[b-hebrew] OT: a link about Modern Hebrew
George F. Somsel
gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Jun 8 15:40:18 EDT 2004
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 21:04:17 +0300 "VC" <vadim_lv at center-tv.net> writes:
> Dear George,
> Even many Christian scholars doubt the accuracy of the Acts. Don't
> rely on the mention of Gamliel.
No more than I rely on the mention of Moses.
> Philo's grammar is not that bad as you imagine. elokim may refer to
> prominent men. MT does not have "sons of God", as you believe. It
> has bnei elokim, and now you imagine this means sons of God, which
> is ludicrous in the first place, since God has no physical sons to
> copulate with earthly women.
I am well aware of the uses possible for this phrase and was not
proposing physical generation.
N:)uM YHWH LaDoNiY $"B LiMiYNiY (aD_)f$iYT )oY:BeYKf Ha:DoM L:RaG:LeYKf
YHWH said to my lord, sit at my right until I make your enemies your
The enthronement of the king.
WaY:HiY HaY.oWM WaY.fB)W. B.:N"Y Hf)e:LoHiYM L:HiT:Ya+"B (aL_YHWH
It happened on the day when the Sons of God came to appear before YHWH .
Who are these Sons of God? Have we a remnant of polytheism?
Even the phrase "son of . . . " doesn't necessarily refer to physical
WaY."+:)W. B:N"Y_HaN.:BiY)iYM )a:$eR_B."YT_)"L . . .
The sons of the prophets who were at Bethel went out . . .
> >If the passage is "garbled", it hardly falls to the account of
> Christians. <
> But using this garbled gibberish for thousands of years - yes, it
> falls to their account.
> >I would say that you apparently have about as much antipathy to
> Christianity as some who are considered anti-Semitic have toward
> You mix different things. I reject Christianity for intellectual
> reasons. I don't hate people of Christian faith, of course.
> Anti-Semites hate Jews; they cannot disregard Judaism, since they
> proclaim their religion is based upon it.
> >about as much knowledge of those you excoriate as the anti-Semitic
> have <
> I wrote already in this list for someone else. I guess writing a
> book of 800 pages on early Christianity establish my credentials as
> someone who knows the subject.
No, it doesn't. I have seen quite a number of works of considerable
length which are pure tripe. I'm not saying that your's definitely is
worthless since I haven't read it, but some of your reactions here lead
me to believe that you are quite uninformed regarding the history of
> >The method employed in understanding the text within the church was
> about the same as that employed in the synagogue<
> Ludicrous. Jesus was asked, by whose authority he was doing these
> things. The text is wrong, as the question refers to teaching. He
> didn't rely on any authority in his interpretation - thus, his
> method was not rabbinical to begin with. He didn't employ any of the
> four or sixteen standard methods.
I wasn't speaking of Jesus' teaching. It is clearly stated that he
taught with authority and NOT as the Scribes and Pharisees. I was
speaking of Paul and others. If you examine Paul's epistles, you will
find that they do follow the methods of Jewish interpretation.
> >It is this type of interpretation which has evolved the kashrut
> rule for the separation of meat and dairy from the prohibition to
> "seeth a kid in its mother's milk." <
> You simply don't know. The idea was to avoid inadvertent sin.
Nevertheless, seething a kid in its mother's milk was a magical rite and
does not entail the complete separation of meat and milk. If you choose
to do so for the sake of following the practices of your faith, that is
an acceptable reason; but it is not valid as an interpretation of the
passage in question.
> Vadim Cherny
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
More information about the b-hebrew