Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] OT: a link about Modern Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "VC" <vadim_lv AT center-tv.net>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] OT: a link about Modern Hebrew
  • Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:58:03 +0300

> 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!
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page