Jew by birth or training?

[Vajradhara]

Namatse all,

not to derail the thread...

however... i would like to echo Bananabrains comments concerning Hindu and Buddhist texts.

these are not static traditions with a set of dogma that must be adhered to.. there is no creed to defend and no one view that is correct. the Buddhist tradition in particular is designed to be continually invigorated. in fact, according to our belief, Padmasambhava and Yeshe Tsogal hid spiritual treasures in the natural world to be uncovered when the time was right. in one instance.. an accomplished nun was walking with a group of people and she was suddenly sure that the rock next to her contained a terma (spiritual treasure). they broke open the rock and found a scroll in the middle of it with teachings of Padmasambhava.

in any event... i think the point to keep in mind is that, unlike some traditions, the eastern traditions are living, breathing teachings. they should change as the needs of the people to whom they are addressed change. it keeps them relevant

back to your regularly scheduled broadcast.....

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namatse all,

not to derail the thread...

however... i would like to echo Bananabrains comments concerning Hindu and Buddhist texts.

these are not static traditions with a set of dogma that must be adhered to.. there is no creed to defend and no one view that is correct. the Buddhist tradition in particular is designed to be continually invigorated. in fact, according to our belief, Padmasambhava and Yeshe Tsogal hid spiritual treasures in the natural world to be uncovered when the time was right. in one instance.. an accomplished nun was walking with a group of people and she was suddenly sure that the rock next to her contained a terma (spiritual treasure). they broke open the rock and found a scroll in the middle of it with teachings of Padmasambhava.

in any event... i think the point to keep in mind is that, unlike some traditions, the eastern traditions are living, breathing teachings. they should change as the needs of the people to whom they are addressed change. it keeps them relevant

back to your regularly scheduled broadcast.....

I sincerely hope my previous comment was not taken in any way as a slight. That was not the intent at all, merely an observation, and a cursory one at that. I accept that such a dynamic tradition is simply the way it is for Buddhism and others, and I do not ascribe that as being either good or bad.

The Bible, however, tends to be much more static. Again, it is simply the way it is, neither good nor bad.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, bananabrain!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

that is a common PoV, but it's not one that makes sense from a jewish standpoint. the move to proxy sacrifices is a temporary measure that will last until we have a Temple again, not something that alters the dynamic entirely. from our PoV, sacrifices are the "flowers and chocolate" of our relationship with G!D, not its inner essence.
*****
and ours, too - that's the beauty of it. it's a growing, dynamic relationship, not a static one.
*****
the story of the "oven of achnai" (baba metzia 59b) is the way we resolve it. the Torah was given to humans, so that means humans have to be able to use it, which means they have to have authority to interpret it. have a look for the phrase "it is not in heaven" (deuteronomy 30:12) - it's all bound up with this passage.

OK, now I'm confused. We had been discussing how things are not to change (except, possibly, of absolute necessity, such as the suspension of the sacrifice). Yet, if I read correctly, the purpose of the commentaries is dynamism? I wish in no way to seem argumentative, but would this view then justify Christianity as but a form of Jewish dynamism? Would not the New Testament then be qualified as an extended commentary on the Old Testament when using this frame of reference?

feel free to ask 'em!

I am still at a loss pertaining to the proper dating technique for Passover, from which it seems all other pertinent observances are gauged. I realize the traditional method now employed is based on lunar observances. My concern stems from the passage in the Torah (and I am being lazy at the moment, I haven't time to look it up) that bases the beginning of Passover on solar observations. If I were not in a hurry, I would look it up, but I seem to recall it was to commence on the 14th day after the sun rose directly east, that is, directly framed by the east entrance to the Temple. This, I presume, to be 14 days after the Vernal equinox. So, is this marked beginning to commence the evening following, or the evening before? Likewise, when does the counting of the 50 days to Pentacost begin? At the end of the eight days of Passover?
Thank you sincerely for the offer, I may yet find other questions given enough time.

i guess in a way you're what jews for jesus are pretending to be. i think the difference between you is that you're being honest and they're not - they're really out to convert us. i suppose your theology is kind of like "karaites for jesus" except including the dual covenant doctrine. oh, hang on - what am i thinking? i've suddenly realised i know where i've heard this stuff before - the seventh-day adventists. you should check them out. you're like a really biblical version of their PoV.

I will accept this as a form of compliment. One other person, long ago, suggested I had a lot in common with the Seventh Day Adventists. What I find with them is a lot of the other conflicts I have with so many denominations. In my experience, every denomination has some points of merit, and fall short elsewhere. Not that I personally have it right, but I have qualms I cannot reconcile without compromising my faith. For what it's worth, I took the survey offered on another thread about what would be the most suitable religion (I was on another computer that is not registered with CR, so I couldn't post). Orthodox Judaism came up 100%, the next closest were Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic (shudder) at 91% each, and Orthodox Quaker at 89%.

the thing with the traditional commentators is that they are approached in a structured way - everything from the Talmud on is commentary; we have our relationship with them very well defined and codified, so we know what we're expecting from them. rabbinic judaism has an excellent set of methods for dealing with complex opinions, so it may seem muddled and confused to an outsider, but works perfectly well for people who know the system. don't forget we have had some of the finest minds in human history looking at this system for at least 2500 years and we have managed this knowledge extremely well. every jew is expected to be a scholar and commentator - we don't leave things to theologians and other professional intermediaries. clean slate approaches are invariably far from it - where do you put it? the biblical text? the mishnah, the gemara? you inevitably end up needing more.

... it avoids reinventing the wheel by effective knowledge management techniques like codification and hermeneutics.

I respect Jewish scholarship, what little I am aware of. I have a cursory familiarity with some of the scribal techniques to maintain the texts, but my concerns lay in the "denominational" interpretations. I suppose similar could be said with Christian scholars, the likes of Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luthur, John Wesley, John Knox, etc. In that way, Christianity has demonstrated a form of dynamism, but often at the cost of human bloodshed. I might find gems of wisdom and truth within the writings of any of these commentators, but to hold their views in the same regard as the scriptures seems to me, well, wrong.

"Every jew is expected to be a scholar and commentator - we don't leave things to theologians and other professional intermediaries." I very much appreciate this sentiment, that is precisely the approach I am using on my own.

By the way, can you tell me anything of Gamaliel? My understanding is that he was a reknowned rabbinical scholar from the time of Christ, and that Paul studied under him.

sorry! that's not what i'm saying - i'm just surprised that you are trying in your own way to observe mine, because it's such a hassle to do so!

I suppose in the grand spirit of overachievement, I am attempting to do the best I can with what wisdom and knowledge I have been granted. To those that have been given, more is required.

er, the ten commandments have no special significance in judaism, in fact. they are a pretty good summary of the 613, but the categories of law are all "Law". the laws i refer to are called "HoQ" - they are laws which cannot be rationalised and are there to teach us something other than "natural" law.

Um, this confuses me too. No special significance? I am hoping I am misunderstanding, as I have long been led to believe this is the basis and foundation of both of our faiths. As to the rest, well, yes, I can understand "do as I say because I said so", but there is always a reason, even if we are not aware of it.

well, yes, but the evidence for that comes from texts that have a vested interest in that being the case, if you don't mind me saying so. there's no way of establishing that to academic standards of evidence.

I seem to recall, in brief, you arguing elsewhere that scholarship holds no authority over tenets set forth to establish truths? If either of us must resort to rational and academic sources to verify or confirm in absolute even the prime motivators of our respective faiths, we are both in for very long waits. I accept the Gospel accounts in this matter, you are welcome to choose not to.

well, yes, but he was a jew, so it was binding on him. it doesn't necessarily follow that it's binding on *you*.

This is a very good point, yet, does it not behoove me to imitate wisdom in order to gain fuller wisdom? Even the dogs glean the crumbs that fall from the Master's table.

ezekiel definitely, don't know about isaiah. possibly.

I was thinking Isaiah 2, where (paraphrased), the lion shall lie down with the lamb, and a little child shall lead them". The time of peace is promised, I am unsure as to whether in a physical body such as this, or an astral body, but the time will come. And I look forward to that time. So may I conclude that in some form Jews in general do hold to some form of resurrection?

er.. i don't know about that. we *enjoy* the unusual and protect it, but the usual is actually to be practiced. as for the underdog, we support it when it's the right thing to do. underdogs are not praiseworthy simply by the fact of their being underdogs.

I was speaking in generalities and unofficially. You are correct, of course.

Shalom, and thank you once again!

[bananabrain]

OK, now I'm confused.

well, don't be surprised. this is not a simple issue!

We had been discussing how things are not to change (except, possibly, of absolute necessity, such as the suspension of the sacrifice). Yet, if I read correctly, the purpose of the commentaries is dynamism?

the suspension of sacrifice is just that; a suspension, rather than a change. from our perspective, G!D does not change objectives. what was required by the Divine is still required now - we are just fulfilling this requirement in a different way, but still staying within the brief.

I wish in no way to seem argumentative, but would this view then justify Christianity as but a form of Jewish dynamism? Would not the New Testament then be qualified as an extended commentary on the Old Testament when using this frame of reference?

that's how it started, as a jewish sect. this is really a point about the *elasticity of labels*. how far can you stretch the label "judaism" until it is no longer recognisable? consensus within judaism varies - but all are agreed that recognising jesus as fulfilling messianic prophecies as well as dropping the observance of the Law puts you well outside the "fence", or snaps the elastic if you like. for some within orthodox judaism, changing one's attitude to the binding nature of halacha, or the dynamic of revelation, as the reform and conservative movements have done, does the same thing.

I am still at a loss pertaining to the proper dating technique for Passover, from which it seems all other pertinent observances are gauged.

i can't answer questions as technical as that. i use a jewish calendar. you'd have to consult a competent rabbi to understand the technique. sorry.

Likewise, when does the counting of the 50 days to Pentacost begin? At the end of the eight days of Passover?

ah, this one's easier. the omer (the name for this period) lasts 49 days, starting from the second "day" of Pesach, which is effectively the second night.

I suppose similar could be said with Christian scholars, the likes of Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Wesley, John Knox, etc. In that way, Christianity has demonstrated a form of dynamism, but often at the cost of human bloodshed. I might find gems of wisdom and truth within the writings of any of these commentators, but to hold their views in the same regard as the scriptures seems to me, well, wrong.

oh, i agree. there are a lot of commentators, but only the "big beasts" are held to be authoritative and, even then, they have to be seen in context. the rabbis of the Mishna and Gemara are not held to be on the same level as the prophets, who are not held to be on the same level as the Torah. likewise, the ga'onim "outrank" the rishonim, who outrank the akharonim, as it were, in more or less chronological fashion. the idea is that there is a consensus position about the authority of, say, RaSh"I, which is contextualised by the ba'alei tosafot like the RaShBa"M or the Tu"r. the thing is, we have a unified, integrated position (at least until the enlightenment) on the relationship of commentators to each other, which i don't believe is the case with christian commentators, as they are all coming from different theological positions. i'm sorry if this is complicated and confusing but you're kind of asking me to summarise 2500 years of our interpretative tradition!

By the way, can you tell me anything of Gamaliel? My understanding is that he was a reknowned rabbinical scholar from the time of Christ, and that Paul studied under him.

that's what it says in the NT, but obviously we don't actually know. there was a family of whom several "rabban gamaliels" are known, who were senior members of the sanhedrin, but which one paul is supposed to have been a disciple of is uncertain.

Um, this confuses me too. No special significance? I am hoping I am misunderstanding, as I have long been led to believe this is the basis and foundation of both of our faiths.

the 613 commandments can be deduced and expounded from the ten, but this means that they are a good summary rather than anything else. they are not "more important" because they need to be expanded before their detail can be understood. they were originally read out on Shabbat, but this practice was stopped precisely because of heretical sects (christians included) who tried to reduce the Law to a mere observance of the ten.

but there is always a reason, even if we are not aware of it.

oh, absolutely. this is precisely the purpose of a HoQ, to teach us our own limitations.

I seem to recall, in brief, you arguing elsewhere that scholarship holds no authority over tenets set forth to establish truths? If either of us must resort to rational and academic sources to verify or confirm in absolute even the prime motivators of our respective faiths, we are both in for very long waits. I accept the Gospel accounts in this matter, you are welcome to choose not to.

i guess what i'm saying is that i see the gospels as historical documents and thus they are qualitatively different from Torah. i have no problem with using christian perspectives on them to understand christianity, but my interest them is not to contextualise my own religious outlook.

yet, does it not behoove me to imitate wisdom in order to gain fuller wisdom? Even the dogs glean the crumbs that fall from the Master's table.

well, i dare say, but i don't need to spend 20 years in prison to learn from nelson mandela.

So may I conclude that in some form Jews in general do hold to some form of resurrection?

oh, absolutely. this is being discussed in another thread i think.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

I sincerely hope my previous comment was not taken in any way as a slight. That was not the intent at all, merely an observation, and a cursory one at that. I accept that such a dynamic tradition is simply the way it is for Buddhism and others, and I do not ascribe that as being either good or bad.

The Bible, however, tends to be much more static. Again, it is simply the way it is, neither good nor bad.

Namastea juantoo,

thank you for the post.

no worries... i always presume that we are all here to learn and as such, i try to provide relevant, topical information when appropos

i, too, do not see it as "good" or "bad" rather, simply the way it is. some traditions are almost exlusively oral, others are almost exlusively textual.. whilst most have a healthy mix of the two.

in a simple way, i evaluate the seed by the fruit it produces.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

in a simple way, i evaluate the seed by the fruit it produces.

Amen, or "of a truth." Colloquially, "ain't that the truth!" I do the same, it is nice to know there are others that think similarly.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, bananabrain, and thank you once again for the thoughtful response!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

well, don't be surprised. this is not a simple issue!
the suspension of sacrifice is just that; a suspension, rather than a change. from our perspective, G!D does not change objectives. what was required by the Divine is still required now - we are just fulfilling this requirement in a different way, but still staying within the brief.

Very well, I had thought Judaism to be more static. I guess that shows what I get for thinking.

that's how it started, as a jewish sect.

Alright. I hadn't ever considered the matter in such a light before, but it does make a kind of sense.

this is really a point about the *elasticity of labels*. how far can you stretch the label "judaism" until it is no longer recognisable? consensus within judaism varies - but all are agreed that recognising jesus as fulfilling messianic prophecies as well as dropping the observance of the Law puts you well outside the "fence", or snaps the elastic if you like. for some within orthodox judaism, changing one's attitude to the binding nature of halacha, or the dynamic of revelation, as the reform and conservative movements have done, does the same thing.

I can see how both recognizing Jesus and dropping observance of the Law could escape the "fence" of Judaism, would recognizing Jesus as Messiah and observing the Law bring one closer to the fence then?

i can't answer questions as technical as that. i use a jewish calendar. you'd have to consult a competent rabbi to understand the technique. sorry.

I guess we can't know everything. Thank you for trying.

ah, this one's easier. the omer (the name for this period) lasts 49 days, starting from the second "day" of Pesach, which is effectively the second night.

Thank you most sincerely for the clarification. How is Pentacost traditionally observed?

... on the relationship of commentators to each other, which i don't believe is the case with christian commentators, as they are all coming from different theological positions.

Perhaps I am biased, but it seems to me Christian commentators generally are approaching the same theology, merely picking and choosing which arguments are most relevent in their personal views. Generally speaking, Christian denominations hold to certain basics, but differ (vehemently) on specifics and application. I understand Judaism to be similarly fragmented, and if I read you correctly, this seems not an unfair assessment. Judaism seems to me not as vehement in expressing those differences towards each other, and at least since the dispersion not so inclined towards genuine (read: force of arms) internal warfare to settle such differences.

i'm sorry if this is complicated and confusing but you're kind of asking me to summarise 2500 years of our interpretative tradition!

I do appreciate the effort, but frankly it went right over my head. I did take away that the role of commentators in Judaism have a long and respected tradition. I can appreciate that. Some among Christians are similarly inclined. In my personal view, there is enough internal conflict within Christianity with the Bible alone, that pitting commentators against each other only serves to muddy the water even more. Some of us lay people are more concerned with the nuts and bolts, nevermind what particular brand of axle grease is recommended. Just grease the darn thing and let's get on with it!

that's what it says in the NT, but obviously we don't actually know. there was a family of whom several "rabban gamaliels" are known, who were senior members of the sanhedrin, but which one paul is supposed to have been a disciple of is uncertain.

Thank you. While it does not clarify my question, it does give me something to go by.

the 613 commandments can be deduced and expounded from the ten, but this means that they are a good summary rather than anything else. they are not "more important" because they need to be expanded before their detail can be understood. they were originally read out on Shabbat, but this practice was stopped precisely because of heretical sects (christians included) who tried to reduce the Law to a mere observance of the ten.

OK. I think I understand what it is you are saying. Not casting any form of judgement, could this be said to be making a mountain out of a molehill? I believe you earlier commented that Hillel made a statement that coincided with the golden rule, followed by "all the rest is commentary, so now go and study." Or something to that effect. I recall hearing the same thing elsewhere. And even Jesus summarized the Ten into the two: Love your Father with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. I realize that expounding and exploring in depth the implications of these things is necessary for full application, and I expect this is the position commentators and teachers in general serve in guiding those who have no inclination toward such deep thought. One of my longstanding concerns with Christianity is that subordinating such thoughts into the hands of commentators has produced rituals, traditions and customs that are conflicting, extra-Biblical, and in some cases directly opposed to the gist of what I read in the texts. I am not making that assumption in a wholesale manner towards Judaism, but could it be said to exist to some degree? At least to those matters that are extra-Biblical? Is it not the spirit of the matter, rather than the express letter, especially when the letter is not directly in the texts?

oh, absolutely. this is precisely the purpose of a HoQ, to teach us our own limitations.

You lost me here. HoQ? Is this a rabbinical teacher or commentator?

i guess what i'm saying is that i see the gospels as historical documents and thus they are qualitatively different from Torah. i have no problem with using christian perspectives on them to understand christianity, but my interest them is not to contextualise my own religious outlook.

I believe I understand, and even agree. I even have some minor concerns about verification of some of the claims, considering the oldest extant texts are post-Catholic establishment, and subject to the Catholic cannonization process and what that entails. Even so, there is wisdom in the words. What I see exhibited within the pages of the New Testament is practical application of the Law (in spirit if not in letter), although I can see how from your point of view that may not seem to be the case. Ultimately, I hold to Christianity because that is the point of view I was born into and raised with. In my mind, this is where God placed me, so this is what I have become and what I believe. I suppose if I had been born a Jew, I would be an unapologetic Jew. Likewise, if I had been born Buddhist or otherwise. I look deeply into the path I have been set upon for wisdom and guidance, and I occasionally glean other bits of wisdom from other sources. That is my way of dealing with the matter of spirit and faith. If I am mistaken, I hope my sincerity will account for something.

well, i dare say, but i don't need to spend 20 years in prison to learn from nelson mandela.

Understood, but how is prison time to be equated with wisdom? Observing the example that my Messiah set in everyday life for dealing with my brothers and sisters is that which I implied. I have no desire to be crucified, nor could I expect that such an act on my part would serve any distinct purpose such as that he submitted to. I might be executed for my faith, and by doing so demonstrate my resolve to my Father, but I cannot begin to think I could take on the sin of any others, other than my own. Nor could I act as a surrogate sacrifice for that purpose.

oh, absolutely. this is being discussed in another thread i think.

Thank you for this clarification. I sometimes wondered, but not with any serious depth. I am beginning to think we share more than we differ. I suspected as much, but it is nice to find confirmation.

Thank you very much for your insights, I greatly value our discussion. I look forward to "hearing" from you again. Until then, Kindest Regards, and Shalom.

[achnai]

I too am sorry to derail the thread, but I feel obliged to comment on the subject as Brian put it.
It prefer to choose intellectually most chlallenging for the right words describing the training which makes oneself a religious jew.
currently I do my best to try to devolve the intricate and extremly sophisticated text of the Gemara (the Talmud), and to think that this is only the beginning to a more complicated learning of the commentators on the Gemara and the books of the Halacha.
It is my opinion that jews who dedicate themselves to the study of the Torah, day and night, give extra meaning to seemingly simple fact of merely being born a jew.
Therefore you may be a jew by birth but there is an extra quality to being a jew by training.

Spoken from a jew who is not religious.


a Kosher and Happy Passover

[jew-ish]

yea this is prolly off topic considering the discussions going on, but what do you feel of half-jewishness? i think i know the answer, but if you measure being jewish by maternal descent then that in itself is saying judaism is somewhat of a culture, so me, an agnostic kid whos dad is a secular jew and mom a secular catholic would indeed be culturally half jewish. i celebrate christiams and chanukkah and passover and easter and have both a confirmation and hebrew name and i am very proud of my jewish heritage. i just want to know what others feel about this.

[bananabrain]

this really depends on what one's perspective is. from the point of view of the media, popular culture - and anti-semites, people can be "half-jewish" or "a quarter jewish" or whatever. one jewish grandparent was enough to get you murdered under the nazis and the same standard is used to qualify for israeli citizenship under the 'law of return'.

the different jewish denominations have different religious standards for what they consider jewish, the more left-wing, the less strict. obviously, the standard required by halacha (jewish law) is for one to have a jewish mother or to have converted. each denomination regards its own standard for conversions as required.

it is not necessary, of course, to be jewish to be "proud" of one's jewish heritage. i'm not irish, but i don't hide the fact that one of my grandparents was (though fortunately not my mother's mother). this doesn't make me catholic and doesn't make me do anything catholic, though it is an excuse to get ayatollahed on march 17th. i also get a certain amount of amusement from the more-irish-than-thou strain of americans who claim to be irish although the nearest they've ever been to it is standing next to someone in a bar who was holding a pint of guinness.

in short, cultural identities can mix and match far more easily than religious ones, particularly those based on legal paradigms can.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

would recognizing Jesus as Messiah and observing the Law bring one closer to the fence then?

well, i guess, it still doesn't really make sense without the obligation to observe the Law and, surely, recognising jesus as the messiah turns the Law into something else? it just seems paradoxical to me. we don't rank people on how close they are to the fence!

How is Pentecost traditionally observed?

http://www.jewfaq.org/holidayc.htm (basic)
http://www.ou.org/chagim/shavuot/ (intermediate)
http://www.midrash.org/halakha/shabuoth.html (advanced)

Generally speaking, Christian denominations hold to certain basics, but differ (vehemently) on specifics and application. I understand Judaism to be similarly fragmented, and if I read you correctly, this seems not an unfair assessment. Judaism seems to me not as vehement in expressing those differences towards each other, and at least since the dispersion not so inclined towards genuine (read: force of arms) internal warfare to settle such differences.

normative rabbinic judaism is unified by its adherence to halacha. it's not fundamentally fragmented - we all keep kosher, observe shabbat and the holidays, pray three times a day and marry and try to bring our kids up jewish. we preserve the opinions of the minority, but follow those of the majority. where there is disagreement it is not on the basic interpretation of the Law, it will be on the precise size of weights and measures (such as how much of something you have to eat before it counts as you having fulfilled a commandment to eat it) or the more technical, nit-picky bits, not arguments which have been settled hundreds of years ago to general satisfaction. we do differ culturally and in our customs, which are distinct from Law in that they are not obligations. for example, as a sephardic jew, it is permissible for me to eat beans and pulses on passover, but it is not considered permissible for an ashkenazi jew to do this. there are not many examples of this kind of difference in interpretation.

Some of us lay people are more concerned with the nuts and bolts, nevermind what particular brand of axle grease is recommended. Just grease the darn thing and let's get on with it!

for some people, detail is how they show how much they care. for others, it is done in other ways like prayer. are you familiar with howard gardner's "seven types of intelligence"? there are many different ways for people to channel their spirituality. also, we don't have much of a concept of "this law is more important than that" - this is only really shown by the punishment for breaking the law. thus we see that non-observance of Shabbat is actually more serious than, say, homosexuality, which a lot of people are starting to point out, not before time imho.

I realize that expounding and exploring in depth the implications of these things is necessary for full application, and I expect this is the position commentators and teachers in general serve in guiding those who have no inclination toward such deep thought.

oh, i absolutely agree.

One of my longstanding concerns with Christianity is that subordinating such thoughts into the hands of commentators has produced rituals, traditions and customs that are conflicting, extra-Biblical, and in some cases directly opposed to the gist of what I read in the texts.

this is because the detail was chucked out "letter of the Law" as opposed to "spirit". this created a vacuum within the Text which was filled by other beliefs, often influenced by greek thought. it's a bit like communism. they abolished religion and then ended up turning the state and the party into an object of idol worship with its own dogma and obsessive attention to detail. in judaism there have been periodic attempts to "get back to basics" and this has always created more problems than it has solved - examples include the sadducees, the karaites, the kabbalistic false messiahs, the reform movement and, to a certain extent, chasidism.

a HoQ is a law that cannot be rationalised - a "because G!D Said so" law.

Understood, but how is prison time to be equated with wisdom?

perhaps i'm being flippant. what i mean is that nelson mandela could have figured out what he needed to figure out without having spent twenty years locked up.

Observing the example that my Messiah set in everyday life for dealing with my brothers and sisters is that which I implied. I have no desire to be crucified, nor could I expect that such an act on my part would serve any distinct purpose such as that he submitted to.

oh, right. i think i've misunderstood possibly. my mistake.

Originally Posted by achnai

I prefer to choose intellectually more challenging for the right words describing the training which makes oneself a religious jew.

i see what you mean, but i'd also add emotionally, physically, politically and spiritually challenging. intellect alone is not the answer.

b'shalom

bananabrain