Subscribe to Israpundit Daily
Digest
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
@ yamit82:
So?
None of this — not a word of it — contradicts anything that I’ve said.
Nor do I see any reason to challenge any of those five assertions.
The point, then?
“Evil Inclinations”? — and from whence might those have come?
Identify, if you will, the “means with which to overcome” them.
Also, please, the MANNER in which He imparts to us those “means.”
Yes, those were my words. You neglected to blockquote them, so I just did. But why did you cite them anyway?
Yes, but only if you can establish that the Jewish Scriptures as received today are the identical Jewish Scriptures on which the Xtn Scriptures were purported to have been based at the time the latter were being written.
And I’m not sure you can so establish.
Remember that the TaNaKh was not complete when the NT began to be written, or even when the last of the Xtn Scriptures were written [ca AD 110].
In the Gospels Jesus refers only to “the Law and the Prophets”; there’s no mention of “the Writings.” The only element of Kh’tuvim that was compiled by that time was, I think, Psalms and maybe Ruth.
More significant, though, is the fact that the period during which the NT was being written was punctuated — actually “punctured” might be a better term for it — by the destruction of the Temple, which had served as, among other things, the storage receptacle for important records & many vital documents.
I’m not sure we can ASSUME that everything on which the NT asserted its basis would necessarily have survived the traumata & upheaval of the “First Jewish War” intact.
In any case, though, what’s your point? — Why do you raise that question here?
@ yamit82:
The ego, conscious self — which angels have, just as man does — is made b’tzelem elohim, in the image of Him.
Thus the ego is constantly inclined to play at being ‘God.’ That’s why they would want to.
You make the angels out to be automatons. I see no reason to assume that.
Yes, and they perform it whether they choose to or not; even whether they know it consciously or not.
Lots of assertions.
Some of which you’ve already made, several times already.
But no reasoning. Just declarations.
Why do I have to “revise” my understanding — rather than you, yours?
Nu, and he told you this, bli ayin hara?
Yes, and that is Satan’s classic role.
Why? — if he’s not evil, why should he be destroyed?
How is that just?
Gotta go; they’re throwing us outa here. If the thread is still open tomorrow, I’ll continue.
A blessed Yom haAtzma’ut.
@ yamit82:
Ok, here’s the rest of #36 — in re your R’ Singer “footnotes” in #27.
In other words, “Total Depravity” and “Original Sin” are NOT synonymous.
The mere fact that Xty derives the former from the latter does not — of itself — mean that the PROBLEMS attached to the former ALSO derive from the latter.
That is, I see no reason to conclude that a true understanding of Original Sin requires acceptance of Total Depravity/Absolute Inability.
Again, as in the case of Original Sin, the doctrine of Unconditional Election — as well as its mother, Predestination — was Jewish before it was ‘Christian,’ though neither proposition may have been given that name (or any name) till Augustine.
— Classification & categorization of doctrines, dogmas, sins, virtues, vices, etc, seems to be a practice that didn’t come into vogue until the scriptures were introduced to the gentiles. But this does not necessarily mean that the actual concepts & precepts thereby identified were themselves alien to B’nai Yisrael.
Strictly speaking, it merely means that before He created the world He elected to use some people in some way or another — how to use them is another question.
The choosing of the Jewish People is an example of Unconditional Election.
Making Am Segula eternal is another example.
So is the choosing of the enemies of Israel.
Interpreted that way, it certainly IS difficult to imagine a doctrine more alien & hostile to the teachings of the prophets.
But Tuvia Singer is no closer to grasping the reality than the contemporary traditional Xtn Church is.
Predestination is grounded in God’s foreknowledge.
True divine omniscience assures that He knows beforehand how each soul will respond one way or another to the events of life — and based on that foreknowledge, and in keeping with His purposes, He decides which soul to put into which body, and under what circumstances, before each given life is conceived.
But if this post of yours [#27] is supposed to be a discussion of what’s wrong with, or ‘unJewish’ about, the doctrine of Original Sin specifically, then it’s really off-point, Yamit — because neither Unconditional Election nor Predestination is conceptually connected with Original Sin; they aren’t even derivative thereof — as Total Depravity (albeit in a perverse way) can be said to be.
@ Catarin:
Irrelevant. If the child had just been born twenty minutes earlier, would you say the same thing, to justify snuffing out her/his life?
— inside or outside of the woman’s body, it is the same child,
just as innocent, just as vulnerable.
If the mother’s OWN life is not directly & imminently endangered by continuation of the pregnancy, then there is no excuse — none whatsoever — to abort the pregnancy.
— If the mother’s life were endangered by continuation of the pregnancy, and there were no less drastic means of saving her life than by ending the pregnancy, then it would NOT be a matter of ‘permitting’ an abortion; I would insist on it.
The mother’s life must be preserved, if it can be; that shouldn’t even be HER ‘choice’ to make.
— Under those circumstances, it’s the community’s DUTY to save her life, regardless of what she may or may not want.
But that’s not the way you’re talking.
You have the idea that “Choice” is supreme, that “Choice” is absolute, that “Choice” is ‘God.’
You’ve bought into the sick notion that — WHATEVER “the circumstances of the woman’s situation” — if she wants to abort, for whatever reason, that that’s cool, because the ultimate value of the unborn baby’s life is entirely & exclusively conditional upon the mother’s intentions.
Well it isn’t cool.
Fetal homicide — like infantile homicide, like adult homicide, like geriatric homicide — is murder, and it has the same stink as all the others.
Why not let G-d handle the aftermath of
— some guy’s decision to commit forcible rape?
After all, “you don’t know the circumstances of the
woman’sMAN’s situation”; maybe the poor boy can’t get it up unless the woman is terrified, maybe he’s excited by a good fight — look at it from HIS p.o.v. . . .Let God sort it all out afterward, right?
Why should your evil wishes affect me?
If you wish retroactive prenatal murder upon me (or upon anyone else), Catarin, it is your OWN soul that you stain with that maliciousness — not mine.
@ yamit82:
Montgomery-Ward’s catalog?
You really don’t know the ‘source’? — maybe the source is the SAME source as this one (since it’s essentially a restatement of it, slightly fleshed out):
REPEATING an untruth does not make it ‘more true’ than it was the first time you stated it. So I give you the same reply as before: In your brand of ‘Judaism,’ there aint none.
The original meaning of “Original Sin” — which long preceded Augustine (actually it long preceded Christ, as well) — was not morbidly wrapped up in notions of ‘depravity.’
Again, this is conceptually flawed. The futility in ‘attaining’ salvation is the consequence of the finite ego’s attempt to make itself infinite.
Yes, but until you’ve defined “sin” in this context, the conclusion will inevitably be misleading.
Sin, in this context, is not merely the violation of one or another of the 613.
This assertion is actually true, but its Xtn proponents have no more idea of what it means than YOU, who reject it, do; without a clear definition of SIN (as indicated just above), it can’t make any sense.
Not so. Original Sin, properly understood does NOT preclude repentance. It simply recognizes that it is not the ego that repents; the most that the individual ego can do is “to be repented,” as it were. I know the grammar & diction sucks, but it’s important to understand that repentance is not something you can give yourself.
Repentance — true repentance — is given to you to fill the vacuum created by your desire, your yearning for righteousness.
They’re closing the library; it’s the witching hour (uh, so to speak), so I’ll have to find another time to finish this discussion (assuming Ted hasn’t cut the thread by the time I get back to it).
@ yamit82:
Hi, Yamit.
My wife and I are back from our anniversary vacation. The last I posted, I said I wouldn’t be in touch for a few days. That’s why. You didn’t respond to my last post; but I can see this board is already getting filled with discussions — theological ones, by the looks of it.
If you want to respond, fine. If not, that’s OK too. I was bouncing ideas back and forth with you about Jeremy Gimpel’s remarks in the video. My last comment detailed the fact that the “Christian Nation” meets all the same criteria as the “Jewish Nation”. I also stated that both stemmed from the same place, time and historical and religious background.
I have not stopped looking into this matter. Gimpel was saying that the reconstitution of the Jewish state, after about 2000 years, was, in Gimpel’s estimation, extraordinary and perhaps miraculous. I have been contending that from the standpoint of an ancient culture surviving into the 21st century, it was unique. You have heard my arguments on that matter. On further investigation, I HAVE found something that seems unique about the return of the Jews to Israel: It is that they have revived their ancient language, after thousands of years of non-use. Another unusual thing they have done, is return en masse to their ancient homeland, which they had largely deserted for thousands of years.
I wish Gimpel had confined himself to pointing out these irrefutable facts, and espanding on them. Instead, he has strayed into questionable territory, as you also have. He might have added that while Israeli Jews were in exile, the Arabs were busy conquering some 20 countries and converting them to the Arab language and religion by the edge of the sword. Any “right” they have to those lands, then, is purely by conquest; so Israel, which owns the original title to the land as well, certainly has a right of conquest to not only conquer their homeland, but to also force the conversion of the inhabitants if they so desire.
@ yamit82:
That’s not the problem, Yamit. If I understood the question, I wouldn’t mind attempting an answer, trick question or no. But I truly don’t understand it.
If getting an answer from me is important to you, then you’ll have to re-phrase your question for me — to put us both on the same page.
Couch it in your own words & I’ll give you a reply, if I can.
That’s my best offer.
That’s the most abstract statement I’ve heard from you in a cat’s age. What the Sam Hill does it mean? — can you state the matter a bit more concretely?
What is given
— can be given up.
And unfreedom cannot thereafter render itself free.
Only what is already free
— can give the gift of freedom.
No man has within himself the power to make himself just.
Hasn’t the power,
hasn’t the authority,
hasn’t the understanding.
He can only desire it, yearn for it above all else.
But he can’t ‘give’ it to himself.
Blessed are they that hunger & thirst after righteousness
— for they shall be filled.
That too is an assumption.
It will always be a mystery why one man is ‘visited’ with the fear of God — and another, not.
Was it not God himself who put that bug in the one man’s head in the first place?
And if so, why him — and not the other?
@ yamit82:
Maybe so, maybe no.
In any event, however, supremely irrelevant to our discourse
— inasmuch as YoursEverTruly has posited NO ‘Dualist’ perspective on the matter of Satan.
@ yamit82:
Shit or get off the pot, boychik’l.
You’re gonna hafta either shit or get off the pot, boychik’l.
I actually DID read several of the entries — not all.
Most were interesting.
None were on-point.
If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a dozen times: my time is limited.
And when I saw nothing up to that juncture (after reading those several entries) which seemed relevant to our point-of-departure — i.e., that “there’s no reason to suspect that [Cayin’s offering] was seen as insincere because it was agricultural” — I came back to my post & told you to get specific with your point & quit sending me out on these time-consuming fishing expeditions.
And I’m STILL waiting for you to make your point. If it’s as significant as you imply, then make it — here, now, in print, and in your own words; and show how it’s relevant specifically to my original comment that the gift’s rejection as insincere had nothing to do with the mere fact that it was agricultural.
And after 300 BC, He stopped? — Farmed it out? — what are you trying to say?
And why do you bring that up at this point?
That’s an assumption, based on commentary that you’ve accepted. I’ve seen it before.
Unlike yourself, however, I don’t swallow such things whole; instead I placed it on a back-burner — placed it on hold — as inconclusive.
The Job & Garden stories surely HAVE allegorical value, but for you to confine them to that is to make an assumption I’m not prepared to make. I maintain the discipline of an open mind.
What we have of it doesn’t, no. Doesn’t rule it out either.
APPEARS to make no comment at all
— although, like several of the vignettes in the first few chaps of B’reisheet, the Garden affair seems strangely disjointed, separated from the other vignettes. . . . as if there might have once been transitions of some sort connecting up the narrative.
@ dweller:
“The Maharal points to an even more perplexing problem. A close examination of the passage reveals that the idea of bringing the sacrifice to God originated with Cain, not Abel. We are informed that Cain brought an offering and Abel ‘also’ brought one.
The very name for Abel in Hebrew comes from the word Hevel, which literally means “air” or “nothing.” In comparison with Cain, who was an original thinker, Abel was a lightweight. In fact while God accepted Abel’s offering [a fire came down from heaven and consumed Abel’s sheep on the altar] it was to Cain rather than Abel that God chose to speak. It was he who was the prophet (a person to whom God speaks).
How then can we understand Cain? Why bring a sacrifice in the first place unless you intend to offer your best? If you are not prepared to bring something of value, who asked you to bring one in the first place? Why go out of your way to insult God?
Although puzzling at first glance, a moment’s reflection is adequate to cast Cain’s actions in a perfectly reasonable light. After all, what is the purpose of offering God a sacrifice? He clearly doesn’t need the gift. The sacrifice obviously expresses man’s gratitude to God for all the bounty He has received, as well as providing symbolic acknowledgement of God as the creator and the source of all bounty. It isn’t the gift that is significant, but the symbolic act of acknowledgement.
ndeed, one could even argue that to offer something really expensive smacks of presumption. God clearly doesn’t need man’s puny gift. Thinking all this out, Cain decided to bring an offering, but deliberately chose something insignificant so that no one could possibly think that he was so presumptuous as to think that God actually needed his present.
Abel, who was merely following Cain’s lead, and didn’t think the matter through as thoroughly, obviously reasoned that if offering sacrifices was a good thing, than the better the gift the more worthy the sacrifice. Surely, it was Abel who misunderstood. Why did God then reject Cain’s sacrifice?
The answer to this question is fundamental to understanding Divine service. The discovery of Cain’s mistake will also explain why we modern people can’t relate to the Book of Leviticus.
Cain did the sensible thing if we assume that the object of bringing sacrifices to God is contained in the offering itself. In terms of giving God gifts, Cain was certainly correct. Surely the less the better is the correct maxim.
But if the point of presenting offerings to God is not in the gifts, but rather the offering of oneself to God through the medium of the gifts, you have to do what Abel did, and offer something that is meaningful to yourself. You cannot sacrifice the self without engaging in an act that requires self-sacrifice.
Thus the first conclusion — the idea of offerings to God is sacrificing yourself to God.” Read the whole article
“Man has now become like one of us in knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:22). We see from this that man knows the difference between good and evil.
First of all you don’t understand the scripture. 2ndly In Judaism, the concept of G-d is limited: He is the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – that is the limit. More than that is metaphysics, philosophy. Our nation has a G-d who is limited, racially and historically. This anti-metaphysical base is central to Judaism.
Without evil there cannot be righteousness is a Jewish concept based on the allegory of Eden. The Jewish perspective on good and evil is different from the Christian perspective in a number of ways, which I’ll summarize. Contrary to the Christian interpretation, Adam and Eve’s taking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is not intended to suggest that mankind is inherently sinful, wicked, or damned. The difference between good acts, evil acts, and neutral acts is dependent on one’s relation to G-d. The Talmud speaks of yetzer ha-tov (the inclination toward good) and yetzer ha-ra (inclination toward “bad”) as inherent qualities in human choice. Inclination toward “bad” is not bad in and of itself – it’s somewhat analogous to Freud’s idea of the id. Without the inclination toward “bad” (or basic self-interest), we would not feel compelled to eat, drink, build, create, work, or engage in sex. The defining characteristic of acts inclined toward evil is that without control of one’s urges and appetites (through knowledge and adherence to G-d’s will), one can easily cross over from what is good (self-preservation, self-care and basic happiness) to what is evil (gluttony, greed, pride, promiscuity, envy, etc.) Inclination toward good is the characteristic of works done in accordance with Gd’s will, that bring one in a closer relationship to G-d.
The very fact that Hashem has given us a Torah at all leads us to the inescapable conclusion that we have free will. What logic would there be in the Torah commanding us to do good and desist from evil, if any act we did was out of compulsion? How could the Torah promise us reward or punishment for acts that we are predestined to do? The Torah gives us 613 Commandments and tells us to do good and not to do evil. This means that it is within our power to do either type of act. The Prophets throughout Jewish history exhorted Israel to mend their ways, to do good, to improve, to repent. How can Israel be so directed if it is not in their power?
The Torah tells us that even though we have the ability to do evil, we should not do evil. We should do good. The Torah tells us we have the ability to do good, with G-d’s help.
This does not mean, by the way, that we have the ability and power to do anything we want. Nor does it mean that G-d lets us do every sin we want to do, or every good deed. Sometimes we are prevented from doing the actual act. Yet we have the ability to choose which we will attempt to do.
Who can assure that their hearts will remain this way, that they will remain in such awe of me? If they did, they would keep my Commandments for all time, and all would go well with them and their children forever.
— Deut. 5:26-27
In this verse, G-d is telling Moses, “I wish they would always fear Me as they do today, and then they would obey Me, and then everything would always be good for them. But there is no guarantee that they will continue to fear me and continue to do only good things.”
This verse alone proves that G-d has given humanity free will. If G-d has pre-ordained who shall be righteous and who shall be wicked, who shall obey and who shall disobey, then why did G-d tell Moses that there is no guarantee that Israel will continue to obey? Let G-d simply ordain that Israel obey! Instead, G-d says that there is no guarantee they will obey, because sin is tempting, but if they obey G-d it will be good for them.
@ dweller:
Why would they want to? They were like man created for a purpose. What ever their purpose that’s what they do and that’s who they are. Unlike man they cannot rise above their nature, The truth is that Satan has a job to do, just like every other angel. And angels have no free will. They do as Hashem commands them. What would be your purpose in this world, if you had no Evil Inclination? Your purpose in life is to overcome your personal Evil Inclination. That is what you were created for! Hashem has enough angels in heaven. He doesn’t need one more. He created you human, so that you could improve yourself.
You have to revise your understanding of Satan. Satan is not a fallen angel. Satan is merely an angel with a dirty job. Satan does not have a rival kingdom. Satan is not in competition with G-d, and Satan does not want followers or worshipers. He’s not even happy when people obey him and sin.
Satan is the angel who tempts us, and the angel who prosecutes us in Heaven. He is also the Angel of Death. The angel who tries to make us sin is the same angel who accuses us in the Heavenly Court, and the same angel who carries out the death sentence.
The snake in the Garden of Eden was not Satan either, though confused Christians think it was. The snake had his own motivations, which I will not go into now. He was what the Torah calls a “Seducer,” someone who, for whatever reason, tries to get other people to sin.
None of us are capable of destroying Satan. What we are expected and commanded to do is to gain the upper hand over our personal Satans. And Hashem helps us do this, constantly. The Talmud says that the Evil Inclination constantly attempts to destroy us spiritually, and Hashem constantly helps us and gives us the means with which to overcome our Evil Inclinations.
At the end of history the work and purpose of Satan will be finished and he will be destroyed. THIS IS WHAT JEWS BELIEVE.
“Satan obediently follows his Creator’s instructions.”
He does so NOW, and for the time being — but not necessarily because that is his desire to obey.
He stands condemned for his pre-earthly rebellion, and will eventually be destroyed for it.
He receives a temporary respite from that sentence, however (he COULD have been destroyed instantly when he rebelled) — because it suits God’s purposes to keep him alive as a servant to test & temper Man. The Book of Job simply shows you some of the parameters of the “leash” which the Most High maintains on this adversarial servant.
postulate
“THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES CAN BE TRUE AND THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES FALSE BUT THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES CANNOT BE FALSE AND THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES TRUE.
OOPs last comment in moderation.
@ dweller:
Don’t know what the source of such an un biblical concept is but it is NOT based on Jewish concepts and theology and is antithetical; and must be something your own out of the box mind conjured. If it is a Christian idea pls state so with source.
Original sin in Judaism. There ain’t none”
@ dweller:
It’s not a trick question. Your answer yes or no goes the the very heart of what you believe, unadorned and without the Bull.
First let’s explore the concept of free will: according to the Jewish worldview, nothing abstract exists.
@ dweller:
The origin of the Satan concept and the theology of Dualism in all probabilty was influenced and taken from Zoroastrianism:
Development of the Concept of Satan prior to 300 BCE in Ancient Iran:
Historians have traced the foundations for the concept of Satan to the Indo-European invasion circa 2000 BCE. This migration of what are now called the Kurgan people, emigrated from what is now southern Russia into the Near East, Middle East and Europe. They were polytheists, and worshiped at least one Mother Goddess and one male God. Their religious beliefs were based on the Hindu sacred writings of the Vedas. Those who settled in western Europe became the Celtic people with their religion of Druidism and perhaps what is now called Wicca. Those Kurgans who settled in the Middle East developed religious belief along different lines. They developed the twin concepts of salvation and damnation after death. Upon dying, they believed that soul of the deceased must pass over a narrow bridge on horseback. It was called the “Bridge of the Petitioner.” Rashu, a god, judged each soul and decides who is sufficiently righteous to cross the bridge and who will fall into a type of Hell with “flames and terrible smells.” 1 Once salvation and Heaven, (and damnation and Hell) were created, then the stage was set for the next logical concept: that of a Devil.
Zoroaster (a.k.a. Zarathrustra, Zarthosht) is believed by some to have lived circa 628 to 551 BCE. He was a Persian prophet in what is now Iran. Like Jesus, he was recorded as having been tempted by Satan; he performed many miracles and healings and was considered a supernatural being by his followers. He introduced a major spiritual reform and created what is generally regarded as the first established monotheistic religion in the world. He rejected the worship of the established trinity of Varuna, Mithra and Indra. The new religion, to be called Zoroastrianism, involved the worship of a single male god, Ahura Mazda, the “sovereign, lawmaker, supreme judge, master of day and night, the center of nature and inventor of moral law.” He created the heavens and the earth. In short, he had all of the attributes attributed to Jehovah by the ancient Israelites, but with a different name. Zoroaster also recognized Ahura Mazda’s twin brother: Angra Manyu, (a.k.a. Ahriman) the God of Evil. The only things that he created were snakes, demons, and all of the world’s evil. 2 The old gods of the previous polytheistic religion became the demons of the new faith. Thus, Ahriman became the first Devil that the world has seen, and his assistants became the first cohort of demons under the control of a all-evil deity
Zoroaster taught that Ahura Mazda and Ahriman would continually battle each other until the God of Evil is finally defeated. At this time, the dead will be resurrected, a Last Judgement will divide all the people that have ever lived into two groups; the bad go to Hell for all eternity; the good go to Paradise. As author Gerald. Messandé so eloquently wrote: “The framework of the three monotheisms [Judaism, Christianity, Islam] had been erected. The Devil’s birth certificate was filled out by an Iranian prophet.”
@ dweller:
Your comment indicates that you didn’t read it otherwise your comment would have been different. I don’t say you would agree with the essay but it is disingenuous and arrogant to knock what you haven’t read.
Because you indicated the converse by intimation. Until about 300 BCE it was always Hashem who did the messengering and the one who meted out punishments. Book of Job is allegorical as a teaching tool nothing more or less. The story of Adam likewise but if you are saying that the serpent was Satan that is your and Christianity interpretation not Judaisms. The Torah does not ascribe the serpent to Satan and it was punished for it’s perfidy as were the two stars of the script.
@ CuriousAmerican:
He’s been known to indulge us from time-to-time, as long as the rough-&-tumble of it doesn’t turn rude & crude.
In fact, I suspect that you’re somewhat less likely to run into static from citing Christian apologists than from citing chapter-&-verse from the Christian scriptures.
And even then, it’s often a matter of what it all does to the atmosphere. (“Trust your feelings, Luke.”)
@ yamit82:
Unless (for the most part) you’re arguing with me.
@ Catarin:
This is not correct; you are mistaken.
There may well have been some men who regarded their women that way — every good practice is subject to abuse — but that was not the case among most American men.
The truth is that until the mid-twentieth century, the basic unit of society was not the individual — but rather, the nuclear family.
Thus, voting was limited to the adult man — not because he was seen to have greater ‘value’ than the woman, but because families were more cohesive than they are today, and thus a vote by the head of the household was understood to constitute the family’s vote.
In any case, if you think the shrugging off of the proposition that “women are the property of men” necessitates the simultaneous adoption of the notion that the unborn child is the “property of his or her mother” — then I don’t see a qualitative improvement.
If ANYBODY can be made the ‘legal property’ of anybody ELSE
— and therefore subject to cold-blooded murder, and disposal in the garbage bin as “medical waste,” then that’s as “backward” — and barbaric
and heartless
— as anything America has ever seen.
@ CuriousAmerican:
I don’t think he misunderstands it, Curio.
Yamit & I fight like cats & dogs about certain things (in case you haven’t noticed!), including matters theological. But I don’t think he’s wrong about this; I make the same assertion frequently. (Not that this is proof of anything, except — by some accounts — my perversity.)
So say the commentaries; I’ve seen them for years.
But why would the “two natures” be hermetically sealed off from one another? — mutually incommunicado; why?
As I related in an earlier post, we all have both an animal nature and a spiritual one.
Paul notes that they continually war against one another
— they’re both hip to each other’s existence.
Consider the following:
Christ was born amongst the one people of the ancient world which had no provision whatsoever for the proposition that a man could also be ‘God.’
Every other people had some notion of a man-god of one sort or another. A king could be a god. The Emperor could be god (or be declared to be). I think Nero made his horse god. (Of course a man who could have his own children killed has got to be seen as capable of any perversity; but I’m digressing.)
The Jews had NO concept of a man-god — no wall-socket for that plug — and a truckload of history (even by the time of Christ), of rejecting the proposition root-and-branch.
If Christ were, in fact, the divine being you’ve been taught that he was/is, would it not be strange if he didn’t, in fact, go out of his way to make it clear & unambiguous to this, of all peoples?
Surely, among the Jews, a true ‘man-god’ could most definitely not afford to be coy over such a significant matter.
If in fact Christ were both man AND ‘God,’ why would he not have said so, point blank?
Why keep it a secret, or (at best) a guessing game? — What’s the value in that?
Do you not find it odd that no translation of Mark or Matthew is EVER rendered in the way presumed in the link you offerred?
— have YOU ever seen it that way? If so, then I’d be grateful if you’d favor us with a cite of that translation (title, publisher, etc).
@ yamit82:
Knd of like the ducking & covering you gave me with that non-specific hock-a-chinik over Vayikra?
I just agreed with that assertion. Why in blazes do you beat a dead horse?
So? — come to the point.
Says who? — you’ve repeated this twice now, Yamit, but it takes more than an assertion to establish a fact. Who says angels have no free will?
It surely is correct to say that inasmuch as they are part of His creation, there is nothing they can do (or refrain from doing) that will not ultimately work to Hashem’s purposes. Ultimately all things lie in His hands.
But this is a far cry from your assumption that they are effectively ‘incapable of wishing otherwise.’
He does so NOW, and for the time being — but not necessarily because that is his desire to obey.
He stands condemned for his pre-earthly rebellion, and will eventually be destroyed for it.
He receives a temporary respite from that sentence, however (he COULD have been destroyed instantly when he rebelled) — because it suits God’s purposes to keep him alive as a servant to test & temper Man. The Book of Job simply shows you some of the parameters of the “leash” which the Most High maintains on this adversarial servant.
If, instead of stridently repeating this poor poetic imagery, you’ll calmly re-phrase your question — so that my slow-witted & inferior perception can understand what you’re getting at — I’ll try to address it.
Bilge. That hasn’t been the case since Adam, and a notable piece of fruit.
“Free will” is a legal fiction which the courts necessarily, and understandably, rely upon — because without the presumption, the justice system could not function.
From a metaphysical perspective, however, it is manifestly not so.
“So what”? — So that’s evidence that you don’t have a free will; THAT’s what.
If your will had been free, you wouldn’t have acquired bad habits in the first place.
Bad habits are the evidence of compulsion.
A genuinely free will is not compulsive.
“Afraid”? — no fear for my future, if THAT’s what you mean.
‘Fear,’ on the other hand, for my present? — now that might be an interesting discussion (or not).
@ CuriousAmerican:
I do understand Christian doctrines. I can even quote you chapter and verse their sources.
You will see that I hardly ever quote Talmud. I am not a Talmudic scholar and I know you Christians do not credit it with any truth. Most of my references are from our bible or yours.
@ dweller:
🙂 Really? What are you going to do about it?
I think duck and cover describes your responses. You do avoid direct combat by obfuscation and misdirection.
Enough with your crap just answer:
Is G-d in the heart of the devil? Yes or No.
@ yamit82:
Doesn’t ‘help’ a bit.
Quit being cryptic, yahnkele (you’re out of your element when you try to be); I don’t mind your silly condescension, it rolls off me like water off of a duck’s back — but vagueness & imprecision I will not tolerate.
If you have a point to make, then make it — and be concrete & specific about it. I’m on the clock, and have no time — or patience — for fishing expeditions.
No idea what you mean; specify.
I do nothing of the sort.
In that respect, I’m not like any ‘Christian’ you ever met. I read “the Jewish Bible” with the unprejudiced eyes of innocence, uncomplicated by layers of prior commentary — ANYBODY’s commentary.
And I read the NT the same way, uncomplicated by encrusted layers of commentary & tradition — ANYBODY’s commentary & tradition.
And it drives Xtns like our esteemed correspondent, Curio, just as crazy as it does you.
Truth be told, I’m an original— neither fish nor fowl — and invariably that fact leaves all of the paint-by-the-numbers types (of EVERY stripe) gnashing their teeth.
Off-point.
The issue was not the translation of timshal bo. “Conquer,” “rule over,” “dominate” — any of these will suffice. If you re-read my post, you’ll plainly see that my challenge lay elsewhere.
The phrase, as you translated it, which I bolded above was not “conquer” — but, rather, “if you ‘improve’ yourself.” THAT’s what I objected to; and the usual translation is, as I noted above, “if you do well” — i.e., if your gift is accepted, etc.
The matter at issue was whether the verse you cited was, or wasn’t, about ‘improvement.’
I said it wasn’t, and I stand by that.
My point was (and continues to be):
If your will were truly ‘free’ — you would have no “negative habits” to overcome. Think about it. You DO that once in a while, right?
It was Jewish long before there were any ‘brands.’
Long before commentary took the faith by the throat and choked it so it couldn’t breathe.
TBS, that wasn’t the intent of commentary — but it’s obvious from, for example, your persistent inability to think outside the box, that for many, that’s been its effect.
A pity.
“Source”? — I could point to examples which EVIDENCE the faith of the Jewish people. But you make holy faith a matter of academics — and that’s a no-brainer, and a dead one at that.
You misunderstand the quote.
It has to do with his two natures. The human nature (the Son) did not know. The divine nature did.
There is also the matter of translation. The Greek could be construed differently.
http://www.heritagebbc.com/archive1/0008.html (For the argument concerning the Greek)
However, I would probably be wasting my time trying to convince you of Christian doctrine since you have already closed your mind to it.
I could go into Christian writers, but you would only respect Talmudic opinion.
And I am sure Mr. Belman would scotch such a discussion as off-topic.
American women have spent 40 years reversing the backward thinking that we are the property of men. Now it’s back again. It’s like freedom, it has to be fought every day. It’s come down to a woman’s decision on what she wants, her dignity or a husband.
@ dweller:
You still don’t get it, I’m not surprised.
Maybe this will help:
Vayikra(Leviticus 1-5) Right to Life vs. Right Life
You can tie the concepts above in the discussion of abortion in another discussion on this thread.
Gibberish based on ignorance and dogmatism: Learn.
The translation I gave you is correct. As I said you don’t understand scripture at least the true scripture The Tanach. Like all Christians you read the Jewish Bible through the eyes and perspective of the NT. That’s your error. Reverse the process. View the NT from the text and understanding of the Tanach and you should if you can be honest with yourself, reach different conclusions.
Even John Steinbeck’s “East of Eden”: In the passage, two characters are discussing the true ancient Hebrew translation of a verse. The verse in one source started with “Thou can conquer sin”, pronounced “timshal bo”
What brand of Judaism?
Christianity probably ingested the concept from Zoroastrianism. Not Judaism or Jewish concepts and beliefs, If you say they were Jewish name your source.
No angel can act independently of Hashem. They exist to serve the creator and to do his will. Satan has his nature and purpose defined by Hashem just like all the others. Who is Satan?
More Pagan Gibberish? Angels have no free will Man does. Angels cannot do evil they are all Hashems’s creations and servants.
The Jewish Concept of Satan can be Found in “Job”
Read Job:
More inane Gibberish which has no basis in Jewish thought or scripture. Is G-d in the heart of Satan?
Yes or No!!!
All men are free to make a choice.
I have one or two bad habits so what? My choice, my responsibility and any consequences are my own.
It’s not the sin or bad habits that are important it’s in the efforts to correct them that are. We may come up short in our efforts but we are all compelled to keep trying and what is important is the effort not the results.
Are you so afraid of the “Lakes of fire”? 🙂
ishy guy, you are a goon. If brains were gasoline, you wouldn’t have enough to drive a piss-ant’s gocart around the inside of a bagel.
Catarin Said:
What about the fetus’ situation?
Just the facts
G-d commands humanity to not let injustice and cruelty take place when we can prevent it.
Perhaps we should wish that your mother should have fallen out of a skyscraper window while she was carrying you? Idiot.
You don’t know the circumstances of the woman’s situation. Why not let G-d handle the aftermath of her decision. Don’t make me wish your mother would have had an abortion.
It’s the baby’s business.
Unless you’re saying you don’t regard the baby as part of the family
— or maybe even a member of the human species
and entitled thus to the same common decency you claim for yourself?
The baby is innocent — REGARDLESS of what one church or another does or doesn’t do to protect it.
Do you believe that your mother should’ve had a ‘choice’?
Now to the heart of the matter: A woman’s use of contraception ain’t nobody else’ business. A woman having an abortion ain’t nobody else’ business except the woman’s and her family. The Catholic Church uses these rules to keep its thumb on women. Catholics and the Christian Right go way beyond the bounds of decency and normalacy in trying to make women follow their views on conception and abortion. If other religions have these beliefs they don’t try to impose them on outsiders.
What if the Amish population grew to large numbers and decided that no one should have electricity and should live the way they did?
I grew up in a Lutheran Church where no one would ever presume themselves to be so important that they would lay these abominable rules on women. If by chance I get in an email battle with these freaks, I tell them don’t make people wish that their mother would have had an abortion.
@ Catarin:
Why?
Is pregnancy a disease?
Not just the RC Church, but lots of other employers — and not only religious ones — oppose such coverage as a matter of conscience.
Irrelevant. The RCC isn’t organized as a civic democracy. It has a body of core teaching, its magisterium; you either accept it, or you don’t.
If you don’t accept its teaching, then the reasonable thing to do is to leave the institution.
Not remotely as outrageous an insult to women as treating pregnancy as effectively equivalent to encephalitis, melanoma, or diabetes — something to be ‘insured against.’
The offerring was rejected as insincere, yes — but there’s no reason to suspect that it was seen as insincere because it was agricultural.
Don’t know where this “improve yourself” and “forgiven” rendering comes from.
Mechon-mamre offers it thus:
This is not a counsel to ‘improvement’ by personal effort, but simply a means of understanding the connection between MOTIVE and CONSEQUENCE.
No, Yamit, your brand of ‘Judaism’ rejects that ‘concept.’
Christianity may well, perhaps, have confused & confounded the ‘concept’ — but it was Jewish LONG BEFORE it was ‘Christian.’
True enough, but that does not mean he wouldn’t try, or desire, to serve himself.
Yes.
Correction: Angels (the fallen ones) HAD no Satan to tempt them.
That’s why the advent of Moshiakh was necessary.
I told you, Yamit: haNitzri. The “second Adam.”
That’s Jesus to y’all out in Rio Linda; the Nazarene.
A man.
Not a god. Not a demigod. Not an angel.
A man.
A unique man, in certain ways, but a man.
A created being — created special, for a special task.
What man is truly free to make such a choice?
Got any bad habits, Yamit? — any habits that you personally regard as inadvisable, that you’d rather you didn’t have?
— so much for your “free” will.
@ yamit82:
Yes, quite so. I’ve pointed that out in a few dozen posts (or more) all over this site.
Nothing there either to indicate that it doesn’t.
Nor is it clear what is (or isn’t) intended there in the meaning of the term “generation.”
@ dweller:
It does NOT ‘miss’ that point. It rejects it; rejects its fundamental thesis.
Well, so says the standard Christian theory as traditionally asserted since Nicaia.
EVERY man has two natures: an animal nature and a spiritual one. In that respect, Christ was/is not unique. Unique, he IS— but not as to that.
EVERY man does that whenever he does what he knows in his heart is right irrespective of his personal interest.
“Not my will, but THINE be done” may be the words of Jesus — but, again, the attitude is not unique to him.
So says the Baltimore Catechism (among other traditional Xtn creedal claims). But this does not, of itself, make the assertion so; only popular.
In fact, it’s easy to argue that such an assertion (i.e., that accepting Jesus’ ‘atonement’ generates an ‘accreditation of perfection’) has the net effect of skirting the very repentance that Yeshu haNitzri himself insisted was ESSENTIAL. Again, why repent if I’m ‘saved’?
I see no concrete evidence in the Gospels that he ever asserted divinity — and quite a bit of evidence therein to indicate that he most assuredly did not.
He clearly rejects the notion that he is omnipotent, or that he is omniscient, or that he is omnipresent.
@ Ted Belman:
Strange I posted 2 comments and even edited them after posting later they were gone! Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Watch the clip I posted about Lone soldiers
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/45337/comment-page-1#comment-156902
@ dweller:
“The most profound and definitive declaration to be found anywhere in the Hebrew Bible concerning a human being’s relationship to Sin, Redemption and Free Will, the God of Israel explains to Adam’s son Cain (after He has rejected Cain’s agricultural offering as being insincere) that every human being, even after abysmal failure, has been gifted by Him with the ability to triumph anew over temptation by choosing Good over Evil. As the Hebrew Bible relates:”
“And HaShem said to Cain, ‘Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve yourself, Sin rests at the door. Its desire is towards you; yet you can conquer it.’” (Genesis 4:6-7).
Consequently, Judaism rejects the concept of the “Curse of Original Sin”.
Is G-d in the heart of Satan?
In Judaism, Satan is not, as the Christians think, a rebellious angel. How impossible! The angels are spiritual and holy, without any physical or unholy presence, and the presence of Hashem’s holiness permeates them entirely. Angels, unlike humans, are therefore constantly and fully aware of Hashem’s Presence everywhere. Could you stay dry in the ocean? An angel could not stop being holy, and can do no wrong. There is holiness everywhere in Creation, everywhere in the universe, and angels are made of the same thing. An angel could not stop serving G-d even if he tried.
Furthermore, humans have Satan to tempt us. Angels have no Satan to tempt them. Who would be Satan’s Satan? An ultra-Satan?
The Torah states:
“See, I [G-d] have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.” (Deuteronomy 30:15)
When describing G-d’s creation plan, the prophet Isaiah reports that the Almighty created evil in the world:
“I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)
The truth is that Satan has a job to do, just like every other angel. And angels have no free will. They do as Hashem commands them.
Read or Listen:
Who is Satan?
@ CuriousAmerican:
@ dweller:
The New Testament plainly and unqualifiedly says–in the voice of Jesus, no less–that God the Father has unique knowledge vis-a-vis precisely when Jesus will return, that this knowledge is available to no one else. “The Father ALONE” knows; no one else knows (Mt 24:36, cf Mk 13:32). If, as the New Testament plainly and unqualifiedly claims, God the Father’s knowledge is unique here, then necessarily as a biblical matter Jesus cannot be omniscient (nor can the? Holy Spirit be omniscient, for that matter), which, by the apologists’ own standards, means Jesus is not God.
Mark 13:30 “This generation will certainly not pass away until ALL these things have happened.” The word “ALL” implies not just the destruction of the temple but His second coming as well. It seems to me that is what the plain meaning of the text demands. There’s nothing in the words attributed to Jesus in Mark 13 or its parallels that indicates it refers to events that will? occur beyond the generation alive when Jesus is speaking. In verse 30 Jesus unequivocally says “ALL these things” (emphasis mine)–the events he has just listed in the previous verses in Mark 13–will happen before “this generation” passes away.
The Council of Chalcedon said two substances or natures were “coming together to form one person” (the person Jesus), “NOT as parted or separated into two persons.”
Jesus’ failed prophecy in Mark 13:30.
Read: “When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists: A Theoretical Overview”
by Dr. Lorne L. Dawson:
King James 2000 Bible (©2003) Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
</strong
Matthew 23:36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
Matthew 24:34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Mark 14:62-63 Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Luke 9:27 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”
Luke 21:32 “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Rev 22:6,22:12, 22:20…”Yes, I am coming quickly”
Veritas Vos Liberabit