself is valuable. It's because what the flag represents is valuable and deserving of respect.
::It's because what the flag represents is valuable and deserving of respect:: Amy
Why is the representation held to the same reverence as the "thing" it represents? I really would like some religous authority's opinion on this.
Because you can't see or hear or touch or taste or smell the diety in question. You use the next best thing - symbolism.
It's the same reason that a priest wouldn't deliberately damage the Bible, or a rabbi wouldn't damage the Torah, or a priestess damage a pentacle. The symbol is held in high regard.
Here is a site talking about The Name of G-d.
Incidentally, the first prayer any Jewish child is taught is the Sh'ma, which makes reference to the name of G-d.
<TRANSLITERATION>
Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad
Baruch Shem K'vod Malchuto L'olam Va'ed
</TRANSLITERATION>
<TRANSLATION>
Hear oh Israel, The Lord is our G-d, The Lord is One.
Blessed be his glorious name whose kingdom is forever.
<TRANSLATION>
Flag burning is controversial.
Actually, in order to dispose of a flag that's been ruined or is just too old, you are supposed to burn it in a certain fashion. Therefore it would be highly unwise to ban flag burning without a bit of thought put into the legislation.
Please note: This page contains the Name of God. If you print it out, please treat it with appropriate respect.
Thank you,
ScottN
*Doesn't have a printer, or any external drive that works, but pops in and drops a pin. Nowhere near the Name of God. In fact, doesn't drop the pin on the page; drops it to the side of the page*
Nothing is immune from my pindropping mission from the Overlord! Well, 'cept for PAoR. I'd rather be reincarnated as Pesti or Vargo than go there again.
Next! *Goes off to the next target*
I'd rather be reincarnated as Pesti or Vargo than go there again.
AUGH! Massive, uncontrollable shivers What an awful taste that puts in my mouth! Thanks a lot, MJ! What did I ever do to you? LOL
I was reading a column in the newspaper the other day. I noticed that the columnist, who is Jewish, wrote G-d instead of God. I've also seen ScottN do this. Why is it written like that? Is it the same reason that one of the names for God is written YHVH?
Amy, go up 5 posts, and follow the link!
Thank you, Scott.
You're welcome.
My mother asked me a question about Judaism I cannot answer. I need help!
I know several Christians who wear crosses (for generally known reasons). I am a Wiccan and wear a pentacle (see the Wiccan board for my beliefs on the pentacle's meaning). The question (which obviously relates to symbolism) is this:
What is the Star of David, exactly? Who is David that he gets a Star? And why is it worn (if it even is)? Basically, what does it symbolise?
David is King David of Israel. The six pointed star is technically referred to as a "Magen David", which literally translated means "Shield of David".
As for the symbology, it's been a long time, and unfortunately, I don't remember.
Shira, are you out there?
I did some research on this a long while ago for my geometry class (it is, after all, simply two interlocked equilateral triangles), and I seem to remember that, while it was supposedly the symbol on King David's shield, it actually only came into widespread use around the turn of the century and there is little evidence to indicate that it actually was on David's shield. There was more, but I haven't looked at in months and I got rid of my bookmark for the info a while ago.
According to a Messianic Jew who came and spoke at my church, the Star of David could be a symbol for the Messiah. He mentioned a piece of pottery from the first century which had the Star of David and the Christian fish symbol on it. The fish also had the shape of the cross where the eye of a fish would normally be.
Sorry, Amy, but IMHO, a "Messianic Jew" is a Christian.
ScottN
You're treating the word "Jew" as if it were a religion and not an ethnicity. It is both really, but you knew that already.
No, Jew is not an ethnicity. There are caucasian Jews from Eastern Europe, Semitic Jews from the Mediterranean/MiddleEast, Black Falasha Jews from Ethiopa, Asiatic Jews, etc... To call Judiasm an ethnicity is (to invoke the Pointless Accusations of Evil game) as wrong as as the Nazis were. Of course, we all know that Christians are all the same ethnicity as well.
Judaism is an ethnicity? Why don't I ever see it on employment applications when they ask for ethnicity? Y'know, White, Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, White (non-Hispanic), Native American, Jew, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, Wiccan...
Someone would sure invoke the ACLU on that, I'm sure.
::No, Jew is not an ethnicity. There are caucasian Jews from Eastern Europe, Semitic Jews from the Mediterranean/MiddleEast, Black Falasha Jews from Ethiopa, Asiatic Jews, etc... To call Judiasm an ethnicity is (to invoke the Pointless Accusations of Evil game) as wrong as as the Nazis were. Of course, we all know that Christians are all the same ethnicity as well.:: ScottN
I've always thought of Jews as an ethnicity since they have an ancestral homeland and a common culture and history, at least the ones who are originally Jewish and not the converts or their families. I think you have a different idea of ethnicity that I do about Jewish people. With my clarification, point to where it is bad for Jews to be an ethnic group. If that's not what an ethnic group is, then you explain it to me.
Fine. I'm going to start thinking of Muslims has being an ethnic group. And the Shintos. And the Buddhists. And the Christians, for that matter.
Wow. Now my brothers will be really confused. "Well, I'm descended from a Shinto and a Christian, so I'm really a Christian-Shinto, but my sister's a Wiccan, and I kinda sorta believe in their philosophy, so I guess I'm really a Christian-Shinto Wiccan."
Ethnicity is something that cannot change just because your views do. I am Japanese-American; that is my ethnicity. Just because I don't agree with a lot of American ideas doesn't mean I can start declaring myself Japanese-British. I was born as a Christian-Shinto, but I changed to Wicca because my views changed.
There is a difference.
I see the point of disagreement; Jwb52z sees ethnicity as common culture; MJ and ScottN see it as synonymous with "race."
MJ and ScottN hold the more common view of ethnicity, but Jwb52z's is more valid in my opinion, because "race" is an utterly useless concept, scientifically speaking. It is based on trivial physical differences that are not rooted in real genetic differences.
I don't know about Scott, but I don't see ethnicity as synonymous with "race." I see it as synonymous with culture shared by people of a particular geographical area - it seems to me that Jwb sees it as a culture shared by people of a particular philosophical belief.
My "race" is that of Homo sapiens (much as it pains me to admit). So pbbbbbbt!
Time to lay down for an hour, then get ready for work. I'm far too tired to make sense.
So, I am of the redneck ethnicity?
::Ethnicity is something that cannot change just because your views do.:: M Jenkins
That's why I said NOT COUNTING CONVERTS or their families.
Oh, Mark, I know what you mean about M Jenkins and Scott meaning race, but I think you'd be better at explaining it to them because I don't think they understand what you mean. I'd at least like to hear it to make sure I understand properly.
No, Morgan, you're only of the worthless atheistic ethnicity.
I know what he meant by race, Jwb, but it's a silly statement. Maybe I should say that it's a culture within another country in which the population shares common traditions. But then Morgan would go off about how he's of the American ethnicity, and I'd have to agree that he does have that unfortunate delight, and it'd turn idiotic. He knows what I meant, I know what I meant, and I think you do too.
Actually, I simply was not clear on what Jenkins meant, because she was not clear. By "race" I meant the classic divisions of Caucasian, African, Asian, and the fourth category which now escapes me completely. The checkboxes you fill out on interview forms to guarantee that your employer is providing equal employment opportunities.
Biologically, while you may say the native people of Australia sure look like the native people of Africa, they are not particularly related genetically. In America, they would be counted as "African-American." Race by that meaning is pretty well useless.
And MJ, in your original statement you said that ethnicity is not something you can never change. If ethnicity is a culture shared by a group of people in a particular geographic area, then can I not change my ethicity by changing my geographic area and adopting that culture instead? If I go study with Tibetan monks and take all the ways of Tibet, utterly abandoning my old ones, has my ethnicity not changed? Using your definition of ethnicity.
That "never change" part is the stumbling block to my understanding of just what you mean.
::Biologically, while you may say the native people of Australia sure look like the native people of Africa, they are not particularly related genetically. In America, they would be counted as "African-American." Race by that meaning is pretty well useless.:: Mark Morgan
So, you're saying that the aboriginees in Australia and the tribes in Africa or African people are not related?
Yes. The indigenous people of Australia are descended from Asian people who traveled there by some land bridge or another.
Although actually what I am saying is that all humans are so closely related that categories based on physical appearance are meaningless.
Mark Morgan, if the aboriginees are descended from Asian people, then why do they look so dissimilar?
Because visual cues are useless in discovering relatedness; you have to dig into genetic markers and such. The native people of Australia were isolated from the rest of the Asian people, the same way the native people of the Americas were isolated from the rest of the Asian people. Plenty of time for trivial physical appearance differences to arise.
I don't know what the prevailing explanation is for the vast differences in superficial physical appearances of this nature; at one time it was all credited to climate and diet, but I've been hearing a lot about "sexual selection" being a driving factor--since we pick mates based on desirable appearance as much as by anything else.
I don't have any good links or references handy (I'm at the parentals for Easter), but I'll see what I can find.
::Because visual cues are useless in discovering relatedness; you have to dig into genetic markers and such. The native people of Australia were isolated from the rest of the Asian people, the same way the native people of the Americas were isolated from the rest of the Asian people. Plenty of time for trivial physical appearance differences to arise.:: Mark Morgan
THIS is an explanation I've been trying to find which also explains why Romulans and Vulcans look so differently.
How about ethnicity is a physical trait that is common to people of a certain geographic area?
Does that work better?
Where do you think you are anyway, Morgan, Nitpicker Central?
Oh.
Then you get back to defining groups by their appearance, instead of by cultural measures. And definitions by mere appearance are worthless.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.............................
Ethnicity is a combination of cultural values and physical traits that are common to people of a certain geographic area.
Excuse me - I'm throwing myself off a bridge.
Open Letter to Dr. Larua
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
For a second I thought Jim Walsh was going to be serious instead of rude and tacky, but I was wrong.
I've seen that letter before. And I don't find it rude or tacky. I find it hilarious.
Go, Jim!
First of all, before I get flamed, I would like to state that I fully agree with the spirit of Walsh's letter. In my oppinion, we can no longer use Leviticus 18:22 as a rationalization for our (often) childish and senseless prejudices against alternative lifestyles.
That said, I find Walsh to be preaching to the choir with his funny and ill-grounded remarks. (Dr. Laura or any stuffy rabbi could easily answer 2-6 on Walsh's list of questions.) His point, which is that clergymen of the ages have found it easy to pick and choose among Old Testament commandments, is no news to bible-thumping homophobics, who can easily offer numerous sources for their choosiness.
Kira Sharp, except for some instances with Jewish law being overridden, God's law isn't on a time limit. There is no reason to think that just because God's laws may be unpopular that that means that they are wrong or hateful.
Jwb52z, if there is no "time limit", then you should answer Walsh's points.
In a very general sense I agree, Jwb52z (with a narrow definition of the word "wrong"). Those of us who follow our biblical traditions believe that; Christians keep the Bible but not those commandments which the New Testament declares replaced while Jews keep the Bible but not those commandments which the Talmud says are only for a Temple period. (The Talmud also delineates provisions and conditions for many laws-- in the case of the "stubborn and rebellious child," for example, the Talmud lists so many specific specific acts of rebellion that a young person has to do to be considered for the Biblical death penalty that no stubborn and rebellious child has ever been executed by any rabbinical court.)
But many people nowadays believe that modern commentators have as much authority to "replace" or "modify" the Bible as the ancients.
But many people nowadays believe that modern commentators have as much authority to "replace" or "modify" the Bible as the ancients.
The other half of that comment becomes this... Where do we draw the line? When does a commentator become "modern"? Is Maimonides a "modern" commentator or an "ancient"? He lived in the 12th (13th?) century C.E. If he's an ancient, where do we draw the line? If he's not an ancient, why are his commentaries used so often?
I made a comment on rituals over on the Christian faith board.
I think that comfort in the ritual is partly why i dislike some of the changes in the new Reform prayerbook (Gates of Prayer -- OK, it's been out for a while, but still...) and in some liturgical changes I've seen in several Reform congregations (including the last two -- three now that my temple's merged with another I've been a member of).
BEGIN RANT
I don't like many of the translations. I don't like some of the actual liturgical changes (I'm not sure if UAHC officially added them or not) such as adding the Matriarchs to the Avot (Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchak, v'Elohei Ya'akov [addElohei Sara, Elohei Rivka, Elohei Leah, v'Elohei Rachel].
I'm sorry, but ritual liturgy is ritual liturgy. You DON'T change it to be politically correct!
END RANT
I agree totally, Scott. Some of my favorite hymns were changed a few years ago to non-gender specific, & it just sounds wrong! There were also changes in our communion liturgy, to modernize it, & now I don't feel the same when I take communion. The ritual & old words used to help me get in touch with God & with my feelings, but now it's too much like everyday life.
Margie- let me guess, you're a United Methodist? I feel the same way. Our church has a "You Might Be a United Methodist If..." list, and one of the items is "... you've ever sung a PC hymn."
I knew something was seriously wrong when "Good Christian Men, Rejoice" was changed to "Good Christian Friends, Rejoice." Also, we've now started saying the "Statement of faith of the United Church of Korea." With all due respect, what does Korea have to do with us?
Matthew-you're exactly right! I found a book "You might be a United Methodist if.." and it's so true! My church occasionally says the Korean statement, but more often we use the Statement of faith of the United Church of Canada. Hmmm...last time I checked, I lived in the United States! Whatever happened to a statement of faith for the United Methodist Church?
And the Communion service-it used to be a nice ritual, now it's more like, "Okay, we've got to do it. Let's get it over with so we can all go home!" At least the old way is still in the hymnal, but my church never uses it. Grrrr....
I don't recall the communion service ever being anything other than that. I'm probably just too young to remember the change, but it still bugs me. They play it up to be so important, and then it's over in five minutes? What does that tell people?
Say, didn't this originally start out as some form of discussion about Judaism? Nah... couldn't be.
Say, didn't this originally start out as some form of discussion about Judaism? Nah... couldn't be.
Because it was a rant about ritual, and I used Jewish ritual as an example (gee, I wonder why).
Is there a generic religion board? I don't remember.
"New discussions" maybe?
Regarding the letter above: Acts 15:19-20 says, "It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." Also, most of the laws above are ceremonial, not moral. The reason for the ceremonial laws is because humans are impure and being in the presence of God (as the Israelites sometimes were) would literally result in the death of an impure person. The ceremonial laws allowed a person to become ceremonially clean. The ceremonial laws are no longer necessary because the blood of Jesus is what cleanses humans now.
There are also some judicial laws describing how the Israelites would interact with others in their day-to-day lives. Many of those laws are specific to that time and place and no longer apply.
Unfortunately, Amy. Acts is part of the NT, and is not Canon. Similarly, "the blood of Jesus is what cleanses humans now" is irrelevant to Jews.
Oooh...nice comeback. ;)
Well, Mike, this IS the "Jewish Faith" board...
Here's a question (yes, I have another one!) What's the difference between a synagogue (sp?) and a temple?
RELOCATING TO BOARD II... THIS BOARD IS NOW 135K AND TAKES FOREEEEEEEEEVER TO LOAD. SHALL WE MOSEY ON, THEN?
Margie, I am answering your question in Part II.