Jump to content


Photo

Talmud questions


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#21 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 05:07 PM

That seems weirdly confrontational and to have come out of nowhere...I didn't get that impression at all. Are you really this touchy about having your faith questioned?


Alexander, Jews have a long history of being abused by other religions. That resentment dies hard. Though Judaism arguably had one of its richest eras under Spanish Muslims, they were not treated as "equals". Now you have a large part of the Muslim world at odds with Jews and Israel. The rhetoric can be poisonous and there are Muslims who violently act on these things. It begs the question of Rose: what do you think of Muslim radicalism? Do you see this as a severe problem for the Muslims? How do you feel when Westerners characterize Islam as a violent religion? Is this characterization wholly false?

Many educated Jews are sincerely scared of Islam. Secular scholarship around the world does not always seem strong among the Arabs. It can be hard to get a tack on moderate Muslims. Surely they exist in numbers but what is their relationship to the poisonous rhetoric? How do they confront the problems of literacy and education in the Arab world?

#22 rvn2590

rvn2590

    Rebbe

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 08:00 PM

Suffice it to say...all sayings of the prophet (hadith) are rigerously authenicated through many channels..like i mentioned looking at the chain of narration, looking to see if many individuals from different countries are narrating the same thing, ensuring theres no break in the chain of narration etc, ensuring each narrator is known and their character, record of lying in the past or weak memory which may mean what their narrating is unreliable etc.. I cant help feel like nothing like this exists for the mishna/gamera which is why i wouldnt accept it as authentic.

Although someone mentioned something similar existing earlier..i would really appreciate being linked up to this.
(snip)


Pirkei Avot 1:1 explains the "chain of tradition" where the Oral Law was passed down throughout the generations.
"Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly."

The detaIs of how this happened are laid out in the commentary of the Rambam (Maimonides) on Pirkei Avot 1:1. I don't have a copy to quote from at home perhaps if you are interested you can track it down on-line. The explanation the Rambam gave on how the Oral Law was passed down is very persuasive authenticating the relability of the Mishnah.
טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Rav Tal "The evil forces of the world are the leftists who act against sanctity."

#23 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 10:59 AM

rose - nobody here really cares about your opinion. You want to ask questions fine, but if you want to start proselytizing there are better forums for you to do that!

Whoa, who peed in your Matzah?

#24 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 12:50 PM

"Alexander, Jews have a long history of being abused by other religions. That resentment dies hard. "

Well, I hate to stir up old emnities, particularly since I tend to think more highly of Judaism then most other religons, but since you brought the subject up....

The ancient rivalry between Jews and Christians was not solely based upon the charge that the Jews had arranged the execution of Jesus Christ (Christians believe, after all, that Christ was actually sent to die) but more I think on the persecution of the early Christians themselves. Jewish religous authorities of the era viewed Chistians as heretics and blaphemers (which I suppose they were from the Jewish point of view) and some Jewish leaders declared that belonging to the new religon was a Capital offense.

Saint Paul, the man credited with establishing many familiar Christian ideas and moralities was essentially a renegade Jewish Inquisitor, who before his own conversion used to arrange the stoning executions of Christian leaders, notably Saint Stephen.

This behavior on the part of some Jews would backfire centuries later in the medieval era, when Jews began settling in Christian Europe. In medieval Europe, the roles were completely reversed; the powerful religous establishment was a Christian one, and the Jews were the powerless minority. The subsequent persecution of Jews in middle-ages Europe was revenge, pure and simple.

In view of this nearly two millenia long pattern of persecution and oppression on both sides, I would describe at least the emnity between Christianity and Judaism as more a case of mutual cruelty then a case of the Jews alone being the 'abused' party.

Happily, the tensions between Jews and Christian have lessened in recent years, and Jewish Israel and the nominally Christian U.S. have become allies.


PS, I'd also like to say that I'm glad that I finally got around to joining Hashkafah.com. I've been reading it for a while now out of a personal interest in Jewish culture and history, and I've read some very interesting and enlightening things on this website. Keep up the good work!


#25 Silent J

Silent J

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 489 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:28 PM

PS, I'd also like to say that I'm glad that I finally got around to joining Hashkafah.com. I've been reading it for a while now out of a personal interest in Jewish culture and history, and I've read some very interesting and enlightening things on this website. Keep up the good work!


Thanks for joining!

Spread the word and Happy Posting!
Frumkeit without Mentchlichkeit is not Yiddishkeit!

LIKE our page on Facebook: Hashkafah.com

#26 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 07:39 PM

"Alexander, Jews have a long history of being abused by other religions. That resentment dies hard. "

Well, I hate to stir up old emnities, particularly since I tend to think more highly of Judaism then most other religons, but since you brought the subject up....

The ancient rivalry between Jews and Christians was not solely based upon the charge that the Jews had arranged the execution of Jesus Christ (Christians believe, after all, that Christ was actually sent to die) but more I think on the persecution of the early Christians themselves. Jewish religous authorities of the era viewed Chistians as heretics and blaphemers (which I suppose they were from the Jewish point of view) and some Jewish leaders declared that belonging to the new religon was a Capital offense.

Saint Paul, the man credited with establishing many familiar Christian ideas and moralities was essentially a renegade Jewish Inquisitor, who before his own conversion used to arrange the stoning executions of Christian leaders, notably Saint Stephen.

This behavior on the part of some Jews would backfire centuries later in the medieval era, when Jews began settling in Christian Europe. In medieval Europe, the roles were completely reversed; the powerful religous establishment was a Christian one, and the Jews were the powerless minority. The subsequent persecution of Jews in middle-ages Europe was revenge, pure and simple.

In view of this nearly two millenia long pattern of persecution and oppression on both sides, I would describe at least the emnity between Christianity and Judaism as more a case of mutual cruelty then a case of the Jews alone being the 'abused' party.

Happily, the tensions between Jews and Christian have lessened in recent years, and Jewish Israel and the nominally Christian U.S. have become allies.


PS, I'd also like to say that I'm glad that I finally got around to joining Hashkafah.com. I've been reading it for a while now out of a personal interest in Jewish culture and history, and I've read some very interesting and enlightening things on this website. Keep up the good work!

I don't agree. Jews were never the "powerful religious establishment" nor the dominant religion or culture. They were always powerless. You made that up so that your theory sounded more secure. The Jews lived in a world that was "Roman" which became later "Christian". There was never a Jewish nation-state with state policies that called for the persecution of Christians. I don't know enough history to know if reigning, dominant Christian nation-states had state policies calling for the persecution of Jews (I think they did, probably in the Dark Ages), but certainly the Christian state sanctioned persecution as a matter of course, if not openly encouraging it.

Furthermore, there is no greater hypocrisy than creating a religion of "brotherhood and love" and then persecuting and killing others. None.

#27 ijs

ijs

    Hocker

  • Members
  • 151 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 08:50 PM

Furthermore, there is no greater hypocrisy than creating a religion of "brotherhood and love" and then persecuting and killing others. None.


Not to mention that all those ethical imperatives of Xianity derived from Judaism in the first place.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chaim Yosef ben Yaakov Avraham

חיים יוסף בך יעקב אברהם

#28 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:34 PM

Oh, where to start on this ill-informed post.

Jews were never the "powerful religious establishment" nor the dominant religion or culture

King David, King Solomon, and the other great Jewish kings of old would disagree with you there.


And besides, during the early days of Christianity, the Jewish kingdom was a so-called "client" state of Rome--- an arrangment in which a nation payed taxes to Rome and allowed a strong Roman prescence in its territory but was allowed to be its own master in many ways, including religon and economics. Hence, the Jewish temple, and not the Romans was the highest religous authority in the Jewish kingdom--- and a "powerful religous establishment" it was.

There was never a Jewish nation-state with state policies that called for the persecution of Christians.

Jeez, I wish somebody had told the Sanhedrin that before they executed Saint Stephen!

Christian nation-states had state policies calling for the persecution of Jews (I think they did, probably in the Dark Ages), but certainly the Christian state sanctioned persecution as a matter of course, if not openly encouraging it.


Furthermore, there is no greater hypocrisy than creating a religion of "brotherhood and love" and then persecuting and killing others. None.

Yes, it is quite regrettable and tragic that many Jews suffered and were killed by corrupt and immoral Christians. But on the other hand, many other Christians recognized this contradiction of both Christian teaching and basic morality and tried to combat it. For instance, in 1159, the Papacy (which is what I assume what you mean by 'the Christian state') forbade Christians from inflicting violence on Jews on pain of excommunication, forbade Christians from testifying against Jews in court, forbade Christians from forcing Jews to convert to Chistianity, and declared that the Jews were under the the Church's protection. One of the bad results of the Papacy's decline in power was that many Christian monarchs and clerics began to once again feel free to abuse Jews in their jurisdiction.

#29 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 06:38 PM

King David, King Solomon, and the other great Jewish kings of old would disagree with you there.


Except for someone who doesnt care about scholarship or historical documentation, there really isn't much out there about King David and King Solomon's reign outside of the Jewish cannon. Are you somehow trying to say that King David and King Solomon (according to you the "jewish nation-states") had anti-Christian policies like Medieval Christianity had anti-Jewish policies? I'll tell you why that's insane. Christianity hadn't been concocted yet. I think you got confused between your earlier post and this one.

And besides, during the early days of Christianity, the Jewish kingdom was a so-called "client" state of Rome--- an arrangment in which a nation payed taxes to Rome and allowed a strong Roman prescence in its territory but was allowed to be its own master in many ways, including religon and economics. Hence, the Jewish temple, and not the Romans was the highest religous authority in the Jewish kingdom--- and a "powerful religous establishment" it was. Jeez, I wish somebody had told the Sanhedrin that before they executed Saint Stephen!

I've actually never heard of Saint Stephen outside of a Grateful Dead song but I will look him up.
footnote from the wikipedia page on Roman Empire:
  • ^ H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, The Crisis Under Gaius Caligula, pages 254-256: "The reign of Gaius Caligula (37-41) witnessed the first open break between the Jews and the Julio-Claudian empire. Until then—if one accepts Sejanus' heyday and the trouble caused by the census after Archelaus' banishment—there was usually an atmosphere of understanding between the Jews and the empire ... These relations deteriorated seriously during Caligula's reign, and, though after his death the peace was outwardly re-established, considerable bitterness remained on both sides. ... Caligula ordered that a golden statue of himself be set up in the Temple in Jerusalem. ... Only Caligula's death, at the hands of Roman conspirators (41), prevented the outbreak of a Jewish-Roman war that might well have spread to the entire East."
It sounds like before Caligula there was some "understanding" between Rome and the Jews but I wouldnt call it mastery. I don't believe the Jews ever had state autonomy like you claim. The scarcity of historical information on King David would preclude his kingdom as a proof.

#30 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 09:18 PM

. Are you somehow trying to say that King David and King Solomon (according to you the "jewish nation-states") had anti-Christian policies like Medieval Christianity had anti-Jewish policies? I'll tell you why that's insane. Christianity hadn't been concocted yet. I think you got confused between your earlier post and this one.


My dear @ss, I think you are a trifle mixed up. Let us revisit your post one step at a time. You said

Jews were never the "powerful religious establishment" nor the dominant religion or culture

And I mentioned Kings David and Solomon as examples of Jewish monarchs who were in fact locally dominant in their respective times. I never said that they persecuted Christians---oweing to the fact that they lived in the 9th Century B.C. this would indeed be a silly assertion to make, and I never made it.



It sounds like before Caligula there was some "understanding" between Rome and the Jews but I wouldnt call it mastery. I don't believe the Jews ever had state autonomy like you claim.

We've been over this. The Jewish Kingdom was a 'client state' of Rome. Local Jewish leaders submited to Roman authority and were in return allowed a limited amount of autonomy.

http://www.historum....century-ce.html



I've actually never heard of Saint Stephen outside of a Grateful Dead song---

I'm not suprised, actually. You yourself said earlier that you do not know enough history to make a definative statement, but this does not seem to stop you from weightily pontificating about it.

#31 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 09:50 PM

And I mentioned Kings David and Solomon as examples of Jewish monarchs who were in fact locally dominant in their respective times.

How do you know this to be true?

We've been over this. The Jewish Kingdom was a 'client state' of Rome. Local Jewish leaders submited to Roman authority and were in return allowed a limited amount of autonomy.
http://www.historum....century-ce.html

I don't feel like you've backed up your original assertion: "In medieval Europe, the roles were completely reversed; the powerful religous establishment was a Christian one, and the Jews were the powerless minority. The subsequent persecution of Jews in middle-ages Europe was revenge, pure and simple." The website you've offered is unclear as to how much autonomy the Jews were given under the Roman Empire. How did you come to the conclusion that they were a "powerful religious establishment"?

#32 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:25 PM

How do you know this to be true?

From AskMoses.com:
1. The resume


David was a powerful king who wisely governed the tribes of Israel, forging them into a united nation. G-d blessed him to be a valiant soldier, a great military strategist, an able administrator, a diplomat, a composer and a musician.


2. The war-hawk


David extended Israel’s lands in the north, triumphing over Israel’s enemies the Canaanites and the Philistines. Prosperity followed, a fact that is today confirmed by archeology. David was originally based in Chevron (Hebron) in southern Judah, but when all 12 Tribes of Israel accepted his rulership he needed a central location from which to govern. An ideal place was the mountain-top city of Jerusalem, where he established his capital.

I don't know how high the bar is for you to consider a monarch a 'dominant King,' but I do know that by all accounts that was exactly what King David was. (And I didn't even bother collecting quotes for Solomon; my point is made.)






I don't feel like you've backed up your original assertion: "In medieval Europe, the roles were completely reversed; the powerful religous establishment was a Christian one, and the Jews were the powerless minority. The subsequent persecution of Jews in middle-ages Europe was revenge, pure and simple." The website you've offered is unclear as to how much autonomy the Jews were given under the Roman Empire. How did you come to the conclusion that they were a "powerful religious establishment"?

Because the Sanhedrin, the Jewish religous court that dealt with among other things offenses such as blasphemy, was still in session as late as the 350s A.D.. It was in fact this court that condemned the aforementioned Saint Stephen to death. Once again, while I'm not sure what you would consider a 'powerful religous establishment,' I believe that most people would agree that any sort of establishment that has the power to exact the death penalty has the most significant kind of power any group of humans can wield--- the power over life and death.

#33 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:00 PM

The Taliban try and murder people these days. Are they a "powerful religious establishment"?

Another issue here is getting history from religious books and religious websites. Does AskMoses have an agenda? Is the historical narrative presented by the New Testament objective? I would take the history offered by religious books and religious organizations with a grain of salt.

#34 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:27 PM

Here's the interesting thing about the story of St Stephen. Ive been reading a bit about Christianity and it seems like there is a strong split in Christianity about whether Jesus intended to alter the Jewish customs or affirm them. Acts 6:14 (below) seems to suggest that St Stephen in fact intended to affirm the Jewish laws from Moses but that Jews lied and said he wanted to alter them. So I find that unclear. Did he intend to alter them or not? And of course the whole story skirts the fact that Jews could never believe that Jesus was god, the very suggestion is absolutely against the religion, and is considered by some rabbis to be idol worship (that god could be contained in a human body). That section of Acts does not seem to understand this fact about Judaism which suggests it was not written by Jews that were knowledgeable about Judaism, it was written either by Jews who converted to Christianity who were never knowledgeable about Judaism or pagans converted to Christianity who were also not knowledgeable about the "customs of Moses" they are discussing in Acts.

<< Acts 6 >>
New American Standard Bible
14for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.”

My point is this: if you want to understand the New Testament you really have to understand Jewish custom.

#35 rose2012

rose2012

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 10 June 2012 - 07:08 AM

Unfortunately, I do not have a reference myself, as this is beyond my education. I believe such references are scant in any case, because the focus of the Torah and of a Jew’s life is in life, not death.

I understand if you yourself may not have any references, but surely if its a belief in judaism it must have some reference somewhere? Otherwise where did it come from?



Why? How does that affect how you live – unless it is to frighten one into compliance?

If you dont believe in a religion, the threat of hell is not going to frighten you into compliance. E.g. christians think i, as a muslim, would go to hell..that's not going to frighten me into becoming a chrisian because i've studied christianity and don't believe in its teaching about jesus being God and i dont believe the new testament is God's word.

All actions have consequences, even in this world. Do you believe if murder wasn't a crime people would go out and murder others because they know there would be no consequences? I certainly dont.


rose - nobody here really cares about your opinion. You want to ask questions fine, but if you want to start proselytizing there are better forums for you to do that!


If you read the thread carefully you will see quite clearly all i have been doing is asking questions. People answer my questions and then some of them ASK ME questions in return. I don't see how me replying/answering their questions directed to me is proselytizing! You will also note i made it quite clear in one of my posts i respect this is a jewish forum hence i wasnt going to post any links to books etc to back up one of the points i was making.

All i have done in this thread it lay out my main issues i have with judaism with the hope of getting them clarified. Namely

- the nature and history of the talmud and its reliability
- the reliability of the hebrew bible
- the belief that there is a maximum of 12 months punishment in hell, whether thats literal or figurative, and the few references to the hereafter in the bible
- i also have an issue with the fact people are discouraged from converting and most jews dont actively preach their religion to others.



I like Rose's opinion. There is zero chance of my becoming Muslim but I like to learn about Islam because it is an important religion in the world. I think Judaism's main argument against Muslim is that it is a derivation of Judiasm, many of its ideas are direct descendants of Christianity and Judaism, and of course many of Christianity's ideas are also direct descendants of Judaism.

That's not to say that Judaism is wholly original. Many of its ideas are descendants of other pervasive cultural ideas. But for instance the Koran's retelling of the Flood. Jews assume that this retelling was not prophetic so much as a re-interpretation of the Old Testament. Also, there is justification in the Old Testamant that Arabs descended from Ishmael but the "original" Ishmael comes from the Old Testament, almost 1500 years before the Koran. Many Jews believe the Koran borrowed these powerful ideas from the Torah.

I hope you do not feel my comment is disrespectful. It is merely how many Jews feel.


No, it's not disrespectful, it's your beliefs. I understand that Jews think their beliefs were in a way copied/adapted by christianity and then islam. From my perspective, i don't see it like that. My belief is that God has always sent prophets to each nation, and prophecy didnt stop with moses, it continued with jesus and then mohammed. So i dont see them as copying, i see them as coming from the same source (God). When one nation stops following or changed the scriptures/teachings God will send a new prophet with new scriptures.

#36 rose2012

rose2012

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 10 June 2012 - 07:14 AM

Alexander, Jews have a long history of being abused by other religions. That resentment dies hard. Though Judaism arguably had one of its richest eras under Spanish Muslims, they were not treated as "equals". Now you have a large part of the Muslim world at odds with Jews and Israel. The rhetoric can be poisonous and there are Muslims who violently act on these things. It begs the question of Rose: what do you think of Muslim radicalism? Do you see this as a severe problem for the Muslims? How do you feel when Westerners characterize Islam as a violent religion? Is this characterization wholly false?

Many educated Jews are sincerely scared of Islam. Secular scholarship around the world does not always seem strong among the Arabs. It can be hard to get a tack on moderate Muslims. Surely they exist in numbers but what is their relationship to the poisonous rhetoric? How do they confront the problems of literacy and education in the Arab world?


When are we going to stop with these stereotypes and generalisations. Just because muslims follow Islam and not Judaism, and they disagree with isreal doesn't mean they hate all jews and want to get rid of them. That's ridiculous. Just because an individual disagrees with someones views doesn't mean they hate them! If i knew any jews in real life i would quite happily befriend them, but if jews want to be suspicious of me and presume i, or any other muslim, hold certain views against them then we are going to get nowhere as a society. Jews are classed as "people of the book", in an ideal islamic state they are given their rights and are allowed to practice their religion.

#37 rose2012

rose2012

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 10 June 2012 - 07:19 AM

Is this an accurate translation of the talmud...and exactly how much is left out cos i know its an abridgement?

http://www.sacred-te.../talmud.htm#t01


I'll repost this as i dont think anybody replied to it. I would like to read bits of the talmud myself to get a feel for it.

#38 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 10 June 2012 - 04:47 PM

The Taliban try and murder people these days. Are they a "powerful religious establishment"?

The Taliban don't have the force of law behind them. They are no longer an entrenched part of their local government. The Sanhedrin was. Therein lies the difference between a powerful religous establishment and a pack of paramilitary brigands who use religon as an excuse for violence.





Another issue here is getting history from religious books and religious websites. Does AskMoses have an agenda? Is the historical narrative presented by the New Testament objective? I would take the history offered by religious books and religious organizations with a grain of salt.

Well, evidence taken from Holy Books and Jewish websites amount to a great deal more than what you've offered as evidence to support your point---namely, nothing.

#39 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 10 June 2012 - 09:16 PM

When are we going to stop with these stereotypes and generalisations. Just because muslims follow Islam and not Judaism, and they disagree with isreal doesn't mean they hate all jews and want to get rid of them. That's ridiculous. Just because an individual disagrees with someones views doesn't mean they hate them! If i knew any jews in real life i would quite happily befriend them, but if jews want to be suspicious of me and presume i, or any other muslim, hold certain views against them then we are going to get nowhere as a society. Jews are classed as "people of the book", in an ideal islamic state they are given their rights and are allowed to practice their religion.


I appreciate what you are saying Rose and you sound sincere. But Jews hear it too seldomly to feel comfortable. We hear plenty of hateful rhetoric on the news but we dont hear enough nice pleasant comments from moderate Muslims. Nor do we see moderate Muslims stand up to their hateful brethren. Instead we see situations like Syria and Egypt where democracy is brutally suppressed. Its scary.

#40 rose2012

rose2012

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 11 June 2012 - 01:27 PM

I appreciate what you are saying Rose and you sound sincere. But Jews hear it too seldomly to feel comfortable. We hear plenty of hateful rhetoric on the news but we dont hear enough nice pleasant comments from moderate Muslims. Nor do we see moderate Muslims stand up to their hateful brethren. Instead we see situations like Syria and Egypt where democracy is brutally suppressed. Its scary.


Well of course the news isn't going to report good stories. And in fact Muslims are standing up against extremism etc..but again, such things arent newsworthy. I can name organisations in my area and public talks and other things they do like meeting other faith groups, or even just setting up a stall in the street for people who have questions. And im sure there are plenty more of this across the UK (where im based ) and around the world. But like i said the news is never going to report the good things and nice stories about Muslims is it :)

And i understand what you are saying about "moderate" muslims...but that makes it seem as if we're following some watered down version of Islam, and the "real" islam is extreme or whatever. I disagree with this completely...your actions and beliefs are either islamic or theyre not, i.e. theyre either permitted in islam or theyre not.

Come on..there are other "non-muslim" countries in the world where democracy is surpressed...you make it out as if its an exclusively muslim problem which is very unrepresentative and unfair.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users