|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Feb 17, 2008 13:29:46 GMT -8
By Nehemiah Gorden; anyone want to discuss it? I found it fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Feb 23, 2008 0:39:36 GMT -8
I wouldn't recommend it. Nehemiah presents Yeshua The Messiah as a Kariate or along the lines of the Tz'dukim (Sadducees)...something far from the truth. He most likely was closer to the family of the P'rushim (Pharisees). Yeshua Messiah had a healthy balance of employing tradition that was and is practiced in Rabbinic Judaism, but also rejected it when it was in conflict with His Father's word. For an in-depth article click the following link to read a refutation of one of the false doctrines presented in the book you mentioned: Matthew 23:3 - Is Nehemiah Gordon Right?I would generally stay away from Kariate Judaism and their teachings. Shalom, Reuel |
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Feb 28, 2008 14:12:43 GMT -8
Actually, I read all kinds of historical pieces from various persons who are scholars in the area of Jewish history; both rabbinical, and Christian, and now something that this Kariate wrote. The main things with them, is that they do not accept the rabbinical law as law, and of course they do not believe that Yeshua is the Messiah. But I was wondering if anyone had read his book here. I respect the caliber of scholarship that I see in a person, no matter what their personal belief, and of course it is always smart to keep that in mind when you read their pieces, but I do not let that stop me. We would never know anything about Judaism if we would only read Christian stuff.
But anyway, his book is not about all that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Feb 28, 2008 14:15:59 GMT -8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLPnUMwSP7Ivideo of him speaking; the guy you see is not him, but he will point you to the video. Gotta watch, guys! Warning: it is 2 hours long, so save it for Shabbat! If you do the electronic thing on Shabbat that is!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Feb 28, 2008 16:02:28 GMT -8
I agree with Nehemiah's position that Yeshua rejected  SheBa'al Peh as an authority. I think he would have agreed with the position of the Karaite scholar Elijah Basyatchi that "every tradition which does not stand up against Scripture, does not add to what is stated in Scripture, is acknowledged by all Israel, and has indirect support in Scripture, is to be called genuine tradition, and we must accept it." He also would have agreed with Basyatchi in saying "most of the Mishnah and the Talmud comprises genuine utterances of our forefathers..." However, I would place Yeshua as most in line with the Gallileean Essene community. (not the radicals at Qumran. Two very different things) They also rejected SheBa'al Peh as an authority. However, I would join Mark in cautioning you about Mr. Gordon's book. Some of his scholarship is rather shoddy. His use of the Shem-Tov is very reprehensible. I do not object to it because of its use in Even Bohan, like many do. Strictly on textual grounds, it is clearly Midaeval. As other scholars have pointed out, the Shem-Tov is clearly very late, and the DuTillet preserves a pre-exilic style. So I wouldn't say you shouldn't read it, but proceed with caution. |
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Feb 28, 2008 16:07:41 GMT -8
I wouldn't recommend it. Nehemiah presents Yeshua The Messiah as a Kariate or along the lines of the Tz'dukim (Sadducees)...something far from the truth. He most likely was closer to the family of the P'rushim (Pharisees). Yeshua Messiah had a healthy balance of employing tradition that was and is practiced in Rabbinic Judaism, but also rejected it when it was in conflict with His Father's word. For an in-depth article click the following link to read a refutation of one of the false doctrines presented in the book you mentioned: Matthew 23:3 - Is Nehemiah Gordon Right?I would generally stay away from Kariate Judaism and their teachings. Shalom, Reuel Intellectual supressionism? Come now, Reuel, let's allow honest intellectual inquiry to decide. Yes, Rood and Nehemiah are quite confused on the issue of Matt. 23:3. Their textual criticism is terrible. But you are engaging in the fallacy of composition. Karaism has an excellent point in saying that rabbinic tradition is just that: tradition. It is not authoritative. It should be neither automatically accepted and practiced, nor automatically rejected. |
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Feb 28, 2008 18:16:25 GMT -8
Well, it all boils down to this question: should we (anyone) care which shoe to put on first? (Those who have seen the video or read the book will understand what I am talking about). To me, it is just a matter of knowing how to distinguish between just culture (traditions; the oral laws, Mishna, Talmud) and the actual Law of Moses (not meaning the "other" Torahs). And then making sure that whatever you do decide to do in terms of the traditions, does not break the Law of Moses. In my opinion, not everything in the Mishna and Talmud are bad and should never be read or studied. Not everything "culturally Jewish" which is not specifically in the , is necessarily bad; a lot of it is good or "neutral". But I do indeed agree with Nehemiah, that we have to be very careful of giving them the same or higher status as the Law of Moses. I also find it to be questionable to say that "non-Jewish" (whatever that means) can never imitate Jewish cultural practices. That is ridiculous. There is nothing untouchable about Jewish traditions any more than any other cultural traditions. But they ALL have to be compared/contrasted with the Law of Moses; WHATEVER the culture is. |
|
SheBa'al Peh as an authority. I think he would have agreed with the position of the Karaite scholar Elijah Basyatchi that "every tradition which does not stand up against Scripture, does not add to what is stated in Scripture, is acknowledged by all Israel, and has indirect support in Scripture, is to be called genuine tradition, and we must accept it."
