Jayhawker Soule:
I assumed that by “Torah” you were referring to the entirety of the Jewish scriptures rather than narrowly to the five books of Moses. That said, the word used for the witch in Samuel is also used in the Torah itself, so the belief that people like her could contact spirits of those who had died is in there, even if a concrete example of it happening isn’t illustrated there.
It most certainly is not. The Torah is the first five books of the Bible.
Who on earth uses Torah in that sense (ie the entirety of the Jewish scriptures)?
I’m an atheist but I always remember that Jesus was a devout Jew and if he ever did return with any power he would probably deliver all Christians to condign and eternal punishment for the way they had persecuted and slaughtered his people.
Hillel the Elder, for one:
I bow to Hillel. And going by the OED definition there is certainly warrant for it:
I still say though that using it in the broad sense would lead to misinterpretation by most of your audience.
Bear in mind that the Hebrew word “Torah” simply means a doctrine or body or knowledge. For instance, the term “Quantum Theory” is translated as “Torat HaQuantim”.
I wonder if they even notice that Catholics don’t (or aren’t supposed to) proselytize to them.
aldiboronti:
Plenty of people. Specifically, when the context is whether a certain element of Jewish belief or practice is historically Jewish or has been borrowed/adapted from some outside source, there’s no reason to distinguish the first five books from the rest of the scriptures (at least, the ones universally acknowledged as having an early origin, I can see making a distinction that excludes Daniel or Esther), as all of those books represent ancient Jewish lore. Something sourced in Samuel is no more likely to have been borrowed from the Zoroastrians than something sourced in Leviticus.
That’s not the Catholic position at all. Not even the newer, *much *better Catholic position.
Catholics are mandated to proselytize to everyone - even to the Jews. They’re just expected to be a little more humble when they come knocking on our doors.
And I have a book called “The Barbecue Bible,” but if I’m talking about religion and say something is in the Bible, I expect my audience to know I don’t mean that one. Or at the very least, to ask for clarification before they assume that I do.
While you are of course entitled to your opinion, I predict that you will continue to misunderstand people, the way you did here, if you insist on your own definition. When capitalized and used in a scriptural context without further qualification, “Torah” has a specific meaning, and it is not “everything but Esther and Daniel.”
TonySinclair:
So, you think when Jews speak of “learning Torah” they’re only referring to studying the Five Books of Moses? Certainly, Torah can mean only those books, but it is hardly only me who use the term in the broader sense of all Jewish religious scripture. (And of course, Daniel and Esther are included, in that sense, but my point was that the references to the afterlife in Samuel are in the parts of Jewish scripture that, like the five books of Moses, is universally acknowledged as older than Zoroastrianism is known to be, so there was no reason for me to have assumed the narrower definition.)
I think that if “learning Torah” is understood by common consent and usage within a group to include more than the Torah, then everybody’s happy. But if you are having a serious discussion with someone you don’t know, and he uses the term “Torah,” and there is any possibility that he means only the Pentateuch, then you should ask him what he means before you make any assertions.
Sheesh, you make it sound like I insulted the guy. He clarified, I responded, and it’s over.
Frankly, I think of the “Torah” as the Pentatuech, the scroll that’s stored in the Ark on the beemah. The kind I read from during my Bar Mitzvah and was sometimes asked to hold during Sabbat Services. But when one thinks of “learning Torah”, I’d toss in the remainder of the Bible (what’s often called the Old Testament) and the Talmud.
You mean despite statements like this by Benedict XVI?
This one’s by Francis:
Damn right. You Torah new one.
Well, I didn’t read those articles but I did read the actual statement by Francis when it came out last month. You should, too. It’s good and, like I said, a much better position than in the past.
But make no mistake - while the church has backed away from institutional conversion of Jews it still mandates that all Catholics are called to individually proselytize to all Jews. Just in a humble manner.
It’s good. I like it. But when you say that Catholics flatly “don’t proselytize” to Jews, you’re dead wrong, even by the most current standards of the church.
I have lived through four popes so far, besides the current, and it has always been, do not try to convert Jews to Christianity. I suppose you know something I don’t. How about a documented instance of Christians proselytizing to Jews? If they’re non-Catholics, I might believe you.