quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Leaving everything else aside, the messiah is a patrilineal descendant of David. Physically. Adoption doesn't change a person's tribal affiliation, and a person whose physical father isn't a Jew has no tribe whatsoever. He's like a convert, or the child of a non-Jewish father and a Jewish mother. Certainly not a scion of David.
I recongize that this is splitting hairs, but my understanding of the rules for the Cohenim was that the standard for determining you are a Cohen is that your father (who must be a Cohen) claims you as his biological child. It was my understanding that even in an era where genetic testing could easily verify biological parentage that the standard is still the claims of the father.
Is this the case and is this similar for tribal affiliations? If your father claims you as his biological child would it make you a member of his tribe even if genetic tests showed otherwise?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Leaving everything else aside, the messiah is a patrilineal descendant of David. Physically. Adoption doesn't change a person's tribal affiliation, and a person whose physical father isn't a Jew has no tribe whatsoever. He's like a convert, or the child of a non-Jewish father and a Jewish mother. Certainly not a scion of David.
I recongize that this is splitting hairs, but my understanding of the rules for the Cohenim was that the standard for determining you are a Cohen is that your father (who must be a Cohen) claims you as his biological child. It was my understanding that even in an era where genetic testing could easily verify biological parentage that the standard is still the claims of the father.
Is this the case and is this similar for tribal affiliations? If your father claims you as his biological child would it make you a member of his tribe even if genetic tests showed otherwise?
Nope. We do have a concept called chazaka, or legal presumption. Most legal systems do, and ours is no different on that count. If a man claims to be the biological father of the child he's raising, then all other things being equal, and lacking any reason to doubt him, we accept that as being true (exceptions exist, consult your local halakhic authority for details). But if there is evidence to the contrary, the legal presumption can be uprooted. It's not like once the presumption is made, no evidence to the contrary can be considered. The claim that JC was not Joseph's bio-kid cannot coexist with the claim that he is a patrilineal heir of David (unless the claim is that he's the son of some other descendent of David).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mary was also descended from David. The point is that God placed His divine Son in the womb of a woman of the tribe of Judah, and the God of the universe, who creates reality itself by simply saying it, declared Jesus Christ is His Son and the Son of David.
Through Daniel, God disclosed the timetable when His Son would appear and be annointed as Messiah, and when He would offer Himself in sacrifice for the sins of the world.
The seventy weeks prophecy was understood by the Qumran community as meaning 490 literal years (and therefore the 483 days and 3 1/2 days must also mean literal years) because they referred to the time prophecy as "ten Jubilees." A Jubilee came every 49 years. Christians did not invent this interpretation, but it is the most obvious and straightforward one, consistent with the context.
The 2300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8:14 must also have the same significance of 2300 literal years, because the angel Gabriel linked them together when He said to Daniel in Daniel 9:23: "therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision."
The word used for vision here is mareh. This is also the word used for vision in Daniel 8:26, when Gabriel was talking about the time prophecy in verse 14: "And the vision [mareh] of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days." This is significant, because another word was used for vision [chazown] referring to the historical events of verses 1-12: "Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision [chazown] concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" (verse 13)
The larger context also demands this interpretation, because Daniel fainted after what Gabriel said in Daniel 8:26, and could not go on. Then in chapter nine we find Daniel pouring over the prophecy of Jeremiah that the captivity of Israel would only be 70 years, and launched into an impassioned prayer begging God to remember His promise that the captivity would only be 70 years. Obviously Daniel feared that the time prophecy of the 2300 days he had been given in Daniel 8:14 meant that God was going to greatly extend the captivity because of the people's sins. Daniel would not have been troubled this way if the 2300 days were only meant to be literal days and not literal years, or only 1150 days as some people have claimed, interpreting the expression evening-mornings as referring to morning and evening sacrifices (rather than recognizing that the unique formulation of evening-mornings referred to the delineation of days in Genesis one).
By linking together the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 with the seventy weeks (and 483 days) of Daniel 9:24-27, when he said "consider the vision (mareh), Gabriel also established logically that the start of the time prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 was the same starting point that must be used for the time prophecy in Daniel 8:14.
No other interpretation is possible without doing violence to the text.
[ December 11, 2006, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No other interpretation is possible without doing violence to the text.
My apologies if that was not intended as a joke.
On a personal note, I find Biblical literalism to be simply very disappointing and rather misguided. Of all the ways that people have interpreted the Bible, the literal interpretation seems to me the least interesting and most pointless. No where is this more true than in the creation stories. When I seek to understand the symbolism in the story, I find deep meaning that is relevant to the choices I make in life. If forced to see it as literal, I can find no value in it at all.
I recognize that this sentiment is not shared by many religious people and do not mean to denegrate their views. If you find this view of the Bible enriching and inspiring, all the better. I simply can't share that view.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, sound scholarship is not the same thing as mere literalism. Sound scholarship can establish objectively when a term is symbolic, and when it is literal, and what the literal equivalent of the symbol must be. These are not mysteries. These things can be definitely known, by using the methods of sound scholarship. I demonstrated this in my last post.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The seventy weeks prophecy was understood by the Qumran community as meaning 490 literal years (and therefore the 483 days and 3 1/2 days must also mean literal years) because they referred to the time prophecy as "ten Jubilees." A Jubilee came every 49 years. Christians did not invent this interpretation, but it is the most obvious and straightforward one, consistent with the context.
The 2300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8:14 must also have the same significance of 2300 literal years, because the angel Gabriel linked them together when He said to Daniel in Daniel 9:23: "therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision."
Why?
I mean, does Gabriel have this time problem of confusing days and years so that whenever he speaks we just need to translate? Instead of saying "Therefore understand the matter and consider the vision." why didn't he say, "I meant years there, not days."
Biblical decodifying is a statistical game. Given enough words and numbers to cherry pick out of, you can interpret the 1965's Manhattan Yellow pages to predict the 2006 senatorial race.
There is one other interpretation that can be made with out doing damage to the text.
Daniel was prophesising about the return from Babylon of his people. No more. No less.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mary was also descended from David.
Mary wasn't his father. So it doesn't matter who she was descended from.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The point is that God placed His divine Son in the womb of a woman of the tribe of Judah, and the God of the universe, who creates reality itself by simply saying it, declared Jesus Christ is His Son and the Son of David.
Nope. That's all stuff that was made up after the fact. God is a God of Truth. To say that someone is the son of David when he isn't, according to God's own laws, goes against truth.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Through Daniel, God disclosed the timetable when His Son would appear and be annointed as Messiah, and when He would offer Himself in sacrifice for the sins of the world.
No, he didn't. And the idea of a god or a man being sacrificed for the sins of others goes against the numerous biblical verses that say that each person is responsible for his own sin. It's pagan, and never had so much as a smidgeon of source in anything Jewish.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The seventy weeks prophecy was understood by the Qumran community as meaning 490 literal years
It's understood that way by us as well. It's nice that a group of heretics in the desert agreed, though. <eyes rolling>
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: (and therefore the 483 days and 3 1/2 days must also mean literal years) because they referred to the time prophecy as "ten Jubilees."
Where'd you get ten jubilees from?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: A Jubilee came every 49 years.
Every 50 years. The Jubilee year was the year following the seventh Sabbatical year.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The 2300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8:14 must also have the same significance of 2300 literal years, because the angel Gabriel linked them together when He said to Daniel in Daniel 9:23: "therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision."
You must have left something out. That, or you're high. Had it said "days", you could have interpreted it as years, because that's done sometimes. But when it's explicit in saying "evening-morning", that tells you it's a literal day.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: No other interpretation is possible without doing violence to the text.
quote: [Lisa]...you could have interpreted it as years, because that's done sometimes.
That's not a reason! Just because it has been done before does not mean that it was done correctly. Isn't this just groupthink?
quote: From OSC's essay on Groupthink:
...You can tell if a group suffers from groupthink if it:
Collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes,
Demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leaders,
Has a culture of uniformity where individuals censor themselves and others so that the facade of group unanimity is maintained...
Lisa, when you take quotes from other people and state things like "You must have left something out. That, or you're high" or "Utter rubbish" or "Feh", I find that rude. You can argue against their points without debasing them.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No other interpretation is possible without doing violence to the text.
My apologies if that was not intended as a joke.
On a personal note, I find Biblical literalism to be simply very disappointing and rather misguided. Of all the ways that people have interpreted the Bible, the literal interpretation seems to me the least interesting and most pointless. No where is this more true than in the creation stories. When I seek to understand the symbolism in the story, I find deep meaning that is relevant to the choices I make in life. If forced to see it as literal, I can find no value in it at all.
I recognize that this sentiment is not shared by many religious people and do not mean to denegrate their views. If you find this view of the Bible enriching and inspiring, all the better. I simply can't share that view.
Your sentiment is shared by at least this religious person. Well done.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: [Lisa]...you could have interpreted it as years, because that's done sometimes.
That's not a reason! Just because it has been done before does not mean that it was done correctly. Isn't this just groupthink?
I'm sorry, White Whale, I was unclear. I didn't mean to say that interpreting it as years is done sometimes. I meant that the word "days" is actually used to mean years sometimes.
I'll have to look it up, but it's used that way in the narrative about David, and "week" in Daniel 9 clearly refers to a period of seven years, rather than seven days.
But even beyond that, the actual meaning of a text is what the author meant. Not what a later reader might read into it. And the books of the Bible were not written in a vacuum, by some loner in a cave or a desert. Their authors were embedded in the Jewish community, and the terms used were those which would be understood by that community. And those of us who have a direct chain of continuous transmission of that culture know what certain things mean. That isn't "groupspeak"; it's what it means.
Someone unfamiliar with English language idioms might hear you say, "You must be pulling my leg", and conclude that you're using the words incorrectly, since no one even touched you. And then you could respond that as a part of the culture in which that expression lives, you know what it means, even if he doesn't. That's not groupspeak; it's just what it means.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, for someone who prides herself inknowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and tradition, you betray a surprising error when you say that Jubilees were every 50 years. That is a common mistake, because the Jubilee was sometimes called a fiftieth year. But actually it was the first year of the next Jubilee cycle. The Jubilee cycle was indeed 49 years. Ask your rabbi, or some other qualified scholar of the Torah.
God was Jesus' Father in the Incarnation. You do not wish to acknowledge that. But your denial does not constitute an argument. It is an objective fact that Jesus was born into the tribe of Judah, part of the genetic line of David. Your tradition has no weight compared to the objective facts of genetics.
If you insist on denying that there is any substantive connection between the time prophecies of Daniel 8:14 and 9:24-27, then the burden is on you to explain why else the angel Gabriel said "consider the vision [mareh]" when he began his remarks to Daniel in Daniel nine.
Why would God or the angel say "day" when he meant "years"? Why would God say "mountain" or some beast, or some type of metal, when he meant "kingdom"? The fact that God is deliberately using such symbolism is made clear by the Gabriel's explanation of the prophecy in Daniel 8. Note this: "The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. The shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king." (Daniel 8:20-21; NASB) Here is a direct declaration that God is using symbology--and Gabriel here plainly stated what the symbols mean.
As for viewing prophetic days as being symbolic of literal years, here are two well-known and often quoted precedents for this: "After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise." (Numbers 14:34) "And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year." (Ezekiel 4:6)
I do have to say that I agree with you that the over-simplistic idea of the innocent dying for the guilty is unethical and unjust, specifically forbidden by the Bible. This is why the Son of God had to actually take humanity upon Himself, become the new Adam, the federated head of our race, so He could execute the just sentence against the sin of humanity in Himself. The Apostle Paul goes to great lengths to emphasize this point. The Incarnation was as necessary to salvation as the Crucifixion. Christ had to become qualified to stand in our place, He could not just arbitrarily say, "Punish Me in their place." He actually had to take responsibility for the sins of our race by becoming in actuality our whole race. Our sins are punished and justice is satisfied in Him. And the demands of the law for righteousness of life are also satisfied in Him, who is our life. Jesus Christ stands for us in Judgment. Not just by our sides, as an Advocate, but in our place, to be judged in our place.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is an objective fact that Jesus was born into the tribe of Judah, part of the genetic line of David. Your tradition has no weight compared to the objective facts of genetics.
Ron, I would be careful about using the words "objective fact" about things that we have no way of verifying. The only "record" we have of Jesus's lineage is in the gospels - written after the fact by people who already believed Jesus to be the Messiah.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, for someone who prides herself inknowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and tradition, you betray a surprising error when you say that Jubilees were every 50 years. That is a common mistake, because the Jubilee was sometimes called a fiftieth year. But actually it was the first year of the next Jubilee cycle. The Jubilee cycle was indeed 49 years. Ask your rabbi, or some other qualified scholar of the Torah.
Whew! <laugh> How harsh.
In point of fact, it's a dispute in the Talmud whether the Jubilee year (the 50th year) is also the first year of the next cycle or not. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir, if I'm not misremembering. So yes, 49 years is a valid view. I was just tweaking you for being so cocksure of yourself.
Nevertheless, it is, and remains, a matter of dispute, and your 49 year theory is only one theory. It certainly isn't a fact.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: God was Jesus' Father in the Incarnation. You do not wish to acknowledge that.
It isn't a matter of "acknowledging it" or not, Ron. I think it's a little silly, sure, but the issue isn't whether it's the case or not. The issue is what it does to the claim of Davidic descent. If JC's father wasn't descended from David, then he was not a possible king of the Davidic line.
Hillel the Elder was descended from David on his mother's side, and from the tribe of Benjamin on his father's. That didn't make him or his descendents possible heirs to the Davidic dynasty. He and his line were Ethnarchs in Judea for centuries, and no claim was ever made that they were Davidic rulers of any kind, because you just can't make that claim without it being fully patrilineal.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But your denial does not constitute an argument. It is an objective fact that Jesus was born into the tribe of Judah, part of the genetic line of David. Your tradition has no weight compared to the objective facts of genetics.
"Objective fact". <grin> Ron, it isn't even an objective fact that the man existed.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you insist on denying that there is any substantive connection between the time prophecies of Daniel 8:14 and 9:24-27, then the burden is on you to explain why else the angel Gabriel said "consider the vision [mareh]" when he began his remarks to Daniel in Daniel nine.
Why wouldn't he? Daniel only gets one vision?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Why would God or the angel say "day" when he meant "years"?
You realize that a "week" in Daniel 9 is seven years, so why do you have a problem with a day being a year? It can be either. If God had intended for these prophecies to be obvious in their meaning, I assure you, He could have done so.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Why would God say "mountain" or some beast, or some type of metal, when he meant "kingdom"? The fact that God is deliberately using such symbolism is made clear by the Gabriel's explanation of the prophecy in Daniel 8. Note this: "The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. The shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king." (Daniel 8:20-21; NASB) Here is a direct declaration that God is using symbology--and Gabriel here plainly stated what the symbols mean.
Okay. And your point is...?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for viewing prophetic days as being symbolic of literal years, here are two well-known and often quoted precedents for this: "After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise." (Numbers 14:34) "And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year." (Ezekiel 4:6)
In those cases, it says explicitly that the day is representing a year. But yes, there are certainly places where "day" is used to mean "year". I don't dispute that. But this doesn't say "day" -- it says "evening-morning". As though he's trying to make clear that this is really a day.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I do have to say that I agree with you that the over-simplistic idea of the innocent dying for the guilty is unethical and unjust, specifically forbidden by the Bible. This is why the Son of God had to actually take humanity upon Himself, become the new Adam, the federated head of our race, so He could execute the just sentence against the sin of humanity in Himself.
God doesn't change that way. Adam was Adam, and there's nothing in the Bible that suggests that someone can be "the new Adam". I mean, God offered to make Moses the "new Abraham", in a manner of speaking, but there's nothing about a new Adam.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Apostle Paul goes to great lengths to emphasize this point. The Incarnation was as necessary to salvation as the Crucifixion.
There's no need for what you term "salvation". That came to fix a problem that wasn't there. Afterwards, y'all invented the problem to make the fix necessary.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Christ had to become qualified to stand in our place, He could not just arbitrarily say, "Punish Me in their place." He actually had to take responsibility for the sins of our race by becoming in actuality our whole race.
That doesn't make any sense. Everyone who was living at the time remained living. They weren't merged into some super-entity. Someone calling himself the sum total of everyone doesn't make it so. JC didn't become Pilate, and he didn't become anyone else. He just died.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, wasn't Noah in a sense the second Adam? At one point, he was the head of all humanity still in existence, and the father of all who were yet to come. Adam really justs means "the man."
Jesus had to become "the man"--not just a man--in order to obtain salvation for our race. You surely know that the death of animals never meant anything beyond an expression of faith in the provision God would make for our salvation. But neither could God just arbitarily forgive us, without being unjust. To do so would indicate either that we were not really sinners, or else that the law which identifies sin is invalid. Either one would mean that Lucifer was right in his controversy with God. In order to uphold His own righteousness and refute Satan, He had to execute the penalty of death against the sinner, and provide a new righteousness that is in harmony with the law, that yet can be imputed to the one who accepts God's forgiveness.
We are all given a choice whether to accept the Messiah as the new Head of our race, a race that has been re-established with a righteous heritage. We cannot have righteousness before God by any other means, because God deliberately refrains from giving us perfected, "sinless flesh" before the Second Coming of Christ. God wishes by this to prove that real righeousness, the kind that matters to Him, consists in faith in Him, and not in anything within our own natures.
Angelic perfection failed in Heaven when Lucifer sinned. Human perfection failed in Eden. Perfection is not enough. What we are by nature is not the issue, otherwise Lucifer could have argued (and probably did) that because angels have perfect natures, they should not be subject to any Divine Law.
Jesus Christ became the FEDERATED Head of our race. All who live come from Him in spirit, and by legal reckoning of God.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, wasn't Noah in a sense the second Adam?
No. There were 8 people on the Ark.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: At one point, he was the head of all humanity still in existence, and the father of all who were yet to come. Adam really justs means "the man."
He wasn't his wife's father. And Adam only means "man" (not "the man", which would be ha-Adam) because that was his name.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jesus had to become "the man"--not just a man--in order to obtain salvation for our race. You surely know that the death of animals never meant anything beyond an expression of faith in the provision God would make for our salvation.
I know nothing of the sort. The issue is repentence and forgiveness. That's what the sacrifices were for. Not "salvation", a purely pagan concept.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But neither could God just arbitarily forgive us, without being unjust.
Nonsense. That's what repentence is all about. God told Moses "I have forgiven according to your word", without any sacrifice whatsoever, even of animals. It's all about repentence. The prophets were constantly criticizing us for doing exactly what you're doing. Focusing on the sacrifice, rather than the repentence. We learned that lesson, but it seems that you haven't. God doesn't need a sacrifice to forgive us. God doesn't delight in the blood of animals, and He most certainly doesn't ask for the blood of people. He asks for a broken heart and that we leave our wrong acts and do the right thing.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: To do so would indicate either that we were not really sinners, or else that the law which identifies sin is invalid. Either one would mean that Lucifer was right in his controversy with God.
Another pagan myth. There is no "Lucifer" who had a "controversy with God". That's straight out of Bullfinch's Mythology.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In order to uphold His own righteousness and refute Satan, He had to
Had to? Not the God I worship.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: We are all given a choice whether to accept the Messiah as the new Head of our race, a race that has been re-established with a righteous heritage.
Nope. That's not what the messiah is. The messiah is not a new head of a race; he's the king of Israel.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: We cannot have righteousness before God by any other means, because God deliberately refrains from giving us perfected, "sinless flesh" before the Second Coming of Christ.
Ridiculous. "Sinless flesh". Flesh is just flesh, Ron. It's not sinless and it's not sinful. What we choose to do with it is all that matters. And God says that Abraham was righteous before the Lord, so I guess you're wrong about what we can and cannot have.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: God wishes by this to prove that real righeousness, the kind that matters to Him, consists in faith in Him, and not in anything within our own natures.
Again, wrong. We have free will, and God sent His prophets to tell us that what He wants of us is that we do the right thing. Faith, shmaith. It is absolutely up to us. "It is not beyond the sea, that you should say: Who will go and fetch it for us." It's in our hands and our hearts. Read what God says; not the rationalizations of your religion.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Angelic perfection failed in Heaven when Lucifer sinned.
Was that before or after the Cylons destroyed the 12 Colonies? I've read To Reign In Hell. Brust writes well, but it's still just a story.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Human perfection failed in Eden.
Obviously not. Had we been perfect, we wouldn't have failed. We are not perfect, and we're never going to be perfect. We strive for perfection because that's the right direction.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jesus Christ became the FEDERATED Head of our race. All who live come from Him in spirit, and by legal reckoning of God.
posted
Ron, I think one of my big problems with YEC is that it presumes that Creation is "done". That God did God's thing 6000-ish years ago and that was it. I believe that Creation is still happening, God is still Creating us and calling upon us to participate in that Creation. It is a dynamic thing that is relevant now rather than a static thing that we view only as historical.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, you ought to take it easy with Ron. I'm an atheist, but I wouldn't rip into your beliefs the way you're doing with his. I admit I called them confused and chaotic, but you're specifically singling out stuff and labeling it bullsh*t. I mean, I could easily take "there were 8 people on the ark" and say, "Yeah, that's the mythological distortion you weirdoes added to the TRUE tale of Uta-Napisti... I mean, c'mon, so you were slaves in Babylon, but did you really have to steal the flood story and then screw it up, too? Forty days and night? Pshaw."
It's just too easy to smash religious beliefs, and to see a person of one faith do it to a person of another is, especially for an atheist, pretty freaking depressing... heh.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem, David, is that Ron is making claims about Jewish belief. I get that; Christianity thinks it's derived from Jewish belief. But I'm not saying "Immaculate conception is silly", because that has nothing to do with us. What I'm talking down to is the distortions of Judaism that Ron keeps posting. Daniel was a Jew. Isaiah was a Jew. They lived and wrote their books in a Jewish context. The laws of the Jubilee year were given to the Jews at Sinai. You see?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, yes, I get that, but what I mean to say is that Adventists and other Christian groups subsume Jewish texts and reinterpret them, much as Jewish texts did with Babylonian, Canaanite and (arguably) Egyptian religious traditions. A Jew could argue that, despite what Babylonian authors THOUGHT they were doing, the reality was that G-D was guiding them to produce a story that Jews would correctly interpret later on; Ron, most of the time, is making a similar claim about Tanakh writers.
A caveat to my comments is that if he makes a claim about modern Jewish belief about the scriptures, he's out of his league, and you're justified in making mincemeat out of him, heh.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think in this particular discussion, Lisa is providing a valuable counterpoint to Ron's interpretations. I also think it is valid that she do so since Ron is (or at least appears to be) stating his interpretations as objective fact. If he were saying "I believe. . ." etc, then sure, let's be kind to his beliefs. But when he's presenting it as fact that the rest of us would realize if only we were as studied in scripture as he is then I think Lisa's OK with responding in kind. Personally, I'd still take the softer approach, but I haven't nearly the knowledge she has on the subject so since I can't do what she's doing I'll cut her the slack for the way she's doing it, in this particular discussion.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, all the human race that followed the Flood came from Noah. Sure, they came from Mrs. Noah too, and you might have mentioned the wives of Shem, Ham, and Japheth as well, but that does not change the fact that Noah was the father of all who followed.
Thanks for your concern, David Bowles, but Lisa is more of a problem to herself than she is to me. She has not come close to "getting my goat" yet. I am fascinated finding out what very conservative Jewish thinking will do with some of the logical, philosophical, and scriptural arguments I present.
For example, I am amazed and a little saddened that she would deny my very obviously true observation that human perfection failed in Eden. Were not Adam and Eve created perfect? God said that everything He created was very good. It is of vast importance for us to realize that it was perfect human beings who chose to sin. They did not sin because of anything in their nature or a lack of something in them; if that were the case, they would have an excuse, and sin would not be sin.
And Lisa, despite your snide comment about Cylons, you surely do believe that angels exist, and that they were created as perfect beings, and that some of them, led by Lucifer, sinned. Or do you attempt to rationalize away Ezekiel 28:13-15 by supposing that these words were merely addressed to the human king of Tyre: "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."
Lisa, you do not seem to know either what righteusness is, or what sin is. Your view of forgiveness and repentance are very shallow. There is no virtue in repentance, and forgiveness must not be arbitary, or it is cheap and meaningless.
Nor, sadly, do you seem to comprehend what it means for the Messiah to be King of Israel. I must challenge you directly on this point: you do not know who Israel is. You think you do, but you do not. You cannot see beyond race and tribe and traditional creed.
You seem to think it is within the capacity of mere humans to do and think righteousnessly, that we can repent on our own power, and that makes everything right; and that we can then live perfect and sinless lives if we so choose. You may quote texts about having clean hands and pure hearts. But what do you do with Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Or with Isaiah 64:6: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." It was a holy prophet of Israel who said that.
If God is willing to make you perfect now, then show it to us. I say that God only purposes to perfect our faith in Him at this time, for He alone is righteous. He is righteousness Personified. So if you do not count faith in Him as the main thing, then how much like Him are you in yourself?
Suppose in the final moments of his life Adolf Hitler had said, "Oops, sorry about all that God. Guess I was wrong about a few things." Then suppose God said, "That's all right, I forgive you. Forget about it. I have."
Does this really meet your mind as being divinely just? Does this adequately deal with the seriousness of sin and evil? Does this not cheapen the forgiveness of God to something arbitrary and meaningless, as if God Himself has embraced evil, making no real difference between good and evil?
Lisa, your philosophy of religion is way too shallow. You are not thinking deeply enough about the things that really and truly matter. Your tribe or race and its self-serving creed as you interpret them have little value and nothing to offer to the rest of us. At least we Christians try to address these ultimate universal concerns. You only duck them.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, I think that if Hitler (or anyone else) in the final moments of his life - or even later - truly repented (understanding that true repentance includes really getting what you did - which has to be unfathomably difficult for grievous sins) it would be possible to be in relationship with God.
That is vastly different from, "Forget about it." It may be the opposite of "Forget about it." I think, that in your view, you are selling short the infinite capacity of God's love. I trust that God never stops wanting to be with us and never makes that impossible for us.
Lisa is right, it is about repentance, not sacrifice. I believe that the sacrifice is a symbol for repentance, not a substitute for it.
posted
Tom, God's promise to Abraham, the father of all the Jews, included this: "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." (Genesis 22:18)
kmboots, I tried to word my example so the shallow flippancy of Hitler's "repentance" would be apparent. Of course, Christ forgave the thief on the cross crucified beside Him. But it was Christ on the cross who made forgiveness possible. A price was paid. It was not cheap.
Also, I would note that no human being is capable of true repentance. Repentence is more than mere regret. Only the Holy Spirit can enable us to repent truly. And even the Holy Spirit is not our Savior, He merely brings and connects us to the Savior.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just checking...I don't need to throw in my usual, "the views of any particular Christian don't represent the views of all Christians" disclaimer. Right?
I myself find some of the views expressed here, pretty "out there" and I would guess that Ron would feel the same way about mine.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Lisa, yes, I get that, but what I mean to say is that Adventists and other Christian groups subsume Jewish texts and reinterpret them, much as Jewish texts did with Babylonian, Canaanite and (arguably) Egyptian religious traditions.
I don't think that's true. I hear that you do, but I disagree. Whereas Ron can't dispute that it's our texts that he's rebooting.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: A Jew could argue that, despite what Babylonian authors THOUGHT they were doing, the reality was that G-D was guiding them to produce a story that Jews would correctly interpret later on; Ron, most of the time, is making a similar claim about Tanakh writers.
A Jew could argue that, I suppose. This Jew doesn't. The "Canaanite" material you're referring to postdates ours, and the Babylonian stuff isn't any contradiction. It does refer to a local Mesopotamian flood, which is mentioned in Jewish sources as well, but which took place a few centuries after the Flood of Noah.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: A caveat to my comments is that if he makes a claim about modern Jewish belief about the scriptures, he's out of his league, and you're justified in making mincemeat out of him, heh.
quote:It's just too easy to smash religious beliefs, and to see a person of one faith do it to a person of another is, especially for an atheist, pretty freaking depressing... heh.
Yeah... while we're at it, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, anyway?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, not to get into an argument or anything, but the flood story in Gilgamesh is not meant to be just a local Mesopotamian flood... the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians believed that the entire earth was flooded. Since the earliest tablets containing the Uta-Napishti flood story (the one we read of in Gilgamesh) predate any extant copies of Genesis, and since the similarities between the Hebrew tale and the Babylonian are legion and not credibly a result of chance, the more defensible scholarly position is that Hebrews picked up the Babylonian story, changed the names and some details, and incorporated the myth into their religion.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the way I see it, and it caters to both sides.
In the bible it says the earth was created in 7 days. Now how long is a day in heaven? Heaven is eternal, there really isnt a sense of time. So the writers in the bible had to put in some sense of time for us to understand. How are they going to explain eternity well enough that people understand? I dont believe that anyone on the earth even comprehends eternity completely.
Also, we dont know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. I mean, Adam had to name all of the animals, right? There were probably hundreds of MILLIONS of animals. I worked it out once that if Adam named an animal a second, it would have taken him over 100 years without a break to name all of them, excluding the dinosaurs.
The Garden was a Celestial place, so I can only assume that time passed at the same rate as heaven there. If time passed normally outside of the Garden of Eden, (Which it probably did, since when they got kicked out they knew that it was a different place and that there was sorrow and death there) then we can wonder that perhaps millions or billions of years had passed between the time Adam awoke in the garden and the time he ate the fruit. We have no idea nor any writings which tell us how long Adam and Eve hung out in the garden.
So it could be 6000 years since the FALL of Adam, and thus the beginning of time for man.
Another thought not related to the other one. Many people think that the earth cannot be only 6000 years old because of fossils and bones. But this is easily explained in that God created the earth out of matter unorganized.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's just too easy to smash religious beliefs, and to see a person of one faith do it to a person of another is, especially for an atheist, pretty freaking depressing... heh.
Yeah... while we're at it, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, anyway?
I am far more interested in why they are dancing and in knowing that we can dance.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Lisa, not to get into an argument or anything, but the flood story in Gilgamesh is not meant to be just a local Mesopotamian flood... the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians believed that the entire earth was flooded. Since the earliest tablets containing the Uta-Napishti flood story (the one we read of in Gilgamesh) predate any extant copies of Genesis, and since the similarities between the Hebrew tale and the Babylonian are legion and not credibly a result of chance, the more defensible scholarly position is that Hebrews picked up the Babylonian story, changed the names and some details, and incorporated the myth into their religion.
You're assuming the flood was a myth. Assuming its true we can be lead to the equally plausible possibility that the ancestor of the Babylonians descended from Noah's loins and carried the story to his/her own descendants.
Native Americans when they encountered the Europeans also retained a very ancient story of a global deluge. But since we only have their oral traditions we can't safely date them at all. Is it not equally likely if we assume its a myth that there is a possibility that THEY, or more accurately their ancestors had the myth first and it spread west? Obviously its just as likely they got the myth from the Babylonians and carried it over as well.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another thought not related to the other one. Many people think that the earth cannot be only 6000 years old because of fossils and bones. But this is easily explained in that God created the earth out of matter unorganized.
That makes no sense. Rephrase.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, all the human race that followed the Flood came from Noah. Sure, they came from Mrs. Noah too, and you might have mentioned the wives of Shem, Ham, and Japheth as well, but that does not change the fact that Noah was the father of all who followed.
So what? If anything, that makes your argument about a dead Jew in the 1st century being "the new Adam" even less workable. Or do you claim that everyone at that time died and we're all descended from JC?
(And yes, I'm quite aware that I'm giving him an opening here -- think of it as enough rope.)
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Thanks for your concern, David Bowles, but Lisa is more of a problem to herself than she is to me. She has not come close to "getting my goat" yet.
Who's trying to? Your attitude of preaching at us irks me. As KarlEd pointed out, you keep assuming that you have some sort of greater knowledge here, and that we only disagree because we're ignorant. You state your beliefs as fact. Well, I can do that as well, because frankly, I think mine are fact. And I know that yours aren't. So onwards...
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I am fascinated finding out what very conservative Jewish thinking will do with some of the logical, philosophical, and scriptural arguments I present.
And some would suggest that I keep silent for just that reason. I know that some missionary types like to pick our brains so that they can improve their techniques. On the other hand, it's always possible that even you might sit up at some point and say, "Holy Hell. Lisa's right. What on earth was I thinking?"
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: For example, I am amazed and a little saddened that she would deny my very obviously true observation that human perfection failed in Eden.
Oh, yawn. "Very obviously true", my butt.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Were not Adam and Eve created perfect?
No. Not by any use of the term "perfect" that I suspect you'd accept. What is with people like you, insisting that people are born (or created) either good or evil. We're not. God created us with free will and the ability to choose good or evil. He created Adam that way, and He created Eve that way. And they made a bad choice in Eden. Oops. Not a small oops, of course; an earthshattering, Very Bad Oops. But an oops nonetheless.
They weren't perfect. They were people. Your picturing them as perfect goes hand in hand with the idea that we're all born tainted nowadays. We're not. We're all imperfect beings who strive for perfection. It's moving in that direction that counts, Ron. The trip -- not the destination.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: God said that everything He created was very good.
And you're equating "very good" and "perfect". That's a mistake.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is of vast importance for us to realize that it was perfect human beings who chose to sin.
It's of vast importance to your philosophy to think that, but it's of no importance whatsoever to "realize" it. Without them being perfect, you wouldn't have a justification for saying that human beings can never make it without divine grace. You need the sin in Eden to be an utter, metaphysical catastrophe, rather than the sin of two people.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: They did not sin because of anything in their nature or a lack of something in them; if that were the case, they would have an excuse, and sin would not be sin.
So according to you, if you have within you the ability to choose to sin, it's not sin? That's ridiculous. God gave them (us) the ability to choose. Making the wrong choice is making the wrong choice.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And Lisa, despite your snide comment about Cylons, you surely do believe that angels exist, and that they were created as perfect beings, and that some of them, led by Lucifer, sinned.
How do you guffaw in writing? "Heh" certainly doesn't do it, and ROTFLOLSHTICHB is way too long.
You're a laugh a minute, Ron. Out of your gourd in this case, but funny nonetheless. Yes, angels exist. "Perfect beings". Eh. Lucifer? A fictional character. You're getting Milton mixed up with reality, Ron.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Or do you attempt to rationalize away Ezekiel 28:13-15 by supposing that these words were merely addressed to the human king of Tyre:
"Rationalize away"? So speaks Mr. Literal Reading. That's what it says, Ron. That's the message to the king of Tyre. Tyre, remember, from whence Hiram came to craft the marvels of Solomon's Temple. The holy mountain of God.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, you do not seem to know either what righteusness is, or what sin is.
Ron, you are arrogant in your limited knowledge. If you were willing to learn, and to reduce your ignorance, I'd be a lot more polite with you.
Righteousness means doing the right thing. Sin means doing the wrong thing. As a matter of fact, "sin" isn't really very precise. There are multiple types of sin, at least according to God. Heit, avone, and pesha` are the main ones.
Heit is the one that's generally translated, simply, as "sin". It also means to miss the target in archery (see the story of David and Jonathan and the New Month banquet). You might get a glimmer of what "sin" means from that. It means simply to blow it. Oops.
Argue with God, if you like.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your view of forgiveness and repentance are very shallow. There is no virtue in repentance, and forgiveness must not be arbitary, or it is cheap and meaningless.
Now you're judging God. God, who said that what He wants is our repentence. God, who absolutely does forgive when we repent wholeheartedly. God, who demonstrated this over and over in the desert, or I wouldn't be here to argue with you, and you wouldn't have anything to argue about.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Nor, sadly, do you seem to comprehend what it means for the Messiah to be King of Israel.
Arrogant. Misplaced arrogance. Almost clownish in its detachment from reality. Just... wow.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I must challenge you directly on this point: you do not know who Israel is. You think you do, but you do not. You cannot see beyond race and tribe and traditional creed.
First time we argued, Ron, was, if I'm not mistaken, over on Ornery. And ornery is exactly what you got when I pointed out to you that God gave the Sabbath to us, and not to you. Jealousy is ugly, Ron. Covetousness is shameful. Live with it. "It is an eternal sign between Me and the Children of Israel." You don't like that, so you try and redefine what Israel is. It's pathetic.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You seem to think it is within the capacity of mere humans to do and think righteousnessly, that we can repent on our own power, and that makes everything right;
It's not me thinking that, Ron. It's God who said it. Don't let your passion for your religion lead you into rebellion against your Creator.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: and that we can then live perfect and sinless lives if we so choose.
No one is perfect. You need to get over these extreme ideas of yours and rejoin the rest of humanity. When I walk, I sometimes trip. And then I pick myself up and keep walking. Only an infant or a toddler stays down and cries until his mother comes to pick him up. Your view is infantile in exactly that way. God wants us to do our best. And to repent when we fall short. God isn't the kind of parent who infantilizes his children by telling them they can't do anything without him. He's a good parent, who demands that we stand on our own two legs and make Him proud of us. And of ourselves.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You may quote texts about having clean hands and pure hearts. But what do you do with Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Or with Isaiah 64:6: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." It was a holy prophet of Israel who said that.
Indeed it was. And to someone who requires that we be either perfect or dirt, that's got to be really disturbing. Happily, God doesn't require that we be either perfect or dirt. He gave us the ability to choose, and He is always there to accept repentence. Isaiah was speaking to us when he said that, and not to the human condition. He was talking in a specific historical situation, but with a message that was intended to be relevant for all generations.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If God is willing to make you perfect now, then show it to us.
Good God. You know what you call someone who demands perfection? "Disappointed".
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I say that God only purposes to perfect our faith in Him at this time, for He alone is righteous.
He alone is perfectly righteous. That's correct. We are not. Nor were Adam and Eve. We strive for it, and that's what God wants.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: He is righteousness Personified. So if you do not count faith in Him as the main thing, then how much like Him are you in yourself?
...the hell? You're mixing up righteousness and faith. They aren't even remotely the same thing.
When we choose the good, we are that much more like God. When we choose the evil, we are that much more unlike Him.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Suppose in the final moments of his life Adolf Hitler had said, "Oops, sorry about all that God. Guess I was wrong about a few things." Then suppose God said, "That's all right, I forgive you. Forget about it. I have."
The rabbis say: "There are those who earn their reward in a single hour, and there are those who lose their reward in a single hour." Don't you dare try your emotional blackmail tactics on me by trying to put me in a situation you think I won't be able to be consistent. Hell yes, Hitler could have repented. And it would have done much. It wouldn't have been "forget it", but it would have been something.
Here are the laws of repentence, as formulated by Moses Maimonides. Needless to say (though maybe it's not needless here), he didn't come up with any of the material here -- he codified the laws that already existed.
Note 1:4
quote:Even though repentance atones for all transgressions, as does the very aspect of the Day of Atonement, there are nevertheless some sins which are not atoned for immediately upon repentance, and there are some which are atoned only after some interval [after repentance]. If, for example, one had transgressed a positive commandment which does not carry a penalty of excision and one then repented, one is not atoned until one has been forgiven,, for it is written, "Return, faithless children, and I will restore your decline". If, for example, one had transgressed a negative commandment which does not carry a penalty of excision or death and one then repented, then one's repentance is held in suspense, and the Day of Atonement completes the atonement, for it is written, "For on that day He will forgive you"6. If, for example, one had transgressed a commandment which carries a penalty of excision or death and one then repented, then one's repentance and the atonement of the Day of Atonement are held in suspense, and one's death completes the atonement.
Yes, even Hitler could have atoned. Don't think you're above God, able to judge the capacity of His mercy.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Does this really meet your mind as being divinely just? Does this adequately deal with the seriousness of sin and evil? Does this not cheapen the forgiveness of God to something arbitrary and meaningless, as if God Himself has embraced evil, making no real difference between good and evil?
Yes, yes, no. In that order.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, your philosophy of religion is way too shallow. You are not thinking deeply enough about the things that really and truly matter.
You aren't judging me when you say these things, Ron. You're judging your Maker. All of this is what God has to say on the matter. You may want it to be otherwise, but I'm not shallow -- I'm educated in God's Torah. What matters is what God says matters; not what you want to matter.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your tribe or race and its self-serving creed as you interpret them have little value and nothing to offer to the rest of us. At least we Christians try to address these ultimate universal concerns. You only duck them.
You and yours have been using your idea of "imperfection = trash" for centuries to keep people in the dirt. "You're worthless and weak! You deserve nothing! You are nothing! Give over your will and your mind to God, you pathetic worm, and only then will you become worthwhile, though through no merit of your own!" It's sick. Contemptible, really. A parent acting that way should lose his children.
quote:Another thought not related to the other one. Many people think that the earth cannot be only 6000 years old because of fossils and bones. But this is easily explained in that God created the earth out of matter unorganized.
That makes no sense. Rephrase.
I think this is an allusion to the idea that perhaps the fossils were already afloat in a sea of unorganized debris from which the earth was created. I've heard the idea so expressed anyway. I have some serious issues with this as an answer to Biblical literalism, though.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Repentence is more than mere regret.
True words. Repentence is made up of 4 pieces:
Regretting the misdeed.
Confessing the sin aloud to God.
Making amends to the extent possible.
Committing not to do it again.
Maybe that's the source of your outrage. You see repentence as nothing but regret. That's a mistake.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Just checking...I don't need to throw in my usual, "the views of any particular Christian don't represent the views of all Christians" disclaimer. Right?
I myself find some of the views expressed here, pretty "out there" and I would guess that Ron would feel the same way about mine.
I definitely get it, Kate. Believe me, I don't see Ron as representing anyone but Ron.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another thought not related to the other one. Many people think that the earth cannot be only 6000 years old because of fossils and bones. But this is easily explained in that God created the earth out of matter unorganized.
That makes no sense. Rephrase.
He might be suggesting that the earth was assembled from elements that have always existed or were converted into their present form billions of years ago, and it was only 6000 years ago that God assembled these elements together to form the earth. But thats my guess.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's just too easy to smash religious beliefs, and to see a person of one faith do it to a person of another is, especially for an atheist, pretty freaking depressing... heh.
Yeah... while we're at it, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, anyway?
That's actually not such a big deal. Take the area of the head of a pin, divide it by the average area of an angel, and you have your answer.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Lisa, not to get into an argument or anything, but the flood story in Gilgamesh is not meant to be just a local Mesopotamian flood... the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians believed that the entire earth was flooded. Since the earliest tablets containing the Uta-Napishti flood story (the one we read of in Gilgamesh) predate any extant copies of Genesis, and since the similarities between the Hebrew tale and the Babylonian are legion and not credibly a result of chance, the more defensible scholarly position is that Hebrews picked up the Babylonian story, changed the names and some details, and incorporated the myth into their religion.
David, In early discussions Lisa has made it clear that she believes that the 5 books of Moses were dictated to Moses by God letter for letter and that this has been preserved without error to this day. Given this position, you are wasting your time.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Lisa, not to get into an argument or anything, but the flood story in Gilgamesh is not meant to be just a local Mesopotamian flood... the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians believed that the entire earth was flooded. Since the earliest tablets containing the Uta-Napishti flood story (the one we read of in Gilgamesh) predate any extant copies of Genesis, and since the similarities between the Hebrew tale and the Babylonian are legion and not credibly a result of chance, the more defensible scholarly position is that Hebrews picked up the Babylonian story, changed the names and some details, and incorporated the myth into their religion.
They may predate extant copies of Genesis (but then, so does Plato), but they were still just folklore, written down casually. Our version was given to us by God. We didn't copy anything from anyone, "defensible scholarly position" or not.
[Edit: Or what Rabbit said.]
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, During at the first century after Christ, the majority of Christians came from the Jewish tradition. The authors of the books in the Christian New Testiment were all Jewish. There is substantial historic evidence suggesting that in the first century AD, there was substantial disagreement among Jews over whether Jesus was the Messiah. These disagreements lead to a split in the Jewish religion. Those who rejected the possibility that Jesus could be the Messiah, became modern Judaism. Those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, became known as Christians.
While I know from previous discussions that you reject this historical view, there is substantial evidence to support its validity. While I do not expect you to accept this view of history as true, given that it is the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity, it is hardly fair for you to take such strong offense against those who espouse it.
Your disrespect for Christianity and those who view themselves as part of a Judaeo-Christian tradition may be acceptable in some circles. But at Hatrack we have signed an agreement to treat each others views with respect. If you can not do that, then you should refrain from responding to Christians who don't agree with your interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures.
The disrespect you have shown to Christians at this site reflects poorly not only on you but also on your faith. I guess we are lucky here at Hatrack that you are not the only observant Jew who participates and your intolerant and bigoted views are balanced by others who are able to show respect to those who do not share their religious views.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Just checking...I don't need to throw in my usual, "the views of any particular Christian don't represent the views of all Christians" disclaimer. Right?
I myself find some of the views expressed here, pretty "out there" and I would guess that Ron would feel the same way about mine.
I definitely get it, Kate. Believe me, I don't see Ron as representing anyone but Ron.
Thanks, I appreciate that. It worries me that some of that could be considered representative of all Christian belief.
I liked what you said about repentance. And, for what it is worth, I think you are right about this as well:
quote: What is with people like you, insisting that people are born (or created) either good or evil. We're not. God created us with free will and the ability to choose good or evil.
I would say that we are created good (or potentially good) and it is God's will that we choose good, but that we are free to choose evil. I think that freedom is somewhat constrained? tainted? not by God, but by circumstance. For example, someone who has never known good is going to have a harder time choosing good. So our choices effect more than just ourselves.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: Ill be honest I have found Lisa to be quite capable of respectful discourse. I find it perfectly understandable that Ron's quite condescending words irk Lisa. We have at least one thread that I started where I asked alot of questions about Judaism and Lisa, Rivka, and several others were quite gracious in their responses. Sure there was some friction as the motives of some of the posters was in question, but overall I think it was a successful thread that I could revive at any time and have full confidence that our Jewish hatrackers would be happy to continue contributing in.
I also understand the points Ron is trying to make, but at the same time I can't help but feel that the way he asks them is in the vein of,
"I am right, and I see no reason why you might seriously consider a different conclusion then mine. If you are, it must be because you are being intentionally obtuse."
Ron has not outright said that in those words, but even I get that vibe when reading it.
Lisa is by no means the champion of Jewish thought, but she does know alot, and though she can be driven to pretty heated words, I think she does make a concerted effort to treat Christianity with kid gloves even though at least according to her beliefs Christianity is a heresy.
I am pretty loathe to hit "Add Reply" I really don't like posting on the character and intentions of other hatrackers as I don't consider myself a judge of others characters, but I don't think the rebuke in this instance was warranted.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They may predate extant copies of Genesis (but then, so does Plato), but they were still just folklore, written down casually. Our version was given to us by God. We didn't copy anything from anyone, "defensible scholarly position" or not.
.
How do you know this? The earliest Masoretic text is from the 10th century CE, and the Septuagaint from the 3rd century BCE. The documentary hypothesis, which most impartial scholars embrace in one form or another, would fix the earliest fixing of Hebrew oral tradition in writing at some point between the 10th and 8th centuries BCE, long after Moses hypothetically led the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage.
I know that within Jewish scholarship there is a long tradition of Moses's having written the Torah, but it's merely that: tradition. The Torah ITSELF doesn't even claim that authorship. Until we find ancient texts in hieretic or something that are word-for-word the same as the MT, I'll mentally ammend "our version was given to us by God" so it reads "I BELIEVE our version was given to us by GOD." And so on.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Lisa, During at the first century after Christ, the majority of Christians came from the Jewish tradition. The authors of the books in the Christian New Testiment were all Jewish.
Luke was Jewish? Wow, I just learned something new. You don't mind if I check on that, do you?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There is substantial historic evidence suggesting that in the first century AD, there was substantial disagreement among Jews over whether Jesus was the Messiah.
No, there isn't. There was a group of Jews who thought that, but they were hardly substantial. The movement didn't really take off until two things happened. The first was that this group itself split over how to deal with non-Jews. The group that wanted to become a non-Jewish religion grew a lot faster, because pagans were much more willing to accept ideas such as a god being killed and rising than Jews were.
The second thing was the Bar Kochba revolt. The leading Sage of all Israel, Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef, made public his view that Bar Kochba was the Messiah. Of course, when Bar Kochba died, he changed his mind. But this revolt took place all over the Roman Empire. It was huge. So huge that the Romans fairly wrecked 3 legions putting it down. The Jewish Christians found themselves in crisis. They simply could not maintain their belief that JC was the Messiah and also fight with their brethren under the leadership of someone touted as the Messiah. So they split again. Those who chose JC went with the pagan Christians, and those who chose their fellow Jews didn't.
That's where the final break came.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: These disagreements lead to a split in the Jewish religion. Those who rejected the possibility that Jesus could be the Messiah, became modern Judaism. Those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, became known as Christians.
You may like the view that Judaism and Christianity are parallel branches of a previous religion, but it's not so. Judaism is, and was, the Torah God gave us at Sinai. Christianity broke off. I highly doubt you'll even find many Christians who will deny that.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: While I know from previous discussions that you reject this historical view, there is substantial evidence to support its validity.
I disagree. And I won't accept the TOS being interpreted based purely on your ahistorical belief in this view.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: While I do not expect you to accept this view of history as true, given that it is the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity, it is hardly fair for you to take such strong offense against those who espouse it.
Life isn't fair.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Your disrespect for Christianity and those who view themselves as part of a Judaeo-Christian tradition may be acceptable in some circles. But at Hatrack we have signed an agreement to treat each others views with respect.
Rabbit, not all Christians spend their time preaching the way Ron does, speaking falsely about my religion. I consider what he's doing to be offensive. It could, in fact, be seen as a violation of the TOS, if I were so petty as to invoke that. I don't invoke it, because I'm more than able to comfortably refute him.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you can not do that, then you should refrain from responding to Christians who don't agree with your interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures.
I appreciate your opinion. I'll keep it in mind.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thanks, I appreciate that. It worries me that some of that could be considered representative of all Christian belief.
It's actually very relieving to know that it's not. And I thank you for letting me see that.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I liked what you said about repentance. And, for what it is worth, I think you are right about this as well:
quote: What is with people like you, insisting that people are born (or created) either good or evil. We're not. God created us with free will and the ability to choose good or evil.
I would say that we are created good (or potentially good) and it is God's will that we choose good, but that we are free to choose evil. I think that freedom is somewhat constrained? tainted? not by God, but by circumstance. For example, someone who has never known good is going to have a harder time choosing good. So our choices effect more than just ourselves.
<nod> But ultimately, despite such factors, we still have the choice. A kid from a high crime, gang ridden neighborhood can still rise above it, and a kid from a "good upbringing" can still go bad.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
