The Catholic Church Explodes the Myth That The Jews Are Responsible For Jesus Death
Joe Bruno
piedmont
"Joe Bruno" <joeb...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:459274d2-0a17-4d3e...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
>
Following Christian teachings, Christ died on the cross because it was what
God planned.
Soo, What Judas did was part of God's plan and Judas should be honored, for
if he had not told the Romans where to find Christ, there would be no
Crucifixion nor Resurrection as God had planned.
Why Judas is hated by Christians is beyond reason!
Also, most Christians are so ignorate of history as to be criminal. Most
don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ loved
Judaism and fought the abhorations of some in the faith (money changers).
And Christians don't understand that his teachings had to do with dealing
with the Romans rule over the region. Most Christians including the clergy
do not know the Old Testament is the Jewish Bible.
(I'm not of the Jewish faith, nor any faith)
Michael Willsey
South Carolina ( In the heart of darkness)
mirjam
>
> Michael Willsey
> South Carolina ( In the heart of darkness)
Thank you Michael ,
and being so well informed you might know that we Jews do not call
ith Old Testament , but Tanach in Hebrew and Jewish Bible in other
languages . I am always amazed at how many Non Jews don`t know the
tanach was written in Hebrew.
mirjam
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docume...
There is a shift in doctrine within the evangelicals and other
"modern" christians. They are moving a way from the Replacement
theology of the Catholic church and towards the concept that is called
"the Two Olive Trees" theology. The idea is that the church did not
replace the Jews (or the greater body called the children of Israel)
but were grafted into Israel (Romans). This sees four groups who are
being addressed: Jews, Jews who became christian, non Jewish
christians and those of Israel who were lost (the 10 tribes).
There are those within Judaism who believe that christianity is a way
back for those of Israel who were cast off (ie the northern Tribes,
the House of Ephraim).
How this effects Jews will be seen.
cindys
> "Joe Bruno" <joebr...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> news:459274d2-0a17-4d3e...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docume...
>
> Following Christian teachings, Christ died on the cross because it was what
> God planned.
>
> Soo, What Judas did was part of God's plan and Judas should be honored, for
> if he had not told the Romans where to find Christ, there would be no
> Crucifixion nor Resurrection as God had planned.
>
> Why Judas is hated by Christians is beyond reason!
>
> don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ loved
> Judaism
According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
"rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
>and fought the abhorations of some in the faith (money changers).
The moneychangers provided a necessary service. People made pilgrimage
to Jerusalem for the festivals and needed to exchange one unit of
money for another in order to make purchases in Jerusalem. It was the
equivalent of exchanging Euros for American dollars. I would be
interested to know what were the so-called "aberrations" of the
moneychangers.
> And Christians don't understand that his teachings had to do with dealing
> with the Romans rule over the region.
I am tempted to ask you to elaborate on what you mean by this, but the
charter explicitly states that discussions of Christianity are
completely off-topic for SCJM. I mean absolutely no disrespect to you
here, and I'm glad you've joined the group, but I am surprised that
the moderators permitted your post on this topic. I doubt they will
allow this thread to continue, however, without the addition of Jewish
content.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Evertjan.
> I am always amazed at how many Non Jews don`t know the
> tanach was written in Hebrew.
Do not be amazed, Mirjam.
Most people in this small world of ours are not Jewish
or "non-Jews". Not belonging to a minority is the standard.
Why should they know this about the Tenach?
Would you know in what language the main book ["Tao Te Ching"] of Taoism
is, or better originally was, written, without consulting wikipedia?
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
mm
<exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote:
>mirjam wrote on 03 jan 2010 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>> I am always amazed at how many Non Jews don`t know the
>> tanach was written in Hebrew.
>
>Do not be amazed, Mirjam.
>
>Most people in this small world of ours are not Jewish
>or "non-Jews". Not belonging to a minority is the standard.
>
>Why should they know this about the Tenach?
I met a girl about 18 years old who went to church a lot who thought
our Bible was first written in Greek and her own Bible was first
written in Latin!
>
>Would you know in what language the main book ["Tao Te Ching"] of Taoism
>is, or better originally was, written, without consulting wikipedia?
Tao'otic?
Chinese? Japanese?
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>and fought the abhorations of some in the faith (money changers).
>
>The moneychangers provided a necessary service. People made pilgrimage
>to Jerusalem for the festivals and needed to exchange one unit of
>money for another in order to make purchases in Jerusalem.
It wasn't just purchases in general, but specifically because Jewish
pilgrims came to the Jewish Temple to offer a sacrifice, a lamb or a
goat. To be acceptable, an animal has to be free of blemishes**. If
someone lived so far away that his normal kind of money was not the
same as used in Jerusalem, there is no way he could bring an animal
from such a distance without it getting damage along the way by rocks
or thorns, etc. Because it would have to walk.
So they brought money instead, and they bought a lamb or goat when
they got to Jerusalem. There was an area right near or maybe next to
the Temple where the animals were sold. The money changers were near
to the animal market and on the edge of the Temple.
If there is any truth to the Xian story about Jesus and money
changers, what it would mean is that he was a rube, a country boy who
didn't know what was going on when he saw it. But I doubt it
happened at all.
**This is one reason Jesus himself would not have been acceptable as a
sacrifice (even if human sacrifices were possible (but they're not)),
that according to the Xian story he had a crown of thorns making cuts
or pricks in and near his scalp, and he'd been whipped. So he had
blemishes that on a a goat or lamb would have made them ineligible to
be a sacrifice.
> It was the
>equivalent of exchanging Euros for American dollars. I would be
>interested to know what were the so-called "aberrations" of the
>moneychangers.
--
cindys
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 21:39:20 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
>
> >>and fought the abhorations of some in the faith (money changers).
>
> >The moneychangers provided a necessary service. People made pilgrimage
> >to Jerusalem for the festivals and needed to exchange one unit of
> >money for another in order to make purchases in Jerusalem.
>
> It wasn't just purchases in general, but specifically because Jewish
> pilgrims came to the Jewish Temple to offer a sacrifice, a lamb or a
> goat. To be acceptable, an animal has to be free of blemishes**. If
> someone lived so far away that his normal kind of money was not the
> same as used in Jerusalem, there is no way he could bring an animal
> from such a distance without it getting damage along the way by rocks
> or thorns, etc. Because it would have to walk.
I don't think the issue was only that the animal might be injured but
also that a lot of the pilgrims came from great distances, and
bringing animals with them would have been a great burden for them.
The pilgrims were also obligated to spend a certain amount of money in
Jerusalem, and IIRC (I'm embarrassed to admit I don't remember
exactly), they would bring fruits and vegetables which they would sell
in order to get this money to to fulfill their obligation to spend
money in Jerusalem. (I learned this in Makkos, and now, I don't
remember any of the details).
>
> So they brought money instead, and they bought a lamb or goat when
> they got to Jerusalem. There was an area right near or maybe next to
> the Temple where the animals were sold. The money changers were near
> to the animal market and on the edge of the Temple.
Yes. My understanding of the Jesus story (right or wrong) is that he
was annoyed that the moneychangers were doing business on the steps of
the temple itself (which would have been disrespectful) not that their
business was shady or anything like that.
>
> If there is any truth to the Xian story about Jesus and money
> changers, what it would mean is that he was a rube, a country boy who
> didn't know what was going on when he saw it.
Not at all. It would just mean that he didn't like that they were
conducting business on the temple steps rather than further off to the
side. I can't imagine that anybody wouldn't have known what the
moneychangers were doing.
>But I doubt it
> happened at all.
With this I agree. We really don't know how much of the Christian
bible is based on reality and how much on fabrication. Some people
would argue that Jesus never really existed.
>
> **This is one reason Jesus himself would not have been acceptable as a
> sacrifice (even if human sacrifices were possible (but they're not)),
> that according to the Xian story he had a crown of thorns making cuts
> or pricks in and near his scalp, and he'd been whipped. So he had
> blemishes that on a a goat or lamb would have made them ineligible to
> be a sacrifice.
Not to mention that if he had been the ultimate sacrifice, then there
wouldn't have needed to be any other sacrifices after him, yet after
his crucifixion, animal sacrifices continued at the temple just as
they always had. And FTR, not all sacrifices were "blood" sacrifices.
Flour and libations were also placed on the altar.
Best regards,
----Cindy S.
mirjam
Since those people i reffer to, were mostly brought up on the
Christian version of the Tanach' one might consider that Knowing that
it happened in this Geographical place , might have somehow influenced
in what langugae it was written ..
>
> Why should they know this about the Tenach?
somehow i think that all people are curious enough to ask .
>
> Would you know in what language the main book ["Tao Te Ching"] of Taoism
> is, or better originally was, written, without consulting wikipedia?
Wikipedia isn`t my main source of knowledge. As to knowing about Other
Holy books , when i meet either personaly or online, another person
from another culture i take the time to askthat person , about his/her
beliefs , and i won`t impose on him /her my ideas about his her
culture, i will ask ....
When i tell a Christian person that the city they look to on Christmas
night is called Beth Lehem and not Bethlehem,
i find it very strange that they try to correct me. And it does amaze
not only me. Yesterday i came back by taxi and was driven by a
Maronite driver , who told me such stories about Non Israeli tourists,
who refused to believe him that there was another city called Beth
Lehem in the Galillee. He said they called him liar ...
mirjam
chsw
>
[comments cut - chsw]
>.....
> There are those within Judaism who believe that christianity is a way
> back for those of Israel who were cast off (ie the northern Tribes,
> the House of Ephraim).....
I have never heard of this notion before. Please explain more
thoroughly, with links if possible.
chsw
Amitai
> On Jan 3, 10:05 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 21:39:20 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
> > <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > >>and fought the abhorations of some in the faith (money changers).
>
> > >The moneychangers provided a necessary service. People made pilgrimage
> > >to Jerusalem for the festivals and needed to exchange one unit of
> > >money for another in order to make purchases in Jerusalem.
>
> > It wasn't just purchases in general, but specifically because Jewish
> > pilgrims came to the Jewish Temple to offer a sacrifice, a lamb or a
> > goat. To be acceptable, an animal has to be free of blemishes**. If
> > someone lived so far away that his normal kind of money was not the
> > same as used in Jerusalem, there is no way he could bring an animal
> > from such a distance without it getting damage along the way by rocks
> > or thorns, etc. Because it would have to walk.
>
> I don't think the issue was only that the animal might be injured but
> also that a lot of the pilgrims came from great distances, and
> bringing animals with them would have been a great burden for them.
> The pilgrims were also obligated to spend a certain amount of money in
> Jerusalem, and IIRC (I'm embarrassed to admit I don't remember
> exactly), they would bring fruits and vegetables which they would sell
> in order to get this money to to fulfill their obligation to spend
> money in Jerusalem. (I learned this in Makkos, and now, I don't
> remember any of the details).
>
>
The need for money changers in the vicinity of the Temple was due in
large part to the commandment of Ma`aser Sheni (The second Tithe):
Based on Deuteronomy 14:22 ff, a tenth of the year's produce had to be
set aside on the first, second, fourth and fifth year of every seven-
year cycle, to be consumed in Jerusalem. The citizen was thus tithing
himself for his own and his family's consumption, but they had to go
on pilgrimage to Jerusalem in order to benefit from it. As it is
difficult to transport produce for long distances and keep it fresh,
provision was made to "redeem" it by "sactifiying" coins of the same
value (i.e., sell the produce to oneself at cost) before leaving home.
The "sanctified" coins, of widely varying provenance, had to be
exchanged for legal tender in Jerusalem. Hence the need for money
changers.
The rules are outlined tersely in tractate Ma`aser Sheni of the
Mishnah, but as this tractate has no
Gemara of its own in the Talmud Bavli the rules were spelled out
elsewhere, on pages 45-55 of Babha Metzia, in the context of Chapter
4, which deals with exchange rates and other monetary matters.
Amitai
> ----Cindy S.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Evertjan.
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:01:17 +0000 (UTC), "Evertjan."
> <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote:
>
>>mirjam wrote on 03 jan 2010 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>>
>>> I am always amazed at how many Non Jews don`t know the
>>> tanach was written in Hebrew.
>>
>>Do not be amazed, Mirjam.
>>
>>Most people in this small world of ours are not Jewish
>>or "non-Jews". Not belonging to a minority is the standard.
>>
>>Why should they know this about the Tenach?
>
> I met a girl about 18 years old who went to church a lot who thought
> our Bible was first written in Greek and her own Bible was first
> written in Latin!
"who went to church a lot" does not define non-Jewishness,
and even so, one example should not amaze you.
Even if we should wrongly define non-Jewishness als christianity,
christianity also being a minority in our world, the probable reason your
girlfriend came to this wrong conclusion lies in Novella 146 of Emperor
Justinianus in the year 553 of the now common scale, prohibiting Hebrew
as the language of the bible, and declaring the Greek and Latin
translations as to be used.
This had the converse effect that the Jews of that time and place [the
diaspora], who usualy used Greek ["Pentateuch", "Hebdomeconta" =
"septuagint"] and Latin translations, now reverted to the Hebrew Tenach
and gave impetus to Talmud and Rabbi-ism.
read: The Jews in Late Ancient Rome: Evidence of Cultural Interaction in
the Roman Diaspora, 1995 by Leonard Victor Rutgers
But these facts of history had a negible influence on the knowledge of
present day non-Jewish humanity as a whole, female 18 year old avid
churchgoers being an even greater exeption to the norm.
>>Would you know in what language the main book ["Tao Te Ching"] of
>>Taoism is, or better originally was, written, without consulting
>>wikipedia?
>
> Tao'otic?
>
> Chinese? Japanese?
Thank you, this shows my point:
Chinese is not even a language, Mandarin and Cantonese are among the
maine Chinese languages. Japanese? Japan is far away from the rootland
of Taoism.
So why should one be amazed that the world in general is unaware of the
language of the Tenach?
Don Levey
> On Jan 1, 5:17 am, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>> http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docume...
>
> There is a shift in doctrine within the evangelicals and other
> "modern" christians. They are moving a way from the Replacement
> theology of the Catholic church and towards the concept that is called
> "the Two Olive Trees" theology. The idea is that the church did not
> replace the Jews (or the greater body called the children of Israel)
> but were grafted into Israel (Romans). This sees four groups who are
> being addressed: Jews, Jews who became christian, non Jewish
> christians and those of Israel who were lost (the 10 tribes).
>
explicitly contradict this.
> There are those within Judaism who believe that christianity is a way
> back for those of Israel who were cast off (ie the northern Tribes,
> the House of Ephraim).
>
I've never seen that before, at least not from Jews. There are
Christians who believe that, however, and use it to try to convert Jews.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> If there is any truth to the Xian story about Jesus and money
>> changers, what it would mean is that he was a rube, a country boy who
>> didn't know what was going on when he saw it.
>
>Not at all. It would just mean that he didn't like that they were
>conducting business on the temple steps rather than further off to the
>side. I can't imagine that anybody wouldn't have known what the
>moneychangers were doing.
I wouldn't dismiss his** ignorance out of hand. From my own personal
experience, I've learned that there is no end to what someone*** may
not know, even if it seems everyone else knows it. And according to
the story, iiuc, he hadn't been in Jerusalem long. Based on my own
personal experience, I can imagine it's something he did the first day
he was there, even if the story attributes it to another day. After
all, the story was written down at least 30 years later, (and fwiw
here by people who iirc had never seen the Temple.)
**or whomever such a story would describe.
***And not always me.
On another point, I'm reminded of the story of George Washington
throwning a silver dollar across the Rappahannock River, something he
never did. Why would he? A dollar was a lot of money.
Or cutting down a cherry tree. IIRC he didn't do that either.
mm
<Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 5:17 am, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docume...
>>
>> There is a shift in doctrine within the evangelicals and other
>> "modern" christians. They are moving a way from the Replacement
>> theology of the Catholic church and towards the concept that is called
>> "the Two Olive Trees" theology. The idea is that the church did not
>> replace the Jews (or the greater body called the children of Israel)
>> but were grafted into Israel (Romans). This sees four groups who are
>> being addressed: Jews, Jews who became christian, non Jewish
>> christians and those of Israel who were lost (the 10 tribes).
>>
>Have you got a citation for that? Their base texts would seem to
>explicitly contradict this.
I've never heard that either. And it's not just Catholics who believe
in so-called Replacement theology. The notion expressed by my
evangelical friend and learned from her evan. church or friends that
all Xians are Jews is the same thing, maybe in different words.
>
>> There are those within Judaism who believe that christianity is a way
>> back for those of Israel who were cast off (ie the northern Tribes,
>> the House of Ephraim).
>>
>I've never seen that before, at least not from Jews. There are
Neither have I. "A way back" to where?
>Christians who believe that, however, and use it to try to convert Jews.
--
Meir
cindys
Yes. Thank you. If I had taken the time to look it up (the topic is
also addressed in Makkos, in a section which discusses the tithing
rather than monetary matters), then perhaps I would have remembered.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:
>
> [comments cut - chsw]
>
> >.....
> > There are those within Judaism who believe that christianity is a way
> > back for those of Israel who were cast off (ie the northern Tribes,
> > the House of Ephraim).....
>
> I have never heard of this notion before.
Because it's not true.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Amitai
Ma`ser Sheni mentioned at least once in 25 different tractates. I
mentioned Chapter 4 of Babha Metzia:
1) because a large continuous block of text is devoted there to
Ma`aser Sheni;
2) because it deals with money changing; and
3) because I happen to have learned this chapter more thoroughly than
others (though I confess to have learned Makot as well.).
Amitai
> Best regards,
mm
<exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote:
>mm wrote on 04 jan 2010 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:01:17 +0000 (UTC), "Evertjan."
>> <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote:
>>
>>>mirjam wrote on 03 jan 2010 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>>>
>>>> I am always amazed at how many Non Jews don`t know the
>>>> tanach was written in Hebrew.
>>>
>>>Do not be amazed, Mirjam.
>>>
>>>Most people in this small world of ours are not Jewish
>>>or "non-Jews". Not belonging to a minority is the standard.
>>>
>>>Why should they know this about the Tenach?
>>
>> I met a girl about 18 years old who went to church a lot who thought
>> our Bible was first written in Greek and her own Bible was first
>> written in Latin!
>
>"who went to church a lot" does not define non-Jewishness,
She wasn't Jewish either. I guess I thought that was implied because
she went to church a lot and I said our Bible and her Bible.
As to "defineing" non-Jewishness, no, of course not.
>and even so, one example should not amaze you.
It doesn't amaze me. I'm providing an example to buttress the point
you had just made. I started with neither "Yes" nor "No", and you
may have thought I was disagreeing with you.
>Even if we should wrongly define non-Jewishness als christianity,
I myself wasn't attempting to define non-Jewishness,
Meir
--
Meir
Dennis
>> >The moneychangers provided a necessary service. People made
>> >pilgrimage
>> >to Jerusalem for the festivals and needed to exchange one unit of
>> >money for another in order to make purchases in Jerusalem.
>>
>> It wasn't just purchases in general, but specifically because Jewish
>> pilgrims came to the Jewish Temple to offer a sacrifice, a lamb or a
>> goat. �To be acceptable, an animal has to be free of blemishes**. �If
>> someone lived so far away that his normal kind of money was not the
>> same as used in Jerusalem, there is no way he could bring an animal
>> from such a distance without it getting damage along the way by rocks
>> or thorns, etc. Because it would have to walk.
>
> I don't think the issue was only that the animal might be injured but
> also that a lot of the pilgrims came from great distances, and
> bringing animals with them would have been a great burden for them.
> The pilgrims were also obligated to spend a certain amount of money in
> Jerusalem, and IIRC (I'm embarrassed to admit I don't remember
> exactly), they would bring fruits and vegetables which they would sell
> in order to get this money to to fulfill their obligation to spend
> money in Jerusalem. (I learned this in Makkos, and now, I don't
> remember any of the details).
??? I thought the problem was that people had Roman money, with
the image of Augustus and Tiberius Caesar on it (which were graven
images, and blasphemous ones at that, given the developing cult of
emperor worship), and so they had to exchange Roman money for clean
Jewish money.
>> So they brought money instead, and they bought a lamb or goat when
>> they got to Jerusalem. �There was an area right near or maybe next to
>> the Temple where the animals were sold. �The money changers were near
>> to the animal market and on the edge of the Temple. �
>
> Yes. My understanding of the Jesus story (right or wrong) is that he
> was annoyed that the moneychangers were doing business on the steps of
> the temple itself (which would have been disrespectful) not that their
> business was shady or anything like that.
I've always wondered whether the story wasn't quite subversive -
that he was challenging the whole system of using Roman money at all, and
being in cahoots with the Romans, as the leaders at Jerusalem were. No
one says that, but I wonder.
>> **This is one reason Jesus himself would not have been acceptable as a
>> sacrifice (even if human sacrifices were possible (but they're not)),
>> that according to the Xian story he had a crown of thorns making cuts
>> or pricks in and near his scalp, and he'd been whipped. �So he had
>> blemishes that on a a goat or lamb would have made them ineligible to
>> be a sacrifice.
Interesting point.
"We're clean, we're clean,
The Vatican says we're clean!"
- Tom Lehrer
Dennis
fla...@verizon.net
On 3-Jan-2010, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 12:50�pm, "piedmont" <N...@Spam.net> wrote:
>
> > Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal. Most
> > don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ
> > loved
> > Judaism
>
> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
When people remark on this to me, I say things like
"Bernie Madoff is also Jewish".
> >and fought the abhorations of some in the faith (money changers).
>
> The moneychangers provided a necessary service. People made pilgrimage
> to Jerusalem for the festivals and needed to exchange one unit of
> money for another in order to make purchases in Jerusalem. It was the
> equivalent of exchanging Euros for American dollars. I would be
> interested to know what were the so-called "aberrations" of the
> moneychangers.
They were upholding Jewish practices: _0
Yeah, I can be snarky aboutit, but, if you take their beliefs
*at face value*, what Jesus was doing was *interferring*
with a *necessary* serivce.
Susan
Joe Bruno
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The moneychangers provided a necessary service. People made pilgrimage
> > > to Jerusalem for the festivals and needed to exchange one unit of
> > > money for another in order to make purchases in Jerusalem. It was the
> > > equivalent of exchanging Euros for American dollars. I would be
> > > interested to know what were the so-called "aberrations" of the
> > > moneychangers.
> >
> > They were upholding Jewish practices
> >
> > Yeah, I can be snarky aboutit, but, if you take their beliefs
> > *at face value*, what Jesus was doing was *interferring*
> > with a *necessary* serivce.
> >
> > Susan
>
> Necessary to whom?
Do you regularly ask questions that are already answered?
Here - I'll repost what is just above:
[begin quote]
> > > The moneychangers provided a necessary service. People made pilgrimage
> > > to Jerusalem for the festivals and needed to exchange one unit of
> > > money for another in order to make purchases in Jerusalem
[end quote]
OTOH, if you want to disclaim Jewish practices
& defend the actions laid out in the Xian Bible,
this isn't the forum.
Susan
Joe Bruno
> On Jan 2, 12:50 pm, "piedmont" <N...@Spam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Joe Bruno" <joebr...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:459274d2-0a17-4d3e...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docume...
>
> > Following Christian teachings, Christ died on the cross because it was what
> > God planned.
>
> > Soo, What Judas did was part of God's plan and Judas should be honored, for
> > if he had not told the Romans where to find Christ, there would be no
> > Crucifixion nor Resurrection as God had planned.
>
> > Why Judas is hated by Christians is beyond reason!
>
> > Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal. Most
> > don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ loved
> > Judaism
>
> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
His followers, many of whom were Jews, called him"rabbi", which means
"teacher".
Don Levey
That only means they called him "rabbi" - it doesn't mean he *was* one.
Joe Bruno
> Joe Bruno wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 1:39 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 2, 12:50 pm, "piedmont" <N...@Spam.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal. Most
> >>> don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ loved
> >>> Judaism
> >> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
> >> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
> >> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
>
> > His followers, many of whom were Jews, called him"rabbi", which means
> > "teacher".
>
> That only means they called him "rabbi" - it doesn't mean he *was* one.
Did Jews have formal ordination in those days?
Don Levey
cindys
Well, if it says so in the King James, who am I to question it?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
> Joe Bruno wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 9:46 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>> >>>> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
> >>>> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
> >>>> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
> >>> His followers, many of whom were Jews, called him"rabbi", which means
> >>> "teacher".
> >> That only means they called him "rabbi" - it doesn't mean he *was* one.
>
> > Did Jews have formal ordination in those days?
>
> Here's a start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smicha
>
> --
> Don Levey, Framingam MA
Good site.
It does look like the training was not what we expect these days. But
then it is very common to require a rabbi or pastor to have a masters
these days. We do know that there were schools (ie like for the
prophets). And that there were schools of thought within rabbical
commuity during the 2nd temple period.
I do believe that there were often teachers who did not go through the
traditional training during that era. Remember that it was a time of
conflict and change.
Don Levey
The question of certification/ordination is somewhat orthogonal to the
original issue. Just because reports now thousands of years old said
that some random guy was a rabbi doesn't mean that he was indeed
considered a rabbi by the people of his time. The article I posted did
say that not all rabbis, historically, received smicha. So? While that
might give fuel to some who think that this random guy could have been a
rabbi without smicha, it doesn't address whether or not he was one, or
whether he was regarded as such in his time. A Christian translation of
the historical documents isn't really the most reliable place in which
to put one's trust when looking at something which is directly related
to their agenda...
--
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
The problem is that, for the most part, Jews and Christians have
become too Westernized. Both Bibles were written in an Eastern
culture that had more in common with the Arabs or much of Asia than it
does with Europe or the US.
There are reports of any number of teachers at that time. Again, it
was a period of conflict and change. Even after the rebuilding of the
Temple, how many times was that region conquered? At least the Greeks
and the Romans. Even now we have individuals who use titles that may,
at best, have been acquired by less than meeting the standard. And
that era much of Judaism was still in a rebuilding phase. The Talmud
had another 500 years before it was in its modern form. Look at the
Jerusalem Talmud compared to the current Talmud.
At that period, Judaism (as a culture) had more in common with much of
the East. In fact Jews most likely acted more like modern Arabs. We
even had our radicals (the Zealots). The culture was had eastern
values with strong protection of women, rules of hospitality and
gender roles (with a Jewish twist). There are any number of books on
the Manners and Customs of the Bible out there, do a search on Amazon.
The big key is not to read modern Western culture into the Bible
(Hebrew or Christian). The Christians do it all the time, Jews should
be smarter.
Don Levey
Apart from your usual position on these matters, what is it that you're
trying to say and how does it relate to the original question?
--
Joe Bruno
wrote:
It was also a time when most of the common folk could not read because
they could not afford an education.
There were no public schools.
Even in the Middle Ages in Europe, many nobles were illiterate. That's
why the use of seals was so common.
mm
>
>On 3-Jan-2010, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 2, 12:50 pm, "piedmont" <N...@Spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal. Most
>> > don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ
>> > loved
>> > Judaism
>>
>> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
>> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
>> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
>
>When people remark on this to me, I say things like
>"Bernie Madoff is also Jewish".
Don't remind them of that. Why do you want to bring him up? You're
losing more than you're gaining when you do. It doesnt' prove
anything anyhow. Am I a thief because Madoff was? No. So it doesn't
say anything about Jesus either. He didn't even know Bernie Madoff.
As to the allegation he was a rabbi, at least one xian bible has in
parens after rabbi, "(teacher)". I don't think they're defining
rabbi, but saying what the original word was. Teacher. Well anyone
can be a teacher, at least anyone who can find someone to take
seriously what he said. If there is any truth to the story, he *was*
a teacher to his small bunch of friends. He just taught them, on some
occasions, wrong.
Jesus was a single guy in his 30's who didn't have an immediate family
to spend Shabbes afternoon with. I've been in those shoes ever since I
went off to college. He probably had somewhere to eat lunch each
week, but he didn't want to hang around there all day. Although
sometimes I have wanted to spend the whole Shabbes afternoon with
friend, I've been in that situation too many many times.
He had several friends in similar situations, and they used to hang
out together then. J. did more of the talking than the others, or at
least when the story was written, he did. This is not so surprising.
In this era, they would be tempted to go to the movies, but unless
they talked in the movies, there would be little to quote, but if they
went to Starbucks afterwards, people would talk a lot there. Except
no one had a tape recorder and none of the story tellers were there at
the time, 30 years earlier.
One of the famous stories about picking corn**, it wasnt' he but one
of his buddies who picked some corn while they were walking around,
probably something he could eat right off the plant. An onlooker
complains to Jesus because Jesus is acting like he's the leader of
group. He might be the lead walker. Does Jesus say, "You're right.
I'll talk to him." or say, "You should talk to him directly" or even
"His mother's very sick and he's in a rebellious mood". No. Instead,
he makes light of the prohibition. We've probably all seen that on
this ng, but here's a guy raised in an observant world. From him it's
much worse. I never knew or I forget the other ways he flouted the
law.
**that is, some kind of grain. Corn was the general word for wheat,
etc. when the King James translation of the xian Bible was written.
This was iirc before America had been discovered and before what we
call corn, Indian corn on a cob, was known in England.
cindys
snip
>
> Jesus was a single guy in his 30's who didn't have an immediate family
> to spend Shabbes afternoon with.
A lot of people believe Mary Magdalene was actually his wife. And then
there was his biological brother, James, whom the Christian bible
actually describes as being involved with spreading the gospel after
Jesus' death.
So, do you think Mary made cholent for shabbos?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>On Jan 5, 6:26 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>snip
>>
>> Jesus was a single guy in his 30's who didn't have an immediate family
>> to spend Shabbes afternoon with.
>----
>A lot of people believe Mary Magdalene was actually his wife. And then
But they kept it on the down-low?
>there was his biological brother, James, whom the Christian bible
Brothers are good, but it's not like parents or a wife and kids. You
still want to leave while your brother is napping.
>actually describes as being involved with spreading the gospel after
>Jesus' death.
>
>So, do you think Mary made cholent for shabbos?
Sure. She probably kept it warm in a wood-powered crock pot.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
mm
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 11:04 am, "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" <omega....@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 1:04 pm, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>>
>> > Joe Bruno wrote:
>> > > On Jan 5, 9:46 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>> >> >>>> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
>> > >>>> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
>> > >>>> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
>> > >>> His followers, many of whom were Jews, called him"rabbi", which means
While he was alive, they were all Jews, and I think Xians just assume
there were many of them. There were between 10 and 15 men and 4 to 10
women.
>> > >>> "teacher".
If they called him rabbi, yes, that's all they meant, teacher.
>> > >> That only means they called him "rabbi" - it doesn't mean he *was* one.
I agree with you too. More below.
>> > > Did Jews have formal ordination in those days?
>>
>> > Here's a start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smicha
>> > Don Levey, Framingam MA
>>
>> Good site.
>> It does look like the training was not what we expect these days. But
>> then it is very common to require a rabbi or pastor to have a masters
>> these days. We do know that there were schools (ie like for the
>> prophets). And that there were schools of thought within rabbical
>> commuity during the 2nd temple period.
>>
>> I do believe that there were often teachers who did not go through the
>> traditional training during that era. Remember that it was a time of
>> conflict and change.
>
>It was also a time when most of the common folk could not read because
>they could not afford an education.
>There were no public schools.
That wasn't true in Israel. I believe there was already for hundreds
of years by then free education, enough to read and write, and almost
every Jew could.
>Even in the Middle Ages in Europe, many nobles were illiterate. That's
>why the use of seals was so common.
Interesting. I don't disagree, but those nobles and other illiterates
weren't Jews.
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal.
> > > Most
> > > don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ
> > > loved
> > > Judaism
>
> > According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
> > "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
> > in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
>
> His followers, many of whom were Jews, called him"rabbi", which means
> "teacher".
IOW, according to non-Jews at best, heretics at worst.
IOW, Cindy was right.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> > I do believe that there were often teachers who did not go through the
> > traditional training during that era. �Remember that it was a time of
> > conflict and change.
>
> It was also a time when most of the common folk could not read because
> they could not afford an education.
> There were no public schools.
> Even in the Middle Ages in Europe, many nobles were illiterate. That's
> why the use of seals was so common.
Again, that's the goyim.
Jews could read - certainly Hebrew.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jan-2010, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
> > > "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
> > > in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
> >
> > His followers, many of whom were Jews, called him"rabbi", which means
> > "teacher".
> -----
> Well, if it says so in the King James, who am I to question it?
A... Jew?
(And don't say "gesundheit"!)
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jan-2010, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 06:22:45 +0000 (UTC), fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> >
> >On 3-Jan-2010, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 2, 12:50�pm, "piedmont" <N...@Spam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal.
> >> > Most
> >> > don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ
> >> > loved
> >> > Judaism
> >>
> >> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
> >> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
> >> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
> >
> >When people remark on this to me, I say things like
> >"Bernie Madoff is also Jewish".
>
> Don't remind them of that. Why do you want to bring him up?
To make the comparison.
And when they don't get it, I explain it.
Susan
cindys
> On 5-Jan-2010, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 06:22:45 +0000 (UTC), flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > >On 3-Jan-2010, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Jan 2, 12:50 pm, "piedmont" <N...@Spam.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal.
> > >> > Most
> > >> > don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ
> > >> > loved
> > >> > Judaism
>
> > >> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
> > >> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
> > >> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
>
> > >When people remark on this to me, I say things like
> > >"Bernie Madoff is also Jewish".
>
> > Don't remind them of that. Why do you want to bring him up?
>
> To make the comparison.
> And when they don't get it, I explain it.
When the missionaries on SCJ unmoderated would tell me that Jesus was
a Jew, I used to answer "So is Howard Stern."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Joe Bruno
Heretics? Did they stop practicing Judaism just because they listened
to Jesus?
Judaism does not require it's members to shut their eyes and ears to
new ideas.
Rabbis, as part of their formal training, read the New Testament.
Joe Bruno
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 23:10:57 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com>
world was mostly restricted to the wealthy.
Poor Jews didn't have the money for formal education any more than
poor Gentiles.
Joe Bruno
cindys
Not any of the rabbis I know.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Don Levey
You're the one who made the allegations that they couldn't. You should
provide the proof.
--
Don Levey
> On Jan 5, 6:21 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>> On 5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal.
>>>>> Most
>>>>> don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ
>>>>> loved
>>>>> Judaism
>>>> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
>>>> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
>>>> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
>>> His followers, many of whom were Jews, called him"rabbi", which means
>>> "teacher".
>> IOW, according to non-Jews at best, heretics at worst.
>> IOW, Cindy was right.
>>
>> Susan
>
> Heretics? Did they stop practicing Judaism just because they listened
> to Jesus?
It sure looks that way. Supposedly, his words to his followers were an
explicit permission to do so.
> Judaism does not require it's members to shut their eyes and ears to
> new ideas.
I don't know about your Judaism. Mine isn't particularly open to
accepting the ideas of Christianity.
> Rabbis, as part of their formal training, read the New Testament.
Which rabbis are those?
mm
wrote:
>
>> >> I do believe that there were often teachers who did not go through the
>> >> traditional training during that era. Remember that it was a time of
>> >> conflict and change.
>>
>> >It was also a time when most of the common folk could not read because
>> >they could not afford an education.
>> >There were no public schools.
>>
>> That wasn't true in Israel. I believe there was already for hundreds
>> of years by then free education, enough to read and write, and almost
by then
>> every Jew could.
>>
>> >Even in the Middle Ages in Europe, many nobles were illiterate. That's
>> >why the use of seals was so common.
>>
>> Interesting. I don't disagree, but those nobles and other illiterates
>> weren't Jews.
>> --
>>
>You missed my point. The ability to read and write in the ancient
>world was mostly restricted to the wealthy.
>Poor Jews didn't have the money for formal education any more than
>poor Gentiles.
Then you missed my point. You're talking about the ancient world in
general and I'm talking about the Kingdom of Judah. There, there was
nearly universal free education for Jews, at the time of Jesus and
hundreds of years before.
mm
<Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>Joe Bruno wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 9:46 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>>> Joe Bruno wrote:
>>>> On Jan 3, 1:39 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 2, 12:50 pm, "piedmont" <N...@Spam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal. Most
>>>>>> don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ loved
>>>>>> Judaism
>>>>> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
>>>>> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
>>>>> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
>>>> His followers, many of whom were Jews, called him"rabbi", which means
>>>> "teacher".
>>> That only means they called him "rabbi" - it doesn't mean he *was* one.
I agree that they might have called him rabbi but I agree with you
that that doesn't at all mean that anyone with s'micha had examined
him and decided that he had the level of learning that a rabbi is
supposed to have. Or that he knew more than most men his age did.
That he found a few people who maybe knew even less than he did shows
almost nothing. Almost anyone can find people who know less than the
person looking knows.
Even though I question the url below, when it makes such a thing sound
common, that doesn't mean it didnt' happen occasionally. I don't
think the xian bible alleges that he learned with anyone, and it
doesn't specify that anyone gave him smicha. Now, in the Xian
targeting of Jews, they've come up with the story that he was a pupil
or Hillel -- tying this to the Xian distorted version of Hillel's
famous statement, but that he misquoted Hillel doesn't mean he ever
met the man. Rather it implies the opposite. Or if he did meet him,
it's even worse that he later misquoted him. Hillel died when he
would allegedly have been about 5 years old.
>> Did Jews have formal ordination in those days?
>>
>Here's a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smicha
I didn't know about this page. Thanks.
It seems to have more parts than average that, maybe because I'm
ignorant, bother me. For example:
1)"Although presently most functioning synagogue rabbis hold semikhah
by some rabbinical institution or academy,"
I didn't think this was true. I know very little about Reform, but I
thought graduates of JTS got smicha from a specific rabbi at JTS. And
I'm 99.9% sure that's true of Orthodox rabbis, who I believe are "most
functioning syngague rabbis". Graduates of the rabbinic school at
Yeshiva U. get s'micha from one or another rabbi either at YU or
somewhere else. Probably depending on whom they have the closest
relationship with. And by the way, what is the other choice? Why is
the word "functioning" there? Would the rabbis of defunct synagogues
be less likely to have smicha than others? Are there non-functioning
rabbis, and are they less likely to have smicha, even when they are
synagogue rabbis?
2)"this was until quite recently not always required,"
How true is this? One doesn't need a rabbi to lead services or run a
"functioning synagogue". Are they saying that they called a person
without smicha "rabbi". What do they mean by "quite recently"?
It's usually only very small congregations or in remote places that
got along without a rabbi, and how often would they call a non-rabbi
rabbi"? They might call someone rabbi, as a sign of respect for
someone who gives divrai Torah at the shul, but that is either a
different meaning of the word or false use of the current meaning.
" and in fact many Haredi rabbis may not be required to hold a
"formal" semikhah even though they may occupy important rabbinical and
leadership positions."
How true is this? Why is formal in quotes? Is there informal smicha?
There is certainly learning without smicha, and there are learned
people who don't have smicha, maybe even people who could pass
anyone's test for smicha but haven't done so, but what does he mean by
"formal" smicha?
3) "Traditionally Moses is also assumed to be the "first rabbi" of the
Children of Israel. He is still known to most Jews as Moshe Rabbeinu
("Moses our Teacher").
We've called him Moshe Rabbeinu for a long time, but did anyone at the
time he was alive call him rabbi? Did they call Hillel or Shamai
rabbi? Did they have s'micha?
"Moses was also a prophet and is considered to be the greatest of all
the Hebrew Bible's prophets. Moses passed his leadership on to Joshua
as commanded by God in the Book of Numbers where the subject of
semikhah ("laying [of hands]" or "ordination") is first mentioned in
the Torah"
Did they call Joshua rabbi?
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>On Jan 5, 9:23 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>> On 5-Jan-2010, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 06:22:45 +0000 (UTC), flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>>
>> > >On 3-Jan-2010, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> On Jan 2, 12:50 pm, "piedmont" <N...@Spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal.
>> > >> > Most
>> > >> > don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ
>> > >> > loved
>> > >> > Judaism
>>
>> > >> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
>> > >> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
>> > >> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
>>
>> > >When people remark on this to me, I say things like
>> > >"Bernie Madoff is also Jewish".
>>
>> > Don't remind them of that. Why do you want to bring him up?
>>
>> To make the comparison.
>> And when they don't get it, I explain it.
Well I think it's a big mistake.
>------------
>When the missionaries on SCJ unmoderated would tell me that Jesus was
>a Jew, I used to answer "So is Howard Stern."
He's an embarrassment too, but nowhere near as much. He makes the
same point much better I think than Madoff.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
I'll admit I haven't read much of their Bible, but so far, I still see
the problem not so much with what they say Jesus said, but what they
say Paul said. He appears to be the vicious one. AFAIK, Jesus was
just very lax, and self-important.
BTW, I omitted a better comparison than to me, a single guy who often
doesn't want to stay at his host's home all Shabbes afternoon.
In more ways, I think Jesus was like some of the kids I went to
college with. I suspect other colleges are the same but this was the
U. of C, where a lot of the students prided themselves on being smart,
and some of them would start expounding on some part of human
knowledge, and even though they were only 18 or 19 they seemed far too
sure of themselves and their understanding of the world.
I would also compare him to Elvis Presley, not for anything he did but
for what someone else did with him after he died. The difference is
that Elvis was a star before he died also, and I don't believe Jesus
was had more than 30 or 40 followers until his death. But just as
Col. Tom Parker kept Elvis in the public eye, and made him a
continuing star, and made his songs still popular and his mansion a
tourist attaction (a popular one, even though it is really expensive),
so did Paul and I guess others, promote Jesus to being a much bigger
star after his death than before it.
cindys
> ignorant, bother me. For example:
>
> 1)"Although presently most functioning synagogue rabbis hold semikhah
> by some rabbinical institution or academy,"
>
> I didn't think this was true. I know very little about Reform, but I
> thought graduates of JTS got smicha from a specific rabbi at JTS.
I didn't know that R or C rabbis got semicha at all. I thought that
expression was used only in the O world, and to earn semicha, one
needed to pass an oral exam that demonstrated mastery of specific
parts of the Shulchan Aruch as well as learned at least 200 or so
pages of talmud.
There are different levels of semicha, as well, yoreh yoreh and yadin
yadin. AIUI, Orthodox who have been learning in yeshiva for a certain
number of years are sometimes given a sort of honorary title of rabbi,
but this differs from the "semicha" earned by those who passed the
above-described test. The purpose of earning semicha AIUI is because
it confers on the rabbi the authority to pasken halacha (make halachic
rulings). Hence, the various levels of semicha accord various levels
of greater or lesser authority.
>And
> I'm 99.9% sure that's true of Orthodox rabbis, who I believe are "most
> functioning synagogue rabbis". Graduates of the rabbinic school at
> Yeshiva U. get s'micha from one or another rabbi either at YU or
> somewhere else. Probably depending on whom they have the closest
> relationship with. And by the way, what is the other choice? Why is
> the word "functioning" there?
Because the vast majority of O rabbis are not functioning as pulpit
rabbis but are learning in yeshiva or working in some other
profession. In the frum world, the title "rabbi" is often conferred as
a degree, much the same as someone in the secular world might earn a
PhD in some field, but more often than not, the person is not going to
be a shul rabbi. My community is filled with dozens of O rabbis, but
only four of them (not including Chabad) are pulpit rabbis. The others
are learning in kollel or have jobs in the secular world like college
professor, doctor, or stockbroker.
>Would the rabbis of defunct synagogues
> be less likely to have smicha than others? Are there non-functioning
> rabbis, and are they less likely to have smicha, even when they are
> synagogue rabbis?
See above.
>
> 2)"this was until quite recently not always required,"
>
> How true is this? One doesn't need a rabbi to lead services or run a
> "functioning synagogue". Are they saying that they called a person
> without smicha "rabbi". What do they mean by "quite recently"?
> It's usually only very small congregations or in remote places that
> got along without a rabbi, and how often would they call a non-rabbi
> rabbi"? They might call someone rabbi, as a sign of respect for
> someone who gives divrai Torah at the shul, but that is either a
> different meaning of the word or false use of the current meaning.
Correct. In the O world, the title is sometimes conferred on men who
have been learning for a number of years, but who haven't actually
taken or passed the semicha exam.
>
> " and in fact many Haredi rabbis may not be required to hold a
> "formal" semikhah even though they may occupy important rabbinical and
> leadership positions."
Correct.
>
> How true is this? Why is formal in quotes? Is there informal smicha?
> There is certainly learning without smicha, and there are learned
> people who don't have smicha, maybe even people who could pass
> anyone's test for smicha but haven't done so, but what does he mean by
> "formal" smicha?
I presume it means that the person has actually passed the oral test I
mentioned above.
>
> 3) "Traditionally Moses is also assumed to be the "first rabbi" of the
> Children of Israel. He is still known to most Jews as Moshe Rabbeinu
> ("Moses our Teacher").
>
> We've called him Moshe Rabbeinu for a long time, but did anyone at the
> time he was alive call him rabbi? Did they call Hillel or Shamai
> rabbi? Did they have s'micha?
Moshe Rabbeinu means Moshe our rabbi (or teacher), but there is no way
to know if anyone ever actually said "Rabbi Moshe." Both Hillel and
Shammai were called "Rabbi."
I hope I got this stuff right, and as always, I am open to correction
on any point where I have written something in error.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
>
Joe Bruno
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aren't you the one who told me that the child of a Jewish Mother and a
convert to Judaism are Jews and their religious practices and behavior
don't matter? You mocked me and my relatives for laughing at those who
call themselves"Jewish atheists." Now, apparently, you are singing a
different tune.
Joe Bruno
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 03:35:08 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com>
According to this article, there were no public schools there until
64AD,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_ancient_Israel_and_Judah
Jesus was born in the year One AD and attained the age of 30.
DoD
> Joe Bruno wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 6:21 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >> On 5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> I do believe that there were often teachers who did not go through the
> >>>> traditional training during that era. Remember that it was a time of
> >>>> conflict and change.
> >>> It was also a time when most of the common folk could not read because
> >>> they could not afford an education.
> >>> There were no public schools.
> >>> Even in the Middle Ages in Europe, many nobles were illiterate. That's
> >>> why the use of seals was so common.
> >> Again, that's the goyim.
> >> Jews could read - certainly Hebrew.
>
> >> Susan
>
> > Proof?????????????????????????????????
>
> You're the one who made the allegations that they couldn't. You should
> provide the proof.
I am not siding with Joe... But how does the average peasant, goat
hearder, heck, even brick mason,
fisherman....just any *average* bloke be educated back in the day
when men where men, women were women and
dust was mainly dirt....
David
DoD
> Joe Bruno wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 6:21 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >> On 5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal.
> >>>>> Most
> >>>>> don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ
> >>>>> loved
> >>>>> Judaism
> >>>> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
> >>>> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
> >>>> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
> >>> His followers, many of whom were Jews, called him"rabbi", which means
> >>> "teacher".
> >> IOW, according to non-Jews at best, heretics at worst.
> >> IOW, Cindy was right.
>
> >> Susan
>
> > Heretics? Did they stop practicing Judaism just because they listened
> > to Jesus?
>
> It sure looks that way. Supposedly, his words to his followers were an
> explicit permission to do so.
I want to ask a specific question here, but I am not sure how to ask
it...I need a little more
information to ask it and it has to do with Rabbi Gamliel, I
believe......
David
mm
wrote:
Either his parents teach him, his older brother or sister teaches him,
or someone organizes a school. What is so hard to imagine about that?
A six-year old is unlikely to go out and hire a tutor. but he's not
likely to be a brick mason either. That's why parents have or take
responsibility for a child's education.
A father is also halachically responsible to teach his son a trade,
and to teach him (and her, I think) to swim, iirc.
Amitai
>
> - Show quoted text -
Talmud Babhli, Babha Batra 2a (Free translation):
"Rabh Judah, citing Rabh says: A man who should be remembered
favorably is Joshua ben Gamla.*
But for him the Torah would have been forgotten from Israel. For at
first, if a child had a
father, his father taught him, and if he had no father he did not
learn at all....
So they made an ordinance that teachers of children should be
appointed in Jerusalem....
If a child had a father, the father would take him up to Jerusalem and
have him taught there, and
if not, he would not go to learn there. They therefore ordained that
teachers should be appointed
in each prefecture,and that boys should enter school at the age of
sixteen or seventeen. However,
when the teacher punished them, they would rebel and drop out of
school. Finally, Joshua b. Gamla
came and ordained that teachers of young children should be appointed
in every district and every
town, and that the children should enter school at the age of six or
seven."
______________________
*High Priest who lived shortly befor destruction of the Temple. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehoshua_ben_Gamla _A.H.]
Is that proof enough?
Amitai
mirjam
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just like in any other culture , girls learned by watching their
mothers , and listening to them .
Boys after a certain age were more around their fathers . grandfathers
etc,,,
mirjam
Joe Bruno
> GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I said it was generally true in the ancient world. She insisted that
all Jews were educated.
There is a huge difference.
Joe Bruno
> Joe Bruno wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 6:21 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >> On 5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal.
> >>>>> Most
> >>>>> don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ
> >>>>> loved
> >>>>> Judaism
> >>>> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
> >>>> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
> >>>> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
> >>> His followers, many of whom were Jews, called him"rabbi", which means
> >>> "teacher".
> >> IOW, according to non-Jews at best, heretics at worst.
> >> IOW, Cindy was right.
>
> >> Susan
>
> > Heretics? Did they stop practicing Judaism just because they listened
> > to Jesus?
>
> It sure looks that way. Supposedly, his words to his followers were an
> explicit permission to do so.
Proof???????????????????????
>
> > Judaism does not require it's members to shut their eyes and ears to
> > new ideas.
>
> I don't know about your Judaism. Mine isn't particularly open to
> accepting the ideas of Christianity.
Jesus preached love and tolerance. He did not preach Catholicism.
You ought to know that.
I said they listened to him. Jesus never renounced Judaism. The Last
Supper was a Passover Seder,
>
> > Rabbis, as part of their formal training, read the New Testament.
>
> Which rabbis are those?
>
My sister's Rabbi in San Francisco.
Joe Bruno
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> >> I do believe that there were often teachers who did not go through the
> >> >> traditional training during that era. Remember that it was a time of
> >> >> conflict and change.
>
> >> >It was also a time when most of the common folk could not read because
> >> >they could not afford an education.
> >> >There were no public schools.
>
> >> That wasn't true in Israel. I believe there was already for hundreds
> >> of years by then free education, enough to read and write, and almost
>
> by then
>
> >> every Jew could.
>
> >> >Even in the Middle Ages in Europe, many nobles were illiterate. That's
> >> >why the use of seals was so common.
>
> >> Interesting. I don't disagree, but those nobles and other illiterates
> >> weren't Jews.
> >> --
>
> >You missed my point. The ability to read and write in the ancient
> >world was mostly restricted to the wealthy.
> >Poor Jews didn't have the money for formal education any more than
> >poor Gentiles.
>
> Then you missed my point. You're talking about the ancient world in
> general and I'm talking about the Kingdom of Judah. There, there was
> nearly universal free education for Jews, at the time of Jesus and
> hundreds of years before.
Proof??????????????????????????
Don Levey
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 03:24:18 +0000 (UTC), cindys
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> ------------
>> When the missionaries on SCJ unmoderated would tell me that Jesus was
>> a Jew, I used to answer "So is Howard Stern."
>
> He's an embarrassment too, but nowhere near as much. He makes the
> same point much better I think than Madoff.
>
man. But what he does for a living...
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
Don Levey
You claim that your allegation supersedes hers - that is, that because
it was generally true that it was also true for Jews. It is the basis
for your argument in this sub-thread. You should support your thesis
before demanding that someone with contrary views substantiate theirs.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
Art Werschulz
Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> writes:
> According to this article, there were no public schools there until
> 64AD,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_ancient_Israel_and_Judah
OTOH, read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_ben_Shetach
which shows that some level of public schooling (under R' Shimon ben
Shetach) existed in the BCE period.
There's also a scene (I think it was in the Book of Judges) in which
somebody asked a more-or-less randomly-chosen shepherd to provide him
with a written list of names. That in itself says something about
widespread literacy.
--
Art Werschulz (agw STRUDEL comcast.net)
.... insert clever quote here ...
Don Levey
> On Jan 5, 8:01 pm, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>> Joe Bruno wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 6:21 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>> On 5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal.
>>>>>>> Most
>>>>>>> don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ
>>>>>>> loved
>>>>>>> Judaism
>>>>>> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
>>>>>> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
>>>>>> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
>>>>> His followers, many of whom were Jews, called him"rabbi", which means
>>>>> "teacher".
>>>> IOW, according to non-Jews at best, heretics at worst.
>>>> IOW, Cindy was right.
>>>> Susan
>>> Heretics? Did they stop practicing Judaism just because they listened
>>> to Jesus?
>> It sure looks that way. Supposedly, his words to his followers were an
>> explicit permission to do so.
>
> Proof???????????????????????
Go ask your SF rabbi...
>>> Judaism does not require it's members to shut their eyes and ears to
>>> new ideas.
>> I don't know about your Judaism. Mine isn't particularly open to
>> accepting the ideas of Christianity.
>
> Jesus preached love and tolerance. He did not preach Catholicism.
> You ought to know that.
>
I do know that. According to their gospels, however, Christians believe
that their deity preached things which were directly counter to Jewish
belief and law.
> I said they listened to him. Jesus never renounced Judaism. The Last
> Supper was a Passover Seder,
>>> Rabbis, as part of their formal training, read the New Testament.
>> Which rabbis are those?
>>
> My sister's Rabbi in San Francisco.
>
And from the example of one rabbi you extrapolate to "rabbis" as a
general case? Who is this person, what is their denomination, what is
their training, was it a required element of study or an elective? For
someone who is consistently demanding "Proof???????????????????????"
when your beliefs are in any way challenged, you seem to be startlingly
short on it yourself.
mm
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 8:33 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>According to this article, there were no public schools there until
>64AD,
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_ancient_Israel_and_Judah
It's amazing that wikipedia seems to have a page on everything.
nd I looked for something on this topic and didn't find it. I'll give
you credit for finding something right on topic.
But just as you picked out from the page what supported your view, let
me pick out the parts from the very same page that support my view.
I took the liberty of repeating your line.
>According to this article, there were no public schools there until
>64AD,
But it doesn't say that. It says "However, the school system did not
develop until Joshua ben Gamla (64 CE) the high priest caused public
schools to be opened in every town and hamlet for all children above
six or seven years of age (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 21a).[1]"
Not the first public schools but schools in every town and hamlet.
But what else does the page say. Just before the sentence above it
says "The institution known as the "be rav" or "bet rabban" (house of
the teacher), or as the "be safra" or "bet sefer" (house of the book),
is said to have been originated by Ezra' (459 BCE) and his Great
Assembly, who provided a public school in Jerusalem to secure the
education of fatherless boys of the age of sixteen years and upward."
459BCE, 500 years earlier, there was a public school, it says, not "no
public schools there until 64AD".***
And what kind of school? One for fatherless boys. What does that tell
us? That boys with fathers already had someone (their fathers) taking
care of their education.
And why boys 16 and up? When they are already old enough to go to
work. Well, they proably were working if their fathers were dead, so
I think we can guess that the school week was short enough to leave
time for work. Why did these of all people have to be taught to read
and probably to write? Because all the other boys could, most of whom
started learning when they were 5 or 6, and didn't work, except for
household chores.
And it confirms that further up in the article: "Three positive Torah
commandments, numbered ten, eleven and seventeen command provision of
education in general society:
Number 10 - To read the Shema` twice daily, as it is written "and thou
shalt talk of them . . . when thou liest down, and when thou risest
up" (Deuteronomy 6,7).
Number 11 - To learn Torah and to teach it, as it is written "thou
shalt teach them diligently unto thy children" (Deuteronomy 6,7).
Number 17 - For every man to write a Torah scroll for himself, as it
is written "write ye this song for you" (Deuteronomy 31,19).
Thus the father was obligated as the sole teacher of his children in
Jewish history (Deut. xi. 19)."
Now Wikipedia articles are written by whoever wants to write them, and
that alone means they aren't the final word, especially on
controversial subjects. But if you are going to cite the page then so
can I. Very often by a group of people, who try to work out a
compromise, so sometimes one will see lines that seem to contradict
each other. Maybe there is not really a conflict, or maybe one
senence is partially incorrect.
Remember that our original dispute was not just about how early there
was public education but about whether the "common folk" could read,
and like I said, the situation was different for Jews. Let's look at
what the web page says: "In other contemporary ancient civilisations
such as Dynastic Egypt, Babylon and later Ancient Greece and the Roman
Republic the provision of education was restricted to the wealthy
elite, or to professional scribal guilds." But not in Israel and
Judah.
>Jesus was born in the year One AD and attained the age of 30.
Or more likely 3 BCE.
***Actually, the wiki article says something about 64CE. I don't know
why you would change it to AD but since it has been changed, it might
be better rendered in brackets as [64AD] to indicate you are
explaining what the original meant.
What else does it say: "In ancient Israel women did know how to read
and write (despite popular belief to the contrary), and did
participate in commerce independently, although not when married. This
required them to be knowledgeable in all the laws of Nezikin not
normally taught to girls."
This is what i said, that in ancient Israel the women and clearly the
men both nkew how to read and write.
We didn't and we don't live the like the Babylonians, the ancient
Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.
mm
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 8:33 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
I don't know if my reply to your other post will be delayed getting
approval or not, but the very web page you used to try to prove your
point, I used to show that most Jews could read and write. And btw,
you misstated what the page said and there was actually much more
supporting me than you.
So it's your turn to come up with some proof.
mm
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 8:00 pm, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
No. *I* said that what you said was generally true in the ancient
world. You had made it sound like it applied to the Jews too.
> She insisted that
>all Jews were educated.
She said that Jews could read, certainly Hebrew. That means most or
maybe nearly all Jews, but not *all* Jews.
>There is a huge difference.
You have fiddled with, fudged, what was claimed by both you and her,
in order to make her look wrong and you look right. When actually
she was right and you were wrong.
And you still have nerve enough to claim G-d will make *us* pay for
what gets posted on this group.
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 6:21�pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On �5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be
> > > > >criminal.
> > > > > Most
> > > > > don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith.
> > > > >Christ
> > > > > loved
> > > > > Judaism
> >
> > > > According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
> > > > "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities
> > > > described
> > > > in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
> >
> > > His followers, many of whom were Jews, called him"rabbi", which means
> > > "teacher".
> >
> > IOW, according to non-Jews at best, heretics at worst.
> > IOW, Cindy was right.
> >
> > Susan
>
> Heretics? Did they stop practicing Judaism just because they listened
> to Jesus?
Of course, DUH!!
> Judaism does not require it's members to shut their eyes and ears to
> new ideas.
Only when those "new ideas" are heretical - DUH.
> Rabbis, as part of their formal training, read the New Testament.
Divinity students read everything, yes. Big deal.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 6-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Heretics? Did they stop practicing Judaism just because they listened
> > > to Jesus?
> >
> > It sure looks that way. �Supposedly, his words to his followers were an
> > explicit permission to do so.
>
> Proof???????????????????????
For someone who reads the KJV as much as you do,
I am surprised you missed this.
> >
> > > Judaism does not require it's members to shut their eyes and ears to
> > > new ideas.
> >
> > I don't know about your Judaism. �Mine isn't particularly open to
> > accepting the ideas of Christianity.
>
> Jesus preached love and tolerance.
he also preached sedition and ant-Jewish laws.
> He did not preach Catholicism.
Really?
Every single Catholic I know would disagree with this.
I trust them to know a little more about it than you.
>
> You ought to know that.
WHy would he?
> I said they listened to him. Jesus never renounced Judaism. The Last
> Supper was a Passover Seder,
> >
The story was certainly written that way to try to keep appealling to Jews.
> > > Rabbis, as part of their formal training, read the New Testament.
> >
> > Which rabbis are those?
> >
> My sister's Rabbi in San Francisco.
Good for her.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 6:21�pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On �5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > I do believe that there were often teachers who did not go through
> > > > the
> > > > traditional training during that era. �Remember that it was a time
> > > > of
> > > > conflict and change.
> >
> > > It was also a time when most of the common folk could not read because
> > > they could not afford an education.
> > > There were no public schools.
> > > Even in the Middle Ages in Europe, many nobles were illiterate. That's
> > > why the use of seals was so common.
> >
> > Again, that's the goyim.
> > Jews could read - certainly Hebrew.
> >
> > Susan
>
> Proof?????????????????????????????????
I am not surprised you don't realize that Judaism requires studyy.
Susan
mm
I forgot to include this paragraph from the same webpage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_ancient_Israel_and_Judah
"Despite this schooling system, it would seem that many children did
not learn to read and write, because it has been estimated that at
least 90 percent of the Jewish population of Roman Palestine in the
first centuries CE could merely write their own name or not write and
read at all[2], or that the literacy rate was about 3 percent[3]."
I'll post more after I read footnote 3. I want to see on what basis
the estimate is made and how long a period it is estimated to cover,
and what other estimates there might be that differ.
Footnote 2 is not online.
Remember this webpage is almost certainly a compromise. Things may
contradict each other or appear to, but if two things truly contradict
each other, one is not true.
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
> On Jan 5, 11:04 am, "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" <omega....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
> > > >>>> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
> > > >>> His followers, many of whom were Jews, called him"rabbi", which means
> > > >>> "teacher".
>
>
> > > Here's a start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smicha
>
> > > Don Levey, Framingam MA
>
>
> > It does look like the training was not what we expect these days. But
> > then it is very common to require a rabbi or pastor to have a masters
> > these days. We do know that there were schools (ie like for the
> > prophets). And that there were schools of thought within rabbical
> > commuity during the 2nd temple period.
>
> > I do believe that there were often teachers who did not go through the
> > traditional training during that era. Remember that it was a time of
> > conflict and change.
>
> It was also a time when most of the common folk could not read because
> they could not afford an education.
> There were no public schools.
> Even in the Middle Ages in Europe, many nobles were illiterate. That's
Actually the cities set up Joshua for the Levites were basically like
our college towns. My guess is that Levites made a living educating
the masses between Temple duty rotations.
DoD
> mirjam-
Yeah, but if their parents and grandparents weren't educated...How
would they become
educated. I am not talking about learning a skillset, but reading and
writing..etc...
David
DoD
> > It sure looks that way. Supposedly, his words to his followers were an
> > explicit permission to do so.
>
> I want to ask a specific question here, but I am not sure how to ask
> it...I need a little more
> information to ask it and it has to do with Rabbi Gamliel, I
> believe......
How does stuff evolve? I believe I was told that before Rabbi Gamliel
funerals
were elaborate, and then he set the stage for Jews to have short
funeral services.
I believe that is what I was taught...
David
fla...@verizon.net
DoD is referring to the assertion that poor *goyim* couldn't read.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
I was making the *same* "general statement" he was.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 6-Jan-2010, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> >I said it was generally true in the ancient world.
>
> No. *I* said that what you said was generally true in the ancient
> world. You had made it sound like it applied to the Jews too.
>
> > She insisted that
> >all Jews were educated.
>
> She said that Jews could read, certainly Hebrew. That means most or
> maybe nearly all Jews, but not *all* Jews.
Right.
"Jews could read" is NOT the same as "All Jews were educated".
>
> >There is a huge difference.
>
> You have fiddled with, fudged, what was claimed by both you and her,
> in order to make her look wrong and you look right.
Yes - see previous statement.
> When actually
> she was right and you were wrong.
>
Ditto.
> And you still have nerve enough to claim G-d will make *us* pay for
> what gets posted on this group.
Yeah, funny, that...
Susan
DoD
> On 6-Jan-2010, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> DoD is referring to the assertion that poor *goyim* couldn't read.
No... I am wondering how most people could read back in the day.. I am
not talking
about learning a trade either. I do think it prolly happened more
frequently
with Jews because of religious reasons.. but even the amount of
Jewish folklore that
I do know leads me to believe that throughout time Jews have been
illiterate just
like Gentiles have been illiterate.
David
mm
wrote:
>On Jan 6, 11:26 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>> On 6-Jan-2010, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> DoD is referring to the assertion that poor *goyim* couldn't read.
>
>No... I am wondering how most people could read back in the day.. I am
>not talking
>about learning a trade either.
I said "also". That's a specific added thing a Jew must teach his son.
Now paying for his college, at least making sure it's paid for, would
probably be equivalent to paying for him to learn a trade.
> I do think it prolly happened more
>frequently
>with Jews because of religious reasons.. but even the amount of
>Jewish folklore that
>I do know leads me to believe that throughout time Jews have been
>illiterate just
>like Gentiles have been illiterate.
You're judging by the "folklore" you've found? You've formed an
incorrect belief.
>David
fla...@verizon.net
On 7-Jan-2010, DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 11:26�pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On �6-Jan-2010, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > DoD is referring to the assertion that poor *goyim* couldn't read.
>
> No... I am wondering how most people could read back in the day..
I gathered that, but the remark you made
sounded to me that it was referring directly to
the point of the thread.
> I am
> not talking
> about learning a trade either. I do think it prolly happened more
> frequently
> with Jews because of religious reasons.. but even the amount of
> Jewish folklore that
> I do know leads me to believe that throughout time Jews have been
> illiterate just
> like Gentiles have been illiterate.
A higher percentage of Jews had to be able to read, if
only because we did not restrict 50% of our literacy to
non-reproductive sources.
But the folklore - that doesn't normally refer to Hebrew,
but to the language of their surroundings.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 6-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 7:24�pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 9:23�pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On �5-Jan-2010, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 06:22:45 +0000 (UTC), flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >
> > > > >On �3-Jan-2010, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> On Jan 2, 12:50 pm, "piedmont" <N...@Spam.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> > Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be
> > > > >criminal.
> > > > >> > Most
> > > > >> > don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith.
> > > > >Christ
> > > > >> > loved
> > > > >> > Judaism
> >
> > > > >> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
> > > > >> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities
> > > > >described
> > > > >> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
> >
> > > > >When people remark on this to me, I say things like
> > > > >"Bernie Madoff is also Jewish".
> >
> > > > Don't remind them of that. �Why do you want to bring him up?
> >
> > > To make the comparison.
> > > And when they don't get it, I explain it.
> >
> > ------------
> > When the missionaries on SCJ unmoderated would tell me that Jesus was
> > a Jew, I used to answer "So is Howard Stern."
> > Best regards,
> > ---Cindy S.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Aren't you the one who told me that the child of a Jewish Mother and a
> convert to Judaism are Jews and their religious practices and behavior
> don't matter?
Aren;t you the one who whines when you want
to say that someone has not stuck to the
subject you brought up? Why would you do
that to Cindy? Isn't that hypocrisy on your part?
Who in this thread was talking about who is/not a Jew?
If you were, then you mis-phrased yourself.
We are talking about how individual stupid Jews do
not get to be the standard for the rest of us.
> You mocked me and my relatives for laughing at those who
> call themselves"Jewish atheists."
I'd have to see PROOF of this, of course.
> Now, apparently, you are singing a
> different tune.
only to thos who cannot or will not read.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> You missed my point. The ability to read and write in the ancient
> world was mostly restricted to the wealthy.
> Poor Jews didn't have the money for formal education any more than
> poor Gentiles.
Except that it wasn't as much a matter for money as poor Jews.
Jews learned Hebrew because their parents taught them,
because they/we needed to pray.
I was not taught to read by the public school system - I was
taught by my parents.
it is *perfectly* possible for poor people to learn to read without
expensive educations, and Jewish culture is set up for this.
Susan
DoD
> On 7-Jan-2010, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 6, 11:26 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > On 6-Jan-2010, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > > DoD is referring to the assertion that poor *goyim* couldn't read.
>
> > No... I am wondering how most people could read back in the day..
>
> I gathered that, but the remark you made
> sounded to me that it was referring directly to
> the point of the thread.
Not so much...
> > I am
> > not talking
> > about learning a trade either. I do think it prolly happened more
> > frequently
> > with Jews because of religious reasons.. but even the amount of
> > Jewish folklore that
> > I do know leads me to believe that throughout time Jews have been
> > illiterate just
> > like Gentiles have been illiterate.
>
> A higher percentage of Jews had to be able to read, if
> only because we did not restrict 50% of our literacy to
> non-reproductive sources.
I can't say when that strength actually came into play, but that
has definately been one of your cornerstones...
> But the folklore - that doesn't normally refer to Hebrew,
> but to the language of their surroundings.
Not the folklore stories that I am aware of .... Then again, I am not
versed that
much in Jewish stories.. I only know a few.. And admittedly they come
from stories
that came from Europe...
David..
mirjam
No... I am wondering how most people could read back in the day.. I
am
> not talking
> about learning a trade either. I do think it prolly happened more
> frequently
> with Jews because of religious reasons.. but even the amount of
> Jewish folklore that
> I do know leads me to believe that throughout time Jews have been
> illiterate just
> like Gentiles have been illiterate.
>
> David
There is a little problem with your belief , Jewish boys have a Bar
Mitzwa , , how could they have a Bar Mitzwa without being able to
read ????
mirjam
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>On Jan 5, 11:44 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>snip
>>
>> It seems to have more parts than average that, maybe because I'm
>> ignorant, bother me. For example:
>>
>> 1)"Although presently most functioning synagogue rabbis hold semikhah
>> by some rabbinical institution or academy,"
>>
>> I didn't think this was true. I know very little about Reform, but I
>> thought graduates of JTS got smicha from a specific rabbi at JTS.
>
>I didn't know that R or C rabbis got semicha at all. I thought that
Like I say, I know very little about R, I've always thought that C
did. This is what Indopedia says, Indopedia?
http://www.indopedia.org/Semicha.html#In_Conservative_and_Masorti_Judaism
"In Conservative and Masorti Judaism Conservative Judaism holds that
one may obtain rabbinic ordination after the completion of an arduous
learning program in the codes of Jewish law and responsa. It adds to
these requirements by adding the study of: the Hebrew Bible, Mishnah
and Talmud, the Midrash literature, Jewish ethics and lore, the codes
of Jewish law, the responsa literature, both traditional and modern
Jewish works on theology and philosophy.
"Conservative Judaism has less stringent study requirements for Talmud
and responsa study as compared to Orthodoxy. Conservative Judaism adds
the following subjects as requirements for rabbinic ordination: one
must first earn a bachelor's degree before entering rabbinical school.
In addition studies are mandated in pastoral care and psychology, the
historical development of Judaism; and academic biblical criticism. "
BTW, Joe, nothing about the Xian bible. Nor do O read the Xian Bible
in order to become rabbis. They probably strongly avoid it.
The same page says "In Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism -
Reconstructionist Judaism and Reform Judaism do not maintain the
traditional requirements for study. In the four years of study it
takes to become a Reform or Reconstructionist rabbi, they only learn
the amount of Jewish law, Talmud, and responsa that Orthodox rabbis
generally learn within their first year**. Emphasis is placed not on
Jewish law, but rather on sociology, cultural studies, and modern
Jewish philosophy.
The Reform or Reconstructionist rabbinical seminaries hold that one
must first earn a bachelor's degree before entering the rabbinate. In
addition studies are mandated in pastoral care and psychology, the
historical development of Judaism; and academic biblical criticism. "
No mention of the Xian bible here either. Of course not.
**The reference to the "first year" here has got to misleading.
Orthodox boys start learning Talmud when they are 10 or something
close to that. Baalei Tshuvah who want to be rabbis make a big effort
to catch up before start on the rabbinic track. In fact, I'm sure it's
insisted on.
>expression was used only in the O world, and to earn semicha, one
>needed to pass an oral exam that demonstrated mastery of specific
>parts of the Shulchan Aruch as well as learned at least 200 or so
>pages of talmud.
>
>There are different levels of semicha, as well, yoreh yoreh and yadin
>yadin. AIUI, Orthodox who have been learning in yeshiva for a certain
>number of years are sometimes given a sort of honorary title of rabbi,
>but this differs from the "semicha" earned by those who passed the
>above-described test. The purpose of earning semicha AIUI is because
>it confers on the rabbi the authority to pasken halacha (make halachic
>rulings). Hence, the various levels of semicha accord various levels
>of greater or lesser authority.
I thought it was more that Yadin Yadin required knowledge in a greater
number of areas. Yoreh Yoreh smicha means that the rabbi can rule on
every day, every week matters, but not several other areas.
>>And
>> I'm 99.9% sure that's true of Orthodox rabbis, who I believe are "most
>> functioning synagogue rabbis". Graduates of the rabbinic school at
>> Yeshiva U. get s'micha from one or another rabbi either at YU or
>> somewhere else. Probably depending on whom they have the closest
>> relationship with. And by the way, what is the other choice? Why is
>> the word "functioning" there?
>
>Because the vast majority of O rabbis are not functioning as pulpit
>rabbis but are learning in yeshiva or working in some other
>profession. In the frum world, the title "rabbi" is often conferred as
>a degree, much the same as someone in the secular world might earn a
>PhD in some field, but more often than not, the person is not going to
>be a shul rabbi. My community is filled with dozens of O rabbis, but
>only four of them (not including Chabad) are pulpit rabbis. The others
>are learning in kollel or have jobs in the secular world like college
>professor, doctor, or stockbroker.
I wasn't referring that but to the strange use of a strange English
phrase, "most functioning synagogue rabbis". Perhaps he meant "most
of those who function as synagogue rabbis" but the author didnt' say
it.
>>Would the rabbis of defunct synagogues
>> be less likely to have smicha than others? Are there non-functioning
>> rabbis, and are they less likely to have smicha, even when they are
>> synagogue rabbis?
>
>See above.
>>
>> 2)"this was until quite recently not always required,"
>>
>> How true is this? One doesn't need a rabbi to lead services or run a
>> "functioning synagogue". Are they saying that they called a person
>> without smicha "rabbi". What do they mean by "quite recently"?
>> It's usually only very small congregations or in remote places that
>> got along without a rabbi, and how often would they call a non-rabbi
>> rabbi"? They might call someone rabbi, as a sign of respect for
>> someone who gives divrai Torah at the shul, but that is either a
>> different meaning of the word or false use of the current meaning.
>
>Correct. In the O world, the title is sometimes conferred on men who
>have been learning for a number of years, but who haven't actually
>taken or passed the semicha exam.
"Conferred" sounds like this is formallly done. "Used to address"
seems more likely. Maybe like medical students are called doctor and
addressed as Doctor in front of patients during their clinical
training, or maybe not like that.
>> " and in fact many Haredi rabbis may not be required to hold a
>> "formal" semikhah even though they may occupy important rabbinical and
>> leadership positions."
>
>Correct.
>>
>> How true is this? Why is formal in quotes? Is there informal smicha?
>> There is certainly learning without smicha, and there are learned
>> people who don't have smicha, maybe even people who could pass
>> anyone's test for smicha but haven't done so, but what does he mean by
>> "formal" smicha?
>
>I presume it means that the person has actually passed the oral test I
>mentioned above.
I don't think so. I think the word formal shouldn't be in quotes and
probably shouldn't even be there. This is just a wiki page. I doubt
if any Haredim, much less Haredi rabbis, participated in writing it.
>>
>> 3) "Traditionally Moses is also assumed to be the "first rabbi" of the
>> Children of Israel. He is still known to most Jews as Moshe Rabbeinu
>> ("Moses our Teacher").
>>
>> We've called him Moshe Rabbeinu for a long time, but did anyone at the
>> time he was alive call him rabbi? Did they call Hillel or Shamai
>> rabbi? Did they have s'micha?
>
>Moshe Rabbeinu means Moshe our rabbi (or teacher), but there is no way
>to know if anyone ever actually said "Rabbi Moshe." Both Hillel and
>Shammai were called "Rabbi."
>
>I hope I got this stuff right, and as always, I am open to correction
>on any point where I have written something in error.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
cindys
FTR, Rabban Gamliel was the nasi (the prince - head of the academy in
his day). So, it's not the sort of thing that would have evolved. He
just said "There's a problem with the funerals of the wealthy being
too elaborate and putting the poor to shame, and so, from now on, this
is how it's going to be...."
This is not so different from the wedding guidlines the gedolim
(important rabbis) established about 10 years ago. The chareidim had
been feeling a lot of pressure to put on fancy weddings to compete
with the proverbial Joneses, but it was driving them to the poor house
(and many of them are already poor enough). So, the gedolim
established rules that say:
The family can't have an engagement party. They can't spend more than
$1800 for all the flowers for the entire wedding. The kabbolas hapanim
(welcoming buffet before the ceremony) is limited to fruit and simple
cakes and the caterer's simple beef and chicken dishes. The wedding
dinner can't be more than three courses. No sweet table. No open bar
(wine and beer are okay), etc. (this is not an exhaustive list). And
the consequence for someone who wants to flout the rules is that the
gedolim will boycott the wedding. And in frum circles, having gedolim
at your wedding is a lot more important than having an open bar.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Dennis
> There are reports of any number of teachers at that time. Again, it
> was a period of conflict and change. Even after the rebuilding of the
> Temple, how many times was that region conquered? At least the Greeks
> and the Romans. Even now we have individuals who use titles that may,
> at best, have been acquired by less than meeting the standard.
You mean they had diploma mills back then? ;-)
(I couldn't resist.)
> At that period, Judaism (as a culture) had more in common with much of
> the East. In fact Jews most likely acted more like modern Arabs. We
> even had our radicals (the Zealots).
Still do. Just about every religion does even today.
> The culture was had eastern
> values with strong protection of women, rules of hospitality and
> gender roles (with a Jewish twist).
I thought about that when I saw "The Last Temptation of Christ." I
thought, "Well, that *was* the Middle East!"
Dennis
Joe Bruno
> >> On 5-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Also, most Christians are so ignorant of history as to be criminal.
> >>>>> Most
> >>>>> don't understand that Christ was purely of the Jewish faith. Christ
> >>>>> loved
> >>>>> Judaism
> >>>> According to whom? Christians also like to claim that Jesus was a
> >>>> "rabbi." Please! On the basis of his some of the activities described
> >>>> in the Christian bible, he flouted the oral law.
> >>> "teacher".
> >> IOW, Cindy was right.
>
> >> Susan
>
> > to Jesus?
>
> explicit permission to do so.
>
> > new ideas.
>
> accepting the ideas of Christianity.
>
> > Rabbis, as part of their formal training, read the New Testament.
>
> Which rabbis are those?
>
Here is her reply:
Our rabbi, Harry Manhoff, did his Ph.D thesis on first century
Christianity and is an expert on that time period. He often lectures
in local churches about the relationship between what Christians call
the Old Testament and what he calls the Hebrew Scriptures. He gives a
class on the NewTestament for Jews and usually has a minister or two
in it. I've never heard him or any other rabbi say that Jews can't
read the New Testament. Like most Christians who don't know much
about the Hebrew Scriptures, many Jews don't know much about the New
Testament(except maybe for the birth of Christ in the Gospel).
sheldonlg
I would venture to say that the average Christian knows about 100 times
as much about what they call the Old Testament than the average Jew (me
included) knows about the "New Testament".
sheldonlg
>
> Probably a better comparison would be the Christian knowledge of the Talmud
> contrasted with the Jewish knowledge of the christian scriptures....
>
Yeah, those would be about the same.
Joe Bruno
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's not suprising. The Hebrew scriptures are part of every
Christian bible.
I've read parts of the NT on occasion just out of curiosity and also
to debunk the claims of Anti-Semites
who like to use NT passages to justify their claims about Jews.
Their favorite is the statement by Jesus:"Thou art of Thy Father the
Devil".
If you read it in context, you'll see that Jesus said that only to the
Pharisees, not to all Jews.
sheldonlg
Why should I care? That was written by people well after his death and
made him into a "god". Wven it is accurate, it is an attempt by people
of that religion to prove something about us from a document from their
religion.
IOW, so what?
Joe Bruno
>
> - Show quoted text -
My post was addressed to you put done on a public forum, so that
everyone who reads SCJM can see it.
Your lack of interest really is beside the point.
mm
wrote:
So he didn't "read the New Testament" "as part of [his] formal
training" to be a rabbi. But as part of his getting a Ph.D. and
writing his thesis. I'm willing to believe that rabbis and those who
become rabbis later who write a thesis on Xianity also read the
so-called new testament, but how many rabbis or prospective rabbis do
that? One or two a generation?
>He often lectures
>in local churches about the relationship between what Christians call
>the Old Testament and what he calls the Hebrew Scriptures. He gives a
>class on the NewTestament for Jews and usually has a minister or two
>in it. I've never heard him or any other rabbi say that Jews can't
>read the New Testament.
We already know from prior threads here that your experiences are
limited. You've made a half dozen or more statements about what
you've heard regarding C Judaism or rabbis etc., saying you've never
heard of something when loads of other people have.
Here too. IIRC, even reading the Xian bible to study history in order
to explain it to others to explain to them the flaws in Xian thought
is "iffy". Something worth discussing with one's rabbi before setting
out.** To read it just out of personal interest is prohibited by all
or almost all of the sages.
**That doesn't mean I've done that, and maybe I should have, but I've
really read very little of their Bible. I've probably given the
impression that I've read more of it, but most of what I know I've
absorbed from the general culture, where Xians and gentiles often
quote it; and some from Jews for Judaism classes, where parts are
quoted in order to refute them.. Most of what I've read on my own was
to check the exact wording or context those parts of their Bible which
are anti-Jewish (like where Paul calls Moses "the messenger of death".
Paul was a nasty guy. Paul was to Jesus like Col. Tom Parker was to
Elvis, except there was nothing wrong with Tom Parker. )
>Like most Christians who don't know much
>about the Hebrew Scriptures, many Jews don't know much about the New
>Testament
There is a lot we don't know. There is far too much to know in this
world to come close to knowing all of it.
>(except maybe for the birth of Christ in the Gospel).
BTW, one of the things a lot of people, including quite a few Jews
including you don't know, is that calling him "Christ" or "christ" is
an endorsement of one of the things about Xianity that is false.
"Christ" is Greek for "Messiah" and using the title for Jesus is
equivalent, at least for someone who understands the meaning of the
word, equivalent to calling Jesus a messiah of the Jews, an annointed
king of the Jews, and in the view of Xian, The Messiah of the Jews.
Jesus was none of these things, but all those who call him christ or
Christ endorse the notion that he was!
You (and others reading) might not have been aware of this before, but
you and everyone else reading are now. At least you're aware that I
have said this and it might well be true. (It is true.) So if you call
him Christ or a christ in the future, you'll be endorsing a Xian
theological belief that contradicts the beliefs of all Jews, Orthodox,
Conservative, Reform, Renewal, Reconstructionist, socialist,
communist, and other secular. Only the Jews who are Xian agree with
it.
Okay, FWIW, I looked up Rabbi Harry Manhoff, and he's the rabbi of a
congreation in California, "Temple Beth Sholom...We're a Conservative
Synagogue with a Reform Rabbi and a Renewal Cantor" He has an ABD in
Religious Studies at UCSB, and is "a scholar of Judaism of late
Antiquity and Christian origins"
mm
wrote:
>On Jan 8, 3:19 pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
AFAICT, as written in their Bible, Jesus was a Pharisee too, had a
Pharasaic outlook, in addition to his lax practice. He certainly
wasn't a Saducee or a Zealot, and he was, in their story, too
concerned about contemporary issues not to have a position.
One can be a Jew or Catholic or Democrat or Repubican and say negative
things about one's own group. I think in the story, Jesus is saying
negative things about *other* Pharisiees, and is one himself.
DoD
> On Jan 6, 6:26 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 6, 2:36 am, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It sure looks that way. Supposedly, his words to his followers were an
> > > > explicit permission to do so.
>
> > > I want to ask a specific question here, but I am not sure how to ask
> > > it...I need a little more
> > > information to ask it and it has to do with Rabbi Gamliel, I
> > > believe......
>
> > How does stuff evolve? I believe I was told that before Rabbi Gamliel
> > funerals
> > were elaborate, and then he set the stage for Jews to have short
> > funeral services.
> > I believe that is what I was taught...
>
> ------
> FTR, Rabban Gamliel was the nasi (the prince - head of the academy in
> his day). So, it's not the sort of thing that would have evolved. He
> just said "There's a problem with the funerals of the wealthy being
> too elaborate and putting the poor to shame, and so, from now on, this
> is how it's going to be...."
BUT it was an important development.... yes?
> This is not so different from the wedding guidlines the gedolim
> (important rabbis) established about 10 years ago. The chareidim had
> been feeling a lot of pressure to put on fancy weddings to compete
> with the proverbial Joneses, but it was driving them to the poor house
> (and many of them are already poor enough). So, the gedolim
> established rules that say:
>
> The family can't have an engagement party. They can't spend more than
> $1800 for all the flowers for the entire wedding. The kabbolas hapanim
> (welcoming buffet before the ceremony) is limited to fruit and simple
> cakes and the caterer's simple beef and chicken dishes. The wedding
> dinner can't be more than three courses. No sweet table. No open bar
> (wine and beer are okay), etc. (this is not an exhaustive list). And
> the consequence for someone who wants to flout the rules is that the
> gedolim will boycott the wedding. And in frum circles, having gedolim
> at your wedding is a lot more important than having an open bar.
Thanks for being the one to give more information...... ;o)
David
DoD
I can't answer that. But something tells me that there have been Jews
through out time that have been uneducated and couldn't read... Can
you demonstrate otherwise?