Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Where is your God now?

Where is your God now? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Jun 16, 2010, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm not sure that's exactly my point. The 2nd commandment warns against creating "graven images" which I always take to mean not only those of some other God, but any image which is used to worship. I believe the Bible teaches it's followers to have a personal relationship with their God and not rely on some inanimate object as a point of worship.
Part of the commandment pertains to not worshipping images, stu, but there's much more to the Second Commandment than that. Read the text closely and you'll see part of it, but no translation I know of, even Jewish versions, thoroughly convey the meaning like the original Hebrew.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jun 16, 2010 at 02:28 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Jun 16, 2010, 02:56 PM
 
Don't forget you can't covet your neighbors ox. That's a commandment. So if you have your eye on that special ox, it's off limits!
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Jun 16, 2010, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Uh, no, I beg to differ. I think your understanding of Christian scripture is quite shallow if that's your view of Paul, or else you're purposely being disagreeable with me. I can pick up just about any chapter of any book written by or attributed to Paul and show you how vehemently anti-Torah it is. He didn't just say non-Jews didn't have to become Jews, he said essentially that the Torah was fulfilled by his new god and thereby nullified to all those who have faith in Jesus (including Jewish converts to the Christian movements), whereas Jews who were still under the Torah were just cursed by it in his opinion. Please don't tell me otherwise because I've read those wretched words recently and know what I speak of. You may be able to pull a verse here or there that is more sympathetic to Judaism (perhaps when he was lying to Jews about being a Jew when he really wasn't), but no amount of Christian revisionism can change the plain meaning of those texts - he hated Judaism and had a very vested interest in replacing it with his new religion. Unless, that is, you want to claim that Paul's texts were corrupted by the Church.
Paul's letters (the seven authentic ones) are pretty well intact. Regarding Paul's use of terms like "curse," it's important to remember that some language from those letters doesn't carry the connotations they do now. For instance, some NT letters use the expression "slaves to Christ" as a term for Christians.

More directly, Paul's use of "curse" refers to the fallen state of the world between Eden and the World to Come. The Torah exists as a way to mitigate that "curse" (so says Paul, anyway). So non-Jews adopting the Torah after turning to Christ would be "living under a curse" instead of "being alive in Christ." Paul unusual theology allows him to suggest once baptized, you are already "raised to Life" and in some sense already living in the World to Come, where the curse ceases to exist. Paul thinks that baptized Jews like himself were free of the ritual obligations, but were also free to continue to observe them, but non-Jews were not to adopt the Torah. Really, it's not far from the Jewish attitude against proselytizing.

Some have even contended Paul was a failed convert to Judaism, not a born Jew as most assume, and that since his conversion was insincere he was never a Jew at all. I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that according to his biography he lived in a very Hellenistically assimilated area of Roman-occupied Israel.
No, he was from Tarsus not Israel. And I don't know who those "some" you refer to are.

He may have been of the tribe of Benjamin by lineage, but I think it's entirely possible that his family had left Judaism generations before his time. He could have technically been Jewish, but he lived in a hotbed of assimilated Israelites and was probably exposed to many strange Greek-Jewish cults as a youth and young adult. It's easy to see how a Hellenized Jew could find Christianity appealing because Christianity is very much a Greek religion with Jewish trappings. (Half-god half-man spawn of a consort between a deity and a human female? I hope I'm not the first one to point out the similarity between the Jesus tale and the Hercules tale. It's certainly a world away from Judaism)
The significant error you've made here is that *all* of Judaism had been influenced by Hellenism. For instance, the rabbinical tradition is a product of Hellenistic education in Israel.

I also don't buy for a second that he studied under Rabbi Gamaliel not only because of Paul's hatred of Torah but also because Paul makes blatant mistakes regarding the Hebrew Scriptures that no student of a great rabbi could logically make. (You can also see marked inconsistency where Paul's supposed murderous rage against Christians before his "conversion" to Christianity does not correspond to Gamaliel's admonition that Jews should not harm Christians.)
Paul himself doesn't claim to have studied under Gamaliel; that's a dubious claim from Acts. Also, Paul only claims to have "persecuted" Christians, not to have engaged in any violence, which was another dubious claim in Acts. Paul's persecution of Christians was probably little but mocking, debating, and harrassing them.
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It was ultimately the decision James, on the advice, of Simon-Peter not to require new believers to follow the laws of Moses, not Paul's. (Acts 15)
Acts is extremely unreliable. And Paul would never have agreed to the "compromise" in Act 15; comsuming blood or stangled animals would be fine by him, and he also states consuming food offered to idols is fine if you were unaware of it.

Besides, I didn't claim that Paul initiated Torah lenience for gentiles, only that he advocated it. You're correcting me incorrectly.

Lastly, early Christianity's policy of Torah lenience for non-Jews was based on the long-established Jewish policy for "God-fearers." Non-Jews participating in the Jewish religion didn't have to follow Jewish rituals and customs, only maintain Jewish moral laws. Paul, too, expected that; in Corinthians, he demands expulsion for a man who married his father's ex-wife, even though Greeks typically allowed that.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Jun 16, 2010, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Now wait a second, you get to go to a Chassidic barber in Arizona?
We have a Chabad Lubavitch Center in our area.

Chabad of Arizona - your source for everything Jewish...
45/47
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Jun 17, 2010, 07:21 AM
 
This is how you build a statue. (Cristo Redentor)
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Jun 17, 2010, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Don't forget you can't covet your neighbors ox. That's a commandment. So if you have your eye on that special ox, it's off limits!
Damnit, I'm pretty fond of my neighbor's ox...
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Jun 17, 2010, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You really think so turtle? What are the odds of a strong lightning strike at that specific location, one strong enough to set a six foot structure ablaze and see it burn down before firefighters could respond? You're absolutely 100% sure it isn't a sign from above?
...crickets?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Jun 17, 2010, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
This is how you build a statue. (Cristo Redentor)
Good try Zeus!

Jesus hit by lightning - Boing Boing

Amazing moment the world's biggest Christ was struck by lightning | Mail Online

Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Jun 18, 2010, 08:30 AM
 
Big Mac: would you consider this new attempt to destroy Jesus just a warning, or a failure on The Man Above's part?

Just facetiously curious.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Jun 18, 2010, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
...crickets?
Actually, I just had that cricket for breakfast. Thank you very much

-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Jun 18, 2010, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Big Mac: would you consider this new attempt to destroy Jesus just a warning, or a failure on The Man Above's part?

Just facetiously curious.


-t
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Jun 18, 2010, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Big Mac: would you consider this new attempt to destroy Jesus just a warning, or a failure on The Man Above's part?

Just facetiously curious.

greg
Satan is the "prince and power of the air'. Does that put weather phenomenon under his purview?
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Jun 18, 2010, 12:34 PM
 
I have trouble believing Obama controls the weather.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Jun 18, 2010, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Satan is the "prince and power of the air'. Does that put weather phenomenon under his purview?
Maybe - he did it to Job, albeit with permission. Right?

Although this would also totally invalidate Big Mac's previous allegations/suggestions. Or, you know, maybe everything bad that happens with the weather can be attributed to God or Satan, depending on the outcome/subject matter?

Finally: Big Mac, do you agree with Pat Robertson's views that New Orleans/Haiti brought their respective disasters upon themselves with sinfullness and whatnot? I mean, if incinerating a sixty-foot Jesus is grounds for suggesting that the Second Commandment is being enforced, then we've got some good evidence that Sodom & Gomorrah may have seen a repeat, no...?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
TheoCryst
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Jun 18, 2010, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I have trouble believing Obama controls the weather.
OH MY GOD OBAMA IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!! How did I not see this before?

Any ramblings are entirely my own, and do not represent those of my employers, coworkers, friends, or species
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Jun 22, 2010, 06:51 AM
 
so many unanswered questions
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Jun 29, 2010, 11:22 AM
 
Zeus/Jupiter/Thor/Perkūnas/Indra...... fail
45/47
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Jun 29, 2010, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
(Half-god half-man spawn of a consort between a deity and a human female?
ISAIAH 7:14
יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל. 14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
We believe The Christ is true man and true G-d.

As to polytheism. (Sorry if this is all my unschooled mind could think of) Silver and gold (Haggai 2:8ח לִי הַכֶּסֶף, וְלִי הַזָּהָב--נְאֻם, יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת: . Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold, saith the LORD of hosts.) have three manifestations, (solid, liquid, gas.) why not the almighty?
( Last edited by Chongo; Jul 3, 2010 at 08:15 PM. )
45/47
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Jun 30, 2010, 08:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
ISAIAH 7:14
יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל. 14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
We believe The Christ is true man and true G-d.
Chongo, first of all, I credit you for using a translation that correctly translates the verse as "young woman" and not as virgin, as was the mistaken or deceptive practice of certain Christian translators for a very long time.

But the problem with your (Christian) interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is that it is simply incorrect. And why is that? It's incorrect because even though it correctly translates the words as "young woman," it still takes the verse in isolation and not along with the preceding and succeeding verses that give it its meaning. This is perhaps due to the Christian preoccupation with single verses. Christians numbered scripture by chapter and verse, often dividing chapters improperly; the focus on single verses means that Christians have the habit of taking verses in isolation. In contrast, Jews typically read extended portions (parshas) without stopping, and then we analyze. It helps keep things in context.

The prophecy found in Isaiah 7 is referring to a specific child who would be born in the era the prophecy was given, not hundreds of years later. And in fact, the prophecy that starts in chapter 7 isn't completed until chapter 9. The child that 7:14 is referring to is discussed several times more in the next chapters, so if you're interested in that child's identity you shouldn't stop at 7:14. (After all, most sons in the world have been born to young women, and some of those boys have been named Immanuel, so you need to figure out to which child this verse is referring. Thankfully, Isaiah explains it clearly.)

Let's look at some key verses that help flesh out 7:14:

Chapter 7 Verses 1-2:
And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. 2. And it was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind.
So, we know that the succeeding verses are in the era of Ahaz ben Jotham ben Uzziah, king of Judah, at a time when Rezin, king of Aram and Pekah ben Remallah, king of Israel, marched to make war on Jerusalem. The king of Judah was facing not only a foreign king's forces but also the forces of the king of Israel (a.k.a. Samaria), who wanted to wage war on Jerusalem. They wanted to destroy the kingdom of Judah. King Ahaz and the rest of the House of David trembled because of the combined military forces of Rezin and Pekah.

Chapter 7 Verses 3-4:
And the Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son, to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field. And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.
The prophet Isaiah tells the king do not fear, despite the raging anger of your adversaries. (To save on time, I'm going to skip past the verses in which king Ahaz is first assured that the two kings coming to fight him will not succeed.)

Chapter 7 Verses 11-14:
"Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God: ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above." 12 And Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord." 13 And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? 14 Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
The prophet says to king Ahaz, if you do not believe the promise that your kingdom will be safe, ask the L-rd for a sign. (And yes, before anyone pokes fun at me for continuing to hyphenate in my comments but not in the text of the scripture, I do so because I follow that convention personally, but I'm quoting from a source that does not hyphenate but does admonish not to deface or discard the text because it is sacred.) And the king says he will not ask because he does not want to test the L-rd, to which the prophet replies that it is already known that he does not believe and is therefore wearying G-d anyway. So the sign is provided, "behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son. . ."

Now this is key to understanding. The sign that is being given is being given to Ahaz ben Jotham king of Judah. According to Wikipedia, Ahaz ruled circa 732 BCE. And remember, this child's impending birth is to be the sign to King Ahaz that the kings who seek to destroy him will themselves be destroyed. Therefore, it is absolutely, utterly impossible for the prophecy of a birth in Isaiah 7 to be about a 1st Century CE event. This particular prophecy is of absolutely no value to Christianity as a proof text because it's talking about a specific birth that was fulfilled 700 years before the alleged birth Christians are interested in. And in truth, Chongo, there is not a single verse in the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures that corroborates Christianity's belief in, and deification of, Jesus. That's one reason, I believe, why some early Christian leaders like Marcion didn't want to include the Hebrew Scriptures in the Christian canon at all. He hated Jews/Judaism and argued that Christianity was a fundamentally different and separate religion from the religion of the Hebrew Scriptures. And that view is largely true, despite the many commonalities between our religions.

But let me proceed further:
Chapter 7 Verses 15-17:
Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
Verse 15 says that the boy will eat cream and honey by the time he knows good from bad, since before that time when he is very young and does not yet know what is good or bad, the land of the kings coming to attack will be abandoned. The child being prophesied about will eat fine food by the time he is old enough to know good from bad because while the child is yet very young the threats to Jerusalem will be eliminated. The rest of the verses of Chapter 7 are specific details about what will happen to the enemies of Judah/Jerusalem, so I'll skip to chapter 8 when the boy is mentioned again.

Chapter 8 Verses 3-4:
And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."
The prophet Isaiah is intimate with his wife the prophetess, and she bears a son. The L-rd tells Isaiah to call the boy's name Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which is translated as "Hurry to spoil!" Hurry to spoil because this is the very child whose birth was prophesied in Chapter 7. Mahershalalhashbaz a.k.a. Immaneul (G-d is with us) - two names denoting the prophecy that spoils will come soon because G-d is with His people. For when the boy does not yet know to call for his father and mother (very similar to the earlier prophecy about the boy not knowing good from bad), the wealth of Damascus (King Rezin) and the plunder of Samaria (King Pekah) shall be carried off before the king of Assyria. In other words (and to reiterate), shortly after the birth of this boy, the two king who were would-be conquerors of Judah will be defeated instead by the king of Assyria.

That's the meaning of the birth prophecy of Isaiah 7. It was about events contemporary to the time the prophecy was given, and the prophecy was fulfilled in the very next chapter. If you just look at Isaiah 7:14 in isolation then you can apply it to any subsequent birth of a son by a young woman who names him Immanuel, but clearly that's not the meaning of the prophecy at all.

Now given this truth, I know that some Christians resort to a doctrine Christian apologists invented called "dual fulfillment," the concept that a prophecy can be fulfilled by one event and then fulfilled later by some other event. Many Christians seem to resort often to that device. But others recognize what I see as truth, that dual fulfillment is a theological falsehood not taught anywhere in scripture. Dual fulfillment destroys the concept of prophetic fulfillment entirely because it trivializes the original fulfilling event that validated the prophecy, and it often distorts the meaning of the prophecy by ripping out the original details and context of the prophecy (as in this case). Dual fulfillment is merely a defective attempt to rescue theological claims that have been invalidated, just as I invalidated the Christian reading of Isaiah 7:14 in this post.

For even if you wish to claim dual fulfillment for Isaiah 7:14, there are still a number of problems involved. Firstly, 7:14 just says that a young woman will give birth to a son named Immanuel. As I pointed out before, that could be describing a whole range of future births. Secondly, nowhere in the Christian scriptures is Jesus ever referred to by the name Immanuel (correct me if I'm wrong). And that's because back when the Christian texts were being written the authors did not take Isaiah 7:14 as a Christian proof text. The gospel authors loved to try to shoehorn references to verses from the Hebrew Scriptures where they thought it was possible to do so, so apparently Isaiah 7:14 wasn't even on their radar - they would have used it otherwise. Use of 7:14 in Christian teachings apparently didn't become popular until later on in Christianity's development, when Christians found and locked on to the mistranslation of young woman as virgin in the non-Jewish translation of Isaiah found in the Septuagint. Thirdly, and most importantly, 7:14 can't be isolated from Isaiah 7 as a whole and all the details it contains - about King Ahaz and G-d's choice to protect him and Judah shortly after the prophesied birth of the boy. You can't take all those details out from the prophecy without destroying the prophecy completely. Fourthly, King Ahaz could only be comforted by an ensuing birth of a boy who would mark divine protection for his kingdom. Ahaz certainly could not have been comforted by the birth of a boy 700 years after his reign - certainly not in the full context of this prophecy. Finally, a birth 700 years after the Isaiah 7 prophecy would not fulfill the prophecy because it would not be able to fulfill the requirement of serving as a sign of Rezin and Pekah's imminent defeat.

I guess I've belabored the point, but thank you to anyone who chose to stick with this post to the end. Hopefully it will be of use to someone, but if not I still enjoyed writing it. And analysis of this sort can be done on any Christian theological assertion involving the Hebrew Scriptures. Christians should not look to the Hebrew Scriptures to validate their belief in Jesus as either an anointed one (mashiach/messiah), savior, king or a god (may the thought perish). The opposite is actually true - the Hebrew Scriptures invalidate Christian theology consistently and in a variety ways. Any questions?
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jun 30, 2010 at 09:30 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Jun 30, 2010, 08:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I guess I've belabored the point, but thank you to anyone who chose to stick with this post to the end. Hopefully it will be of use to someone, but if not I still enjoyed writing it.
Good post.

My only concern is probably the obvious one, which is: I don't see how Isaiah's wife is necessarily the "young woman" (is her age given?), and then why is her child given a different name? It's one thing to say "Mahershalalhashbaz a.k.a. Immaneul" but are those names interchangeable?

(Of course I would say the same about Jesus too, yadda yadda....)

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Jun 30, 2010, 09:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Good post.
Thank you very much for the unexpected compliment. Hopefully I can return the favor in the near future and we can become friends, despite past heated squabbles.

My only concern is probably the obvious one, which is: I don't see how Isaiah's wife is necessarily the "young woman" (is her age given?), and then why is her child given a different name? It's one thing to say "Mahershalalhashbaz a.k.a. Immaneul" but are those names interchangeable?
That's a good point to raise in response. We don't know the age of Isaiah's wife, the prophetess (at least not from the text). Nor is it spelled out in the text that Mahershalahshbaz is another name for Immanuel, but it naturally follows. The prophecy in chapter 7 is about the impending birth of a son, and in chapter 8 the prophet says that he was intimate with the prophetess and she bore a son. In both places G-d commands that he be given a specific name, although the names do differ. Yet, putting the two names together - 'spoils are coming' because 'G-d is with us' - is a very natural construction. And as I mentioned, a very similar thing is immediately said about this child in chapter 8 as was said about the child in chapter 7 before his birth - that he would not be old enough yet to know to call to his mother or father before the destruction of the kingdoms harassing Judah. In chapter 7 it is said that he would not know good from bad before the kings were defeated. The child whose birth was prophesied in chapter 7 is obviously the child who the prophetess gives birth to in chapter 8. Immanuel is Mahershalalhashbaz. (If one wants to challenge that claim, it has to be explained why this son of Isaiah is mentioned in the context of this prophecy at all and why there are so many similarities between what was said about the child pre-birth and what was said about him post-birth. It's clearly the same boy.) Why that fact is not spelled out explicitly I can't really say. Some points in scripture are seemingly belabored while other details that could be helpful are sometimes left unsaid. Perhaps it's left as an exercise for the reader.

However, there's a similar occurrence a bit later with a prophecy concerning King Hezekiah. As a child he is given a much longer prophetic name listing various G-dly qualities he will possess, but the name he goes by - Hezekiah - only captures one part of that much longer name. It points, in my opinion, to some figures having both common names and longer prophetic title names. (And that's another case where a prophecy regarding a contemporary figure is ripped out of its historical context and misapplied to Jesus in a way that is very similar to the misconstruing of Isaiah 7.)

(Of course I would say the same about Jesus too, yadda yadda....)
Right, and besides that it is nearly a 100% certainty that the prophesied birth in chapter 7 is intended to be fulfilled by the birth in chapter 8, whereas there is in my view 0% chance that the prophecy of chapter 7 can be applied to any non-contemporary figure, let alone a figure that is said to have existed 700 years later.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jun 30, 2010 at 09:41 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Jun 30, 2010, 07:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Chongo, first of all, I credit you for using a translation that correctly translates the verse as "young woman" and not as virgin, as was the mistaken or deceptive practice of certain Christian translators for a very long time.
I don't think it was deceptive. Christianity relied on the Septuagint, which was made by Jews. The mistaken translation wasn't the result of any malice. BTW, it is the norm in mainstream Christianity that "young woman" is correct; only fringe denominations disagree.
And in truth, Chongo, there is not a single verse in the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures that corroborates Christianity's belief in, and deification of, Jesus.
The historical source of belief in Jesus' deification really comes from "Son of Man" references in Daniel and Enoch.
That's one reason, I believe, why some early Christian leaders like Marcion didn't want to include the Hebrew Scriptures in the Christian canon at all. He hated Jews/Judaism and argued that Christianity was a fundamentally different and separate religion from the religion of the Hebrew Scriptures. And that view is largely true, despite the many commonalities between our religions.
I don't think Marcion hated Jews, though he wasn't a fan of the Jewish Bible, for the same reasons non-believers today aren't fans of it: it's loaded with morally questionable behaviour by God, his rules, and his followers.
Now given this truth, I know that some Christians resort to a doctrine Christian apologists invented called "dual fulfillment," the concept that a prophecy can be fulfilled by one event and then fulfilled later by some other event. Many Christians seem to resort often to that device. But others recognize what I see as truth, that dual fulfillment is a theological falsehood not taught anywhere in scripture. Dual fulfillment destroys the concept of prophetic fulfillment entirely because it trivializes the original fulfilling event that validated the prophecy, and it often distorts the meaning of the prophecy by ripping out the original details and context of the prophecy (as in this case). Dual fulfillment is merely a defective attempt to rescue theological claims that have been invalidated, just as I invalidated the Christian reading of Isaiah 7:14 in this post.
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a Jewish system of interpretation that allows for seven levels of interpretation of the Torah?
Secondly, nowhere in the Christian scriptures is Jesus ever referred to by the name Immanuel (correct me if I'm wrong).
True, but I think the idea is that Jesus is God incarnate, that is, "with us" on earth.
And that's because back when the Christian texts were being written the authors did not take Isaiah 7:14 as a Christian proof text. The gospel authors loved to try to shoehorn references to verses from the Hebrew Scriptures where they thought it was possible to do so, so apparently Isaiah 7:14 wasn't even on their radar - they would have used it otherwise.
If you mean texts written before Matthew didn't think of it as a proof text, you're right. Matthew is the worst for non-contextual abuse of the Jewish Bible.
Use of 7:14 in Christian teachings apparently didn't become popular until later on in Christianity's development, when Christians found and locked on to the mistranslation of young woman as virgin in the non-Jewish translation of Isaiah found in the Septuagint.
The only text that uses it is Matthew, and I don't think the Septuagint should be regarded as "non-Jewish," unless you mean non-Hebrew.
I guess I've belabored the point, but thank you to anyone who chose to stick with this post to the end. Hopefully it will be of use to someone, but if not I still enjoyed writing it. And analysis of this sort can be done on any Christian theological assertion involving the Hebrew Scriptures.
I don't know about that. Matthew is low-hanging fruit. For instance, Psalm 22 is pretty much the starting point for early Christianity's "realization" that Jesus was the Messiah. The creepy similarities of Jesus' suffering to Psalm 22 probably struck Jesus' followers like a lightning bolt. Reading it as a prophecy about Jesus is a "reasonable" exegesis, as far as religious thinking goes. It seemed to explain the bizarre, undeserved persecution as a Messianic pretender by the Roman and Temple authorities.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Jun 30, 2010, 08:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I The creepy similarities of Jesus' suffering to Psalm 22 probably struck Jesus' followers like a lightning bolt.
The book of Isaiah also comes to mind as well.
45/47
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Jun 30, 2010, 09:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
The creepy similarities of Jesus' suffering to Psalm 22 probably struck Jesus' followers like a lightning bolt.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Jun 30, 2010, 09:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The book of Isaiah also comes to mind as well.
Huh?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Jun 30, 2010, 09:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I don't think it was deceptive. Christianity relied on the Septuagint, which was made by Jews. The mistaken translation wasn't the result of any malice. BTW, it is the norm in mainstream Christianity that "young woman" is correct; only fringe denominations disagree.
Common misunderstanding, but I called the translation of Isaiah in the Septuagint non-Jewish because Jews did not translate the books of the Prophets for the Septuagint. The Penteteuch portion of the Septuagint was translated by the 70 rabbis according to both Jewish and Christian sources, but the rest of the Septuagint was translated by non-Jewish authors - according to Jewish records at least. And it shows.

As for disagreement on the translation only being among the fringe, that may be how it is in recent years but it took a long time for many translations to get it right. And to this day you can find tons of recently authored Christian sources that continue to mistranslate it.
The historical source of belief in Jesus' deification really comes from "Son of Man" references in Daniel and Enoch.
What about Enoch, specificallly? As for the Son of Man appellation, it's a very strange one to use for a supposed man-god, since it emphasizes the fact that Jesus was the son of a man and not the son of a deity.
I don't think Marcion hated Jews, though he wasn't a fan of the Jewish Bible, for the same reasons non-believers today aren't fans of it: it's loaded with morally questionable behaviour by God, his rules, and his followers.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading a lot of Jew-hatred from him, but I'll have to reconfirm that. As for morally questionable behavior, G-d is responsible for all of Creation. He gets to set the terms of morality.
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a Jewish system of interpretation that allows for seven levels of interpretation of the Torah?
I think you're referring to PaRDeS, the four levels of interpretation of the Torah, starting from the regular reading and going through levels of mystical interpretation to the most esoteric. Each level yields Torah understanding, but there is also the rule that no teaching can contradict the Pshat, the regular reading. Also, I could be wrong but I don't think I've ever seen PaRDeS interpretation extended to the books of the Prophets. PaRDeS is spoken of in specifically in the context of Torah interpretation.

True, but I think the idea is that Jesus is God incarnate, that is, "with us" on earth.
And certainly that is the reason why it was used in Matthew (and I apologize for not remembering that the quotation was indeed used in Matthew), but using the quotation in that fashion is naturally deceptive because it rips the quotation out of the very specific, contextual prophecy that it came from, the prophecy that was fulfilled 700 years before Jesus.
Matthew is the worst for non-contextual abuse of the Jewish Bible.
Thank you. QFT.

I don't know about that. Matthew is low-hanging fruit. For instance, Psalm 22 is pretty much the starting point for early Christianity's "realization" that Jesus was the Messiah.
I don't think so. I contend that the starting point for early Christianity's realization that Jesus was, in their opinion, the Messiah, was their desire to make him into one. That fervent desire and belief was their starting point. But in truth we don't know when they started abusing verses from the Hebrew Scriptures because, as you know, the gospels were of late origin. Do you find any such references in the earliest books of Christian scripture? Anything in Paul? I don't think there are but I can hardly read through his excrement without vomiting so I can't say I'm an authority in that regard.

The gospels were authored well into the Jesus movement after the narrative of his life had started transforming from a Davidic messianic figure into an increasingly deified one in the heathen dying and resurrecting man-god model. The gospels were written from a religio-political stand point to spread the "good news" of Christianity. They weren't a straight historical accounting of the development of Christian doctrine, although .

The creepy similarities of Jesus' suffering to Psalm 22 probably struck Jesus' followers like a lightning bolt. Reading it as a prophecy about Jesus is a "reasonable" exegesis, as far as religious thinking goes. It seemed to explain the bizarre, undeserved persecution as a Messianic pretender by the Roman and Temple authorities.
The creepy similarities are there, to the extent that they are, because the gospels were purposely around the Psalm to make it look like the gospel account fit the Psalm. But in truth Psalm 22 is a terrible fit for Christian theology. Let's look at some of it:

First of all, this Psalm is a song of David. These are the words of David while he was suffering various torments, and about the way he has always relied on His G-d. It's not a prophetic Psalm speaking of some future person. David relied on G-d, whereas Jesus was said to have believed he WAS a god.

My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? [You are] far from my salvation [and] from the words of my moaning.
These were the words of King David, if you believe the account as I do. Now I know Jesus was said to have recited part of the verse while dying an ignoble death at the hands of heathens on the cross (which is called a cursed death, as I know some of you are aware). But the fact that Christians believe Jesus cried out to G-d asking why G-d had forsaken him is astonishing to me as an outside observer of Christian belief. It would make perfect sense for a Jew who believed himself to be a righteous servant of G-d to cry out in that fashion, but a Jew who allegedly believed he was not only King Messiah but higher than all the prophets, and a man who supposedly even thought he was equivalent to G-d? There would be no reason for such a person to cry out like that if he accounted himself so highly - if he believed he was equivalent to the G-d of Israel (which isn't clear in any of the books of the Christian Bible) Besides how can Christians believe he was equivalent to the omniscient, omnipotent G-d if he had to rely on and call out to G-d?

Even in the gospels, which strove to convince people of that Jesus was the greatest thing since sliced pita and which wanted to paint him as a supernatural messianic figure, even the gospels could not paint Jesus as equivalent to G-d. There are numerous examples of Jesus proclaiming his inferiority to G-d, and there are numerous examples showing that Jesus's powers, such as they were supposed to be, were very limited.

Look at this next verse Psalm 22:7:
But I am a worm and not a man; a reproach of man, despised by peoples.
Let's see a show of hands. Who thinks Psalm 22:7 refers to Jesus? Anyone? Was he a worm, a man rightly subject to censure and scorn? Because that's what David says of hiimself in Psalm 22. If Christians want to pluck certain verses here and there, they should take them in their full context and apply them appropriately. If one wishes to call Jesus a worm and a disgrace, all the honor! (Even Laminar apparently laughs at the claim that Psalm 22 can be applied to Jesus.)

Psalm 22 has nothing to do with Jesus. He certainly wasn't the first Jew to suffer. The only other similarity we find is the gospel authors inventing the sharing of garments in their text to dupe people into thinking there was some tenuous similarity to something from the Hebrew Scriptures. The gospel writers had the Hebrew Scriptures in front of them, and they had to struggle to misappropriate even single verses that never could apply to their character if taken in context. I'm sorry to say it.
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The book of Isaiah also comes to mind as well.
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Huh?
I think Chongo must be pointing to Isaiah 53, which is the crown jewel of Christian proof texts. Unfortunately, the crown is made of fake gold and the jewels are cubic zirconium. Isaiah 53 evokes a connection to the Jesus story for those who believe in it, but it too cannot be logically applied to Jesus. Read in context, in Hebrew or in proper translation, it's clear that Isaiah 53 cannot possibly be read as Christians wish to read it.

Post-Disclaimer:

I keep being drawn back into critiquing Christianity, and I'm sorry for feeling compelled to do so. My Christian friends and allies are very dear to me. I believe G-d is very forgiving to all of his creation. I am not a saint. I am not a pious Torah observer. I strive every day to get closer to a higher degree of personal perfection, but I know I am very imperfect. And as I have faith that G-d forgives me often for my sins, I have confidence he will also forgive Christians for theirs. My hope is that someone - even one person - will be helped by most posts to embrace the Hebrew Scriptures as the standard of religious truth and through that to come closer to the one true G-d who created us all.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jun 30, 2010 at 10:21 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Jul 1, 2010, 01:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Common misunderstanding, but I called the translation of Isaiah in the Septuagint non-Jewish because Jews did not translate the books of the Prophets for the Septuagint. The Penteteuch portion of the Septuagint was translated by the 70 rabbis according to both Jewish and Christian sources, but the rest of the Septuagint was translated by non-Jewish authors - according to Jewish records at least. And it shows.
I've never heard this theory. I'm confident Jews created the entire Septuagint, especially since the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls sometimes match while the Masoretic is different.
What about Enoch, specificallly? As for the Son of Man appellation, it's a very strange one to use for a supposed man-god, since it emphasizes the fact that Jesus was the son of a man and not the son of a deity.
First, the phrase "Son of Man" is a *higher* title than "Son of God." Son of God is simply a title of the Kig of Israel, ie King David, House of Judah, Son of God, Conqueror of the whatever, whatever. It doesn't mean a literal son of God, not even in Christianity. (The concept is unrelated to the Virgin Birth). The "Son of Man" refers to the vision in Daniel, and later texts like Enoch ascribe a divine status to this individual. For instance:
[Chapter 46]
1 And there I saw One who had a head of days,
And His head was white like wool,
And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man,
And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels.
2 And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that 3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me:
This is the son of Man who hath righteousness,
With whom dwelleth righteousness,
And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden,
Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him,
And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness for ever.

4 And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen
Shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats,
[And the strong from their thrones]
And shall loosen the reins of the strong,
And break the teeth of the sinners.

5 [And he shall put down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms]
Because they do not extol and praise Him,
Nor humbly acknowledge whence the kingdom was bestowed upon them.
6 And he shall put down the countenance of the strong,
And shall fill them with shame.

And darkness shall be their dwelling,
And worms shall be their bed,
And they shall have no hope of rising from their beds,
Because they do not extol the name of the Lord of Spirits.
This unnamed "Son of Man" is clearly a powerful being. He appears as a human being, but has the graciousness of an angel. He is next to God, and has pre-eminence above all men and angels. More:
[Chapter 48]

2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits,
And his name before the Head of Days.

3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,
Before the stars of the heaven were made,
His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.

4 He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall,
And he shall be the light of the Gentiles,
And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.

5 All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him,
And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.

6 And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him,
Before the creation of the world and for evermore.

7 And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous;
For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous,
Because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness,
And have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Spirits:
For in his name they are saved,
And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to their life.
Here we learn the Son of Man existed before the world was created, he was hidden from everyone (thus not in the scriptures) and all the earth will worship him, and of course, he is "Light to the Gentiles" and "For in his name they are saved."

There's another bit from Enoch about the Son of Man being the judge at Judgement Day, not God, but I can't find it at the moment. But it have a striking image of the Son of Man breathing fire at the condemned.

Enoch was pretty important for the early church, and was included in the oldest NT we have, the 4th century Codex Siniactus, and it is quoted in the Letter of Jude. But for some reason, both Jews and Christians decided against making it canonical.
As for morally questionable behavior, G-d is responsible for all of Creation. He gets to set the terms of morality.
I'm quite troubled by this notion.
I think you're referring to PaRDeS, the four levels of interpretation of the Torah, starting from the regular reading and going through levels of mystical interpretation to the most esoteric. Each level yields Torah understanding, but there is also the rule that no teaching can contradict the Pshat, the regular reading. Also, I could be wrong but I don't think I've ever seen PaRDeS interpretation extended to the books of the Prophets. PaRDeS is spoken of in specifically in the context of Torah interpretation.
Ok. Regardless, the notion that literal and non-literal interpretation can exist side-by-side has a Jewish background.
And certainly that is the reason why it was used in Matthew (and I apologize for not remembering that the quotation was indeed used in Matthew), but using the quotation in that fashion is naturally deceptive because it rips the quotation out of the very specific, contextual prophecy that it came from, the prophecy that was fulfilled 700 years before Jesus.
Why can't the prophetic and literal meanings co-exist?
I contend that the starting point for early Christianity's realization that Jesus was, in their opinion, the Messiah, was their desire to make him into one. That fervent desire and belief was their starting point.
I think it was the other way.
The gospels were authored well into the Jesus movement after the narrative of his life had started transforming from a Davidic messianic figure into an increasingly deified one in the heathen dying and resurrecting man-god model.
There is no "heathen dying and resurrecting man-god model" for the Christians to copy from. Mediterranean peoples didn't have any such tradition. Osiris or Heracles died on earth and were deified in heaven; they didn't return to life on earth. The Jesus myth of returning to life is based on Jewish resurrection, not paganism.
The creepy similarities are there, to the extent that they are, because the gospels were purposely around the Psalm to make it look like the gospel account fit the Psalm.
There's only a couple of similarities: divided clothes, pierced hands and feet, references to lions attacking. The lions seem to relate to "the lion of Judah" attacking Jesus, and divided clothes and pierced limbs are just common elements of anyone being crucified.
But in truth Psalm 22 is a terrible fit for Christian theology. Let's look at some of it:

First of all, this Psalm is a song of David. These are the words of David while he was suffering various torments, and about the way he has always relied on His G-d. It's not a prophetic Psalm speaking of some future person. David relied on G-d, whereas Jesus was said to have believed he WAS a god.
Early Christian texts (Paul, Mark, 1 Peter) didn't say Jesus was god. It fits fine from Mark's purpose, but other authors change what Jesus says.
These were the words of King David, if you believe the account as I do.
Can't say I do.
Now I know Jesus was said to have recited part of the verse while dying an ignoble death at the hands of heathens on the cross (which is called a cursed death, as I know some of you are aware). But the fact that Christians believe Jesus cried out to G-d asking why G-d had forsaken him is astonishing to me as an outside observer of Christian belief. It would make perfect sense for a Jew who believed himself to be a righteous servant of G-d to cry out in that fashion, but a Jew who allegedly believed he was not only King Messiah but higher than all the prophets, and a man who supposedly even thought he was equivalent to G-d? There would be no reason for such a person to cry out like that if he accounted himself so highly - if he believed he was equivalent to the G-d of Israel (which isn't clear in any of the books of the Christian Bible) Besides how can Christians believe he was equivalent to the omniscient, omnipotent G-d if he had to rely on and call out to G-d?
Like I said, Mark didn't write believing Jesus was God, so it makes prefect sense for him. Also, Mark put those words in Jesus' mouth, not because he thought Jesus really said it, but to point to the prophecy in Psalm 22.
Even in the gospels, which strove to convince people of that Jesus was the greatest thing since sliced pita and which wanted to paint him as a supernatural messianic figure, even the gospels could not paint Jesus as equivalent to G-d. There are numerous examples of Jesus proclaiming his inferiority to G-d, and there are numerous examples showing that Jesus's powers, such as they were supposed to be, were very limited.
Overall, the synoptic Gospels (Matthew,Mark,Luke) present Jesus as being very human, while John presents Jesus as divine. In modern Christian theology, it is sometimes asserted that Jesus' human nature wasn't fully aware of his divine nature; also, that John's portrait of a divine Jesus isn't historical, but revealed to that author long after Jesus was gone.
Who thinks Psalm 22:7 refers to Jesus? Anyone? Was he a worm, a man rightly subject to censure and scorn? Because that's what David says of hiimself in Psalm 22. If Christians want to pluck certain verses here and there, they should take them in their full context and apply them appropriately. If one wishes to call Jesus a worm and a disgrace, all the honor!
I don't think Psalm 22 was written about David or Jesus, but I can understand why someone would think it was.
The only other similarity we find is the gospel authors inventing the sharing of garments in their text to dupe people into thinking there was some tenuous similarity to something from the Hebrew Scriptures.
Crucified criminals were stripped naked, and the guards certainly stole anything of value from them. I don't think it's tenuous at all.
I think Chongo must be pointing to Isaiah 53, which is the crown jewel of Christian proof texts. Unfortunately, the crown is made of fake gold and the jewels are cubic zirconium. Isaiah 53 evokes a connection to the Jesus story for those who believe in it, but it too cannot be logically applied to Jesus. Read in context, in Hebrew or in proper translation, it's clear that Isaiah 53 cannot possibly be read as Christians wish to read it.
There's no context. We don't know who wrote it or why.
I keep being drawn back into critiquing Christianity, and I'm sorry for feeling compelled to do so.
Don't worry about it. Online discussion is the best way to debate this stuff.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Jul 2, 2010, 02:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I've never heard this theory. I'm confident Jews created the entire Septuagint, especially since the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls sometimes match while the Masoretic is different.
From Cathloic Apologetics:
Who were the translators and how many? Is there any foundation for their number, seventy or seventy-two, as given in the legendary account (Brassac-Vigouroux, n. 105)? It seems impossible to decide definitely; the Talmudists tell us that the Pentateuch was translated by five interpreters (Sopherim, c.i.). History gives us no details; but an examination of the text shows that in general that the authors were not Palestinian Jews called to Egypt; and differences of terminology, method, etc. prove clearly that the translators were not the same for the different books. It is impossible also to say whether the work was carried out officially or was merely a private undertaking, as seems to have been the case with Ecclesiasticus; but the different books when translated were soon put together
The first time I saw the point made that the non-Torah books of the Septuagint were translated by non-Jewish authors was in reading Aish's Crash Course on (Jewish) History.
First, the phrase "Son of Man" is a *higher* title than "Son of God." Son of God is simply a title of the Kig of Israel, ie King David, House of Judah, Son of God, Conqueror of the whatever, whatever. It doesn't mean a literal son of God, not even in Christianity. (The concept is unrelated to the Virgin Birth). The "Son of Man" refers to the vision in Daniel, and later texts like Enoch ascribe a divine status to this individual.
Daniel refers to a figure coming like a son of man. Some translate the Aramaic as "like a man" instead. There is no definite article, and it's only one reference. But you're right, both Jews and Christians traditionally recognize this reference as being to King Mashiach, as noted by Rashi.

But as I'm sure you know, other than in Numbers where it is said of G-d that he is neither a man nor a son of man, there's another place in the Hebrew Scriptures where the title son of man is used: Ezekiel. G-d calls Ezekiel by that title around 94 times, and many regard it not as a title of respect but as a humbling one. So it is not as if this is a very unique title, and it is not necessarily used in any exalted sense at all.

This unnamed "Son of Man" is clearly a powerful being. He appears as a human being, but has the graciousness of an angel. He is next to God, and has pre-eminence above all men and angels.
Okay, first of all I want to point out to reiterate (just as you did previously) that however popular it may have been to Jews and subsequently Christians, Enoch was rejected by both camps. The Church leaders ended up condemning it outright, and although rabbis knew of it they don't even bother saying much in rejecting it. It wasn't even preserved in the apocryphal collections. You're right that it seems like it was very influential to the authors of the gospels, but if that had been so why did the Church later choose to reject and denounce it forcefully?

Here we learn the Son of Man existed before the world was created, he was hidden from everyone (thus not in the scriptures) and all the earth will worship him, and of course, he is "Light to the Gentiles" and "For in his name they are saved."
That's very interesting and I look forward to perusing it one day (although Talmudic ruling teaches not to study rejected texts). However, I want to point out that according to the text of Enoch, Enoch himself ascended to become the "Son of Man" discussed therein. (Which, I suppose you could respond to by claiming that Enoch = Jesus, and hey if you want to do that you can also say Abraham = Jesus, Moses = Jesus, Joshua = Jesus. There's no end to that kind of foolishness if you want to indulge in it.)

Enoch was pretty important for the early church, and was included in the oldest NT we have, the 4th century Codex Siniactus, and it is quoted in the Letter of Jude.
You're a bigger expert on Christian collections than I, but I can't find Enoch in a listing of Sinactus. I know it was quoted in Jude, but according to what I've read on the subject Enoch didn't exist in the Christian world for many centuries until it was rediscovered in Ge'ez in the 18th Century.

But for some reason, both Jews and Christians decided against making it canonical.
Yeah, I find that odd. I understand Judaism's rejection of it, but it seems like it's the type of pre-Christian book that's right up Christianity's alley. And it was clearly influential to the authors of the gospels.

I'm quite troubled by this notion.
Why is that? G-d created everything and sustains all of creation at every moment, according to Judaism. Every singe breath I get to take is granted to me because G-d wills it so, and so it is with all flesh. When He decrees something, even if it seems harsh, it's decreed for the ultimate benefit and elevation of creation. He charts the course of world events, raises kingdoms and brings them to the ground. The force of Nature is the lowest form of perception of His power. So when in the Torah He decrees that Israel exterminate another nation, that is His divine will. Or when He strikes through the force of nature with an earthquake, flood, lightning strike or other "Act of G-d," that's also a manifestation of the divine will.

Ok. Regardless, the notion that literal and non-literal interpretation can exist side-by-side has a Jewish background.
But only if the non-literal does not clash with the literal, and again that's not usually (or ever, I believe) applied to the Books of the Prophets. If you look at the Zohar, for example, its underlying message is that the Torah's regular meaning is a garment, a covering for the actual body of the Torah. G-dly wisdom can be perceived by looking both at the garments and by probing deeper. But when the Zohar quotes the Prophets it never uses a non-literal meaning for those words.
Why can't the prophetic and literal meanings co-exist?
Okay, let's stop and think about that for a second. You ask about the "prophetic and literal meanings" coexisting. We're talking about a prophecy, so the literal meaning of the prophecy is the "prophetic meaning." I think that what you meant was "a literal meaning of the prophecy and a non-literal meaning of the prophecy." And I reject that. That stretches scripture much too far past its breaking point. Fulfillment of prophecy has to have a literal fulfillment. A specific thing is said to happen, and it happens at some point in the future. Then the prophecy is "fulfilled" and becomes part of the historical record. That's the model. Anything else is falsehood. In the case of Isaiah 7:14 the fulfillment clearly happened literally in Isaiah 8.

Now the only thing that I can say in Matthew's favor in quoting that verse is that one can interpret the usage of the quoted verse as non-literal, not the verse itself. Using that verse to say for theological purposes - a son would be born and his name would be Immanuel, signifying that G-d is with us, and thus Christians can party down because of the advent of Jesus - if it's used in that non-literal fashion, then it at least makes sense for the gospel to use as a reinforcement of Christian doctrine. However, if it's misunderstood and misapplied by Christians in the way they very often do (and in the way Chongo stated in this thread), then it's a big problem to me because it's a falsehood that leads people astray.

There is no "heathen dying and resurrecting man-god model" for the Christians to copy from. Mediterranean peoples didn't have any such tradition. Osiris or Heracles died on earth and were deified in heaven; they didn't return to life on earth.
Except the Mediterranean definitely had tons of similar godmen traditions in their mystery cults. And Rome was the superpower of the world, an empire that stretched quite far, with a society that incorporated religious traditions of other countries into their own. It's quite natural a development that Rome would find a way to incorporate some aspects of Judaism with aspects of gentile polytheism, a religion that could harm and disgrace Jews and simultaneously appeal to the Roman masses.

Whether or not Osiris or Dionysus (or the many deities like them) were represented as having been on earth post-resurrection isn't that important to this discussion (see next paragraph). Heathenistic Jews worshiped the dying and (some accounts say resurrecting) godman Tammuz in the time of the "Son of Man" Ezekiel. Dionysus used to be beckoned back by women - they hoped he would come back in bull form (perhaps so they could engage in sexual congress him, as Zeus was said to do with women, which is said to be the way another godman, Hercules, was conceived). But perhaps the most close pre-Christian gentile world parallel to Jesus was Mithra. Was he not said to have been born on December 25th? Did he not have 12 apostles? And was he not supposedly crucified for man's sins, placed in a cave and raised from the dead on March 25th? It doesn't take much research at all to see all the startling parallels, although Christians desperately want to deny them away.

In fact It was so well known that there were so many parallels between Christian theology and heathen religions that Justin Martyr came up with the utterly laughable and very telling concept of Diabolical Mimicry (which strangely gets no attention on his Wikipedia article currently).

Oh, and by the way, regarding your reference to the other dying-resurrecting-godmen not coming back to earth like it's claimed Jesus did, it's not at all certain that the early Christian movement had any notion that their idol was seen on earth after death. That's not at all shown by anything Paul writes. The gospel of Mark, before it was tampered with later and the additional verse added at the end, ended simply with the empty tomb. And when the accounts of his followers seeing him were added later on Christianity' development, the accounts differed in marked detail from gospel to gospel. That means that not only were those accounts of late origin, the inconsistent accounts mean to me that once they settled on spinning a new part of the story they couldn't even get the fabrication straight. It's also known that every single gospel, including the four canonized, were condemned by various early Christian groups as false before the Church arbitrarily settled upon the four.

The Jesus myth of returning to life is based on Jewish resurrection, not paganism.
I don't know how you can say that with any certainty when I've shown that a lot of the non-Jewish world had cults about dying and resurrecting mangods.

There's only a couple of similarities: divided clothes, pierced hands and feet, references to lions attacking.
There are no pierced hands and feet. That's a Christian mistranslation/misunderstanding.

Early Christian texts (Paul, Mark, 1 Peter) didn't say Jesus was god. It fits fine from Mark's purpose, but other authors change what Jesus says.
Yeah, as I said it's quite unclear that any book of the Christian scriptures outright equates Jesus with the one he supposedly worshiped as Father.

Also, Mark put those words in Jesus' mouth, not because he thought Jesus really said it, but to point to the prophecy in Psalm 22.
How do you know with any certainty he put those words in Jesus' mouth? Are you going by some Q-based theory?

Overall, the synoptic Gospels (Matthew,Mark,Luke) present Jesus as being very human, while John presents Jesus as divine. In modern Christian theology, it is sometimes asserted that Jesus' human nature wasn't fully aware of his divine nature; also, that John's portrait of a divine Jesus isn't historical, but revealed to that author long after Jesus was gone.
By Hebrew standards, by the standards of the G-d of Ahvraham, Yitzhak and Yacov, any likeness that can be seen, certainly any figure of a man, is not divine and not fit for worship. G-d is not a man, nor the son of man. A figure with a human nature, faults, limitations and frailties is not fit for worship. A figure who worships only the Father is not himself a deity.

I am commanded repeatedly and consistently to worship YHVH who is my King, my Savior and my Father - Him and Him alone. The Torah further teaches me not to change my mode of worship from the way my ancestors worshiped G-d in the era of the giving of the Torah. I am confident that if an historical Jesus even existed, and if he could speak to us from beyond the grave today, he would almost undoubtedly say the same.

There's no context. We don't know who wrote it or why.
By context I mean the specific words of the prophecy, which doesn't just begin in Isaiah 53. The servant who Isaiah talks about is identified in previous chapters. In fact, if a Christian has never done so, I urge every Christian reading these words to read Isaiah 43, ten chapters prior. If you read Isaiah 43 you'll not only see the Servant identified, you'll read some of the most potent words of refutation against any religion that attempts to supersede or replace Judaism or the special relationship between G-d and His nation Israel. Read the chapter carefully and reflect on the words. Then ask yourself if Christian theology is at all in line with that chapter in particular or the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures generally.

Don't worry about it. Online discussion is the best way to debate this stuff.
Thank you. On the one hand it is liberating to debate like this, but on the other hand I have some concern about fueling Jew-hatred by debunking Christianity like this.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jul 2, 2010 at 02:46 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Jul 5, 2010, 01:29 AM
 
From Cathloic Apologetics:
Who were the translators and how many? Is there any foundation for their number, seventy or seventy-two, as given in the legendary account (Brassac-Vigouroux, n. 105)? It seems impossible to decide definitely; the Talmudists tell us that the Pentateuch was translated by five interpreters (Sopherim, c.i.). History gives us no details; but an examination of the text shows that in general that the authors were not Palestinian Jews called to Egypt; and differences of terminology, method, etc. prove clearly that the translators were not the same for the different books. It is impossible also to say whether the work was carried out officially or was merely a private undertaking, as seems to have been the case with Ecclesiasticus; but the different books when translated were soon put together
I see it says they weren't Palestinian Jews, but there were plenty of Jews living in Egypt at the time. It's harder to believe there were many Egyptians who could read Hebrew, even poorly.

Daniel refers to a figure coming like a son of man. Some translate the Aramaic as "like a man" instead. There is no definite article, and it's only one reference. But you're right, both Jews and Christians traditionally recognize this reference as being to King Mashiach, as noted by Rashi.
Right. In Daniel, "one like a son of man" refers to someone who looks like a man, but really isn't.
G-d calls Ezekiel by that title around 94 times, and many regard it not as a title of respect but as a humbling one. So it is not as if this is a very unique title, and it is not necessarily used in any exalted sense at all.
Exactly. The phrase "son of man" meant "a man," Daniel speaks of "one like a son of man," which later in Enoch and Mark becomes "Son of Man." An ordinary phrase becomes an unusual title over time.
Okay, first of all I want to point out to reiterate (just as you did previously) that however popular it may have been to Jews and subsequently Christians, Enoch was rejected by both camps. The Church leaders ended up condemning it outright, and although rabbis knew of it they don't even bother saying much in rejecting it. It wasn't even preserved in the apocryphal collections. You're right that it seems like it was very influential to the authors of the gospels, but if that had been so why did the Church later choose to reject and denounce it forcefully?
It wasn't denounced by the church. The church kept many writings without making them canon, usually if they contained clever stories. Enoch was really just ignored, mostly because it was so long and recopying was a lot of work, and the church didn't "require it." Maybe there were enough references in the Septuagint for them to be satisfied.
That's very interesting and I look forward to perusing it one day (although Talmudic ruling teaches not to study rejected texts). However, I want to point out that according to the text of Enoch, Enoch himself ascended to become the "Son of Man" discussed therein. (Which, I suppose you could respond to by claiming that Enoch = Jesus, and hey if you want to do that you can also say Abraham = Jesus, Moses = Jesus, Joshua = Jesus. There's no end to that kind of foolishness if you want to indulge in it.)
They might really have believed Jesus was Enoch. For instance, some Jewish writing says Enoch became Metatron, who was sometimes called "a second Yahweh" and the voice of God. It's certainly possible that the author of John saw Jesus as Metatron, since he functions pretty much the same way, but appeared in human form rather than an angel.
You're a bigger expert on Christian collections than I, but I can't find Enoch in a listing of Sinactus. I know it was quoted in Jude, but according to what I've read on the subject Enoch didn't exist in the Christian world for many centuries until it was rediscovered in Ge'ez in the 18th Century.
Opps. I meant the oldest of Christian writings, not canon. Kinda confused myself. Anyways, the earliest church fathers regarded it as scripture. Here's a quickie from Wikipedia:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
1 Enoch is considered as Scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4)[23] and by many of the early Church Fathers as Athenagoras[24], Clement of Alexandria[25], Irenaeus[26] and Tertullian[27] who wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ.[28]
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Why is that? G-d created everything and sustains all of creation at every moment, according to Judaism. Every singe breath I get to take is granted to me because G-d wills it so, and so it is with all flesh. When He decrees something, even if it seems harsh, it's decreed for the ultimate benefit and elevation of creation. He charts the course of world events, raises kingdoms and brings them to the ground. The force of Nature is the lowest form of perception of His power. So when in the Torah He decrees that Israel exterminate another nation, that is His divine will. Or when He strikes through the force of nature with an earthquake, flood, lightning strike or other "Act of G-d," that's also a manifestation of the divine will.
It's disturbing to me because it justifies atrocities in the Torah. The notion that anything God does is ethical because God does it is complete ethical subjectivism. I just think it's saner to believe that the Torah contains ethical views of the time it was written, than to believe God commanded children be executed, or permitted women to be taken as sexual slaves, and so on. Especially since these kind of behaviours is exactly like the people around them, not special at all.
Okay, let's stop and think about that for a second. You ask about the "prophetic and literal meanings" coexisting. We're talking about a prophecy, so the literal meaning of the prophecy is the "prophetic meaning." I think that what you meant was "a literal meaning of the prophecy and a non-literal meaning of the prophecy." And I reject that. That stretches scripture much too far past its breaking point. Fulfillment of prophecy has to have a literal fulfillment. A specific thing is said to happen, and it happens at some point in the future. Then the prophecy is "fulfilled" and becomes part of the historical record. That's the model. Anything else is falsehood. In the case of Isaiah 7:14 the fulfillment clearly happened literally in Isaiah 8.
Ok, I was really pushing too hard on the Christian perspective, which like you I don't find terribly impressive here.
Except the Mediterranean definitely had tons of similar godmen traditions in their mystery cults.
No, they really didn't. This is a myth started by James Frazier and the Golden Bough. But his ideas don't really match the facts.
Whether or not Osiris or Dionysus (or the many deities like them) were represented as having been on earth post-resurrection isn't that important to this discussion (see next paragraph). Heathenistic Jews worshiped the dying and (some accounts say resurrecting) godman Tammuz in the time of the "Son of Man" Ezekiel. Dionysus used to be beckoned back by women - they hoped he would come back in bull form (perhaps so they could engage in sexual congress him, as Zeus was said to do with women, which is said to be the way another godman, Hercules, was conceived).

But perhaps the most close pre-Christian gentile world parallel to Jesus was Mithra. Was he not said to have been born on December 25th? Did he not have 12 apostles? And was he not supposedly crucified for man's sins, placed in a cave and raised from the dead on March 25th? It doesn't take much research at all to see all the startling parallels, although Christians desperately want to deny them away.
I'm afraid most of that is junk. Persian Mithra never died and returned to life, and neither did Roman Mithras, who has nothing is common with Mithra except the name. Neither did they "have 12 apostles," which is an absurd fiction made up recently and also said of Horus and Buddha. And the church decided to celebrate the birth of Jesus on Dec 25th because it was already a holiday; it had nothing to do with Mithras. The Mithras cult wasn't even about resurrection, it was about the recent discovery of the Precession of the Equinoxes. There's an excellent book on this subject called The Origin of the Mithraic Mysteries, which is a great read. As opposed to that book by Davide Icke, who is a complete nutbar, not a scholar.
In fact It was so well known that there were so many parallels between Christian theology and heathen religions that Justin Martyr came up with the utterly laughable and very telling concept of Diabolical Mimicry (which strangely gets no attention on his Wikipedia article currently).
It's funny you link to a book that actually *criticizes* the diabolical mimicry argument used to support the god-man myth. And JP Holding, the author of that book, is another infamous voice on the web for unscholarly behaviour. He runs the website Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministries and is notable for anti-apocalyptic interpretation, and bashing "the new atheism," and being rude to everyone who disagrees with him.

Regarding Justin Martyr's diabolical mimicry, he used it to compare a lot of things, but never used it to compare traditions of bodily resurrection (which didn't exist except for Judaism). He compared Jesus as Word of God just like Hermes and Zeus, and he compares Bacchus turning water to wine. His discussion of resurrection is compared to immortality of the soul, which he draws from philosophers like Plato, not from pagan myths.
Oh, and by the way, regarding your reference to the other dying-resurrecting-godmen not coming back to earth like it's claimed Jesus did, it's not at all certain that the early Christian movement had any notion that their idol was seen on earth after death. That's not at all shown by anything Paul writes. The gospel of Mark, before it was tampered with later and the additional verse added at the end, ended simply with the empty tomb. And when the accounts of his followers seeing him were added later on Christianity' development, the accounts differed in marked detail from gospel to gospel. That means that not only were those accounts of late origin, the inconsistent accounts mean to me that once they settled on spinning a new part of the story they couldn't even get the fabrication straight.
You're exactly right! The earliest Christian texts like Paul, Mark, and 1 Peter seem to discuss "resurrection to heaven," not "resurrection to earth." So in this sense, it does resemble Heracles going to Olympus, but it is also similar to Elijah and Enoch ascending to heaven. Like Elijah and Enoch, Dionysus also ascends to heaven without death. So Jesus is similar to Heracles (they die), and Elijah and Enoch are similar to Dionysus (don't die). I guess my point is: there are similarities to some pagan ideas, but not any more than Judaism. For both Greeks and Jews, the dead went to Hades/Sheol, with some being tormented in Tartarus/Gehenna while others were blessed in Elysium/Bosom of Abraham. That fact that some did even better and lived with God(s) in heaven/Olympus is pretty typical.
It's also known that every single gospel, including the four canonized, were condemned by various early Christian groups as false before the Church arbitrarily settled upon the four.
I can't think of a church father who condemned any of the eventually canonized four gospels. Got an example?
I don't know how you can say that with any certainty when I've shown that a lot of the non-Jewish world had cults about dying and resurrecting mangods.
Aside from Heracles? Not really. You mention Tammuz, but Tammuz (and Persephone) are seasonal gods: they spend winter in Hades and summer on Earth. It's not a story about personal resurrection. My overall point is: the similarities to pagan myths is extremely weak, while connections to Judaism are extremely strong. Suggesting Paul was influenced by paganism makes little sense when he specifically says Jesus' resurrection is the beginning of the Jewish general resurrection.
There are no pierced hands and feet. That's a Christian mistranslation/misunderstanding.
It's from the Septuagint. Masoretic says "pinned hands and feet" which is pretty much the same thing. Pinned might not imply penetrated, but a crucified man is pinned down to the wood, whether nailed or tied.
Yeah, as I said it's quite unclear that any book of the Christian scriptures outright equates Jesus with the one he supposedly worshiped as Father.
In John, Jesus says "My father and I are one." That's pretty unequivocal.
How do you know with any certainty he put those words in Jesus' mouth? Are you going by some Q-based theory?
Well, the purpose in the text appears to point to Psalm 22. I suppose it's possible that Jesus could really have said it, and Jesus really did expect God to save him from the cross. Regardless, the overall "meaning" of the Book of Mark is: the Jewish authorities had the Messiah executed, so God destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, and also raised Jesus to not just a political Messiah over Israel, but a Cosmic Messiah over the entire world. So if Jesus died thinking he was defeated, Mark doesn't seem to think it's too important. Besides, in Mark, Jesus specifically says he must die "as a ransom for many," so it makes little logical sense that his Jesus would regard his death as a bad thing.
I am commanded repeatedly and consistently to worship YHVH who is my King, my Savior and my Father - Him and Him alone. The Torah further teaches me not to change my mode of worship from the way my ancestors worshiped G-d in the era of the giving of the Torah. I am confident that if an historical Jesus even existed, and if he could speak to us from beyond the grave today, he would almost undoubtedly say the same.
Oh I agree. Jesus might not have been "a model Jew," but he probably didn't even see himself as the Messiah, let alone God.
By context I mean the specific words of the prophecy, which doesn't just begin in Isaiah 53. The servant who Isaiah talks about is identified in previous chapters. In fact, if a Christian has never done so, I urge every Christian reading these words to read Isaiah 43, ten chapters prior. If you read Isaiah 43 you'll not only see the Servant identified, you'll read some of the most potent words of refutation against any religion that attempts to supersede or replace Judaism or the special relationship between G-d and His nation Israel. Read the chapter carefully and reflect on the words. Then ask yourself if Christian theology is at all in line with that chapter in particular or the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures generally.
I'll get back to you.
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; Jul 5, 2010 at 01:49 AM. )
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Jul 5, 2010, 09:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Oh I agree. Jesus might not have been "a model Jew," but he probably didn't even see himself as the Messiah, let alone God.
The Divinity of Christ
John 8:58
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM."
Matthew 16:13-20
13
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16
11 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20
Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
21
45/47
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Jul 6, 2010, 06:28 PM
 
These two concurrent threads, this one and the sex thread that I took over from besson, are becoming difficult for me to keep straight. There's a lot I want to respond to, including some references to sources that I didn't have handy before. I'll try to do so soon.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Jul 9, 2010, 10:41 AM
 
Thoughts for the end of the week: G-d put the following prophecy in the mouth of the wicked prophet Balaam,

God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a "son of man" that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill? I have received an instruction to bless, and He has blessed, and I cannot retract it. He does not look at evil in Jacob, and has seen no perversity in Israel; the Lord, his God, is with him, and he has the King's friendship. (Numbers 23:19-21)

I have the following questions for Christians based on those three verses:

1. G-d clearly says he is not a man, nor is he a son of man (meaning a mortal) that he should relent from what He sets out to do. Since it is claimed about Jesus that he was somehow both 100% man and 100% god (which incidentally adds up to an irrational 200%), but G-d here says very clearly he is neither man nor son of man (two titles claimed by Jesus), how could one possibly reconcile those two mutually exclusive possibilities? (This isn't the only place where G-d is clearly called not a man, btw.) If you affirm that the Hebrew Scriptures - G-d's direct testimony to humanity - are correct, then any attempts to equate Jesus with G-d are false.

2. G-d "does not look at evil in Jacob and has seen no perversity in Israel." This contradicts another central claim of Christianity that G-d can only punish his creations because every human sins, and thus humanity needs a demigod, Jesus, to sacrifice himself on the cross and thus appease G-d The Father. But here G-d overlooks the sins of His chosen nation. Not only does this verse show that such Christian theology is false, there are many, many other examples of G-d forgiving sins in various ways (not just by blood offerings as missionaries incorrectly assert), including His choice to forgive not based on any human merit but of His own will (see Ezekiel 36 for one example). Again, if you affirm the truth of the Hebrew Scriptures, you cannot reconcile G-d's eternal words with Christian theology. If you accept the Hebrew Scriptures as truth and read it in an honest way, how do you maintain belief in the clearly false doctrine that is Trinitarian Christianity?
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jul 9, 2010 at 11:00 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Jul 9, 2010, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
A thought for the end of the week: G-d put the following prophecy in the mouth of the wicked prophet Balaam,

God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a "son of man" that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill? I have received an instruction to bless, and He has blessed, and I cannot retract it. He does not look at evil in Jacob, and has seen no perversity in Israel; the Lord, his God, is with him, and he has the King's friendship. (Numbers 23:19-21)

I have the following questions for Christians based on those three verses:

1. G-d clearly says he is not a man, nor is he a son of man (meaning a mortal) that he should relent from what he sets out to do. Since it is claimed about Jesus that he was somehow both 100% man and 100% god (which incidentally adds up to an irrational 200%), but G-d here says very clearly he is neither man nor son of man (two titles claimed by Jesus), how could one possibly reconcile those two mutually exclusive possibilities? (This isn't the only place where G-d is clearly called not a man, btw.) If you affirm that the Hebrew Scriptures - G-d's direct testimony to humanity - are correct, then any attempts to equate Jesus with G-d are false.
W0W! Arguing Christianity is somehow flawed because it has "irrational elements" in it is hilarious coming from you.

Pot.Meet.Kettle.

Please, please, PLEASE tell us all the writings in the Tanakh are completely and totally rational with not a single logical inconsistency. I could use a good laugh.



(And yes, I will continue to mock any post of yours that asserts that your religion's particular interpretation of the Abrahamic God is somehow more accurate or precise than the Christian or Muslim interpretation of the very same Abrahamic God. Why . . . Because I like to point out irrationality in religious discussion wherever it occurs.)
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Jul 9, 2010 at 11:16 AM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Jul 9, 2010, 11:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
W0W! Arguing Christianity is not the "one true faith" because it has "irrational elements" in it is hilarious coming from you.
Thank you, troll boy. The irrational arguments of Christianity I'm pointing out are not small points of disagreement between differing religions or minor irrational elements that can be ignored or apologized for. These types of theological conflicts that I'm pointing out are at the absolute heart of Christianity. If you accept the Hebrew Scriptures as truth, then the core claims of Christianity are invariably, unarguably false. Now if, on the other hand, you reject the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative (as Doofy seems to do), and accept Jesus merely on faith and reliance on Christian theology, then that's a judgment call that changes the equation for you as an individual. But I was always told by Christians that they accept the truth and even the inerrancy of both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, and if that's true then those kinds of Christians have a real problem on their hands. That is, if they are interested in discovering the truth.

Please, please, PLEASE tell us all the writings in the Tanakh are completely and totally rational with not a single logical inconsistency. I could use a good laugh.
As I've said before, laughing is not a valid form of argumentation. I never said that all the writings in the TaNaKh are completely and totally rational. I would not make that claim because I realize that miracles are beyond the naturally observable order and therefore beyond natural explanation; there are also a class of commandments that we recognize as not having a definite explanation for why we are commanded to perform them. Therefore they are beyond rational explanation that we currently have the means to provide. That doesn't mean there aren't rational explanations for those aspects that we may find out about in the future, but just that we do not definitively possess them in this age.

I also wouldn't say that there isn't a single logical inconsistency in my scriptures, although I would say that the vast majority (and perhaps all) of the inconsistencies you would likely point to are the reader's errors and misconstructions of interpretation, sometimes willful ones, rather than problems in the texts.

But yes, I do assert without any equivocation that Judaism is by far the most rational and logical of any complete religion on earth. (I say complete religion because I regard classic, non-theistic Buddhism or Confucianism as more of sets of earthly teachings for life than complete religions per se.) And yes, I assert that Judaism is the one truth faith, which contains separate paths to salvation for Jews and non-Jews. That does not mean that I'm claiming there is no wisdom in the other nations, or that other religions have no value or for their adherents. As Jews often say, Judaism teaches that there are many paths to G-d. (Some are just much more convoluted than others.)

(And yes, I will continue to mock any post of yours that asserts that your religion's particular interpretation of the Abrahamic God is somehow more accurate or precise than the Christian or Muslim interpretation of the very same Abrahamic God. Why . . . Because I like to point out irrationality in religious discussion wherever it occurs.)
Mock all you want, dc, but I care not about your mocking and derision, particularly not if you have not a single substantive thing to mock me over. You act the part of a school bully who mocks the smarter students not because of any superior position but because he recognizes his own deficiencies, is threatened by them and by others he sees as superior to himself, and desperately desires to bring down others to make himself feel better.

Yes, I absolutely affirm that my scriptures and religion are much more accurate and precise than those of Christianity and Islam. I have given substantive reasons for that belief. And you haven't made a single substantive claim to challenge my arguments. Yes, you've attempted to mock me for my belief, but you haven't offered any actual argument based on the religious claims themselves. At best you're arguing for what besson has previously claimed - that since religions often have many aspects that are beyond rationality, then therefore there is no possibility of rationality in any religious field of study. I have already shown that argument to be false, so you're going to have to do better than that.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jul 9, 2010 at 12:09 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Jul 9, 2010, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Yes, I absolutely affirm that my scriptures and religion are much more accurate and precise than those of Christianity and Islam. I have given substantive reasons for that belief. And you haven't made a single substantive claim to challenge my arguments. Yes, you've attempted to mock me for my belief, but you haven't offered any actual argument based on the religious claims themselves. At best you're arguing for what besson has previously claimed - that since religions often have many aspects that are beyond rationality, then therefore there is no possibility of rationality in any religious field of study. I have already shown that argument to be false, so you're going to have to do better than that.
The part bolded above explains why you still don't get it. My arguments in this thread are not to advocate in favor of one specific branch of the JudeoChrIslamic religion as being more substantive than another branch. My goal is not to mock your Jewish faith; my goal is to mock the mere existence of your faith. (If you were in here arguing the Christian or Muslim branch of JudeoChrIslamic thought had supremacy over the other two branches I would be mocking you and your faith just the same.)

Just do a search on here and see where I mock Christians or Muslims for claiming their faith is the "one true faith". I don't care about highlighting and critiquing the particular faith being espoused; I care about critiquing and mocking the very practice of religious faith/belief.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Jul 9, 2010 at 12:32 PM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Jul 9, 2010, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
The part bolded above explains why you still don't get it. My arguments in this thread are not to advocate in favor of one specific branch of the JudeoChrIslamic religion as being more substantive than another branch. Rather, my goal is not to mock your Jewish faith; my goal is to mock the mere existence of your faith. (If you were in here arguing the Christian or Muslim branch of JudeoChrIslamic thought had supremacy over the other two branches I would be mocking you and your faith just the same.)
How wonderful. The part in bold above shows how bigoted you are. Mocking me for the mere existence of my faith. I'm so proud of you, dcmacdaddy. You're a real winner. And I'm so glad you've immortalized your thoughts on this forum. I'm repeating myself here, but it's always good to have these kinds of declarations in writing. When the day of judgment arrives in this world or the next, I will stand confidently by my words and beliefs. We'll see where yours leave you.

Just do a search on here and see where I mock Christians or Muslims for claiming their faith is the "one true faith". I don't care about highlighting and critiquing the particular faith being espoused; I care about critiquing and mocking the very practice of religious faith/belief.
Why do you care about mocking? My intention in these debates is not to mock anyone. Critiquing with any level of substance I'm definitely fine with, but you choose to mock and I have to wonder why, specifically. Why all the hatred? Is it because of some erroneous belief of yours that atheism has a morally superior historical track record? (If so, you should do some studying up on the 20th Century track record of communism, which is an atheist political movement. Atheism has caused more suffering, death and destruction in the world than even the worst manifestations of evil in religions.) Is it because you're in love with the thoroughly sick, twisted and decaying secular culture?

If you want to critique, offer critiques with substance that we can debate, at the very least. If you wish to mock, though, I'll just fight fire with fire.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jul 9, 2010 at 12:48 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Jul 9, 2010, 05:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Thoughts for the end of the week: G-d put the following prophecy in the mouth of the wicked prophet Balaam,

God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a "son of man" that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill? I have received an instruction to bless, and He has blessed, and I cannot retract it. He does not look at evil in Jacob, and has seen no perversity in Israel; the Lord, his God, is with him, and he has the King's friendship. (Numbers 23:19-21)

I have the following questions for Christians based on those three verses:

1. G-d clearly says he is not a man, nor is he a son of man (meaning a mortal) that he should relent from what He sets out to do. Since it is claimed about Jesus that he was somehow both 100% man and 100% god (which incidentally adds up to an irrational 200%), but G-d here says very clearly he is neither man nor son of man (two titles claimed by Jesus), how could one possibly reconcile those two mutually exclusive possibilities? (This isn't the only place where G-d is clearly called not a man, btw.) If you affirm that the Hebrew Scriptures - G-d's direct testimony to humanity - are correct, then any attempts to equate Jesus with G-d are false.

2. G-d "does not look at evil in Jacob and has seen no perversity in Israel." This contradicts another central claim of Christianity that G-d can only punish his creations because every human sins, and thus humanity needs a demigod, Jesus, to sacrifice himself on the cross and thus appease G-d The Father. But here G-d overlooks the sins of His chosen nation. Not only does this verse show that such Christian theology is false, there are many, many other examples of G-d forgiving sins in various ways (not just by blood offerings as missionaries incorrectly assert), including His choice to forgive not based on any human merit but of His own will (see Ezekiel 36 for one example). Again, if you affirm the truth of the Hebrew Scriptures, you cannot reconcile G-d's eternal words with Christian theology. If you accept the Hebrew Scriptures as truth and read it in an honest way, how do you maintain belief in the clearly false doctrine that is Trinitarian Christianity?
With whom did Jacob wrestle?
Gen:32:31
Jacob named the place Peniel, "Because I have seen God face to face," he said, "yet my life has been spared."
Since "G-d "does not look at evil in Jacob and has seen no perversity in Israel," why did the wander in the desert for 40 years? Why the need for the redeemer? What does Israel need redemption from?
45/47
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Jul 9, 2010, 07:28 PM
 
I am now adding to this post on this early Tuesday morning:
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
With whom did Jacob wrestle? Gen:32:31
With an angel, Esau's angel specifically. And since angels are closely associated with G-d, that's what you see being described in that verse. I want to talk more about that verse but I'm running late for Shabbos in Hancock Park again, so I'll have to save the rest of this reply until tomorrow night.

Edit: Out of curiosity, do Christians literally think it was meant that Yacov (Jacob) was wrestling with G-d Himself? Obviously that cannot be true whatsoever, since this figure Yacov was wrestling with could not "prevail against him" physically even after dislocating Yacov's hip. Even then Yacov was able to hold on to this figure and not let him go until Yacov got the blessing he demanded. This chapter is about Yacov and his evil brother Esau, and as a result it follows (and we're taught by our sages) that Esau's national guardian angel was striving with Yacov here. If it had been G-d Whose power is limitless, Yacov could not have succeeded in resisting His force. And as I said before, angels are closely associated with the divine and thus may sometimes be called by the same divine names that are used for G-d, but the text clearly shows Yacov was wrestling with an angel and not G-d.

Since "G-d "does not look at evil in Jacob and has seen no perversity in Israel," why did the wander in the desert for 40 years? Why the need for the redeemer? What does Israel need redemption from?
Good questions that I'll discuss very soon. Shabbat Shalom, MacNN.

Edit: They walked in the wilderness for 40 years because of the Sin of the Spies in making people reject the Land. I'm not saying that G-d will never punish His handy work for their sinfulness since obviously it is said very often in TaNaKh that He does. What I am saying is that He also has the ability to overlook and forgive sinfulness based on His own independent will and desire, and without any intercessor or other deity between Himself and His creation. Because all other deities are falsehoods.

As for why there needs to be a redeemer and redemption, it's not because of the Christian notion that we're lacking in personal salvation. In addition, nothing in the prophecies about Mashiach say anything about him redeeming us from sin. That's not even the function of any of the kings of Israel. The kings of Israel come from the tribe of Yehudah (Judah). Those who assisted with atonement in the Temple system were the priests, the Kohanim, who were/are of the tribe of Levi. What we are awaiting in terms of redemption is a national redemption led by Mashiach ben David, a literal human descendant of King David who will compel the lax among our nation to return to Torah, who will help us repair any deficiencies in our divine service, who will be victorious in the wars against our enemies, who will ingather the exiles back to the Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel), and who will facilitate the rebuilding/reestablishment of the Beit HaMikdash (the Holy Temple). That is what is prophesied regarding King Mashiach, and the crucified character who you believe in accomplished absolutely none of that. Atonement is not at all a main function of King Mashiach, not even close. At best his work gives us additional tools for us to augment our connection to the divine, but none of his main accomplishments relate directly to atonement at all. And it's also crucial to point out that King Mashiach will have the power to do these things because he will be granted that power from G-d.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jul 13, 2010 at 06:31 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Jul 9, 2010, 09:43 PM
 
I've been in and out from travel and will be moving around again next week, but I'm fascinated by the amount of information covered thus far. I'll quickly address one of the last points raised by BigMac here;
God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a "son of man" that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill? I have received an instruction to bless, and He has blessed, and I cannot retract it. He does not look at evil in Jacob, and has seen no perversity in Israel; the Lord, his God, is with him, and he has the King's friendship. (Numbers 23:19-21)
This is a very weak argument IMO. Couple of things here;
  1. For someone with distaste for the ideal of numbering verses and subsequently taking them out of context, you've cited a singular, numbered verse and subsequently took it out of context. This is Baalam's oracle and begins with his explanation of The Lord's nature. There is no reason I should conclude that anything other than the blessing is of God or that Baalam had begun speaking the Lord's message to him.
  2. Is it not lame to attempt an interpretation independent of its historical and cultural context? i.e. Does it say that it is not possible for God to be man or son of man or that he never will be? Certainly, at that time God would not have been incarnate even according to Christian doctrine no?
  3. If it is acceptable to cite Scripture to affirm faith, than it is also acceptable to acknowledge that Numbers 23:19 is stating that God is not like man and of course as indicated in multiple instances throughout the NT: neither is Jesus.
  4. You're correct that this theme is also found elsewhere such as in 1 Samuel 15:29 wherein it concludes; And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. (1 Samuel 15:35)

I could easily strip 1 Samuel 15:35 from proper context and indict Judaism for its fallacy, but you and I both know our faiths require a little more than dime-store theology. When you're attempting to change hearts and minds with "facts", make sure they do not rely on the same assumptions or authority as any other faith. (mckenna having pointed out multiple interpretations for example) As I have told you before that your faith rises and falls based on the same criteria as mine. You may not know it or appreciate it, but we share the same God.

You've shown repeatedly that your mind is entirely closed with regard to Christianity which is fine of course, but why you'd expect their minds to be any more open and/or fair than yours is beyond me. If this is an opportunity to sharpen your teaching skills for a greater capacity than "stubborn internet guy", more power to you and may God Bless You, but as a friend on most occasions in this forum; if it is rooted in pride, it is beneath you.
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Jul 9, 2010, 10:17 PM
 
It really isn't about where you place your faith, as much as it is about having faith to begin with. With which spiritual community do you belong? What is the foundation of the egregore? What is it's established access (is it fun or annoying)? These are, IMO, the most important factors.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Jul 10, 2010, 07:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It really isn't about where you place your faith, as much as it is about having faith to begin with. With which spiritual community do you belong? What is the foundation of the egregore? What is it's established access (is it fun or annoying)? These are, IMO, the most important factors.
I would concur that we three (and several others here) could adequately be called "watchers". Interesting to me that we will be watching for the same God at the end of the day... or days as it were.

We enjoy solidarity in a great many things, I find these "got'cha" discussions disturbing for a host of reasons.
ebuddy
     
DBursey
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Jul 11, 2010, 01:55 PM
 
If anyone (or their God) had had the good sense to properly ground the steel support structure electrically during construction this purely existentialist zapping would most likely not have occurred.

Or perhaps the offending, offended deity would've turned the whole thing into a pillar of salt! ... Just sayin'.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Jul 12, 2010, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
If you want to critique, offer critiques with substance that we can debate, at the very least. If you wish to mock, though, I'll just fight fire with fire.
OK. I'll play. How does holding a religious belief help you to be a better person than not holding a religious belief?



Are you more likely to be compassionate toward your fellow human beings because of your religious belief? If so, why does religious belief make you be more compassionate?

Are you less likely/willing to steal something because of your religious belief? If so, why does religious belief make you less likely/willing to steal something?

Are you less likely/willing to lie for personal gain because of your religious belief? If so, why does religious belief make you less likely/willing to lie for personal gain?


Fundamentally, how does the presence of a religious belief make a person behave differently than the absence of a religious belief? And why? WHY does the presence of a religious belief make a person act in one manner and not another? Is it fear, a desire to conform, or some other motivating factor that makes a person behave differently due to their religious beliefs?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Jul 12, 2010, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
OK. I'll play. How does holding a religious belief help you to be a better person than not holding a religious belief?



Are you more likely to be compassionate toward your fellow human beings because of your religious belief? If so, why does religious belief make you be more compassionate?

Are you less likely/willing to steal something because of your religious belief? If so, why does religious belief make you less likely/willing to steal something?

Are you less likely/willing to lie for personal gain because of your religious belief? If so, why does religious belief make you less likely/willing to lie for personal gain?


Fundamentally, how does the presence of a religious belief make a person behave differently than the absence of a religious belief? And why? WHY does the presence of a religious belief make a person act in one manner and not another? Is it fear, a desire to conform, or some other motivating factor that makes a person behave differently due to their religious beliefs?
These are good questions dc. I think even a casual perusal of the atrocities committed by mankind under the guise of a deity would establish that religion in and of itself generally will not alter human nature in what one could do for self-gratification. In this, religious people and/or leadership are no different than secular societies or authorities.

In this case it is not what religion motivated you NOT to do, but what it has motivated mankind TO do. A desire to serve God has led to the concept and greatest achievements in philanthropy including long-term respite care, care for the poor, the ill, the elderly, etc... It has led to the first institutions of higher-education in the US, all manner of sciences including medicine and the foundation of basic hygiene, inspired the foundation of the arts including literature, music, architecture, etc... and many other things that do not get included when comparing its atrocities to what secular societies have been capable.
ebuddy
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Jul 13, 2010, 01:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
These are good questions dc. I think even a casual perusal of the atrocities committed by mankind under the guise of a deity would establish that religion in and of itself generally will not alter human nature in what one could do for self-gratification. In this, religious people and/or leadership are no different than secular societies or authorities.

In this case it is not what religion motivated you NOT to do, but what it has motivated mankind TO do. A desire to serve God has led to the concept and greatest achievements in philanthropy including long-term respite care, care for the poor, the ill, the elderly, etc... It has led to the first institutions of higher-education in the US, all manner of sciences including medicine and the foundation of basic hygiene, inspired the foundation of the arts including literature, music, architecture, etc... and many other things that do not get included when comparing its atrocities to what secular societies have been capable.
Great post. Now this is the ebuddy I know and love (to debate with).


As for your comments, I think may of the positives you cite would have come to pass even without the presence of religion. Except for some specific religious architecture and music, all those benefits of religion you cite would have come to pass anyway. Look at the advances made during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment: They would have occurred anyway, and possibly occurred sooner if we didn't have organized religion.

Heck in the medieval era--my period of academic knowledge--there were major changes happening in social and cultural organization in spite of attempts by the church to regulate or ban such activities. Think about the rise of industrial specialization--and the resultant practices of commerce/exchange and mercantilism--that emerged during the medieval era. In that particular socio-cultural advance, organized religion was a hindrance as literacy was still restricted to the ecclesiastic social classes and citizens of various countries could be punished for trying to learn how to read and/or write. Or think about all the lost productivity that resulted from citizens of various nations being conscripted into military service to fight on behalf of or against religious organizations.

As for your suggestion that "all manner of sciences including medicine and the foundation of basic hygiene" could be attributed to religion, I will give you two names: Galileo and John Wycliffe. You know about Galileo. You might know about Wycliffe. But he published the first vernacular Bible and was condemned and executed for his act of bringing the Bible to people in a language they could understand. His acts so enraged the Church that 44 years after his death, he was exhumed, burned, and his ashes scattered in water as "punishment" for his actions. Now tell me how religion helped spread knowledge, literacy, and education?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Jul 13, 2010, 07:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Now tell me how religion helped spread knowledge, literacy, and education?
Easy: you're ignoring the fact that your examples were religious men.

It's rather hard for you to say "religion oppressed Wycliffe's knowledge/literacy/eduction" when his actions stemmed directly from being a religious person. In fact I believe a large number of "scientific writers" during the medieval period were religious figures of some sort.

There are many historical books on this debate. I think most conclude that religion had a very, very positive as well as negative affect on the growth of knowledge and Science over the past couple thousand years.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Jul 13, 2010, 08:35 AM
 
Good questions/points dc... I'll be getting back to you. 5 hour drive to the coast awaits.
ebuddy
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Jul 13, 2010, 08:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
For someone with distaste for the ideal of numbering verses and subsequently taking them out of context, you've cited a singular, numbered verse and subsequently took it out of context.
At the outset I want to say that I understand where you're coming from, ebuddy, when you express your dislike for these kinds of conversations. If things were optimal I wouldn't have any desire to have them either, but given that I think we're so near to the redemption of Israel and the rest of humanity, I feel like it's my responsibility to shed more light on these topics for the uninformed in the non-Torah world, so that they're not in utter shock when what is to occur fundamentally violates the religious expectations and assumptions they hold.

For the record, I gave more than one verse, and I provided it in context, as I will point out after the next section from you I quote.
This is Baalam's oracle and begins with his explanation of The Lord's nature. There is no reason I should conclude that anything other than the blessing is of God or that Baalam had begun speaking the Lord's message to him.
Ah, yes there is, ebuddy. You're not reading the Scriptures closely enough. Those are the words that G-d clearly put in Baalam's mouth as prophecy in verse 16. Baalam did not want to bless Am Yisrael (the people of Israel) - indeed he had been given the mission to curse instead of bless - but he was forced to because he was forced to speak the prophecy given to him by the L-rd. And I really don't think you want to argue that G-d would put a false or transitory prophecy in Balaam's mouth. Again, the Torah is eternal and not subject to revision.
Is it not lame to attempt an interpretation independent of its historical and cultural context? i.e. Does it say that it is not possible for God to be man or son of man or that he never will be? Certainly, at that time God would not have been incarnate even according to Christian doctrine no?
1. I did not attempt an interpretation independent of the historical and cultural context. Yes, I took a snippet from the Scriptures, but I explained its context and did not use it in any abusive way; you should remember those words of rebuke you tried to use in response to me the next time you come across an abuse of the Hebrew Scriptures by a Christian source that does exactly that.

2. This was not merely the opinion of Balaam according to the text. Balaam was speaking a prophecy from G-d about G-d's nature that He put in Balaam's mouth.

3. So we've established that G-d says He is neither man nor son of man. Now you're asking me if it's possible for G-d to later become a man. And I say in response that it is impossible for G-d to become a man because to do so would violate His unchanging attributes that He has given us to know Him by, and we also know that according to G-d He does not change. It says in Isaiah that "even to (your) old age, I am the same," and says in Malachi 3 that "I the L-rd have not changed." Moreover, it would be utterly impossible for the G-d of the Hebrew Scriptures to ever incarnate and walk among men on earth and be perceived by them because G-d can not be "seen" by mortals and live. We learn this in Exodus 32 - even Moshe Rabbeinu, the highest prophet of all time - could not see G-d's "face" and live. Moshe had to be shielded by a rock AND by His hand while a more direct manifestation of G-d's presence passed by, and all Moshe was allowed to see was a glimpse of His "back," which our sages teach was the L-rd's Tefillin strap. That was for the highest prophet who G-d spoke to directly and who was trusted in all of G-d's house - even he was in danger from a glimpse of G-d's back. That's how you can know for a fact that equating a man (or someone in the form of man) with G-d is an utter falsehood by G-d's eternal standard, the Torah. His power is so immense that anything approaching a direct manifestation of His glory would kill any mortals around to see it. Any power short of that is plainly not G-d. Plus, G-d through Moshe's speech in Devarim (Deuteronomy) cautions us that we saw "no form" in the fire at Mount Sinai when He met the nation directly to give it the Torah and that any creation of a form to worship G-d through is a terrible corruption, a great sin that leads to very serious punishment.

The fact is, ebuddy, the Torah teaches me that it is eternal, the highest revelation and that it is not subject to revision. By that standard, Christianity (especially mainstream Trinitarian/Pauline Christianity) is utterly defeated from the get-go. I'll give you the following hypothetical example to demonstrate what that means to me in concrete terms. If today news suddenly breaks out that a figure of a man has come down from the clouds that is said to be the "Second Coming," a figure calling itself Jesus and announcing that it is to be worshiped as G-d, do you know what I'd have to do? I would be absolutely obligated even under such a scenario to unquestioningly reject that figure, because I know for a fact that such a figure is not G-d. I'd even fetch a large T and some big nails to kill that figure so that this time at least I could personally take credit for killing a false god. Harsh? Absolutely. Disrespectful? Surely, and I'm sorry it is. But that's the truth. Torah is eternal and not subject to revision, and that means G-d could never come as an incarnation, a form of a man to be perceived by human eyes and worshiped. It's an utter impossibility by G-d's own testimony.
If it is acceptable to cite Scripture to affirm faith, than it is also acceptable to acknowledge that Numbers 23:19 is stating that God is not like man and of course as indicated in multiple instances throughout the NT: neither is Jesus.
It doesn't say that G-d is not like a man. It says he is not a man and not a son of man. Christians believe as doctrine that Jesus was simultaneously man and god, do they not? G-d says He is not a man nor a son of man, two titles Jesus supposedly applied to himself or had applied to him by his followers, so there's no way to get away from it.
You're correct that this theme is also found elsewhere such as in 1 Samuel 15:29 wherein it concludes; And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. (1 Samuel 15:35)
There is actually a much better verse you could have challenged me with in response to my application of Number 23. But as for Samuel 15, that isn't even a good come back to me. Yes, the word "nacham" is used in both verses and usually translated as repent, but it's used in two different contexts. In Numbers 23:19 G-d is saying He does not relent from the good he intends to do, and that's why Balaam cannot offer a prophetic curse of the people whom G-d blesses. In that verse from Samuel, it is said that G-d regretted (nacham) making Saul king because He knew Saul would transgress. Those are two different uses of the word nacham with two entirely different contexts, just as words in any language can have different meanings depending on context.

Btw, G-d also regretted having created the world because of the generation of the flood. What can this be likened to? Parents of children know that their children will make mistakes and hurt themselves at times. And in those times the parents may have regret over what they created because they love their children and don't want to see them doing the wrong things. So too does G-d have regrets over His creation because He already knows the future of all their mistakes, but it still pains Him to see them transgress.

When you're attempting to change hearts and minds with "facts", make sure they do not rely on the same assumptions or authority as any other faith. (mckenna having pointed out multiple interpretations for example)
Why shouldn't I use facts if they rely on assumptions that are held by other religions? I don't really follow the line of logic you're using here, honestly. The only assumption I'm using is that one should read Scriptures responsibly, which means having some understanding or at least regard for the original language it was given in (in this case Hebrew) even if you can't read the text except in translation, and which also means interpreting the verses in context, sensibly. If you agree with that assumption I'm very pleased. As for lpk's examples, if you're referring to his apologies for abused quotations of the Hebrew Scriptures found in the gospels, I think I have shown such defenses cannot be maintained. lpk agreed with me that the gospels abuse quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures by improperly translating words, taking them out of their historical context, denying their blatantly obvious fulfillment in the context of history, and inserting them so far out of context that one can only defend the usage by claiming the quotations are being used completely non-literally just for the purpose of deceptively strengthening Christian claims.

As I have told you before that your faith rises and falls based on the same criteria as mine. You may not know it or appreciate it, but we share the same God.
I hope we do, ebuddy, because I care about Christians (and also Muslims for that matter) and their relationship with the Creator. But just because Christians and Muslims have a framework of Abrahamic faith, that does not mean that they can wildly depart from very core points G-d declares to be true in the TaNaKh and then still consider themselves His followers/worshippers. (Also see below my reply to Shaddim on this subject - the example of the Samaritan potsherd dedicated to G-d and Asherah) As I've said, until the Messianic Era when the falsehoods held by Edom and Ishmael are repudiated, the point at which ten men of every nation on earth will seek to follow Jews because they will finally perceive the superiority of Jewish knowledge of G-d (Zechariah 8), only at that point will non-Jews (who do not follow the 7 Laws of Noah as taught by Judaism) clearly see the divine truth and truly follow Him. Do you or do you not believe in that prophecy from Zechariah, ebuddy? If you do, that presents a major theological problem for you because your religion has been claiming for 2,000 years that we Jews don't know what we're talking about. Clearly those events are still in the future - you can't say they already occurred. If you believe in ridiculous replacement theology and think that somehow Christians are the new Jews, then I suppose you could give yourself an out there, but you haven't given indications AFAIK that you believe in such a patently false and idiotic doctrine as that.

You've shown repeatedly that your mind is entirely closed with regard to Christianity which is fine of course, but why you'd expect their minds to be any more open and/or fair than yours is beyond me.
Granted, ebuddy, the way in which I'm arguing and the impersonal venue that I'm using to argue will most likely not foster greater levels of understanding in a person as vested in Christianity as you are, or as Doofy is. What we're discussing here are not easy topics. You as a Christian are accustomed to believing that you have a monopoly on religious truth, and you are also accustomed to believing for the most part the Christian lie that Jews are scorned and rejected by G-d. Now for me to come along as a Jew and to tell you that so much of what you hold to be true about G-d is false, certainly that message isn't going to go over well with you. No matter how diplomatically I phrase what I have to tell you on these subjects, you're not going to be very receptive at all to my words.

Since I unequivocally reject much of what you hold dear in your religion, to you I seem entirely close-minded. But that is not the case. I study religion on two different and distinct levels, devotionally and scholarly. When I pray I'm devotional, but when I study my religion and the religions of others I'm analytical. It's something I relished having the opportunity to do in college, and I almost was a philosophy major as a result of my enjoyment of religious studies courses. This was back at a point in my life when I was experiencing considerable adversity in my life, a point at which I could have continued in the direction that was normal for me, that of largely secular life with minimal Jewish influence, or go in the other direction of increasing Torah observance. There was never any question that I'd be Jewish, but the question was what kind of Jew I would be in the future. So I studied Judaism along with all other world religions. I can't claim that the view I came away with was unbiased because it wasn't, but it was a view informed by my scholarship - that Torah is the divine truth, that Torah Judaism is vastly superior to every other religion I had surveyed (every organized religion on earth), and that based on that view the responsible thing to would be to embrace Torah Judaism. To live in accordance with my reinforced beliefs.

So to reiterate, this wasn't a choice made simply out of devotion; it was strongly influenced by my intellect. I think that you and someone like Doofy both approach religion almost entirely on the devotional level and in terms of faith, not based on your intellect. Devotion and faith are wonderful things, but if they're not backed by rational thought they are, in my book, incomplete. I am critical of many Orthodox Jews who normally love arguing over complex applications of Torah law but sometimes leave less complex but very important analytical topics in Torah law entirely up to the judgment of their personal rabbis (who themselves often don't get the analysis correct). One of those subjects came up this Shabbos, actually - on a topic that has nothing to do with this subject, just to be clear. Devotion is fine, but unquestioning devotion without independent thought, is in my opinion not. I challenge my own people to reject that manifestations of blind devotion without independent thought, and I also challenge non-Jews to do the same.

If this is an opportunity to sharpen your teaching skills for a greater capacity than "stubborn internet guy", more power to you and may God Bless You, but as a friend on most occasions in this forum; if it is rooted in pride, it is beneath you.
I hope that with this reply I have begun to explain what these discussions for me are rooted in: out of a genuine regard for others and their spiritual welfare. Not for my own pride, enjoyment or narrow glorification. Only for the sake of the L-rd of Hosts, His eternal Torah, and for the elevation of His holy nation Israel in the view of non-Jews, and hopefully through that effort success in bringing more non-Jews to the truth of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It really isn't about where you place your faith, as much as it is about having faith to begin with. With which spiritual community do you belong? What is the foundation of the egregore? What is it's established access (is it fun or annoying)? These are, IMO, the most important factors.
Having faith is a very, very important thing, Shaddim. We definitely agree. But blind faith that isn't backed by reason can be corrupted faith, and I don't think G-d has much appreciation for that.

If all that mattered is faith generically, then explain to me why G-d would have such an immense dislike for idolatry, polytheism, foreign worship, graven images, and the like. If all that matters is faith, then theoretically faith in any divine force should be accepted, but clearly such is not acceptable. Not even in a Pauline Christian context.

Consider this: In recent years archaeologists uncovered pottery in Samaria bearing an inscription of the divine Name (IIRC the Tetragrammaton) and "His Asherah." Asherah was a semitic goddess. Now the Samaritans were non-Jews transplanted into the Land, so it makes sense that as part of their assimilation into Israel they would maintain remnants of polytheistic belief. Do you know what it says in the TaNaKh about the cults of Asherah? Any objects used in that worship should be destroyed, according to G-d. According to the TaNaKh the worshiper who made that object was committing a great sin by implying a union between G-d and the false deity Asherah. That person obviously had faith, but faith alone without an intellectual basis is not what G-d desires, at least not the G-d of the Hebrew Scriptures. He desires faith in and service to Him alone. And it's clear to me, at least, that even the Christian Greek Testament affirms belief in only one single deity and does not equate Jesus with that deity.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jul 13, 2010 at 10:39 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Jul 13, 2010, 09:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
OK. I'll play. How does holding a religious belief help you to be a better person than not holding a religious belief?
In many ways. While I do believe that one can theoretically lead some kind of moral existence based on secular humanism alone, and while I believe I would be quite moral without religion, I also believe that devotion to Torah enhances my morality in many concrete ways. And I have also seen a lot of anecdotal proof of people acting in immoral ways because of a lack of the objective moral criteria that many religions provide.
Are you more likely to be compassionate toward your fellow human beings because of your religious belief? If so, why does religious belief make you be more compassionate?
Yes, I am more compassionate than I otherwise would be because of my religious outlook. I was less compassionate when Torah was not actively guiding my life. I have far greater compassion for the poor, for the disadvantaged, for the ignorant, for the disabled, etc.. I am less judgmental toward others and seek to create more peace and harmony, especially in my personal relationships.

Are you less likely/willing to steal something because of your religious belief? If so, why does religious belief make you less likely/willing to steal something?
I was unlikely to steal before, but yes I am even less likely to steal now. Currently I'm questioning the issue of copyright infringement from the Torah perspective, and it may well lead me to in the future stop any unapproved downloading of copyrighted works, although I do believe there is a distinction between copyright infringement and theft in the case of digital copying where no one is deprived of property as a result of someone else copying it. (Still, deprivation of income from the copyrighted work is a very important consideration.)
Are you less likely/willing to lie for personal gain because of your religious belief? If so, why does religious belief make you less likely/willing to lie for personal gain?
I consider myself an honest person before my increase in Torah observance, but yes I am even less likely to lie or to slander now that Torah is my guide. Torah Judaism teaches me that our words have a lot of power and potential to do good and bad. I believe that the world was created by divine utterances. I believe that what comes from my lips in prayer can facilitate forgiveness for my sins, and as a result I hold speech to be very powerful. My religion also teaches me that slander and evil speech against others is grievously sinful and should be avoided at all costs. I try to regulate my speech accordingly, whereas I would not be that mindful of speech if I were still operating on a mostly secular basis.

Fundamentally, how does the presence of a religious belief make a person behave differently than the absence of a religious belief?
I think it's beyond question that fear/awe of G-d and His instructions for human conduct have a powerful effect on the conduct of human beings. I think the net effect of religion on human conduct is a positive one, although there are exceptions. High ideals of Judeo-Christian morality cannot be denied as a part of the founding of America, the country that I believe to be one of the most powerful human forces for good in the history of the world. Religion leads to the building and maintaining of schools and universities, hospitals, to various forms of charity and other philanthropic pursuits. Religion has also given us extremely beautiful works of art and some of the finest cultural products ever seen.

Sometimes, however, misguided religions can lead their adherents on very evil paths, such as in the case of radical Muslims venerating death and seeking to kill those who they define as infidels because of a misplaced emphasis in Muslim scripture on bloodshed for narrow religious ends. In the Koran when Mohammed speaks of killing Jews and Christians, one can easily take those passages out of context and take that as a broad mandate on Muslims to kill the "People of the Book." Radical Muslims use those verses as foundations for their crimes against G-d and humanity, whereas those who dislike radical Islam also use those verses to condemn Islam. But taken in context, it is clear that many of those references in the Koran refer narrowly to those who profess to be Jews and Christians but do not in truth practice Judaism or Christianity. Don't get me wrong, though - Mohammed did have hatred for Judaism and Christianity, especially after he was rejected for being a false prophet by Arabian Jews. Mohammed does write false things about both religions in order to justify a late claim by him that his religion should be spread to the whole world, whereas he originally said he came to teach the polytheistic Arab world an Arbrahamic faith and not to compete with Judaism and Christianity. But many of the verses that the radicals rely on in affirming their mission to kill non-Muslims are indeed taken out of their proper context.

And of course Christianity is not innocent in this regard - I need not discuss in detail the atrocities committed by Christians in the course of early Catholic Church persecution of Jews, persecutions during the Crusades, Inquisitions, Pogroms, blood libels, passion play mobs, etc.

Generally speaking, though, religion has in my view been a strong net positive. I think it has been a civilizing force even when abused to sanction barbaric crimes, and that if not for religion the world would be a much darker place. For while many will disagree, I think that modern Western civilization values on morality, equality, fair treatment, proportionate justice, individual rights, etc. can clearly be traced to, indeed, Judaism. There's a reason why we call it Judeo-Christian values. (I would also argue that those values come much more from the Judeo side rather than the Christian side for some important reasons, but I won't delve into that topic in this post.)

WHY does the presence of a religious belief make a person act in one manner and not another? Is it fear, a desire to conform, or some other motivating factor that makes a person behave differently due to their religious beliefs?
Fear/awe of G-d (particularly fear of divine judgment and punishment in the afterlife) is one reason for adherence to religious values. It's called by Judaism the lowest reason to adhere to Torah, but it's still a strong reason for adherence. Another level of motivation is a desire for reward in this world, in the afterlife or in a perfected world. The highest reason for adherence is said to be love for G-d and His Torah and obedience for its own sake. Conformity is another motivating factor, albeit a weak one in most circumstances. When I'm around other religious Jews I am more careful to observe more easily neglected divine commands and to conform to Orthodox customs. For example, Orthodox Jews make blessing over everything before they eat or drink, and they pray afterward for the food they just consumed. I have begun in recent times to adopt those behaviors, but when I'm not in an Orthodox setting it's easy to neglect those very important but relatively minor aspects of devotion and to revert to treating food in the inconsequential, matter of fact way of the secularist.

Additionally, for me, because I'm a naturally very analytical person, my religion motivates me to act in accordance with it because my religion is fulfilling to me intellectually as well as spiritually. Learning fine points of Torah teaches me the background and applications (both historical and current) of the Mitzvot (commandments), as well as the religious history of my people. Learning Talmud and other texts of practical Jewish law teaches me how to practically apply the Mitzvot of the Written Torah in multitudes of possible situations that may be found in every day life. Learning prophecy informs me concerning the divine force in history, why the world is the way it is, why Am Yisrael has experienced what it has experienced in various periods including the period of this prolonged, brutal Exile, why the world seeks to destroy the Jewish State, and what to expect as conditions continue to ripen for the uiltimate fulfillment of the prophecies of the Messianic Era. Learning Jewish mysticism (i.e. Kabalah) gives me profound esoteric details on the concealed aspects of Creation, additional details on the various aspects of Jewish observance, and also prophecies that augment the prophecies of the Navim in the TaNaKh. Reading Psalms and similarly divinely inspired writings strengthen my resolve to continue forward as a proud religious Jew even in this world that often appears mired in darkness. Learning from mentors and friends by seeing them run Torah-based homes and raise Torah observant children gives me practical experience on how to raise my own family, if I am given the blessing to have one in the future. (It also reinforces for me the many ways in which family life based on Torah is infinitely superior to family life based on secular examples, a topic deserving its own post or even its own thread.) And residing among other religious Jews provides a refuge for me where I gain considerable strength just by being around other like-minded people, young and old Jews alike walking the same path that I walk, the same path walked by our ancestors.

Also, becoming more Torah observant has bolstered my faith considerably, and when I say faith I mean it in the context of a comprehensive level of faith known as emunah in Hebrew (in case you want to look it up) that although we have free will and choice, everything that happens to a person, for good or for ill, ultimately has its origin Above and is for the ultimate elevation of Creation. That's very comforting to me. That level of faith, which I have only recently begun to incorporate into my life, helps me deal with adversity in my life and with negative things that happen to me, my immediate loved ones, my people and to the rest of the world. It helps me cope with outrages in politics that otherwise bother me very deeply. And it makes me thankful for every blessing I have received in the past and every blessing I hope to receive in the future. It's a very powerful thing to have that level of faith, and since it's somewhat new to me it's something I work on maintaining every day.

That's a lot of it, for me.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jul 13, 2010 at 12:36 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Jul 13, 2010, 09:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
In many ways. While I do believe that one can theoretically lead some kind of moral existence based on secular humanism alone, and while I believe I would be quite moral without religion, I also believe that devotion to Torah enhances my morality in many concrete ways. And I have also seen a lot of anecdotal proof of people acting in immoral ways because of a lack of the objective moral criteria that many religions provide.
On the other hand, I have also seen religious people acting in immoral ways. Even worse, I have seen some *use* their religion as an excuse for their immorality.

(you say something similar towards the bottom of your thread, but I feel it's important in the context of the quote I pulled out. Observed behavior in this case can yield contradicting results, suggesting that religion doesn't have as strong of an effect on a person's morality as you think)
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:57 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,