Conference taveng::bagels

    The word "Adonai" means "Lord".  I don't know if it is correct to
    use of people (I don't think so); someone with a better Hebrew
    education will eventually answer this, I hope.
    
    Different Jewish groups have different ideas about what is meant
    by a "Messiah" or "Messianic Age".  Some people and groups take
    a very literal view, and are expected a humanb being
    (divinely-inspired, or divine) who will come and "save the universe",
    proceeded by the prophet Elijah (some early Christians were hoping
    that John-the-Baptist would admit to being Elijah, although I don't
    think he did so - this is the reason).  The liberal view (my own
    view) is that a "Messianic Age" (one of spreading peace, concern
    for others and the environment, etc.) will be brought about by human
    efforts, perhaps divinely-inspired efforts, and that the "Messiah"
    idea is only a metaphor for what human beings are capable of
    accomplishing.  There is a spectrum of belief systems in between
    these extremes, and you'll hear all of them if you ask enough Jews
    (of course, we say that is true of most subjects: "Five Jews, six
    opinions!").
    
    Not much help, am I?

    The word "adonai" comes from the root "adon" (aleph-daled-nun),
    which is closer to "master" than "lord".  Other "conjugations" (not
    exactly conjugations, since it's not a verb, but close enough),
    are used to refer to people; for example, "adoni" is used as we
    use "sir", as in "may I help you, sir?".
                                      
    Steve
    
    

Reply to .0
    
>    2) From what I can gather from Rabbinical sources, it is accepted
>       that Messiah is a divine being, ie an aspect of the Lord sent
>       to earth. Is this indeed so, or does Judaism see Messiah merely
>       as a human sent by the Lord to do the job ?
>    

	No, not at all.

	I have a little essay that I wrote some time ago on this subject.
	I may have posted it into this notesfile before, but I cannot
	find it.  I have attached it below.

	(If anyone finds it elsewhere, please send me mail and I will
	delete it from here...)

/don feinberg

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have made for you a little  compendium  of  Jewish  belief  about  the
    Messiah.   Now,  I  am  not a scholar, and I cannot represent this to be
    totally complete.  It is the result of some scholarship I've  personally
    been  exposed to.  I'm responsible for faults and omissions.  That said,
    here are some of our beliefs:

    We believe that the ultimate  goal  of  history  is  the  perfection  of
    society.   Since  everything  was created by G-d, all must eventually be
    perfected.  This is even true of our everyday world, which  was  created
    as  a  place for our service to G-d.  This ultimate goal could be called
    the "Messianic Age".  The coming of the Messiah is  a  basic  belief  of
    Judaism.

    1.  We believe that G-d is eternal, above and beyond time.   G-d  cannot
        be born, He cannot die, nor can He be divided into sections.

        The Messiah is not G-d.  He will be a human being, born naturally to
        husband  and  wife.   Tanach  says that the Messiah will be a direct
        descendant of King David.  He will reign as the King of the Jews.

        The Torah clearly states in many places that our  laws  are  eternal
        and  will  never  be  abolished.   So,  the  Messiah will definitely
        conform to Torah law in his own behavior and teaching.  For example,
        observances  of  Kashrus  (the Kosher laws), Sabbath, Rosh Hashanah,
        Yom Kippur, Pesach, Sukkos, Shavuos, etc., etc., which  are  clearly
        spoken  of  in  Tanach,  will continue to be made in the time of the
        Messiah, as they are today.

    2.  The majority of Jews will have to return to their homeland (Israel),
        in a non-miraculous way, before the Messiah comes.

        Before the Messiah, the prophet Elijah will come.  And  the  Messiah
        himself  will  be  a  prophet.   But  there's  a basic teaching that
        prophecy can only exist in the Land of Israel, and  then  only  when
        the  majority  of  Jews live there.  So the ingathering of Jews must
        occur before the Messiah will come.

        During the time of the Messiah, prophecy will return to  the  Jewish
        people, and the presence of G-d will be among us.  See Ezek.  37.27:
        "And after that I will pour my spirit on all  of  mankind  and  your
        sons and daughters will prophesy."

    3.  There is a tradition that the Holy Temple must be rebuilt before the
        the  Messiah  comes.   But  there's  also a tradition that Jerusalem
        cannot be rebuilt before the ingathering of  the  Diaspora.   It  is
        possible that the Messiah could accomplish those things before he is
        recognized for who he is.

    4.  The prophets say (Isaiah 45 and Zefaniah 3) that  when  the  Messiah
        comes,  all  the  nations of the world will unite to acknowledge and
        worship the one true G-d.  "The  knowledge  of  G-d  will  fill  the
        earth.   The  world  will be filled with the knowledge of G-d as the
        waters cover the seas (Isaiah 11.9)."

    5.  The Torah says that when  the  Messiah  comes,  his  influence  will
        extend  over  all  people.   They  will worship G-d at the Temple in
        Jerusalem.  It's said, "...for my house will  become  the  house  of
        prayer for all nations".

    6.  In order for the perfect society of the Messianic Age to exist, such
        things as disease will have to be eliminated.  Thus (as Isaiah 35.5)
        "The eyes of the blind will be opened, the ears of the deaf shall be
        unstopped; then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of
        the dumb shall sing."

    7.  During the time of the Messiah, a new spirit will  rule  the  world.
        People  will  stop committing sins and crimes.  This will especially
        apply to Jews.  Tanach says (Deut.  30.6) "G-d will circumcise  your
        heart  and  the  heart of your children to love G-d.".  (From Isaiah
        60.21) "And your people are all righteous,  they  will  inherit  the
        earth  forever."  (From Jeremiah 50.20) "In that day I will seek the
        sins of Israel and there will be none." (From Ezek.  36.21) "I  will
        give  you  a  new heart and a new spirit - and you will obey my laws
        and commandments and do them."

    8.  One of the Messiah's major tasks is to bring  peace  to  the  entire
        world.   In  the  time of the Messiah, there are to be no more wars,
        and the manufacture of arms will stop.  See Isaiah 2.4:   "And  they
        shall  beat  their  swords  into  plowshares,  and their spears into
        pruning hooks.  Nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword  agains  nation,
        neither shall they learn war any more."

    9.  We believe that  the  Messiah,  despite  his  impressive  abilities,
        cannot  take  away  our  sins.   It's a key Torah position that each
        person is responsible for, and punished for his  sins  alone:   "The
        soul  that sinneth it shall die." "Sons will not be punished for the
        sins of their fathers." According to the  Torah,  each  person  must
        return  to  G-d.   Each  person  must change their own ways and seek
        G-d's forgiveness.

    .0-.2

    There are many names of G-d.  The one spelled with the Hebrew equivalents
    of Y, H, V, and H is not to pronounced.  In fact the correct pronunciation
    is not currently known.  Therefore, another common word Adonai (meaning
    lord or master) is said when the name is being read aloud.  This word
    and the related title Adon (Mr.) are not resitricted words.

    Interestingly, many Orthodox will mangle the words Adonai and Elohei
    (and related forms) when making pronouncing blessings and liturgy out
    of there normal context (ie: when making recordings).  This prevents
    actually saying a blessing when the associated action is not being done.

    Gavriel

    
    Thanks for the responses so far, keep 'em coming. I've not read
    the essay yet, but have extracted it into a file to read later.
    
    Dick, if I'm reading you right, you are saying that the word Adonai
    which is commonly substituted for YHWH (YHVH) in speech can also
    be used for people. For instance, if one wanted to show great
    respect to someone, say a Rabbi, they could call him Adonai ?

    Mr Richardson (you didn't sign with a first name) :-
    
    I've heard about this belief in Messiah being an age. I must say
    it surprised me at first, but it is an interesting viewpoint. I
    can see that messianic doctrine is not uniform throughout the various
    Jewish schools. The remarkable thing about the non-uniformity is
    the way that it does not divide Judaism into 'competing' factions
    as far as I can see. I know you have various 'denominations' such
    as Orthodox, Reform and Conservative, but from what I have seen
    there is no rivalry bewteen these groups. Or am I just not seeing
    things straight ? If I am right, this is a wonderful lesson to the
    Christian faith which is so often divided by denominational rivalry.
    
    Cheers,
    Paul V 
    

    re .5: Paul, I wish you were right, but life isn't that simple,
    I guess: the various major and minor Jewish "denominations" don't
    always get along so well, any more than any other similarly-divided
    group.  Some Orthodox people consider all non-practicing Jews (meaning
    people of Jewish ancestry, in this case) to be "Reform" by default,
    and then swear at the liberal Jews for "including" these people,
    while I have heard even teachers in our Reform religious school
    (who ought to know better, to my way of thinking) make snide remarks
    about the relevancy of Orthodox practice to modern life.  And there
    are "battles" between the various Hassidic sects in New York and
    in Israel, sometimes, although to those of us on the outside their
    beliefs all seem very similar.  So, it's not a very simple (or even
    pretty) picture.  You see much more unity when there is outside
    enemy everyone can agree on to go after: getting Soviet Jews who
    want to leave out of the USSR, rescuing the Jews of Ethiopia, fighting
    Naziism, etc.  Then you see more solidarity!
    
    . . . . . . .
                                                
    BTW, I am not a man...my English name is Charlotte (Hebrew Gevorah),
    meaning "strong".

    
    re .-1
    
    oops, sorry Charlotte. I knew as soon as I had typed in Mr that
    you'd probably turn out to be otherwise !
    
    Paul V

re: .5


>                                                     ...the word Adonai
>    which is commonly substituted for YHWH (YHVH) in speech can also
>    be used for people.

	The Hebrew word "adonai" and the English word "lord" are
	equivalent.  Just as one can address/describe a person as
	a lord, so one can, in Hebrew, use adonai.  (In fact, I can't
	think of any place in the Bible where adonai is used for the
	Deity.)  In modern Hebrew, "adon" is used as the equivalent
	of "mister" as in "SHALOM, ADON VICKERS."*

					Aaron

	*Hebrew has no lower case :^)

< Note 423.8 by CSCMA::SEIDMAN "Aaron Seidman" >

>	*Hebrew has no lower case :^)

    shalom adon seidman,

    One might also say that Hebrew has no upper case   8^{).

    lehitraot,
    gavriel

     
    re.8 : Aaron
    
>	The Hebrew word "adonai" and the English word "lord" are
>	equivalent.


    Yes, I was aware of that as every Bible I have ever seen has the
    word Lord used. The thing is, I was trying to see of the Biblical
    word Lord means much more than the word does today. I was wondering
    if the word has been watered down over the years. You see the word
    Lord is a title of respect (nb Lord denoting a peer of the realm
    over here in Britain). To me, the word Lord has always been a vague
    term which was put in front of the LORD's names ; eg Lord G-d etc.
    I felt that it must mean much more than that, that it was perhaps
    a name rather than some vague title , or at least a title which
    was ONLY applied to G-d.
    
>                                                    (In fact, I can't
>	think of any place in the Bible where adonai is used for the
>	Deity.)
    
    Oh. I had always thought it was there. In most English translations,
    there are two words :- 'Lord' and 'LORD'. The lowercase one being
    a rendering of Adonai the uppercase being the rendering of the four
    Hebrew consonants YHWH (the tetragrammaton ?). In speech, the word
    YHWH was rendered Adonai. At least I think this was (is ?) so. The
    word Lord appers many times in English Bibles, notably in the New
    Testament which contains much speech, but also in the Old Testament
    (please forgive these terms, but they are the only ones I know).
    For instance, the Psalms have David crying out to the 'Lord' (Adonai)
    do they not ? Perhaps I may have to look again ! :-)
    
    Indeed, although not Scripture, the Jewish credal statement, the
    Shema refers to the Deity in just such terms (see my personal name
    for a portion of said Shema).
    
    I do appreciate your taking time to answer my questions, and
    for not getting exasperated at my 'goy' understanding ! ;-)
    
    May G-d bless you,
    Paul V
    

< Note 423.10 by IOSG::VICKERS "Adonai Elohenu, Adonai echad" >
>    Indeed, although not Scripture, the Jewish credal statement, the
>    Shema refers to the Deity in just such terms (see my personal name
>    for a portion of said Shema).

    Actually it is Scripture.

    Gavriel

    Is it ? Oh well, we learn something new every day ! (Blush ).
    
    With regards to the Adonai part of this note, I shall enter the
    results of some study of my own which I will do this week. I managed
    to borrow some books from my parents this weekend, one of which
    gives all the names of G-d to be found in the Bible. It's quite
    a thick book ! I've already glanced through the section on Adonai
    and see that it is not as clear cut as I had hoped it might be.
    
    That's the trouble with having only English translations as the
    words used for the Lord tend to have little variety unlike the Hebrew
    which has many names. I don't suppose that anyone knows of an English
    translation which has all the references to G-d in the original
    Hebrew do they ? Just that having all the names like 'El', 'Jehovah
    jireh' etc without having to learn Hebrew would make a wonderful study
    aid !
    
    Cheers for now,
    Paul V

    >Oh well, we learn something new every day ! (Blush ).

	Don't blush Paul, there should be nothing embarrassing about
    learning something new; it's *not* learning that should make one
    blush :^)
    
    	If you get a copy of the Jewish Publication Society _TANAKH_*,
    you will find a pretty consistent use of terms.  The Oxford English
    Bible is also quite good as I recall.
    
    	The usual procedure in these versions is to translate the
    tetragrammaton as "Lord" or "LORD" and to translate "El" or "Elohim"
    as "God."  In the original Hebrew, the word "adonai" is always used
    (as far as I can recall) to refer to human beings.  In this sense it
    is used the same way one would use it in addressing a member of English
    nobility (e.g. "If it please my lord, let me go to mumble).  Later,
    it came to be used as a euphemism for the tetragrammaton.  Thus, as
    you look through your English translation(s), when the word lord refers
    to the Deity, it is almost certainly a translation of YHWH, but when
    it refers to humans it is probably a translation of adonai.

    
    					Aaron
    
    * There are two translations of the Bible published by the JPS.  The
    older one, done in 1918, is more literal (i.e. word-for-word) but does
    not properly/adequately translate many phrases that are idiomatic in 
    the Hebrew.  The more recent one, published in several parts starting
    in the 1960s and recently published in a one-volume edition is much
    better in conveying the meaning of the Hebrew where known and also
    identifying uncertain meanings that are matters of conjecture.  The title,
    TANAKH, is an acronym standing for Torah (=Pentateuch), Nevi'im
    (=Prophets), and K'tavim (=Writings), the three major groupings in the
    Jewish version of the Bible. 

    There is a difference between the word Adonai and adoni.  They do
    not both mean my lord.  One is a plural form, the other a singular.
    
    They are inflected possessive forms of the word "adon" (as 
    previously mentioned).
    
    I believe that adoni means "my lord" and adonai literally 
    means "my lords".
    
    (Well, Hebraists, how'd I do on my Hebrew 153 exam?)
    
    Dave

    re .13 Aaron
    
>    	The usual procedure in these versions is to translate the
>    tetragrammaton as "Lord" or "LORD" and to translate "El" or "Elohim"
>    as "G-d."  In the original Hebrew, the word "adonai" is always used
>    (as far as I can recall) to refer to human beings.

    
Hi Aaron. From what I can gather from the front of the English translations,
(the NIV has a good explanation in the preface) the two words, Lord and LORD
are translations of two different Hebrew words. The first, Lord, is the
equivalent of adonai, and the latter, LORD, is the equivalent of the
tetragrammaton, (the divine name consisting of the 4 consonants J,H,W,H).
So the two names, Lord and LORD are not synonymous (at least not in the
Bibles I have). I spent some time last night researching into the usage of
the word adonai and have included the results to the bottom of this note. 
Please note that the study does include a few New Testament references, but
these are purely to illustrate the point. The great majority of the references
is from the Old Testament however.

I found doing the study very useful, and maybe some others will find it so too.

The following translations are used and are the same as in most (if not all
English Bibles). At least they are used in the KJV and the NIV ;
		
		Lord = Adonai
		LORD = tetragrammaton (J,H,W,H)
		G-d  = usually El or Elohim or sometimes JHWH
I also use the name Jehovah as an English form of JHWH. This is not intended
to cause any offence, but I feel is necessary to the context.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


			Is G-d The Only Lord ?
			----------------------

This study is the result of my wanting to find out about the usage of the
word Lord (Hebrew Adonai). I sought to discover whether the word could be
applied to men or whether it is a name reserved solely for G-d.

Adonai, an intensive plural of Adon, meaning Lord is another of the vigorous
names of G-d expressing divine dominion. Adonai sometimes occurs in prophecy
and poetry as a substitute for JHWH - Jehovah. It is also a title that some
heathen nations gave to their gods, such as the Adonis of the Phoenician
Tammerly.

When Jehovah and Adonai appear together, it is easy to distinguish which name 
has precedence. Jehovah is always in capitals (small capitals in most Bibles) 
- LORD - , while Adonai is rendered Lord. In Ezekiel 16:8 we have "the Lord 
G-d" which in the original is "Adonai Jehovah". Adonai was often written 
instead of Jehovah by the early scribes due to the fear of blaspheming the 
name of the Lord because of the punishment it carried (Leviticus 24:16). The 
Jews were alarmed at the danger connected with pronouncing or writing what 
might be called THE name of G-d for fear that G-d's punishment might come upon 
them. Thus when the scribes were writing out the Scriptures and came to the 
name of Jehovah (the Awful One) they would write not Jehovah but the less 
awful Adonai - 'My Ruler'.

So wherever the word Jehovah occurred we get the substitution Adonai, except 
when Adonai is joined to the former as in Adonai Elohim. Psalm 110:1 has an 
illustration of this - "The LORD said unto my Lord".

Adonai first occurs in the phrase "And Abram said, Lord G-d" (in the NIV this 
is translated as "And Abram said Sovereign LORD") Genesis 15:2. As master and 
owner of the patriach, the Lord revealed to him how he would fulfil His 
promises to make him the head of a great nation.

Adonai has several features associated with it :

	1) Authority. More than 200 times in Ezekiel is the expression "saith 
the Lord G-d" (Adonai Jehovah). As His message was proclaimed through the 
prophet, behind the message was the authority of the great Jehovah as Lord and 
master.

	2) Power. "The hand of the Lord G-d fell upon me". Also see Isaiah 
61:1 which implies power for life and service.

	3) Deity. In Psalm 35:23 David gives the combination "My G-d (Elohim) 
and my Lord (Adonai)". Compare this with John 20:28 where Thomas uses the same 
words, albeit in reverse order, as he professes the divinity of Jesus, "My 
Lord and my G-d".

	4) Reverence. When Daniel confesses national sin he appeals to the 
Lord as Adonai suggesting a holy reverence as he approaches the Throne of 
Grace. In his heart he recognises Jehovah as Lord (Master). "O Lord, hear; O 
Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do, defer not, for thine ownsake. O my 
G-d:" 

	5) Relationship. David shows a very intimate relationship and strong 
faith in Psalm 16:2. "Oh my soul, thou hast said unto Jehovah, Thou art my 
Adonai".

	6) Responsibility. In Isaiah 6:8, after Isaiah had been cleansed, we 
have the voice of Adonai saying "whom shall I send, and who will go for us ?"
Isaiah responded to the call and received the message he had to deliver and in 
6:11 asked "Adonai, how long ?" Now that he was cleansed and commissioned 
Isaiah was ready to face all the responsibilities of service.


We also have the double title LORD G-d which appears first in Genesis 2:4. It 
is also found 20 times in chapters 2 and 3 and implies man's place as one of 
conscious intelligent relationship to his Creator and thus comes his 
accountability to G-d.

As a name of deity, Adonai (which is used some 300 times in the Old Testament) 
emphasises divine sovereignty. See Isaiah 7:7. In the KJV it appears as "Lord 
G-d". The NIV renders it "Sovereign LORD" which gets across His sovereignty.

The word, Adonai, is closely related to the Kurios of the New Testament. 
Nearly always the name is in the plural and possessive meaning 'my Lords', and 
hints at the idea of the Trinity concept also found in the name Elohim.
The same original word for Adonai is also used of men some 215 times and is 
translated variously as Master, Sir, lord. The words "Lord of Lords" in 
Deuteronomy 10:17 could also be rendered "Master of Masters".

When we use this name in reference to G-d we imply His ownership and 
membership. Girdlestone said that it "Indicates the truth that G-d is the 
owner of each member of the human family, and that He consequently claims the 
unrestricted obedience of all". So when we refer to Him as our Lord, our 
Adonai, we express a personal relationship involving rights of lordship and 
possession. All that know the name put their trust in the One who bears it
and their trust in the Adonai is never confounded !

Hmmm, and that's only one of the scores of names which He has revealed to us 
in the Bible. Truly He is an awesome being worthy of our praise !! 

Paul V

	Paul,

	I stand corrected.  I learned something new today :^)

					Aaron

    
    Aaron,
    
    Glad it was of some use. I thoroughly enjoyed doing the study.
    
    I reckon it's your turn to teach me something again then huh ? ;-)
    
    Cheers,
    Paul V

    Please do not assume that the plural nature of the words implies
    support for trinitarianism.
    
    The words used to refer to the single, indivisible diety of the
    Hebrews in the Tanach are plural, but not to imply a trinity.  A
    better analogy is the "royal 'we", where the word "we" is used by
    the monarch to refer to himself. 

    
    I didn't say exactly that it implies the trinity, merely that it
    hints at it. I'm not using this plural as solid evidence for
    trinitarian doctrine, but as a subtle, possible pointer to it.
    There is much stronger evidence than that to assert that there is
    a trinity, but that is aside from the topic, and we don't want to
    go down a rat hole do we.... :-)
    
    But yes, I do accept that it could be a pluralis majesticus too,
    although again, I don't know of any definite evidence to support
    this theory either.
    
    Paul V who_is_kinda_sitting_on_the_fence_on_this_one

I read in a book, I think entitled "The Jews", by Howard Fast, that the name 
Elohim represented the assimilation of all of the aspects of previous deities
into one single deity, El.  It made sense to me.

/Mike

    
    Hi all,
    I came across another word this weekend - Adhonay as opposed to
    Adonai. The former supposedly comes from the root Adhon whilst the
    latter from Adon. Anyone know the difference ? 
    To really confuse the whole thing, my concordance has neither word
    but has this one - Adonay. 
    Help !
    
    I reckon that some of the confusion may be down to different ways
    of transliterating the Hebrew. If I had an Hebrew character set
    I could give you the version I have in the concordance, although
    I could not give you the Hebrew spellings of the other two.
    
    Paul V

    re .21 (and preceding)
    
    	I think you have a basic problem of trying to apply modern language
    concepts to an ancient language.  Biblical Hebrew has a much different
    use and interpretation of singular and plural (as well as tense)
    than modern Hebrew or most modern languages.  When you try to translate
    directly, out of context, you will succeed mainly in convincing
    only yourself.

    	Consider trying to apply the language manipulations you are
    attempting to a language like Japanese, which has no plurals at
    all and handles everything within the context.
        
    	The basic statement is there for all to see:  "Hear O Israel,
    the Lord is our G-d, the Lord is One."  Christians can believe as
    they wish; precious few Jews are going to be convinced to change
    this.

    		David

    
    Ah, but no Christian would consider changing that basic tenet of
    faith either as it is true. But this is not quite on the subject,
    so I shall say no more on it.
    
    Thanks for all your entries so far. Any ideas yet on the Adhonay/Adonai
    question ??
    
    Paul V (a little confused)

     re: .22, 
      
      Shalom, David...
    
    
    >"Hear O Israel, the Lord is our G-d, the Lord is One."  
     
      What a beautiful, all-encompassing verse, David! 
      Yes, He is indeed the one and only G-d. There is nothing in
      Christianity that denies this, but I notice you alluded to
      the commonly held view among the Jewish people that Christians 
      worship more than one G-d. This is a misconception that makes
      building bridges of understanding between the two groups more 
      difficult. The 'Judeo Christian ethic', for example, would be
      non-existent if it was build on a foundation of 'One G-d' on the 
      one hand, and 'multiple G-ds' on the other. I think you can 
      appreciate that there would be no such thing as a Judeo-Christian
      ethic. The fact that it exists, and is solid and sure and consistent,
      speaks to a common foundation. 
     
      The Almighty is a wonderful, powerful, loving, merciful, miracle 
      working G-d  who manifests Himself in myriad ways to His children. 
      Throughout history He has manifested Himself in ways that man could 
      perceive on the physical and spiritual plane. No one could deny the 
      oneness of the Almighty, whether He was seen to be in a cloud, in
      the burning bush, or otherwise, it is always the one and only G-d 
      reaching out to man in ways that man could relate to Him, to
      correct, instruct, and lead those who trust in Him. The many names 
      by which He is known help us to know Him better.
    
      One good word for G-d: 'Awesome'. Awe is integral to man's
      ability to engage in true worship, and is a natural lead in to
      worship. Don't ever lose your awe and sense of wonder!
                
      What is also awesome, I think, is that with all the scholarly
      work that has taken place, and all that we have learned and are
      learning about G-d, we cannot ever arrive at a place in this life
      where He has nothing new to reveal to us about Himself and our 
      relationship to Him.  
                           
      May you always have the joy of His leading in such learning and 
      discovery!
    
      Irena
                                                     
    
    
      

    re:.24
    
    From my Jewish perspective (and there are probably others who've
    assimilated to the point where they disagree),
    
    "there ain't no such thing as the 'Judeo-Christian Ethic'."
    
    Nor a Judeo-Hindu, Judeo-Moslem, Judeo-Shinto, nor, I would suspect,
    Christian-Shinto, Moslem-Wiccan nor Confucian-Toltec ethic.  Whenever
    I hear "Judeo-Christian Ethic", I'm hearing some kind of right-wing
    Christian trying to impose _his_ interpretation of the Christian
    scriptures, which coincidentally happen to have plagiarized the
    Tanach somewhere before translation.
    
    Sorry, Irena, but I don't buy it.

    re: .25
    
    > "there ain't no such thing as the 'Judeo-Christian Ethic'."
     
    >Nor a Judeo-Hindu, Judeo-Moslem, Judeo-Shinto, nor, I would suspect,
    >Christian-Shinto, Moslem-Wiccan nor Confucian-Toltec ethic.  
     
    ;-) They do sound ludicrous, don't they? But then, I've never heard
    of these before. I have heard, and read, of the Judeo-Christian
    ethic often. In college, in the press, even used by Jewish writers...
    
    >Whenever I hear "Judeo-Christian Ethic", I'm hearing some kind of 
    >right-wing Christian trying to impose _his_ interpretation of the 
    >Christian scriptures,
    
    Well, I don't know where the term originated. I didn't know it was
    particularly *Christian*, as I have seen it used, as I said, by
    both Christians and Jews. I always felt it referred to those basic
    standards of moral and ethical conduct that were common to both groups.
                                          
    >which coincidentally happen to have plagiarized the Tanach somewhere 
    >before translation.
    
    You know, I've been comparing my King James Old Testament with
    the Tanakh. And, so far I don't see anything amiss there. As for
    the so-called 'Christian' scriptures [I'm assuming you mean our
    NT]. the term 'plagiarization' though not a complimentary one,
    really tells me that the Tanakh and NT are closely related [much
    that is similar, or an 'outgrowth' of Tanakh].  
    
    If it looks like 'plagiarization, it's because the writings are
    really nothing more than the writings of Jews in first century, 
    beginning with Jesus and the his contemporaries, whose teachings were 
    based on the Tanakh. They knew the Tanakh well, and made many 
    references to it.
                                                   
    Sorry, Irena, but I don't buy it.
    :-) No problem, seeing as I wasn't selling anything.
    
    Sorry, Paul and others. We're off the topic.   
    
    Best,
    Irena

There is a Judeo ethic and a Christian ethic.  Sometimes they are
quite similar and sometimes they are quite different.

I have only seen the term Judeo-Christian used by Christians.  Often, it
appears that they use the term as a claim of universality for their views.
I have never seen it as referring to the totality of Jewish beliefs
and ethics.

Martin.

    re: .27, Martin,

        
    >I have never seen it as referring to the totality of Jewish beliefs
    >and ethics.
                    
    You're quite right. It doesn't refer to the totality of either
    Jewish or Christian beliefs and ethics. Mostly based on the Big
    Ten, I think, which are common to both. 
    
    Irena
    

    re: .26
    
    >...I've been comparing my King James Old Testament with
    >the Tanakh.  And, so far I don't see anything amiss there....
    
    Look again.  If I'm not mistaken, most King James bibles have editorial
    titles such as "The Fall of Adam" (in Genesis) scattered through the
    text. Ostensibly, they serve as a subtitle for the text that follows.
    
    Titles such as the one above represent subtle differences.  First,
    it looks as if the title is part of the formal text.  Notice that
    it's not a footnote.  Secondly, that particular subtitle interprets
    the eating of the forbidden fruit as the original sin; Judaism rejects
    that.  Other titles introduce similar biases in interpretation.
    
    In a Tanakh with commentaries, all such references, subtitles,
    commentaries are FOOTNOTES. They are clearly the opinions of scholars,
    and are not represented to be part of the biblical text.
    
    This is but one difference.  Read on...

    Just on a slightly lighter note,
    
    The term "Judeo-Christian ethic" is like the "Kinnock-Biden political
    philosophy".  I'm sure Mr. Kinnock was flattered by Mr. Biden's
    use of his life story and the other elements of his speeches, but
    it doesn't mean that Mr. Kinnock has to accept anything of Mr. Biden's
    as being his own!
    
    I prefer the Judeo-Shinto ethic becasue both Judaism and Shinto
    are _national_ religions, only purporting to describe how one nation
    relates to the supernatural.  Christians, unlike Jews or Shinto,
    have missionaries.  Christians, unlike Jews or Shinto, claim to
    be better than what went before them.  I'm sure I could find more
    like that!

    re: .29
    
    I understand what you are saying, but as a somewhat serious 
    student of the Bible, I can differentiate between footnotes 
    [whatever their location], commentary, and Holy Scripture. For
    my purposes, it behooves me to do that, and my interest in this
    is strictly an academic, unemotional one. As is my study of
    Judaism. I don't make mental judgements about what I read
    and say to myself that such and such is wrong. I simply read
    to understand, neither accepting nor rejecting. BTW I find
    Judaism, and the *sincerity* of its faithful practice, a beautiful
    expression of the soul in response to G-d's call.
                                                     
    I guess I sensed a bit of criticism in your remark, and I wanted 
    you to know that there was none intended in mine, even indirectly. 
    
    I was only speaking of the Scripture in the King James translation
    and did not have commentaries, editorial titles, etc. in mind. I
    was not referring to *interpretations*, just verse-by-verse comparison.
    
    Perhaps I can separate in my mind the 'editorial' titles and commentary
    because Christians do not place the same importance on commentaries
    as I understand Jews do. We  [at least I, and most of the Christians I 
    know] tend to read the *Bible* itself more than books about it.
    
    The Bible is our primary focus. No other book has equal status in
    my mind. All other writing, [while it may be helpful to understanding] we
    consider as the words of man, not G-d. We therefore subject such
    writings [commentaries, etc.] to scrutiny and careful evaluation
    agaist the Bible for accuracy. We also believe that G-d communicates His
    message directly to man in His word and brings enlightenment and
    wisdom to an individual by His Spirit. My personal experience has
    shown this to be true.
    
    I know that for you Talmud and other writings are considered
    very important. I understand the how and why of it. And, again,
    I'm not suggesting 'right' and 'wrong'. Simply noting the different
    approaches. I do believe G-d is able to work within both. ;-)
    
    I'm keenly interested in knowing that the Christian Scriptures
    are a faithful translation of the Tanakh. So far, this seems
    to be the case.
    
    I'm also impressed with the diligence and faithfulness with which 
    your people have preserved the Word of G-d throughout the ages.
    Not only impressed, but grateful. In the NT it says that to
    the Jews were entrusted the oracles of G-d. I've been reading
    about the painstaking effort the scribes engaged in, and even
    today how much work goes into reproducing Torah on a scroll [I'm 
    told it takes a full year and costs upward of $25,000] It had to 
    be a labor of tremendous faith and love, and still is. 
                                    
    Paul, you sure let us get off the topic of the names of G-d. :-)
    
    Thanks, it was an interesting interlude. Now, back to the topic?
    
    peace.
    Irena                                                      
    
                                                               
    
    

    .-1:
    
> as a somewhat serious student of the Bible, I can differentiate 
> between footnotes [whatever their location], commentary, and
> Holy Scripture.
    
    I believe that you can; to you those little subtitles mean nothing
    more than page numbers do.  Unfortunately, not all of humanity is as
    intelligent or as studious as you are.  There exist Christians who have 
    a view of the Old Testament that is seriously affected by such things;
    through no malice on their parts, they are party to a misunderstanding.
    
    It's often the little things which build the biggest walls.  We grow so
    used to them that we don't notice that they're there.
    
    Beverly
    

    
    Any chance of getting back to the topic in the base note ???
    
    Perhaps another note could be started to carry on the discussion
    of the last few replies.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Paul V 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

		       ______________
		      /              \
		     /                \
		    |   __  _____  __  |
		    |  /  \/     \/  \ |
		    | |     O   O    | |
		    |  \__/\     /\__/ |
		    |       \   /      |
		    |       >\ /<      |
		    |         o        |
		    |                  |
		    |                  |
____________________|                  |_______________________________________