What is the best way to understand how texts from Tanach are brought in the tradition (such as in the Talmud) to add proof or solidity to a point... according to a really unintuitive reading of the verse or passage? Sometimes they may just be re-interpretations of those passages according to an already-accepted opinion. But they really do seem often to be brought as proofs, and they are then logically weak because of the many (sometimes more natural) possible readings.
I'm not asking here just to find an apologetic perspective. I really think I may be missing part of the pattern or mindset in which these verses seem to have been cherry-picked and misapplied. I'm just after the real intention and context of the time. What is the real foundation beneath this attitude, and what is the real strength being brought in such arguments, if there is any? It seems foreign to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment