Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 8:51 AM
33 online now:
dwise1, edge, Heathen, JonF, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,853 Year: 11,889/19,786 Month: 1,670/2,641 Week: 179/708 Day: 6/40 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Michael Servetus was burnt at the stake in Calvin's Geneva in 1553
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6392
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 61 of 75 (856255)
06-28-2019 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
06-28-2019 11:13 PM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
So what do you do with heretics? Also, can you define what a heretic is?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 06-28-2019 11:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 06-28-2019 11:52 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 62 of 75 (856256)
06-28-2019 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Theodoric
06-28-2019 11:46 PM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
What we do with heretics is try to make it known that they are heretics so they won't seduce others into their beliefs.

A heretic is someone who promotes a belief system that contradicts the traditional system in important ways. I believe it would be right to call GDR a heretic, and his hero Wright. A belief in reincarnation would be such a contradiction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Theodoric, posted 06-28-2019 11:46 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-29-2019 12:11 AM Faith has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1458
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 63 of 75 (856257)
06-29-2019 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
06-28-2019 11:52 PM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
Faith, after you said Origen was a heretic, you said:

quote:
A heretic is someone who promotes a belief system that contradicts the traditional system in important ways.

Do you consider his role in helping European Christians develop their Bible as injecting heresy into the Bible?

HOLMAN STUDENT BIBLE DICTIONARY
BY KAREN DOCKREY
JOHNNIE & PHYLLIS GODWIN
(1993 HOLMAN BIBLE PUBLISHERS; NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE)

There is a graph on page 15, and I am presenting it horizontally, with a very changed format. I am skipping no words, but don't consider this a precise quote due to the radically changed format to make my quote.

quote:

NEW TESTAMENT CANONIZATION PROCESS

0-180 A.D. Early Fathers quote Apocryphal books as Scripture: first challenged by Origen

200 Muratorian Canon Lacks: Hebrews 3 John

250 Origen's New Testament Lacks: Hebrews James 2 Peter 2 &3 John Jude

300 Eusebius New Testament Lacks: Hebrews James 2 Peter 2 &3 John Jude Doubts authorship of Revelation

400New Testament Fixed by the Council of Carthage


Do you consider his questioning the "divine inspiration" of the Apocryphal books as heresy?

Does his concern about late-written, and poorly attested, books (like 2 Peter) qualify as heresy?

Was he a heretic to feel that 2nd Peter was not written by Peter? Or was he in good company with non-heretics?

What makes a heretic?

Anybody who was closer to the first century (like Origin, who was born in the late second) runs the risk of being deemed heretical when a 21st century European Christian looks at their scholarship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

He was born in 184 in Alexandria, Egypt.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 06-28-2019 11:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 12:26 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 64 of 75 (856258)
06-29-2019 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by LamarkNewAge
06-29-2019 12:11 AM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
Yes, questioning the authorship of books of the Bible could make him a heretic. I'm not up on what all he believes, mostly I know that he was a disciple of famous Bible scholar Metzger, known as an unbeliever, who refused to accept the book of Daniel as prophecy etc.

If Origen taught reincarnation certainly that makes him a heretic. And Alexandria is known as a place where heretics flourished in the early centuries. That's one reason to doubt the "Alexandrian" Bible manuscripts that were "found" in recent times and are now used to replace the authentic manuscripts, which is a great fraud on the Church. Dean John William Burgon said this type of manuscript with many omissions of famous passages as well as altered words, was known to have been altered by early heretics such as the gnostics. They were rejected for years until a couple of heretics foisted them on a very naive Church in 1881

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-29-2019 12:11 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-29-2019 12:58 AM Faith has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1458
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 65 of 75 (856259)
06-29-2019 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
06-29-2019 12:26 AM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
quote:

If Origen taught reincarnation certainly that makes him a heretic. And Alexandria is known as a place where heretics flourished in the early centuries. That's one reason to doubt the "Alexandrian" Bible manuscripts that were "found" in recent times and are now used to replace the authentic manuscripts, which is a great fraud on the Church.

I don't know where to start.

This sounds like your obsession with the Hebrew Bible text behind the King James and certain New Testament manuscripts being behind the New Testament, correct?

The ironic thing is that NO EUROPEAN CHRISTIANS (except Jerome and a small handful) could read Hebrew.

Even the mighty scholar Origin could not read Hebrew.

quote:

Eusebius even claims that Origen learned Hebrew.[58][59] Most modern scholars agree that this is implausible,[58][60] but they disagree on how much Origen actually knew about the language.[59] H. Lietzmann concludes that Origen probably only knew the Hebrew alphabet and not much else;[59] whereas, R. P. C. Hanson and G. Bardy argue that Origen had a superficial understanding of the language, but not enough to have composed the entire Hexapla.[59] A note in Origen's On the First Principles mentions an unknown "Hebrew master",[58] but this was probably a consultant, not a teacher.[58]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen



This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 12:26 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 1:12 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 66 of 75 (856260)
06-29-2019 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by LamarkNewAge
06-29-2019 12:58 AM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
...my "obsessions with the Hebrew text?" I don't think I've ever said a word about the Hebrew text. As I understand it the Hebrew texts weren't available to translators of the Christian Bible until very late, but I don't know the date. Maybe Erasmus had the first? Anyway, I've certainly talked about the GREEK texts of the NEW Testament, and the Alexandrian versions of these I've called a fraud on the Church, having been tampered with by gnostics in the early centuries, according to Burgon.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-29-2019 12:58 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-29-2019 2:52 PM Faith has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1458
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 67 of 75 (856314)
06-29-2019 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
06-29-2019 1:12 AM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
quote:

my "obsessions with the Hebrew text?" I don't think I've ever said a word about the Hebrew text. As I understand it the Hebrew texts weren't available to translators of the Christian Bible until very late, but I don't know the date.

It is true that the King James translators used a post Jerome/Pope Damascus Hebrew text

The (anti Roman Catholic) "King James ONLY" crowd makes a big deal about "their" Hebrew text, which is ironic, since Jerome translated certain Hebrew manuscripts into the Latin Old Testament Vulgate around 382, which should be (logically?) considered "superior" to the LATER Masorah (with all of that "Jewish tampering" and "mystical numbers" accusations against so many groups - so all the more so against actual Jewish scholars).

The reason very few (so-called) "real Christians" (which to you, Faith, means Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Europeans) knew Hebrew was due to two factors:

1) There were very antagonistic relations between Jewish Christians (and also actual Jews themselves) and the European Roman Catholics & Eastern Orthodox ("real Christians"), thus there was little friendly communication (no scholarly or friendly help).

2) The lack of vowels in the written text (until the Masorah was finished centuries later) made understanding the words very difficult for non-Hebrew speakers.

quote:

Anyway, I've certainly talked about the GREEK texts of the NEW Testament, and the Alexandrian versions of these I've called a fraud on the Church, having been tampered with by gnostics in the early centuries, according to Burgon.

Burgon does not say "gnostics" added to the scripture - infact he strongly would deny such, but he somehow manages to keep a straight face when he claims they subtracted a word here and there to supposedly make some big doctrinal difference.

He makes a big deal about Mark 16:9-20 being "removed" from the Alexandrian text.

(same thing about John 7:53-8:11 being 'removed")

If you can show me where 12-14 verses were ADDED BY GNOSTICS, then I will take the Textus Receptus (or King James) "only" crowd seriously. You cannot have it both ways (The words - in ALL Bibles - are ALL divine BUT some "divine" words were "removed")

(And why would a "gnostic" care about REMOVING John 7:53-8:11? So the death penalty could be used against themselves by the Roman government, even though the Roman government was not "Bible based" during the time of the supposed "removal"?)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 1:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 3:02 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 68 of 75 (856315)
06-29-2019 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by LamarkNewAge
06-29-2019 2:52 PM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
I believe Burgon specifically referred to Marcion though I may be misremembering. And no there's nothing about their adding, it was all subtracting.

And as far as the Hebrew goes, as I said I've never mentioned it and don't address it at all anywhere that I recall. But as for the Masoretic text it is well known that the Jews were scrupulous about preserving the text exactly and that makes it the best Hebrew text. Also we know that the Hebrew books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls match ours exactly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-29-2019 2:52 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-29-2019 3:21 PM Faith has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1458
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 69 of 75 (856316)
06-29-2019 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
06-29-2019 3:02 PM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
quote:
I believe Burgon specifically referred to Marcion though I may be misremembering. And no there's nothing about their adding, it was all subtracting.

So we have these manuscripts that were controlled by "gnostics", yet they are 100% divinely inspired, with nothing added? Only things taken away?

Correct?

quote:

And as far as the Hebrew goes, as I said I've never mentioned it and don't address it at all anywhere that I recall. But as for the Masoretic text it is well known that the Jews were scrupulous about preserving the text exactly and that makes it the best Hebrew text. Also we know that the Hebrew books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls match ours exactly.

I was just reading a book by a member of the international team (the famous team that was Christian only) that controlled the scrolls for the first 40 years. It was by John Allegro (the book was titled along the lines of "Mystery of the Dead Sea Scrolls Revealed"), and he said the DSS are closer to the Septuagint (LXX) than the MT.

So no "we" do not "know" what you just said.

This means the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts found a Qumran do actually allow for the possibility that the Gospel quotations actually quoted a Hebrew text, as opposed to the (Greek!) Septuagint. It does increase the odds that the Gospels could have been written in Hebrew and that Jesus (even Paul) had actual conversations that the Synoptic Gospels portray.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 3:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 3:44 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 70 of 75 (856321)
06-29-2019 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by LamarkNewAge
06-29-2019 3:21 PM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
There were Septuagint mss as well as Masoretic mss in the DSS.

I certainly don't consider the Alexandrian mss to have been inspired.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-29-2019 3:21 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-29-2019 4:01 PM Faith has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1458
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 71 of 75 (856325)
06-29-2019 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
06-29-2019 3:44 PM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
quote:

I certainly don't consider the Alexandrian mss to have been inspired.

I just don't see how you can consider these scholars honest when they claim that nothing has been added to the manuscripts, only subtracted from "the autographs".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 3:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 8:10 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 72 of 75 (856345)
06-29-2019 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by LamarkNewAge
06-29-2019 4:01 PM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
Whut? I DON'T consider the scholars honest who think the Alexandrian mss are legit.

It's obvious nothing has been added when you see the comparisons many have made. It's all subtractions.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-29-2019 4:01 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-30-2019 10:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1458
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 73 of 75 (856452)
06-30-2019 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
06-29-2019 8:10 PM


Scholars like Bruce Metzger are dishonest (but not in the way Faith says they are)
quote:

Whut? I DON'T consider the scholars honest who think the Alexandrian mss are legit.
It's obvious nothing has been added when you see the comparisons many have made. It's all subtractions.

I do consider the same Christian scholars dishonest (Metzger included) and hypocritical.

They are correct in holding the "Alexandrian" (or eastern) text as the least changed (thus the most accurate).

But then they will still follow the changes made to the "Western" text, by introducing fraudulent interpretations.

Look at the Apostolic Council of Acts 15.

The Western text changed things so that food requirements were (essentially) taken out.

The Alexandrian text kept everything in (btw, it has the same text as the later King James manuscripts, except the added part - in the "textus receptus" - that , I think, says "Moses has been taught for generation to generation in all the synagogues", around verse 21), which requires the mandatory minimum on gentiles: follow the WRITTEN kosher food laws plus the ORAL Law rules against eating meat sacrificed to idols and strangulation/head tearing of chickens & kosher birds.

But Metzger found a way around the rules.

(quotation marks around Metzger's words were added by me)

quote:

Historicity

See also: Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles

The description of the Apostolic Council in Acts 15, generally considered the same event described in Galatians 2,[13] is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account.[14] The historicity of Luke's account has been challenged,[15][16][17] and was rejected completely by some scholars in the mid to late 20th century.[18] However, more recent scholarship inclines towards treating the Jerusalem Council and its rulings as a historical event,[19] though this is sometimes expressed with caution.[20] Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament includes a summary of current research on the topic as of about 1994:

"In conclusion, therefore, it appears that the least unsatisfactory solution of the complicated textual and exegetical problems of the Apostolic Decree is to regard the fourfold decree[21] as original (foods offered to idols, strangled meat, eating blood, and unchastity—whether ritual or moral), and to explain the two forms of the threefold decree[21] in some such way as those suggested above.[22] An extensive literature exists on the text and exegesis of the Apostolic Decree. ... According to Jacques Dupont, "Present day scholarship is practically unanimous in considering the 'Eastern' text of the decree as the only authentic text (in four items) and in interpreting its prescriptions in a sense not ethical but ritual" [Les problèmes du Livre des Actes d'après les travaux récents (Louvain, 1950), p.70]."[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem


("ethical" is the same thing as what scholars call "moral". Then misuse of so-called "ritual" laws are sometimes called "cultic" or "ceremonial". Scholars have made alot of crap up, including "table fellowship" crap. It is almost all fraudulent.)

People will always do what pleases themselves.

The rules in the text will be ignored, even when the most authentic manuscripts (with the toughest rules) are allowed to stand.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 8:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1458
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 74 of 75 (856461)
07-01-2019 12:58 AM


cultic, ceremonial, ritual (as opposed to "ethical", "moral") is not about pork.
Christian scholars are liars.

The Jewish religion had issues with purity and "table fellowship" type stuff.

There were categories of folks:

starting with am ha aretz

quote:

CAMBRIDGE COMMENTARIES ON WRITINGS OF THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN WORLD
200 BC TO AD 200
VOLUME 4

Early Rabbinic Writings

by HYAM MACCOBY

xi

*am ha-ares (literally, 'people of the land', but employed to mean 'person of the land'): 1. 'layman', in the sense of one not learned in the Torah (see talmid \iakam)\ 2. 'layman', in the sense of one not a member of a ritual-purity society (see haber).

....

xiv-xv

haber, pi. haberim ('associate' or 'fellow'): 1. a member of a society of those voluntarily undertaking to observe a supererogatory standard of ritual purity and tithing (see 'am ha-'ares);

2. a member of any other religious society, e.g. a charitable organisation or a society for the decent burial of the dead;

3. a title of scholars (like 'fellow' in English). haburah, pi. haburot ('fellowship'): a group formed for any religious purpose; especially for the supererogatory observance of ritual purity and tithing.

....

xviii

neeman ('trusted'): a member of a society for the supererogatory observance of tithing.


It had nothing to do with the food laws related to pork and proper slaughter.

quote:

CAMBRIDGE COMMENTARIES ON WRITINGS OF THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN WORLD
200 BC TO AD 200
VOLUME 4

Early Rabbinic Writings

by HYAM MACCOBY

pp.73-74

Note that 'ritual purity' is quite a different thing from the 'dietary laws', though these two topics are often confused. The 'dietary laws' consist of prohibitions against the eating of certain animals, birds, fish and insects. These prohibitions are biblical (see Lev. 11), and are obligatory on all Jews (but not on non-Jews). Consequently, no societies of haberim were formed to observe these laws, since they were obligatory, not supererogatory. Included also in the dietary laws is the prohibition against eating the flesh even of permitted animals unless they have been slaughtered by the method called sehifah; this law is not found explicitly in the Bible, but was regarded as an halakah le-Moseh mi-Sinai (see p. 4).

If permitted meat was not available, Jews would sometimes resort to vegetarianism, as did Daniel and his companions (Dan. 1:8-16), not as a matter of'ritual purity' but of kasrut ('permitted food').

The matter is somewhat complicated by the fact that the language of'defilement' is occasionally used in relation to forbidden foods, which are sometimes called 'unclean', but this word has a different connotation in this context from its connotation in a 'ritual-purity' context. Also, there are some repercussions between the two systems of'dietary law' and 'ritual purity'; for example, someone who touches the carcase of a forbidden animal becomes ritually unclean (Lev. 11:26). He is not forbidden to touch such a carcase, but is required to undergo ablution before entering holy areas, or eating or touching holy food, if he has become ritually unclean in this or any other way. Thus to eat 'forbidden food' was a very serious matter, while to incur 'ritual impurity' was not serious at all, but was an inevitable part of everyday living, for which the easily available remedy was the ritual bath (miqweh).


Table fellowship in New Testament?

quote:

pp.13-14

The New Testament, too, is far from assigning a tiny, unassuming role to the Pharisees. Though critical of Pharisaic attention to tithing, it ascribes a very wide range of authority to the Pharisees, saying that 'they sit in Moses' seat' (Matt. 23:2), and, though it makes some reference to ritual-purity observances, such as hand-washing and vessel-washing, it nowhere identifies the Pharisees with the 'table-fellowships', which, indeed, are not even mentioned in the New Testament. (It is only a modern scholarly theory, based on nothing in the texts, that relates Jesus' association with sinners to the question of ritual purity and 'table-fellowship'.) The impression of the Pharisees given by the New Testament, though hostile, is certainly not one of an insignificant group, taking no part in the general life of the nation.


It was about other issues.

quote:

pp.67-74

The Ne'eman and the Haber

Mishnah Demai 2:2-3

"He who undertakes to be a neeman, tithes that which he eats and that which he sells and that which he buys; and he does not accept an invitation to a meal with an 'am ha-9ares. Rabbi Judah says: Even if he accepts an invitation to a meal with an 'am ha-'ares, he is a ne'eman. They said to him: He is not trustworthy about himself; how can be be trustworthy about what belongs to others? He that undertakes to be a haber does not sell to an 'am ha-9ares either wet or dry, and does not buy from him wet, and does not accept an invitation to a meal with him and does not invite him to a meal in his own garment. Rabbi Judah says: Also he does not raise small cattle, and he is not free with vows or with merriment, and he does not allow himself to become unclean through a corpse, and he frequents the House of Study. They said to him: These things do not come under this heading."

There are many misapprehensions, found even in scholarly books, about the 'table-fellowships' and their aims. The present passage is important for a true understanding of these voluntary groups.

neeman: literally, 'one who is trusted'.

The neeman groups were not essentially attached to the 'table-fellowships' as a kind of apprentice stage, though some individuals might graduate from being a neeman to joining a haburah ('table-fellowship'). The ne'eman was one who had made an 'undertaking' in relation to tithes only, while the 'undertaking' of a haber concerned both tithes and ritual purity, primarily the latter. It is important to understand that someone who was neither a ne'eman nor a haber, was not thereby regarded as a sinner, since the life of these special groups was one of supererogatory virtue, in the area pertaining to their vow, or 'undertaking'. tithes that which he eats: this was not a biblical obligation, because, according to Scripture, it was the duty of the farmer to separate the tithes, and non-farmers could legitimately rely on the trustworthiness of farmers in this respect.

However, since the farmers had come under suspicion of not separating some of the tithes, it had become a matter of supererogatory virtue to separate tithes even from cereals bought from dealers, though it was quite possible that these had already been tithed. The name given to such 'doubtful' cereals was demai. Societies were thus formed of people who had 'undertaken' to be 'trustworthy' in relation to tithes. Such people would always separate tithes from produce, unless they bought it from another member of a tithe-society, who could be trusted to have separated tithes, or to have bought it from a farmer whom he knew to be trustworthy. Since demai produce was not known to be untithed, and since there was no real obligation on anyone except the farmer to separate tithes, there were many leniencies in relation to demai produce: for example, it might be given to the poor, who were not required to suffer deprivation because of such scruples. (See M. Dem. 1:2 and 3:1 for other such leniencies.)

The most important tithes (those due to the priests) were not made subject to the rules of demai, as the farmers were not suspected of neglecting them; also, the Levites' Tithe and the Poor Man's Tithe were never included in the calculations, since they were regarded as only payable when full proof that the produce was untithed was available. Consequently, even the neeman societies only concerned themselves with about half the tithes that were due. These considerations should be borne in mind, because there has been much exaggeration about the extent to which the tithe and purity societies divided the Jewish people. It should be noted that the rules oidemai, so far from being biblical (de-oraita) were not even regarded as being rabbinical (de-rabbanan), but rather as applying only to people who had given a voluntary 'undertaking' to observe them. It is clear from certain passages that the people who decided to give this 'undertaking' did not belong to any particular class; some of the learned Pharisaic class, for example, are known not to have been among them.

and that which he sells and that which he buys:

this means that if he buys produce not to eat but to sell, he tithes it before he sells it: anyone buying from him knows that the produce has been certainly tithed. His customers, therefore, are likely to be other members of the society, who would not be obliged to separate further tithes, but would probably pay more than the market price.

"he does not accept an invitation to a meal with an 'am ha-ares":

the term 'am ha-ares (literally 'people of the land', but employed to mean 'person of the land') means here simply someone who is not a member of a tithing or purity society (see, however, pp. 126 and 142 for other usages of the term). An 'am ha-ares, then, was not necessarily someone who deliberately ate produce which he knew to be untithed. He was much more likely to be someone who ate produce on the assumption that it had been tithed, relying on the fact that the biblical responsibility to tithe lay on the farmer, not on him. The prohibition against accepting an invitation to a meal with an 'am ha-ares does not, therefore, imply any strong disapproval of his way of life, or stigmatize him as a sinner. It simply means that the special vow or 'undertaking' of the society-member precludes him from partaking in meals that are not guaranteed to comply with the conditions of his vow. To give a modern analogy, someone who is on a special diet might refuse an invitation to dinner without in any way casting reproach on his intended host. It should be noted, furthermore, that such a refusal would not lead to the breaking off of friendly relations between the ne'eman and his 'am ha-ares friend, since there was no objection whatever to their sharing a meal at the house of the ne'eman, while the 'am ha-ares perfectly under-stood that his friend's vow precluded him from accepting invitations. Such arrangements are quite common even among modern Jews who have different standards of observance of food laws (kasrut).

Rabbi Judah says: Even if he accepts an invitation to a meal with an 'ama-ares, he is a neeman\

Rabbi Judah here means Rabbi Judah ben Il'ai, a very prominent authority in the Mishnah, where he is always called simply 'Rabbi Judah' (not to be confused with Rabbi Judah the Prince, the redactor of the Mishnah, who is called 'Rabbi'). Rabbi Judah ben Il'ai was a pupil of Rabbi Akiba, and flourished about AD 130 (see p. 45). Rabbi Judah's point here is that a ne'eman may be trusted to know whether his friend, the 'am ha-'ares, can be relied on to respect his friend's vow to the extent of putting before him at a meal only food bought from a ne'eman shopkeeper. Even one who normally does not keep to neeman rules can be trusted to do so on occasion, when hospitality demands such conduct. Rabbi Judah's attitude would be unintelligible on the view often put forward, that all friendship between society-members and the 'am ha-ares was impossible. On the other hand, there is no great gulf between Rabbi Judah and his opponents on this issue, since both would agree that a meal in the neeman's house to which the 'am ha-ares was invited would be unobjectionable.

They said to him: an expression implying that there was a majority against him. The view of the majority was that the vow of a ne'eman obliged him not to rely on anyone except a (fellow-ne'eman in tithing matters. If he relaxed this rule in relation to his own conduct, he could not be trusted to observe the rules in relation to fellow members.

He that undertakes to be a haber: to observe special rules of purity, in addition to special rules of tithing. Here, too, an 'undertaking' or vow was necessary because the society was under a special rule that went beyond the requirements of normal Judaism. The essence of a haber s 'undertaking' was 'to eat ordinary food (hullin) in purity', i.e. to avoid imparting ritual impurity to ordinary food. Normally, there was no obligation to do this, for biblical law forbade only the imparting of impurity to holy food (see p. 53).

The haber underwent ablutions in the ritual pool similar to those that were obligatory for the priest before eating his priestly food (terumah). Those who were not haberim were even less under a stigma than those who were not ne'eman, for, whereas the neeman was concerned about a possible breach of the law of tithing (even though such a breach was not really his responsibility), the haber was not concerned even about a possible breach, but only engaged in an exercise of supererogatory piety.

does not sell to an 'am ha-ares\

an 'am ha-ares means here anyone who is not a haber, and may even include a ne'eman, since the latter is 'trustworthy' only in relation to tithes, not ritual impurity. The reason why a haber does not sell produce to an 'am ha-ares is that the haber has undertaken not to be instrumental in the conveying of impurity to ordinary food.

Consequently, the haber sells produce only to his fellow-haber im, who will handle ordinary food in the same way that he does himself. This does not imply disapproval of the way of life of the 'am ha-'ares, who is not bound by any 'undertaking', and is quite entitled to ignore purity questions when eating ordinary food. Note that it is only in connection with produce of the Land of Israel that the haber gives his 'undertaking'. Since the whole of the Land of Israel was regarded as an extension of the Temple, and thus as holy territory, it was natural for some people, as an exercise in piety, to undertake voluntarily to treat its products as if they were subject to the same restrictions that governed the handling of holy food, such as the terumah. There was also a practical reason why a small minority of laymen should keep themselves in a constant state of ritual purity: in order to assist the priests in the collection of the terumah (see p. 96).

either wet or dry, and does not buy from him wet:

only produce that had been moistened was susceptible to ritual impurity, in accordance with Lev. 11:37-8, 'When any of their dead bodies falls on seed intended for sowing, it remains clean; but if the seed has been soaked in water and any dead body falls on it, you shall treat it as unclean' (see M. Maks.) The haber may buy grain from the 'am ha-ares as long as it has never been purposely moistened and thus cannot have acquired any impurity. It is noteworthy that the 'am ha-ares is trusted to say whether grain, which may be dry at present, has been moistened at any time in the past. For the degree of trust in which the 'am ha-ares was held, see also p. 96.

The haber, however, must not sell grain to an 'am ha-ares whether wet or dry, because this would be to hand it over to impurity.

does not accept an invitation to a meal with him:

here there is no dissenting opinion. Whereas it was conceivable for an 'am ha-'ares to be trusted in relation to tithes since it was a simple matter to provide tithed food for a guest, it was far too much to expect an 'am ha-ares to put his food, his house and himself into a state of purity in order to receive a guest. and does not invite him to a meal in his own garment: social relations between the haber and the 'am ha-'ares are not ruled out completely, for the haber may entertain his friend who is an 'am ha-'ares, as long as the latter puts on a garment provided by the haber as he enters the house; this is rather like the donning of white coats and masks in a modern hospital by visitors to a surgical theatre. The 'am ha-ares, however, is not required to cover his face or hands, because he would see that these were at the required standard of purity before visiting his haber friend. While it was relatively easy to avoid contact of face and hands with a source of impurity, such as the dead body of a 'creeping thing', it was regarded as more difficult to preserve the purity of one's clothes; this indeed formed part of the apprenticeship of one entering a haburah. For a further instance of the distinction made between persons and their clothes in ritual-purity matters, see p. 94. he does not raise small cattle: i.e. sheep or goats.

By an ordinance of the rabbis, probably dated about AD 60, it was forbidden to raise small cattle in any areas where they might damage crops, though it was permitted in semi-wilderness areas. Rabbi Judah probably means that the haber, being dedicated to a life of supererogatory virtue, should not raise small cattle anywhere, since they might stray and damage crops. It is somewhat ironic that sheep-rearing, associated with the Patriarchs and with ideal figures such as David, should have acquired such disrepute in our era.

he is not free with vows:

Rabbi Judah is probably referring to idle vows made merely for emphasis, which were not considered legally binding; but the rabbis also frowned on the making of vows generally, unless for a special religious purpose.

or with merriment:

he must preserve a grave demeanour. Similarly, the Community Rule of the Qumran sect prescribes 'Whoever has guffawed foolishly shall do penance for thirty days'. he does not allow himself to become unclean through a corpse: according to the Bible, this rule applies only to priests (Lev. 21:1). Rabbi Judah thus wants the haber to behave like a priest. Exaggerated as Rabbi Judah's attitude is, it is quite clear from his remarks that the practice of the haburah was never intended as a norm for all Israelites.

It would be impossible to discharge important religious duties if everybody refused to become unclean through a corpse. Note that this is the only form of impurity forbidden to a priest, and even this is waived if the priest is the only person available to bury the corpse.

he frequents the House of Study:

the haber was to combine the character of the ritual-purity devotee with that of the talmid hakam, or man of learning. These things do not come under this heading: Rabbi Judah is overruled by his colleagues, who do not want to extend the concept of the haburah to make it into a kind of contemplative order, but to restrict it to its original purpose, which was to act as a special group devoted to ritual purity. *The passage is very instructive about the nature of the haburah and the neeman fellowship. Neither of these groups was like the Qumran sect, which regarded itself as an oasis of righteousness in a desert of wickedness. On the other hand, they were not quite like the Christian monastic orders, leading a life isolated from the community. The essence of these Jewish groups was that they dedicated themselves to the perfection of one particular aspect of Judaism, while by no means abandoning the rest. The imperfect analogy with Christian monastic orders is, however, helpful.

Just as a Trappist monk does not regard the ordinary church member as sinful because he talks, so a haber did not repudiate as sinful the practice of the 'am ha-are$, who followed biblical law in not bothering about ritual purity except on special occasions, and in leaving tithing to the farmers.

**Note that 'ritual purity' is quite a different thing from the 'dietary laws', though these two topics are often confused. The 'dietary laws' consist of prohibitions against the eating of certain animals, birds, fish and insects. These prohibitions are biblical (see Lev. 11), and are obligatory on all Jews (but not on non-Jews). Consequently, no societies of haberim were formed to observe these laws, since they were obligatory, not supererogatory. Included also in the dietary laws is the prohibition against eating the flesh even of permitted animals unless they have been slaughtered by the method called sehifah; this law is not found explicitly in the Bible, but was regarded as an halakah le-Moseh mi-Sinai (see p. 4). If permitted meat was not available, Jews would sometimes resort to vegetarianism, as did Daniel and his companions (Dan. 1:8-16), not as a matter of'ritual purity' but of kasrut ('permitted food'). The matter is somewhat complicated by the fact that the language of'defilement' is occasionally used in relation to forbidden foods, which are sometimes called 'unclean', but this word has a different connotation in this context from its connotation in a 'ritual-purity' context. Also, there are some repercussions between the two systems of'dietary law' and 'ritual purity'; for example, someone who touches the carcase of a forbidden animal becomes ritually unclean (Lev. 11:26). He is not forbidden to touch such a carcase, but is required to undergo ablution before entering holy areas, or eating or touching holy food, if he has become ritually unclean in this or any other way. Thus to eat 'forbidden food' was a very serious matter, while to incur 'ritual impurity' was not serious at all, but was an inevitable part of everyday living, for which the easily available remedy was the ritual bath (miqweh).


Late edit:

Demai mean this

quote:

p. xiv

demai (derivation not certainly known): produce about which there is doubt whether it has been tithed

de-rabbanan ('of the rabbis' or 'rabbinical', Aramaic): descriptive of laws instituted by human authority (opposite: de-oraita).

derasa ('interpretation', from the root daras, 'to search', see derus and midrash): an interpretation, using rabbinic hermeneutic methods, of a scriptural text, not necessarily in a work of the genre midrash (see pesat).


Pork (and all kosher food requirements) is not "cultic"!

Not "ceremonial"!

Not "ritual"!

We (humans of all religions or of no religion) actually do have a "Jewish" religion to check this stuff.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1458
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 75 of 75 (856885)
07-03-2019 7:32 PM


Scripture tells us what about people in an "unclean" state?
From the great scholar Hyam Maccoby (in the same Cambridge work):

quote:

pp.53-54

Priests who had become unclean through contact with some impurity such as a dead 'creeping thing' were forbidden to touch or eat the priestly food, or terumah (given from the harvests to the priests by Israelites, see Num. 18:8-11), though they were permitted to touch or eat non-priestly food. Priests who had immersed themselves in the ritual pool (miqweh) in the morning in order to cleanse themselves of their impurity, still had to wait until the evening before eating terumah (Lev. 22:6).

During the period from the morning immersion to the coming out of the stars, a person is termed a tebul yom ('he who immersed that day'). In this state, a person is regarded as having a mild degree of impurity, sufficient to transfer impurity to holy food but not to ordinary food. Thus a haber, or member of a table-fellowship, may eat his food even when he is a tebul yom, for, although his vow or 'undertaking' compels him to eat even ordinary food 'in purity' (i.e. without conveying impurity to it), the mild degree of impurity adhering to a tebul yom is insufficient to convey impurity to ordinary food. For further explanation of ritual-purity matters, see pp. 67, 94-100. It should be remembered that ordinary Israelites (non-priests) were not much concerned about ritual purity, since being in a state of impurity, or conveying it to ordinary food, was not sinful in law. Only priests, or those laymen who made the special voluntary vow of the table-fellowships, had daily concern in the matter; and the seriousness involved was much greater for the priest than for the haber, since the priest had to worry about committing sacrilege, while the haber only had to worry about a possible breach of his vow. Moreover, as we have just seen, the task of the haber was less arduous than that of the priest, ordinary food being less susceptible to impurity than holy food.


So much for this "cultic" (aka "ceremonial", "ritual") sin excuse when it comes to pork and these supposed big "fellowship" divisions in Christianity.

There was no breaking off contact between Jewish folks or "purity" and non purity(in fact, meals could be had together!)

quote:

p.69

there has been much exaggeration about the extent to which the tithe and purity societies divided the Jewish people.

....

The prohibition against accepting an invitation to a meal with an 'am ha-ares does not, therefore, imply any strong disapproval of his way of life, or stigmatize him as a sinner.

....

It should be noted, furthermore, that such a refusal would not lead to the breaking off of friendly relations between the ne'eman and his 'am ha-ares friend, since there was no objection whatever to their sharing a meal at the house of the ne'eman,


Pork was still a sin. A moral/ethical sin.

The (via Christian scholar's claim) claimed "universal agreement" among "scholars" that Acts 15:20-29 is about "ritual" (aka "cultic", "ceremonial") sin centering around (table?) fellowship is a lie.

It is a lie that can only be gotten away with when opposing views were short lived: that is held by people soon to be killed (in a manner similar to Servetus). Truth was always told a a small number or marked & muted people.

(amazing that circumcision was not required by gentile-Christians, as per the Apostolic Council, but Christian scholars still keep a straight face/pen while claiming Acts 15 was somehow only an expedient set of meaningless words meant to sound good to a first century Jewish Christian - yes, circumcision not required!)

What about today?

Here is a hint:

3 billion Christians (of the European Christianity offshoot branch)

15 million Jewish people

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


    
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019