or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Judaism and origins ~ spinoff thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judaism and origins ~ spinoff thread - Page 3

post #41 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelovedBird View Post
Such as not using "old fashioned" hebrew in services, having music and choirs. Not having different accents or appearances than the surrounding culture, etc. As CO said, asthetics.



The changes brought about by the enlightenment were the jews leaving the ghettos and mingling with the outside world. Your claim that they were something else doesn't make it so. Wikipedia says nothing about the aims of the enlightenment it talks about the the changes brought about by the Enlightenment. Which was that the jews were free to leave the ghetto and mingle with those outside, and then because of the mingling wanting to fit in and adapt their religious life to the religious life of the outside culture "a mench in de gas a yid in de heim" (A man on the street, a jew [only] at home) or something like that.
That is fact. And here you are again, arguing with jews, the facts of their own religion and history.

Now, lets take your bolded statement:

Hmm, and that has to do with the FOUNDING of conservativeism and the impetus to that how?
Point taken. You say that Conservative Judaism was founded for aesthetic reasons alone. But, may we add, as its theology developed, it embraced the aims of the Englightenment such as reason, logic and an objective (ie; less mythological/ theistic) view of the universe. As wikipedia says.

Is that correct?

Quote:
What does modern scholarship mean? Have you read iggros moshe lately?
I am not sure why you are using the term iggros moshe and then laughing at me.

Quote:
And your bottom quote has to do with this how?
Sorry, you lost me.

Quote:
As Penelope said, how about keeping the thread on topic?
I think the OP got her original questions answered a few pages ago. If you agree, then I guess there is no point in talking to me about idols and Jewish sects.
post #42 of 105
Daryllll - that just goes to show you what happens when you rely on Wikipedia for your info. One is tempted to paraphrase c'o here "I don't care how many years you spent in Hebrew school, I am the master of google!"

The pp's got it right. The reform mov't was created to modernize Judaism in terms of acculturation. They adopted a sermon in English, translation of the Hebrew bible, adopting the decorum of worship in a church and rejected the idea of a Jewish homeland in Israel. Obviously Reform has evolved since then. The conservative mov't felt they had thrown too much overboard and was formed to CONSERVE a more traditional form of Judaism. Neither was formed on a basis of textual criticism.
post #43 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelovedBird View Post

FYI, "the oxford" insn't torah, so what it says is irrelevant to judaism.
The Oxford gave us some useful cross references as to what the use of ark of the covenant was described in various verses in the scriptures.

You are free to look these up in the Hebrew version should you desire.
post #44 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL View Post
The Oxford gave us some useful cross references as to what the use of ark of the covenant was described in various verses in the scriptures.

You are free to look these up in the Hebrew version should you desire.
I think right there you miss the entire point. "Looking up the Hebrew version" really isn't that enlightening. Most of the Jewish understanding is based on the oral tradtion as recorded in the Talmud and responsa. I will point out that even those who rely on textual criticism still turn these sources first and take them into consideration when studying a topic.
post #45 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL View Post
Point taken. You say that Conservative Judaism was founded for aesthetic reasons alone. But, may we add, as its theology developed, it embraced the aims of the Englightenment such as reason, logic and an objective (ie; less mythological/ theistic) view of the universe. As widipedia says.

Is that correct?
No, it isn't correct, not even what you say I said. You can read my posts to see what I actually said.



Quote:
I am not sure why you are using the term iggros moshe and then laughing at me.
Because what you are saying and claiming is laughable, in light of "modern scholarship" like iggros moshe.
Just TRY and tell me that I am not even allowed to use the name of BOOKS if they are hebrew!



Quote:
I think the OP got her original questions answered a few pages ago. If you agree, then I guess there is no point in talking to me about idols and Jewish sects.
I agree that there is no point in discussion idols and jewish texts with you.
post #46 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by mom2seven View Post
I think right there you miss the entire point. "Looking up the Hebrew version" really isn't that enlightening. Most of the Jewish understanding is based on the oral tradtion as recorded in the Talmud and responsa. I will point out that even those who rely on textual criticism still turn these sources first and take them into consideration when studying a topic.
Thank you. And of course I was like "hebrew version?" Like is there a different VERSION of the torah??

Oh, and another for the thought that I need Daryl's information to know about the aron, the keruvim, the kodesh kdashim, etc. I made a model in high school and can tell you all kinds of stuff about it. I don't need to look it up to know that what Daryl is saying is not the realty of MY religion.
post #47 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelovedBird View Post
What I mean by that, is that this "discussion" is ridiculous. You telling me what you learned in your english bible, based on study by who knows who (noone jewish. I'm sure)...
Wrong. Jews are involved in the translation and interpretation of the Oxford.
When there is a C'ian interpretation made of the Hebrew Scripture, it is noted as such.

Quote:
to INFORM ME of what Judaism is about. I am telling you that what you are saying your source says is not true in terms of judaism. The rest of the thread will look like this if you continue-
"it was a seat"
"it wasn't a seat"
"Yes it was"
"no it wasn't"
Why? I am not asking for an exhaustive rabbinical interpretation. A simple effort on your part is to go to Shemoth (Exodus) and just see what the Hebrew words are used to describe the use of the cover/seat and cherubim of the ark. Not a big deal.

Quote:
Now you claim to want to learn. It doesn't look like you are trying to learn. You want to learn, start, learn aleph bet, pick up seforim, learn. Nothing is stopping you but yourself. But don't tell me what judaism says when you don't even know what seforim means.
OK. Thanks for the advice. I am not trying to tell you "what Judaism says", I am discussing one particular topic, the ark and the cherubim from whence your god spoke to his priests.
post #48 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelovedBird View Post
Because what you are saying and claiming is laughable, in light of "modern scholarship" like iggros moshe.
Just TRY and tell me that I am not even allowed to use the name of BOOKS if they are hebrew!
It wasn't capitalized. I could not tell if it was a term, a name, a book or what.


Rabbi Moshe Feinstein - (1895 - 1986), New York City, leading halachic decisor of his time and a foremost leader of Jewry, author of responsa (Iggros Moshe) and commentary on the Torah (Darash Moshe).


Thanks for the info.
post #49 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aisraeltax View Post



WRT Reform Judaism, I believe this is a gross misunderstanding of its origins. A movement that began in large part to assimilate with other cultures is not necessarily one that is based on "rationalism and the scientific method". On many occassions, it has signified the beginning of the end of a culture, race, or other sect. Please don't take this the wrong way, I identify with Reform Judaism more than any other sect of Judaism (with the above limitation). But the POV expressed in this quote is dangerous, IMHO.
Now you are the second person to scold me after I already conceded that point. I am sorry for my mistake. :
post #50 of 105
Just ftr - Conservative Judaism as a mov't believes that they are obligated in Jewish law. Shabbos, kashrus, the whole bit. Where they differ from Orthodox is in the interpretation. I mentioned in another thread about how we don't overturn established and accepted precedents in rabbinic rulings on Jewish law, but in the Conservative mov't they believe you can. That is the main difference between the two. They have used this difference to create some 'innovative' rulings that are not accepted by the Orthodox. Textual criticism is sort of an aside and ascribed to in various degrees by different scholars who affiliate with the mov't. It is not a tenet of the mov't itself.
post #51 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mom2seven View Post
I think right there you miss the entire point. "Looking up the Hebrew version" really isn't that enlightening. Most of the Jewish understanding is based on the oral tradtion as recorded in the Talmud and responsa. I will point out that even those who rely on textual criticism still turn these sources first and take them into consideration when studying a topic.
I see where the disconnect here is then. I was wondering about what the ancient Hebrews may have been thinking when they wrote all the things about the nations and stiff-necked Hebrews worshiping idols of metal, stone and wood, while at the same time they had in their temple a box containing holy relics topped by a lid with 2 "graven images", the cherubim, on it. They seemed to understand the box was only a symbol or focus (or medium) of their god, and not their actual god, yet they depicted the "nations" and bad Hebrews as being so stupid as to think their statues (Asherim etc) were the actual gods.

I was not addressing what kind of rabbinial commentary was made about the ark in the past 2000 yrs of the current era.

Once again, I guess I must reiterate, I am not a student of current era Judaism. I have been studying the history of the Hebrews as shown in the bible and in archeological research.

Is the distinction clear yet?

As far as oral Torah (Mishnah) being the definitive elucidation and expansion of the written, I hold in mind it was first written down in 300 CE, approx 900 yrs after the Tanakh was first written down. I can believe some of the oral traditions could have remained unchanged for 900-1800 years, but knowing what I do about the accretion of myth to other divinities, I am doubtful it remained entirely static for one to two millenia.
post #52 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL View Post
I am doubtful it remained entirely static for one to two millenia.
No, it didn't and that why there are arguments in the mishna. The mishna was written down for the very fact that the chachamim (wise ones) decided that it was being forgotten, so they wrote it down. Including their disagreements (discepancy in rememberance). Whether teffilin is like this or like that is a valid torah discussion. The idea that "totafot" meant Hashem gave us a word and meant for us to decide for ourselves what it is is not.

Just to point out, this is another area where you are showing a lack of knowledge. And this is critical to understanding the first thing about torah.
post #53 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL View Post
Now you are the second person to scold me after I already conceded that point. I am sorry for my mistake. :
I must have missed that. But, I'm glad you did.
post #54 of 105
Ok, this is the Official Spin-off of Another Thread. (Namely, the 'questions for practicing Jewish people' thread.) Sorry for the choppiness, but the thread was going in two different directions and I think this will be easier to follow. Please post in the appropriate thread.
post #55 of 105
Oh darn Penelope. Now we can't complain that the thread is off topic.
post #56 of 105
You can still complain! I could split the thread into infinite small chunks! It would be fun!
post #57 of 105
I say you split this thread into 57 1-post threads and the other thread into however many posts it has.
post #58 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL View Post

Why? I am not asking for an exhaustive rabbinical interpretation. A simple effort on your part is to go to Shemoth (Exodus) and just see what the Hebrew words are used to describe the use of the cover/seat and cherubim of the ark. Not a big deal.
Another thing you don't understand about torah and judaism. Yes, it means I would have to study it. Which I absolutely do not have time for right now. Sukkos is tomrw and there is much to do. Including building the sukkah, to the specifications one can find in.....thats right.......the mishna.
post #59 of 105
:
post #60 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelovedBird View Post
No, it didn't and that why there are arguments in the mishna. The mishna was written down for the very fact that the chachamim (wise ones) decided that it was being forgotten, so they wrote it down. Including their disagreements (discepancy in rememberance). Whether teffilin is like this or like that is a valid torah discussion. The idea that "totafot" meant Hashem gave us a word and meant for us to decide for ourselves what it is is not.

Just to point out, this is another area where you are showing a lack of knowledge. And this is critical to understanding the first thing about torah.
Well, I don't know if it's the first thing, but you probably meant that as a figure of speech.

I actually do know that there are hundreds if not thousands of rabbinical disagreements on record. Biblical interpretation is so hard. I don't know how people can decided what is what. And as the world changes the Torah changes. You can see that in the written Torah as is. Newer books reinterpret the older ones. The culture changes from herders to agriculturalists to city dwellers that trade with large empires. Other cultures/ traditions, languages, calendars, science and cosmologies enter into the mix. The theology develops. Can't be helped.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Judaism and origins ~ spinoff thread