How the Jews try to trick God

Author: WyIted
Judaism
jews
jewish

Posts

Total: 67
#61
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's just a line that you can't cross on shabbot. It's got nothing to do with ownership, lots, use, just "because"?
so then you shouldn't try to invoke ownership. It is only "just because" because you don't happen to understand the complex concept. Instead of accepting that there is stuff you don't know, you insist on labeling it according to your pre-existing scheme.

He died 410 CE.
and if you think that he invented a practice, that's great. Judaism teaches that he was codifying a practice that predates him because that's how the talmud operates.

He is basing himself on the same verse that was quoted right beforehand.

You never explained why Tractate Kiddushin 29b said that it was not a common practice for unmarried men to wear a hat.
I didn't know I was supposed to. That text is talking about a thing called a "sudar" which is a specific type of head covering that was used by married men and sages. It isn't a hat, nor a kippah, but a turban (see Pesachim 111b). So kiddushin doesn't say what you claim it does.


Did I say that was non-jewish? I said that if there was something all jews did (so including Jesus & pals) they would have at least mentioned "So we're not doing that anymore cause we're so awesome"
exactly -- so there is no non-Jewish writing about it, and yet you accept that it was a practice. Thank you.


#62
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
Instead of accepting that there is stuff you don't know, you insist on labeling it according to your pre-existing scheme.
If you understood it you would have explained when I asked.


He died 410 CE.
and if you think that he invented a practice, that's great.
Moving the goalposts. Full context:

[ADOL] No photos from before the balyonian captivity, no. I inferred it from the silence in greek, roman, and christian sources. Anything the jews did, christian councils discussed whether it would be required for gentiles. Their writings are voluminous on those matters.
So the Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss it as an established practice but because non-Jewish texts don't discuss it
[ADOL] Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss covering your head while praying. Not all the time. (Was my impression from when I looked into it before)
Kiddushin 31a
"The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head, and I must act respectfully."
You were obviously trying to come up with an example of Jewish Texts from 2000 years ago discussing it (constant cap wearing) as an established practice.

You now try to pretend as if I was arguing that just because it was only written about in 400 CE that the practice couldn't have predated that time. Regardless of common practice, you do not have jewish texts from 2000 years ago discussing constant cap wearing as an established practice.


He is basing himself on the same verse that was quoted right beforehand.
You mean Isaiah 6:3? Or do you mean Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who was also not 2000 years ago)?


It isn't a hat, nor a kippah, but a turban (see Pesachim 111b). So kiddushin doesn't say what you claim it does.
You should update wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kippah


Did I say that was non-jewish? I said that if there was something all jews did (so including Jesus & pals) they would have at least mentioned "So we're not doing that anymore cause we're so awesome"
exactly -- so there is no non-Jewish writing about it, and yet you accept that it was a practice. Thank you.
I think you're confused. You asked a different question about women wearing hair coverings.
#63
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
If you understood it you would have explained when I asked.
You seem to think it can be explained glibly and concisely to someone who hasn't studied the laws and legal system.

Moving the goalposts. Full context:
no, I corrected exactly what you claimed.

Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss covering your head while praying. Not all the time. (Was my impression from when I looked into it before)
I could also have shown you a talmudic statement about covering the head all the time that dates (easily) to 100 years earlier. This was clearly a practice that was known (though often considered minhag chasidut). You can keep thinking it is some later innovation but the texts show your error.


You mean Isaiah 6:3? Or do you mean Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who was also not 2000 years ago)?
Is Rabbi Yehoshua a verse? I had no idea.

You should update wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kippah
You shouldn't get your information from wikipedia.

I think you're confused. You asked a different question about women wearing hair coverings.
You have completely missed the point. You are using the fact that there is no reference in non-Jewish texts to help you conclude that a practice didn't exist. But women covering their hair is another practice -- if it isn't mentioned in non-Jewish texts, you should draw the same conclusion. If you don't, then you are cherry picking when you use ancient, non-Jewish texts to validate the existence of Jewish practice.



#64
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
If you understood it you would have explained when I asked.
You seem to think it can be explained glibly and concisely to someone who hasn't studied the laws and legal system.
If you refuse to explain you can hardly complain about misconceptions.


You can keep thinking it is some later innovation but the texts show your error.
Not any texts you have cited.


You mean Isaiah 6:3? Or do you mean Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who was also not 2000 years ago)?
Is Rabbi Yehoshua a verse? I had no idea.
Har har har, so funny. Look if you don't want to discuss it anymore just stop posting.


You should update wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kippah
You shouldn't get your information from wikipedia.
I also shouldn't get it from books where people say that if they had married at 14 they would have conquered the evil inclination entirely. Can't always get what you need.


You are using the fact that there is no reference in non-Jewish texts to help you conclude that a practice didn't exist.
Yes


But women covering their hair is another practice -- if it isn't mentioned in non-Jewish texts, you should draw the same conclusion.
The same conclusion would be that jewish women have not always covered their hair?

I mean that might be true, but the evidence for that is not as strong because the excuse is from Genesis (a very old text); and the practice is found in descendant religions (christianity and islam).

If christian and muslim men wore caps all the time, that would be strong evidence that cap-wearing was common jewish practice (for men) at the time of divergence.

This is basic evolutionary logic.

Still I would use the same logic to draw an analogous solution: Christians did not debate heavily whether women HAD to wear hair coverings, thus it probably was not considered a commandment by jews at the time.
#65
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
If you refuse to explain you can hardly complain about misconceptions.
I'm not complaining, just pointing them out. If instead of making them, people chose to ask questions and understand that the practices exist in a larger theological context, they would understand that expecting simple answers is foolish.

Har har har, so funny. Look if you don't want to discuss it anymore just stop posting.
I'm having a fun time here. If you don't like the tenor of my posts, stop responding.

I also shouldn't get it from books where people say that if they had married at 14 they would have conquered the evil inclination entirely. Can't always get what you need.
great, then get it from no where and stick with your own state of not knowing.

The same conclusion would be that jewish women have not always covered their hair?
Even though it is referenced in the biblical texts? How can it be that a biblical practice is not mentioned in non-Jewish texts? Maybe they are not the final arbiter of what Jewish people did.


#66
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
If you refuse to explain you can hardly complain about misconceptions.
I'm not complaining, just pointing them out.
'pointing them out' that's a bit strong. More like saying there is a misconception and then leaving it at that.

"You've got it all wrong"
"How so?"
"As if I could explain it to you just like that."


people chose to ask questions and understand that the practices exist in a larger theological context, they would understand that expecting simple answers is foolish.
Yea I've heard that one before. That's what they say when you asked how god can be one and three at the same time.


The same conclusion would be that jewish women have not always covered their hair?
Even though it is referenced in the biblical texts? How can it be that a biblical practice is not mentioned in non-Jewish texts?

It simply isn't all non-jewish. I think it was jewish and non-jewish. An inherited practice, like circumcision.


Maybe they are not the final arbiter of what Jewish people did.
but they are a strong indicator given their origin and the lack of other evidence.

#67
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
'pointing them out' that's a bit strong. More like saying there is a misconception and then leaving it at that.
OK, I'm pointing them out and saying that to understand a complex concept, one should start by understanding that he doesn't know instead of assuming he does know. It takes Jews years of study to understand to the level that we understand but if someone wants to spout off and show ignorance, I can't provide years of levels of learning. I can simply say "no, that's wrong". People don't like being told they are wrong I guess.

Yea I've heard that one before. That's what they say when you asked how god can be one and three at the same time.
I don't recall ever asking that.

So a 1st century text that speaks of covering during prayer is proof that a different practice existed years earlier? That's a weird contention. Any interesting Greek or Roman sources validate that?

but they are a strong indicator given their origin and the lack of other evidence.
you mean, lack of other evidence that you accept as evidence. The biblical text must not carry any weight.