Search results

it's also pretty much a different group of people making it; most of the apocalyptic stuff christians talk about tends to rely fairly heavily (and i know i'm generalising here) on the book of revelations, which is simply not a jewish book, so as a result they end up worrying about very different...

however, one should still point out that the "fence" principle is highly active in virtually all areas of halakhah; it is hard to imagine normative judaism without it. of course it appears to be this that BM objects to; anything he disagreed with is dismissed as either "midrashic" or...

that's not exactly an answer to where your "biblical" source ought to be from - so are you now saying this stuff doesn't have to be referenced? the "fence" principle is specifically based on this mishnah, but by your own logic, you can't rely on the mishnah, unless you accept the Torah sources...

not remotely; sorry if there is a misunderstanding. perhaps this is my lack of precision - what i mean is that at the time of jesus there are many, conflicting groups without necessarily clear ideological or theological distinction and what later becomes normative rabbinic judaism is closest...

is that why you keep shovelling on the manure? incidentally, for the rest of you, it's more literally "I Will Be That Which I Will Be". b'shalom bananabrain

oooh, tut tut - are you just going to *assume* a Torah source for the fence principle? by your own rules, you must show how this is "biblical", because most people generally have to base it on the first verse in pirqei 'aboth. incidentally, this should be in "abrahamic" or "comparative"...

between genocide victims and genocide perpetrators, you are "not biased". so much for morality. ok then - so you're saying that you accept that the entire Tanakh is literally true? because if you don't, you have no case and if you do, then you'll have to accept that whatever happened (and it...

no, radar - it is far closer to trust. and there is a difference between belief IN and belief THAT. b'shalom bananabrain

only if you ignore the entire normative jewish tradition - contradictions and resolutions are how we develop understanding of the halakhah. then you haven't even vaguely understood what is meant by "emunah" in judaism. no it isn't. you're trying to reconstruct the entire lecture with only...

could you dial down the self-righteousness just a tad, d'ye think? that's not really a fair representation of what is actually the case; your language suggests this to be an ongoing situation, whereas this merely represents the sort of language used in the context of a violent pagan society...

hah! b'shalom bananabrain

salty - yes. south park rules. servetus - i dare say, but i'm no historian / philosopher either! donnann - you really don't have the least idea what you're talking about and quoting entire posts is almost as unhelpful as bhaktajan's stupid graphic. b'shalom bananabrain

hmmm. have a think about the anthropology of the typical synagogue layout and in particular the relation between the Torah scroll, the ark and the taking of one out of the other! sounds to me like you've described precisely how a seriously flawed historian might treat these statements. i'm...

it's not that hidden. basically, it's "everything was nicked from the aryans / zoroastrians and you're all a bunch of thieves and i wish there was some court i could prosecute you for infringement of our intellectual copyright - especially the jews". it's mad, but there you are. once you've...

to be precise: you dismiss nothing but what contradicts your interpretation of the Tanakh without reference to how the sages interpreted it. to me, that's quite different. i do not think you understand how the tradition is *derived from* the "scriptures" and, moreover, you are trying to...

there is absolutely no need to quote entire replies, it just means more scrolling! why the scare quotes? you seem perfectly happy to idealise the rambam. the problem, it seems to me, is that you are being somewhat arrogant about having a "mind of your own" - are you suggesting that i don't...

er.... yes it does. all the time. because the Torah itself tells us to do so - haven't you heard of the oven of akhnai? the source in Torah is devarim / deuteronomy 30, lo ba-shamayim hi; the Torah is not in heaven, but right here among us to be interpreted by humans, by majority decision as per...

yes, it was me that you got to do that. and, yes, it really was ridiculous, as this entire thread is. b'shalom bananabrain

don't be so absurd. it's not *paranoia*. it is simply a matter of what judaism considers normative and what it does not. and my loyalty to G!D is none of your affair and i can't see why you feel the need to make such a statement, although you seem to have a habit of turning unpleasant and...

sorry, i've been too busy to respond to this, but: no. no, i don't see that at all. you are taking a very narrow interpretation ("temporary escape from death") which is not at all warranted by psalms 49:15, nor can i agree that this backs up your argument about sheol='olam ha-ba, which i find...