Who Are The Real Children Of Israel?

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
If the word was LITERALLY intended as kiss, it would of been conjugated reflexively. But it isnt.
(NOT QUITE take note - another example of a little knowledge

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
I suppose it takes some familiarity with it. Also with the witz in approach.
I must say that i'm rather glad that i avoided the messianic line for some days.
And it's not half confusing to find all sorts of jewish thinkers from different groups and points in time put on the grill for us to judge.

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
I suppose it takes some familiarity with it. Also with the witz in approach.
I must say that i'm rather glad that i avoided the messianic line for some days.
And it's not half confusing to find all sorts of jewish thinkers from different groups and points in time put on the grill for us to judge.

NotQuiter wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, but at a certain point we must take it from some form of authority. As in a school. We can either make it our own thinking, or simply accept it without doing comparison or in-depth understanding.

NotQuiter wrote:

Don't let me put a clinker in the joy of studying because there is so much to learn, I agree with that.
<quoted text>
:-) No problem. I understand about the kiss thing. Trueness and kindness meet each other -- it's not a big, big difference. In a rational person's mind. But that's my opinion and obviously not everybody's. I NEVER would have taken that literally anyway. Masoretic text:
psalm two
1 Why are the nations in an uproar? And why do the peoples mutter in vain?
2 The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together, against HaShem, and against His anointed:
3 'Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.'
4 He that sitteth in heaven laugheth, the L-rd hath them in derision.
5 Then will He speak unto them in His wrath, and affright them in His sore displeasure:
6 'Truly it is I that have established My king upon Zion, My holy mountain.'
7 I will tell of the decree: HaShem said unto me:'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.'
10 Now therefore, O ye kings, be wise; be admonished, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve HaShem with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled. Happy are all they that take refuge in Him.
(Masoretic text)
Regardless of homage, kiss, the essence of the meaning is there, although since the writer is not here to tell us about it, the meaning is left up for grabs to an extent. I'm sure there are commentaries, rabbinical or otherwise. It's interesting to look into the gradations or shades of meaning of words. It is not particularly necessary for me to go into reflexive terms, but I'm sure it's interesting. I find it interesting that Arabs kiss each other, subjects kiss kings, etc. instead of bowing, so it seems. A form of homage, or respect.

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Regardless of our disagreements I am glad to communicate with you in a thread other than the original one (Allah). Breaks the monotony
:)
Though now that Joel is gone for a while it is more pleasant all around.

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>Before we drop the kiss thing completely, I only like to add that when one looks at the quotes in the Psalm it is easy to distinguish that the unquoted portions are the words of the psalmist. He quotes the king and rulers in verse 3, and then quotes HaShem in verses 6-9.
The psalmist is referred to as God's son in verse 7 (ben-i).
In verses 10-12, again the psalmist is speaking and admonishing the kings and judges of the earth.
Verse 11 - Serve HaShem...
Verse 12 - Do homage in purity, lest He (HaShem) be angry.
Since the son has already been identified in verse 7 and is again speaking for himself in verse 12, the only way the Christian translation would make grammatical sense would be for it to say 'Kiss ME, lest....'

MAAT wrote:

Hmm server issues again.
Not Quiter you are entitled to your opinions.
Saving as moses would have it is however a communal effort of all. The deal with g-d was to share. Bless him that blesses us.
Some will firmly believe in messiah as concept, some as a literal person and some like me in a messianic aera where only concerted effort will make the world a pleasant place.
On learning. The saying goes that when you can't laugh or let's say chuckle when reading the HB, you are doing something wrong.
As in missing a layer of understanding.
Or then it is just dead language with only the superficial being conveyed.
I came accross a site about students being introduced to the DSS. In America.
Mind these are theology students.
In Europe they are supposed to allready know Greek and Latin and in the first year they get schooled on Hebrew and Aramaic and nowadays also Arabic.
But those students got the message to buy the KJV because that had since the days of Luther been the true translation of the hebrew book.
Now only after finding the DSS they adapted to the new KJV and removed the grosest errors.
But apparently this has not filtered though.
The constant need for translations of KJV and other versions, are frankly the bane of my existence here.
So it is always slightly unnerving when someone starts quoting. Especially pages without sourcing.
The poster goes all wisegeek:'yo man scored here', and we have two hours work in the best case.
So i do not often fold in discussions but sometimes i decide to let things be.

MAAT wrote:

Judaism: All That Matters, Keith Kahn-Harris, Hodder Education,£7.99, will be published next month
When I was approached to write a short introductory guide to Judaism, my first reactions were merely practical: could I complete it by the deadline? Were the publishers offering enough money?
Did I know enough to write it without extensive research? And finding the answers to be yes, I accepted the commission without too much thought.
But when I started to write the book, it became clear very quickly that this was a bigger deal than I had first imagined. Because when a Jew sets out to write a book about Judaism targeted primarily at non-Jews, all sorts of questions about responsibility and accuracy are raised. My book could well be the first serious account of Judaism that its readers will have encountered — and for some it may well be the last. Any mistakes or lack of clarity on my part could stay uncorrected forever in readers’ minds.
Against my better judgement, I began to feel like an “ambassador” for the Jewish people. This was ironic as in my other writings I have always argued against the view that Jews should present a wholesome, united front to the goyim.[...]
I had 250,000 words to play with, which is not a lot for a diverse, millennia-old people that delight in creating complex rituals, customs and intellectual frameworks. I made my life even more difficult by insisting to the publisher that the book should not just be about Judaism narrowly conceived as a religion, but should also cover history, culture and politics.
What this narrow straitjacket meant in practice was being faced with a constant series of difficult and often bizarre choices as to what to include and what to leave out. There were some enjoyably absurd consequences to this need for concision: Yom Kippur got 25 words but Chanucah 83, not because the latter is more important but because the former is much easier to summarise; I left out Shemini Atzeret completely; I mentioned shatnez (forbidden mixture of wool and linen) but not pidyon haben (redemption of the firstborn); Spinoza got one line but Saadia Gaon got nothing; Sacha Baron Cohen makes an appearance but Jonathan Sacks does not. I can justify all these choices, but I agonised over each one.
Controversial issues were a particularly challenge. How to “do” the modern state of Israel in 3,000 words in a way that does justice to the multitude of irreconcilable narratives? How to “explain” the Shoah in a brief but non-facile way? How to sum up the complex and contradictory evidence for and against Jewish genetic distinctiveness?
Wherever possible, I turned to Jewish jokes to provide concise distillations of Jewishness that were often more eloquent than anything I could write. The gag ‘”Question: How many Conservative Jews does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: We’ll set up a committee?” tells you as much about the slow, deliberative process of halachic decision-making within the Conservative movement as I could, but in a much shorter word count.
I also found that Jewish tradition looked kindly on the limitations of my book. The story of Hillel and Shammai being approached to explain the entirety of Judaism “on one leg” is well known in the Jewish world, but not among the audience for my book. In telling the tale, I emphasised Hillel’s injunction to “go and learn”. Any summary of Judaism, on one leg or in 25,000 words, can only be a starting-point.
I ended the final section of the book with one of my favourite Jewish quotes:“It doesn’t matter what kind of Jew you are, provided you are ashamed of it.”... This seemed to be an excellent caution and challenge to non-Jews seeking to learn more about Judaism; neither my book nor any one source will ever tell you everything.

Judged:

1

1

Frijoles wrote:

http://www.ulpanor.com/jewish- language-hebrew-for-christians /
Hebrew for Christians - one example

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
Question , are you speaking of JEWISH Christians

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>Before we drop the kiss thing completely, I only like to add that when one looks at the quotes in the Psalm it is easy to distinguish that the unquoted portions are the words of the psalmist. He quotes the king and rulers in verse 3, and then quotes HaShem in verses 6-9.
The psalmist is referred to as God's son in verse 7 (ben-i).
In verses 10-12, again the psalmist is speaking and admonishing the kings and judges of the earth.
Verse 11 - Serve HaShem...
Verse 12 - Do homage in purity, lest He (HaShem) be angry.
Since the son has already been identified in verse 7 and is again speaking for himself in verse 12, the only way the Christian translation would make grammatical sense would be for it to say 'Kiss ME, lest....'

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
oxymoron

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
HughBe---Question , are you speaking of JEWISH Christians
Eric---oxymoron
HughBe--- Stop the self-DECEPTION and the deception of others. It is only an oxymoron to those who lack knowledge and understanding or to those who lack integrity.

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Is there a subject in the sentence? Is it the Son, or God?
Kiss Me, Lest God become...
Or Kiss the Son, whom God has anointed, lest...
The word "bar", in the paleo Hebrew script (consonants only-no vowel pointers) would have been simply the letters B R, the same as the phrase "nash-ku ber a", right?
With no vowel pointers, would it not just read as B R , the same either way?

NotQuiter wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, but at a certain point we must take it from some form of authority. As in a school. We can either make it our own thinking, or simply accept it without doing comparison or in-depth understanding.

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>It matters the position, following or preceding the verb construct. I recall Frijoles posted something similar to this, but you may find some good information concerning nshku, and vr.
www.ancient-hebrew.org/emagazine/013.doc

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Is there a subject in the sentence? Is it the Son, or God?
Kiss Me, Lest God become...
Or Kiss the Son, whom God has anointed, lest...
The word "bar", in the paleo Hebrew script (consonants only-no vowel pointers) would have been simply the letters B R, the same as the phrase "nash-ku ber a", right?
With no vowel pointers, would it not just read as B R , the same either way?

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
Question , are you speaking of JEWISH Christians or non-Jewish Christians?