« first day (1217 days earlier)      last day (2899 days later) » 

12:01 AM
@TRiG A quick skim of the Wikipedia article suggests that if events of the New Testament were foreshadowed by "types," or events recorded in the Old Testament, a typographic descendant might just mean that someone thinks that David foreshadowed Jesus
 
@TRiG presumably they have the idea that Jesus has a relationship to somebody (maybe his adoptive father?) that is like the relationship of the moshiach ben Yosef to Yosef, and that therefore the earlier text means that. Remember that their theology involves finding "predictions" of Jesus (l'havdil) in the Tanakh. Of course, the people who wrote the Jesus story knew the Tanakh, so even if these so-called predictions stood up under scrutiny (they don't), it wouldn't mean anything.
But on this particular question, @TRiG, if you or anybody you know elsewhere on the network have a clue how to rewrite that question to be appropriate here, feel free. This is a new user who seems to be trying to ask appropriately but who's missing badly; somebody who understands this site and her religious perspective might be able to help her do what most of us can't do (because we don't have all the context).
 
@MonicaCellio It's possible I might be able to, after a good night's sleep, a lot of coffee, and a good primer in the Jewish theology referenced (following the links might be enough), but it'd be a fair bit of work.
And I'm not sure it's possible, actually.
 
@TRiG "feel free" was meant to be an invitation, not pressure. :-) If it's too much work (and it sounds like it), then oh well.
 
@MonicaCellio Oh I know. Don't worry, I didn't feel pressured. The thing is, I like editing, and I especially enjoy rescuing doomed questions when I can, but I'm not sure I'm up for the challenge of this one.
 
@TRiG I know you do, which is why I suggested it. :-) But this one sounds like a big job, so I totally understand if you're passing on it.
 
12:55 AM
"What does, 'A wandering Aramean was my father' mean in Dt 26:5?" Many great explanations at http://mi.yodeya.com/q/45080/2 #parsha #KiTavo
A few hours later ...
mi.yodeya.com,
You have a new follower on Twitter.


Arameans Group
@ArameansGroup
The official Arameans group on Twitter
International · https://www.facebook.com/Oromoye
 
1:23 AM
@IsaacMoses wow, I had no idea.
 
 
2 hours later…
3:02 AM
@IsaacMoses Ask them if they still speak Aramaic
 
3:12 AM
I don't think I've ever seen a post as downvoted as judaism.stackexchange.com/a/30830/1713
I guess because there aren't many with lower scores
the lowest scored post is -13
 
YEZ
3:40 AM
@Shokhet I noticed your stats haven't changed in a while - is it the off-season?
@IsaacMoses I can't imagine they'll have much reason to come back - questions about Arameans are roughly 1 in 12,000 here.
unless you include questions that mention aram-naharayim and paddan-aram. No, never mind there are two more that mention aram tangentially.
 
YEZ
3:55 AM
Anyone in the room have a jastrow handy?
 
YEZ
@DoubleAA as always, Y"K.
 
4:19 AM
@Daniel It is a funny candidate, because it is probably defensible with sources. If I had the time and inclination, I would research it, but since it isn't LeHalacha (I've never heard of an Achron pasken against the Rambam in this, and especially since there is so much leniency about Christianity) I'm not all that inclined ...
 
4:53 AM
@Yishai The Tzitz Eliezer was opposed to entering mosques based on a (mistattributed) Ran.
IINM
(If that's what you were referring to)
 
5:07 AM
@TRiG Isn't that the tail of a 'g' or 'y'? :-)
@Shokhet It's not dead (though I don't know whether that group, specifically, speaks it). See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Aramaic_languages
@MonicaCellio Wait, so it's you?
@YEZ @TRiG Sometimes lawyers (and judges) ask witnesses to answer questions based on what they know "of [their] own knowledge". A too-literal witness wouldn't be able to get past the first question, "State your name for the record".
 
 
4 hours later…
9:43 AM
@msh210 Ah, I knew I was missing something obvious!
 
 
2 hours later…
12:08 PM
@yishai it is also pretty common in my experience for posts that show a strong ignorance about a group that comes across as borderline racist to get strongly downvoted.
 
12:37 PM
If anyone has a copy of דעת סופרים on דברי הימים, I would much appreciate a photoscan of the commentary on ד״ה א׳ פרק כז. (I can't seem to find it online, in any local shul, or in the home of someone local who has loads of ספרים.)
 
Name brainstorm opportunity from a mass email from R' Slifkin:
> After years of development, it's finally coming together! "The Biblical Natural History Experience," a combination of extraordinary live and inanimate exhibits relating to Biblical and Talmudic zoology, will be opening in its short-term location this year, b'ezrat Hashem.
> It has been renamed from "The Biblical Museum of Natural History" to reflect the fact that it also has many live exhibits, and also to project the message that it is much more hands-on and interactive than the classic model of a museum where everything is behind glass. (Though the new name is somewhat cumbersome, and does not have an easy shorthand reference, so we are open to other ideas!) You can download a prospectus at this page.
Any ideas?
Oh, it's also on his blog: rationalistjudaism.com/2014/09/…
 
1:30 PM
@DoubleAA I wasn't aware of that, but the Yad Ramah on Sanhedrin refers to the Stoning of the Devil ritual in Mecca as Avodah Zarah, thus implying he holds the religion is. Given that, I'm sure you could at least build a plausible case that shechting for the sake of the Avodah Zarah religion is just as bad a Yayin Nesach. But none of this is le-Halacha, AFAIK.
 
@Yishai Not sure about that inference. The Shulchan Aruch holds that shlugging kaparos is "darkei ha-emori", but presumably doesn't feel that way about the rest of Judaism, lehavdil.
 
@YEZ My point is that how you view Aristotilian philosophy vis-a-vis biblical criticism determines how you think the Rambam would hold about learning one over the other. Thus if someone says they are equivalent, that says something about what they think, but doesn't really say anything about what the Rambam thinks.
 
@YEZ Someone had to watch the pool in camp ;)
 
 
1 hour later…
2:43 PM
@msh210 so I'm the only mod who publicly declares a gender but I'm somehow suspect. Again. Sniff.
 
2:53 PM
@MonicaCellio Ha! I just found msh210 admitting to his here.
 
3:04 PM
@IsaacMoses ah, excellent!
 
 
3 hours later…
YEZ
5:42 PM
@Yishai I don't know how I proved your point.
 
 
3 hours later…
9:10 PM
@MonicaCellio It seems rather simple to rework, though it may require a second question.
1: Could Jesus have been Moshiach ben Yosef?
2: Could Moshiach ben Yosef have a second coming and become Moshiach ben David?
(The second could be probably be promptly closed as a dupe of judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/38340/…)
no?
 
@HodofHod I wouldn't agree that it is a duplicate, because in that other question, anything that says yes is not a valid answer (I don't mean that yes is a correct answer, just that saying yes would not be regarded as addressing that question, unlike this one).
 
@Yishai Well, it's just the way the question is phrased. I could easily phrase it "Is the belief of [a second coming] anathema to Judaism?"
 
9:25 PM
NOTE: Based on the way the question is asked, opinions who hold it is not Kfira are invalid answers. — Double AA ♦ May 18 at 13:15
 
(I don't think it must be closed, only that it will end up covering basically the same ground and could be seen as a dupe)
@Yishai Fair. In that case, that question's title needs to be edited.
(I'm rather shocked there isn't already a canonical "second coming" question here anyway)
That questions should be rephrased to: "Does anyone hold that ... ?"
The title implies that it's asking whether it is kefira, and that an answer of "it's not" should be valid. The body is different, as @DoubleAA points out.
@Yishai, that having been said, do you think the summary/split above is good?
 
9:50 PM
@HodofHod I'm OK with that, although I think a compound question is fairly standard. I think the OP was getting at something different, although perhaps doing that would give them the information that they need to make the inference on their own if their personal theology matches or not.
 
@Yishai That's true. I think the reason I feel that it could be split is because once the second question had been generalized away from Yeshu, it doesn't follow the first one quite so well.
@Yishai What do you think they were getting at?
 
10:19 PM
@HodofHod I think they want to understand if the idea of MBY is compatible with their personal theology. Are they thinking about Yeshu in a way that fits with MBY, because this was suggested by friends that they might be, but they don't know enough about MBY to evaluate.
 
That's question 1, no?
 
@HodofHod The question the way you phrased it in #1 focuses more directly on Yeshu, whereas an answer to the question (the way I understood it) could say that the theology she presents is compatibly with MBY, but the specific person of Yeshu can't fit the category for some other reason. That latter clause wouldn't be as relevant to her question, as she may not understand Yeshu in any way that a Jewish source does.
 
That's how she phrased it originally. What's the alternative, though? A questions on who and what MBY is already exists.
@Yishai, (As an aside, talking with you has reminded me that I really need to get back in touch with your brother-in-law out in the sticks to see if I can't revive our kvius. :) )
(Or at least I think he's your bother-in-law. :D )
Either way, thanks for the reminder.
 
10:51 PM
I'm in the middle of writing a rather long question, and for the last few minutes, SE has been giving me a warning in a red text box next to my question, warning me that I need at least 10 rep to post more than two links. (I have 2140 rep and 8 links in that question)
Is that a problem?
 
@Shokhet Yes. Let me try that.
 
@HodofHod Haven't tried posting it yet (not done yet), but all the same....
Thanks
 
Nope, don't see it.
 
11:22 PM
@HodofHod Just tried posting, was not allowed....will try copying text into notepad, discarding draft, and pasting it all back in....hold on a minute
(Will probably get CAPTCHAed again)
SE is actually telling me I'm not logged in....hold on
@HodofHod And question posted
Guess I just got logged out by accident
Thanks for your help :)
 

« first day (1217 days earlier)      last day (2899 days later) »