Total posts: 905
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
There is no such thing as personal truth. That is liberal PC nonsense.
That's an interesting claim. Let's consider the implications. You made a statement out how a theological position is in "the bible." I pointed out how it is in what you call the bible but which I do not so it is a truth of your religious system, not mine. If there is only one truth then you insist that my understanding of the authority of certain texts is wrong and you deny my the right to a distinct and acceptable belief system. Would it make sense if I said, "OK, there is no personal truth and your claim is flat out wrong"? Sure, you can say you don't care about my opinion, and I would hope you don't, but the arrogance of my assertion should seem to you as problematic. If it doesn't, and you are ok with people going around and denying other people the opportunity to have valid faith systems then that, by itself, speaks volumes.
You asked me where something was. I told you where it was. How "useful" that was to you is of no concern to me.
My claim is fine and does not need your validation.
Your claim IS fine. It is a claim. And, agreed, it does not need my validation. Nor is it persuasive or useful in a discussion if it relies on a definition that we don't agree on.
Untrue. You said, "saying "thank you" for a condition admitted to be "worse" doesn't necessarily follow." Someone other than a Jew who holds Jewish sages in esteem saying thank you does follow. The ones "admitting" it to be worse have no baring on our opinion.
And posting a source text which someone who IS a Jew doesn't hold in esteem then has a parallel lack of value.
I made no statement about your comment's accuracy or relevance, as both are irrelevant. You either accept my answer or you don't. Either way is your choice.
As it is yours to accept the truth of the statement in the Talmud or not. My rejection and your rejection are parallels. If you see in my response any emotional component then you are seeing what isn't there. There is no fight. You reject my texts and I reject yours. So your claims are unpersuasive and unsupported by anything that carries any weight, as mine are. The difference is, I can see that I am speaking out of a particular religious context that I can anticipate has no utility to someone outside, other than being an interesting side point, and you are positing that your statement is a universal truth.
I don't know why you would think that anyone sent me here or that I have any interest in picking a fight with you or anyone else. You made a claim about the existence of a textual support for your position and supported it with material that doesn't perform that function to someone outside of your culture-context, but you don't want to see that as a flaw in either your source material or presentation, but in anyone who doesn't accept your position as a universal truth. That's fine with me. Fascinating and amusing, but not with any rhetorical value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
My answer was restricted to the truth.
Your truth. I asked the question and your answer was useless to me so your initial claim remains unsupported. All I'm pointing out is the same response as you made to my citation of the Talmud.
I didn't take it as an insult, only as a comment as accurate and relevant as mine about the gospels. If you can't handle someone rejecting what you think of as "The bible" then you need a thicker skin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If you didn't know to cite texts relevant to me as the one asking the question, then maybe you shouldn't be making unqualified claims or expecting everyone in the world to abide by your personal definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I was being as polite as you were when you pointed out that Jewish sages don't speak for everyone. What you quoted is from something I don't see as "the bible."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What you quote is a question I see as part of this discussion, not reflecting what I might or might not subscribe to. My initial statement about what I don't think is a reflection of my rejecting your source material, as you do not accept mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You wrote, earlier, "Jewish sages do not speak for everyone. I don't think being born was worse."
The books of the Christian gospels don't speak for everyone. I don't think one has to "accept atonement."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The Bible says one must accept the atonement.
Where?
Created:
Posted in:
There are a few things I'm noticing here. The first is that this is about the notion of vicarious atonement -- if a man is responsible for his own actions and pays for his own sins (as some text indicates) then how can anyone, man or deity, replace that man and create atonement? Second is whether that being can effect that atonement when the individual does not subscribe to that being's authority, existence or power. Can a person be "cleansed" when he doesn't want to be, think he has to be, or through an agency which he thinks is wrong in doing so? And finally, if that atonement can somehow be performed, is there any loyalty or obligation that anyone would feel to that power, and should someone effectively be guilted into that feeling because some outside power chose on its own to swoop in an so the unbidden action.
As to the question of "you didn't ask to be born" the talmud records that the sages had a long argument about whether it is better or worse for man to have been born. They conclude "worse, but since man is here, he should make the best of it." So saying "thank you" for a condition admitted to be "worse" doesn't necessarily follow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Getting back to the initial question, if I happen not to accept the authority of 2 Peters (or even 1 of them) then is your initial concern dealt with -- that Lot wasn't especially righteous so his behavior, culturally acceptable though morally reprehensible, need not be defended? Thanks.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I am not sure what you mean by texts being fabricated by Jews. Why would they want to do that?
According to one way of thinking, in order to differentiate between the new sect that looked and sounded Jewish but had serious non-Jewish elements injected into the theology. The new group was confusing those still learning, so texts were created and foisted off on the new sect as authentic, and these texts taught to be distinct, so the actual Jews would be left alone.
Yes again, helpful. It again notes however that the protestant OT and the Jewish bible is the same. All the same books. In a different Order.
The difference in language and order/organization are not trivial. The organization in the Jewish bible tells us something important about the source and function of the book. One place where this is evident is in the placement of the book of Daniel. It is not a prophetic book in the Jewish bible, but appears to be categorized as one in the Protestant list.
Created:
-->
@Utanity
The oral text was passed down orally, but was eventually written down. I could call it an oral tradition if you would like, but in Hebrew it is referred to as the "Memorized Law".
or "Law that is by heart"
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Christians in the beginning of the church were Jewish people. They were not Gentiles. It is understandable why the Christians continued in the Jewish traditions in the first place and why they consider the term Judeo-Christian appropriate. It is not primarily a GENTILE religion. The Christian point of view is that the Christians are the continuation of the OT covenant people. We take the view that the OT Jew and the modern day Jew - and especially since the Temple was destroyed in or around AD 70 are quite distinct from each other.
There was, early on, a Jerusalem church, and, according to some Jewish tradition, early Christian texts were fabricated by Jews to create a distinction between early Jesus-believing Jews and mainstream, Pharisaic Jews.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
this link might give a bit more detail
the other link was useful primarily as it showed that the order of texts (and which are included) are not exactly the same.
Created:
-->
@Utanity
That is blastephemy because the Jewish bible is the same as the old testament anyway but the new testament is the real part of the bible which the Jewish don't have. In Mathew it says Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
The Jewish bible is not the same as the "Old Testament" and the gospels are not part of any bible which is why Jews don't have it. We have an oral text which is essential to understanding the bible. With out it, you can't really understand what the bible text says.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Then this seems to say that John had the correct pedigree>“There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.” (Luke 1:5)If this truly be the case, then he would have been a messiah?
Just being of the Aaronic line does not mean one is anointed. The rank and file priest in first temple times was not anointed and all the more so, during the second temple era when there was no available anointing oil for ANYONE, so the word is not applicable.
Also, you bolded his mother's lineage which is not relevant. The priestly status comes through the father, so the claim that this "Zacharias" was a priest would be what determined that the child was to be in that line.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I agree with your sentiments about the term "Judeo-Christian". The underlying tenets which qualify are either from the Jewish texts or not. If Christians want to appropriate the Jewish texts then don't try to rope Judaism in as if it condones the new version.
I am looking (maybe wrongly) at how the Jews of the 1st century AD would have viewed John the Baptist & how they view him today if they ever did have an opinion at all, and how christian view him today.
The first thing to point out is this notion of "the baptist." The idea of "baptism" comes from a Jewish idea of ritual immersion. This was done in a particular type of body of water, at very specific times for particular reasons. It didn't require anyone else's intervention - the individual immerses himself. So Jews at the time would not understand someone's interest in (transitively) "baptizing" someone else.
If for instance John was a priest ( and there are some biblical indications that he was)then would mean John was also a messiah from a Jewish stand point?Christians say a lot about John and it always fascinates me that they say a lot more about John than the bible itself has to say about him.
If John was from the proper family/lineage to be a "priest" then that is what his caste would be. He would not have been anointed, nor COULD he be the messiah in any other sense.
Created:
-->
@Utanity
If you have learned the old testament It shouldn't be hrad really to accept the new testament and learn about Jesus because he was actually a Jew anyway. So then it should not take long for the Jews to deal with the new testament.
If you have learned the Jewish bible then it shouldn't be hard to accept the oral texts as well and learn about why Christianity is wrong. It should not take long for you to reject Christianity when you deal with the oral texts.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Very true. And I understand that Jewish faith in texts that others don't accept can look like a cop out. I just want you to understand that it isn't a new cop out or a recent innovation. We have been dealing with these ideas for a while now.
Created:
-->
@Utanity
I don't know what a "true" Christian is vs. any other but I'm not on my way to being any sort of Christian. I'm still working on being a good Jew.
Created:
-->
@Utanity
Not only am I not a true Christian, I'm not any kind of Christian.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You may call it a cop out, but it is a matter of study and discussion based on sources and proofs, not an off the cuff dance away from anything. Jewish interpretation is complex and based in texts that go beyond the written bible.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus is believed to have been to be a rabbi/teacher/ priest and probably a high priest although the bible never makes that clear at all.
Well, believed by whom? Not me. Also, he can't be a priest because he wasn't from teh proper tribe. The priesthood was conferred on the Aaronic line (via the oil) and the tribe of Levi.
For the Samson question, start with this.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Here are a couple of sites which give details about the HP's functions
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I think you meant P14
No, page 15 mentions up to what point it was used and when it stopped.
Who was that?
Koresh (Cyrus) as per Isaiah 45
It must have been later when Israel had there first king that this sacred oil was also used to anoint kings into the service of god making them Messiahs also?Would this be a fair assumption considering the bible says so?
The oil was used on the initial priests and the objects which were used in the tabernacle. It was then, moving forward, used on high priests and some kings. For a fuller list, see here.
Created:
Messiah is the Anglicized form of the Hebrew word mashiach (or moshiach, depending on accent).
Kings and high priests (up to a certain point) were anointed with a particular oil (shemen hamishcha). You can read about it on page 15 of this pdf
There was a person listed textually as having been anointed when he wasn't.
There is a separate notion that some people seem to have of "anointed with spirit" but I haven't seen that textually.
Created:
During biblical times, the individual Jew followed Judaism. Judaism has an elaborate judicial and legal system as delineated in the combination of written and oral law. The individual does not do anything on his own (there was one exception, but that was a particular case with its own parameters, not a template for other behavior).
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Heavens, no.
Created:
No, I wouldn't. Did you have a followup question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
After David wasanointed king and then eventually crowned king, his line became the royalline. But certainly there was no expectation that all kings of Israelwould be of David's line. Hence why Israel after Solomon has no Davidic kings -and why David's line continued in Jerusalem. Was it a command that only David'sline be king? It would be nice to see the reference and command for this.
The line afterSolomon was fractured because of the civil war which led to the creation of 2nations, Judah and Israel. This happened during the reign of Rechav’am, son ofSolomon. The Solomonic line continues as the kings of Judah, the 2+ tribes whostill remain today. I Kings 11, 38-39 spells out that the dynasty goes fromDavid through Solomon to Solomon’s descendants. The lasting chastisement on theseed of David (though not eternal) was the limitation of their reign to onlythe 2+ tribes.
Yes. I disagreewith you here. I do not take the view that just because David and Solomon wereanointed that this made them the Messiah. Yes, the Hebrew word for messiah isthe one you mentioned. Yet there is a difference between anointed and"the anointed one".
That difference isartificial. In Hebrew, the difference is the initial definite article. Thatconstruction (as an article-noun) never occurs in the Judaic written bible (thesame letters appear 4 times as “who was anointed” referring to the high priest butthe vowel points are subtly different). Creating a distinction which isextra-textual because it justifies an understanding doesn’t sit well with me.
All of the priests of Israel were anointed. Aswere all of the kings of both Israel and Judah. Indeed even the people ofIsrael themselves at various times were anointed. Yet, if all anointed are themessiah, then the promise of a future messiah would become redundant. Itis a bit like saying to someone "you are special, but you know we are allspecial". It actually makes "special" non-special.
I know that the highpriest was anointed with the anointing oil (and, initially, Aaron’s son’s were)and a couple other special priests were (such as during war time) but I didn’tknow that all priests were. Do you have a textual citation for that? Also,objects in the temple were anointed. But regular people were not anointed. Thefuture messiah will simply be a king and will be anointed because, as you said,kings are anointed.
I do take the view aswell that David and Solomon were in some ways more than just anointed. Ithink that they were types of the Messiah to come. Not the messiah per se - butsuch shadows of the one to come that people would look at them and recognizesome special quality about them that not only inspires them but points them tothe real Messiah. In some ways they are like John the Baptist. Hetoo was not the messiah - but he pointed to the messiah. The OT promises thatthe Messiah would one day come to rescue his people.
This reading asforeshadowing is also alien to my understanding. As for what you see as “OTpromises” – this might not jibe with what I understand in the text. The Jewishunderstanding of the nature of messianic promises and of the messiah was prettywell established so to state that the masses missed the messiah ignores thatthe claimant, along with many other claimants simply did not fulfill those wellestablished criteria. If you study Judaism, you will see that no one is lookingfor a superman. In fact, one of the major arguments against Jesus is that themessiah need not perform any miracles – he is to be a man who leads throughrighteousness and that’s it. If you think we are looking for a superman, thenyou have a mistaken understanding of the Jewish messianic belief.
Can you by the way -find for me in the OT where the future king in David's line will not be apriest? Thanks.
The priests were from the Aaronic line, the tribe of Levi.The kings were from the Davidic line, the tribe of Judah. One can’t be from 2tribes. Even if you understand 2 Sam 8 and the discussion of 2 of David’s sonsas literal “priests” (which is not how it is traditionally understood inJudaism), that exception would be limited to the 2 named people and no latergenerations.
The line afterSolomon was fractured because of the civil war which led to the creation of 2nations, Judah and Israel. This happened during the reign of Rechav’am, son ofSolomon. The Solomonic line continues as the kings of Judah, the 2+ tribes whostill remain today. I Kings 11, 38-39 spells out that the dynasty goes fromDavid through Solomon to Solomon’s descendants. The lasting chastisement on theseed of David (though not eternal) was the limitation of their reign to onlythe 2+ tribes.
Yes. I disagreewith you here. I do not take the view that just because David and Solomon wereanointed that this made them the Messiah. Yes, the Hebrew word for messiah isthe one you mentioned. Yet there is a difference between anointed and"the anointed one".
That difference isartificial. In Hebrew, the difference is the initial definite article. Thatconstruction (as an article-noun) never occurs in the Judaic written bible (thesame letters appear 4 times as “who was anointed” referring to the high priest butthe vowel points are subtly different). Creating a distinction which isextra-textual because it justifies an understanding doesn’t sit well with me.
All of the priests of Israel were anointed. Aswere all of the kings of both Israel and Judah. Indeed even the people ofIsrael themselves at various times were anointed. Yet, if all anointed are themessiah, then the promise of a future messiah would become redundant. Itis a bit like saying to someone "you are special, but you know we are allspecial". It actually makes "special" non-special.
I know that the highpriest was anointed with the anointing oil (and, initially, Aaron’s son’s were)and a couple other special priests were (such as during war time) but I didn’tknow that all priests were. Do you have a textual citation for that? Also,objects in the temple were anointed. But regular people were not anointed. Thefuture messiah will simply be a king and will be anointed because, as you said,kings are anointed.
I do take the view aswell that David and Solomon were in some ways more than just anointed. Ithink that they were types of the Messiah to come. Not the messiah per se - butsuch shadows of the one to come that people would look at them and recognizesome special quality about them that not only inspires them but points them tothe real Messiah. In some ways they are like John the Baptist. Hetoo was not the messiah - but he pointed to the messiah. The OT promises thatthe Messiah would one day come to rescue his people.
This reading asforeshadowing is also alien to my understanding. As for what you see as “OTpromises” – this might not jibe with what I understand in the text. The Jewishunderstanding of the nature of messianic promises and of the messiah was prettywell established so to state that the masses missed the messiah ignores thatthe claimant, along with many other claimants simply did not fulfill those wellestablished criteria. If you study Judaism, you will see that no one is lookingfor a superman. In fact, one of the major arguments against Jesus is that themessiah need not perform any miracles – he is to be a man who leads throughrighteousness and that’s it. If you think we are looking for a superman, thenyou have a mistaken understanding of the Jewish messianic belief.
Can you by the way -find for me in the OT where the future king in David's line will not be apriest? Thanks.
The priests were from the Aaronic line, the tribe of Levi.The kings were from the Davidic line, the tribe of Judah. One can’t be from 2tribes. Even if you understand 2 Sam 8 and the discussion of 2 of David’s sonsas literal “priests” (which is not how it is traditionally understood inJudaism), that exception would be limited to the 2 named people and no latergenerations.
Created:
Posted in:
If one relies solely on the literal and written text of the bible, then there appear to be contradictions. If one sees the written text as complemented by oral tradition and text which clarifies, expands and explains, then, no, there are none.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You seem to be mistaking the God figure with the idea of God. If the idea of God is that God is infinite, perfect and filling up the universe as a unique idea then there can;t be more than one. If the particular iteration conflicts with the iteration of that same idea as understood by another religion then you have 2 claims about a singular concept. The original post's question would then be better framed "how do we know that our version of God is the right one" and not about the "right God" as if there is more than one God concept.
If I am stranded on an island with you and there is one house, and someone asks "what color is the house" and I say "blue" and you say "green" then there is still only one house but one of us misunderstands or misperceives that iteration of "house." It is silly to ask "how do you know you are talking about the 'right house'?" when there is only one house to talk about.
Feel free to foam at the mouth about this distinction. I can give you the name of the professor from whom I learned it, many years ago and you can contact him if you would like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Much of what you wrote, interesting though it is, is steeped in a theology I happen to reject, based on texts to which I cede no authority. I shan't argue at cross purposes -- I wouldn't ask you to adopt my belief system and (no offense) I don't intend to adopt yours. Just a couple of notes, though:
Saul was from Benjamin, because the Davidic line (and the promise that the Judah-based monarchy) had not started yet. So later kings had to be from Judah/David.
You wrote "I agree that both King and Priest ought not be mixed up and combined again because of the problems associated with what the bible calls the sin nature. As is often said - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why David could not be the messiah and why the son of David, Solomon could not either. "
Except that both David and Solomon WERE messiahs! The term "messiah" is just the anglicized "mashiach" -- one who was anointed. Both the high priest and the king were anointed (with one exception, unimportant right now) so there have been many "messiahs" in that there have been many anointed people. The future messiah, in Jewish thought, will be a king of the Davidic line and he will be anointed as such. He will not be a priest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
This request raises other issues aside from the "son of God" question. In the eyes of Judaism, it is a problematic claim as the king and the priest came from two different tribes and the two roles were incompatible with each other. There was one exception which ultimately caused huge problems for the nation so it isn't anything that people would want to repeat. There are other objections, especially concerning the term "anointed" and the role of ritual immersion and its relation to the roles of priest and king. But, again, this and other concerns are unrelated to the son of God claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The more I think about it, the more I think you ask a really good underlying question: if all are named "sons" why name David and Solomon as sons again?
I posted the question on a website and I will see if I can get any good responses there. If you want to see the conversation (assuming one develops) check here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Understood, but isn't inclusion by implication a fine biblical proof? I understand that it might not carry the cachet of an explicit verse, but its truth value should be no less (IMHO). The uniqueness of David and Solomon is shown by the rest of the narrative regarding their lives and reigns. David and Solomon had another special position in terms of the building of the temple in Jerusalem and, as said, they were the lone prophets among kings, I believe.
Interestingly, Jer 31 says that all Israel is God's child, and Ephraim is the firstborn whereas Ex 4 says that Israel as a whole is God's firstborn. I'm not going to focus on the apparent contradiction (which isn't really a contradiction) but in the idea that God says that Israel is his firstborn which could, by implication, allow other peoples to be later-born (otherwise the position of "first" is meaningless). This might mean that all people are god's children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Fair points. I think the non-theological reading of the literal gospel text could be as innocuous as you say -- Jesus made a claim that placed him among the entirety of the people (sons of God) and nothing more than that. As to why the Pharisees reacted, one might then question the veracity (or exhaustiveness) of the text in recording this exchange. This, though, moves to a question of interpretation and authority. I was just commenting on the decision in the text to use an explicit label for people who are already implicitly labeled.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
I am an Orthodox Jew because that is what I was born into, and raised and educated as and I don;t know how to be anything else. I do not choose to believe; I simply believe, and I couldn't choose not to believe. Some call it brainwashing. I say "whatever." It is what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You say that not every king is called a son of God "in any sense more than any person or subject of the nation of Israel is a son of god" but why isn't that enough of a sense? If the claim is that every king is a son of God, then as all children of Israel are sons of God, all kings who are of the nation are. As to why David and Solomon are specified to a level beyond that of everyone else, I would suggest that there are two elements here: the first is that these two, as the only 2 over a unified nation for the whole of their reigns, achieve a kingly status heading up a dynasty that will return in the messianic era, and also that these two are considered to be prophets whereas other kings were not and so God makes special note of this in his communicating with them. This does not lower the other kings (in that they were of the nation) or Moses, or any other prophet not called a "son of God" explicitly, or remove the title "sons of Gods" from any other member of the nation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I would take care with the following statement:
"And the scriptures make it perfectly clear that Israelite kings were specifically singled out to be Sons of God and God their father."
There are 2 possible ways that you mean this and both would need an explicit verse to support it -- the first is that by virtue of being kings, anyone who held that role was included in a larger statement about kings as sons, the second is that kings, individually, were each called a son of God.
I would prefer to stick with the larger "Israelites were called sons, kings were Israelites, therefore kings were called sons of Gods."
Other than the specifically named kings (such as David and Solomon) I don't know of a verse that itemizes other kings (either as a collective and unique group, or individually) as sons of God.
Created:
Posted in:
It seems to me that the argument would be
1. All members of the nation of the children of Israel are called sons of God
2. Kings of Israel were members of the nation of the children of Israel
3. therefore, all kings are called sons of God, even if the text does not identify each one explicitly as such
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Of you believe in a being with particular attributes (say omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and omnibenevolence) but the one true god lacks ine or more of these attributes then you are correct what we call this being is unimportant to whether or not you are correct. Also why is polytheism less sensible than any other flavor of theism? Some things require multiple causes. Fire requires heat, fuel and oxygen. If any of the three is insufficient then you get no fire. Perhaps it takes matter, anti matter and at least twelve gods to make a universe.I respect you for rarely overstating your position by the way. You strike me as very sensible for the most part.
If God lacks one of these attributes, doesn't that open the door for some other God which has that quality? If my definition of God is "infinite" (a non-sensical definition, I understand, but for the sake of argument, let's work with it) then it can't, by that definition, leave room for any other idea.
In that system, where God is the "all" there can't be room for other Gods, so a polytheistic system doesn't fit, at least not to me. My theology doesn't have a universe created by committee. Could you have a system more like the Greco-Roman one (with which I am familiar only by reading myths and Percy Jackson books) in which you have a series of gods (small g), each responsible for a different aspect? Maybe, but I see that system as reversed engineered to reflect the aspirations of individuals (the hunter looks for the ultimate hunter, the farmer, for the source of bounty). In a monotheistic system, if you want to say that man created the god-idea, then man invented a singular source to be the ultimate of ALL things in one, so those two visions of god's position are not reconcilable. But I digress.
I try to speak locally, and look at statements for what they say, and keep my own ideas out of it, but I appreciate the kind words. I am rarely called sensible, but that's probably because I am married and the father of daughters.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
"You claim there is only one god in your religion, there are other sects of your religion as well as other religions that have a monotheistic god that isn't your god. Why are you confused at this?"
No, I claim that there is only one God. Other religions that recognize a monotheistic God (assuming that the idea of that God correlates to the idea of God in Judaism) are worshiping the same God. Why are you confused at this? Is it because there is a distinction between an idea of God and a God figure? Is this something you aren't familiar with?
Just let me know. And also, if you want to know anything about Judaism, feel free to ask before you assert more claims about it that are laughably false.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
"Then you were dishonest in that interview thing I did, or you've changed your outlook."
Neither happens to be the case.
"If you're Orthodox, you think your religion's God is the real one. A Rabbi cannot simply sit there and say 'but it's the same as all monotheistic gods'. Not exactly, it's just that the mainstream religions that are monotheistic all say they are Abrahamic even though they all three actually say the others are wrong."
Actually, if I'm orthodox, i say that there is only one possible monotheistic God so none is the same as any other because there can be only one. And Judaism doesn't say that other religions are wrong.
"A god-made creature fit for human consumption is ruled out because it's 'dirty and lazy'."
Who called it that? Not the biblical text. Not Orthodox Jews.
"A pig is hardly more Satanic than a cow or hen"
Who said it was? Making a counter claim to a claim not in evidence isn't useful.
"In Judaism, the fasting is often done allowing liquids to be consumed during it and the focus is more on self-discipline."
No. In Judaism, there is no fast that allows drinking. The minor fasts allow certain actions (washing, wearing leather, sex) that the 2 major fasts don't allow, but drinking is not allowed.
Before you decide what I might think, you would do better to get a handle on what you are claiming.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You have me all wrong. But that's OK.
Just to help you out, I'm an Orthodox Jewish rabbi. I have a slightly different take on God and religion from what you ascribe to me.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If I believe in a single, infinite monotheistic God then his name is (in a sense) unimportant. There can't be a "wrong" one if there is only room for one. If the entire underlying monotheism is inaccurate and the "right" God is one within a polytheistic system then I'm OK being wrong because the idea of a polytheistic system doesn't make much sense to me.
Created:
If one believes that there is only one God, then how can the one we believe in be the wrong one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I can really only discuss the ones written in Hebrew or Aramaic but if anyone wants to discuss the context and meaning in the light of those languages, I'm game.
Created:
Posted in:
here is a list from https://www.drazin.com/index0602.html?6._The_"Son_of_G-D"_MYTH
King Solomon:
I Chronicles 22:9-10
Behold, a son shall be born to you [David],...his name shall be Solomon....He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.
Angels:
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of G-d came to present themselves before the L-rd, and Satan also came among them.
King David:
Psalms 2:7
I [David] will tell of the decree of the L-rd: He said to me, You are My son; today I have begotten you."
Israel:
Exodus 4:22
And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the L-rd: "Israel is My son, My firstborn."
Hosea 11:1
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.
None of the above is a "son of G-d" in the familial sense. Each merely enjoyed a special relationship to G-d, like those called "sons" in the New Testament:
Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of G-d.
Luke 3:38
...the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of G-d.
I Chronicles 22:9-10
Behold, a son shall be born to you [David],...his name shall be Solomon....He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.
Angels:
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of G-d came to present themselves before the L-rd, and Satan also came among them.
King David:
Psalms 2:7
I [David] will tell of the decree of the L-rd: He said to me, You are My son; today I have begotten you."
Israel:
Exodus 4:22
And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the L-rd: "Israel is My son, My firstborn."
Hosea 11:1
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.
None of the above is a "son of G-d" in the familial sense. Each merely enjoyed a special relationship to G-d, like those called "sons" in the New Testament:
Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of G-d.
Luke 3:38
...the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of G-d.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't know if other enslaved/oppressed peoples would necessarily need the encouragement of child killing, but the exodus story would certainly make for reassuring thinking in general.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes -- if we see this as archtypical, then the "blows against the empire" provide hope and a promise based on a supposed past.
Created: