- Jul 2, 2005
- 15,666
- 2,957
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Whether it existed or not is irrelevant. Nowhere does it say that Jesus wore one. If it was that important for the believer, don’t you think that the text would have been a little more specific?
Well, in all honesty, more Tim Hegg articles would do absolutely nothing for me. He isn’t an archaeologist or an expert in ancient near east studies with a PhD. He is a guy with some study at seminaries that I do not know much about. I do not find his articles accurate nor authoritative. There are plenty of Hebrew roots people on the net writing the same type of stuff that he does. Lots of conjecture.
OK...so far we have tried to show you from scripture, history, and tradition that shawls were commonplace. You refuse to accept any of the above or even consider them.
Charles has done a fair job answering you. Hegg has done a fair job answering you. The scriptures speak of mantles, tzitzis, burial garments, priestly robes, street attire and all the rest- all pointing to the fact that Jews, as well as just about everybody else int he region, wore shawls.
At what point are we to give up on you? Now? Later? When will you simply say "well, that may well prove tradition to be correct, let me check it out".?
Neither are your ad hominem attacks. Please discuss the proof of your assertions.
Saying that you have a fundamentalist approach to interpreting the religion is not an ad-hominem attack. It's the same as you saying I have a traditionalist approach ot the religion. Don't mistake the proper use of a theological term as an attack on you, because it isn't- it's a comment on your methodology.
Now, if you think "fundamentalist" is a dirty word, then you might have a problem because your dogma on scripture and its application is completely constructed and informed by the fundamentalist paradigm. I think if you checked it out you'd be compelled to agree.
...and what's wrong with the Talmud?
It blasphemes Christ and His finished work. Any other questions?
Don't you read documents from history, or do you just get all your answers from the Bible? (Which is impossible.....hence the phenomenon of the Christian bookstore...you need outside references to understand the faith). Whether or not you think the Talmud is a valid religious teaching source, it IS a valid historical reference.
Was Jesus stoned? Was He hung? Was He a sorcerer? I guess there are differences in opinions of what constitutes a “valid historical reference”.
Without having to answer well-worn Talmud myths propagated by.....well, I won't use the word because you say it's ad-hom....let me just say that I need you to reply with a little more sincerity in order to facilitate you. My comment was not speaking of the theology of the Talmud, but it's witness the the practices of Judaism. You are departing from my intended meaning to be argumentative.
And I say that Jesus froze the sea of Galilee with His breath, and then Him and the apostles played a game of ice hockey there. Maybe I can find some proof for that in the talmud.
The problem you have here is that we have presented a Biblical, historical, theological and traditional case for Christ wearing a tallit...but you've merely moved the boundaries beyond academically acceptable criteria to retain your rather fanciful position. You've asked us to play soccer and you won't let us use a ball. Sorry, but you're not winning us to your novel interpretation of the Bible.
I'd like to point out that your argument has not addressed a single point of ours. You have not taken the time to deconstruct the texts and examples given to you. You merely cry out for what you would accept as "proof", without being honest enough to say that your version of proof can never prove anything.
Upvote
0