Mainly For Those Not Roman Catholic: Whom Must You Obey?

[Kaninchen]

Do you have a source for this, meltzerboy? Not that I don’t believe you, but esp. since you acknowledge that you are not an authority on the subject, perhaps you could direct me to something that professes this is indeed what traditional Torah Judaism professes?

You’re talking about Jews here - you expect one opinion, we’ve been arguing about this for over three millenia.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re talking about Jews here - you expect one opinion, we’ve been arguing about this for over three millenia.

I see.

So, it’s possible that there are Jews that understand that the Sacred Scriptures were inspired, and that they are infallible, and therefore those that wrote them were, for whatever time period, infallible ==>human beings can, under the direction of God, be infallible.

Would this be correct?

 

[Kaninchen]

I see.

So, it’s possible that there are Jews that understand that the Sacred Scriptures were inspired, and that they are infallible, and therefore those that wrote them were, for whatever time period, infallible ==>human beings can, under the direction of God, be infallible.

Would this be correct?

That would take a lifetime of ‘on the one hand, while on the other hand, meanwhile on yet another hand . . . .’

And not beyond Torah, of course, and Torah is a matter of endless debate - rather like the American Constitution, it’s there in writing but what a particular bit might mean in certain circumstances, in the light of other parts of it etc . . . . because it’s one thing to say that such-and-such a prophet was inspired and their book ‘true’ but quite another to say that the passing on of that inspiration was ‘infallible’ or, rather perhaps, unarguable.

 

[meltzerboy]

You’re talking about Jews here - you expect one opinion, we’ve been arguing about this for over three millenia.

Thank you, Kaninchen, for this most informative synopsis. What is most striking to me is the notion of “continuous revelation” which is in keeping with Reform Judaism (and also Quakerism). Isn’t this regarded by most modern Torah Jews as heretical? I know…on the one hand, but on the other…and yet other.

 

[meltzerboy]

I see.

So, it’s possible that there are Jews that understand that the Sacred Scriptures were inspired, and that they are infallible, and therefore those that wrote them were, for whatever time period, infallible ==>human beings can, under the direction of God, be infallible.

Would this be correct?

PRMerger, Jews dislike that word “infallible” applied to people, even when divinely inspired. The Sacred Scriptures may be infallible, but not the person who wrote them, paradoxical as that may sound.

 

[PRmerger]

PRMerger, Jews dislike that word “infallible” applied to people, even when divinely inspired. The Sacred Scriptures may be infallible, but not the person who wrote them, paradoxical as that may sound.

Yes, I see that, meltzer. But does it not seem to be the logical conclusion that if the Scriptures are infallible, then the one who wrote it was, at least for the nonce, infallible?

 

[wisdomseeker]

In a way, it’s similar to Judaism. Jews are obligated to follow the laws in the Torah; non-Jews are not, except for certain basic moral principles.

The same way are Catholics bound to obey the laws given to us by God through the Church.

 

[meltzerboy]

Yes, I see that, meltzer. But does it not seem to be the logical conclusion that if the Scriptures are infallible, then the one who wrote it was, at least for the nonce, infallible?

Yes, it seems that way. I discussed the idea previously in this thread with another CAF member; it’s a tough one to decode.

 

[Kaninchen]

Thank you, Kaninchen, for this most informative synopsis. What is most striking to me is the notion of “continuous revelation” which is in keeping with Reform Judaism (and also Quakerism). Isn’t this regarded by most modern Torah Jews as heretical? I know…on the one hand, but on the other…and yet other.

We’re deep in the world of ‘it depends on what you mean by’.

I think one of the problems here is that words tend to carry ‘non-transferrable baggage’ - it’s one of the reasons why I keep telling people that the easiest way to start understanding Judaism is to forget the idea that it ‘works’ in the same way as Christianity - things that have deep meaning in one are meaningless in the other.

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes, I see that, meltzer. But does it not seem to be the logical conclusion that if the Scriptures are infallible, then the one who wrote it was, at least for the nonce, infallible?

The thing is that the question ‘matters’ differently in the two religions - thereby would hang many threads.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, it seems that way. I discussed the idea previously in this thread with another CAF member; it’s a tough one to decode.

Is it, then, just a question of semantics? You can’t say that a person is infallible, but, it “does seem” as if he is (at least for a certain period of time)?

 

[PRmerger]

The thing is that the question ‘matters’ differently in the two religions - thereby would hang many threads.

I’m not sure. It seems that meltzerboy understands the infallibility repercussions quite well well and understands that it matters a great deal, esp. as it pertains to Scripture.

 

[Kaninchen]

I’m not sure. It seems that meltzerboy understands the infallibility repercussions quite well well and understands that it matters a great deal, esp. as it pertains to Scripture.

One should never assume too much, especially when one is dealing with the question of ‘meaning’.

 

[PRmerger]

One should never assume too much, especially when one is dealing with the question of ‘meaning’.

Fair enough.

Although it does seem that you’re assuming, as well, no?

 

[Kaninchen]

Fair enough.

Although it does seem that you’re assuming, as well, no?

I admit to a tendency to the idea that things tend to be more complicated than they may seem - might come from a decade and a half of talking to Christians on the Internet.

 

[PRmerger]

I admit to a tendency to the idea that things tend to be more complicated than they may seem - might come from a decade and a half of talking to Christians on the Internet.

Do you mean here that you admit to having a tendency to assume?

Or only to point out when you believe* others* are assuming, but you never assume yourself/

 

[Kaninchen]

Do you mean here that you admit to having a tendency to assume?

Or only to point out when you believe* others* are assuming, but you never assume yourself/

Oh, it’s more a conjecture that has survived lots and lots of tests - conversations between Christians and Jews that get mired down often because we think we’re talking about the same thing when we’re not.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, it’s more a conjecture that has survived lots and lots of tests - conversations between Christians and Jews that get mired down often because we think we’re talking about the same thing when we’re not.

LOL! Conjecture and assumption–essentially synonymous, no???

Actually, conjecture seems to less precise than assumption, as it appears to be more along the lines of “guessing”.

con·jec·ture (kn-jkchr)
n.

1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.
   v. con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing, con·jec·tures
   v.tr.
   To infer from inconclusive evidence; guess.
   v.intr.
   To make a conjecture.

 

[Kaninchen]

LOL! Conjecture and assumption–essentially synonymous, no???

Actually, conjecture seems to less precise than assumption, as it appears to be more along the lines of “guessing”.

con·jec·ture (kn-jkchr)
n.

1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.
   v. con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing, con·jec·tures
   v.tr.
   To infer from inconclusive evidence; guess.
   v.intr.
   To make a conjecture.

First part of the guess and test process in scientific method - you test your conjectures which are refuted or partially confirmed.

 

[PRmerger]

First part of the guess and test process in scientific method - you test your conjectures which are refuted or partially confirmed.

'kay.