volgadon

I don't claim it is doctrine. I suggest that the symbolism is found in our scriptures.

Think back to a time before toilet paper, soap as we know it, and faucets.

Not all that clear a distinction, though.

A little hard to tell, but there is interesting evidence (such as the Babylonian Talmud Berachot 62a) that it was the former of your prepositions. This the act of taking upon us the name of Christ and always remembering Him is a far more important symbol than what hand is used. Anything more should be up to the individual's discretion.

Part of it is the symbolic separation between light and darkness; truth and lie; holy and profane; clean and unclean; pure and impure. Look at what side the sheep are on, and what side the goats. Also look at where Christ stands in Stephen's vision. The right hand in the ancient world has held symbolic meaning, it is the hand used in holy functions (such as reading from scripture) and neither Jews nor Arabs would have used it for cleaning up after defecating.

I interact daily with several different cultures.

I think there is some very deep and important symbolism here, but while I try to take the sacrament with my right hand, I'm not 100% consistent, nor is my wife, and I don't think we should look askance at any who use the left hand.

I'm sure there was probably some place where the choicest lambs were kept before being taken to Jerusalem, makes it easier to estimate how many to be sold, and also one can keep a closer eye on them.

I like your post, and the nativity event sounds wonderful. Two thumbs up! As for the idea in the OP, there are many strikes against it. Migdal Eder, both by the biblical and Rabbinic sources, would have been a town or village, rather than a single watch tower in Bethlehem. Edersheim got it wrong, as did the many evangelical writers in recent times, like Bryce Hammond's anonymous commentator. As for there only being one compound for sheep, nonsense. How do we know that Jesus was born in the one set aside for sacrificial lambs? Besides, why would those in charge of the sale allow a woman to give birth there? A woman giving birth was impure. People involved in the sacrificial preparations were extremely cautious regarding purity issues to a degree bordering on the paranoid. This is assuming that these people laid aside their business interests to help a mother-to-be.

It isn't true.

I would say, as soon as he can.

To verb or not to verb, that is how silly the title.

The gospel does explain things. One needs eyes to see the divine light through the garments of flesh and forgetting. The gospel presents us not only with a genesis, that is, creation, but also an origin: where we are from; what brought us here; and where we return.

This is as good a description of our beliefs as "wow, you're hot," is a paraphrase of "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate. Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, And summer's lease hath all too short a date. Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines, And often is his gold complexion dimmed; And every fair from fair sometime declines, By chance, or nature's changing course, untrimmed; But thy eternal summer shall not fade, Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st, Nor shall death brag thou wand'rest in his shade, When in eternal lines to Time thou grow'st. So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee."

He is probably retelling the story of the three little pigs.

I'm happy to say that I am blissfully ignorant of Christmas Shoes. Providing links is futile. I will not click.

1) I Wonder as I Wander. A close second is In the Bleak Midwinter. I wish both were in our hymnal. There are also some amazing Ukrainian carols (and no, Shedryk, that is, Carol of the Bells is actually not a Christmas carol).

From p. 12 on there is a discussion of the ban on intermarriage throughout different ages. The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism - Richard Lee Kalmin, Seth R.. Schwartz - Google Books Some of the evidence, such as that of Ezra/Nehemia, and Josephus on those books, shows that there was a widespread problem of intermarriage. The later sources on prohibition, are just that, sources on prohibition. They do not indicate how closely people followed them.

I was in branch presidencies in two different countries, one in Russia, the other in Israel. Bhodi is wrong. If the civil marriage has been annulled, you can't use the sealing to justify sleeping with your ex.

The irnoy is that he is getting all in a huff when I at least provided the page number.

I'm going to shamelessly bully whoever it was that let my secret out. Which I graciously admited, and would have said so sooner, were I done comparing your link to the extracts provided in Stern's Greek and Latin Authors. Really? You only provided that quote after checking on the source I mentioned, so I don't think you can use it to say how wonderful you are being. You still haven't provided any of the sources you were using. Really? You should have no problem providing me with the post number, then. Hint: Not all posters whose username begins with VO are volgadon. You mean my statement about Tacitus was incorrect. You are right. I find it hard to believe that you are a scholar. Would you care to provide a cogent response as to why the source is wrong? Have you even read it? Good luck if you can find an English translation of the Exagogue online. I provided the page number for Sarlow. The passage is long, but you can certainly read it online. I'll provide the hyperlink if you wish, but your post made it sound as if you'd already found the book. I have provided a source, thankee.

That passage can be viewed online. I'm not going to quote a lengthy passage. Ezekiel the Tragedian had no problem with stating that Moses, the seminal representative of Judaism in the eyes on the Greeks and Romans, was married to a non Jew. His play has Sepphorah say, "my father gave me for this alien's wife."

Why, for the "love of balancing logic and spirit," should I concede your point when I consider it mistaken?

Emotions were in the kidneys and bowels, not the heart.

It is a much later practice, not actually in the Mosaic Law itself.