Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 10:07 AM

I beg your pardon??? Liars in which respect??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Joseph_and_Aseneth
This predates Rabbinic Judaism by a hundred or so years.

Jew's were liars for religion long before Rabbinic Judaism, even from the beginning of their 'form' of religion.
Proverbs 30:6 & John 8:44

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 10:09 AM

No, I do not advocate a literal interpretation at all. I am neither a Karaite nor a Saduccee. However, the Torah has a storyline that is incomplete in the written Torah itself. So we look to other ancient sources to find other information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Well, you could wonder why the whole story had to be created for no purpose. Who would care that Asenat was specifically the daughter of Dina?? It doesn't make any inherent difference to the story one way or the other. The Torah doesn't talk about Dina's daughter anyway. Who cares? Unless there is more to it than meets the eye.

Joseph_and_Aseneth

Quote:

is an ancient apocryphal expansion of the Book of Genesis's account of the patriarch Joseph's marriage to Aseneth.

This predates Rabbinic Judaism by a hundred or so years.

This is my own opinion, but Joseph is sort of a gay boy and so there is extra attention to his heterosexuality.

Not to lecture, but you are writing in favor of literal interpretation (there was a Joseph/Asentath, three angels visited Abraham). This isn't exactly a mainstream view, especially around here, therefore your faith that your view is correct can be abrasive.

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 10:09 AM

Huh???? Could you get past your hatred and try to be substantive??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Well, you could wonder why the whole story had to be created for no purpose. Who would care that Asenat was specifically the daughter of Dina?? It doesn't make any inherent difference to the story one way or the other. The Torah doesn't talk about Dina's daughter anyway.

The old rabbi's took particular delight in making up imaginative shit.
Like one huge liars club contest to see who could raid the Torah to fabricate the most involved and ridiculous set of lies and false history.

sotto voce · 12-06-2011, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Well, that all depends on what you mean by rabbinic Judaism. As far as I know Jews did not follow Tibetan lamas or gurus to explain and interpret the Torah's teachings. The rabbis were the "teachers" who were part of the people. Before Hillel, going back, way back.

How far back?

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 10:20 AM

Well, according to traditional Judaism ("my word against his word"), all the way back to Moses and on to the Elders.

Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Well, that all depends on what you mean by rabbinic Judaism. As far as I know Jews did not follow Tibetan lamas or gurus to explain and interpret the Torah's teachings. The rabbis were the "teachers" who were part of the people. Before Hillel, going back, way back.

How far back?

sotto voce · 12-06-2011, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How far back?

Quote:

Well, according to traditional Judaism ("my word against his word"), all the way back to Moses and on to the Elders.

Elders are not rabbis.

The first use of 'rabbi' in the OT or Tanakh- where is it, please?

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 10:36 AM

The terms don't matter. Yemenite terms called their rabbis MARI. Sephardi Jews call their rabbis CHACHAM.
In all likelihood the teachers/rabbis were called TEACHER or something else. What difference does it make?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How far back?

Quote:

Well, according to traditional Judaism ("my word against his word"), all the way back to Moses and on to the Elders.

Elders are not rabbis.

The first use of 'rabbi' in the OT or Tanakh- where is it, please?

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 10:39 AM

Notice that none of these great teachers of Jewish history in the link below are referred to by anything other than their name. However, I would assume that out of deference and respect people would refer to them as "Our Teacher" or something similar.

See:
http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html

sotto voce · 12-06-2011, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The terms don't matter.

So all elder men are rabbis? Well, well.

semiopen · 12-06-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Notice that none of these great teachers of Jewish history in the link below are referred to by anything other than their name. However, I would assume that out of deference and respect people would refer to them as "Our Teacher" or something similar.

See:
http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html

Origins_of_Rabbinic_Judaism

Quote:

it was only by the Hellenic period that most Jews came to believe that their god was the only god (and thus, the god of everyone), and that the record of his revelation (the Torah) contained within it universal truths. This attitude reflected a growing Gentile interest in Judaism (some Greeks and Romans considered the Jews a most "philosophical" people because of their belief in a god that cannot be represented visually), and growing Jewish interest in Greek philosophy, which sought to establish universal truths, thus leading—potentially—to the idea of monotheism, at least in the sense that "all gods are one". It was also at this time that the notion of a clearly bounded Jewish nation identical with the Jewish religion formed.[7] According to one scholar, the clash between the early Christians and Pharisees that ultimately led to the birth of the Christian religion and Rabbinic Judaism reflected the struggle by Jews to reconcile their claims to national particularism and theological universalism.[8]

I don't see any reason to back further than the Hellenic period, mostly because there isn't the slightest evidence further back.

You have said that the going back to Moses deal is false.

Even

Ezra is hardly clear as an historical figure.

Quote:

Those who argue against the historicity of Ezra argue that the presentation style of Ezra as a leader and lawgiver resembles that of Moses. There are also similarities between Ezra the priest-scribe (but not high priest) and Nehemiah the secular governor on the one hand and Joshua and Zerubbabel on the other hand. The early 2nd century Jewish author Ben Sira praises Nehemiah, but makes no mention of Ezra.[20]

I like to that think that I honestly tried to reconcile a traditional view of Judaism with my belief system. It just was too absurd.

As I mentioned previously, your self assurance on these matters might be interpretted as praiseworthy but a case could also be made for annoying.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-06-2011, 10:39 AM	#48
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Notice that none of these great teachers of Jewish history in the link below are referred to by anything other than their name. However, I would assume that out of deference and respect people would refer to them as "Our Teacher" or something similar. See: http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.