Trying to figure out some of the "ceremonial uncleanness" ideas in Leviticus. Without trying to automatically discount and default to "we don't do that anymore". Other than what seems to be good sanitary and epidemiological practice for washing with water and waiting, how/would they still be practiced as there is no ceremony w/o priests, offerings, etc to participate in, and be unclean or purified for?
Hello. Yes, this is something which I have wondered. I have heard that there are some unrelated behaviors like horse-riding that can cause that. I have also heard that it varies between women. All I would say is that it is in the parents' interest to protect their daughter from their potential concerns as far as they are able.
What do you think about the insertion of "and" in Deuteronomy 22 20? Do you think it's accurate to put two clauses, the situation must be true and the virginitys must be missing or the situation is true because the virginitys are missing?
I think it is the latter. I think, "...and if this matter is true, they are not found...", but I am not sure what the difference would be in understanding. Could you elaborate?
@@TorahCentric The difference is if are two conditions to the girl be culpable or one. Some people say that the virginitys be missing are not by itself the only ground for condemnation, the matter must be stablish by witness also for example. In other other words, they must see if the situation is true somehow and the virginitys be missing also. The LXX put an "and" for example and I saw that there is not in the Hebrew explicitly.
Thanks for the clarification. I can see how one might arrive at that idea, but it seems to be a stretch of the wording in Deuteronomy 22:20, especially with the context of v.15,17. "and if this matter is true, they are not found..." seems to be the most literal interpretation. I don't see the discussion of witnesses here. But one might say that Deuteronomy 17:6 implies a general requirement for witnesses concerning the death penalty.
In judaism back side of cow is considered as non kosher. What do you think about it? is back side of cow non kosher? in Genesis 32:32 it says that isralites dont eat certain tendon of animal, but it sounds like its more as tradition not a prohibitation. Because i dont see specific law about this in bible. in Genesis 32:32 it says Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon.
@08:50 - False (and also True); 1 John 4. You're being to literal (physical). I am a Temple of The Most High. Heaven is not Earth, as one's mind is not one's arm. Though Mount Tzion be razed, God Knows a Place, 'Cause He Made It, in Me, in which to Remain. There are analogs, as it were, of every Command, which, to the uninitiated, seem irrelevant to non-Temple life. To the Initiated, however, there is no difference between Temple life and everyday life, except that of physical signal. In other words, it's profoundly dangerous to ignore any of The Self-Existence's Commands, especially on the grounds of perceived irrelevance. It's a trick: you think it's irrelevant, because you think you know what it means. What it says, in plain language, and what it means, in Unity-Speak, are very different things. The Word of God is Fractal; no matter how closely one looks, or what one thinks one sees, there is always more detail, which one is incapable of seeing, by virtue of being a human, in Earth. As I said, you are right, while also being wrong.
HalleluYAHUWAH!
@06:01 - Have you got that list, in a spreadsheet, or something, that you may share?
That'd be a useful tool, to me.
Trying to figure out some of the "ceremonial uncleanness" ideas in Leviticus. Without trying to automatically discount and default to "we don't do that anymore".
Other than what seems to be good sanitary and epidemiological practice for washing with water and waiting, how/would they still be practiced as there is no ceremony w/o priests, offerings, etc to participate in, and be unclean or purified for?
Hi. I was having some problems with the unreliability of the tokens of virginity in Deuteronomy 22. Do you have some opinion about it?
Hello. Yes, this is something which I have wondered. I have heard that there are some unrelated behaviors like horse-riding that can cause that. I have also heard that it varies between women. All I would say is that it is in the parents' interest to protect their daughter from their potential concerns as far as they are able.
What do you think about the insertion of "and" in Deuteronomy 22 20? Do you think it's accurate to put two clauses, the situation must be true and the virginitys must be missing or the situation is true because the virginitys are missing?
I think it is the latter. I think, "...and if this matter is true, they are not found...", but I am not sure what the difference would be in understanding. Could you elaborate?
@@TorahCentric The difference is if are two conditions to the girl be culpable or one. Some people say that the virginitys be missing are not by itself the only ground for condemnation, the matter must be stablish by witness also for example. In other other words, they must see if the situation is true somehow and the virginitys be missing also. The LXX put an "and" for example and I saw that there is not in the Hebrew explicitly.
Thanks for the clarification. I can see how one might arrive at that idea, but it seems to be a stretch of the wording in Deuteronomy 22:20, especially with the context of v.15,17. "and if this matter is true, they are not found..." seems to be the most literal interpretation. I don't see the discussion of witnesses here. But one might say that Deuteronomy 17:6 implies a general requirement for witnesses concerning the death penalty.
In judaism back side of cow is considered as non kosher. What do you think about it? is back side of cow non kosher? in Genesis 32:32 it says that isralites dont eat certain tendon of animal, but it sounds like its more as tradition not a prohibitation. Because i dont see specific law about this in bible.
in Genesis 32:32 it says Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon.
My opinion is in line with your suggestion. It is not a law commanded by Moses. It is not portrayed as a law.
@08:50 - False (and also True); 1 John 4. You're being to literal (physical).
I am a Temple of The Most High.
Heaven is not Earth, as one's mind is not one's arm.
Though Mount Tzion be razed, God Knows a Place,
'Cause He Made It, in Me, in which to Remain.
There are analogs, as it were, of every Command, which, to the uninitiated, seem irrelevant to non-Temple life.
To the Initiated, however, there is no difference between Temple life and everyday life, except that of physical signal.
In other words, it's profoundly dangerous to ignore any of The Self-Existence's Commands, especially on the grounds of perceived irrelevance.
It's a trick: you think it's irrelevant, because you think you know what it means. What it says, in plain language, and what it means, in Unity-Speak, are very different things.
The Word of God is Fractal; no matter how closely one looks, or what one thinks one sees, there is always more detail, which one is incapable of seeing, by virtue of being a human, in Earth.
As I said, you are right, while also being wrong.
I don't think the Tent gets Build, again, though.
Straight to Temple, and 20 Jubilee Reign, I reckon.
Shavuot, 2023, as per Dan. 12.
John is Greek philosophy.