Biblical Hebrew Forum

["VC" <vadim_lv AT center-tv.net>]

> 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.<

Davies' idea. Long disproved

>Nevertheless, seething a kid in its mother's milk was a magical rite and
does not entail the complete separation of meat and milk.<
Maimonides only guessed it, and now you take this for a fact.

Sincerely,

Vadim Cherny



> > 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
> footstool.
> 
> The enthronement of the king.
> 
> But consider
> 
> 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
> generation
> 
> 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 
> > Jews<
> > 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
> Christianity.
> 
> > 
> > >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.
> 
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > Vadim Cherny
> 
> 
> gfsomsel
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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!
>