shawn
Well-Known Member
That is why we are discussing it.
It is not SIMPLE, nor is it plain.
and it seems that we have no absolutes either, just a bunch of DRASH.
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Arial,Geneva](One person's Pshat is another person's Drash)[/FONT]
Bnai-Noach
- Thread starter shawn
- Start date
It is not SIMPLE, nor is it plain.
and it seems that we have no absolutes either, just a bunch of DRASH.
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Arial,Geneva](One person's Pshat is another person's Drash)[/FONT]
Shawn,
I don't disagree. However, previously you 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."
which appears to be in conflict with what you're now stating. Maybe a resolution of that conflict can be found if you mean that the covenant is an absolute, but the way in which it is understood and applied is not; or if you would say that the covenant is an absolute but we cannot know which opinion coheres with the intended application of the covenant.
I take it from your clarified position that you would not agree with absolute statements about what is intended by the noahide laws and how they should be understood and by extension might disagree with the phrasing of your OP.
I don't disagree. However, previously you 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."
which appears to be in conflict with what you're now stating. Maybe a resolution of that conflict can be found if you mean that the covenant is an absolute, but the way in which it is understood and applied is not; or if you would say that the covenant is an absolute but we cannot know which opinion coheres with the intended application of the covenant.
I take it from your clarified position that you would not agree with absolute statements about what is intended by the noahide laws and how they should be understood and by extension might disagree with the phrasing of your OP.
shawn
Well-Known Member
The Rabbis teach (Shabbat 63a) that a verse never departs from its direct meaning. So, although one might find meaning in a 'drash,' the verse also must always also retain its meaning on the Pshat level.
So what do we have here?! A claim that sometimes the literal reading is an 'interpretation,' and it is the interpretation that is actually the 'Pshat.' So one person's Pshat might be another's Drash.The whole what is allegorical and what is literal discussion then comes into play as well.
So what do we have here?! A claim that sometimes the literal reading is an 'interpretation,' and it is the interpretation that is actually the 'Pshat.' So one person's Pshat might be another's Drash.The whole what is allegorical and what is literal discussion then comes into play as well.
shawn
Well-Known Member
I don't see any conflict.
It is quite plain that one should not put anyone between oneself and God, regardless of who they are.
That I see as an absolute.
Granted, not all Christians do that as many have a very allegorical understanding of the scriptures and so do not let literalism cloud their minds.
I don't actually disagree with the OP.
Also:
Regardless of when they began talking about these matters in the recorded works, they were for certain included in the oral components and preceded all the scripture we have today.
All buildings are built upon a foundation, and we can see that the Abrahamic religions are predated by previous covenants.
It is quite plain that one should not put anyone between oneself and God, regardless of who they are.
That I see as an absolute.
Granted, not all Christians do that as many have a very allegorical understanding of the scriptures and so do not let literalism cloud their minds.
I don't actually disagree with the OP.
Also:
Regardless of when they began talking about these matters in the recorded works, they were for certain included in the oral components and preceded all the scripture we have today.
All buildings are built upon a foundation, and we can see that the Abrahamic religions are predated by previous covenants.
Shawn,
Okay but from a halachic standpoint, what qualifies as a person (more accurately, to encompass the nature of the debate, we should understand this more broadly than "person" as even the sefirot were seen as an issue) between oneself and God is debatable. I brought up the example of Breslover hasidim because we have Reb Nachman acting as an intercessor on behalf of his hasidim after he's already died and that is for the most part accepted by the rest of the Jewish community. The extent of that intercession is explicitly that he'll go to the depths of gehenna on behalf of someone who has taken the appropriate steps: visit his grave, recite a series of tehilim that he recommends there and give a little tzedaka.
There is a rabbinic teaching according to which there are angels who weave the prayers of the Jewish people into a crown for HKB"H. Now there are certainly interpretations by which one might understand this as not being some sort of intermediary action, but that is entirely my point! What qualifies as an intermediary is debatable.
We don't know that. Even within the Orthodox community where some issues are less disputed there is disagreement about what the Oral Torah consists of.
If one accepts that all of those covenants really occurred, yes, but then the content and nature of those covenants is still debatable. There isn't a clear, absolute answer provided.
Okay but from a halachic standpoint, what qualifies as a person (more accurately, to encompass the nature of the debate, we should understand this more broadly than "person" as even the sefirot were seen as an issue) between oneself and God is debatable. I brought up the example of Breslover hasidim because we have Reb Nachman acting as an intercessor on behalf of his hasidim after he's already died and that is for the most part accepted by the rest of the Jewish community. The extent of that intercession is explicitly that he'll go to the depths of gehenna on behalf of someone who has taken the appropriate steps: visit his grave, recite a series of tehilim that he recommends there and give a little tzedaka.
There is a rabbinic teaching according to which there are angels who weave the prayers of the Jewish people into a crown for HKB"H. Now there are certainly interpretations by which one might understand this as not being some sort of intermediary action, but that is entirely my point! What qualifies as an intermediary is debatable.
We don't know that. Even within the Orthodox community where some issues are less disputed there is disagreement about what the Oral Torah consists of.
If one accepts that all of those covenants really occurred, yes, but then the content and nature of those covenants is still debatable. There isn't a clear, absolute answer provided.
shawn
Well-Known Member
We really don't want to get into the whole "person" debate, do we?
Cuz, then we enter into a whole legal issue pertaining to identity "person" vs. "thing".
The issue is, with looking at the Jewish community for spiritual guidance, we see many factions and groups working with many variations of the same theme.
Looking at the historical accounts of the Jewish nation we see that many times the ruling religious caste was way into error (like Jezebel, or Saul, etc).
So to follow that kind of example would be erroneous.
Just because it is Jewish, then, does not automatically confer any kind of infallibility.
Isn't this the source of all our religious disputes on the planet! It certainly provides all atheists a nice big loose thread to argue endlessly.
shawn said:
My point is only to say that the issue may be a lot broader and more nuanced than the one you've presented.
If you're speaking of the 7 noahide laws then you're already looking to the Jewish community for guidance. It's expressed in the mishna. Regarding the noahide laws, looking to the Jewish community for guidance is unavoidable. Beyond that, you yourself have appealed to statements from two Jewish web forums.
As Jewish tradition acknowledges.
Well that's the point, isn't it? You've granted infallibility to certain basic statements provided by Jewish sources (the noahide laws, that the laws of noah precede Judaism) and claimed that others are fallible. In other cases you seem to grant infallibility to certain Jewish opinions while claiming that others are wrong. Judaism, on the other hand, has room for many opinions, allowing for some disagreements to be l'shem shamayim. I don't think it makes much sense to argue against claims of the infallibility of Jewish sources when I've never treated them as infallible. If anything I've attempted to raise doubt about absolute claims.
Perhaps, but it's also the direction that our present debate has led us. I don't think we ought to disregard the nuance of meaning and make absolute statements on account of religious disputes consisting of nuance that atheists enjoy pointing out.
-- Dauer
shawn
Well-Known Member
No.
But this is the direction which you have taken it into.
If we take a walk in the forest we should not get distracted by just one tree or bush, but need to look at the whole.
To wit:
But this is the direction which you have taken it into.
If we take a walk in the forest we should not get distracted by just one tree or bush, but need to look at the whole.
To wit:
I am not saying it is wrong to look to the Jewish community for such guidance as you infer I am.
shawn said:
I think Moses would have argued that paying attention to bushes is pretty important, Adam that paying attention to trees is pretty important. If you don't understand the details then you may get a false picture of the gestalt. If a person appreciates the details, it may become evident that the gestalt is less clear than they had previously thought. Anyway, what type of conversation do you expect to have, specifically, about the Noahide laws if not one that deals with the details? You have made some particular and explicit assertions about how they should be understood and invited conversation about that. I have challenged the basis for those assertions. You were not merely focusing on the gestalt. You were focusing in on certain details, as you understand them, and how they relate to Christianity.
Then please describe your position clearly vis-a-vis turning to the Jewish community for guidance about the Noahide laws. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, only to understand you. I had the impression from your earlier posts that Jewish sources and opinions aren't reliable. If that is not what you mean, telling me that I'm wrong without clarifying doesn't help me much. It only stalls the conversation and leads me to feel like I'm pulling teeth.
-- Dauer
shawn
Well-Known Member
Apparently not.
shawn
Well-Known Member
Personally, I have a lot of respect for the Jewish scriptures.
At the same time I see that one must have discernment if one wishes to wander about in that garden.
It was through the study of these things that I revised my perspectives on Christianity.
shawn said:
Only one of my arguments relies on that position, which is that our earliest written source we have for the Noahide Laws is the mishna and so any claim that they're earlier is making a lot of assumptions. You are claiming that the Noahide laws are reliable and other Jewish tradition, unreliable, that the Noahide Laws are most certainly a part of a preserved Oral Tradition. That is a strong claim. I'm making the weaker claim that I don't think you can know that with absolute certainty. It would be clarifying if you could provide the line of reasoning that leads you to accept the Noahide Laws as presented in the mishna in about 200 CE while questioning much of Jewish tradition. The rest of my arguments have more to do with the types of absolute assertions you're making in light of evidence that is understood more ambiguously in the context of the culture from which you learned of it.
Then what is the methodology by which you discern? As far as I can tell you're doing a lot of picking-and-choosing, opening yourself up to confirmation bias.
-- Dauer
shawn
Well-Known Member
Not so.
You brought up some Chabad reference and other similar to back up a claim concerning arbiters and that I question. That is all.
This is the trouble with this kind of dialogue.
But, that is one reason I keep coming here, as it helps me to develop this skill.
I stand or fall, based on my own choices in life. Just like everyone else.
But I do not rely on any one source.
Life is a banquet in a buffet style and I choose to sample a broad spectrum and choose from that what works for me or not.
I saw the folly of putting my faith in one version of "truth" a long time ago.
I form my opinions and keep an open mind as what I think is true today may be proved in error tomorrow. I accept that, whereas I see many who are far more rigid in their thinking and that is a defect IMO.
shawn said:
Never mentioned Chabad. I was addressing the issue of what counts as an intermediary. That is directly relevant your claims about Christianity. It was to give a clear illustration, rather than deal with vague notions, about the ambiguity of Jewish tradition on the question of intermediaries. The source about angels is pretty early. You rejected that there is any ambiguity. That is at odds with Jewish tradition. Therefore you accept Jewish tradition in some cases (noahide laws) and reject it in others by making absolute claims about what the Noahide laws must mean vis a vis Christians.
Pragmatism then?
How is a patchwork that leads to absolute claims any less one version of truth? In this thread you've seemed to have a difficult time considering that your assertions may not be absolutely true.
I agree that very rigid thinking isn't a good thing and, in relation to certain ideas, you've seemed very rigid. The assertions you made in your OP were very strong and seemed like they were specifically intended to correct others that no, a Christian cannot be a noahide. The notion dishonors God. That is only one opinion on the matter.
-- Dauer
shawn
Well-Known Member
Ok, lets straighten the rails a bit.
I am not a Noach-ide any longer, although I lean more in that direction than any other.
I would call it a phase I was going through in my journey.
Who has truth?
Do you?
Do I?
Who among us is more absolute than the other?
Which of us has the final word?
None of us.
We are all seekers on the path.
I am not a Noach-ide any longer, although I lean more in that direction than any other.
I would call it a phase I was going through in my journey.
Who has truth?
Do you?
Do I?
Who among us is more absolute than the other?
Which of us has the final word?
None of us.
We are all seekers on the path.
Dauer.
From a trinitarian stand point, Jesus Christ is G-d. (anyone feel free to correct me on this). Doesn't this go further than being an intermediary? This is the way I was reading the idea of the opening post. Would it still be acceptable to think of oneself as a Noahide in this case?
Joe
From a trinitarian stand point, Jesus Christ is G-d. (anyone feel free to correct me on this). Doesn't this go further than being an intermediary? This is the way I was reading the idea of the opening post. Would it still be acceptable to think of oneself as a Noahide in this case?
Joe
Joe,
I'm aware that there are various Christian views in which Jesus is identified in some way with the godhead. There are opinions that yes, that person would still be a Noahide. Technically we're all Noahides by definition, whether or not we're adherents to the laws of noah. But I mean it in the stricter sense. One argument is that Christians are praying to God, to YHWH. They've just mistaken some attributes. Alternatively they're praying to YHWH but have associated some other gods with YHWH.
There is also sometimes a distinction drawn between what would be problematic for a Jew vs non-Jew as far as beliefs about intermediaries. A separate and perhaps even more significant issue is that it's not necessarily expected that a gentile would be able to keep to all 7 laws unwaveringly any more than it is that a Jew would be able to keep to all 613.
There is additionally the practical issue of the category of idolater and the types of obligations that would entail for Jews. It isn't very tenable, unless he cloisters himself, for a Jew to live in a society of actual idolaters. So for that reason as well it is very difficult to argue that Christians violate the first Noahide law. There is also the question of what's really intended by the notion of idolatry and there have been different answers ranging from the most extreme i.e. putting anything before God is a form of idolatry (I'm not sure this has ever been taken as more than metaphor) to, the problem with idolatry was unethical practices that surrounded it, or, idolatry is only when someone literally identifies a statue with God or a god, that the god or God to which worship is directed is and is only that statue.
So as I say, it's a complex issue.
edit: I also want to add that I can understand why a person whose background is the rejection or questioning of a particular expression of Christian faith might have more difficulty with that idea. If they've rejected Christianity, explored Jewish thought, I can see that there might be some desire to have Judaism agree that Christianity doesn't qualify as Noahide. And yes, those opinions are present too. But they're not some final word on the matter.
I'm aware that there are various Christian views in which Jesus is identified in some way with the godhead. There are opinions that yes, that person would still be a Noahide. Technically we're all Noahides by definition, whether or not we're adherents to the laws of noah. But I mean it in the stricter sense. One argument is that Christians are praying to God, to YHWH. They've just mistaken some attributes. Alternatively they're praying to YHWH but have associated some other gods with YHWH.
There is also sometimes a distinction drawn between what would be problematic for a Jew vs non-Jew as far as beliefs about intermediaries. A separate and perhaps even more significant issue is that it's not necessarily expected that a gentile would be able to keep to all 7 laws unwaveringly any more than it is that a Jew would be able to keep to all 613.
There is additionally the practical issue of the category of idolater and the types of obligations that would entail for Jews. It isn't very tenable, unless he cloisters himself, for a Jew to live in a society of actual idolaters. So for that reason as well it is very difficult to argue that Christians violate the first Noahide law. There is also the question of what's really intended by the notion of idolatry and there have been different answers ranging from the most extreme i.e. putting anything before God is a form of idolatry (I'm not sure this has ever been taken as more than metaphor) to, the problem with idolatry was unethical practices that surrounded it, or, idolatry is only when someone literally identifies a statue with God or a god, that the god or God to which worship is directed is and is only that statue.
So as I say, it's a complex issue.
edit: I also want to add that I can understand why a person whose background is the rejection or questioning of a particular expression of Christian faith might have more difficulty with that idea. If they've rejected Christianity, explored Jewish thought, I can see that there might be some desire to have Judaism agree that Christianity doesn't qualify as Noahide. And yes, those opinions are present too. But they're not some final word on the matter.