Christine Hayes: Moses at Sinai - God's Partner or Adversary? (Shavuot 5776)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2024
- Final lecture in the Shalom Hartman Institute 5776 Rabbinic Webinar Series - Yale and SHI-North America scholar Christine Hayes: Moses at Sinai - God's Partner or Adversary? (Shavuot 5776). June 1, 2016.
In the first ten minutes of watching one of her Yale lectures I learnt more than I've learnt from any other source.
Love her Yale lectures!
They are phenomenal - I agree
Yes she's so graceful with her style of delivery you just wanna hear her speak
Yes that set of lectures is great... check out Robert Wilson (Yale Divinity School) on the Torah as well 👍
Huge fan of Dr Hayes!
This woman is a bad ass, and slays with her knowledge.
Hell ya !
What a beautiful mind!
Excellent scholar.
Her intelligence makes her so beautiful.
I love Dr. Hayes’ multidisciplinary approach of combining psychological constructs with theological sources and religious commentary as a way toward finding deeper meaning in these ancient texts. The result of her genius always produces fresh and contemporary insights on Scripture. Her impressive understanding of human nature and its purpose and function in the Creation is a true blessing that brings much honor to G-d.
Damn fella keep using them big words
In short, Moses never existed.
@@materialclassified there were many Ramses aka RaMoses.
Absolutely brilliant, and even cuter now than when she did her Yale lectures! :-)
When Moses came down from the mountain declared "I've got good news and I've got bad news; the good news is that I got them down to ten, the bad news is that adultery is still in."
Awesome, as always her lectures are illuminating
Dr. Hayes displays outstanding scholarship and a tremendous grasp of the materials. Few who teach can explain as thoroughly as she the subject at hand. I do challenge the conclusions of the science of biblical theology. Even if God exists, as is presupposed here, it is not perfidious that he seek out the created things. He does not make covenant with his things but his creations always find reality in his law. If they do not they fail the test and pass from the scene. The presumption that God needs men will create the illusion, the Specter of a god and be the ultimate betrayal of the superlative forces. In other words, God does not need men for he has his law, and man does not need God because of the same law. In a perfect world all things are as they should be.
Here after watching Dr. Hayse's lectures on the Open Yale channel, and having my mind absolutely blown all over again.
My own beliefs are largely Gnostic, so i strongly relate to the more adversarial interpretation, but i'm beginning to think that Judaism and Kabbalah in particular, offer a richer vocabulary for describing the divine mystery than my own tradition with it's demiurge, archons, Sophia, etc. Rather baroque and overburdened by comparison to the elegance and flexibility of lurianic kabbalah.
Thanks to everyone involved in making this happen, it's hard to fully express my gratitude for the light that you have shed, the spiritual treasures you have given so freely to the world.
Thank you
Love her knowledge. She enlightens, like the Lord Jesus did.
TOP PROFESSOR 🌹
Wow! informative for me, a believer in Christ. God intends personal relations with us through struggles and all.
thankyou for the lecture
Dr. Hayes is very percipient. I always learn from her. One thought: when we have two speeches by the same person without response, could it perhaps be that part of the text has been taken out?
I love it that since I have become an atheist I can now appreciate the study of the bible. History is wonderful while indoctrination is a horror. As a child I pored over every book I could about the Greek and Roman “gods” yet shied away from the bible because god in the old testament was abhorrent. Thank you Dr. Hayes. I am following your work.
Awesome lecture, interesting to see how the rabbis read the Hebrew Bible.
I'm a follower of MESSENGER ELIJAH MUHAMMAD. And God is forcing me to listen to this so must b good...
The appearance of God changing does not negate the changelessness of God, rather appearances are deceiving and God always acts in accordance with himself.
If it is our absolute nature to open every box we see then we act accordingly when confronted by any box presented to us, but if there are no boxes present then it is our absolute nature to not open the box that is not there. This to say that the nature of the absolute still conforms to the relative nature of circumstance without changing itself. It is not God that changes but only the world that he seeks to interact with.
So which of the three sets of "Commandments" are the real ones ?
Rather than exert energy attempting to determine the mind of God during this interaction with Moses, why not simply state the obvious. The guy who wrote this made it up, and in making it up, was not concerned with unintended ambiguity.
"The guy who wrote this" is a long history of guys who told stories about the gods in the Ancient Near East, followed by a redactor or series of redactors who put all the stories together here, this time shaping them to serve the purpose of a fledgling tribe called Israel, which was supposed to worship one god, not many.
she'll make, anyone drop that belief
Deuteronomy 30: 1-10 + 11-14
God: ok, Moses, I won’t kill them. You will.
And Moses gathers the levites and kills about 3000.
This simple distinction and elaboration is so often missed or ignored, I supposed because it is ‘theologically challenging.’
16:35 this is why HaShem was subbed under Christ.
where can i read stuff of her on this subject?
Yale has a 24 Video lecture by her on the Hebrew testament aka OT
@@robbielee2148 thaks but i don't have time enough to watch 24 videos. give me a book or articles!
The videos have accompanying transcripts you can read.
In case you haven't read anything from her. Her book "What's divine about divine law" talks about this topic
I m reading the Yemeni Tanakh and its totaly different from the "European" Hebrew one .....
Ein super information über Moses ,,,,, aber das was der Bible uns erzählt ist was anderes
@10:10 ... thats interesting interpretation but not quite how it happened. Yes there was a bit of bravoda before Saul, but the rest was a thought. Unfortunately the parenthetical had not been invented. Actuall the whole idea of punctuation hadn't been invent. But interesting.
I see descriptions of what God desires and expects. I do not find explicit nor implicit expression of what God 'needs'.
That's because God's needs are nowhere in scripture
Hashem does not need anything
Do you believe Moses really existed ?
How does the speaker know the motivation of God or Moses? Don't think she was there. She should say she is just guessing and leave it there. Paul Laboda
32:55 definition of codependency. Pacify yourself!
How about Gods servant not partner.
A servant is correct.
The Tanakh claims that God does not repent, and when you accept that as truth you will realize that Moses not only spoke to God, but he also spoke to the one that wants to be God.
Yes 🙌 but not everyone sees that
@@Eklegomai Could you elaborate more plz?
God is all knowing and does not need to be shown things by men, how can men show God anything when it is God that created free will?
In order for free will to exist this would mean that God had to create every aspect of choice / Free Will, so that you may have an option, this would essentially mean that there is no choice, no problem, or no situation that God does not have the answer to.
Moses was also talking to moleck who is the one that gave them sacrifice, then he allowed the people to believe that Moses was a blocking against his Wrath,(as if any man could be) the book of Jeremiah specifically states that God did not command them in the ways of sacrifice or burnt offerings in the day that he lead them out of bondage, God tells us to just keep his word and to listen to him.
So if it was not God as God claims then it was they're imaginary God called Molech that they brought with them.
Would you mind answering some questions I have?
@@llaverick7739
If you are talking to me then yes, I will answer questions.
@@yashawngray9289 I read you other comment in this video, and I am wondering how can we know what to follow and where there are other instances of this happeing in the bible?
@@llaverick7739
Hello, are you asking me how do we know what is true inside the Bible, and what is not true inside the Bible?
@@yashawngray9289 Basically. Also I am asking if there are parts where this also occurs, and how to know?
I think hashem was just seeing what moses would do .
If he needed to see what Moses would do then he was not the MOST HIGH G_D who would know what Moses would do.
@@notthemashiach567 HaShem isn’t the Most High God, although, the Most High is HaShem. HaShem experiences time in real time and cannot see the future, being able to experience all sorts of emotions and logical conundrums.
I want to know! Is there a god (God)?
If we are made in their image, does that mean God is a hairless ape that is more intelligent than……..?
Could the story of Joseph and his brothers be a thumbnail of how the genetics may piss off the rest of humanity?
We are the chosen.
You will bow down before us.
Or… this is writings by ancient men based on recollections from actual revelation from God mixed with biases and limited by primitive understanding. Instead look at the Quran for the truth of what was exchanged between Moses and God for invaluable lessons for all humanity forever.
Dear Dr. Hayes.
I have watched a few of your lectures on the Bible and really enjoyed them.
I am up to 18:15 of this one and your explanation is very creative, I love your delving, curious mind.
Do the cantillation marks belie anything?
I love your lectures and I am learning a lot from you, in a unique way, given that I grew up with the traditional view on the Chumash.
I would just suggest that you be less lengthy. It comes up in 3 ways.
1. Repetition of the obvious ramifications of what immediately preceded.
2. Use verbose language.
3. Lengthy summarizing.
e.g. In this lecture, you should have done away with the entirety of 15:47-17:10, and merely have used one sentence:
'To summarize, it's either an imperative or a statement of consequence, in other words, is God an adversary or a partner'
You shouldn't feel compelled to say more than that, given that we proximately heard the lengthy explanations and
ramifications on the reading. :) Please don't misunderstand me, you are terrific, but you can be even more terrific!
And I have learned a lot from you, so I can rightfully call you Rebbe!
yisrael.
I agree, but i also think it's possible that G*d, after giving Moses the Torah, is testing him and his understanding of what was just revealed to him. It seems to me, this "testing" happens regularly throughout the texts. It was also done at Sodom and Gomorrah. I will destroy, He's been pleaded with, and repents (to an extent). Thanks for the videos. Be well.
So, Moses is a made up figure.
God's vanity???
God's nervous??
The word repented is mistranslated .
A long speech out of a no-issue. Is a judge in court a friend or foe? It depends on one's and judge's desire to uphold the letter of the law.
Lots of just moving to conclusions and characterizations that tells more about the speakers view of humans that what's actually written.
Nothing spiritually, how about I believe everything in Bible is true, every single word.
Interesting thoughts but..........'He appeals to G-d's vanity'???
The G-d of Israel is not a vain G-d, legacy or honor would of been a better choice of words.
You offended brah?
He's described ten times in the Hebrew bible as a jealous god. I think the term vanity would apply.
That doesn’t look or sound like the Father that Jesus Christ came to introduce to us.
Exactly. Something wrong there. Too carnal in nature to be GOD the Father.
I thought Moses was a fictional character, you may as well have been talking about Harry Potter.
People do talk about Harry Potter. It’s all literature
@@jaredsmith112 it’s all fiction was my point.
As with the laws of Shabbos and the description of the tefillin, the oral law [5500 pages she is utterly ignorant of] is needed, likely she is also ignorant of the hermeneutic priciples and their application. There is a list of questuos she could not answer, nor is she aware of the real character of these people
ALTHEGREAT101 Christine Hayes is a Talmud scholar as well and has written books and articles on Talmud as well as videos. I’m sure she is thoroughly familiar with the details of the Halachot of Shabbat and Tefillin as explained in the Oral Law
I want to announce that I might be GOD'S anointed coming soon to fulfilled world peace. I'm not Jesus, the Rabbis will be vindicated ultimately in the end of days.
Why keep these fairy tales of supremacy alive?
I mean, the modern concept of universal human rights was borne of this thinking. Reductionist atheism is boring.