Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The current year is 5773 and we are about to enter 5774. Since the Talmud is a set of books that are used to define certain parts of the Torah by the use of opinions (or commentary or arguments) still follow them even though the items that the opinions were based on no longer exist or are invalid 100's of years later after they were written? And this not defer back to the Torah.
I do find that most Americans consider today's Jews use the Old Testament. I find that all of them have only been schooled in the Talmud. I know of not one Jew who has ever read the Old Testament nor goes by it. Not sure if this is apropo to your post? Meh. Carry on.
I do find that most Americans consider today's Jews use the Old Testament. I find that all of them have only been schooled in the Talmud. I know of not one Jew who has ever read the Old Testament nor goes by it. Not sure if this is apropo to your post? Meh. Carry on.
The Tanakh and the Old Testament are not the same...
MacLuffy, do you even know what the Talmud is? Very few non-Orthodox, in my experience, have been schooled in Talmud unless they went to Jewish Day School.
In my experience, most Christians think Jews are Karaites. They project their doctrine of "sola scriptura" onto Judaism. They have no conception of what the Talmud and the Oral Law is. They thus think that we Jews are not following our religion when we aren't stoning unruly children and adulterers. Their logic is: The "Old Testament" laws are impossible to keep. Therefore, Jesus!
In my experience, most Christians think Jews are Karaites. They project their doctrine of "sola scriptura" onto Judaism. They have no conception of what the Talmud and the Oral Law is. They thus think that we Jews are not following our religion when we aren't stoning unruly children and adulterers. Their logic is: The "Old Testament" laws are impossible to keep. Therefore, Jesus!
I don't know what a karaite is, so I haven't made that association. I am protestant, so not personally acquainted with the doctrine of "sola scriptura", although I think I can figure it out by the language.
It seems to me that your experience is as limited in exposure to christianity as my experience is limited toward Judaism. I agree that I was raised to consider the Old Testament as an equivalent to the Torah. I figured that the major distinction would be the edited version and the language. The Talmud, I was lead to believe, was an attempt to, in a scholarly manner, interpret or clarify the Torah into practical expression.
I have heard the expression "Oral Law" and while it has never been explained to me, I presumed that it was the oral tradition of the Talmud and the practical law handed down by the priesthood over the generations.
Religion is simply an attempt by man to constrain behavior along a set of ideals and common beliefs. It is a binding of behavior into an acceptable pattern held by a group. We tend to reserve this term for a belief system based on a theocratic foundation rather than a secular one, and use the term "cult" for such a belief system that is fringe or extreme enough to alienate the established bases.
I, naturally, held the belief that the Oral Law was subject to the same degradation of fact as any orally transmitted communication and that over the generations it had been adapted and modified by circumstance and bias to form that may or may not be in harmony with it's original form. I do not think that Jews are not following their religion, but rather the Jewish religion has morphed over time into a new format. Perhaps you have been more successful than Christianity in keeping to the core tenants over the generations, perhaps not. I am certainly not in a position to argue one way or the other with any confidence.
The logic I was taught growing up is that the Old Testament was the contract between God and his chosen people and the priesthood fleshed that law out from the ten commandments into a full legal system (outlined mostly in Leviticus) and the penalty for violation of the contract was an elaborate system of sacrifice.
Jesus was the evolution of that contract in that while not changing any of the laws or commandments, he offered a contractual amendment in that he would become the proxy sacrifice in exchange for personal repentance and acceptance of his offer. As I understand it, under the Old Testament law a person could offer a sacrifice in the wrong state of mind (or heart) and God could find it unacceptable and reject it. This would appear to be the same in the case of Christian conversion. If a person merely vocalizes an acceptance without the true heartfelt belief and acceptance, it does not constitute a contact acceptance even the person proclaims it. So many "Christians" are running around with an unsigned contract, so to speak.
To the original question; Since the Talmud is a set of books that are used to define certain parts of the Torah by the use of opinions (or commentary or arguments) still follow them even though the items that the opinions were based on no longer exist or are invalid 100's of years later after they were written? And this not defer back to the Torah.
Please discuss.
Your grammar is atrocious and makes comprehension of your question difficult. I interpret it as follows:
The Talmud is a set of books that define the Torah by use of opinion, commentary or argument. Many of these opinions are based on circumstances that are no longer relevant or accepted. Should we continue to accept these opinions or should we reject the Talmud and return to the Torah for new discussion and commentary?
In my humble opinion, the outdated commentary and opinion still has value when viewed in the context of the time. Any new commentary can expound upon the topic with valid insight as long as the historical context is considered and is not in opposition with the new modern example.
Since Stoning was previously mentioned, I will continue to use that as an illustration. If the historical commentary recommended stoning as a resolution to a specific act of insubordination, then a new commentary should offer penalty similar in severity or impact that is more acceptable by current society. It should not decide instead that the insubordination is now acceptable because the proscribed penalty is no longer reasonable by societal standards.
I think trying to rationalize a historical standard strictly against modern norms is a recipe for disaster since intent and motivation are inherent in the original form and the modern state of mind has diverged from that original thought process enough to distort the intent with a modern interpretation. A modern look must be able to comprehend the historical thought process as well as the modern.
In my experience, most Christians think Jews are Karaites. They project their doctrine of "sola scriptura" onto Judaism. They have no conception of what the Talmud and the Oral Law is. They thus think that we Jews are not following our religion when we aren't stoning unruly children and adulterers. Their logic is: The "Old Testament" laws are impossible to keep. Therefore, Jesus!
Not all Christians, just most Christians.
A lot of Christians study the Talmud and keep the laws of Moses, and I am always speaking up for the Talmud because there is just so much information that is found there and no place else if a person really wants to understand the comings and goings of the temple.
I am always speaking up for Pharisees and how most Christians think it's a derogatory name and it isn't.
I would say that my fathers were Pharisees and they instructed me to try and keep the laws of Moses or to at least acknowledge that Jews sit in the seat of Moses and they are my appointed authority.
I don't know what a karaite is, so I haven't made that association. I am protestant, so not personally acquainted with the doctrine of "sola scriptura", although I think I can figure it out by the language.
A Karaite is a Jew who only considers the Tanach (Torah + Prophetic Books + Sacred Writings) to have authority and they do not recognize the Oral Law.
Many practices are found in the Oral Law but are found nowhere in the Written Torah. Like what blessings to use, what tefillin ("phylacteries") are supposed to be made of, what makes a person a valid witness in Jewish law, etc.
Quote:
I, naturally, held the belief that the Oral Law was subject to the same degradation of fact as any orally transmitted communication and that over the generations it had been adapted and modified by circumstance and bias to form that may or may not be in harmony with it's original form. I do not think that Jews are not following their religion, but rather the Jewish religion has morphed over time into a new format. Perhaps you have been more successful than Christianity in keeping to the core tenants over the generations, perhaps not. I am certainly not in a position to argue one way or the other with any confidence.
I have no comment about this, because most religions will consider other religions that derived from the same source to be corrupted and degraded while claiming their branch to be the only unadulterated one. Muslims accuse Christians and Jews of degrading their own religion, Protestants accuse Catholics, and Orthodox Jews accuse non-Orthodox Jews.
Quote:
The logic I was taught growing up is that the Old Testament was the contract between God and his chosen people and the priesthood fleshed that law out from the ten commandments into a full legal system (outlined mostly in Leviticus) and the penalty for violation of the contract was an elaborate system of sacrifice.
I'm not a Talmudist but I'm sure a lot of people in theflipflop's community could better explain what the Oral Law is. They know the insides and outs of this elaborate system. However, for better or for worse, observant Jews are not violating this contract even though we are not offering sacrifices. This is something that Christians don't understand and think Jesus is the solution to.
Quote:
The Talmud is a set of books that define the Torah by use of opinion, commentary or argument. Many of these opinions are based on circumstances that are no longer relevant or accepted. Should we continue to accept these opinions or should we reject the Talmud and return to the Torah for new discussion and commentary?
In my humble opinion, the outdated commentary and opinion still has value when viewed in the context of the time. Any new commentary can expound upon the topic with valid insight as long as the historical context is considered and is not in opposition with the new modern example.
For better or for worse, this is often correct. Certain laws remain on the books and must be followed even if the original reasons for the laws no longer hold. They can only be repealed if there is a Sanhedrin.
Quote:
Since Stoning was previously mentioned, I will continue to use that as an illustration. If the historical commentary recommended stoning as a resolution to a specific act of insubordination, then a new commentary should offer penalty similar in severity or impact that is more acceptable by current society. It should not decide instead that the insubordination is now acceptable because the proscribed penalty is no longer reasonable by societal standards.
That's not how it works. The Oral Law has spelled out explicit conditions that must be met for the unruly child to be found guilty and punishable. And these conditions are basically impossible to meet. This does not mean that the law has been repealed:
Originally Posted by johnrex62
The Talmud is a set of books that define the Torah by use of opinion, commentary or argument. Many of these opinions are based on circumstances that are no longer relevant or accepted. Should we continue to accept these opinions or should we reject the Talmud and return to the Torah for new discussion and commentary?
In my humble opinion, the outdated commentary and opinion still has value when viewed in the context of the time. Any new commentary can expound upon the topic with valid insight as long as the historical context is considered and is not in opposition with the new modern example.
Additionally there are two Talmuds. I've read both. From my perspective it is commentary on the Torah. Why? Because as one reads it there are conflicting points made within the same chapter and if certain sects don't agree with what is written in one Talmud they will jump to the other. Certain sects go further and state that the Torah is worthless without the Talmud. They basically state that the Torah is the cliff notes for the Talmud and thus the Talmud is a closed book. Yet numerous times a year we find these same sects finding ways to circumvent what is written in the Talmud for them to do things that many of us consider immoral, unethical or simply stupid.
Additionally there are two Talmuds. I've read both. From my perspective it is commentary on the Torah. Why? Because as one reads it there are conflicting points made within the same chapter and if certain sects don't agree with what is written in one Talmud they will jump to the other. Certain sects go further and state that the Torah is worthless without the Talmud. They basically state that the Torah is the cliff notes for the Talmud and thus the Talmud is a closed book. Yet numerous times a year we find these same sects finding ways to circumvent what is written in the Talmud for them to do things that many of us consider immoral, unethical or simply stupid.
So you are saying, in effect, that the Jews are the same as the Christians. Don't like something, start a sect and denounce it. Just kidding.
This is the same as most religious systems where people differ in opinion. We find a way to rationalize what we prefer and urge others to conform to us. Since there is effectively no active enforcement division to keep us in adherence, we are on the honor system and most of us can rationalize our honor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am protestant, so not personally acquainted with the doctrine of "sola scriptura", although I think I can figure it out by the language.
