Post #9,403
9/16/01 8:45:00 PM
|
Don't like it
Thanks for the link.
As a recovering Jew, I am a member of a synagogue
as a heritage touchpoint for my kids. On the other
hand, I hopefully instill enough cynical disbelief
to counterbalance any blind faith.
As proof of this dichotomy, my 12 year old son just
refused to be Bar Mitzvahed. He already learned
the prayers and his passage, but refused to go up
and lie to everyone. Makes me proud.
INFURIATES my wife, who isn't even Jewish, but is a
pre-school teacher at the synagogue, and has to deal
with all the back stabbing gossip. Oh well.
Now I have to start going to services with my 9
year old daughter, and possibly go through the
whole build up of a Bat Mitzvah only to abandon it.
Oh well. As long as it is truly a decision and not
a parental manipulation, I won't mind either way.
Of course, I did choose this particular synagogue because
I really admired the rabbi, who later killed his wife.
On the other hand, who translated this? I always wanted
to learned Hebrew (really learn, not just mouth it) to
be able to read this stuff in the original. Not that
it would matter much, since from my limited exposure to
bible history, these texts were written as parts of
committees and had to be approved by the ruling class,
who weren't even Jewish.
|
Post #9,405
9/16/01 9:20:33 PM
|
Another question.
On the other hand, who translated this?
That's a doggoned good question.
Along with "Who wrote it?"
my 12 year old son just refused to be Bar Mitzvahed. He already learned
the prayers and his passage, but refused to go up and lie to everyone. Makes me proud.
Fill me in. Lie about what? (We didn't have a lot of Jews around when I was growing up. Ok, none. :))
Thanks,
Addison
|
Post #9,407
9/16/01 9:47:29 PM
|
Re: Catholics have a related process ...
Called 1st communion & passing the catechism.
I could understand someone saying the same about the catechism. I think Catholic kids go through their process at a younger age (when still far to young to truly understand what they are stating & claiming).
15 was a good age for processing youngsters into young men, certainly for 1000s of years in the classic tribal living, some may think it a bit young in today's rather more complex world.
As for the catechism, I don't think too many catholics take it quite as seriously these days.
Doug Marker
|
Post #9,408
9/16/01 9:53:05 PM
|
Many questions
It's been a while. My understanding is that the various
books of the "Old Testament" were written by a whole
bunch if different groups of rabbis. They were rewritten
many times, and had to go through an approval process
that included the Pope. So while it interests me, I
certainly don't ascribe any divinity to it.
Of course, being one of the "Chosen People", to me any
followers of any newer religions are just some newage
cult mindless zombies. (And if you don't see the
humor/sarcasm here, you now realize why I usually don't
engage in these conversations.)
As far as 'lie' I meant professing any belief that he
didn't feel, which I consider courageous considering
the pressure he is under to 'conform'.
|
Post #9,413
9/16/01 11:04:58 PM
|
Approval by the Pope? What?
The current Christian scripture was set by the Council of Nicea, in something like 300 AD. At that time, the catholic church had nothing llke the structure it has today. There was no supposed infallable pope at the time; for that matter, the council was convened by Constantine.
And if you believe any Jew would accept the authority of a Christian pope over their holy writings, you're crazy.
*My* understanding is that scholars think some of the Old Testament books were written by several people, and others by one, and some may have been pre-dated to have the appearance of authenticity.
Rest in peace, Jeremy, Mark, Thomas, and whoever else who helped overpower the hijackers on Flight 93.
|
Post #9,414
9/16/01 11:25:47 PM
|
Pope and the Old Testament
It's been a while. My understanding is that the various books of the "Old Testament" were written by a whole bunch if different groups of rabbis. They were rewritten many times, and had to go through an approval process that included the Pope. So while it interests me, I certainly don't ascribe any divinity to it. Never heard that one before. For the record, the Jewish canon was codified somewhere around 90AD, some 200 to 300 years prior to Constantine, and definitely prior to Christianity becoming a world force. One of the disagreements with Christianity was the difference over the Septuagint, which was the Greek translation. For one thing, the Septuagint had some 72 books, as opposed to the 66 books of the Jewish canon. This disagreement was to become an issue in the Reformation as the Protestants embraced the 66 books as being the Old Testament, while the Catholics went with 72 books (IIRC, the Orthodox Christian bible OT has 76).
|
Post #9,424
9/17/01 6:36:21 AM
|
Re: Pope and the Old Testament
Here's one link which says a bit about
various "rewrites" and the timing involved.
[link|http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm|http://www.newadven...n/03267a.htm]
I have NO idea of the validity. I try not to
get into these types of discussions because the
bottom line is that it almost always involves:
"My passionate ignorance is more powerful than your
indifferent ignorance" arguments. I acknowledge my
ignorance, and my inability to judge. How do I even
know the Torah that I see today is the same as the
original? And WHICH original?
One key thing to remember is history is written by
the winners, and we have no time machines to go
look.
And as Addison pointed out, there is a lot to abhor
no matter who wrote it or when.
|
