Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>]

OK, Steve, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

Please quote to me where in the NT, G-d is directly speaking, or says 
He is directly speaking.

And you misquote me

I do not admit that the Oral Law never claimed to be the word of G-d 
- excuse me, yes I do - the Oral Law has no ontological being in 
order to proclaim itself the Word of G-d.  But it is the Word of G-d, 
ie; that G-d gave a written and Oral Torah to Moshe, and I can prove 
it from the Torah itself, but we have had that conversation on this 
list, look it up in the archives.

And re your last sentence - read some of their biographies.

The Arizal's for instance.

Shoshanna



> From: 'Shoshanna Walker'
>
> So what do I, or any of us Jews who spend our time observing Torah
> and learning it as best we can, each to our own ability, care what
> Peter says?
[Steve Miller] your statement was that Romans does not claim to be the word
of God. I said that the New Testament does say it is the word of God.
> They didn't have to claim it - they didn't have to prove themselves
> to ignoramuses like me and you - they were living, breathing,
> sleeping Torah!
[Steve Miller] Then you admit that the oral law never claimed to be the word
of God.

Also, I don't think these people were living, breathing and sleeping the
Torah. They were more likely living, breathing and sleeping commentaries
about the Torah, which is very different, and endless.
-Steve Miller
Detroit
www.voiceInWilderness.info
> > From: Shoshanna Walker
> >
> > Romans is not the word of G-d, it doesn't even allege that.
> [Steve Miller]
> 2 Peter 3:16 says that Paul's writings are Scripture.
>
> Shoshanna,
> Thank you for writing. Where do the Talmud, Mishnah and Rashi commentaries
> claim to be the word of God?
>
> I was raised Orthodox and went to Hebrew school and Hebrew college, and I
> was not taught that the Talmud, Mishnah or Rashi were part of the word of
> God. My mother told us that the Talmud was written by sages much wiser
> than
> us, but we did not believe that it was the word of God like the Tanach is.
> I have talked to many rabbis, and I have never met any who believe like
> you
> seem to, that Rashi's commentary is the authoritative explanation of the
> Tanach.
>
> Here is a previous post on the subject by Yitzhak Saphir:
> >>The idea that there is an oral law equally as authoritative as the
> >>written law is highly dubious to me. You say that this prevents
> >>mistranslation, but it allows the importation of every kind of merely
> >>human idea and even perversion of God's word. God warns against adding
> >>to his word, and a proposed "oral law" does just that. It presents
> >>something as having the same authority as the written word, from what
> >>you say, and thereby adds to God's word.
>
> >However, Shoshanna's interpretation of Rashi and Midrash as part of this
> >oral law is not shared by all Jews.  It is an extreme interpretation that
> >essentially says that Rashi or the Rabbis of the Midrash whom he often
> >quotes was not a great scholar but simply a scribe who wrote something
> >handed down to him from the days of Moses.  While that may describe
> >much of his work (much of Rashi is effectively quotes from the Midrash),
> >he was also a great scholar and a true understanding of Rashi can only
> >be achieved by seeing all his quoted sources (which are many!) and
> >identifying which parts he chose to quote, which he chose not to quote,
> >what he chose to add of his own, and answering why he chose to do what
> >he did.
> >>
>
> Thanks,
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
> www.voiceInWilderness.info
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew