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.
What a Jewish rabbi thought of what? I know a couple and can get you an answer...
The contents of Hannibal's #60m above, and similar. It claims to be a correct view of how the Mosaic Law is to be corr3ctly understood. I doubt that a Goy would no, let alone one as left -filed as Flavius, here.
Well, I agree there, though this rather means that people can read into it whatever they want and those coming preaching their own fantasies as something the rest of us should take seriously are rather wasting everyone's time.
hat is actually relevant on this thread is the idea that Noah and the Flood actually happened and moreover that Genesis is a reliable record of how it happened. Those who regard it as a symbolic or metaphorical myth, never mind those who regard the exodus and the Mosaic law as symbolic and not about real people and real sacrifies (tell that to a 1st c Jew), really have noting to contribute here.
Those who do regard the Noah story as factual have to explain how Noah knew about practices that wouldn't be known until later. Ad we have already been through all the possible explanations.
It really comes down to (yet again) going with cumulative doubts about the whole story,or taking it as true on Faith and just rewriting the story as necessary to make it work.
Remarkably similar to the claim of Noachian expertise in Ironwork (1) , centuries before iron was known, we have a claim of knowledge of Jewish ritual before it was given. Similarly it can be claimed it was known already since Noah apparently knew which was a clean animal so would know how to sacrifice it. So since he needed to steel frame the Ark, he knew metalwork as well.
But it is odd that both the rites and the Law it was part of, as well as any knowledge of Ironwork, which had to be introduced after the 10th c BC, both vanished and had to be given or learned yet again.
That these are simply Shakespearian anachronisms (2) inadvertently added by writers of the post 7th C BC, explains it all perfectly.
(1) Iron framing is needed to make a boat that size seaworthy for a year.
(2) In "Anthony and Cleopatra" they talk of what O'.clock it is and of going in to play billiards.
The contents of Hannibal's #60m above, and similar. It claims to be a correct view of how the Mosaic Law is to be corr3ctly understood. I doubt that a Goy would no, let alone one as left -filed as Flavius, here.
I just read through post 61 by Hannibal. Something about hidden laws and the human body and like that. Yeah...no.
He's not off base in a certain sense when he says that a holiday is not "about" the sacrifices of that day, but I don't think anyone would claim that the essence/purpose of a holiday is about the ritual observations assigned to it. But a lot of the other stuff? Not so much.
I just read through post 61 by Hannibal. Something about hidden laws and the human body and like that. Yeah...no.
He's not off base in a certain sense when he says that a holiday is not "about" the sacrifices of that day, but I don't think anyone would claim that the essence/purpose of a holiday is about the ritual observations assigned to it. But a lot of the other stuff? Not so much.
I don't know how exactly Orthodox Jews would see it but from a New Testament view, every law is about people and we just have to find that hidden law.
You write down all the laws of goats, of bulls, of doves and of any animal, and it is always a lesson to somebody in their walk with God.
1 Corinthians 9 8Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
Every law, not just every law of ever animal, but every law.
God said he never wanted all those sacrifices and people should look back and say,'' WHAT? Then why did you have us kill them''
Just as the law of children proves the most important lesson.
If your child disrespects you, you should take him to the high priest and let him be stoned. People assume these are laws for humans, but they are laws for humans that think they can rear a righteous child, but not a child of flesh, the child is a piece of God put in a person like a seed.
Supposedly, Adam named every single living thing and you can't even name all the birds in ten years. Supposedly Adam tilled and worked his garden so long that he brought forth many harvests, and then he was alone so long that he became bored and God said that it was not good for him to be alone. Then he died.
All this takes place in 24 hours, tilling harvesting through seasons and you have named everything alive in 24 hours.
I've given up even trying to make any sense of this. ...Symbolism, metaphor and analogous interpretation is of no interest to me...
thank you for being honest and straightforward.
if going beyond the superficial level is of no interest, then understanding also stays at a superficial level.
if something is not of interest then certainly there is no reason to pursue it.
I've given up even trying to make any sense of this. I'll have to stick with three basic approaches to the Bible..all of it.
(1) it happenned pretty much as written
(2) it didn't happen as written.
(3) some of it happened as written.
Symbolism, metaphor and analogous interpretation is of no interest to me, as it is just a way of re-inflating the Bible after deflating by (2).
If I may chime in:
When discussing stuff with (Orthodox) Jews keep in mind: The Torah has 4 "levels": a simple interpretation, an allusionary interpretation, an homiletical interpretation and a mystical interpretation.
So, not everythng that is written is necessarily to be understood as written. It seems to me that's a completey different approach than the one you have.
Edit: The above is according to Jewish mysticism as I learned it.
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.
