Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Jon Miller]

apocrypha

[Robert]

No, they don't. It's canon for the Jews.
It's one of the writings.

[Jon Miller]

It is similiar. They aren't accounted the same significance of the others..

JM

[Robert]

Of course they don't have the same significance of the Torah. They're still concidered to be holy books, not to be compared with the apocrypha of the protestants.

[Proteus_MST]

Perhaps there are jews and jews,
some who take everything within the tenach literally and think everything is inspired by god (or even written by himself with humans as ghostwriters),

whereas others take a more critical approach and think the tenach is a mix of inspired books and books just interesting for historic reasons

Just like you have fundamentalist christians which believe in the literal truth of the bible (including flood and creation stories) and others who rather think most of the bible hasn´t to be taken literally

[Arrian]

Wiki lists 7 Jewish denominations, 3 of which I was aware of:

Conservative
Reform
Orthodox
(those are the three I knew about)
Reconstructionist
Liberal
Karaite
Alt

-Arrian

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Of course they don't have the same significance of the Torah. They're still concidered to be holy books, not to be compared with the apocrypha of the protestants.

You could wipe your ass with the book of Daniel. It is not holy. Well it has G-Ds name in it and you have to take great care with anything that has G-Ds name in it, but you would not be commiting a sin for violating something holy, just for disrespecting G-Ds name.


If you make a mistake scribing a Torah scroll(there are lots of ways you can invalidate it), you can also wipe your ass with it. That would be extremley disrespectful and that would be borderline a sin, possibly a sin itself, but your not commiting a sin for violating a holy object.

I don't know if protestants would say wiping their ass with their apocrypha would be violating a sacred object, so I can't comment on that.

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Perhaps there are jews and jews,
some who take everything within the tenach literally and think everything is inspired by god (or even written by himself with humans as ghostwriters),

whereas others take a more critical approach and think the tenach is a mix of inspired books and books just interesting for historic reasons

Just like you have fundamentalist christians which believe in the literal truth of the bible (including flood and creation stories) and others who rather think most of the bible hasn´t to be taken literally

Any Jew who takes ever word of the 5 books and the Tenach literally.... is part of the one percent of a one percent, no one embraces all of it. Some Jews will wave away parts of the five books, larger groups will wave away more of the Tanach.

In any event most of the Tanach is not sacred in any way, it is not, holy.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Arrian
Wiki lists 7 Jewish denominations, 3 of which I was aware of:

Conservative
Reform
Orthodox
(those are the three I knew about)
Reconstructionist
Liberal
Karaite
Alt

-Arrian

There are so many Jewish denominations trying to list them is an excersive in futility, most of them don't even know where they diverge from others heh.... you can classify Jews by their beliefs and practices and most Jews of all denominations will get along fine with all others, the largest theological differences for the most part(for the most part-see my comments above on Messianist kabalists being borderline idoloters), are not so far as to be any cause of dislike or hatred.

[Robert]

You could wipe your ass with the book of Daniel.

What % of the Jews are you representing?
As far as I know is Daniel one of the books after which you should wash your hands after you've touched it, since it's too holy to handle. All books but 2 of the Tenach are titled (unofficially) that way, as I have been told by Jews.

[Vesayen]

I wanted to throw this in before so I will throw it in now because it is a good time.

I am not a Torah scholar by any means and not an expert on theology, that said however, I am moderatley confident I know more about Judaism then the majority of the posters on this forum.

The book of Daniel is not itself, holy-you could defile the book and not commit a sin for the act of defiling it, but you would commit one for defiling the name of G-D, whose name is in the book.

[Robert]

I am moderatley confident I know more about Judaism then the majority of the posters on this forum.

How much do you exactly know?
Do you practice judaism?
Of course you know more then the majority of this board.

The book of Daniel is not itself

I think you're a minority among the Jews with such a vision.

[Vesayen]

How much do you exactly know?
Do you practice judaism?
Of course you know more then the majority of this board.

I am a lifelong Jew, raised Jewish, studied in a Yeshiva(Jewish school) when I was younger. I practice today, pray often, eat Kosher, etc. I don't date non Jews-which is a ##### because I like Asian women and Asian Jews are close to non existant.

I think you're a minority among the Jews with such a vision.

The book of Daniel is not something i've devoted a huge deal of time to, so now I am starting to doubt myself. I am still confident of what I said though, that the book of Daniel is not sacred-I'd say about 70% sure but I *am* going to go check, I'll post on that tommorow. I would rather be wrong and post something factual, especially about something like this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What about the Gospel of Biff: Christ's Childhood Pal?

[Vesayen]

It is sacred, just like Abraham's Guide to Flower Arangment.

Edit: Both Daniel and Isiah are holy, I was mistaken. My earlier post explaining the meaning of the selected passages and that they do not represent hell however still stand.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Vesayen
...attempting genocide is a grand european tradition.

I'd say rather that Europeans are responsible for some of the better known examples.

It's true that the Assyrians for instance, were not unfamiliar with the concept of genocide, nor were the Mongols under Chinghiz Khan, nor their successors, the Uzbek-Turco-Mongol forces under Timur Lenk- pyramids of skulls outside Baghdad and Near Eastern cities were not down to Europeans, and the Sack of Delhi was certainly not a European crime.

The Manchus in China also exterminated the Dzunghar tribe- ironic really, because one group of former nomads or semi-nomads were eliminating another.


The Aztecs were also quite familiar with butchery on a large scale.

The difference is, I suppose, the technological advances that allowed mass slaughter of peoples in the developing world- the Gatling and Maxim guns, napalm, barbed wire, concentration camps, European diseases (smallpox blankets given out by British troops in North America) and so on.