Bnai-Noach

shawn

shawn

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,085
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
No longer here
So as not to derail the conversation in the other department I thought it sensible to start it here.

It seems that there is some familiarity with Noach-ides (never much cared for the name) by some, and much confusion as well.
But given the lack of organization within the movement itself, this is understandable.

The basic idea is that God made a covenant with the survivors of the deluge which is perpetual and includes all their future generations of children.
So everyone is (even unknowingly) involved in this covenant.
There were further additions to this covenant with the Abrahamic and then the Mosaic covenants which were refinements of the system.
To say that one is a Christian Noach-ide is to be in a position of dishonor regarding the original covenant as that person has created an arbiter between themselves and the other party of the covenant (GOD) and is violating the first caveat which is to have no other gods.

Comments?
Questions?
 
Some folks who claim to be Christian claim not to be trinitarian. I've discussed non-trinitarian pov in the Christian forum before as I don't see the NT reading saying Jesus is G-d. Jesus very clearly points out how and to Whom we should pray. "Our Father...." If one follows Jesus' lead and prays to Whom he has suggested I don't see how there would be a problem calling oneself a Noachide and a Christian.
.02
Joe
 
shawn,

The 7 noahide laws are Jewish in origin, as you're aware. There are multiple Jewish perspectives as to whether or not a Christian can also be a Noahide. Depends who you ask. For many hasidic groups, the living rebbe acts in a similar fashion. For a select couple of groups, the dead rebbe does to an extent. The earliest example that I know of for that is breslover hasidism. If they're not considered in conflict with the more strict halachah for Jews then it's hard in my mind to rationalize saying that Christians are in conflict with the Noahide Covenant. There are some who debate whether one can be a noahide without consciously accepting the covenant, or if accidental observance counts, so there is a lot of nuance to the debate.

-- Dauer
 
You state that the origin of the Noach-ide laws are Jewish, but I am not so sure, as the Jewish identity came after Abraham, and more specifically, after Moses and the laws came long before that.
Indeed they go back, allegedly to Adam.
 
World. Kabbalistically it's sometimes also sometimes connected to the word alam. Why?
 
shawn,

if you accept the biblical narrative as historically accurate, maybe, (I don't) but the first mention of the noahide laws is in the mishna. There is a similar list in the GT but I don't remember the reference. Regardless, all explicit references to the Noahide laws that I'm aware of are from around the time of the mishna or later.
 
dauer said:
World. Kabbalistically it's sometimes also sometimes connected to the word alam. Why?
Click to expand...
OLAM means perpetual as in perpetual generations, the covenant being olam means it is not going to go away for any reason whatsoever.
 
Oh you mean the other context, eg l'olam va'ed. Okay so what's your point? How is that related to what I said?
 
dauer said:
shawn,

if you accept the biblical narrative as historically accurate, maybe, (I don't) but the first mention of the noahide laws is in the mishna. There is a similar list in the GT but I don't remember the reference. Regardless, all explicit references to the Noahide laws that I'm aware of are from around the time of the mishna or later.
Click to expand...
If you have read any of my posts over the past year you should be aware that I am not a literalist and see the Bible as more likely to be allegorical in nature, but I also accept that there could be literal truth to it as well, in that stories of an allegorical nature can be drawn from real peoples lives.
I brought this topic up in the children of Noah forum on Torah.org and at the Sanhedrin forum and they had no dispute that it was a covenant that predates the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants.
 
Since the covenant is perpetual and was made by the Creator, it then matters not what you or I agree to. We are locked in to that covenant and either choose to be in harmony with it, or dishonor it and enter into dispute (legally).
 
shawn,

good for them. That doesn't mean that the noahide laws are earlier nor is their opinion somehow more Jewish. It is merely one Jewish opinion and currently a minority opinion. I wouldn't expect that at either of those forums you'd find much disagreement on that matter. I also don't expect they'd dispute my claim that all explicit references to the noahide laws appear at the time of the mishna or later.

-- Dauer
 
Shawn,

okay, but the actual nature of what is meant by the noahide laws and whether or not we are bound to accept them ourselves or qualify by accidentally following them is all still relevant and debatable nuance. Your issue regarding the bindingness of the noahide laws doesn't seem to dispute anything that I've stated. I never said they aren't binding, just that there's more than one way to understand their meaning and with what intention or lack thereof a person is required to fulfill them.

-- Dauer
 
Possible.
But we really are all just guessing when we are discussing how things went down going back that far.
We don't even know all the real story of our own history of the past 2 centuries.....sure we all know the official versions, but any critical thinker knows that there is far more to the picture than meets the eye and lots of what happened will never be known.
Look at the JFK assassination, lots of ideas but no clear and final story.
 
dauer said:
Shawn,

okay, but the actual nature of what is meant by the noahide laws and whether or not we are bound to accept them ourselves or qualify by accidentally following them is all still relevant and debatable nuance. Your issue regarding the bindingness of the noahide laws doesn't seem to dispute anything that I've stated. I never said they aren't binding, just that there's more than one way to understand their meaning and with what intention or lack thereof a person is required to fulfill them.

-- Dauer
Click to expand...
That is why I thought it prudent to open a discussion on the matter.
No dispute from me.
I just find this topic of interest and would like to see what others think.
 
Shawn,

that's certainly true and I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. The only reason I responded to this post is your phrasing:

shawn said:
To say that one is a Christian Noach-ide is to be in a position of dishonor regarding the original covenant as that person has created an arbiter between themselves and the other party of the covenant (GOD) and is violating the first caveat which is to have no other gods.
Click to expand...

That comes across as a fairly absolutist statement and Jewish opinions on the noahide laws vary. Your belief may be stated above, but that doesn't mean that you're correct.

shawn said:
That is why I thought it prudent to open a discussion on the matter.
No dispute from me.
Click to expand...

Okay, then I was probably just reading too much into the way you stated things.

-- Dauer
 
dauer said:
Shawn,

that's certainly true and I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. The only reason I responded to this post is your phrasing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn
To say that one is a Christian Noach-ide is to be in a position of dishonor regarding the original covenant as that person has created an arbiter between themselves and the other party of the covenant (GOD) and is violating the first caveat which is to have no other gods.
Click to expand...
That comes across as a fairly absolutist statement and Jewish opinions on the noahide laws vary. Your belief may be stated above, but that doesn't mean that you're correct.


I realize that fully and am not stating it as my absolute belief. The thing is when one starts discussing covenants then we are into legal terrain and they deal with absolutes, so that is why I write it that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn
That is why I thought it prudent to open a discussion on the matter.
No dispute from me.
Click to expand...
Okay, then I was probably just reading too much into the way you stated things.

-- Dauer
Click to expand...
No problem M8:)
 
shawn said:
The thing is when one starts discussing covenants then we are into legal terrain and they deal with absolutes, so that is why I write it that way.
Click to expand...

That's not always the case. In the way halachah is understood and applied there is variation. In this case, as in most of halachah, there are multiple opinions about what is required. I think you mean that, if you accept a particular opinion as binding for one reason or another then it is binding for you, but that doesn't mean that there is only one way to understand what is meant halachically. It would be more accurate imo if you stated, "As I understand the halachah, ..."

That is, at least, if we are approaching this problem Jewishly. And I don't doubt that the Jews you've spoken with may have at times used much more absolutist language about what is intended. That is a modern development that's been centuries in the making.
 
True enough, but when dealing with God via a covenant are we dealing relativistically or legalistically or what?

Consider the oral teaching of how the Jews were chosen.
Of all the nations who were presented with the laws, all the rest asked what the reasoning was and what the purpose was, etc, whereas the JEWS SAID, WE DON'T UNDERSTAND, BUT WE WILL DO IT.
With the idea that understanding would come with the doing.
 
shawn said:
True enough, but when dealing with God via a covenant are we dealing relativistically or legalistically or what?
Click to expand...

The question doesn't even have to go that far. Just by defining terms you end up with different ways in which it all would apply. You also have to recall the agadah where Moses listens to R' Akiva teaching Torah and doesn't understand what he's talking about, but R' Akiva is in the right. Halachah is meant to be flexible and adaptive, not rigid.

whereas the JEWS SAID, WE DON'T UNDERSTAND, BUT WE WILL DO IT.
With the idea that understanding would come with the doing.
Click to expand...

Partially correct. They said naaseh v'nishma/ We will do and we will hear/understand. But I don't think that's as related to what I'm saying as the principle of lo bashamayim hi/ it's not in heaven.

The problem is that the only way to apply something is by understanding what's meant. Your interpretation is just that, an interpretation. It's not pshat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top