Sophyill, you might be questioning why I post here. You have no doubt percieved I am a xian. I am also a pastor but have believed for the past 25 years
"baruch Hashem Adonai Eluhenu Baruch Hashem echaud. The L_RD is ONE. My mother's side of the family came from New York and her last name was Weinberg.
My Uncle Jay was a Cantor in Synogogue and I have always had a respect for not only my heritage, but also for Abraham's journey. This site has given me a
place to indulge in both. Besides this, there is definitly some knowledgable people with very deep answers here. Also please DO NOT (this was yelled)think I
have ulterior motive to conform any here to my beliefs. As I had said before, faith is an absolute personal thing.
Covenants & Blood: Making/signing an agreement/pact/treaty (b'rit)
| Author | Comment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 kerry drennen.jpspanzers |
||||||
|
Posts: 5 (01/19/09 19:07:47) |
|
|||||
|
kerry drennen.jpspanzers |
||||||
|
Posts: 6 (01/19/09 19:29:20) |
Sophieel, back to another statement you made about Uriah the Hittite. Was he a convert to Judiasm? If he was, where does that leave the legality of the
marriage? if he wasn't would he have given his wife a get? Also did not the Prophet Nathan characterize Bathsheba as a lamb? and if she was to Uriah a
prized possesion did this not at least tickle the mitzvah on coveting? Kerry.
|
|||||
|
kerry drennen.jpspanzers |
||||||
|
Posts: 7 (01/19/09 20:27:20) |
I read the Rabbi's short word on King David. I think it somewhat supports my thought that David carried the perception of sin in his own mind. The mind is
the battle ground between soul and spirit and as a man thinks- so is he. This is no different than when I said when I carry feelings of doing wrong it
ultimately is up to me to apply the forgivness of G_D. David eventually did this and this is why I said it was a revelation David had on the Mogen David. G_D
was his strong tower a place of refuge and strength- not unlike a shield is this not so?
|
|||||
|
Sophiee1 |
||||||
|
Posts: 11705 (01/19/09 21:02:12) Moderator |
kerry drennen wrote:Uriah was a Hittite. Deuteronomy 23:4 She was his "woman" not his wife, at least not legally per Jewish law. My other point was that Jewish men going off to war give their wives divorces so that if they are killed in battle and their bodies not recovered the wife isn't left unable to remarry. When they return they rescind the divorces. Don't you wonder why Uriah didn't go home to his wife when he returned from battle -- even after his King ORDERED him to do so? As for David's guilt -- David WAS guilty (Nathan confronted him about his guilt and David admitted it). The question you must ask is: what was David guilty OF? Your idea of the Mogen David is still very odd, sorry. 
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||||
 Netanel |
||||||
|
Posts: 1524 (01/19/09 21:10:13) |
kerry -
There are a number of opinions regarding Uriah. One is that he was an Israelite living in a Hittite territory. Another is that he was a Hittite convert to Judaism. Another is that he was a Hittite and not a convert at all. |
|||||
|
kerry drennen.jpspanzers |
||||||
|
Posts: 9 (01/21/09 11:35:27) |
I accept Sophieel's treatise on Uriah the Hittite. I also appreciate allowing me to come in this door of knowledge. Natanel, you bring to light the fact
that the opinions we carry relate to our personal understanding. What is your understanding of Uriah, Netanel?
|
|||||
|
Netanel |
||||||
|
Posts: 1532 (01/21/09 14:39:29) |
kerry -
It is not about my personal understanding. How many generations of Christians believed Moses came down Mt. Sinai with horns on his head based ona false personal understanding of what the Torah says? I am just relaying that I have come accross a few different opinions about what ha-Hitti in Uriyah's name is conveying. It could be conveying that he is a Hittite. It could be conveying that he is an Israelite living in Hittite territory. It could also be that he is being referred to by the nation of his birth but is a full convert. If you were to take it at face value you would probably have to conclude that Uriyah was a gentile and thus his marriage to Batsheva (a Jewess) was not valid in the first place. But not everything in the Tanach is meant to be taken at face value. If you were to take "eye for an eye" at face value you would end up missing the mark by a long shot. A similar case to that of Uriyah is Doeg ha-Edomi (Doeg the Edomite). If you took the name at face value you might come to the erroneous conclusion that Doeg was an Edomite when in fact he was a distinguished Israelite. |
|||||
Quick Reply
