It's Rather Pathetic...... [Archive] - Armageddon Online Forums

Beatnik Bob

Nov 11th, 2005, 4:53 PM

Seeing as how I was pissed off the time I snapped at you, I can't really blame you. In any case, there's no hard feelings on my side. Thank you for understanding.

I'm not sure that follows. If you look at those verses, you see words and phrases that imply that this is discussing man-made objects. "Make for yourselves", a "carved" stone, "sculptured" image. Jesus wasn't made by his fellow man, unless you're talking biologically. And if Christians are right, God had a hand in that too. So according to Christians, they could worship me, since I'm not made by a human. And actually, it talks about any image. Because since no one has ever seen G-d, you cannot draw, carve, or sculpt any image of G-d.

Keep in mind that Satan is shown the clear loser (Revelations) and has to basically ask permission to wreak havok (Job). You could consider Satan a demigod, I suppose. Of course, you could also consider the angels demigods. It's kind hard to draw the line there. But in any case, the Bible seems pretty clear in laying out that Satan only has power because God lets him have power. Well, lets pretend Jesus is god, what about Jesus being terrorized by Satan in the wilderness? And also, obviously Satan is powerefull in the Christian view, to even be able to harm Jesus and all humanity, whether he was given permission or not.

I find myself curious as to how the Torah's version of the Book of Job runs. I believe Satan has a rather important role in that text. Care to enlighten me? No, not at all. First, the book of Job isn't in the Torah. It's in a book called: Kethuvim. Which means that it doesn't come from the Torah (means other writtings, Torah means teachings).
Also, we believe the Torah, and its dictionary(Mishna). And speeking of which, alot of it is symbolism, like when Solomon stopped the Sun in the sky, now how can you stop the sun in the sky?

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 11th, 2005, 8:33 PM

So according to Christians, they could worship me, since I'm not made by a human.

Well, if you aren't divine, that would be blasphemy. Christians believe Jesus was divine.

And actually, it talks about any image. Because since no one has ever seen G-d, you cannot draw, carve, or sculpt any image of G-d.

I think it has more to do with attempting to capture the look of God in stone than actually succeeding, since I believe we can all agree that a God so powerful we can't look directly at him isn't going to translate well to paper. Also, I think reducing Jesus to an "image" would be a mistake. Jesus was a man who developed a pretty advanced philosophy for his day and age, whether you believe him to be a teacher or a divine man. I'd say that's more important than how he looked.

Well, lets pretend Jesus is god, what about Jesus being terrorized by Satan in the wilderness?

Sure. Satan merely tempted Jesus by making suggestions. Anyone can pray and talk to God, anyone can say something misguided while doing so. That doesn't really deify them. Also, keep in mind Jesus is believed to be more of a conduit of God than God himself. That conduit was used to interact with the world... including Satan.

And also, obviously Satan is powerefull in the Christian view, to even be able to harm Jesus and all humanity, whether he was given permission or not.

He's undoubtably powerful, but only so he can play his role. The angels in Revelations were powerful as well - they had the chance to sound the trumpets, and pour the vials, and break the seals. But they were just playing the role they were destined to play, given them by God.

No, not at all. First, the book of Job isn't in the Torah. It's in a book called: Kethuvim. Which means that it doesn't come from the Torah

Really? Didn't know that, thanks. I'll try to get ahold of that as well. (My "Must Read" list is getting a bit long...)

Also, we believe the Torah, and its dictionary(Mishna). And speeking of which, alot of it is symbolism, like when Solomon stopped the Sun in the sky, now how can you stop the sun in the sky?

Good question. I suppose the obvious answer would be, "It could've been a miracle", but that seems a bit much. Of course, it's possible Solomon stepped out of time, or something. I don't really know.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 12th, 2005, 9:39 AM

Well, if you aren't divine, that would be blasphemy. Christians believe Jesus was divine. Actually, what is the Christian standing that makes them think Jesus is so devine. What makes them think he's more divine than Moses, Abraham, or even King Solomon?

I think it has more to do with attempting to capture the look of God in stone than actually succeeding, since I believe we can all agree that a God so powerful we can't look directly at him isn't going to translate well to paper. Also, I think reducing Jesus to an "image" would be a mistake. Jesus was a man who developed a pretty advanced philosophy for his day and age, whether you believe him to be a teacher or a divine man. I'd say that's more important than how he looked. Edit: I forgot to respond to this one.

Well, I'd say it's important that they worship this man or not. Because, honestly, who prays to their religious/school teacher?

Sure. Satan merely tempted Jesus by making suggestions. Anyone can pray and talk to God, anyone can say something misguided while doing so. That doesn't really deify them. Also, keep in mind Jesus is believed to be more of a conduit of God than God himself. That conduit was used to interact with the world... including Satan.So I'm hearing conduit? Now isn't that strange that Christians worship two gods......

He's undoubtably powerful, but only so he can play his role. The angels in Revelations were powerful as well - they had the chance to sound the trumpets, and pour the vials, and break the seals. But they were just playing the role they were destined to play, given them by God. This is going to be immesurably hard to respond to. Because in my jewish view we, humans, are perfecting and making G-d better, by perfecting ouselves, so He wouldn't know what is to happen.

Ok, but I'll try to respond on another side:
You know when G-d offered satan the planet Earth, and satan wanted to have the whole universe instead? Well, wouldn't G-d've seen it comeing. And if it was all meant to be, that G-d wanted there to be evil in the world, then why do Christians think that it is G-d's job to destroy satan?

Really? Didn't know that, thanks. No problem. But you probably already know the book of Job well enough, to not need to reread it.

Good question. I suppose the obvious answer would be, "It could've been a miracle", but that seems a bit much. Of course, it's possible Solomon stepped out of time, or something. I don't really know. But if Solomon could step out of time, isn't he as divine, if not more divine, than Jesus?

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 12th, 2005, 11:50 AM

Actually, what is the Christian standing that makes them think Jesus is so devine. What makes them think he's more divine than Moses, Abraham, or even King Solomon?

... I'm not sure how to answer this question. I suppose the obvious answer is "Cause it says so in the bible". There are other levels on this, but I doubt I can explain any of it right.

So I'm hearing conduit? Now isn't that strange that Christians worship two gods......

... I'm sorry, could you rephrase? I don't really see what your first sentance has to do with the second.

You know when G-d offered satan the planet Earth, and satan wanted to have the whole universe instead? Well, wouldn't G-d've seen it comeing. And if it was all meant to be, that G-d wanted there to be evil in the world, then why do Christians think that it is G-d's job to destroy satan?

First point - yes, God would've seen it coming. And now I have to throw out a Dead-Switch Argument - we don't really know what his plan was here, so that might not be the misstep it seems to us.

Second point - If God created Satan for a particular purpose, then he might later destroy Satan when that purpose was carried out. It's that simple.

But if Solomon could step out of time, isn't he as divine, if not more divine, than Jesus?

Well, at this point the question becomes whether Solomon stepped out of time, or whether he was pushed.

Something to consider. If God wanted to stop time, he could do that without working through any mortal. He chose Solomon as an instrument for some reason, whether he thought it made a stronger statement or just seemed more poetic that way.

But God can't conquer death. And the reason he can't conquer death is because he can't die in the first place. He's immortal. So Jesus was definately an important part of the crucifiction and resurrection, whereas Solomon might've just been God's mouthpiece. If that makes any sense.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 12th, 2005, 8:26 PM

... I'm not sure how to answer this question. I suppose the obvious answer is "Cause it says so in the bible". There are other levels on this, but I doubt I can explain any of it right.
That's ok Foelhe. If someone asked me what made Muhamad so divine, I probably wouldn't be able to explain it very well either.

But, is there anyone that can explain it?

I'm sorry, could you rephrase? I don't really see what your first sentance has to do with the second. Sorry, I notice that things don't always translate very well, from my nuerons to the keyboard, so it's understandable.
But what I meant, is that if Christians believe Jesus is just a conduit, and not G-d. Then why do they pray in the name of Jesus and all. Why do they pray to two gods?

First point - yes, God would've seen it coming. And now I have to throw out a Dead-Switch Argument - we don't really know what his plan was here, so that might not be the misstep it seems to us. Well, what I meant is: Why do Christians say "the Devil" is evil? If G-d is using a physical being to do his wishes, why do they not look upon this entity with more respect?

Well, at this point the question becomes whether Solomon stepped out of time, or whether he was pushed.

Something to consider. If God wanted to stop time, he could do that without working through any mortal. He chose Solomon as an instrument for some reason, whether he thought it made a stronger statement or just seemed more poetic that way. Well, if my memory serves me corectly, it never said G-d was working through Solomon. (and it says he stopped the Sun in the sky, not time). And believe me, the Bible would say, like it said G-d was working through Moses, when he was parting the reed sea.

Actually that is a very good example of things getting messed up when changed from Hebrew to English. It never said the red sea in the Torah. But when it was being translated an 'e' was left out. It was really the reed sea.
And also that's another good example of symbolism, there are no reeds in the reed sea.

I'd also like to say something else: Is it considered idolitry to worship the Sun in Christian eyes? Does the Sun not make the plants grow, and in turn making the animals live, and make the water cycle, and do all these things. So, if the Sun performs all these miricals, isn't it almost like a god? So how come we don't just all worship the sun?

evilwill

Nov 12th, 2005, 11:48 PM

Well, what I meant is: Why do Christians say "the Devil" is evil? If G-d is using a physical being to do his wishes, why do they not look upon this entity with more respect?

I think there is a big difference between original christian teachings and modern church beliefs. Over the years the multiple christian churches have twisted teachings and scriptures to suit the meanings they wish for whatever agenda they have in mind. (eg. controlling the masses through fear of the 'evil' Satan.)

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 13th, 2005, 12:37 AM

But what I meant, is that if Christians believe Jesus is just a conduit, and not G-d. Then why do they pray in the name of Jesus and all. Why do they pray to two gods?

Partly to honor Jesus's sacrifice for them. Partly because they believe Jesus is a part of God, and they prefer talking to that particular part. Christian prayers, whether made in the name of Jesus or God, are intended to be heard by the god of Genesis. If they pray to a facet of God they feel more comfortable with, I see no problem with that.

Well, what I meant is: Why do Christians say "the Devil" is evil? If G-d is using a physical being to do his wishes, why do they not look upon this entity with more respect?

Satan's purpose as Christians see it is to fight against good. For all intents and purposes, he could be adressed as evil.

Another part of his purpose is to test us and run us down. People aren't going to be fond of a creature that does this, so it's not going to get much respect from the people it's set against. Human nature.

Well, if my memory serves me corectly, it never said G-d was working through Solomon.

... So, did Solomon have this power separate of God? From a JudeoChristian standpoint, I'd be suprised if God didn't have a hand in that. It sounds a lot like magic, otherwise, which I believe your religion frowns on.

(and it says he stopped the Sun in the sky, not time)

I think we should consider the fact that he couldn't've "stopped the sun" because the sun doesn't move. So, he made it appear that the sun stopped in the sky, which could be explained by stopping time.

Is it considered idolitry to worship the Sun in Christian eyes? Does the Sun not make the plants grow, and in turn making the animals live, and make the water cycle, and do all these things. So, if the Sun performs all these miricals, isn't it almost like a god? So how come we don't just all worship the sun?

I made the argument earlier that Satan wasn't really a god because he was just doing what God needed him to do. You could make the same argument for the sun.

I think there is a big difference between original christian teachings and modern church beliefs. Over the years the multiple christian churches have twisted teachings and scriptures to suit the meanings they wish for whatever agenda they have in mind. (eg. controlling the masses through fear of the 'evil' Satan.)

Indeed! :2thumbs: Which is another thing you might consider, Bob. Even if Christians in this day and age are screwing up, it doesn't necessarily mean Christianity itself is wrong. I'll continue to argue for the modern view of things (since that's what I know), but remember that sometimes truth can be lost in the noise.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 13th, 2005, 10:30 AM

Partly to honor Jesus's sacrifice for them. Partly because they believe Jesus is a part of God, and they prefer talking to that particular part. Christian prayers, whether made in the name of Jesus or God, are intended to be heard by the god of Genesis. If they pray to a facet of God they feel more comfortable with, I see no problem with that. If they believe Jesus is a part of G-d. Then why does Jesus go around saying: "If you have seen me, you have seen the father".

But I also note that Jesus said he was the way to the father.

Satan's purpose as Christians see it is to fight against good. For all intents and purposes, he could be addressed as evil. And the same could go for Jesus, except on opposite terms.

So, did Solomon have this power separate of God? From a JudeoChristian standpoint, I'd be surprised if God didn't have a hand in that. It sounds a lot like magic, otherwise, which I believe your religion frowns on.[Quote] Actually, from a Jewish stand point, it's impossible to do anything outside of G-d, since we are all a piece of G-d. So it really depends the way you look at things.

[Quote]I think we should consider the fact that he couldn't've "stopped the sun" because the sun doesn't move. So, he made it appear that the sun stopped in the sky, which could be explained by stopping time. Well, you see, I wouldn't say only. Just because he made the Sun look like it was stopped in the sky, doesn't mean that he stopped time, only that he stopped the Earth's rotation.

But I take it that since you were saying that the stopping of the Sun means he stopped time. You were thus interpreting it on your own terms. So what makes the interpretations of the Mishnah so bad? Interpretations that were handed down from Moses. And interpretations of a mystical language without vowels.

Also, suppose I say it's raining cats and dogs. Is it really raining cats and dogs? Or should I say that if it's raining cats and dogs, it means that the birth rates of cats and dogs has gone up? Well, the Hebrew language works in much the same way as idioms, except not all the time, like with thou shall not murder.

I made the argument earlier that Satan wasn't really a god because he was just doing what God needed him to do. You could make the same argument for the sun. And thus concludes this debate! Jesus is not G-d, because Jesus is just some entity that is doing G-d's purpose. And if you are going to worship Jesus, you might as well worship the Sun.

I end my case, unless the witness has anything more to say...........

Even if Christians in this day and age are screwing up, it doesn't necessarily mean Christianity itself is wrong. I'll continue to argue for the modern view of things (since that's what I know), but remember that sometimes truth can be lost in the noise. Good point, I'll try debating more on a modern view.

But there is a point when a religion can't change. Like Christianity always has to believe in Jesus.

I'd also like to point out that Christianity has no Mishna discribing this.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 13th, 2005, 10:47 AM

*The Nicene Creed*

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This is their whole doctrine in a nutshell (The Nicene Creed). And it’s interesting to just read through, and pick out all the things that completely contradict the laws of Deuteronomy and Exodus, and to see all the insanity. Note how Christians are just waiting for the world to come, nothing on Earth really matters. It doesn’t matter if you have cancer, just get saved and you’re fine.

And notice how it says that Jesus is seated next to G-d. Hhmmmmmmm, isn’t that interesting. Since Christianity has no Mishna, one could only conclude that there are two significant beings.

And much, much more breaking of the fundamental laws.

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 13th, 2005, 10:03 PM

If they believe Jesus is a part of G-d. Then why does Jesus go around saying: "If you have seen me, you have seen the father".

... I think you just made my point for me, Bob. People who met Jesus had seen God, because Jesus was a part of God. It fits.

But I also note that Jesus said he was the way to the father.

Well... yeah. And if Jesus is a conduit of God, that would fit, I think.

And the same could go for Jesus, except on opposite terms.

Opposite terms? *considers* "Jesus's purpose as Christians see it is to fight against evil. For all intents and purposes, he could be addressed as good." Sure, that works.

Well, you see, I wouldn't say only. Just because he made the Sun look like it was stopped in the sky, doesn't mean that he stopped time, only that he stopped the Earth's rotation.

Right, and the reason I didn't say "only" was because I'm not going to pretend I know for sure. It's possible Solomon did this by stopping time. It's also possible he did this by stopping the Earth's rotation. For my dollar, stopping time makes more sense, seeing as how stopping the Earth's rotation would involve Solomon and the people with him being thrown into orbit by the sudden loss of gravity. But both are possibilities.

But I take it that since you were saying that the stopping of the Sun means he stopped time. You were thus interpreting it on your own terms. So what makes the interpretations of the Mishnah so bad? Interpretations that were handed down from Moses. And interpretations of a mystical language without vowels.

I have absolutely no problem with the Mishnah. The interpretations within the book are all quite possibly true. But I acknowledge the fact that my interpretation could be flawed. And while I have no problem with you believing the interpretations of this book, it doesn't necessarily mean those interpretations are correct, even if the Torah is. So if Christians don't agree with those interpretations, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't follow the Torah. S'all.

And thus concludes this debate! Jesus is not G-d, because Jesus is just some entity that is doing G-d's purpose. And if you are going to worship Jesus, you might as well worship the Sun.

... No. See, you're making an assumption that Jesus is not God. If Jesus is not a part of God, then worshipping him would be erroneous. That's correct. But Christians believe he is God. So there's no reason they can't worship him.

I'd also like to point out that Christianity has no Mishna discribing this.

*shrugs* Very few religions do. I'm not sure that's proof against Christianity. The Mishnah is a collection of interpretations, whereas Christianity and other religions believe in interpreting themselves in a search for wisdom. At least, that's the way I read it.

This is their whole doctrine in a nutshell (The Nicene Creed).

I dunno, Bob. How wide-spread is the Nicene Creed, anyway? I was raised Christian, but I don't have any recollection of the Creed.

Note how Christians are just waiting for the world to come, nothing on Earth really matters. It doesn’t matter if you have cancer, just get saved and you’re fine.

I dunno if I can agree with that. Christians are looking forward to death and Heaven, that's agreed. But that doesn't mean that they don't care about what happens in this world. Heck, I spend most of my time waiting until I have the money to move out of home, but I still care what happens in the meantime.

And notice how it says that Jesus is seated next to G-d. Hhmmmmmmm, isn’t that interesting. Since Christianity has no Mishna, one could only conclude that there are two significant beings.

Couldn't it be a metaphor? :D

Seriously, Christians have a phrase, which goes "God in three persons, blessed trinity." Which means that Jesus might have a different form than God does, but they're still in essence the same being. Confusing, I'm sure, but omnipotent beings have the right to be confusing.

And much, much more breaking of the fundamental laws.

Feel free to point 'em out to me, of course.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 14th, 2005, 4:27 PM

... I think you just made my point for me, Bob. People who met Jesus had seen God, because Jesus was a part of God. It fits.
I don't mean to sound mean......But I really don't understand what you are talking about..........................
First Jesus is apart of G-d (even though it says in the NT that he is G-d). And then you say he is G-d in other quotes of yours. No offence, but you were just talking about how Christians believe that the father the son and the holy ghost are all one entity.

Right, and the reason I didn't say "only" was because I'm not going to pretend I know for sure. It's possible Solomon did this by stopping time. It's also possible he did this by stopping the Earth's rotation. For my dollar, stopping time makes more sense, seeing as how stopping the Earth's rotation would involve Solomon and the people with him being thrown into orbit by the sudden loss of gravity. But both are possibilities. See, exactly my point. Stopping the rotation would cause the planet to fly into the Sun, und everyone to shoot out into outer space. And if time stood still, we would all shrink to the size of almost nothing. Because the faster you go, the smaller you appear, that's why you cant see light molecules, and at the speed of light, time stands still.
So the only logical explanation is that it is symbolism.

I have absolutely no problem with the Mishnah. The interpretations within the book are all quite possibly true. But I acknowledge the fact that my interpretation could be flawed. And while I have no problem with you believing the interpretations of this book, it doesn't necessarily mean those interpretations are correct, even if the Torah is. So if Christians don't agree with those interpretations, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't follow the Torah. S'all. OH NO! *smacks hand to forehead** I knew I wasn't telling you the Mishna well enough. *starts to bang head on keyboard**

Now I can see where I have been losing you in the Mishna thing. (It's probably my fault). First, the is thought to have been passed down to the Hebrews by word of mouth. So for a thousand years, it was passed down from teacher to student, and also Kethuvim and Nevi'im were passed down by memory as well (the book of writings and the book of prophets). That’s why it's called Mishna, to repeat is shanah in Hebrew. So sages memorized in great detail hundreds of books. But around two thousand years ago, the Holy Land was conquered under Pompey, and the Roman Empire brought new commerce to the land, changing the culture and the way the Jews perceived things. And so since higher learning was deteriorating under these conditions, the Mishna was written down (by Judah ha-Nasi).
Since the Mishna was meant for memorization, it is highly cryptic. Each faze has a set of associations. For example: if I said "Four Score," you would automatically assume that this is the Gettysburg Address. But as time goes by, we may not be sure of the intention of this phrase.
By the time of Judah ha-Nasi, more than a thousand years had passed since the giving of the Written Torah. Much confusion arose regarding associations and meanings of sayings in the Oral Law. Difference of opinion arose on how a statement should be interpreted in the Mishna.
So as you can see, the sages were interpreting the Mishna, not the Torah, but I the Mishna is the Oral Torah. But the Mishna is not the work of a bunch of people's interpretations, the Mishna is Moses’ doing, because who would know the Torah better than him?
Is this making sense now, I was just getting a big impression that you thought the Mishna was the work of a bunch of sages. the Talmud is, because that's who people are that interpret the Mishna, Talmudists. Like Rambam was a Talmudist.

No. See, you're making an assumption that Jesus is not God. If Jesus is not a part of God, then worshipping him would be erroneous. That's correct. But Christians believe he is God. So there's no reason they can't worship him. You just said that Christians believe Jesus is a go-between......

I'm not sure that's proof against Christianity. The Mishnah is a collection of interpretations, whereas Christianity and other religions believe in interpreting themselves in a search for wisdom. At least, that's the way I read it.
No, the Talmud is a group of interpretations on the Mishna. The Mishna is just the Oral Torah.

I think what messed you up, is when I was saying that the sages have legitimate interpretations on the Mishna.

I was raised Christian, but I don't have any recollection of the Creed. Few do, which is so funny about Christians. They don't even know about the Creed of Nicene, where Constantine decided these guidelines, along with many others. Basically, they decided that if you don't believe in all this Christ stuff, you have no right to call yourself a Christian.

I dunno if I can agree with that. Christians are looking forward to death and Heaven, that's agreed. But that doesn't mean that they don't care about what happens in this world. Heck, I spend most of my time waiting until I have the money to move out of home, but I still care what happens in the meantime.
Well, you aren’t a Christian. And secondly, if you've ever been to a church, they always are trying to get people to invite Jesus into their hearts. And notice how many missionaries come with Bibles, and no food.

Seriously, Christians have a phrase, which goes "God in three persons, blessed trinity." Which means that Jesus might have a different form than God does, but they're still in essence the same being. Confusing, I'm sure, but omnipotent beings have the right to be confusing.
What if I told you that I believed in the Foelhe, the Big Daddy-o, and my microwave. And in my room I had a picture of you on my wall (whatever you look like). And so, every day when I was eating, I'd say: "dear heavenly Foelhe, please let this food be nourishing to my body, amen." And no matter how much people explained things to me, I still insisted that the Big Daddy-o, Foelhe, and the Microwave, were all the same being. Even though, each one of them has a different image and everything.
Christians would greatly frown on this belief, but why.

Feel free to point 'em out to me, of course.
No problem!
First, it starts by saying that they believe in one G-d the father junior in the spook whatever. But then it says that they believe in one savior, Jesus Christ. So they believe in one G-d, and one savior.

Secondly, apparently Jesus was begotten, not made, and as you know, begotten means to come from. Like in Numbers it talks about how Abraham begot Isaac, but Isaac wasn't Abraham.

Also, it talks about how G-d made it possible for Jesus to come down, and then Jesus went back into heaven to be with G-d. Christianity is an idolatrous religion, but then they contradict themselves to not sound pagan.

It's almost like me smacking you in the face really hard, and then saying: "I didn't smack you, our protons and neutrons built up a charge and repelled each other." (which really does happen).
See how stupid that sounds?

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 15th, 2005, 6:35 AM

First Jesus is apart of G-d (even though it says in the NT that he is G-d). And then you say he is G-d in other quotes of yours. No offence, but you were just talking about how Christians believe that the father the son and the holy ghost are all one entity.

Oh, I see the problem. If you want to understand the Christian religion, the first thing you'll have to grapple with is the fact that Jesus is considered three things:

... God
... A part of God
... The doorway to God

All at the same time. None of these things are completely exclusive from one another, but it does take a second to consider them together. Just consider the fact that this is God, who is considered all-encompassing, and you realize some of the things he does or can do will seem self-contradictory on some level.

See, exactly my point. Stopping the rotation would cause the planet to fly into the Sun, und everyone to shoot out into outer space. And if time stood still, we would all shrink to the size of almost nothing. Because the faster you go, the smaller you appear, that's why you cant see light molecules, and at the speed of light, time stands still.
So the only logical explanation is that it is symbolism.

... I'm not completely sure I agree with that. But even if I did, keep in mind that just because we can't think of a logical explanation doesn't mean God can't. Time travel and stopping the Earth are two things we can grasp, but I'm sure there are more complex ideas which an omnipotent God could suggest. Hell, it could've just been an illusion.

So as you can see, the sages were interpreting the Mishna, not the Torah, but I the Mishna is the Oral Torah.

Ah! Well! My mistake then! So, to make this clear - the Torah is the written word of God, the Mishna is the oral word of God, and the Talmud is the translation of the Mishna?

... In that case, I'm not sure I understand the importance of the Mishna. You keep saying Christianity is a lesser religion because it doesn't have a Mishna, but is it that important to have an oral tradition like this? Especially since, as you state, many of the meanings within the Mishna have been lost or confused.

You just said that Christians believe Jesus is a go-between......

*nods* Sort've the face of God we can look upon. I'll leave this to what I said earlier.

No, the Talmud is a group of interpretations on the Mishna. The Mishna is just the Oral Torah.

Right. Apologies for my confusion.

Although I'm still curious as to the overriding importance of an oral code.

Few do, which is so funny about Christians. They don't even know about the Creed of Nicene, where Constantine decided these guidelines, along with many others. Basically, they decided that if you don't believe in all this Christ stuff, you have no right to call yourself a Christian.

Ah. See, I heard "Constantine decided" and realized it didn't matter. If Constantine made a political or organizational decision to tack the Nicene Creed onto Christianity, I'm not sure that affects Christianity on a spiritual level. Especially if few Christians care about it today.

Well, you aren’t a Christian. And secondly, if you've ever been to a church, they always are trying to get people to invite Jesus into their hearts. And notice how many missionaries come with Bibles, and no food.

First, just because people are concerned with what happens afterwards doesn't mean they don't care about what happens now. Secondly, a lot of Christians I know feel that God and the church are a strong and positive part of their lives, and they want to introduce it to other people so they can also have that support. So that does show some concern with today.

As for missionaries - I can't argue that some missionaries are idiotic and misguided in their approach. Missionaries are, after all, human. But I do remember when I was younger, and still going on mission trips with my youth group from church, that we went to Mexico and helped build a house for a young couple who was living in the area. So I can't say that my experiences square up with yours there - I find missionaries try to make themselves helpful, if only to give people a reason to listen to them.

What if I told you that I believed in the Foelhe, the Big Daddy-o, and my microwave.

Well, you would be considered a member of a cult, until you had recruited enough members to be considered a religious group in your own right.

Here's the problem with your argument. First of all, you say that these three beings (?) have only one face. God, on the other hand, can appear as a burning bush, or a bright light, or who knows what else. He's powerful enough that he could look like Jesus, or anything he really wanted to. If I was a known shape-shifter, and you believed I sometimes disguised myself as your microwave, we're getting more into a theory which might be considered reasonable.

Secondly, you can make this basic argument with just about any religion out there. What makes Christians believe in Jesus? Well, what makes Judaists believe in YHWH? Or Hinduists believe in Brahman? Or Buddhists in Nirvana? Religion is a shot in the dark, and everyone should be aware of this. If the belief in the Holy Microwave helps you sleep at night, go for it.

First, it starts by saying that they believe in one G-d the father junior in the spook whatever. But then it says that they believe in one savior, Jesus Christ. So they believe in one G-d, and one savior.

Secondly, apparently Jesus was begotten, not made, and as you know, begotten means to come from. Like in Numbers it talks about how Abraham begot Isaac, but Isaac wasn't Abraham.

I think both of these are covered by what I said in my first point.

Also, it talks about how G-d made it possible for Jesus to come down, and then Jesus went back into heaven to be with G-d. Christianity is an idolatrous religion, but then they contradict themselves to not sound pagan.

... I don't see the contradiction here. Possibly this is also covered by the first point, but I could just be misunderstanding you.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 15th, 2005, 4:37 PM

This is frigin' halarious!! I thaught you said you were Jewish?
:rolling:

Are the Jews awaiting their messiah?
No, we are not sitting there waiting for the messeiah. We are to make the world a better place, right now. Not 1,000 years from now. And even then we are to never worship the messiah, he's here to help out. And the Messiah is not G-d.

why did animal sacrificies stop? or do you still perform them?
No, I do not perform animal sacrifices. As many may know, Judaism is a constantly changing religion, in order to adapt to the present societies and/or cultures of the time. And actually, that's also a very good example of symbolism as well. It says so in the Writen Torah, that it's like the animal is rising to G-d in the smoke.

How do you get forgiviness of your sins from Jehovah? meaning does your Rabbi pray or do you ,what method?
Well, were suppost to know better anyway. But I see what you're saying.
First, you can shoot someone in the head, and then ask forgiveness from G-d, and then turn around and shoot someone else in the head.
Basically, we don't believe in forgiveness. You can argue it as much as you like, but humans have free choice. But we do have punishments for bad deeds.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 17th, 2005, 4:34 PM

You do realize, in the Torah, that they sacrificed animals as a covering for their sins against G-d.
Not always.

I'm adopting Jewish ways
So that's why you are a Christian, calling yourself a Jew. Because just keeping Kosher, and celebrating a few High Holy days doesn't cut it. It's what you worship that deffines a religion. Thus Christian. Plus, you only follow one Torah, not the teachings passed down by Moses.

Why is it constantly changing?
If you recall the Torah, it talks about how if you do certain things, you will get exiled from the camp. And as you know, America, and many other countries, arent made up of tribes, and we don't have a meeting tent either. We change the laws, as society changes

I don't follow you here?
I can do whatever I want. And no forgiveness will save me. Just because I'm forgiven doesn't mean I can't murder, or something like that.
I have freedom of choice, no matter what I think has forgiven me.
But, it is a Mitzva to know what you did was wrong and to try to change your ways. But when it comes down to it, nothing else, except you alone, can really help yourself.

what qualifications does said Messiah have to have? in order for you to recognize him? Messiah means: anointed one. But not literally anointed by olive oil or whatever. It means someone that has been united with the Shekinah. And if you knew Hebrew you would already know this.
So anyone can be a Messiah, someone that is anointed by G-d, a chosen one. You can make it so you are like a Messiah. Chosen, not G-d. But anyway. the Messiah have atributes that better society. And supposedly there will come a very great group of Messiah that are chosen by G-d to lead humanity in the right direction, and not just says they will like Jake or someone.

what is the punishment?
Another example of Judaism changing over time. We don't do some of the punishments in the Torah. But I would think that you would realize this........

Beatnik Bob

Nov 17th, 2005, 6:35 PM

I'm not completely sure I agree with that. But even if I did, keep in mind that just because we can't think of a logical explanation doesn't mean God can't. Time travel and stopping the Earth are two things we can grasp, but I'm sure there are more complex ideas which an omnipotent God could suggest. Hell, it could've just been an illusion. It said King Solomon stopped the Sun in the sky. Which means King Solomon stopped the Sun in the sky. And as we all know, king Solomon isn't G-d, only a shard. That is why things are alive, it's not a miracle. It is the small shard of power we posses from G-d, to learn, understand, and question.
Plus, since most people don't believe that anyone can stop the Sun without help from G-d, it means the Solomon didn't actually stop the Sun, but that it symbolizes something.

So, to make this clear - the Torah is the written word of God, the Mishna is the oral word of God, and the Talmud is the translation of the Mishna?
That's right man! :2thumbs:

In that case, I'm not sure I understand the importance of the Mishna. You keep saying Christianity is a lesser religion because it doesn't have a Mishna, but is it that important to have an oral tradition like this? Especially since, as you state, many of the meanings within the Mishna have been lost or confused.
1. Many Mishna teachings are known, we don't need Talmudists to give interpretations.
2. The Mishna is important because even the teachings of the written Torah can be considered oral. Like, I have typed on this keyboard, things from the Torah, but I haven’t looked at the Torah for all of them.
Also, the Mishna says things like: He who is verbose brings on sin. The wise man has silence, and the fool is verbose. And that is self explanatory. So you don't need a Talmudist to explain that. And it makes sense.
And also: The world is sustained by three things: By justice, by truth, and by peace, as it is said, Truth and Justice and peace judge ye in your gates (Zechariah 8:16) That's self explanatory as well.

Although I'm still curious as to the overriding importance of an oral code Well, it really isn't a code. The Hebrew language works with alot of symbolism. It's just a part of daily life. It's complicated to explain the dynamics and inner workings of a whole language, to an English speaking person.

Ah. See, I heard "Constantine decided" and realized it didn't matter. If Constantine made a political or organizational decision to tack the Nicene Creed onto Christianity, I'm not sure that affects Christianity on a spiritual level. Especially if few Christians care about it today. Actually I'm pretty sure I could walk down the street and show the Nicene Creed to any Christian, and they’d say, "You bet I think Jesus is my savior!" "I definitely agree with this!"
Christians may not know that there belief system is called the Nicene Creed, but they definitely believe that way.

I'd also like to say that meanings are different in Hebrew. Like when it was talking about in Deuteronomy, how the Hebrews had seen no shape in the burning bush, so they must not worship any figure as G-d. The bush was something heralding the awesomeness of G-d. But it was not G-d.
In Hebrew there are different words for the same words. You can tell if a statement in the Torah is talking about the love expressed by a female, a male, or all humanity. When it says ohev, it means the love from a male, and ohevet, is the love of a girl. So in the Torah, you can tell if it's G-d's bush, or natures bush, or whatever. And thou shalt worship no man or woman, or beast of the Earth, fowl of the air, and fish of the sea. Thou shall worship no man, thou shall worship no man, thou shall worship no man or woman. It even repeats that you should not worship a man or a woman in the Torah, in both Exodus and Deuteronomy. Obviously G-d wanted us to get it through there heads.

But don't get me wrong, Christians can worship whatever they want, wherever they want, and whenever they want. It's just they want to seem holy or something by adopting a one G-d principle, but they don't actually adopt it, they make G-d a man, gut then they say G-d isn't a man, he is everything at once, even though they still always have a human figure for G-d. And they say Jesus is a go between, even though they say that he is G-d.
You see the thing is, if Christians are so intent on worshipping one G-d as suggested in the Torah, then why don't they carry this out? Seriously. There whole religion in a peanut shell is:
We worship two gods, but we only worship one G-d. We worship G-d with a face, but really he can have any form.

Why did G-d consider it wrong to worship a golden calf? When according to the Mishna, and the Christian view, G-d can take any form he wants to, a calf being one of them. So if G-d can take the form of a calf, why do you suppose it was wrong for the Israelites to worship it, but not wrong for Christians to worship a human. Tell me.
Because I can tell you this with certainty, if I gathered a large group of followers, and we all worshipped a microwave, Christians would call us pagans.

Also, were debating a different perspective than Siva or whatever. We're debating how Jesus isn't G-d. About how Christianity claims to follow the ways of the Torah, but doesn't. The NT doesn't match up with the Torah. So why doesn't Christianity just Go have their own religion somewhere, and worship their two, three, one or whatever many gods without pinning Judaism on them.

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 17th, 2005, 7:21 PM

It said King Solomon stopped the Sun in the sky. Which means King Solomon stopped the Sun in the sky. And as we all know, king Solomon isn't G-d, only a shard. That is why things are alive, it's not a miracle. It is the small shard of power we posses from G-d, to learn, understand, and question.
Plus, since most people don't believe that anyone can stop the Sun without help from G-d, it means the Solomon didn't actually stop the Sun, but that it symbolizes something.

Wait, first you say, "King Solomon DEFINATELY stopped the sun in the sky." Then you say, "King Solomon didn't stop the sun in the sky; it's a symbol." Do you not see the problem there? If both are possibilities, why not the third possibility that King Solomon made it seem like the sun stopped in the sky, like an illusion?

And did the Torah explicitly say God wasn't working through Solomon? Maybe it didn't say God was, but given the circumstances I'd kind of expect that to go without saying.

The Mishna is important because even the teachings of the written Torah can be considered oral.

... You'll have to clarify. I still don't understand. My best guess is that you're saying that the Torah becomes part of the Mishna when it's memorized and spoken aloud. But if that was true, than Christians would have a Mishna. So I'm assuming I'm wrong.

Also, the Mishna says things like: He who is verbose brings on sin. The wise man has silence, and the fool is verbose. And that is self explanatory. So you don't need a Talmudist to explain that. And it makes sense.
And also: The world is sustained by three things: By justice, by truth, and by peace, as it is said, Truth and Justice and peace judge ye in your gates (Zechariah 8:16) That's self explanatory as well.

That still doesn't explain why it's important for other religions to have an oral component. Wouldn't those things be just as wise written down, as they are now?

Well, it really isn't a code. The Hebrew language works with alot of symbolism. It's just a part of daily life. It's complicated to explain the dynamics and inner workings of a whole language, to an English speaking person.

... Now it sounds like you're saying Christianity is invalid because it doesn't come with it's own language. I must be getting this all wrong.

I'd also like to say that meanings are different in Hebrew. Like when it was talking about in Deuteronomy, how the Hebrews had seen no shape in the burning bush, so they must not worship any figure as G-d. The bush was something heralding the awesomeness of G-d. But it was not G-d.

... Alright. For the conservative Christian, that is a clincher. I would like to argue, however, that there are many laws in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy that we find abhorrent today. It's a possibility the man who wrote Deuteronomy was mistaken on this point, and Jesus was a holy man. But if you're arguing that Christianity doesn't stand on the Torah, I suppose you've won your point.

But don't get me wrong, Christians can worship whatever they want, wherever they want, and whenever they want. It's just they want to seem holy or something by adopting a one G-d principle, but they don't actually adopt it, they make G-d a man, gut then they say G-d isn't a man, he is everything at once, even though they still always have a human figure for G-d. And they say Jesus is a go between, even though they say that he is G-d.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: anyone that expects an omnipotent diety to be easily summed up in one paragraph hasn't considered things fully. Ultimate power means ultimate complexity, and contradictions in the nature of God are possibly the result of mankind's non-omniscient view. Just saying.

But the truth is, the idea of someone being all those things doesn't phase me. When considering the role of Jesus in Christian mythos, I just think of him as the porch, and God as the house. The porch is the part of the house, but not entirely. He's the entryway to the house as well. And if you view the house from the front, the porch is what you see, which means you could consider the porch as the house in a way. Just one way to look at it.

Why did G-d consider it wrong to worship a golden calf? When according to the Mishna, and the Christian view, G-d can take any form he wants to, a calf being one of them. So if G-d can take the form of a calf, why do you suppose it was wrong for the Israelites to worship it, but not wrong for Christians to worship a human. Tell me.

The question isn't "Can God take the form of a calf", but "Did God take the form of a calf". I can whistle, but that doesn't mean I am everyone who whistles. Actually, here's a question for you. If God did take the form of a calf, and if you knew without a doubt that the calf in question was God, would you worship it?

Because I can tell you this with certainty, if I gathered a large group of followers, and we all worshipped a microwave, Christians would call us pagans.

Some Christians would, yes. Others would know that pagans believe in things which you apparently don't.

I'm not going to argue the fact that some Christians are morons. It would be a waste of time - we both know differently. That doesn't mean that all Christians are morons. Nor does it mean that Christianity itself is moronic.

We're debating how Jesus isn't G-d. About how Christianity claims to follow the ways of the Torah, but doesn't. The NT doesn't match up with the Torah. So why doesn't Christianity just Go have their own religion somewhere, and worship their two, three, one or whatever many gods without pinning Judaism on them.

I should point out - through your own admission, Judaism has changed over the years. It's tenets today are not the same as the ones it had back when the Torah was still being written, or lived for that matter. And if Judaism has changed, it means your view of the Torah has changed as well. That's a pretty basic analysis, right? Well, Christians have a different view of the Torah. Just like Judaists who lived a thousand years ago did. And while that may upset you, the simple fact of the matter is just because they interpret parts of the Torah differently doesn't mean they don't have faith in that book. I know that bothers you, but if one of your fellow Judaists interpreted a part of the Torah differently than you did, would you accept the fact that you had different views and move on? If yes, I'd suggest you pay Christians the same courtesy. If no... well, you might consider dialing it back a notch. High blood pressure is nobody's friend.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 18th, 2005, 4:52 PM

Wait, first you say, "King Solomon DEFINATELY stopped the sun in the sky." Then you say, "King Solomon didn't stop the sun in the sky; it's a symbol." Do you not see the problem there? If both are possibilities, why not the third possibility that King Solomon made it seem like the sun stopped in the sky, like an illusion? I'm sorry, I agree I was rather unclear.
1. Christians believe that you can not have any powers outside of G-d. Confirmed?
2. So according to a Christian, if the Torah said that only Solomon stopped the Sun, a Christian would believe that this was surely symbolism.

And did the Torah explicitly say God wasn't working through Solomon? Maybe it didn't say God was, but given the circumstances I'd kind of expect that to go without saying. That's the spirit Foelhe! Coming up with your own commentary on the Torah. :2thumbs:

You'll have to clarify. I still don't understand. My best guess is that you're saying that the Torah becomes part of the Mishna when it's memorized and spoken aloud. But if that was true, than Christians would have a Mishna. So I'm assuming I'm wrong.[Quote] Never mind. I was just expounding on the fact that knowing things by memory, shows that you actually know it.

[Quote]That still doesn't explain why it's important for other religions to have an oral component. Wouldn't those things be just as wise written down, as they are now? Think about it, do you really know something if you have to look it up in a book? Do you really know the English language if you have to carry around a hand-held pocket dictionary. And remember school? Remember how when you took tests you weren't allowed to look at the answers in a textbook or whatever? Teachers wanted us to actually know the subjects.

Now it sounds like you're saying Christianity is invalid because it doesn't come with it's own language. I must be getting this all wrong. Actually, Christianities language is probably Greek, or Latin. But see, the thing is, I know English, and i know Hebrew. So possibly a Hebrew wouldn't understand English, and think it to be a code language. Just like English don't understand Hebrew. Although most Israelis know English, Hebrew, and Arabic.
But all I'm saying is that Christians act like they know the Torah so well, but if they were asked farther into it, they would realize they really don't understand 2% of the Hebrew language.
And also, it's because the Torah wasn't written in English.

there are many laws in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy that we find abhorrent today.Please, enlighten me.

It's a possibility the man who wrote Deuteronomy was mistaken on this point Actually, Deuteronomy was probably written in the same century as the other books of the Torah were given. And you just said that meanings might have changed over time. But I guarantee you, that there wasn't much time for meanings to change between the giving of the Torah, and Deuteronomy being written.
And Jesus wasn't even born yet.

anyone that expects an omnipotent deity to be easily summed up in one paragraph hasn't considered things fully.
Actually, I'd say that if your writing a whole essay on G-d, you are most likely missing his omnipotence. I can probably sum him up in probably two meaningful words: Nothingness without end.

When considering the role of Jesus in Christian mythos, I just think of him as the porch, and God as the house. The porch is the part of the house, but not entirely. He's the entryway to the house as well. And if you view the house from the front, the porch is what you see, which means you could consider the porch as the house in a way. Just one way to look at it.
But would you bow down to the porch and not the house???

I can whistle, but that doesn't mean I am everyone who whistles. You can whistle, but does that mean people should worship you?
Plus you aren't considered omnipotent. Unless I'm mistaken, in which case, what up maker of the Torah!

If God did take the form of a calf, and if you knew without a doubt that the calf in question was God, would you worship it? I would probably act like Israel in that case. I would try as hard as I could to find out if this cow really was G-d. (Israel: one who wrestles with G-d). And I would explain to this cow that I couldn't worship it, no matter what form it took, because G-d told my people that we must always follow his law and commandments (Torah & Mishna) and that it strictly prohibits the worship of any form. So then I would butcher the cow in a kosher way, and serve it to my neighbors, and possibly write a Midrash about the day a cow claimed to be G-d.
(and I would without a doubt know there was a shard of G-d in me)

But how would a Christian respond to this? Because in the Christian religion, it's ok to worship G-d in a physical form.

It's tenets today are not the same as the ones it had back when the Torah was still being written, or lived for that matter.
1. Believe it or not, Hebrew was a dead language for over two thousand years. So, it is as if it was preserved. Since it really hasn't changed or evolved, the same Hebrew words today, mean the same as they did three thousand years ago. So we can accurately understand the Torah.

Would you agree that there was no Jesus that wrote the Torah, and that it was the other part of G-d? So therefore, according to Christianity, G-d has done things that G-d has never done.

Would you agree with me that Christians do in fact think the Torah is literal?
You know when Moses asked to see G-d in Exodus? Well, G-d said that if his eyes looked upon him he would perish. So then why didn't Paul, Dylan, Peter, George and whoever die when they looked at Jesus?

Note: I was only bringing this up because Christians believe everything is literal in the Torah, even though the Hebrew language suggests otherwise.

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 19th, 2005, 12:02 AM

That's the spirit Foelhe! Coming up with your own commentary on the Torah.

If you consider that fine, then why does it bother you when Christians do the same thing?

Think about it, do you really know something if you have to look it up in a book? Do you really know the English language if you have to carry around a hand-held pocket dictionary. And remember school? Remember how when you took tests you weren't allowed to look at the answers in a textbook or whatever? Teachers wanted us to actually know the subjects.

Okay, but could you say that Christians who have memorized the Bible have a Mishna? It sounds from this argument that you could.

But all I'm saying is that Christians act like they know the Torah so well, but if they were asked farther into it, they would realize they really don't understand 2% of the Hebrew language.

So, because Christians don't understand Hebrew, the more accurate or more subtle meanings of the Torah are lost. Okay, I can get behind that.

Please, enlighten me.

Been awhile since I had this discussion. Let's see... well, Deuteronomy states that a woman raped within city limits must be stoned to death (22:23-24) and right after that says that if a man rapes an unengaged virgin in the country, the woman and man must marry (22:28-29). That's the first one I see here. I used to have a list of them, but it's been awhile since I've had this argument, so... well. I'll try to get back to you once I've remembered a few others.

Actually, I'd say that if your writing a whole essay on G-d, you are most likely missing his omnipotence. I can probably sum him up in probably two meaningful words: Nothingness without end.

I wouldn't suggest writing an essay on something omnipotent, omnipotent and omnipresent. That would be a long essay. You're taking all these separate points and saying, "These don't make sense together," but I'm not sure God actually makes sense. At least, not in a way we percieve it.

But would you bow down to the porch and not the house???

Since Christians worship God along with Jesus, I don't know if that's really the question that needs asking.

You can whistle, but does that mean people should worship you?
Plus you aren't considered omnipotent.

... Well, yeah. But I think you're being too literal with this example. I can whistle, but if I didn't whistle, the whistle you heard was not me. God can take the shape of a calf, but if he didn't, the calf was not him. And worshipping something other than God is blasphemy according to the Christian faith. So worshipping the non-deity calf would've been wrong.

I would probably act like Israel in that case. I would try as hard as I could to find out if this cow really was G-d. (Israel: one who wrestles with G-d). And I would explain to this cow that I couldn't worship it, no matter what form it took, because G-d told my people that we must always follow his law and commandments (Torah & Mishna) and that it strictly prohibits the worship of any form. So then I would butcher the cow in a kosher way, and serve it to my neighbors, and possibly write a Midrash about the day a cow claimed to be G-d.

ROFL! I guess that's one way to handle it! :D Would you be worried about being smited?

But how would a Christian respond to this? Because in the Christian religion, it's ok to worship G-d in a physical form.

Depends on the Christian, I suppose. Some would probably stick their nose in the air and call it Satanic pagan nonsense. Others would probably study it to make sure it was God, like you did, and if they felt certain it was, they might worship it. And of course, you'd have people falling everywhere between those two extremes.

Believe it or not, Hebrew was a dead language for over two thousand years. So, it is as if it was preserved. Since it really hasn't changed or evolved, the same Hebrew words today, mean the same as they did three thousand years ago. So we can accurately understand the Torah.

The following is going to sound irreverent and goofy, but it does sort've have a point: you have a language, which dies, and then is basically revived? I'm reminded of zombies... and Frankenstein's monster... and pretty much everything you hear about necromancy. My actual question is, how sure can we be that the heart of the Hebrew language wasn't lost in what sounds like a jump forward through thousands of years of culture? Just a thought.

You know when Moses asked to see G-d in Exodus? Well, G-d said that if his eyes looked upon him he would perish. So then why didn't Paul, Dylan, Peter, George and whoever die when they looked at Jesus?

I could be wrong, but didn't Moses look up after God passed and see his backside? I suspect it has more to do with gazing on God's face, and I don't believe Jesus has or is God's true face.

(Or, if I'm wrong, I could argue that man was shielded from God by the flesh of Jesus, by his "human half". Thus the reason God had to impregnate a woman in the first place - he needed a buffer.)

Sage

Nov 19th, 2005, 9:22 AM

The Scriptures will cut you to pieces.
Cause you to see reality.
Show you just how little you know about life.
Take away your pride.
Teach you how to have everything your heart desires with out the cruses.
Lead you away from a self centered life into living to serve others.
Remind you that life in this body is very short at its longest.

Sage

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 19th, 2005, 10:08 PM

I've studied the bible extensively and never really felt any of that from the book. I'm glad you've found such inspiration, but I'm not sure that defends the validity of Christianity.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 22nd, 2005, 7:17 PM

Sorry I didn't respond as quick as usual, there are allot of stuff on my agenda.

If you consider that fine, then why does it bother you when Christians do the same thing? Hhmmmmmmmm......
I wasn't aware that Christians really had interpretations, only summaries of their religion, like the Nicene Creed.

Okay, but could you say that Christians who have memorized the Bible have a Mishna? It sounds from this argument that you could.
The Mishna is much more than that. Yes, it is memorization of the Torah, but it is also a collection of stories as well. For instance, how come G-d all of a sudden chooses Abram as the first Jew? What makes him so worthy? Actually, it says it all in the oral Torah. There was a king named Nimrod, the same king who had the tower of Babel built. He taught people, basically, that he was a god, sort've like Chairman Mao. But an astrologer told him that there would be a male child born that would tell everyone that neither Nimrod or any other creature on Earth could be godlike (like Socrates did). And so Nimrod had a palace built, so all the women that were pregnant in the kingdom could live there, and he could make sure no males survived.
Abraham's mother's name was Amat'la-i and was married to Terah, an idol maker, and was also a member of Nimrod's court. And Amat'la-i hid the fact that she was pregnant, and gave birth to Abram in a cave in the wilderness, and he was left there. And there was a miracle, because Abram was big enough to walk out of the cave after ten days, and he looked at the world around him, and came to the conclusion there was One G-d. And when his mother felt guilty and came back for him, he was there, and she became his first student. So, as you can see, the Mishna is much more than just a memorization.

Deuteronomy states that a woman raped within city limits must be stoned to death (22:23-24) and right after that says that if a man rapes an unengaged virgin in the country, the woman and man must marry (22:28-29).
I know, symbolism.

but I'm not sure God actually makes sense. At least, not in a way we perceive it. He obviously makes some sense, otherwise people wouldn't worship G-d. Would worship space, just because it's omnipotent and goes on forever?

Since Christians worship God along with Jesus, I don't know if that's really the question that needs asking. In the Christian religion, Jesus is really more important than G-d. Jesus supposedly saved the eastern society world by dying. That's why the cross is the symbol of Judaism, and the cross refers to Jesus. And plus, Christians respect the NT and follow it more than the OT, as has already been discussed and pointed out.
And the porch & house are two different things. Thus, Christians just worship the porch(or maybe one or two worship G-d).
Also, you agreed that G-d had no physical form, so Jesus was just a go between. (just stopping a small debate before it comes up).

Well, yeah. But I think you're being too literal with this example. I can whistle, but if I didn't whistle, the whistle you heard was not me. God can take the shape of a calf, but if he didn't, the calf was not him.

[Quote] And worshipping something other than God is blasphemy according to the Christian faith. I thought that Christians believed that G-d was omnipotent and omnipresent, so what is not G-d.

Would you be worried about being smited? Was Israel worried about being smited? No, I probably wouldn't be worried about being smited, and if G-d attempted to, I would use the Torah to shield myself. Which should be enough symbolism for G-d.
Also, why would G-d brake his own teachings in the Torah by asking me to worship a cow?

Depends on the Christian, I suppose. Some would probably stick their nose in the air and call it Satanic pagan nonsense. Others would probably study it to make sure it was God, like you did, and if they felt certain it was, they might worship it. And of course, you'd have people falling everywhere between those two extremes. This is probably just me, but I wouldn't be so cocky in interpreting the future actions of a human being, unless your like a phycohistorian.

But the average (majority of) Christian, would call me pagan, and from past experiences, say they'd be personally praying for me, and pester me on accepting Jesus into my heart. Because the Christian dogma pretty much states that there's only one porch.

I'm reminded of zombies... and Frankenstein's monster... and pretty much everything you hear about necromancy. My actual question is, how sure can we be that the heart of the Hebrew language wasn't lost in what sounds like a jump forward through thousands of years of culture? First, it's more like cryogenics. Which is where you preserve someone by freezing them in ice, while there’re still alive. So saying that the heart of the language was lost over time, is like saying that an undisturbed stone tablet kept in a library for a certain period of time, will explode or something.
And actually, the idea of necromancy, in a religious debate reminded me of Jesus, bringing people back from the dead......

1. It shouldn't matter what face G-d takes, only the fact that it is G-d's face.
2. Even if it was a buffer, according to Christians, Jesus is still G-d. Thus whoever has seen Jesus's face should have died, based on the Christian English written form.

Also, I take it that since you did not respond to my comment on Christians believing in the Nicene Creed, that you agree with me. So thus Christians really do believe in two gods, a porch and a house. Though ideally the porch. Like even when Christians pictures of heaven, there's one Jesus sitting up there.
It's one of the basic things they teach in child's Christian Sunday school: G-d is the creator, and Jesus is the savior, but we worship the savior.

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 22nd, 2005, 8:54 PM

I wasn't aware that Christians really had interpretations, only summaries of their religion

Well, some don't. But that has nothing to do with Christianity. You've heard of Sturgeon's Law, "90% of everything is crap." Here's a collary to Sturgeon's - 90% of any group are MORONS.

Still, Christians who take their religions seriously and think about it do have interpretations of the Torah. To dismiss those interpretations is no different than some Christians dismissing the religion of everyone else.

The Mishna is much more than that. Yes, it is memorization of the Torah, but it is also a collection of stories as well.

The NT is a collection of stories, and it is generally memorized by Christians.

Yes, I do know it's not the same. But the end result is this - if the Mishna has any solid and unchallenged advantage over the NT, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, you can't judge Christianity by the standards of Judaism. They worship the same God, but they approach it in a different manner.

I know, symbolism.

You poor bastard. You apparently didn't realize you were arguing with an English geek.

Symbolism is defined as a system of representations, assigning a deeper significance to objects, events, and relationships. In the case of the biblical verses listed here, there are no objects, events, or relationships, with the exception of the rapist, the virgin and the father of the virgin. And all these elements are too vague to be given any representation beyond random guessing. Thus no representations can be assigned. In layman's terms - symbolism my ASS.

I'm sorry, I'm all for the interpretation of symbolism in religious text in some cases, but this is not one of them. These laws are stated very clearly as an if/then situation. If this is a symbolic statement, EVERYTHING IN THE TORAH can be taken as symbology. That includes the Ten Commandments, and the existance of God.

Besides, read those verses and tell me exactly what they're supposed to represent. Many kudos to you if you can do this in a way that isn't reminisce of modern "art" (where everything is so vague you can read whatever you want into it). I want you to tell me what it means, and tell me exactly why I'm supposed to read it that way.

In short - while some parts of the Torah may be symbolism, calling everything you don't agree with symbolism is self-serving and absurd. Thank you.

He obviously makes some sense, otherwise people wouldn't worship G-d. Would worship space, just because it's omnipotent and goes on forever?

No, no, let me try to explain. I have a friend who is a brilliant strategist. Sometimes my friends and I play team Risk, and sometimes we end up on the same side. I've had little exchanges like this during games with him:

J: Attack there.
PF: Looks like a horrible mistake to me. Why?
J: [Long, insane discussion of tactics completely over my head.]
PF: I have no idea what you just said, but okay.

This is generally followed by an incredible ass-kicking of the other side, generally because the move he suggested has screwed someone else but good.

Now, with me so far? Alright. God is the kind of strategist that no one on Earth could even expect to counter. He can make two seemingly unrelated moves, even seemingly impossible moves, then bring everything together in the third act.

Now, what you are basically saying is, "God made WHAT move? He'd NEVER make that move! That's INSANE!" But in my experience, it's best to accept that when the experts do something that seems dumb, it's often for the greater good.

Jesus supposedly saved the eastern society world by dying. That's why the cross is the symbol of Judaism, and the cross refers to Jesus.

You mean Christianity, right? :D

Seriously, keep in mind that Jesus is given so much focus because he's a new and important element put into the equation. Jesus had a role to play, a role given him by God, and he carried it out. That's the point of the NT. But it doesn't mean Jesus is more important than God any more than the fact that Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt makes him more important to the book of Exodus.

I should also note that, whatever Jesus did, he did with God, as God. Add in the importance of God in the OT (and you're right, it is called on less, but it's still important to Christianity) and you see that God has had more pull in the faith.

And the porch & house are two different things. Thus, Christians just worship the porch

My couch and my car are both in need of repairs. Thus, my couch is bigger.

Sorry, but this logical if/then doesn't hold water.

I thought that Christians believed that G-d was omnipotent and omnipresent, so what is not G-d.

You could argue that every animal on earth has some degree of sentience, but when we say "sentient being", we generally mean something more advanced than jellyfish. Same situation. I guess Christians might consider my soul a part of God, in some way, but I'm not such a large part of God as to make one damn bit of difference.

Also, you agreed that G-d had no physical form, so Jesus was just a go between.

Jesus wasn't "just" a go-between. He was also a part of God. Which is the important part, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. And what I meant was that God is not confined to one particular physical form.

Also, why would G-d brake his own teachings in the Torah by asking me to worship a cow?

Fair enough. At what point in the Torah does it explicitly say God would never take human form?

This is probably just me, but I wouldn't be so cocky in interpreting the future actions of a human being, unless your like a phycohistorian.

Well, this is probably just me, but I don't like it when someone asks me a direct question and scolds me for giving an answer.

Besides, I didn't interpret the actions of a human being. I interpreted the actions of a group of human beings, giving a wide range of possible actions. Hardly the same thing.

I've been taught about psychology and sociology since I was in diapers. Not the technical terms and the exoteric thought processes of madmen, but I'm good at getting into people's heads. This is just a suggestion of what some people might do, based on my own experiences, and should be taken with an error of margin for outsiders and free-thinkers.

First, it's more like cryogenics. Which is where you preserve someone by freezing them in ice, while there’re still alive.

Have scientists ever actually been able to do this?

So saying that the heart of the language was lost over time, is like saying that an undisturbed stone tablet kept in a library for a certain period of time, will explode or something.

Bob, imagine if you wrote a letter that contained the slang-words "cool" and "gnarly", and sent it back in time to colonial America. Don't you think they'd be a little confused by the usage? On the flip-side, are you aware that Shakespeare's plays - with all their confusing words and bizarre inflection - were originally written for the masses?

As I said before - language is a growing, evolving, living thing. It changes as the people who speak it change, becoming more clipped or more casual, smoothing out the rough edges and becoming scarred with age.

And that's just English, 14th century to English today. From the way you say it, it sounds like the Hebrew language was completely lost for a LONG time. Did you know there are words in Japanese or Dutch (I think) that can't be translated into English? How do you know the translation of Hebrew wasn't warped by the viewpoint of the time it was translated, the way most languages are warped slowly over time?

And actually, the idea of necromancy, in a religious debate reminded me of Jesus, bringing people back from the dead......

Well, if the Hebrew language was brought back miraculously by God, I suppose I can give it a pass. Even if I sure as hell want to hear the details.

When I said "necromancy", I wasn't wiggling my fingers and going "EEEEVIL!" I'm just saying, you look at things that come back from the dead, they have a tendancy to come back wrong.

It shouldn't matter what face G-d takes, only the fact that it is G-d's face.

Jumping to conclusions. Ten yard penalty. Well, unless you can book-n-verse me.

Even if it was a buffer, according to Christians, Jesus is still G-d. Thus whoever has seen Jesus's face should have died, based on the Christian English written form.

Wait, the Christian version says this? Book-n-verse me!

Also, I take it that since you did not respond to my comment on Christians believing in the Nicene Creed, that you agree with me.

That's a silly assumption to make. I might've just decided not to respond to that part of your post. Which part did I miss?

It's one of the basic things they teach in child's Christian Sunday school: G-d is the creator, and Jesus is the savior, but we worship the savior.

From someone who has actually been to Children's Church, the correct version is, "God is the creator, Jesus is the savior, they are the same person, worship them/him."

So thus Christians really do believe in two gods, a porch and a house.

... Bob, for someone who's been trumpeting the "symbolism" of the bible, you seem to have little grasp of metaphor. The porch and the house were meant to symbolize the fact that Jesus is part of God. You have ignored this entirely. Why is this?

Beatnik Bob

Nov 25th, 2005, 3:24 PM

What’s with the hostility Philosopher Foelhe? I know I’ve done it too, but PLEASE, lets both try to withstand hostility, a hand in place of a hand, right? Are we cool?

Still, Christians who take their religions seriously and think about it do have interpretations of the Torah Yes, and they make it so those interpretations fit their dogma, they can never really go beyond it.

The NT is a collection of stories, and it is generally memorized by Christians. What doesn’t have a collection of stories? The Torah has stories too, especially in Exodus and Genesis.

Yes, I do know it's not the same. But the end result is this - if the Mishna has any solid and unchallenged advantage over the NT, I'd like to hear it. Here’s a quote from the Mishna that smacks Christianity hard in the face: God’s glory extends to the edges of everything, He is everything but nothing, He is wisdom, he is love and grace, understanding, compassion, eternity, He is the foundation, splendor, power and judgment, and the communion of Israel.

They worship the same God, but they approach it in a different manner.
That’s not what we’ve been debating; we’ve been debating whether Jesus really is G-d, and things like that.
The Torah is like a written language, you could technically interpret the language any way you wanted to, bets could make the ‘y’ sound, and tsadi could make the ‘ch’ sound.
But just because you come up with sounds for this language, doesn’t mean that this language says what you say it says, you need an oral interpretation that shows you that bet makes the ‘v’ & ‘b’ sounds, and tsadi makes the ‘ts’ sound. So it isn’t really a matter of come up with your own thing, it’s a matter of having the true thing.
And this goes along with what you said about Christians being able to interpret the Torah their own way.

You apparently didn't realize you were arguing with an English geek
Apparently you didn’t know that the Torah is a Hebrew based book, and way of thinking.

In layman's terms - symbolism my ASS.
Symbolism in English my ass too. It is still symbolism though, but I guess not in English.

The thing is, anyone is basically lost if they don’t know Hebrew, and they follow a religion that is basically Hebrew.
If you know Hebrew, then you know that the Ten Commandments are written in if/then, but not all is. In fact, as you have pointed out, there are Hebrew words that CAN NOT be translated into Greek, and then to Latin, English, etc. so some words and fazes, English can’t even comprehend, because it’s not their culture, and they can’t understand it.

That includes the Ten Commandments, and the existence of God.
Can you finally see how important the Mishna is? Since Mishna means passing down, and repeating, it goes for language to, from teacher to student language is passed down.

I want you to tell me what it means, and tell me exactly why I'm supposed to read it that way. The Mishna was written down into 16 or so volumes, I only have a compact one, but it doesn’t have everything. So it’s hard to say what that statement means……… because as I may know Hebrew pretty well, enough to know the dynamics and its ‘culture,’ and how to read it, and plenty of words in it by memory, I am not an all knowing English scholar, enough to just read it in Hebrew and know. As a kid I only had a few classes for my Bar-Mitzva and a few more, but I wasn’t sure if it was really all that important, because I live in America and not Israel. But later on in my life I realize how important it is to know Hebrew, and I regret not continuing in my classes as a kid. So I’m actually taking more classes again…………..
But I do know it is English symbolism, because I remember my Rabbi mentioning it once, when reading a portion on Shabbat.

This is generally followed by an incredible ass-kicking of the other side, generally because the move he suggested has screwed someone else but good.
Was Jesus really that good of a strategist? He didn’t seem to help the Aztecs, Olmecs, and Maya. And this is just common sense, not conjecture. Because Christians believe Jesus saved the WORLD.
I agree, G-d is an awesome strategist, but I don’t think Jesus was that good.

Seriously, keep in mind that Jesus is given so much focus because he's a new and important element put into the equation. Moses was important as well, and Abraham came up with a whole religion. And in fact, Jesus got allot of his ideals from a man named Hillel, (30 B.C.E.-20 C.E.) who made allot of commentaries on the Mishna.
When one compares Hillel works with Jesus works, they can tell how much Jesus was influenced by him.

Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt makes him more important to the book of Exodus. We don’t worship Moses, just because he is a very important character in Exodus.

God has had more pull in the faith Even just that statement refers to two gods.
But allot relies on Jesus in the Christian religion, they pray to him as a separate form, but when questioned they deny it by saying its one G-d.
And even their great symbol, is a cross.

I guess Christians might consider my soul a part of God, in some way, but I'm not such a large part of God as to make one damn bit of difference.
This is actually a very Jewish belief, that only a community of people can make a difference, which is why Israel means the Son of G-d.
But also, people who have united with the shekinah, can make differences, like in Nevi’im, when prophets convince G-d not to destroy certain cities.

Jesus wasn't "just" a go-between. I never said he was just a go between, please, try to listen and understand.
I agree, Jesus was a go-between and much more, but those aren't the details that I was referring to. The detail I was expounding on was that Jesus is a go-between, and as a go-between Jesus had a physical form, but you agreed that G-d has no physical form, and you also agreed that Jesus was there to carry out G-dly tasks. But you also agreed that many Christians say the words, "In Jesus's name, amen" after a prayer, showing their high belief in Jesus as G-d, and not as just someone to carry out G-d's tasks.

. At what point in the Torah does it explicitly say God would never take human form? By that statement, I take it that you believe that G-d has no form, but Jesus does, so they are two different entities.
And it says that G-d is einsoff (nothingness without end)l

Well, this is probably just me, but I don't like it when someone asks me a direct question and scolds me for giving an answer.[/Quote] I was advising, not scolding.

I didn't interpret the actions of a human being. I interpreted the actions of a group of human beings, giving a wide range of possible actions.
That’s what a psychohistorian is. It’s actually sort of a fictional psychologist. Isaac Asimov (writer of I Robot and many other science fiction books) invented the psychohistorian, someone who basically predicts the future of society by mathematical equations, and based on the past actions of humanity. I know fiction probably has no place in a religious debate, but I was just playing around.

I’ve been taught about psychology and sociology since I was in diapers. I'm good at getting into people's heads. This is just a suggestion of what some people might do, based on my own experiences, and should be taken with an error of margin for outsiders and free-thinkers. That’s nice.

Have scientists ever actually been able to do this? Yes. Although since it hasn’t been perfected further, it can only really stop you, and preserve you for a short period of time. It’s usually used if you’re injured or something.
But I was using the idea of cryogenics as along preserving property, even if it’s scientifically impossible to preserve someone for about 2100 years.
But you know, necromancy isn’t scientifically proven either.

imagine if you wrote a letter that contained the slang-words "cool" and "gnarly", and sent it back in time to colonial America. Don't you think they'd be a little confused by the usage? On the flip-side, are you aware that Shakespeare's plays - with all their confusing words and bizarre inflection - were originally written for the masses?
1. English isn’t a dead language; I’m speaking to you in English right now. So, since English isn’t dead, it is affected by fashion, culture, other languages, etc.
2. Hebrew was a dead language, it couldn’t evolve at all. Only languages that people speak really evolve. But Hebrew was not wiped off the face of the Earth, it just wasn’t spoken, people were only taught Hebrew so they could study Torah. And not very many studied Torah for a while. I suppose that now Hebrew is back in use, it is prone to evolution.
3. You bring up a good point with Shakespeare. Have you heard of Sonnet 116?
One thing it says is: O no! it is an ever-fixed mark, That looks on tempest and is never shaken; It is the star to ever wandering bark.
This sounds strange and symbolic, even for an English speaker. But we still know what it means, even after about 500 years. It is referring to love being like the North star that sailors follow at sea, on ships. So think about it, Shakespeare spoke English but even we have trouble knowing what it means, so it’s no surprise that people can’t understand a whole different language.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 25th, 2005, 3:28 PM

Note: I had to make it all two posts, because they wouldn't let me send a post with 14,800 or so characters, only 10,000. Sorry for the inconvinience.

language is a growing, evolving, living thing. It changes as the people who speak it change, becoming more clipped or more casual, smoothing out the rough edges and becoming scarred with age. I said this very thing in my past posts, this is why Hebrew is the same as it was about 3000 years ago.

And that's just English, 14th century to English today. From the way you say it, it sounds like the Hebrew language was completely lost for a LONG time. By ‘dead language,’ I meant that no one walked down the street and said “Shalom alechem abah.” People would have spoken in Latin, Greek, or Arabic. However, a few people still knew Hebrew, people taught by teachers, for the sole purpose of being able to read the Torah, because they knew that Hebrew doesn’t match up with other languages very well, and for reasons like you have already illustrated.

Did you know there are words in Japanese or Dutch (I think) that can't be translated into English? Yes, and in Hebrew too.
Did you know that when it’s talking about humans being made in G-d’s image, it has the word deemel, which is really hard to translate into English, the best way to describe it is, image of intelligence, and it also refers to G-d being intelligence, and that G-d put himself in us. That we are more divinely aspired than, like you said, a jellyfish.
It’s really hard to explain into English. Which is probably why when it was translated, it came to mean physical image.
But even in English it gives a few hints. Like it says we were made in the image of G-d. And when you think of G-d as a Christian, you don’t always see Jesus, but think of a great entity of wisdom and power, so even an English cultured person could realize that G-d imparted to us a brain wiser than a cow or seagull.

How do you know the translation of Hebrew wasn't warped by the viewpoint of the time it was translated, the way most languages are warped slowly over time?
No offence but I really don’t understand a word you just said………
Let me see, are you saying that when someone translates Hebrew into English, it warps Hebrew? Because if that is so, then why is it that we have the dead see scrolls from about 400 B.C.E. and they are unchanged, and they were around before Torah was translated into any language (assuming that I was right on what you said.)

When I said "necromancy", I wasn't wiggling my fingers and going "EEEEVIL!" I wasn’t wiggling my finger and saying evil either.

Well, unless you can book-n-verse me.
* I don’t need to book and verse you really, every Christian, and most non-Christians think that the NT says Jesus was G-d incarnate.
1. Christians believe Jesus is G-d.
2. Jesus had a face.
3. It said in Exodus that if you saw G-d’s face, you would die.
(Assuming that we go by an English literal interpretation of the Torah)
4. If Jesus really was G-d, all his disciples would be technically dead.

I might've just decided not to respond to that part of your post. Which part did I miss? Post number 30, when I was responding to your comment on the Nicene Creed. Note: I went back to edit it, and highlighted it in green for you.

the correct version is, "God is the creator, Jesus is the savior, they are the same person, worship them/him." And it’ funny how even though this is the way they teach, they are extremely un-acceptant of their own religion.
Christians don’t like Catholics.

Jesus, said, they love the tree but hate the fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree (the Gospel of Thomas 1:43)

You have ignored this entirely. Why is this? I note that you have ignored many things in my post as well. No one likes a hypocrite, well at least I don't.

Do you know about the Gospel of Thomas? In fact it’s the only testament in the NT that I actually like, but the Christians ripped the whole thing out, because Jesus said a few things that they didn’t/wouldn’t like.
For example: Jesus told Thomas three sayings once. And then Thomas went back to his friends, and they said, “What did Jesus say to you?” Thomas said to them, “If I tell you one of his sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you.”
(Isn’t that interesting?) But anyway, here’s another, even better thing that Jesus said.
Jesus said, “When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father.

Jesus was a Kabbalist, and as I’ve said, was greatly influenced by Hillel, and worked greatly with symbolism. As you can tell from this:
Jesus said, When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter the kingdom.

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 26th, 2005, 1:29 AM

What’s with the hostility Philosopher Foelhe? I know I’ve done it too, but PLEASE, lets both try to withstand hostility, a hand in place of a hand, right? Are we cool?

If I seem hostile, I apologize. I can be a little too direct in a debate at times, which can seem like a bit of an attack, but it truly isn't meant as one.

Yes, and they make it so those interpretations fit their dogma, they can never really go beyond it.

Forgive me, but you build your interpretations around the belief that the belief that the Torah was written through the will of God, do you not? Doesn't that mean you also build your interpretations around your dogma?

Here’s a quote from the Mishna that smacks Christianity hard in the face: God’s glory extends to the edges of everything, He is everything but nothing, He is wisdom, he is love and grace, understanding, compassion, eternity, He is the foundation, splendor, power and judgment, and the communion of Israel.

I don't believe that does smack Christianity in the face. Some Christians, sure, but Christianity?

That’s not what we’ve been debating; we’ve been debating whether Jesus really is G-d, and things like that.

That's been the major debate, yes. But we've also had splinter arguments about how important the Mishna is, which was where my comment was directed.

But just because you come up with sounds for this language, doesn’t mean that this language says what you say it says, you need an oral interpretation that shows you that bet makes the ‘v’ & ‘b’ sounds, and tsadi makes the ‘ts’ sound. So it isn’t really a matter of come up with your own thing, it’s a matter of having the true thing.

Hold up. Just because you can't pronounce a word doesn't mean you don't understand what that word means. I could be wrong here (jump in if you like, historians), but I believe we only understand the Ancient Egyptian language in the written form. That doesn't mean we don't know what it says, just that we don't know how to speak it. As far as anyone knows, our translations of the written word are still fine.

I mean, you can know the word Habnaik is pronounced HAHB-nayk, but that doesn't tell you whether it means "enemy" or "boot".

[EDIT: At the insistance of my lawyers, I would like to clarify that "Habnaik" is probably not a Jewish word and is not meant to be. Please do not sue me.]

Symbolism in English my ass too. It is still symbolism though, but I guess not in English.

Well, good thing we have someone here familiar with the Talmud who speaks both English and Hebrew. So, what is the correct translation of these verses? I've studied those verses, and the only thing I can decide is that if there was irony there, it was lost when the book was turned over to English.

Can you finally see how important the Mishna is? Since Mishna means passing down, and repeating, it goes for language to, from teacher to student language is passed down.

... The only way you can tell which parts of the Torah are literal is if you have someone tell you? I really hope I misunderstood that, because I just lost tons of respect for the Jewish faith.

But I do know it is English symbolism, because I remember my Rabbi mentioning it once, when reading a portion on Shabbat.

Ah. Perhaps I was a bit brash asking you to translate the verse for me, then. I don't suppose you could ask your Rabbi to explain it to me? Both the meaning of the verse, and the reason this is considered symbolism?

Was Jesus really that good of a strategist?

I was talking about God. If Jesus is a part of God, I suppose Jesus was probably a part of the strategy. You could argue that, by biblical teachings, Jesus made a very strategic move - he "fell back" into death, giving the illusion that he was defeated, then drew his enemy into a position where he had less power.

We don’t worship Moses, just because he is a very important character in Exodus.

No, but Christians don't worship Christ just because he was a very important person in the New Testament. They worship him because they believe he is one with God.

Even just that statement refers to two gods.

... Bob, I love you like a brother, but there are times you make my head hurt.

Throughout this whole discussion, I have discussed God and Jesus as two separate entities. That is because our small human brains see Jesus, and we think, "prophet guy who wandered around Israel for awhile". And then we see God, and we think, "almighty and infinite being". Whether those two views can be melded (And I believe they can, whether or not they should be), they do play very different roles in the vast scheme of things.

God is going to smite me for this example, but think of it like Jackie Chan. In all of his movies, Chan spends most of his time being this nice, gentle guy... until ninjas jump through the roof and he starts kicking ass. When I say something about Nice Guy Jackie, I'm not saying he's a separate entity from Phenomenal Badass Jackie, just that there are differences in the way he acts in these two ways.

But also, people who have united with the shekinah, can make differences, like in Nevi’im, when prophets convince G-d not to destroy certain cities.

The Ha'Shem, you mean? I believe we've talked about this before. It might help if you approach it from the Judaist side. Imagine if Jesus united with the shekinah. In fact, imagine if he connected with the shekinah better than anyone has ever done before, or since. Imagine that he connected with it so well that in a way he melded with God. Does that step on any toes in your religion?

I never said he was just a go between, please, try to listen and understand.

Actually, you said, "You agreed that G-d had no physical form, so Jesus was just a go between." Perhaps I defended against that too hastily, but I just wanted to cover all my bases. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

you agreed that G-d has no physical form

I agreed God has no permanent physical form. Important distinction. I would be suprised if an omnipotent being couldn't transform itself into a lamppost. Or at least, a part of itself.

That’s what a psychohistorian is. It’s actually sort of a fictional psychologist. Isaac Asimov (writer of I Robot and many other science fiction books) invented the psychohistorian

I... I missed an Asimov reference?!? I have brought disgrace upon my family's honor! *commits hara-kiri*

In any case, you asked a question, I answered as best I could. I really have no idea how any random Christian might react to the news of God inside a cow, but my educated guess would be that they would generally fall within the area I described. And of course there are always gonna be some yoo-hoos who break the holding pattern. Cest la vie.

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 26th, 2005, 1:30 AM

Note: I had to make it all two posts, because they wouldn't let me send a post with 14,800 or so characters, only 10,000. Sorry for the inconvinience.

It seems we have something in common.

I said this very thing in my past posts, this is why Hebrew is the same as it was about 3000 years ago.

... My point was that as societies change, their view of languages also changes. I'm just curious as to how a person from this era would look at the text from two thousand years ago. Probably they would have a different viewpoint than the original writer.

By ‘dead language,’ I meant that no one walked down the street and said “Shalom alechem abah.” People would have spoken in Latin, Greek, or Arabic. However, a few people still knew Hebrew, people taught by teachers, for the sole purpose of being able to read the Torah, because they knew that Hebrew doesn’t match up with other languages very well, and for reasons like you have already illustrated.

Oh, I misunderstood. My apologies.

No offence but I really don’t understand a word you just said………

It relates back to my mistake. Don't worry about it.

I wasn’t wiggling my finger and saying evil either.

No? My mistake again, then.

I don’t need to book and verse you really, every Christian, and most non-Christians think that the NT says Jesus was G-d incarnate.

Yes, God Incarnate, tempered by humanity. That's why it wasn't fatal to look on his face - it's because his face came from the human half of his heritage, from Mary. If Jesus had exposed God's true face, I suspect his disciples would've been killed on the spot. Assuming any of this is true, of course.

Post number 30, when I was responding to your comment on the Nicene Creed. Note: I went back to edit it, and highlighted it in green for you.

*hunts for a moment* Oh, you mean this?

Actually I'm pretty sure I could walk down the street and show the Nicene Creed to any Christian, and they’d say, "You bet I think Jesus is my savior!" "I definitely agree with this!"

*shrugs* Well, I suppose many of them would. Poetry isn't really many people's strong-point. Nor is theology, for that matter. When you brought up the Nicene Creed, I got the impression that you were annoyed by certain impressions it gave, which were somewhat hidden in the narrative, but which you could find if you were careful and put some thought into it. The average person isn't going to see those flaws, though. For a lot of Christians, that's a cute little poem about faith. And that doesn't bother me at all - we can't all be bards and philosophers.

And it’ funny how even though this is the way they teach, they are extremely un-acceptant of their own religion.

Yeah, some Christians can be real assholes. Of course, some Judaists can be real assholes too. They may show it in different ways, but the honest fact of the matter is that every major religion is going to draw jackasses out of the woodwork. And unless you abolish religion altogether (which won't get rid of the jackasses altogether, but it might make 'em shut up) it's just something you have to deal with.

I note that you have ignored many things in my post as well. No one likes a hypocrite, well at least I don't.

Nor do I, which is why I feel I must point out that there is a major difference between missing a point in a conversation, and misinterpreting one.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 26th, 2005, 11:03 PM

If I seem hostile, I apologize. I can be a little too direct in a debate at times, which can seem like a bit of an attack, but it truly isn't meant as one. Apology accepted. :2thumbs:

Forgive me, but you build your interpretations around the belief that the belief that the Torah was written through the will of God We believe that Moses was a messiah, ( chosen one; anointed), chosen by G-d for many evident and perhaps in-evident purposes. And we believe Moses was united with the Shekinah, making him the Son of God of the time. So yeah, we do.

Doesn't that mean you also build your interpretations around your dogma? Well, it's not the same.
1. Jews invented the whole dogma of there being one G-d, so of course we follow.
3. But Christians got rid of the whole Gospel of Thomas because it didn't agree with their dogma, even though it was still the word of Jesus.

but Christianity? Well, the whole Christian faith is based on the idea that Jesus is G-d, and Jesus has a physical form, and Christians believe G-d has a physical form as well. So it really is smacking Christianity in the face, when the Torah says that G-d (who is G-d AND Jesus in Christianity) has no form at all.

Hold up. Just because you can't pronounce a word doesn't mean you don't understand what that word means. I'll try to illustrate it better.
Give me a sentence, any sentence, but make sure it is English, and that any English-speaker would know what it meant, and make sure you know what it means too.

At the insistence of my lawyers, I would like to clarify that "Habnaik" is probably not a Jewish word and is not meant to be. Please do not sue me.
:D: don't worry, I won't

So, what is the correct translation of these verses? I've studied those verses, and the only thing I can decide is that if there was irony there Do you mind if I ask my Rabbi? I'm not entirely sure, since I don't own all 16 or so volumes of the Talmud.

it was lost when the book was turned over to English.
Actually from Hebrew to Greek and then ultimately to English, but yeah I see your point.

The only way you can tell which parts of the Torah are literal is if you have someone tell you? Well, when you were born did you automatically know English, or did someone have to teach you how to read, write and understand it? I'm guessing you had a teacher. The thing is that most Jews spoke Latin, Greek, and in most cases Arabic. No one spoke Hebrew, so naturally someone teaches them, usually at an early age, so that they can study Torah.

Perhaps I was a bit brash asking you to translate the verse for me, then. I don't suppose you could ask your Rabbi to explain it to me? Both the meaning of the verse, and the reason this is considered symbolism?
No problem! Only, it's Thanksgiving weekend and I probably can't contact my Rabbi till another week.

No, but Christians don't worship Christ just because he was a very important person in the New Testament. They worship him because they believe he is one with God.

In all of his movies, Chan spends most of his time being this nice, gentle guy... until ninjas jump through the roof and he starts kicking ass. When I say something about Nice Guy Jackie, I'm not saying he's a separate entity from Phenomenal Badass Jackie, just that there are differences in the way he acts in these two ways. These are completely different cases. Yeah, G-d is compassionate sometimes, and other times he becomes a huge judgment figure who wipes out the population of the Earth in a single flood. But this doesn't compare to a Jesus figure, and G-d entity.

Imagine if Jesus united with the shekinah. In fact, imagine if he connected with the shekinah better than anyone has ever done before, or since. Imagine that he connected with it so well that in a way he melded with God.
The Shekinah is also thought of as the 'Son of God,' in many cases, individuals united with the Shekinah are referred to as G-d's twin, almost his equal. But do we worship G-d's twin or G-d? Do we worship messiah or G-d? No, we worship G-d. We view G-d as the most almighty entity ever.
The 'Son of God' is an individual who has been united with the Shekinah

And more than one individual is apart of G-d.
And where in the Torah does it say the Son of God should be worshipped?

I really have no idea how any random Christian might react to the news of God inside a cow, but my educated guess would be that they would generally fall within the area I described. All I can say is if a Christian went around saying there was a cow that was G-d, Christians would look at him and say, "Burn that man at the stake!" Well maybe not today, but they'd definitely kick him out of their religion, and he wouldn't be Christians anymore. Because Christians believe that only Jesus is G-d, no other form on Earth.
Think of it this way, compare the percentage of Christians that worship the cow, to the percentage of Scientists that think the Earth is flat.
Christians don’t think about their religion as much as you think about it, they only believe in Jesus as the savior who is one with One.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 26th, 2005, 11:38 PM

My point was that as societies change, their view of languages also changes. I'm just curious as to how a person from this era would look at the text from two thousand years ago. Probably they would have a different viewpoint than the original writer. How would the viewpoint change?
Again, think of it like cryogenics. The society and the world around you change, but you remain the same in your block of ice.
Hebrew isn't affected by society, because it wasn't spoken in everyday language. However, languages like Arabic were, languages that people spoke.

it's because his face came from the human half of his heritage, from Mary. If Jesus had exposed God's true face, I suspect his disciples would've been killed on the spot. Well, I have read the NT. I don't debate a religion that I don't know anything about. And Jesus says that if you have seen me, you have seen the father.

The average person isn't going to see those flaws, though. For a lot of Christians, that's a cute little poem about faith. And that doesn't bother me at all - we can't all be bards and philosophers. That's hardly an excuse, Christians aut to think about their faith, in fact Jesus even talks about people being blind sheep.
But anyway, the point is I couldn't disagree more. Allot of the books in the Torah are like an epic poem. Also, the Nicene Creed isn't a poem.
The Nicene Creed is just how Christianity believes. In fact it starts out "We believe in......" The Nicene Creed is the Christian religion.

And are you saying that the whole Christian religion is based on flaws that were ignored or unseen?
Actually a good example of this is when the NT says this:
Jesus said, "when you see one who was NOT born of woman, fall upon your faces and worship. THAT ONE is your father." (Gospel of Thomas 1:15)

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 27th, 2005, 1:21 AM

But Christians got rid of the whole Gospel of Thomas because it didn't agree with their dogma, even though it was still the word of Jesus.

... That's a strong point. I'm gonna sleep on that before I admit defeat, but I'm drawing a blank right now.

when the Torah says that G-d (who is G-d AND Jesus in Christianity) has no form at all.

*considers for a moment*

You mean the "He is everything and nothing", bit? I suppose I see your point. It's possible that phrase could mean something else entirely, though. Although I'll admit I'm drawing a blank. (Granted, not at my best right now.)

Give me a sentence, any sentence, but make sure it is English, and that any English-speaker would know what it meant, and make sure you know what it means too.

Next time, I'd suggest you make up your own sentance, just to get things rolling along quicker. But sure, "I walked the dog."

Do you mind if I ask my Rabbi? I'm not entirely sure, since I don't own all 16 or so volumes of the Talmud.

Not at all! I look forward to it.

Well, when you were born did you automatically know English, or did someone have to teach you how to read, write and understand it?

No, no, that's not what I mean. When you're learning a language, you do have to hear examples and have things explained to you. But eventually, you reach a point where you can understand the rules. When I was a little kid, I didn't understand symbolism. But now I can, and I can generally recognize symbolism without needing it pointed out to me.

Of course, you said in your last post that you weren't fluent in Hebrew, so I guess I can understand why you would have to be told that sort of thing. Sorry, my mistake.

These are completely different cases. Yeah, G-d is compassionate sometimes, and other times he becomes a huge judgment figure who wipes out the population of the Earth in a single flood. But this doesn't compare to a Jesus figure, and G-d entity.

Well, it's sort've a stepping-stone thing. My first example, you have one person with two different personality defaults. You could sort've compare that to a disguise artist who has more than one identity. Then, you can compare the disguise artist to something that actually has two forms, if the thing you're talking about has the power to do this, which I believe God does.

And where in the Torah does it say the Son of God should be worshipped?

Well, why would it say that? In the Torah (if we still believe Jesus was the most powerful Shekinah ever) there was no Son of God to worship. The NT thus acts as a collary to the Torah, telling us about the change in structure, as it were.

All I can say is if a Christian went around saying there was a cow that was G-d, Christians would look at him and say, "Burn that man at the stake!" Well maybe not today, but they'd definitely kick him out of their religion, and he wouldn't be Christians anymore.

See, this is the problem I have with your discussion on Christianity. If you believe Christians are dead wrong, I actually pretty much agree with you. But when you say things like this, you imply that every Christian is close-minded and arrogant. There's a healthy batch of those types, no lie, but I do know Christians who are pretty good people, and who wouldn't snub people in the way you describe here.

I mean, feel free to think you're right in this argument. Everyone on Earth does, after all. But I would be happier with that if you didn't assume everyone who disagrees with you is morally bankrupt. That's practically a one-way ticket to the same mental state of that batch of Christians you describe.

Christians don’t think about their religion as much as you think about it, they only believe in Jesus as the savior who is one with One.

Most don't think about it at all. Like I said earlier, 90% of every group is made up of idiots. Christians are no exception to this rule. I'd actually guess they get more than their fair share, since they're more mainstream and are thus easier for morons to stagger into.

Still doesn't mean the rest of 'em can't be pretty sharp, though.

The society and the world around you change, but you remain the same in your block of ice.

Yes, but you're treated differently. Ever seen a move where someone was released from deep-freeze, and they spent half the film staggering around trying to adjust?

Well, I have read the NT. I don't debate a religion that I don't know anything about. And Jesus says that if you have seen me, you have seen the father.

Seen the father, yes. Seen the father's face, no.

I think I already asked this question, but I'll ask again because I can't seem to find the answer. Didn't Moses actually look up at God after he passed, looking at his back and not his face?

That's hardly an excuse, Christians aut to think about their faith, in fact Jesus even talks about people being blind sheep.

*shrugs* Yep, they really should. But they don't. Just like many people in many other faiths don't. Cest la vie.

And are you saying that the whole Christian religion is based on flaws that were ignored or unseen?

*grins and rolls up his sleeves* Ah, the complicated stuff.

Here's what I say to that. The Christian religion, yes. The Christian dogma, I suppose it's possible. The Christian faith, I don't believe so.

The difference between religion and spirituality is that religion is all about the rules and regulations, and spirituality is about the stuff that actually matters. The hem and haw of the men and women in their pulpits is not as important, in the grand scheme of things, as a single compassionate soul. Or so I believe.

"when you see one who was NOT born of woman, fall upon your faces and worship. THAT ONE is your father." (Gospel of Thomas 1:15)

*files that away under "stuff he'll think about and get back to you"*

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 27th, 2005, 8:21 AM

You guys have a great debate going. My compliments on how you both are handling a most delicate topic without ripping each other to shreds. :2thumbs:

Bob, would you mind giving a little synopsis/explanation of the upcoming holidays? We see/hear so much about the Christian ones it would be a nice balance to read of the Jewish ones. I'm not a "religious" person but I am very spiritual and always interested in learning more of others religious cultures.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 27th, 2005, 10:17 PM

I'm gonna sleep on that before I admit defeat
No problem! Take as much time as is necessary. :2thumbs:

It's possible that phrase could mean something else entirely, though. No, it's very unlikely. The quote I gave you is sort of like a better translation of what it says in the real Hebrew texts. And if you think about it, Hebrew is really more specific than English. Like one word shows the exact possession of something. Just like you can tell that the burning bush isn't/wasn't G-d.

"I walked the dog."
Ok, pretend I'm from another completely different country, and I don't know anything about English.
And I see a sign that has those characters of: I walked the dog. So then I look at the letters and say, "I know what that means!" "It is telling me to: Walk faster than ussual." So for the rest of the day I walk faster than ussual, and speed walk around town. But as you can see, the sign said you walked the dog, it didn't say walk faster than ussual.
And in this case the sign is the Torah, the interpretation of "I walked the dog" is the Mishna, and the person from another country is a Christian.

Also, here’s another example of the Mishna's importance.
Think about other cultures that are based on the Torah. (Note: this is important)
Muslims look at a passage in the Torah that says: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Normally this makes the Torah seem very sick, and Muslims actually cut off your hands and etc. to go along with this statement.
So without the Mishna one would look at this statement and think it to be very barbaric. But what it means is that, say you were a cruel person, and you cut off someones hands, you would have to make amends accordingly. Because what if that person was a pianists, his hands are his whole living, so you would have to make up for the loss by helping him out, by ancient law. NOTE: it isn't always necessarily the loss of a physical body part, pretty mush any loss.

Not at all! I look forward to it.
Actually, I have the answer right now. My Mishna is very large, and I believe I over looked the part where it talked about it. Sorry for the inconvenience.
The Mishna explains that if it happens in the country, no one really hears her out in the sticks, and who's to say that she even screamed if no one heard her scream out in nowhere. And if she didn't scream when being raped she's seen a s a participant, so they were just having normal sexual intercourse. But in the town, everyone hears what's happening, and they know she's being raped, so it goes differently in the country than it does in the city.

. But eventually, you reach a point where you can understand the rules. When I was a little kid, I didn't understand symbolism. But now I can, and I can generally recognize symbolism without needing it pointed out to me.
Well, the only reason people were taught Hebrew for awhile was so they could study Torah. But people were also taught in schools, such as Christians today go to Sunday school. So naturally, everyone needs teachers.

Of course, you said in your last post that you weren't fluent in Hebrew, so I guess I can understand why you would have to be told that sort of thing. Also, people a long time ago didn't speak Hebrew either, the majority spoke Arabic. People stopped speaking Hebrew quite some time ago, but were still taught it at around the age of 5 or 6.

you have one person with two different personality defaults. You could sort've compare that to a disguise artist who has more than one identity. Then, you can compare the disguise artist to something that actually has two forms, if the thing you're talking about has the power to do this, which I believe God does. What again? :drool: Sorry, I'm a bit slow today.

Well, why would it say that? In the Torah (if we still believe Jesus was the most powerful Shekinah ever) there was no Son of God to worship. The NT thus acts as a collary to the Torah, telling us about the change in structure, as it were. 1. You me and Christianity both agree that G-d is omnipotent.
2. Christians and Jews believe that the OT was divinely inspired by G-d.
3. Since G-d is omnipotent, he would know that he would incarnate as Jesus in the future.
4. So naturally, he would give a reference saying, worship the messiah.
5. Also, since you agree subtle meanings in the Hebrew version become lost when they are English, then you know that the Son of God is the individuals that comprise the nation of Israel. The Son of G-d is a plural word

But I would be happier with that if you didn't assume everyone who disagrees with you is morally bankrupt. That's practically a one-way ticket to the same mental state of that batch of Christians you describe. Wooow there lasy. You're jumping to conclusions old boy.
Exactly when did I say whoever disagrees with me is morally bankrupt?
All I was saying is that a Christian that doesn't believe in "Christ" isn't a Christian.

Like I said earlier, 90% of every group is made up of idiots.
By this statement, you are agreeing with me that most Christians would look at someone who said G-d was in a cow, and without thinking pretty much condemn them. The majority wouldn't think about G-d being in a cow.

. Ever seen a move where someone was released from deep-freeze, and they spent half the film staggering around trying to adjust? Yes, this actually happened, it was a stumbly road but Hebrew is back, and it is the same.

Seen the father, yes. Seen the father's face, no.
This is what is so sad about Christianity, it never says this. In fact, they don't have a Mishna to explain this, and it's too late to now.
All you can do is go with a Christian literal interpretation. Which would mean if you have seen him, you have seen G-d. Also, Moses didn't see G-d's whole "body."

Also, on the Christian behalf, if you deny that quote in literal terms, than you deny the belief that Jesus is G-d.
Like you said earlier in another thread, people think of G-d as an old wise man, and Christians believe Jesus and G-d are the same old man.

Didn't Moses actually look up at God after he passed, looking at his back and not his face? Yes, and I have already answered it, but I'll answer it again for your convenience: It is "English symbolism," the face symbolizes something, the face is where the brain is, it is the head of all wisdom, and even in G-ds image, wisdom is at the top of the sefirot.

The Christian religion, yes. The Christian dogma, I suppose it's possible. The Christian faith, I don't believe so. Actually I was talking about flaws such as the Gospel of Thomas telling people to not worship Jesus, because that goes against everything Christians teach. Basically the Gospel of Thomas is a flaw in Christianity.

But I'm curious, what is the difference between religion, dogma, and faith?

files that away under "stuff he'll think about and get back to you"
Take as long as it takes. I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Also, if Jesus really did perform all the miracles that he supposedly performed, then why didn't it talk about it in the Talmud? The Mishna was being written down the same time Jesus was walking around in Israel. And in the Talmud, they have biographies of men and women doing spectacular things, like people making water run up hill. But by this one could only conclude that it was a normal occurrence for a rabbi to bring someone back from the dead, and that they all couldn't be recorded, and they recorded hundreds.

Also, bringing someone back from the dead doesn't prove you're G-d, unless you consider Elijah G-d. Elijah (the prophet) brought someone back from the dead.

Would you mind giving a little synopsis/explanation for the upcoming holidays No, not at all! Well Chanukah is coming up in December, starting in the evening of Dec. 25, and lasts for 8 days, symbolizing when the oil in the menorah of the great temple burned for eight days instead of one.
Also, we play dreidel, which is a tradition from when we rabbis were secretly teaching Hebrew to their students, making it look like they were gambling, so Roman soldiers wouldn't suspect anything. And once the students knew Hebrew, they could study Torah.
Also it's in commemoration of when the makabes (hammer in Hebrew) defeated the Greeks after they desecrated the temple. So we were pissed of and the makabes were founded by five brothers and their father, and they had a battle with the Greeks, and won.

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 27th, 2005, 11:11 PM

And I see a sign that has those characters of: I walked the dog. So then I look at the letters and say, "I know what that means!" "It is telling me to: Walk faster than ussual."

The only problem there is that we're talking about pronunciation, not meaning. The meaning of Hebrew words isn't in the Mishna (and if it is, I've misunderstood and apologize). I believe a better example would be if someone looked at that sign and said, "I know what that means! It is telling me to zibaka gobbi!" Yeah, you'll get some odd looks, but if you then go out and walk your dog, who cares?

Muslims look at a passage in the Torah that says: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Normally this makes the Torah seem very sick, and Muslims actually cut off your hands and etc. to go along with this statement.
So without the Mishna one would look at this statement and think it to be very barbaric. But what it means is that, say you were a cruel person, and you cut off someones hands, you would have to make amends accordingly. Because what if that person was a pianists, his hands are his whole living, so you would have to make up for the loss by helping him out, by ancient law.

Really? Cool. Didn't know that.

I can definately see the importance of the Mishna to the Torah. The only thing I'll say, though, is that the Torah could well have spelled that out in the first place. I'm not saying that detracts from the book... but other holy books could stand on their own without use of a Mishna, because they explain the symbolism to some degree.

And I only say this because I believe this part of the discussion originated when we were discussing whether the Mishna made Judaism a better religion than others that didn't have a Mishna.

The Mishna explains that if it happens in the country, no one really hears her out in the sticks, and who's to say that she even screamed if no one heard her scream out in nowhere. And if she didn't scream when being raped she's seen a s a participant, so they were just having normal sexual intercourse. But in the town, everyone hears what's happening, and they know she's being raped, so it goes differently in the country than it does in the city.

See, that worries me. I guess it's just a law to keep women from crying rape after they have sex with another man, but the fact of the matter is that some women freeze up in that situation, and it doesn't occur to them to scream.

But I guess I sort've see the point of the law. My major problem is with the next paragraph.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her.

Sounds pretty horrible for the girl involved. Being raped, and then being forced to marry her rapist? Can't say I approve.

What again?

Uh... good question... *stares at his post, hoping a 3D image will emerge*

I think I was trying to say that it's possible for a human to have two personalities, right? And it's possible for a human to have two identities. So, wouldn't it be possible for a being much more powerful than us to have two forms?

... Or something like that. God, I'm never posting under the influence of lack-of-sleep again.

Exactly when did I say whoever disagrees with me is morally bankrupt?

Ah. *chuckles sheepishly* I thought you were starting up this argument to show that Christians were immoral and stupid. I guess that was my mistake.

By this statement, you are agreeing with me that most Christians would look at someone who said G-d was in a cow, and without thinking pretty much condemn them. The majority wouldn't think about G-d being in a cow.

I'm agreeing with you, yes, but I'm trying to put that fact into perspective. Keep in mind that there's no group free from idiocy and knee-jerk bias. While Christians have more opportunity to broadcast their dipshits, every group suffers from them.

Further point - keep in mind there are Christians out there that wouldn't necessarily be as liable to judge without thinking.

All you can do is go with a Christian literal interpretation.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Just because something doesn't specifically say it's a riddle doesn't necessarily mean it's not a riddle.

Also, on the Christian behalf, if you deny that quote in literal terms, than you deny the belief that Jesus is G-d.

Not necessarily. You could argue that when Jesus says, "see", he means it like in the saying, "Oh, I see," meaning, "understand". As such, you could argue that what Jesus really means is that if you study him, try to understand him, you begin to catch a glimpse of the meaning of God.

Of course, this is all argued from the definitions in English. The Hebrew use of words like "see" could blow me out of the water on this one. But since sight is humanity's most versatile sense, I suspect the word see is generally used in a term of understanding or sensing in many languages. Just a guess.

But I'm curious, what is the difference between religion, dogma, and faith?

In considering how to put this, I realized "faith" wasn't the word I was going for. Spirit would be much better. Apologies.

So, if you accept that change: religion is about laws and regulations. Dogma is about stories and "mythology". Spirit is about compassion, courage, and all those immersurable things which can be found inside us.

Faith is more believing in the religion and the dogma, so it doesn't really fit here.

And now that I've covered much of your post, I'm putting my cards on the table - The Book of Thomas is the deal breaker. I can argue with much of what you've put up here (successfully or not), but the fact of the matter is I can't imagine someone directly quoting Jesus, having Jesus himself acknowledge that he's not God, and yet Jesus still being God. (Actually, I can explain it, but it involves the movie Dogma and would probably get me shot.)

So, I'm going to acknowledge my loss in this debate. Well met and well played, friend Bob.

(But I still want an explanation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Thanks)

Beatnik Bob

Nov 28th, 2005, 11:21 PM

Because the Jewish leaders and rabbis did not want him to take their glory away from them. What are you talking about? Jesus was a religious leader and Rabbi. What do you mean glory? If hundreds of people could bring people back from the dead, then glory has nothing to do with anything.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 29th, 2005, 5:45 PM

The only problem there is that we're talking about pronunciation, not meaning. Actually it could be pronunciation and meaning

The meaning of Hebrew words isn't in the Mishna (and if it is, I've misunderstood and apologize). Yeah, the meaning of Hebrew words is in the Mishna.

I believe a better example would be if someone looked at that sign and said, "I know what that means! It is telling me to zibaka gobbi!" Yeah, you'll get some odd looks, but if you then go out and walk your dog, who cares? Christians don't say the wrong thing, they completely misunderstand what is said.

The only thing I'll say, though, is that the Torah could well have spelled that out in the first place. It does. The Mishna is the Torah, the Torah is a plural term.

And also, on the sign that said "walk the dog," that statement itself needs an interpretation. Because it could be telling people to take out a yo-yo and do that trick called walk the dog.
See, the sign didn't have it all spelt out, just like the Torah didn't have the whole exact meanings spelt out.

but other holy books could stand on their own without use of a Mishna, because they explain the symbolism to some degree.
I'm talking about how important a Mishna is for Christians, since the idea they accept isn't there own, and they incorporate the whole Torah in their doctrine, without knowing what it says.

And I only say this because I believe this part of the discussion originated when we were discussing whether the Mishna made Judaism a better religion than others that didn't have a Mishna. The Mishna doesn't make Judaism better than other religions, only better than Islam and Christianity, since they use the Torah, but don't have that well of an understanding of it, since they don't use the Mishna.

See, that worries me. I guess it's just a law to keep women from crying rape after they have sex with another man, but the fact of the matter is that some women freeze up in that situation, and it doesn't occur to them to scream. This could actually be brought to today’s court room.
The Rapist would say: It wasn't rape, she didn't even scream, we both wanted it.
Raped woman: But It was rape!
Judge: Seeing that there is no proof to either claim, since there were no whitnesses out in the wilderness, you are comanded to be wed! Since after all the female is bearing the males child. So you guys should just learn to forgive, assuming that there actually was a rape.......
Case dismissed.

Sounds pretty horrible for the girl involved. Being raped, and then being forced to marry her rapist? Can't say I approve. Back then Hebrew societies were closely nit tribes. The person that raped you very well could have been from the next tent over.
It's not that far fetched, think of it like the rapist having to pay a fine.

Plus, rape period is pretty horrible.

Also, marriage could have meant forgiveness and reconciliation for the couple. All kinds of cultures do it. In fact, a certain tribe of Native Americans had the abuser and the abused get together and learn to forgive and make peace.
It actually reminds me of when I was in school. I remember there being a bully once, and after I kicked him and gave him what he deserved, he wanted to be my friend.

So, wouldn't it be possible for a being much more powerful than us to have two forms? But what if only one form is worshipped?
You also said that G-d has taken many forms, so how would he end up with only two? Plus, when Christians think of G-d, a picture of Jesus pops into their head. Jesus is more than just a piece of G-d in Christianity, he is G-d.

But that reminds me, a graven image is also an image graven into your head. I mean, even as a Jew, I see Jesus so much that it gets confusing when I'm trying to pray to G-d.

God, I'm never posting under the influence of lack-of-sleep again. :D:

I thought you were starting up this argument to show that Christians were immoral and stupid. I guess that was my mistake.
If I wanted to prove that Christians were immoral and stupid I could just go on and on about how they misinterpret Torah, doing "holy" wars, and etc.

They are immoral to a certain extent. But heck, all humanity is made up of a buch of dim-wits.
But that's partly what it means to unite with the Shekinah, thinking and analyzing things, not being stupid. So I guess you've sort've united with the Shekinah Foelhe.....

keep in mind there are Christians out there that wouldn't necessarily be as liable to judge without thinking. Yes, there are Christians out there that do, but they usually convert to atheism.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Just because something doesn't specifically say it's a riddle doesn't necessarily mean it's not a riddle. I agree, I'm all for riddles! But the majority of Christians don't work with symbolism, when they see the words: and G-d parted the waters, and in between the waters there he made man, they take that to mean that G-d actually parted the waters. And in the garden of Eden, they think Adam and Eve were really physically naked, and that satan is a physical figure.

Your probably one f the very few that thinks about symbolism, and your not even Christian.

Not necessarily. You could argue that when Jesus says, "see", he means it like in the saying, "Oh, I see," meaning, "understand". As such, you could argue that what Jesus really means is that if you study him, try to understand him, you begin to catch a glimpse of the meaning of God.
That form of ideology implies that Jesus isn't G-d, and only that you can understand G-d by understanding Jesus.

Also, this reminds me of the same thing you said about the Talmud, that's only your perspective on how it should be interpreted. This is why Christianity needs a Mishna. But, no such oral tradition was passed down by either Moses or Jesus.

Furthermore, if Christians really did study the NT, instead of reading it, and see symbolism in it, they'd see that allot of the things Jesus said don't have a literal interpretation, and that it could be translated that Jesus isn't G-d at all.

For example, Jesus says, When you make the two into one, and the inner like the outer, and the upper like the lower, when you make the male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be a male, nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter the kingdom of heaven. (Gospel of Thomas)

Now THATS real symbolism.

Of course, this is all argued from the definitions in English. The Hebrew use of words like "see" could blow me out of the water on this one. But since sight is humanity's most versatile sense, I suspect the word see is generally used in a term of understanding or sensing in many languages. Just a guess. Yeah I could, but I wanted to try a different path.

So, if you accept that change: religion is about laws and regulations. Dogma is about stories and "mythology". Spirit is about compassion, courage, and all those immeasurable things which can be found inside us.
I'd have to say that dogma is the same as religion. Unless, stories in Genesis are dogmatic and not religious, which I find highly unlikely.

Faith is more believing in the religion and the dogma, so it doesn't really fit here. As you can tell from a thread called what is faith?, everyone has different opinions on faith.

Actually, I can explain it, but it involves the movie Dogma and would probably get me shot. Please do! I'll be your body guard and make sure you don't get shot...........but maybe at a price :devsmoke:

So, I'm going to acknowledge my loss in this debate. Well met and well played, friend Bob. Yeah, the Gospel of Thomas was my last resort in this debate. But yeah, well met to you as well sir. *bows, and sheaths sword*

But I still want an explanation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
I thought I just did? *shrugs* maybe I didn't........

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 30th, 2005, 10:27 PM

No, not at all! Well Chanukah is coming up in December, starting in the evening of Dec. 25, and lasts for 8 days, symbolizing when the oil in the menorah of the great temple burned for eight days instead of one.
Also, we play dreidel, which is a tradition from when we rabbis were secretly teaching Hebrew to their students, making it look like they were gambling, so Roman soldiers wouldn't suspect anything. And once the students knew Hebrew, they could study Torah.
Also it's in commemoration of when the makabes (hammer in Hebrew) defeated the Greeks after they desecrated the temple. So we were pissed of and the makabes were founded by five brothers and their father, and they had a battle with the Greeks, and won. I remember when I was (eeek!) in catechism at catholic school a very long time ago (I've repented since then, lol). We got to visit a synagogue and I remember the menorah and dreidel being explained, but couldn't remember what was said except that one candle was lit each night in the menorah until they were all lit. I do remember a song about the dreidel but don't remember the words.

I've got alot of Jewish freinds but always felt kind of weird asking them about religious things since we mostly gab like a bunch of yentas about politics. A few of them have told me that I'm one of the few non-Jewish people that will send them a Chanukah card instead of an xmas card around the holidays. Thank you.

Beatnik Bob

Dec 3rd, 2005, 11:22 PM

bunch of yentas.
Ha! :sardonic: That's great, so you know Yiddish too? Right on, even if it's a few words. :2thumbs:

No offence Foelhe, but I can't help but notice that you didn't respond to the rest of the splinter debates on the last post of the previous page.
Or is it that with my bringing up the gospel of thomas, the rest of the debate shards have been rendered useless, in which case I can sort of understand your lack of non response.
But again, no pressure man, just wanted to know.

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 4th, 2005, 2:31 AM

No offence Foelhe, but I can't help but notice that you didn't respond to the rest of the splinter debates on the last post of the previous page.

D'OH! Sorry, Bob, my brain took a day off and I completely forgot about the rest of what we were arguing about. Hold on.

Yeah, the meaning of Hebrew words is in the Mishna.

Ah, my mistake.

It does. The Mishna is the Torah, the Torah is a plural term.

Well, yeah, you could consider the Torah, the Mishna and the Talmud three parts of one whole, but the point is that there are three parts. That makes it easy to toss one part aside and ignore it.

See, the sign didn't have it all spelt out, just like the Torah didn't have the whole exact meanings spelt out.

I dunno. Frankly I think God gave us the ability to measure ethics and consequences for a reason. It cheapens the meaning to have all the reasons laid out in front of us.

Besides, the phrase "Walk the dog" is a little simple here for my tastes. My first response is to ask "Why?" If the answer is, "Because the dog needs exercise," or "Cause mad yo-yo skillz is teh shiznit, dawg," you have your answer. If the answer is, "Because it's fun," who cares? Do whichever you find more fun.

And let's face it, 97% of the English-speaking population of Earth will see the phrase, "Walk the dog" as "Take the Terrier around the block for a few minutes". I don't really see more clarification as necessary.

The Mishna doesn't make Judaism better than other religions, only better than Islam and Christianity, since they use the Torah, but don't have that well of an understanding of it, since they don't use the Mishna.

You'd have to take that up with those other religions, but okay.

Judge: Seeing that there is no proof to either claim, since there were no whitnesses out in the wilderness, you are comanded to be wed! Since after all the female is bearing the males child. So you guys should just learn to forgive, assuming that there actually was a rape.......

... Dude, if a judge actually made that ruling, he'd be lynched. And rightfully so.

The person that raped you very well could have been from the next tent over.
It's not that far fetched, think of it like the rapist having to pay a fine.

See, that's what bothers me. For the rapist, it's like having to pay a fine. For the victim, it's spending the rest of your life waking up to the face of the man who assaulted and violated you. Hell, if you like a woman, the only thing you'd have to do is rape her in the forest and she's your wife. I hardly consider that a valid punishment, especially since the woman in question is sent through hell.

And that's what bothers me about all three of these religions. There's a strong tendancy in the mythology to treat women like breeding stock.

It actually reminds me of when I was in school. I remember there being a bully once, and after I kicked him and gave him what he deserved, he wanted to be my friend.

There's a big difference between a bully who started a circle of agression and paid for it, and a woman who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The bully wanted to befriend you because he was agressive, and you were agressive. The woman in this case didn't ask for the situation to be thrown onto her.

Yes, there are Christians out there that do, but they usually convert to atheism.

Says who? I've got a friend who's very open-minded and friendly to others different than him. He's been a very dedicated Christian all his life, and he's actually studying to enter into the ministry.

But the majority of Christians don't work with symbolism, when they see the words: and G-d parted the waters, and in between the waters there he made man, they take that to mean that G-d actually parted the waters.

*shrugs* We're not debating whether Christians are correct on their view of the Torah. We're debating whether Jesus might've been the Messiah. Even if some Christians can't wrap their head around the concept of metaphor in the Old Testament, it doesn't mean Christianity itself (meaning the core belief that Jesus is the messiah) is wrong.

Your probably one f the very few that thinks about symbolism, and your not even Christian.

Again, I'm not sure I can agree with that. Are metaphorically-minded Christians the minority? Probably. But they are out there.

That form of ideology implies that Jesus isn't G-d, and only that you can understand G-d by understanding Jesus.

No, not really. He acts like God because he is God, in theory. There's a saying, "If you want to know the heart of a man, listen not to his words, but see his actions." Possibly God went to Earth as Jesus to give others a chance to watch his actions.

Furthermore, if Christians really did study the NT, instead of reading it, and see symbolism in it, they'd see that allot of the things Jesus said don't have a literal interpretation, and that it could be translated that Jesus isn't G-d at all.

Hold up.

1. You say God spoke in metaphor a lot during the Torah.
2. Jesus also spoke in metaphor, and it actually says in the bible that he spoke only in parables.
3. Therefore, Jesus isn't God.

... That doesn't make any sense. Possibly I'm misunderstanding your argument.

I'd have to say that dogma is the same as religion. Unless, stories in Genesis are dogmatic and not religious, which I find highly unlikely.

Dogma and religion are much the same, yes. Spirit is really my focus here.

As you can tell from a thread called what is faith?, everyone has different opinions on faith.

Everyone has different opinions on it's definition, yes. But the slightly vaguer, more ethereal definition is pretty much agreed on.

Please do! I'll be your body guard and make sure you don't get shot...........but maybe at a price

Fair enough. :D I was thinking about the movie Dogma, and how the Metatron was talking about how horrified Jesus was when he found out he was the son of God. I was wondering if the Book of Thomas was written during that time in his life when he didn't believe it. "I CAN'T be the son of God! I'm not good enough to be the son of God! I was born of a woman!" Sounds like something a humble and frightened man might say.

Yeah, it sounds insane to use a movie in a theological debate, but at the same time it's an intriguing idea.

Beatnik Bob

Dec 4th, 2005, 5:31 PM

Well, yeah, you could consider the Torah, the Mishna and the Talmud three parts of one whole, but the point is that there are three parts. That makes it easy to toss one part aside and ignore it. Actually, we don't really consider the Talmud apart of the Torah, only the Mishna part of it.

It cheapens the meaning to have all the reasons laid out in front of us. How so? Anyone can tell from history that very bad things happen when one does not interpret biblical texts the right way. Like Christianity's holy wars, Islam's hand cutting, etc.
Their has to be interpretations, the real original meanings.

same example in another context:
How do we know what the letter Gimmel sounds like? Hoe do we know that a bet can sometimes make a 'v' sound, and other times a 'b' sound? We could just look at the letter and make up any sound we like to go along with it if we wanted to, but that doesn't make it true. This is how it is with the Mishna.

Besides, the phrase "Walk the dog" is a little simple here for my tastes. My first response is to ask "Why?" If the answer is, "Because the dog needs exercise," or "Cause mad yo-yo skillz is teh shiznit, dawg," you have your answer. If the answer is, "Because it's fun," who cares? Do whichever you find more fun. This is not how religion works, but anyway, I think we've already established the Christianity and Judaism are very different, so someone is misinterpreting, and it isn't Judaism.

Also, the Torah isn't a mater of fun, think about all the commanding laws, obviously many did not like the idea of not being able to bow down to an idol.

Also why would one say: "The sign says restricted area. Ok, I won't bring my clothes with me." Now what sense does that make? So why would you say, "The sign says walk the dog, ok, I'll get my basset hound out"
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT DOG WALKING THIS SIGN IS TALKING ABOUT!
YOU NEED AN ORAL EXPLANATION THAT EXPLAINS WHETHER THIS IS A YO-YO DOG WALKING, OR A PHYSICAL DOG ON A LEASH!

And let's face it, 97% of the English-speaking population of Earth will see the phrase, "Walk the dog" as "Take the Terrier around the block for a few minutes". I don't really see more clarification as necessary. Are you aware that a long time ago the vast majority believed the world was flat? But I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that the world is in fact round.
So are you saying that since everyone thinks the phrase refers to a terrier that it is referring to a terrier?
Just because everyone thought the world was flat, doesn't mean that the world was flat. Just because everyone thinks the sign says to walk a real physical dog on a leash doesn’t mean that it really is.
Therefore, we need a Mishna that explains that the dog walking is either a yo-yo trick, or a literal dog.

Majority means nothing!

I rest my case.

You'd have to take that up with those other religions
Why? It's a known fact that the Koran and the Bible is based on the Torah, but they don't know what the Torah really says, because of their lack of the other Torah.
And I have been and still am taking this up with Christianity

Dude, if a judge actually made that ruling, he'd be lynched. Yeah, he'd be lynched today. But not 3000 years ago.
It's a matter of the people and culture of 3000 years ago, not the rulings that would be made today, and besides, that ruling actually makes sense.

See, that's what bothers me. For the rapist, it's like having to pay a fine. For the victim, it's spending the rest of your life waking up to the face of the man who assaulted and violated you. Hell, if you like a woman, the only thing you'd have to do is rape her in the forest and she's your wife. I hardly consider that a valid punishment, especially since the woman in question is sent through hell. If it happened out in the forest how do you know that she was even raped at all?
See, that's the point, no one knows. The woman claims she was raped, the male claims he didn't, and there were no witnesses out in the wilderness to verify either view.
They could have both had sex, no rape involved.
But naturally, the ancient law always went on the side of the woman, and so even though there was no proof for either view, the male was still fined.

And that's what bothers me about all three of these religions. There's a strong tendency in the mythology to treat women like breeding stock.Only when people don't understand, and don't have a Mishna do they treat woman badly. As one can tell from your conclusion, because you don't know the Mishna. You assumed that the Torah says we should treat women badly.

There's a big difference between a bully who started a circle of aggression and paid for it, and a woman who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The bully wanted to befriend you because he was aggressive, and you were aggressive. The woman in this case didn't ask for the situation to be thrown onto her. Also, think about this. What if I went to a teacher and said I was being bullied around? The bully would of course say he was doing nothing of a sort. And since the teachers weren’t sure which side was true, they would simply tell the bully to not bother me.

Says who? I've got a friend who's very open-minded and friendly to others different than him. He's been a very dedicated Christian all his life, and he's actually studying to enter into the ministry.
Notice, I said USSUALY, not always.

We're not debating whether Christians are correct on their view of the Torah. We're debating whether Jesus might've been the Messiah. Like you said earlier, the right interpretation of the Torah is a splinter debate.
And it means the WORLD, if Christians interpret the Torah wrongly.
A misinterpretation by Christians can cost humanity many lives.

And also, if Christians are not correct on their view of the Torah, then Jesus is not G-d. And if Jesus is not G-d then I have won our debate, thus why we are debating what we are debating.

Even if some Christians can't wrap their head around the concept of metaphor in the Old Testament, it doesn't mean Christianity itself (meaning the core belief that Jesus is the messiah) is wrong.
I have no doubt at all that Christians can grasp the concept that much of the Torah is symbolism. But one can know something is symbolism, but not act on it, otherwise Christianity would have accepted the WHOLE Torah

Again, I'm not sure I can agree with that. Are metaphorically-minded Christians the minority? Probably. But they are out there.
So then you do agree with me. Also, if metaphorically-minded Christians were the majority, they'd decide to use the whole Torah.

Possibly God went to Earth as Jesus to give others a chance to watch his actions. I thought you said that Jesus was the WAY to G-d?
And still, how come their doctrine states that Jesus is seated at the right hand side of the father?

1. You say God spoke in metaphor a lot during the Torah.
2. Jesus also spoke in metaphor, and it actually says in the bible that he spoke only in parables.
3. Therefore, Jesus isn't God.
What?!? I honestly don't know how you tied this belief to me.
Basically what I was trying to interpret was that since Jesus himself spoke in symbolism, but Christians don't even have a Mishna to explian what he meant by his statements, and it's too late now, 2005 years to late.

Dogma and religion are much the same, yes. Spirit is really my focus here. Understood.

how the Metatron was talking about how horrified Jesus was when he found out he was the son of God. I was wondering if the Book of Thomas was written during that time in his life when he didn't believe it. "I CAN'T be the son of God! I'm not good enough to be the son of God! I was born of a woman!" Sounds like something a humble and frightened man might say. Ouch! Damnit!!

Sorry dude, I got shot a couple times trying to block the bullets, but no problem! :2thumbs: I'll survive.

Anyway, actually, all the Gospels were written at the same time about 60 years after Jesus died.
Which brings me to the next trick up my sleeve. The accounts in the New Testament weren't eye witness.

Also, why would Jesus not know he was a son of G-d? If he was indeed G-d.

Also, why wasn't Jesus mentioned in the Talmud? The Talmud recorded 100s of peoples biographies, about people that could make water run upstream, bring people back from the dead, heal diseases, etc.
So naturally, why wouldn't there be a biography of Jesus?

The only thing one could conclude is that many rabbis could heal people, and etc.

Also, I'm having trouble making an avatar for myself, could you help me out?

Defiant Noquisi

Dec 4th, 2005, 8:09 PM

Ha! :sardonic: That's great, so you know Yiddish too? Right on, even if it's a few words. I picked that word up first. One of the kid's I know is into big trucks and was asking me all sorts of questions. He told me I wasn't like all the yentas he had to put up with so I asked him what a yenta was. I figured it was probably derogatory but for all I know he could have been saying "mutha effer". He sure was blushing when I asked!

I know kakamayme, shlemil, kibitz, mazltov, kvetsh, goyim (heh, cause I get called that one) khutspe and ferklempt. Oh and babkes. Thats probably my entire knowledge of Yiddish. I think I only remember that much from listening to Howard Stern so much.

I drive by a Jewish Community Campus pretty much every day and on Saturdays some of the more spirited kids try to get me to honk my horn when they aren't walking with their parents. Rascals! lol

Beatnik Bob

Dec 5th, 2005, 5:26 PM

I know kakamayme, shlemil, kibitz, mazltov, kvetsh, khutspe and ferklempt. Oh and babkes. Thats probably my entire knowledge of Yiddish. I think I only remember that much from listening to Howard Stern so much. That's a great vocabulary! I'm pretty sure you were getting kapdranish and farmisht when he was talking about the term yenta. lol. Sorry if I'm being to much of a kibitzer.
Well, fridn.
Actually, here's a good one for those kids who want you to honk your horn. Tell them: echab'durin drerd (sort of like e-chab-dure-in-dr-eh-rd) (also the 'ch' being a guteral sound)

Anyway, that should teach em'!
I'd like to see the look on their faces, HA! Those meshuganer kinder!

goyim (heh, cause I get called that one) Yeah, that's a popular one. Although most ussually just say 'goy' for short.

Beatnik Bob

Dec 5th, 2005, 5:28 PM

Note: echab'durin drerd means go to hell. :lol:

Sabazi

Dec 5th, 2005, 9:06 PM

Just so you know, in Judaism, there is no person called Satan, Satan (spelt: Samech, tav, nun) is a human inclination to do evil. And even in the Hebrew language, it is an action. Basically, the original satan is a verb, not another supreme creature.
What about in Job, when God allows Satan to tempt Job?

And why does God keep referring to himself(herself, itself?) as we?

In Christianity, Satan exists, but he is far from all- powerful.

Sammy56

Dec 5th, 2005, 10:33 PM

What about in Job, when God allows Satan to tempt Job? I guess you could say that the writter of Job personified Satan in transforming him from an act to an actual being. Just a thought.

Defiant Noquisi

Dec 6th, 2005, 2:28 AM

Note: echab'durin drerd means go to hell. :lol::amaz:They are on the saturday walk, I don't want the lil buggers having negative thoughts before they face the rabbi. I'd also have a tough time doing that when I'm driving by them at 35 m.p.h.

Beatnik Bob

Dec 7th, 2005, 7:23 PM

What about in Job, when God allows Satan to tempt Job? It's symbolism my friend, if you could read and understand Hebrew you'd know.
In that particular Midrash, it was an internal conflict within Job's self.
Much like the Hindu story, the Ramayana, Rama (the incarnation of Vishnu And yana, (meaning physical and/or spiritual journey)
An the whole thing about the Ramayana, is about Rama recovering his feminine half from a deamon known as Ravana, who captures his wife Sita, and he raises an army of billions (of ape/human creatures that are huge, can fly, rip trees out of the groun etc), and they built a bridge across to Lanka, and faught a very gory and bloody war, and Rama got Sita back.
But anyway, Job was having an internal conflict, where he loses almost everything, except in the end, G-d. So Satan in this case is the force he's fighting within himself, a human atribute.

and why does God keep referring to himself as we?
Always cutting to the chase.......
I was actually saving that example for my debate with Foelhe....but it seems I must give it a premature adressing.
It is because G-d is a series of many shards, an infinate suply, as infinite as space. And each humans spirit is a part of G-d, a shard, in a way we are a piece of G-d.....
Also, G-d has diferent atributes, such as wisdom, judgement, mercy, etc. And in an eastern view, they act seperately, but as one person.
Think of it as the peptides in your brain that go through your blood stream, givving a certain emotion to every cell in the body. Your cells have personalities from peptides.

In Christianity, Satan exists, but he is far from all- powerful. But it seems he was powerful enough to test Jesus in the wilderness, the supposed G-d.
But that's still not the point, I wasn't talking about wether Satan was all powerfull or not, only the fact that he is a supreme being, and is suposedly much more powerfull than humans and etc. In Christianity, satan is G-d's rivalling twin.

himself(herself, itself?)
G-d is called a 'He' because, G-d is thaught of as more compassionate than judgemental. And in Hebrew, the words that implies compassion is the word for males (same root words).
In Judaism, masculine is compassion, and femenine is judgement (maybe because female periods :D).

But yeah, technicaly, in the translation to English, G-d should have been called a she, durring moments like the flood.

Again Philosopher Foelhe has not responded to my last post. What does this mean Foelhe?

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 8th, 2005, 8:43 PM

Sorry. I was going to respond a few days ago.

How so? Anyone can tell from history that very bad things happen when one does not interpret biblical texts the right way. Like Christianity's holy wars, Islam's hand cutting, etc.

What good is a test if we can't fail?

Keep in mind that after we die, our souls go on for eternity. Consider that, and you realize that the one hundred years spent in this lifetime is nothing but a blip on the screen, no matter how it appears to us. Horrible things happen to us, yeah. And we need to fight to make sure those things don't happen.

But I believe the time spent on Earth is a period of training, of gaining wisdom and knowledge. Or at least, an opportunity to do those things. If you have someone hand you the answers, what's the point? You know the answers, but you don't feel them, deep in your gut, like people who fight to understand and come to terms with the world do.

Sometimes people screw up, do the wrong thing because they've misinterpreted the information. But I'd rather have to fight for my wisdom in a dangerous world than have it handed to me on a platter in a cage.

This is not how religion works, but anyway, I think we've already established the Christianity and Judaism are very different, so someone is misinterpreting, and it isn't Judaism.

Why? Because Judaism came first?

By that argument, I'm wrong in believing that gays should be treated with respect, because my father believes they shouldn't. And I'm wrong that blacks are equal to whites, because my great-grandfather believes they aren't. And I'm wrong that slavery is a mistake, because somewhere along the line, I'll guarantee one of my ancestors thinks that was A-OK.

Just because Judaism had the first shot at the information doesn't necessarily mean they translated it correctly.

Also why would one say: "The sign says restricted area. Ok, I won't bring my clothes with me." Now what sense does that make? So why would you say, "The sign says walk the dog, ok, I'll get my basset hound out"
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT DOG WALKING THIS SIGN IS TALKING ABOUT!
YOU NEED AN ORAL EXPLANATION THAT EXPLAINS WHETHER THIS IS A YO-YO DOG WALKING, OR A PHYSICAL DOG ON A LEASH!

What are you suggesting? That every time somebody says something that could be viewed in two ways, you should make sure to clarify what they're saying? Sounds alright... until you realize how much of the English language could be read in two or more different ways. If this sign was up, and I decided to follow it, I would take my pet dog for a walk. You can't spend your entire life hemming and hawwing while you look for more information.

And your first example is a nonsequitor, unless Restricted means Unclothed in some dictionary I'm unaware of. There's a difference between reading a sign completely wrong and reading a sign that's a little unclear and making your own decisions based on what you know.

Are you aware that a long time ago the vast majority believed the world was flat? But I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that the world is in fact round.

... So, how is this relevant? If there was a sign that said, "Travel around the world," some people would say that was impossible and refuse to do it. So, they're refusing to follow the sign.

Why? It's a known fact that the Koran and the Bible is based on the Torah, but they don't know what the Torah really says, because of their lack of the other Torah.

Actually, Christians follow the GOD of the Torah, but not the Torah itself. The Bible says, "The old has come to pass - behold, all things are made new." Most Christians argue that this means the Torah is no longer correct in all things. See my earlier point about how, just because Judaism came first, doesn't mean they're always right.

Yeah, he'd be lynched today. But not 3000 years ago.

Much like a slave-driver. Your point?

But naturally, the ancient law always went on the side of the woman, and so even though there was no proof for either view, the male was still fined.

The fine doesn't bother me. It's the marriage that does.

If the woman wasn't raped, okay, she had premarital sex, that might make it hard for her to have a husband. So you can argue that it's smart to force that unraped woman to marry the man she had sex with.

But if a woman WAS raped, she's still going to be forced to deal with the man who raped her every day. Every day, for the rest of her life, she's going to live with the fact that she basically belongs to the man who attacked and violated her. That's a horrible thing to do to a woman who's been mistreated in this way.

So, which is more important here? The argument towards marriage - that a woman who has had premarital sex is now taken care of? Or the argument against marriage - that the woman who was mistreated is now at the mercy of her attacker. I'd personally argue that the violated woman is of much more importance in this matter.

Only when people don't understand, and don't have a Mishna do they treat woman badly. As one can tell from your conclusion, because you don't know the Mishna. You assumed that the Torah says we should treat women badly.

And you've yet to convince me I'm wrong. Frankly, I'm disgusted I have to explain why it's a bad idea to marry a potential rapist to his potential victim.

Also, think about this. What if I went to a teacher and said I was being bullied around? The bully would of course say he was doing nothing of a sort. And since the teachers weren’t sure which side was true, they would simply tell the bully to not bother me.

Exactly. They WOULDN'T say, "Well, since you two can't work out your differences, we're going to leave you alone in a small room for half an hour, so if you want to talk, or beat one another up, you can do it and get it done with."

The key words here are, "Not bother". Whether you're making up stories, or this kid's really hitting you, it's best to keep you away from one another to avoid more confrontation. The man and the woman in the verse have upped the stakes considerably, but the point is much the same. Either he raped her, or she's lying about him. Why take those two people and force them to be together for the rest of their lives?

Notice, I said USSUALY, not always.

And I feel like we're having this same discussion over and over again. Like I said, most Christians are dumb... but you seem to be ignoring my remark that THIS IS BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF ANY GROUP IS DUMB. It's a sad fact, but the human race is not made up of Aristotles and Einsteins.

You seem to be making the statement that Christians are the exception, instead of the rule. They are not. Their idiots certainly get more screentime, but then they themselves get more screentime, so it's hardly surprising.

And also, if Christians are not correct on their view of the Torah, then Jesus is not G-d. And if Jesus is not G-d then I have won our debate, thus why we are debating what we are debating.

Not necessarily. I believe I've already covered this, but to recap - just because Judaists came into contact with God doesn't mean all their ideas about God are correct.

But one can know something is symbolism, but not act on it, otherwise Christianity would have accepted the WHOLE Torah

Not necessarily. Again: "The old has come to pass - Behold, all things are made new."

That's a Christian saying. And it means that, even if Christianity is correct, the Torah may not be.

I thought you said that Jesus was the WAY to G-d?

Heh... sorry, I forgot I was arguing the Christian viewpoint instead of my own.

Still, just because Jesus came down to break the wall between humanity and heaven, doesn't mean he didn't have other purposes. He did gather followers, after all.

And still, how come their doctrine states that Jesus is seated at the right hand side of the father?

Could it be a metaphor? :D

Basically what I was trying to interpret was that since Jesus himself spoke in symbolism, but Christians don't even have a Mishna to explian what he meant by his statements, and it's too late now, 2005 years to late.

Which would fit neatly with my belief that humanity's purpose on Earth is to try to figure out the secret meaning behind the words and the world.

Anyway, actually, all the Gospels were written at the same time about 60 years after Jesus died.
Which brings me to the next trick up my sleeve. The accounts in the New Testament weren't eye witness.

Which neatly hands me ammunition! How do we know the Gospel of Thomas is even real? :evlol:

Much of history is oral, The Mishna being an excellent example. How long was the Mishna passed from hand to hand before it was written down? Has it even been written down yet? (In this day and age, I'd be surprised if it hadn't, but I suppose there's a possibility.)

If you can trust your religion, with an oral code handed down for centuries or even millenia, why not trust a set of books that was sixty years in the making?

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 8th, 2005, 8:44 PM

Post continued.

Also, why wasn't Jesus mentioned in the Talmud? The Talmud recorded 100s of peoples biographies, about people that could make water run upstream, bring people back from the dead, heal diseases, etc.
So naturally, why wouldn't there be a biography of Jesus?

Keep in mind all those biographies were about people who lived in the present. Asking why the Talmud didn't record Jesus's birth is like reading a high-school yearbook and wondering why it doesn't list who those people eventually married.

There may have been seers in the Torah, but keep in mind that A) Seers see what they're supposed to see, and B) reading the future is a tricky thing. It tends to be vague and complicated, and it's hard to figure out what is and isn't related.

The only thing one could conclude is that many rabbis could heal people, and etc.

Indeed, and the only thing Jesus did that no one ever had until that time was rise from the dead of his own volation. Everything else may show he was divine or magical (if it actually happened), but it's the death that really underlines the whole thing.

Also, I'm having trouble making an avatar for myself, could you help me out?

Nope. :D But if you do figure it out, feel free to pass it on.

Anything else? Oh, yes.

But it seems he was powerful enough to test Jesus in the wilderness, the supposed G-d.

So can I. I can say, "Dear Jesus, I challenge you to turn this computer into a bunny rabbit!" Heck, B.Nye has the "Reveal Thyself!" thread going, although it's unraveled to the point of unrecognizability at this point. The only difference is that Satan was supposed to have experience in these matters. And he still failed miserably.

But that's still not the point, I wasn't talking about wether Satan was all powerfull or not, only the fact that he is a supreme being, and is suposedly much more powerfull than humans and etc. In Christianity, satan is G-d's rivalling twin.

In a literary sense, I suppose. He is the antagonist to God's protagonist. But in literature, there should be a sense that the antagonist is going to win, and that's not found in the bible. It's pretty much assumed God has Satan on the ropes at all times.

salvador

Dec 9th, 2005, 9:18 AM

I'm having trouble making an avatar for myself, could you help me out?Find the picture you want, take it into Photoshop or similar, resize it so that the longest side is 75 pixels or less. Save it as a jpeg, making sure the resulting file is less than the size stipulated (19.5K I think). Upload it to the site from the page: User CP->Edit Avatar.

Cinch.

Astroboy

Dec 9th, 2005, 9:20 AM

Foehle n Bob: wow intense debate here... and it's quite hard for me to follow because the opinion differs from right or wrong. But if I can say this... as I learned when I was in a "Bible Camp" years ago (don't ask) and one preacher (blea) says "Gawd loves yew awl!". So, that repeats overtime throughout my time, made me think; if He does loves y'all meaning the goods and the bads will be judged upon arrival after passing away. Gawd or Jesus in this case which he is the gateway to Gawd, he'd forgives us. He forgives everyone correct? Exception to harming to humans and such like that, of course. Thing is such like this cannot be seen. For example anytime one among us passes away, we'd cry. We'd say final farewell. But not knowing the passing is still around or walked over or whatsoever. Spirtual is like gas. The body is the foundation to the touch of the making. This adds up to us as a human with questions sitting around us. I hope this make some sense at least from my opinion... thanks.

Oh yeh, when a person dies... what do you see the dead body as? My answer as an opinion: permament sleep. As he/she/it dies the body stops functioning but the spirit doesn't stop. Im sure y'all know it but as on the spriit side, he/she/it wakes up and only can see us, or goes whoosh!

Beatnik Bob

Dec 10th, 2005, 1:10 AM

Keep in mind that after we die, our souls go on for eternity. Consider that, and you realize that the one hundred years spent in this lifetime is nothing but a blip on the screen, no matter how it appears to us. Horrible things happen to us, yeah. And we need to fight to make sure those things don't happen. That is the worse ideology I've encountered. This is why I can't accept Christianity, because of that very belief. That even if a holocaust happens, you cut someone up into tiny pieces and put em in a freezer, rape ten thousand women and force them to marry you, that even after all that, all it is is a small insignificant "blip" on a screen. This idea coming from your mouth (of all people) makes me pissed off.
Just a "blip" on a screen huh Foelhe? Is that it?

Sometimes people screw up, do the wrong thing because they've misinterpreted the information. But I'd rather have to fight for my wisdom in a dangerous world than have it handed to me on a platter in a cage.
Well yeah Foelhe, Abraham was in a dangerous world of poly-theists, where king Nimrod wanted him dead. But he helped people along by spreading Judaism, so people didn't all just spend generations for each individual to come up with the concept of one G-d.
It's called a society Foelhe....you know, the sharing of ideas? But wait, I forgot, it's just a blip.

And are you saying that the concept of one G-d is a concept in a cage? In that case, maybe I prefer the cage. No matter how much you deamonize it.

Why? Because Judaism came first?
No,it's not because we came first. It's not us missunderstanding, because we know what the Torah says, because, yes we wrote it, but more importantly, because we have the Mishna, the very meaning.

Just because Judaism had the first shot at the information doesn't necessarily mean they translated it correctly. Dude, we aren't translating it, G-d did. Now I can see why you would consider Talmud irrelavent, because after all, that's a human opinion. But the Mishna? Sorry man, it doesn't float.

It just so happens that the great computer that spits out this information said what it was spitting out, and the computer should know. And between Christians/rabbi opinions and G-d, I choose G-d's word, as cheesy as it may sound.

What are you suggesting? That every time somebody says something that could be viewed in two ways, you should make sure to clarify what they're saying? Yes, that is indeed what I am suggesting. And this concept becomes even more important when it comes to religious texts, where a missinterpretation can destroy.

until you realize how much of the English language could be read in two or more different ways. If this sign was up, and I decided to follow it, I would take my pet dog for a walk. You can't spend your entire life hemming and hawwing while you look for more information. Well why not?
And that's even more of a reason for a Mishna for that sign, simply because English can be translated in so many ways. A specific way must be identified.

And your first example is a nonsequitor, unless Restricted means Unclothed in some dictionary I'm unaware of. There's a difference between reading a sign completely wrong and reading a sign that's a little unclear and making your own decisions based on what you know.

So, how is this relevant? If there was a sign that said, "Travel around the world," some people would say that was impossible and refuse to do it. So, they're refusing to follow the sign. No one says they have to follow the sign, but if they intend to follow the sign, they actually have to follow the sign, and a Mishna that explains what is meant by, "Travel around the world." Because world could refer to a certain person, and simply walk around that person. Who knows, you need a Mishna.

Actually, Christians follow the GOD of the Torah, but not the Torah itself. The Bible says, "The old has come to pass - behold, all things are made new." Most Christians argue that this means the Torah is no longer correct in all things. See my earlier point about how, just because Judaism came first, doesn't mean they're always right. Actually, this also goes back to when you said that rabbinical interpretations of the Mishna, were irrelivant.
Just because they say that's the way it is, doesn't mean that's the way it is. I has to actually say what it is, which no one would know unless they talked to Jesus. And talking to Jesus is out of the question.

But if a woman WAS raped, she's still going to be forced to deal with the man who raped her every day. Every day, for the rest of her life, she's going to live with the fact that she basically belongs to the man who attacked and violated her. That's a horrible thing to do to a woman who's been mistreated in this way.
-Woman goes out into the middle of nowhere.
-woman comes back claiming to have been raped by a certain male, but when asked, male says otherwise.

-Woman could be trying to get back at male, for something, by claiming to be raped.

-It is decided that they should marry.
-If the woman is truely having an absolutely horrible time together, and it is clear that whether she was raped or not, sh's not having a fun time with her husband.
-ultimately, the complaint goes to the 'meeting tent,' and the situation is reconsidered, and decided if they should stay wed.
-If they decide that the woman truely is having the worse time of her life, it is dacreed that they shall not be wed.

but ussually, the woman has no right to be upset, unless the male is abusing her, in which case he's stoned (?). But if the only thing between them that happened was suposed rape, then she shouldn't hate him, unless he's still herting her.
But yeah, the meeting tent would take her away if the situation was bad, or if she just didn't like it, even though nothing hertful was happening.

But wait, isn't it all just a "blip" on a screen? It doesn't matter if she's raped, does it Foelhe?

Beatnik Bob

Dec 10th, 2005, 1:11 AM

And you've yet to convince me I'm wrong. Frankly, I'm disgusted I have to explain why it's a bad idea to marry a potential rapist to his potential victim. Frankly, I think I've adressed this just now. I think I have it covered.

They WOULDN'T say, "Well, since you two can't work out your differences, we're going to leave you alone in a small room for half an hour, so if you want to talk, or beat one another up, you can do it and get it done with." You'd be suprised......

The key words here are, "Not bother". Whether you're making up stories, or this kid's really hitting you, it's best to keep you away from one another to avoid more confrontation. The man and the woman in the verse have upped the stakes considerably, but the point is much the same. Either he raped her, or she's lying about him. Why take those two people and force them to be together for the rest of their lives?
But no one is sure that I was being bullied. It's my word against his word, NO ONE KNOWS.

And I feel like we're having this same discussion over and over again. Like I said, most Christians are dumb... but you seem to be ignoring my remark that THIS IS BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF ANY GROUP IS DUMB. It's a sad fact, but the human race is not made up of Aristotles and Einsteins. Dude, I never said Christians weren't dumb. I never said that the majority of any sect wasn't mostly dumb.

just because Judaists came into contact with God doesn't mean all their ideas about God are correct. Just because Christians came into contact with Jesus doesn't mean their view on him is true.

And why can't all our ideas be correct? After all, WE "INVENTED" IT! You can't tell us we had it wrong, because we came up with it.

"The old has come to pass - Behold, all things are made new."
That's a Christian saying. And it means that, even if Christianity is correct, the Torah may not be. Dude, your even proving my point.
Just because it's a saying, doesn't mean it's followed.

He did gather followers, after all. So has every other religion. Vishnu, Siva, Brahma, and the Devas gathered millions of Hindus, Abraham, millions of Jews, Budha, many followers of what he said, etc.

Could it be a metaphor?
Ha! That's a good one. Tell that to the fundamentalists.

I'm sorry, but Christians don't have a Mishna for the Nicene Creed.
And like I said, it's to late now.
They needed to make a Mishna 2005 years ago, a Mishna that Jesus explained to them.

Which neatly hands me ammunition! How do we know the Gospel of Thomas is even real? Exactly. How do we know ANY of the NT is real?

How long was the Mishna passed from hand to hand before it was written down? Has it even been written down yet?
Of course it's been writen down! Don't tell me that all this time you still don't know that the Talmud is the Mishna with comentaries. Hint, hint, hint, I said the Mishna is in the Talmud.

Sorry if that sounded hostile, but I simply can't stand it when I have to repeat a simple concept in every one of my posts. (or nearly so).
And also that blip thing...

If you can trust your religion, with an oral code handed down for centuries or even millenia, why not trust a set of books that was sixty years in the making? Because they were not 60 years in the making.
Here's a time line.

-Jesus is born
-Jesus dies
-years pass without any accurance
-more years pass without any accurance
-everyone who was alive at the time of Jesus are now dead, and time still passes
-60 years later someone/some people decides to write about Jesus, because he was a pretty smart Kabbalistic dude, and he had some interesting sayings that make you think.
-5 gospels are writen
-400 years later Constantine decides to get more people to join the church
- he makes Christmas on the Day of the Sun, to get even pagans to join.
-he made Jesus seem god-like, and of course have an image too, in order to make Christianity more comercial and recognized to the vast population of poly-theists.
-he starts to claim that Jesus is G-d, and should be worshiped as such.
-all the pagans like this idea of a human god, that can be drawn, sculpted, and everything, so similar to the gods they had before, they love it!
-10s of thousands join, and Constantine makes the Nicene Creed, the law that states Jesus's suposed divinity.
-And somewhere along that time period, Constantine cassualy rips out the Gospel of Thomas, and shoves it up his arse, where no one will discover it.
-and to make even Jews join, he makes the two gods seem like one G-d.

(What a messed up idea. Christianity is pagan, and it's Jewish. Christianity is basically only one half-step above paganism in the stair case of monotheism. The next is Judaism)

-Jesus had officialy been transformed from an everyday rabbi and religious teacher, into a god-like person. Even though the first Christians of 2000 years ago never even thought about Jesus being G-d.

Any other takers for making Foelhe king of debates? :sardonic:

others posts go off into the deap end, and I bow my head in embarassment for them
I'll tell you what's sad in this day and age Foelhe, people who are so ignorant they can't even understand peoples posts.

When you act like an ass Cherisa, you get a kick in the ass in return.

Thanks Salvador, I'll try that avatar thing out.

Beatnik Bob

Dec 10th, 2005, 1:22 AM

Keep in mind all those biographies were about people who lived in the present. Asking why the Talmud didn't record Jesus's birth is like reading a high-school yearbook and wondering why it doesn't list who those people eventually married. The Talmud was being writen durring the period Jesus was alive, in fact, Jesus could have interpreted a Mishna if he wanted to.

In a literary sense, I supose he is Yeah, that's how Christians think, all literal. Literal image, literal garden, literal nakedness, etc.

Not so, satan is a defeated foe, an enemy of G_d
Rival and enemy mean the same thing Cherisa.

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 10th, 2005, 3:10 AM

That even if a holocaust happens, you cut someone up into tiny pieces and put em in a freezer, rape ten thousand women and force them to marry you, that even after all that, all it is is a small insignificant "blip" on a screen. This idea coming from your mouth (of all people) makes me pissed off.

You misunderstood what I was trying to say.

I am NOT SAYING that what we do on this Earth doesn't matter. What I AM saying, is that the pain and suffering we face here on Earth is lessened by our opportunity to go on to the afterlife and live a perfect life, if Christianity is correct.

Those people who started holy wars, those people who cut off the hands of criminals - those people fucked up. I am not arguing against that. But you are treating the deaths of their victims as a statement of why we shouldn't be allowed to think for ourselves. And I disagree with that, because the pain and anguish of life trains us, teaches us, sustains us. Do you understand?

And are you saying that the concept of one G-d is a concept in a cage? In that case, maybe I prefer the cage. No matter how much you deamonize it.

The "cage" is the inability to figure out where you need to go in life. The "cage" is having all the answers lying in front of you. The "cage" is being unable to learn because there's nothing left to learn. We are creatures that thrive on change. Take that change from us, we decay.

No,it's not because we came first. It's not us missunderstanding, because we know what the Torah says, because, yes we wrote it, but more importantly, because we have the Mishna, the very meaning.

So YOU say. You think you have the answers. So do Christians! I am not attacking your right as a Judaist to stand by what you believe - I am saying it is hypocritical to deny Christians the same right.

Dude, we aren't translating it, G-d did. Now I can see why you would consider Talmud irrelavent, because after all, that's a human opinion. But the Mishna?

Judaists believe the Mishna is holy writ. Christians do not. Nobody can say, with true certainty, which group is correct. In the meantime, we shall follow on with our beliefs. As we have done.

Yes, that is indeed what I am suggesting. And this concept becomes even more important when it comes to religious texts, where a missinterpretation can destroy.

Destroy what? Destroy God? Destroy the soul?

We chart our own path. That is the way it has to be. And you think the concequences are dire because you can't look beyond the world we reside in. You see suffering and say it's a reason to never question. I see suffering and I know it's a dark but important balance toward wisdom and hope. Balance in all things.

Well why not?

Why not what? Why not spend your life hemming and hawwing? Because it's not much of a life. It's a blind life. You are forever held captive by the hand that leads you forward. And I'm not talking about God. I'm talking about whoever translates the Mishna for you, be it your rabbi or your parents or your own human and flawed mind.

No one says they have to follow the sign, but if they intend to follow the sign, they actually have to follow the sign, and a Mishna that explains what is meant by, "Travel around the world." Because world could refer to a certain person, and simply walk around that person. Who knows, you need a Mishna.

And again, you try to argue for the necessity of clarification by redefining a word. Which doesn't work. If the "world" is actually a person, why didn't the verse say that in the first place?

Another thing I notice - the way you define Mishna, it's like nothing is certain if there's one layer present, but in the case of two layers, everything's dandy. What if the Mishna to this sign is "the world which contains millions"? What is your diagnosis? I mean, the only reason you consider a person a "world" is that that person may someday be the ancestor of nations.

If you describe EVERY PHRASE ON EARTH as being unclear and illegible, no words ever spoken will clarify them.

But if the only thing between them that happened was suposed rape, then she shouldn't hate him, unless he's still herting her.

I'm sorry, that's a pretty shaky grasp of human nature. If someone hurts you in that intimate of a way, you're not just going to forgive and forget the next day.

But yeah, the meeting tent would take her away if the situation was bad, or if she just didn't like it, even though nothing hertful was happening.

Next time, I'd suggest bringing this up right away. That would have shortened the argument considerably.

You'd be suprised......

Well then those teachers are suffering from rampant stupidity. Which should not be found in a book of holy writ.

But no one is sure that I was being bullied. It's my word against his word, NO ONE KNOWS.

Yes, and unlike the couple in the story, they shouldn't force you to deal with the POSSIBILITY of being further attacked.

Dude, I never said Christians weren't dumb. I never said that the majority of any sect wasn't mostly dumb.

...

*sigh*

Look, Bob. YOU said the majority of Christians were dumb. Correct? I responded with the belief that the majority of EVERY group is dumb. Thus, decrying Christianity is stupid. Because they have the problems any group the same power and size WOULD HAVE.

And why can't all our ideas be correct? After all, WE "INVENTED" IT! You can't tell us we had it wrong, because we came up with it.

Isaac Newton invented the idea of physics in 1665. In 1905, Albert Einstein managed to completely rewrite much of physics in ways that fit the evidence far better.

While Judaists may have been the first to grasp the idea of a single God, they do not necessarily know everything about that God there is to know.

Does that mean you aren't necessarily right? No, as far as I know you are. But for the sake of this debate, we have to accept the POSSIBILITY that you are wrong about some things, which Christians, like Einstein, rewrote to better fit the situation.

Dude, your even proving my point.

I doubt it, but I'll wait for you to clarify.

So has every other religion. Vishnu, Siva, Brahma, and the Devas gathered millions of Hindus, Abraham, millions of Jews, Budha, many followers of what he said, etc.

... Your point?

Ha! That's a good one. Tell that to the fundamentalists.

I don't give a rat's ass about the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are generally obnoxious, narcissistic assholes, be they Christian or any other color.

They needed to make a Mishna 2005 years ago, a Mishna that Jesus explained to them.

:nerdo:!

They do. It's called the New Testament.

And even if you don't accept that argument, who cares? You need to get over this belief that a Mishna is all-important as a religious tool. It is not.

Exactly. How do we know ANY of the NT is real?

We don't. How do we know any of the Torah is real? We don't.

See, there's this crazy little thing called faith...

Jesus had officialy been transformed from an everyday rabbi and religious teacher, into a god-like person. Even though the first Christians of 2000 years ago never even thought about Jesus being G-d.

I wasn't aware you were a History professor with extensive studies in religion. Must be a pretty influential one, since most of what you just said isn't agreed on by even people who've studied that area of history extensively.

Oh, wait, my mistake. It's just your BELIEF as a Judaist. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't count as ammunition in a debate, I'm afraid.

(And if all that really is the result of years of research, get a friggin hobby. You're dancing on the border of obsession.)

I'll tell you what's sad in this day and age Foelhe, people who are so ignorant they can't even understand peoples posts.

What strikes me as sadder is people who feel the need to taunt others who are weighing in on a debate which concerns their intimate beliefs.

Cherisa, I rarely respond to praise, but since Bob is feeling snarky today it seems only fair. While I'm by no means a master of debate, I am glad you think I'm defending your beliefs intelligently, since I don't really have an insider's perspective. Thank you.

The Talmud was being writen durring the period Jesus was alive, in fact, Jesus could have interpreted a Mishna if he wanted to.

He could've. Instead he chose to travel Israel and speak with the people directly. Most uncanny, no?

And I thought the Talmud was the interpretation of the Mishna. Are you saying people were adding information into the Talmud at the time of Jesus' death? If so, there's still no real reason he would be in it. After all, there were so many people around at the time the King needed a census to keep things straight. And Jesus was a convict whose legacy (real or imagined) wasn't accepted by the rabbis of the day.

Yeah, that's how Christians think, all literal. Literal image, literal garden, literal nakedness, etc.

Reread that word for a second. It's not "literaLLy," but "literaRy". Literary in this case meaning, relating to literature.

Virgo

Dec 10th, 2005, 10:10 AM

Rival and enemy mean the same thing Cherisa.

Not necessarily.

An enmey is someone you fight for more barbaric reasons. Lie in war etc etc

But you can have a rival in some of the more "fine" parts of human life: Love, Sports, Competitions etc etc

At least, that's the way I see it ^^

Beatnik Bob

Dec 10th, 2005, 3:05 PM

I am NOT SAYING that what we do on this Earth doesn't matter. What I AM saying, is that the pain and suffering we face here on Earth is lessened by our opportunity to go on to the afterlife and live a perfect life, if Christianity is correct.Maybe you should make yourself more clear......give me a Mishna daddy. :evlol:

Those people who started holy wars, those people who cut off the hands of criminals - those people fucked up. I am not arguing against that. But you are treating the deaths of their victims as a statement of why we shouldn't be allowed to think for ourselves. And I disagree with that, because the pain and anguish of life trains us, teaches us, sustains us. Do you understand? This is why so many people believe in reincarnation, because in their previous life, they still didn't learn what was intended.
This is why that argument means nothing, because Christians don't believe in rincarnation. Sure, reliving, but NOT reincarnation.

So do you have a better argument than that Foelhe, that actually answersbetter? I suggest you bring it out. :devsmoke:

The "cage" is the inability to figure out where you need to go in life. The "cage" is having all the answers lying in front of you. The "cage" is being unable to learn because there's nothing left to learn. We are creatures that thrive on change. Your point?
Honestly, I don't see what this has to do with anything.

Take that change from us, we decay. Not necessarily.

So YOU say. You think you have the answers. So do Christians! I am not attacking your right as a Judaist to stand by what you believe - I am saying it is hypocritical to deny Christians the same right. Anee ohev baal shem laolam va'ed.
What does that mean Foelhe?

You see, see Foelhe? I have the right interpretation of what this means, but you don't. I know what I just said, and I could possibly pass this meaning down, explaining what I just said to other people. But YOU on the other hand would be left guessing, not having a clue what I just said. Unless you looked into a book, or possibly went on a dictionary website. But even THOSE choices are just Mishnas writen down.

A dictionary is the Mishna, and the Torah is the language.

Judaists believe the Mishna is holy writ. Christians do not. Nobody can say, with true certainty, which group is correct. In the meantime, we shall follow on with our beliefs. As we have done.
Christian: I hate dictionaries, but I just LOVE the language, even though I don't know what it means.

Jew: That makes no sense. We love the dictionary AND the language. Therefore we have the ability to think and understand. (note: this is the very thing you said earlier)

Christians: Yeah but the dictionary isn't holy writ.

Jew: Then neither is the language genius.

Destroy what? Destroy God? Destroy the soul?
Destroy many lives.

We chart our own path. That is the way it has to be. And you think the concequences are dire because you can't look beyond the world we reside in. You see suffering and say it's a reason to never question. You see me and autimatically think you know how I think. No Foelhe, what you say of me is not so.

When I see suffering I know that without suffering there can't be reconciliation, and amends. When I see seperation, I know there cannot be unity without seperation.

I see suffering and I know it's a dark but important balance toward wisdom and hope. Balance in all things. But I also believe that you don't go out and start killing and herting people, just because you think it necessary.

But your "balance" seems a little too black and white. Wisdom ISN'T ALWAYS achieved through suffering.

But just a question, are you perhaps a Budhist? That's how they believe. In fact, Budha himself achieved enlightenment from the observation of peoples suffering.

Why not what? Why not spend your life hemming and hawwing? Because it's not much of a life. It's a blind life. You are forever held captive by the hand that leads you forward. And I'm not talking about God. I'm talking about whoever translates the Mishna for you, be it your rabbi or your parents or your own human and flawed mind. My G-d Foelhe.
How is it that I say something, and you disagree, but say exactly what I previously said for your disagreement?

I already told you, I don't hold the Talmud that high up either, simply BECAUSE it is composed by ribbinical interpretations of the Mishna.
And the same goes for Christians, it's JUST THERE OPINION Of INTERPRETATION.

Wait a second......did you just say, "Interprets the Mishna for you." Did you?
That's it Foelhe, I refuse to debate someone that thinks Jews get fed these ideas.
You honestly NEED to know more about Judaism, before you go making accusations. Do you know what the Zohar is? Do you know kabbala? Do you really know the Talmud? Had you even heard of the Mishna before this year? And apparently you still can't understand the Mishna. And do you even truelly understand the Torah?

For future note, don't say things about Jews, when you really only know about 11% of our religion. Your in the shallow end ofthe swimming pool of Judaism understanding, and your treading on shallow water with my patience Foelhe.
Remold your ideology of Judaism.

Foelhe, the Zohar itself says that it's our obligation as Jews to follow the Torah, and understand it ouselves, to follow the laws of G-d, and to not rely wholly on the Talmidic interpretations of Torah.

If the "world" is actually a person, why didn't the verse say that in the first place? All I said is that it COULD mean a person. But I'll answer your question nevertheless.
The thing is Foelhe, if I said you were acting like an ass, it could either mean. 1). You are constantly constipated. 2). Insist on being lazy and sitting down and doing nothing. 3). It could mean that you are being stuborn, and unwilling to accept an idea. or 4) it could mean you're acting like a real monster/beast.
The thing is world COULD BE describing a person, or a town, it all depends on what you view as the world.
So maybe the verse DID say it in the first place.

Also, I'm a perfect example of why you need a Mishna to answer walking around the world, I might translate it wrong, by thinking it's a person. So either way, you need an interpretation.

If you describe EVERY PHRASE ON EARTH as being unclear and illegible, no words ever spoken will clarify them. Why wouldn't words clarify them? Suppose a sign said:
TRAVEL AROUND THE WORLD!
And you asked someone, and they say, "Just ask the head clerk at that desk, it means to walk around the person next to you."

That is, assuming you didn't know, because since a Mishna is passed down, and people 2000 years ago knew it by the ages of 1-10, so you would glance at the sign and already know what it says. Much the same way you know that certain markings make certain sounds, AND meanings.

Next time, I'd suggest bringing this up right away. That would have shortened the argument considerably. Next time I suggest you travel at the spead of light.

Geeze, sorry Foelhe, it takes some time to ask your Rabbi some questions.

Yes, and unlike the couple in the story, they shouldn't force you to deal with the POSSIBILITY of being further attacked.
Ok, understood, but this splinter doesn't matter anymore, because it was a shard off the rape thing, which I have already showed is untrue, she CAN be divorced.

Look, Bob. YOU said the majority of Christians were dumb. Correct? I responded with the belief that the majority of EVERY group is dumb. Thus, decrying Christianity is stupid. Because they have the problems any group the same power and size WOULD HAVE.
I guess this goes back to our debate in the thread, Christianity-one of the sickest.

But my answer to that it's conditioning.
A long time ago, Arabs were the largest groups to ever move across the Earth, but they were very acceptant, they accepted Jews AND Christians in their Arab Empire, But they didn't kill, or hert or anything, they were peaceful. and they still had the majority vote.
However, today, Muslims seem quite content to slaughter people. Especially in France where a synagogue gets fire bombed on a daily basis, and Jews are beaten in the streets.
Something happened in 1500 years, and you can't blame it on majority vote, it's ideology, and/or conditioning.

Isaac Newton invented the idea of physics in 1665. In 1905, Albert Einstein managed to completely rewrite much of physics in ways that fit the evidence far better. What's true to science isn't always true to religion, I thaught you would realize this.
But I guess you're right, maybe it's ok to murder dispite what the Torah and Mishna say.
Now what sense does that make.

While Judaists may have been the first to grasp the idea of a single God, they do not necessarily know everything about that God there is to know. We DON'T KNOW everything there is to know, that's why people generaly accept the Mishna, and not the interpretations of rabbies

To be continued.....

Beatnik Bob

Dec 10th, 2005, 3:07 PM

Does that mean you aren't necessarily right? No, as far as I know you are. But for the sake of this debate, we have to accept the POSSIBILITY that you are wrong about some things, which Christians, like Einstein, rewrote to better fit the situation. We very well MIGHT BE wrong, but the Mishna isn't. Unless the dictionary doesn't know what it's talking about when it deffines words like conjecture.

I doubt it, but I'll wait for you to clarify. Fine, I'll reclarify it. Just because it's a saying doesn't mean people act on it.

Your point? Actually, that's what I was implying with that. What's YOUR point.

I don't give a rat's ass about the fundamentalists.
Well you better give a rat's ass about them. Because when we include Christianity in our debate, were talking about the fundamentalists too.

They do. It's called the New Testament. Hate to brake it to ya Foelhe, but the New Testament isn't an interpretation of the Torah.

You need to get over this belief that a Mishna is all-important as a religious tool. It is not. Oh yes it is important Foelhe.

But just curious, how come you said, "I don't doubt that the Mishna is important...." And then just now you say, "it is not."
So what are you talking about Foelhe? You contradict yourself way too much.

We don't. How do we know any of the Torah is real? We don't. See, there's this crazy little thing called faith So then why did you JUST say (in your last post) that the Gospel of Thomas is irrelivant, because it was writen 60 years after Jesus died?

I wasn't aware you were a History professor with extensive studies in religion. Must be a pretty influential one, since most of what you just said isn't agreed on by even people who've studied that area of history extensively. Exactly what part of what I said do you doubt? Or as you say, other individuals doubt?

h, wait, my mistake. It's just your BELIEF as a Judaist. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't count as ammunition in a debate, I'm afraid. It's not a belief, it's a sort-of-time-line.

And if all that really is the result of years of research, get a friggin hobby. You're dancing on the border of obsession. I actually find it quite interesting that you were talking about learning and understanding earlier on in your post, and then quite abruptly, imply I should find something else to do.
Foelhe, you never cease to amaze with your self contradictions.

For one, I only had to do about an hours worth of research. And two, I'm not like you, in the sense that I debate something, and not understand how to debate them. So naturaly Foelhe, I learn about things. But it just so happens that I'm debating religion right now, so it probably SEEMS like an obssesion.

I rarely respond to praise, but since Bob is feeling snarky today it seems only fair. Well, well, well. Look who's talking. "Snarky today."
I think I'll use something YOU (Foelhe) just said, "What strikes me as sadder is people who feel the need to taunt others who are weighing in on a debate which concerns their intimate beliefs."
But I guess your an exception to this Foelhe.

Maybe that's WHY I was snarky today and yesterday, because you contradict yourself, I had to repeat myself in almost every post, and because you said the world was just a "blip", and because you debate something you don't understand.

If so, there's still no real reason he would be in it. After all, there were so many people around at the time the King needed a census to keep things straight. And Jesus was a convict whose legacy (real or imagined) wasn't accepted by the rabbis of the day. It doesn't matter if what he did was accepted by rabbies or not, only the fact that he DID those things. You'd be surprised who had a biography in the Talmud.

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 10th, 2005, 5:45 PM

This is why so many people believe in reincarnation, because in their previous life, they still didn't learn what was intended.
This is why that argument means nothing, because Christians don't believe in rincarnation.

Say what? Dude, just because you have a limited amount of time to learn something doesn't mean you aren't supposed to try to learn it.

You see, see Foelhe? I have the right interpretation of what this means, but you don't. I know what I just said, and I could possibly pass this meaning down, explaining what I just said to other people. But YOU on the other hand would be left guessing, not having a clue what I just said. Unless you looked into a book, or possibly went on a dictionary website. But even THOSE choices are just Mishnas writen down.

I disagree. I think the soul is the language, and the religious text (Bible, Torah, Qu'ran, etc. etc.) is the dictionary. (A flawed dictionary, in most cases, but that is an entirely different issue.)

You compare religion to language, which is foolish because in language there's very little wiggle room, no ill-defined periods. Furthermore, if you know anything about the English language, you know there are many words the dictionary doesn't adequately cover. Look up the definitions for "attractive" and "magnetic", and you see they have very similar uses, both in a scientific and social situation. A man who only knows the definitions from a book won't understand the difference between those two words.

Also, something you need to consider - there are very many people out there who are perfectly fluent in a language, but who have never read a dictionary. They probably have a stronger grasp on the language than dictionary enthusiasts, in fact, because they're more aware of the subtleties of the language, which the dictionary does not cover.

Christian: I hate dictionaries, but I just LOVE the language, even though I don't know what it means.

Jew: That makes no sense. We love the dictionary AND the language. Therefore we have the ability to think and understand. (note: this is the very thing you said earlier)

Christians: Yeah but the dictionary isn't holy writ.

Jew: Then neither is the language genius.

Actual scenario in this situation:

Christian: I like the language, but I've been checking this dictionary and I think some of the definitions are wrong.

Jew: This dictionary has been around for thousands of years! It was given to us by God!

Christian: Well, you might think so, but I've been checking the definitions and some of them are self-contradictory. I'm not sure God actually did write this.

Jew: How DARE you question what God has given us? If you can't read a dictionary, you won't be able to speak the language.

Christian: Well, I'm still speaking, so you must be mistaken. Good day.

Destroy many lives.

Which is an impermanent death and leads to those individuals' journey into eternal life. I'm not seeing the bad here.

You see me and autimatically think you know how I think. No Foelhe, what you say of me is not so.

You say death is a travesty because people in this world die. I tell you that those people, according to Christianity, go on to heaven. You cannot get over the concept of death in this world.

Whether you can look past this world in other issues is not my concern. On this topic, you cannot.

But I also believe that you don't go out and start killing and herting people, just because you think it necessary.

... And that has what to do with this discussion?

Foelhe, the Zohar itself says that it's our obligation as Jews to follow the Torah, and understand it ouselves, to follow the laws of G-d, and to not rely wholly on the Talmidic interpretations of Torah.

...

You depend on the translation of the Mishna to understand the Torah. Then the Mishna needs further translation?

I'm sorry, your comparing the Dictionary to the Mishna now seems idiotic. This entire time, you've been saying, "How dare you follow something you aren't 100% sure you understand?" And now it turns out the Mishna NEEDS TRANSLATION? That strikes me as unbelievably hypocritical.

Also, I'm a perfect example of why you need a Mishna to answer walking around the world, I might translate it wrong, by thinking it's a person.

*shrugs* Until one day, you realize the bible was talking about the world, and you learn something. Or not. In the meantime, did you learn anything of interest about the person you were circling?

I'm not particularly concerned with everyone living a perfect life. I am concerned with people who try their best. Even if the best isn't good enough.

But my answer to that it's conditioning.
A long time ago, Arabs were the largest groups to ever move across the Earth, but they were very acceptant, they accepted Jews AND Christians in their Arab Empire, But they didn't kill, or hert or anything, they were peaceful. and they still had the majority vote.
However, today, Muslims seem quite content to slaughter people. Especially in France where a synagogue gets fire bombed on a daily basis, and Jews are beaten in the streets.
Something happened in 1500 years, and you can't blame it on majority vote, it's ideology, and/or conditioning.

They were in power for fifteen hundred years. That's what happened.

How on Earth can you possibly blame ideology or conditioning for this? By YOUR OWN ADMISSION, Muslim ideology is not the problem (because they lived in peace with Jews and Christians, natch). And conditioning has to come from somewhere. It's a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.

But this is entirely off-point. I'm only saying that the average self-centered, no-interest-in-fellow-man Christian is no different than the average self-centered, no-interest-in-fellow-man Jew.

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 10th, 2005, 5:49 PM

We very well MIGHT BE wrong, but the Mishna isn't. Unless the dictionary doesn't know what it's talking about when it deffines words like conjecture.

The difference between a dictionary and the Mishna is that a dictionary is heavily edited, carefully studied by multiple individuals, and run across several times for fear of flaws. And sometimes flaws still creep in. Whereas the Mishna is either writen by God, (which is admittedly better) or it's not, meaning you've got a document of unknown origin which is now millenia old.

IF the Mishna is correct, great. IF the Mishna is NOT correct, it's just not. You cannot demand everyone on Earth agree that the Mishna is indeed correct. Doesn't work that way.

Fine, I'll reclarify it. Just because it's a saying doesn't mean people act on it.

True. But by your own admission, Christians ignore great portions of the Torah. So in this case, I'd say it is something people act on.

Of course, it would be nice to have Christians forget the Torah all-together and stick to the NT (would take care of those nasty anti-gay beliefs, for one thing), but people do cling to what they believe in. But that's people for you. *shrugs*

Well you better give a rat's ass about them. Because when we include Christianity in our debate, were talking about the fundamentalists too.

And in a debate on gay rights, we're talking about John Wayne Gacy. But that doesn't mean I want him to get married and adopt a few kids.

Here's my stance on Christianity: Christians with good hearts and heads should continue along with believing in Jesus's divinity, as they always have. Fundamentalists and other assorted idiot-Christians will continue to be dragged along on the other guys' coattails. There's no way we can stop this short of decrying Christianity, which I think is a mistake.

Hate to brake it to ya Foelhe, but the New Testament isn't an interpretation of the Torah.

No, but the New Testament is it's OWN Mishna. Every time Jesus did something, his followers would ask him why he did it, and he'd explain himself. So there you have your Mishna, enclosed in one document.

The Torah isn't explained by Christianity, but given their stance on it's laws (which we have discussed), the OT is basically a history lesson.

But just curious, how come you said, "I don't doubt that the Mishna is important...." And then just now you say, "it is not."

As a religious device for Judaists, it is very important. As a measuring tool for all other religions, it is laughably inadequate.

It's all about context, Bob. S'why many of us don't see the need for a Mishna - we can read between the lines.

So then why did you JUST say (in your last post) that the Gospel of Thomas is irrelivant, because it was writen 60 years after Jesus died?

Why is anything relevant or irrelevant? You say that the Mishna is relevant, but much of the NT is irrelevant. Christians consider the Mishna irrelevant, but the NT relevant, except for the Gospel of Thomas, which they consider irrelevant.

What do all of these books have in common? They were passed down by word of mouth before being transcribed. So anyone who wants to point at those years and go, "Aha! It's not true!" can do so.

Nobody truly knows what the right answer is here. Actually, I'm not even sure there is a right answer. In the meantime, Christians have found a combination which works for them, and unlike you I don't begrudge them that.

Exactly what part of what I said do you doubt? Or as you say, other individuals doubt?

I'm curious as to how you know the motivation of the people who wrote down Jesus's sayings and life. You claim they only did so because they thought he was a smart rabbi. I'm not even slightly sure of this. If you'd like to direct me to historical documentation that PROVES they only wrote the first five books because he was a really happenin' guy, I'll look at it.

I actually find it quite interesting that you were talking about learning and understanding earlier on in your post, and then quite abruptly, imply I should find something else to do.

Context, Bob. I have no problem with people who study something their entire life. But you seem to put inordinate amount of hours into decrying Christianity, as opposed to having a life. That bothers me a bit. If you were studying Judaism to get a better grasp of your own heart, I'd be all for it, but you spend all your time trying to break other people down, and it strikes me as self-destructive.

Maybe that's WHY I was snarky today and yesterday, because you contradict yourself

Look who's talking! First you call me an idiot for saying the Mishna has never been written down, because you've mentioned the Talmud. Then you say you don't follow the Talmud, but the Mishna. It is any wonder you have to repeat yourself? You never clarify what the hell you're saying in the first place.

It doesn't matter if what he did was accepted by rabbies or not, only the fact that he DID those things. You'd be surprised who had a biography in the Talmud.

Considering Jesus spent most of his time pissing off the Pharisees of the day, I'm not sure they were planning on getting together, throwing a big party for him and then giving him an eternal legacy in the Talmud.

Beatnik Bob

Dec 12th, 2005, 8:27 PM

I do not believe that most of these mini-arguments are going anywhere, so I shall take it upon myself to debate this argument at face value.
But if you believe that I didn't address something of importance then by all means, bring it to attention.

-Foelhe, faith is fine, faith is great! I respect faith, I really do, but sometimes you need just a little more than faith, you know what I'm sayin'? Faith is great...but to a certain extent....
So let's look at the situation at hand differently (are you cool with that?). Suppose there is no G-d, it is just an idea that was invented about 3000 years ago. Now there was a movement, people started to call themselves Jews, and they had a whole thing of writings with their doctrine. Now, for a second, let's go farther back to when Hebrew was just forming, a branch of the Phoenician language/letter system, but Hebrew is without a doubt not exactly the same as Phoenician, it's a very different language. How did the ancient Hebrews know what their letters sound like? How did they know that Ayin is silent, and that Aleph is too? How did they know that Pey can make the 'p' sound and other times the 'f' sound? How did they know that Bet makes the 'b' sound and other times the 'v' sound?
Keep that idea in mind as we go back again to 3000 years ago.
Now the ancient Jews were recognized as the first true mono-theistic religion, it was a completely unheard of idea. "One G-d? How absurd!" the other peoples would say. Their religion was as different as their language. Now back to the origins of Hebrew. These Hebrews passed down the meanings of sounds and markings on a tablet and such (letters). It was called an oral tradition, much like ANY early form of passing things down that humans did at the time. Now back to 3000 years ago. Now the Jews, like any people of the time, also used oral tradition, but instead of just their language, they passed their religion down to their children, they passed down the written form, and they taught it to their children, much the same way Christians go to Sunday school. But the Jews taught their religion with it's meanings, and they taught the use of words, saying things like, "And now son, when G-d parted the waters to put the Earth in the place of them, there weren't actually waters out among the stars, but G-d is showing his separation between us and that other entity that goes on for ever and ever...but son, you must never worship water, just as you must never worship the humans, which are the separation of G-d." Or something like that. But they explained the Torah to their children, just as one might teach that the phrase, like finding a needle in a haystack refers to something that's very hard to find.
And so, just as they passed the Torah down, from child to child, they passed the language down. Because just as they knew that Zayin makes the 'z' sound, they knew that the phrase, "parted the waters" meant.

-And Foelhe, why do you consider the Gospel of Thomas irrelevant, but the rest of the NT relevant.

-And the fact with the Jesus divinity thing is this: I have faith enough to believe that Jesus might have raised people from the dead, and done many of the things claimed in the NT. But I don't see what makes him so special if many people did it.

-And Foelhe, I only came to the conclusion that ONE of the motivations were that he was a smart rabbi is because Christianity was much different before Constantine, he changed it, and made Jesus more G-d-like, to appeal to pagans. For example, for 400 years, you couldn't be Christian unless you were a Jew by heritage, but Constantine did his best to get everyone Christian.

-The Mishna doesn't really need translation, the Talmudists were giving OPINIONS, even if the Mishna needs them or not.
But the thing is, Christians don't even make an ATEMPT to follow it.

-And I believe the NT DOES need interpretation, there are plenty of things that Jesus doesn't explain, PLENTY.

-Foelhe, you believe that the NT is its own Mishna, so where does it explicitly say that Jesus is G-d and should be worshiped as such?

-Also, would you care if I shot you Foelhe? Would you care if I started killing people, because after all, they're going to heaven right? So by your thinking everyone should kill each other to get into heaven.
Because that is ALMOST exactly how many Muslims believe, that when they die killing someone they go to heaven.
I can't help but notice that that's one of the sickest forms of ideology. Like they can kill but since Jesus died for them, it doesn't matter, when it comes down to it, it doesn't.

BB. You need to go down to the temple and sacrifice an animal so that G-d wont smite you for that HUGE porn addiction you have.
How'd you know!? :D
But seriously, why do you say that?

YOUR G-D is the one who sent Jesus so you better buck up and do some research dude. I'll accept Jesus as G-d the moment you give me a legitimate reason Ms. Goy. (i.e. evidence). Or better yet, give me some evidence that G-d came down as Jesus.

For starters read Isaiah 53 start looking for your messiah cause you are about to find him. Hey and even ask your G-d to help you find the truth. For starters read the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not to mention the Mishna. That tell of no graven images ANYWHERE, not graven into the neurons of your mind, on the stone in your back yard, or an image of ANY SORT, and not to bow at it either. Also, go back through the NT, and see it with different eyes, and you might be able to see how many things could mean something other than you previously thought.
Also where does it say to actually worship the messiah? Where does it say that Jesus is synonymous with HaShem?
Also, I don't believe in that "ask G-d" stuff, because I'll most likely answer myself by accident...it won't do anything Cherisa.

Beatnik Bob

Dec 12th, 2005, 8:29 PM

but i rather find it exilierating, and it makes me tingly, and happy. Looks like I wasn't the only one looking at porn! Ha!

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 13th, 2005, 12:31 AM

Foelhe, why do you consider the Gospel of Thomas irrelevant, but the rest of the NT relevant.

I don't. Christians do.

Why? Well, KeeblerGiant pointed out in another thread that The Book of Thomas was never actually a part of the NT. So that's a good reason. Also, there's the fact that Jesus threatens to strike a man down for not releasing a bird. (Thank God for the thread on the Book of Thomas.) I can't really say why Christians don't... but as for the fact that they don't, it doesn't bother me. Here's why.

Suppose you heard three different people talking about NASA and space exploration. One says "Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon." One says, "Apollo XIII was a disaster". And the third says, "The Earth is actually floating in a sea of cheese". Can you believe the first two speakers, and ignore the third? Hope so, because otherwise you're screwed come history lessons.

Now, the Books of NT aren't as clear-cut, right or wrong, but they are different people claiming they saw different things. It's entirely possible for a Christian to accept some of those speakers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and ignore others (Thomas).

And the fact with the Jesus divinity thing is this: I have faith enough to believe that Jesus might have raised people from the dead, and done many of the things claimed in the NT. But I don't see what makes him so special if many people did it.

Again: Jesus raising Lazerous from the dead? Pretty routine miracle. Jesus raising HIMSELF from the dead, of his own volition? MAJOR deal. It's the death of Jesus, and the resurrection, which is the lynchpin in Christian faith.

And Foelhe, I only came to the conclusion that ONE of the motivations were that he was a smart rabbi is because Christianity was much different before Constantine, he changed it, and made Jesus more G-d-like, to appeal to pagans. For example, for 400 years, you couldn't be Christian unless you were a Jew by heritage, but Constantine did his best to get everyone Christian.

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but it seemed like you were implying that the followers of the day just thought he was a regular joe, if an unbelievably smart regular joe. It's possible, but not proven.

The Mishna doesn't really need translation, the Talmudists were giving OPINIONS, even if the Mishna needs them or not.
But the thing is, Christians don't even make an ATEMPT to follow it.

Because Christians don't believe the Mishna is holy. OR, because Christians are following what Jesus says, "The old has come to pass - behold, all things are made new."

And I believe the NT DOES need interpretation, there are plenty of things that Jesus doesn't explain, PLENTY.

Like I said, I think God wants us to figure out the answers ourselves.

Foelhe, you believe that the NT is its own Mishna, so where does it explicitly say that Jesus is G-d and should be worshiped as such?

Explicitly say? I don't think the bible explicitly says much at all. If your looking for a passage where Jesus says, "So everyone should worship me," you won't get it.

But there is a passage in which Jesus claims divinity: "I am the way and the light and the truth. No one shall come to the father except through me."

Also, would you care if I shot you Foelhe? Would you care if I started killing people, because after all, they're going to heaven right? So by your thinking everyone should kill each other to get into heaven.

Oh? And where do you think we're going, Bob?

I suspect you've forgotten I'm not Christian again, but moving on. It's an idiotic argument, even from a Christian standpoint, because A) God doesn't want us to kill people, B) Anyone who is so convinced in their own righteousness that they're willing to give up lives for no reason is a fool - hey, atheists may be right after all, C) You might be cutting short a life which is meant to bring wisdom to the people around him/her, and D) While the people you kill may go to heaven, even if you yourself do eventually go to heaven, you'll have to live with the knowledge that you are a killer.

Sabazi

Dec 13th, 2005, 8:13 PM

-And Foelhe, I only came to the conclusion that ONE of the motivations were that he was a smart rabbi is because Christianity was much different before Constantine, he changed it, and made Jesus more G-d-like, to appeal to pagans. For example, for 400 years, you couldn't be Christian unless you were a Jew by heritage, but Constantine did his best to get everyone Christian.

Then why did the apostles evangelize to the greeks and romans?

And, sorry to hang on this point, but who destroyed Soddom and Gomorah?

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 13th, 2005, 8:43 PM

And, sorry to hang on this point, but who destroyed Soddom and Gomorah?

... Uh, assuming that actually happened, God. Since Soddom and Gomorah are in the OT/Torah, I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. I mean, anyone Christian or Judiast, or Muslim I suppose.

To be honest, I don't really see what that has to do with the debate at hand. Care to clarify?

Sabazi

Dec 14th, 2005, 3:47 PM

it has nothing to do with the current debate.

Defiant Noquisi

Dec 14th, 2005, 5:06 PM

Looks like I wasn't the only one looking at porn! Ha!

/me likes pr0n too!

Beatnik Bob

Dec 16th, 2005, 11:39 PM

Please excuse my rather tardy presentation of the current post. A thousand pardons honorable sir.

Why? Well, KeeblerGiant pointed out in another thread that The Book of Thomas was never actually a part of the NT.
uh... ... ... ...
I don't believe it was ever actually proven.

So that's a good reason. Also, there's the fact that Jesus threatens to strike a man down for not releasing a bird. Hey, as I said, it's very evident that of all the gospels, the gospel of Thomas is overflowing with symbolism...and Jesus doesn't explain it...Jesus most likely didn't order a man to release his birds on penalty of death.

Suppose you heard three different people talking about NASA and space exploration. One says "Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon." One says, "Apollo XIII was a disaster". And the third says, "The Earth is actually floating in a sea of cheese". You know something, the one that said, "The Earth is actually floating in a sea of cheese", might be the wisest of both of them. He may not speak in scientific terms, but his words can take on a whole new meaning. He reminds me of a gnomic philosopher.
My point being that just because the rest of the NT may not speak in symbolic and philosophical terms, doesn't mean it's not relevant in its own way.

Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead? Pretty routine miracle. Jesus raising HIMSELF from the dead, of his own volition? MAJOR deal. It's the death of Jesus, and the resurrection, which is the lynchpin in Christian faith.
How is that so impossible to believe that other people might have done it to? As a matter of fact, I have a friend that knows somebody, that cured people of cancer by his devout prayers, but it doesn't even make head lines.
And Isaiah actually raised someone from the dead as well.

And notice how even the central symbol of Christianity is a cross, not a circular doorway to a tomb, they almost revel in his death.

it seemed like you were implying that the followers of the day just thought he was a regular joe, if an unbelievably smart regular joe. It's possible, but not proven. I don't think he was a regular joe, I think he was smart, really smart, a religious genius almost. I love Jesus as much as I love Moses, Jesus was a good guy, I've read the NT and I really liked it.

Because Christians don't believe the Mishna is holy.
It's not a matter of the Mishna being holy or not, it's a matter of realizing interpretations....let me share a Kenyan story with you.

There's a story from Kenya called The Man Who Shared His Hut. It starts off where a man built a hut in the jungle, but a hurricane struck, and the man's friend the elephant came to his hut for shelter. The elephant offered to put his trunk in the man's hut to keep it from blowing over, the man said there was room enough and consented. But when the elephant put his trunk into the hut, he flung the man out. Eventually the subject was brought to the animal court, and the elephant told a story of how the man was thrown out because he wasn't making the most express use out of his hut, since the elephant was bigger and such, and made more use of the hut, and the man wasn't allowed to really participate, because the animals said he didn't understand jungle rule. But anyway, the court of animals ruled that the house would from then on belong to the elephant. And they said that the man could go build another hut, and guaranteed their protection in the building of his next hut. But every hut he built, an animal would charge in and take his home, the same animals that guaranteed protection. And every time it went to court, and the same verdict was found. And it pretty much ends there.
But we know what it describes. It was made during the European colonization of Africa during the 1800 and early 1900s.
The hut describes Africa/certain areas in Africa.
The man describes the African people.
And the Animals describe the European colonial imperialists
The Europeans came to Africa to colonize it, and they promised protection. They said they were making better use of the space, Africa. Justifying it by saying Africans didn't really use all the resources of gold and diamonds, so Europeans were putting it all to better use. And they basically took the African land from the native people.
Lets suppose this, or something like this, happened 3000 years ago. And today we look at it and say, "That poor man!" "Those evil animals!" We would automatically assume it was a story of talking animals, with the head lion being the judge, and etc. We would most likely not come to the conclusion of European, or something like it, colonial imperialism. And this is how it is with the story of Genesis, people look at it, and automatically assume that there was a snake tempting a naked woman with fruit, and a garden involved.

Like I said, I think God wants us to figure out the answers ourselves. That's actually a very Jewish belief, but unfortunately not a Christian belief. Because even the Mishna, rabies always want to interpret, even if it doesn't really need interpretation.
1. Remember, you are debating on behalf of Christianity, not your own ideology.
2. Christians do not believe in individual interpretations, when you go to Sunday school, they say, "and Eve ate the fruit and was cast out of the garden", NOT, "Class, what do you think it means when Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden?"

And again, back to the Man in the hut thing, just because you interpret it a certain way, doesn't mean it is that way. It's still describing European imperialism in Africa, no matter WHAT you might say.

because Christians are following what Jesus says, "The old has come to pass - behold, all things are made new." Jesus didn't explain what he meant by that

Explicitly say? I don't think the bible explicitly says much at all. If your looking for a passage where Jesus says, "So everyone should worship me," you won't get it. Why doesn't it? The NT SHOULD explicitly say, because the NT is its own mishna, and the Mishna explicitly says everything.

Christians have no Mishna, because Jesus can't even explicitly say he is G-d.

But there is a passage in which Jesus claims divinity: "I am the way and the light and the truth. No one shall come to the father except through me."
And exactly. Christians don't even follow that statement. Jesus is in no way the way to the father, he IS the father in Christian eyes.
I've been around long enough to know. I've heard plenty of chants where Christians say things like, "When I walk through the valley, JESUS! "When I lay down to rest, JESUS!
I mean like crowds of people chanting this, talk about mob-psychology!

I suspect you've forgotten I'm not Christian again. Sorry about that. No offence intended, but it gets rather hard to perceive you as non-Christian when I FEAL like I'm debating a Christian. Now don't run out on me just because I said that like you did last thread, I'm simply telling you that what I know of you, and how I see you, often conflict within me, and sometimes I think your a Christian......but only for a split-second....so don't scream like a banshee again....I beg of you. :pray:

It's an idiotic argument, even from a Christian standpoint... My point exactly.

you'll have to live with the knowledge that you are a killer.
Did the people involved in the crusades see themselves as killers? Probably not, they thought they were doing it for G-d.

You can burn ten thousand people at a stake and not even fill one drop of guilt or pain.

Isaiah 53 This passage is actually refering to the son of G-d, Cherisa.

I seriously dreamt it. What did I look like in your dream? Just curious about how other people perceive me.

Edit: *mutters under breath* Damn quote boxes....

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 17th, 2005, 2:57 AM

uh... ... ... ...
I don't believe it was ever actually proven.

Yes, but when KG pointed it out, it made me realize that you'd never shown it had been. I sort've took you at face value, and now I see you could've been mistaken. If that link is called into question, it becomes impossible to compare the two. If we're gonna have a historical debate on the presence of the Book of Thomas, okay, but in the meantime you'll have to acknowledge that rift.

Hey, as I said, it's very evident that of all the gospels, the gospel of Thomas is overflowing with symbolism...

... But when Jesus says God is represented by a man not born of woman, that HAS to be literal? How do you know that wasn't symbolism of some sort? Possibly Jesus was saying something completely different, and Thomas misunderstood him.

You know something, the one that said, "The Earth is actually floating in a sea of cheese", might be the wisest of both of them.

I'm not talking about what-ifs here, Bob. From a scientific viewpoint, this man is wrong. Correct? We can assume that you believe some religious views can be wrong, or you wouldn't see any problem with this religion. So, possibly a person talking about his point of view (in this case, Thomas) could very well be wrong, even if discussing a topic (Christianity) which other people have spoken truly about (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, very possibly).

Besides, by your argument, Jake99 is the wisest person on this site! :rolling:

How is that so impossible to believe that other people might have done it to?

... Bob, you're missing my point. My point is that Christians believe that the only person who has ever risen from the dead, of his own volition, is Jesus of Nazareth. It's possible that they're wrong - we can both agree on this point. But they are not necessarily wrong, so it's not our place to antagonize them because of their belief.

And Isaiah actually raised someone from the dead as well.

Right, but he didn't rise himself from the dead of his own volition. Which is the point.

And notice how even the central symbol of Christianity is a cross, not a circular doorway to a tomb, they almost revel in his death.

Symbology, Bob. A tomb in the Christian faith symbolizes these things - victory, strength, and immortality. A cross in the Christian faith symbolizes these things - sacrifice, humility, and love. And while both of these standpoints are important to Christianity, it is a Christian's ability to sacrifice, be humble, and love unconditionally that raises them closer to God. (To head you off at the pass, I'm aware not all Christians are on the boat here, but I believe most of the good ones are.)

It's not a matter of the Mishna being holy or not, it's a matter of realizing interpretations....

But these are interpretations Christians don't agree with.

I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at here. You say Christians don't follow the Mishna, I say that's because they don't believe the Mishna is correct. I'm sure some of them have studied the Mishna's interpretations - they are aware of those views, but choose not to follow them. Is there something wrong with a group of people not following an opinion they don't agree with?

just because you interpret it a certain way, doesn't mean it is that way.

Exactly my point.

That's actually a very Jewish belief, but unfortunately not a Christian belief. Because even the Mishna, rabies always want to interpret, even if it doesn't really need interpretation.

Uh, then why did God write out an entire code of ethics and tell it to be passed down from generation to generation? You yourself say the Mishna doesn't need interpretation. Isn't that like showing someone a tricky, complex puzzle, and then showing them how to solve it before they get a chance to try? It doesn't make sense.

Besides, I am arguing from a Christian viewpoint. I know a lot of Christians might not agree with my stance here, but a lot of Christians also believe in Hell, and I'm not arguing for their sakes. Anyone who truly understands religion, be it their religion or anyone else's, understands that the laws and philosophies laid out in any holy book are simply a possible path through life. Maybe they think they have the best and straightest path, but that's true of just about anyone.

Jesus didn't explain what he meant by that

It's like breaking a code. If you don't have any idea what symbols are supposed to represent, you try your best to decypher them based on context clues. You continue doing this until a meaning emerges that makes sense. It may not be the correct meaning, but what else are you going to do? Refuse to decypher the message because "We'll never know for sure if we're right"? Dither endlessly about the many opportunities you had to make mistakes? Or you can sit down, do your damnedest to figure out the answer, and if you get it wrong in the end, at least you can congratulate yourself for fighting your way through and trying to find the answer.

And exactly. Christians don't even follow that statement. Jesus is in no way the way to the father, he IS the father in Christian eyes.

I've been around long enough to know. I've heard plenty of chants where Christians say things like, "When I walk through the valley, JESUS! "When I lay down to rest, JESUS!

Decypher, Bob. Decypher! Think about phrases which could fit into that context. Here's one: "When I walk through the valley, Jesus!" "When I lay down to rest, Jesus!" "Guide me, Jesus!"

A door, a guide. Remarkably similar properties, aren't they? Each is a sign of travel, each is an entryway into a new world.

I probably should've challenged this from the beginning. You say Christians worship Jesus as much if not more than they worship God. Why? This example doesn't hold water, but do you have anything more concrete?

Sorry about that. No offence intended, but it gets rather hard to perceive you as non-Christian when I FEAL like I'm debating a Christian.

If might help if you remember - I'd be challenging you on this if you were arguing against any other religion I know enough about to defend intelligently. Don't think of this as my relationship to Christianity, but as my desire to defend the beliefs of all people.

so don't scream like a banshee again

*chuckles* Relax, I only get angry when people agressively claim to know me better than myself. I certainly won't get mad at you for drifting a little.

Did the people involved in the crusades see themselves as killers? Probably not, they thought they were doing it for G-d.

You can burn ten thousand people at a stake and not even fill one drop of guilt or pain.

And in Heaven?

Imbued with the force of God which was so lacking in their lives, how do you think those people will look back on the pain they caused? If Christians are right, if there is a god of compassion, and if our trip to Heaven is to be closer to him, how do you think those people will feel when they see the darkness in their own souls?

Edit: Correcting a rather grevious typo, hope nobody caught that. :blush:

Beatnik Bob

Dec 18th, 2005, 8:34 PM

Note:this might be my last post for a few weeks because I've decided to go visit family for the holidays.

Yes, but when KG pointed it out, it made me realize that you'd never shown it had been. I sort've took you at face value, and now I see you could've been mistaken. If that link is called into question, it becomes impossible to compare the two. If we're gonna have a historical debate on the presence of the Book of Thomas, okay, but in the meantime you'll have to acknowledge that rift. If we're going towards a historical view, then the Mishna is right. Otherwise, if you don't believe in a historical view, the example you just gave for the Gospel of Thomas, will be dubbed irrelevant.

But when Jesus says God is represented by a man not born of woman, that HAS to be literal? How do you know that wasn't symbolism of some sort? Possibly Jesus was saying something completely different, and Thomas misunderstood him. Perhaps Paul misunderstood him. Perhaps John misunderstood him. Perhaps Luke misunderstood him. Perhaps Matt misunderstood him. Perhaps et cetera misunderstood him.

The argument you are proposing is very.....shall we say, irrelevant?

So, possibly a person talking about his point of view (in this case, Thomas) could very well be wrong, even if discussing a topic (Christianity) which other people have spoken truly about (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, very possibly). I believe I cover this in the previous one.

Bob, you're missing my point. My point is that Christians believe that the only person who has ever risen from the dead, of his own volition, is Jesus of Nazareth. It's possible that they're wrong - we can both agree on this point. But they are not necessarily wrong, so it's not our place to antagonize them because of their belief. Ok, I can accept that Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

But I'm not exactly debating what Christians believe, but rather what the NT says, which could possibly be the same thing, but not always. Because as you said, 90% of any religion is made up of idiots, so in this case I'm debating NT, and NT ideology. Which could possibly be synonymous with Christian ideology.

A tomb in the Christian faith symbolizes these things - victory, strength, and immortality. A cross in the Christian faith symbolizes these things - sacrifice, humility, and love. The cross does not symbolize those things, the tomb does not symbolize those things! You have it all wrong Foelhe!

Let's pretend, for the sake of debate that another religion sprung up, its roots being in Christianity. Now the original idea of the Christian faith is that the cross symbolizes humility, sacrifice, love, understanding, and pain, but this new religion claims that the cross symbolizes sex, masturbation, and porn.
Who's right, and who's wrong Foelhe?

But these are interpretations Christians don't agree with.
I realize this, do you think I'm stupid? Apparently...
I'm not getting at whether Christians agree with them or not, I'm trying to make you realize that these are the original, real, right interpretations of the Torah, what the ancients meant by their written form. The original idea!

And again you go on the assumption that the Mishna is based on the ideas of rabies, but this is not so. The Mishna is not a collection of views, it is the collection of meanings.

Exactly my point.
No it is not exactly your point, because they are both completely different contexts. Context Foelhe, context, context, context, context, context, context, context!

Christian: I like the language, but I've been checking this dictionary and I think some of the definitions are wrong.
Jew: This dictionary has been around for thousands of years! It was given to us by God!
Christian: Well, you might think so, but I've been checking the definitions and some of them are self-contradictory. I'm not sure God actually did write this.
Jew: How DARE you question what God has given us? If you can't read a dictionary, you won't be able to speak the language.
Christian: Well, I'm still speaking, so you must be mistaken. Good day Actual case scenario.

Christian: Gkjndsnv hoodvan dskln.
Jew: What?
Christian: Gkjndsnv hoodvan dskln!
Jew: Can you please clarify? Perhaps it would help if I gave you a mishna so you could speak properly. *hands Christian a mishna*
Christian: Why thanks!
Jew: Hey! You spoke! See, the mishna tells how to speak the language. Personally, I'm surprised you said anything, since you have no idea of the language with out any mishna.

The thing is, the Christian wasn't speaking, and he couldn't possibly of said good day.

Three thousand years later.

Kenyan: I hate those European Imperialist bastards! They took my home from me! 3000 years ago.
Christian-like person: What? You can just build another hut somewhere away from that jungle, like it talks about in The Man Who Shared His Hut. And there's no such thing as talking animals.
Kenyan: You idiot! It's symbolism.
Christian-like person: No it's not, it's about elephants and a hut and a man.
Kenyan: yes, the hut symbolizes Africa, the animals Europeans, and the man my people.
Christian-like person: How can one man symbolize a whole nation? I tell you it's talking about a hut, a man, and some animals!
Kenyan: Can you at least TRY to be a little more open minded?
Christian-like person: Why would you have a story if you weren't given a chance to interpret it first?
Kenyan: Your unbelievable!

Note: I'm being rather generous, the Christian-like person would never associate British imperialism with that Kenyan story

Uh, then why did God write out an entire code of ethics and tell it to be passed down from generation to generation? You yourself say the Mishna doesn't need interpretation. Isn't that like showing someone a tricky, complex puzzle, and then showing them how to solve it before they get a chance to try? It doesn't make sense. I've given you chances to interpret/understand things I said this whole debate, and you didn't like it.

Anyone who truly understands religion, be it their religion or anyone else's, understands that the laws and philosophies laid out in any holy book are simply a possible path through life. Maybe they think they have the best and straightest path, but that's true of just about anyone. Your analogy doesn't fit the situation at hand.
Plus, I've previously addressed this.

It's like breaking a code. If you don't have any idea what symbols are supposed to represent, you try your best to decipher them based on context clues. You continue doing this until a meaning emerges that makes sense. It may not be the correct meaning, but what else are you going to do? Refuse to decipher the message because "We'll never know for sure if we're right"?
What about checking your answers? You look at the problem, and you write what you think it means. But there comes a point when you need the book that answers it.

Dither endlessly about the many opportunities you had to make mistakes? Or you can sit down, do your damnedest to figure out the answer, and if you get it wrong in the end, at least you can congratulate yourself for fighting your way through and trying to find the answer.
The fish swam through the open sea, only to be caught in a barbed net by the same creatures that set him free from his small glass prison.
Decipher that!

Also, I found something rather interesting:

First you call me an idiot for saying the Mishna has never been written down, because you've mentioned the Talmud. Then you say you don't follow the Talmud, but the Mishna. It is any wonder you have to repeat yourself? You never clarify what the hell you're saying in the first place. You say so yourself that you wan't clarification.
So look Foelhe, why don't you interpret it yourself! It seems to be your ideology.

I probably should've challenged this from the beginning. You say Christians worship Jesus as much if not more than they worship God. Why? This example doesn't hold water, but do you have anything more concrete?
Because they think Jesus is the son of G-d, and no one else is. And even their great symbol, the cross, refers to Jesus. Don't tell me that I don't know about Christianity. My own father was a Christian.

Imbued with the force of God which was so lacking in their lives, how do you think those people will look back on the pain they caused? If Christians are right, if there is a god of compassion, and if our trip to Heaven is to be closer to him, how do you think those people will feel when they see the darkness in their own souls? What I meant, was that thinking that what we do here on Earth doesn't matter, because it's only a small life compared to the afterlife, is very horrible thinking.

Also, suppose you said that to the pope years ad years ago, he would insist that it was G-d's will to destroy the lives of all non-christians, and he'd still do it even if you presented him with this story of heaven.
The thing is peoples ideas of heaven change. Sure, maybe that would happen in heaven, I wouldn't know, I'm not dead, but people didn't and wouldn't always view that idea.

The people that really invented the idea of afterlife were the popes, who got people to believe in Jesus by scaring them into it. Now the same popes that invented the heaven that you described invented the concept of killing in the name of G-d. So it is possible that you don't understand heaven, because the pope, who invented this concept of heaven, invented everything that goes along with it today.

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 19th, 2005, 1:37 AM

If we're going towards a historical view, then the Mishna is right.

Because the Mishna came first? That's silly. By that argument, by the "historical view", paganism and polytheism is right.

Of course, that's not what I'm saying. I apologize if this sounds harsh, but you drift from argument to argument without keeping things in context, and if you're going to understand my view on things, you're going to have to keep the arguments clear. HISTORICALLY, we don't know if the Book of Thomas was ever considered a part of the NT. Therefore, HISTORICALLY, it is unwise to bind the Book of Thomas with the NT, until this has been established.

Perhaps Paul misunderstood him. Perhaps John misunderstood him. Perhaps Luke misunderstood him. Perhaps Matt misunderstood him. Perhaps et cetera misunderstood him.

The argument you are proposing is very.....shall we say, irrelevant?

... No. Pay attention.

We DO NOT KNOW who is right in this debate, no matter what you might think. It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that those people are all incorrect. It is also ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that they are correct.

You keep switching the argument around, and it looks like you're trying to avoid being pinned down. Originally, we were arguing whether Thomas was valid. I pointed out he might not be, and you then argued that everyone else in the NT might not be valid. This is a perfectly valid BELIEF, much like it is perfectly valid for people to BELIEVE that Thomas was wrong and Paul, John, Luke, etc. was right.

So we have a few possible outcomes. One of these is the possibility that Thomas was wrong, and the others were right. You have yet to disprove this possibility. Therefore, you have not disproven Christianity.

But I'm not exactly debating what Christians believe, but rather what the NT says, which could possibly be the same thing, but not always. Because as you said, 90% of any religion is made up of idiots, so in this case I'm debating NT, and NT ideology.

Assuming Christianity is correct for a second, let's look at the following:

Fact: Jesus performed many miracles. However, many other rabbi's performed many miracles. This does not prove he was the chosen of God.

Fact: Jesus rose from the dead of his own volition. No rabbi in the Torah has ever done this.

Fact: It was not until after Jesus died and rose again that he began openly proclaiming himself the messiah.

Theory: Jesus' divinity is tied to his ability to rise from the dead of his own volition.

Is this theory necessarily correct? No. But the fact is it doesn't have to be. You have yet to disprove this theory - until you do so, we can acknowledge that there IS A POSSIBILITY that Jesus was a part of God, and that his rise from the grave was a sign of his divinity.

I say "Christians believe" because in this case it's true. Christians do believe this. This doesn't make it valid, but it doesn't make it invalid either. After all, if 90% of mankind are morons, and if everything morons say is wrong, than we're all wrong and the Earth really IS flat.

The cross does not symbolize those things, the tomb does not symbolize those things! You have it all wrong Foelhe!

Feel free to try to prove it. But I believe the context of both those symbols underlines my point.

Let's pretend, for the sake of debate that another religion sprung up, its roots being in Christianity. Now the original idea of the Christian faith is that the cross symbolizes humility, sacrifice, love, understanding, and pain, but this new religion claims that the cross symbolizes sex, masturbation, and porn.
Who's right, and who's wrong Foelhe?

According to whom?

The Christian view: We're right, they're wrong.

The new sect's view: We're right, they're wrong.

The Judiast's view: You're both wrong.

My view: Whoever is kind and loving and compassionate is right; whoever is spiteful and arrogant and selfish is wrong.

God's view: ~THESE WORDS CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD BY MORTAL MEN. TO ATTEMPT TO READ THEM WOULD DESTROY YOUR PUNY MIND IN AN INSTANT.~

Anytime you say "Who is right?" when discussing God, you're entering a world where people will give you one of three possible answers: "I am," "I don't know, but I think I have a good idea," or "I don't know."

Unfortunately, I'm not one of the messiahs running around the board, so I can't really answer that question in any meaningful way.

I'm trying to make you realize that these are the original, real, right interpretations of the Torah

And I'm trying to make you realize that you can't possibly know that. Not for certain. I would never take your faith away from you, but you're trying to do that very thing to hundreds of other people, so I'm trying to make you realize that your faith has become a blindness - you cannot accept or even try to understand what others around you believe.

Can I be frank, and a bit tactless? Even if you are right, and the Torah and Mishna hold sway over all - you got lucky. You just happened to fall into the correct religion, when others in different religions are just as adamant about their own rightness as you are about yours. Had you been born under different circumstances, you might very well be passionately arguing FOR Christianity. Consider that for a second, and try to draw some humility from it.

No it is not exactly your point, because they are both completely different contexts.

Apologies, I was being snarky. No need to take it seriously.

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 19th, 2005, 1:38 AM

Reply continued!

Christian: Gkjndsnv hoodvan dskln.
Jew: What?
Christian: Gkjndsnv hoodvan dskln!
Jew: Can you please clarify? Perhaps it would help if I gave you a mishna so you could speak properly. *hands Christian a mishna*
Christian: Why thanks!
Jew: Hey! You spoke! See, the mishna tells how to speak the language. Personally, I'm surprised you said anything, since you have no idea of the language with out any mishna.

1) This presupposes Christianity is wrong and Judaism is right. For all we know, the Mishna might be the religious equivalent of defining Abraham Lincoln as "A kind of lobster." (Bonus points to anyone who recognizes that quote!)

2) How did you learn to talk, Bob? Your first language, I mean, your original language. Was it from a book? Or was it from listening to the people around you talking?

Put those two points together, and see if this dialogue makes any sense:

Jew: Greetings! Did you catch any Abraham Lincolns?
Christian: Did I what now?
Jew: Abraham Lincolns? Did you catch any? I see your lobster fishing, and I think the lobsters in this area are Abraham Lincolns.
Christian: ... Abraham Lincoln was a President of the United States.
Jew: No, Abraham Lincoln is a kind of lobster.
Christian: ...
Jew: See? It says so right here. *pulls out a dictionary, hands it to the Christian*
Christian: *reads the passage* This is all wrong. Abraham Lincoln was one of the presidents during the Civil War. He gave the Gettysburg Address, and is generally considered one of the major fighters against slavery in America.
Jew: But it says here that Abraham Lincoln was a kind of lobster.
Christian: Well, then it's wrong. *Goes back to fishing, cheerfully ignoring the Jew's continued arguments*

... And that's how Christians see you guys. See? There's no real room for compromise here, so I'd suggest backing off and giving one another some space.

I'm being rather generous, the Christian-like person would never associate British imperialism with that Kenyan story

'Scuse me, Bob, I think you got some self-involved tripe on your tie. *hands you a napkin*

I've given you chances to interpret/understand things I said this whole debate, and you didn't like it.

It's not that I didn't like it, it's just that my interpretations of the situation weren't particularly kind to you, so I've been giving you the opportunity to state your case more clearly.

So look Foelhe, why don't you interpret it yourself! It seems to be your ideology.

... Well, remember you asked.

My interpretation from this debate was that you didn't have a very good grasp on the Mishna. When you tried to explain things one way, and I pointed out a possible flaw in the Mishna's reasoning, you backpedaled and went down a completely different path. Either you don't know enough about the Mishna to carefully blend the visions together, or the Mishna itself is flawed and you were too busy defending it to give a clear picture of what it is.

And on another angle, I should point out that I interpret the texts themselves, not the vague explanations given me by others. A book is a concrete thing. The word, "Live!" is an example - I don't try to guess whether it's there or not, but if I see it, I will interpret from the context whether it means, "Unrecorded, shot as it is being broadcast," or "Go out and experience life."

Because they think Jesus is the son of G-d, and no one else is.

They also believe God is the undefeatable and omnipotent lord. Both God and Jesus come off pretty rosy in the Bible. Your argument doesn't hold water.

And even their great symbol, the cross, refers to Jesus.

As a reminder that living life the way Jesus would is the way to experience closeness to God. Jesus is the door, God the destination. When you walk toward your destination, you look at the door.

What I meant, was that thinking that what we do here on Earth doesn't matter, because it's only a small life compared to the afterlife, is very horrible thinking.

... You're still having trouble understanding what I said earlier? To explain, again - just because this life is short doesn't mean it doesn't matter. After all, would you murder a man today, knowing that tomorrow you can follow all the rules, knowing that today is only a short period in the scheme of things (Our lifetimes)?

This does mean, however, that you can take heart that the worries and tribulations you face today will be but a memory in the next life.

Also, suppose you said that to the pope years ad years ago, he would insist that it was G-d's will to destroy the lives of all non-christians, and he'd still do it even if you presented him with this story of heaven.

People are scum. This is but a redux of the previous, "90% of the population is a moron," point. But a killer kills as a killer will, and all the slap-dash notion of painting that killer's face with a pretty facade (Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, whatever) will not do a single thing in the long run.

The thing is peoples ideas of heaven change. Sure, maybe that would happen in heaven, I wouldn't know, I'm not dead, but people didn't and wouldn't always view that idea.

What people prefer to believe is really none of my concern. I'll admit a lot of my view, on this point, is colored more by my opinions than by Christianity's. But the truth is, anyone's view on the afterlife is unimportant. We're all going where we're all going, and bickering about the last stop won't make the journey any more pleasant.

Unless a group is damned to hell, and another to heaven, it's all a matter of making the journey as best we can. And we don't know who's ready for the robes and who the fire, even if there are such things. So it's a moot question.

jeffweeder

Dec 21st, 2005, 6:55 AM

ok ok whats happened , now i feel like a lost soul

Beatnik Bob

Dec 21st, 2005, 9:38 PM

Jew: Greetings! Did you catch any Abraham Lincolns?
Christian: Did I what now?
Jew: Abraham Lincolns? Did you catch any? I see your lobster fishing, and I think the lobsters in this area are Abraham Lincolns.
Christian: ... Abraham Lincoln was a President of the United States.
Jew: No, Abraham Lincoln is a kind of lobster.
Christian: ...
Jew: See? It says so right here. *pulls out a dictionary, hands it to the Christian*
Christian: *reads the passage* This is all wrong. Abraham Lincoln was one of the presidents during the Civil War. He gave the Gettysburg Address, and is generally considered one of the major fighters against slavery in America.
Jew: But it says here that Abraham Lincoln was a kind of lobster.
Christian: Well, then it's wrong.
Actual case.
Christian: Greetings! Did you catch some Abraham Lincolns?
Jew: Did I what now?
Christian: Abraham Lincolns? Did you catch any?
Jew: Abraham Lincoln was a president of the US.
Christian: But look, it says right here in this book.
Jew: *Looks at book* What? We wrote this book, what are you talking about? When we wrote abraham lincolns, it refers to a very morbid and dramatic show shown in a theater, not a fish! Or any water dwelling creature you seem to be referring to!
Christian: ... ... ... but it says so!
Jew: We wrote that book and you seem to have interpreted it wrongly.
Christian: How do you know it isn't talking about a fish?
Jew: How do you know how to speak? When we wrote that book it was quite awhile ago, and society has changed since then. Today people like you look at places in our book where it talks about a Abraham Lincoln and think it a fish, but back then there actually was indeed a human named Abraham Lincoln, and he was shot in a theater a long time ago. Since then, the term Abraham Lincoln has come to mean a morbid or sad theater show.
Christian: Why would the people that created that book give us interpretations without letting us solve them!?
Jew: Because we were smart enough to know that you would say Lincoln was a fish.
But seriously, the answer is simple, we can't alter society. But we CAN preserve it. It is common knowledge that meanings will change overtime, just as it seems to have come to mean a fish. So we wanted people to know what we meant by that statement, and EVERY other statement in our book (just in case.) So we started reading the book to people, and since it was fresh common news that Lincoln meant a violent/morbid play, everyone already knew, there was NO NEED for interpretations. But years and years later, people looked at that statement and decided it must mean a fish, because there was no one to explain to them otherwise. But when it was written down it was talking about a morbid/violent play/theater performance.
Now I'm not asking you to read and understand that book, frankly I don't care if you do or not, but if you plan on it, I expect you to know what it's talking about. Assuming you even want to understand it, and you seem to want to understand it otherwise you wouldn't have founded a whole fishing group based on Lincoln fishes, which frankly have nothing to do with this book, even though you say it does.
Christian: Are you calling me stupid?
Jew: If that's how you saw it and hereby perceive yourself, then let it be.
Come along my friend, let me be your teacher.

Note: Here’s another view on the "Puzzle" subject.

You say that interpretations ruin the whole thing. You say that you don't like it when there are interpretations for something, you say you rather there be a puzzle for you to figure out, no answers.
Do you not like it that your parents or guardians taught you how to read books? Do you not like it that you were taught how to speak? So didn't they all ruin the puzzle for you? ACCORDING TO YOU we should be born and be taken care of and everything, but not be spoken to or anything of that sort, no verbal, facial, bodily, or writen communication whatsoever.

I guess all the little children should live in the dark.

How did you learn to talk, Bob? Your first language, I mean, your original language. Was it from a book? Or was it from listening to the people around you talking? I listened to the people around me of course.
I was given the mishna of language at a very young age, it was verbal communication being passed down from generation to generation. And of course, the Mishna is verbal.
None of us learn from books....or if they do it's probably 0.0001% of the population.
But here's the kapdranish, to read a book you need to know how to speak the language. The language is an interpretation of the book.

When you tried to explain things one way, and I pointed out a possible flaw in the Mishna's reasoning, you backpedaled and went down a completely different path. What are you talking about?! I don't even have a bike! And I've never backpedaled on a bike in all my life, especially down another trail.
I need a mishna for this statement. I can interpret it anyway I want to, but I need something concrete. I need something concrete enough to explain to me exactly what you meant by that statement. Give me a mishna telling me what: pedaling on a bike means.

Either you don't know enough about the Mishna to carefully blend the visions together, or the Mishna itself is flawed and you were too busy defending it to give a clear picture of what it is.

And on another angle, I should point out that I interpret the texts themselves, not the vague explanations given me by others. Hey! I did that just now. Right on! We both believe in literal interpretations. :lol:

A book is a concrete thing. The word, "Live!" is an example - I don't try to guess whether it's there or not, but if I see it, I will interpret from the context whether it means, "Unrecorded, shot as it is being broadcast," or "Go out and experience life." What if the book that had this word, life, had a interpretation on the bottom of the page?

-and you didn't exactly answer me for the Thomas thing.
Again, why do you consider Thomas irrelevant, when you consider the rest of the Gospels relevant? They all have the same chance of being right. It's actually considered prejudice to not except Thomas's gospel, but everyone else's gospels.

-I'll admit, Jesus raising from the dead of his own volition is a strong point. Let me think about it for a while. I'll answer you soon enough.

The Christian view: We're right, they're wrong.

The new sect's view: We're right, they're wrong.

The Judiast's view: You're both wrong.
Actual scenario in this context.
Christian: I'm right, they're wrong.
New sect: No, I'm right they're wrong
Jew: In this particular argument I'd have to say that the Christian person is right. The cross symbolizes love and humility, just as the Christians say, after all, it's Christian dogma, they should know. But this new sect has it wrong, the original meaning is love humility and etc.
I'll side with the Christians on this one...I mean they invented this religion...they know what they're talking about not this new sect.

THESE WORDS CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD BY MORTAL MEN. TO ATTEMPT TO READ THEM WOULD DESTROY YOUR PUNY MIND IN AN INSTANT. Why'd there be any Torah at all? G-d probably wants us to grow learn and understand.

I saw a door, in hell with "beatnick Bob" and when I opened the door enormous amounts of all kinds of porno, spilled out. AHA! It wasn't me! My screen name is Beatnik Bob, NOT Beatnick Bob. Thus the door was wrong with its spelling, thus not me.

Also, you are aware that my name isn't Bob, and that I'm not necessarily a beatnik....though I do like ganja... :nudge:

Not to mention that your dream is wrong.....1. I am currently still on Earth, no where near hell. 2. If I were that much of a masturbator I wouldn't be debating with any of you guys.
And for Foelhe's sake, as well as yours Cherisa, note: no literal interpretation intended, by guys I refered to the people on this forum, not that you are all male.

In an argument I forget my own name I hang my head in embarrassment for you.
Hey, taste your own medicine? Have fun with it Cherisa.

I was being snarky. What? You were snarky? What is that suppose to mean exactly? I never understand these strange phrases, like making fun what's that suppose to mean? I mean I know, but I don't get it.
Wait a second.....I'm suppost to be interpreting all this LITERALLY, sorry Foelhe, I forgot. We need to interpret exactly what the phrases mean (whatever that is).

Ok, so you were acting snarky? DAMN! It's flipin' hard to do anything without a mishna. What does that mean? Oh well...I shall interpret it....Oh MY GOD FOELHE! You did NOT just say that. On top of being racist, it was obscene and degrading of my religion! That's it, I've had enough of you Foelhe! The debate ends here!
:rolling:

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 21st, 2005, 10:32 PM

*rolls eyes*

Bob, the entire problem with your switching around my lobster argument is that you're ASSUMING YOU ARE RIGHT. AGAIN.

Now, I want you to read the following slowly, and see if you can figure out what I'm saying:

You do not know if the Mishna is right. Just because you believe the Mishna is right doesn't mean it is. Christians believe the Mishna is wrong. They could be right in this. So, it is not fair of you to insult them because you disagree with them.

Are we clear? I hope so, because you're beginning to sound like a fundamentalist.

Do you not like it that your parents or guardians taught you how to read books? Do you not like it that you were taught how to speak? So didn't they all ruin the puzzle for you? ACCORDING TO YOU we should be born and be taken care of and everything, but not be spoken to or anything of that sort, no verbal, facial, bodily, or writen communication whatsoever.

How do you think I learned to speak? Do you think my parents reached into my mouth and moved my tongue and jaw around while I breathed out? Or even said, "No, hon, you need to make the back of your throat vibrate more"? No, I listened to the sound they made and I tried to mimic it. That's taking the evidence and using it to reach a hypothesis - in this case, how to speak.

I listened to the people around me of course.
I was given the mishna of language at a very young age, it was verbal communication being passed down from generation to generation. And of course, the Mishna is verbal.

Agh! Stupid! *thwaps himself* I should've known you were going to take that literally.

Let me explain. When you learned to talk, you learned from people around you speaking. And you know what sort've clues you got that a certain word meant a certain thing? Context. Your parents used a context to refer to your mother as "Mommy", and eventually you learned that word was connected to that person.

Now, what I should've originally said to make things clearer - the Torah is the context. The Mishna is the dictionary. Since we've covered speech - what did you use to learn to read? A storybook (where the words are in context) or a dictionary (where the words are clearly defined)?

What are you talking about?! I don't even have a bike! And I've never backpedaled on a bike in all my life, especially down another trail.
I need a mishna for this statement. I can interpret it anyway I want to, but I need something concrete. I need something concrete enough to explain to me exactly what you meant by that statement. Give me a mishna telling me what: pedaling on a bike means.

.... Seeing as how I didn't actually say "on a bike", that would be a mighty silly thing to define.

As for defining "backpedaling", from dictionary.com -

1. To move the pedals of a bicycle or similar vehicle backward, especially to apply a brake.
2. To move backward by taking short quick steps, as in boxing or football.
3. To retreat or withdraw from a position or attitude: The senator later backpedaled on the issue.

There's your Mishna. Now, which one did I use here? Why don't you figure it out from the CONTEXT?

(Oh, I didn't fall for your dodge, if that's what you're wondering. But in any case, here ya go.)

Hey! I did that just now. Right on! We both believe in literal interpretations.

... I don't have the slightest clue what you're going on about. I'm not even sure if you're baiting me. Please explain yourself.

What if the book that had this word, life, had a interpretation on the bottom of the page?

The word is "live". Very important distinction in this context.

If the book had a definition, it would depend on the context. If the meaning was obvious, I would ignore the definition (Well, I would read it, because I'm a compulsive reader. But otherwise...). If the meaning wasn't clear, I'd check the definition. If I was pretty sure the meaning was one thing, and then the definition didn't fit that (Ex: "You should live life the way it's meant to be lived" with the definition "live - broadcast while filming") then I would assume the definition was erroneous and go with the context.

Again, why do you consider Thomas irrelevant, when you consider the rest of the Gospels relevant? They all have the same chance of being right. It's actually considered prejudice to not except Thomas's gospel, but everyone else's gospels.

Not if he's wrong and everyone else is right. It's not considered "prejudice" to take the word of an honest man over the word of a compulsive liar - just good sense. And no, I'm not saying Thomas was a compulsive liar. I'm saying it's only normal to say, "I believe her, but I don't believe him." People have to discern what they believe is true, and what they don't. Otherwise we'd have to accept everything everyone told us, and we'd all be Christian-Judaist-Muslim-Wiccan-Hinduist-atheists, and we'd all go insane from the internal contradictions.

Why'd there be any Torah at all? G-d probably wants us to grow learn and understand.

Well, I was kidding about that quote from God. What I meant to get across was that God isn't really speaking up on this particular issue, so we have to make our own decisions and hope they don't piss him off too badly.

I'll side with the Christians on this one...I mean they invented this religion...they know what they're talking about not this new sect.

... Fair enough. I sort've assumed this new group had a different theology, possibly spurred by a vision of God. If a bunch of people just decided to change the meaning of the cross for no real reason other than "We like sex", then yes, I'd roll my eyes and consider them fools.

Ok, so you were acting snarky? DAMN! It's flipin' hard to do anything without a mishna. What does that mean? Oh well...I shall interpret it....Oh MY GOD FOELHE! You did NOT just say that. On top of being racist, it was obscene and degrading of my religion! That's it, I've had enough of you Foelhe! The debate ends here!

*snrk*

Of course, the problem with that particular argument is that you're jumping to conclusions. Which doesn't mean some people don't do that, but frankly I'm not obligated to care if they do. In this case, your "interpretation" was made with little evidence one way or the other. I doubt someone who jumped to a conclusion that fast would bother to look it up in the dictionary. 'S a moot point.

Beatnik Bob

Dec 22nd, 2005, 3:51 PM

I refuse to give a legitimate response to your post.

Because your post is explaining your point of view....explaining your point of view....explaining your point of view....explaining your point of view...explaining, explaining, explaining, explaining...

And you are debating for Christianity at the moment....and Christians don't believe in interpretations...especially ones made by the writers of the book/speach/facial expression.

Thus I shall ignore your explanations.

*sighs* sorry, couldn't help myself on this one...call it lack of self control if you like.

You do not know if the Mishna is right. Just because you believe the Mishna is right doesn't mean it is. Christians believe the Mishna is wrong. They could be right in this. So, it is not fair of you to insult them because you disagree with them. No one ever said that you had to be Christian/Muslim/etc.
Frankly I don't care whether you are a mono-theist or a poly-theist. I just don't care!
But if you plan on following our Torah....you might as well actually follow our Torah. I'd say that's pretty self explanatory.

Just as with the new sect not knowing what the cross is, the Christians don't understand what the Torah says.
The new sect thaught the cross stood for sex, masturbation, and porn. The cross actually stands for love, humility, and compassion.
The Christians thaught the tree in the garden of eden stood for a tree in the garden of eden. But just as the cross really symbolizes love & peace, the tree stood for understanding. Like the emotion. Not a tree in a garden symbolising understanding... just the understanding of humanity.

-Foelhe, who wrote the story [I]The Man Who Shared His Hut?

-Why do you see the Kenyan interpretation of the story as wrong?

-Are you aware that the Kenyans wrote that story, and at the time everyone knew what it meant, but not everyone TODAY would know what it meant. But the Kenyans still know what that story is really talking about.

-You cannot honestly tell me that you know what that story refers to just by looking at the way they use it.

-Seriously, why do you think the Christians don't accept the Mishna. Why is it irrelevent?

-Are you aware that Jews wrote the Torah?

I'll talk to ya later. And I'll answer the rest of your post after you see what I was getting at.

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:49 PM

I refuse to give a legitimate response to your post.

Because your post is explaining your point of view....explaining your point of view....explaining your point of view....explaining your point of view...explaining, explaining, explaining, explaining...

And you are debating for Christianity at the moment....and Christians don't believe in interpretations...especially ones made by the writers of the book/speach/facial expression.

... Huh? Did you not just say, a few post ago, that you didn't care what Christians said, but what the NT did?

The truth is, I'm not arguing for Christianity's view of the universe in this day and age. I've stated several times, on this thread and others, that I don't agree with much of mainstream Christianity's thought process. What I am arguing is twofold - whether it is possible for Jesus to have been the messiah, and whether it is possible to believe the Torah and not the Mishna. These are two different things entirely.

And as a point of contention, some Christians do believe in interpretations.

(I'm also curious as to why you choose to bring this up NOW. Most of my arguments from last post were logical extentions of our continuing arguments. I hope you won't be horribly offended if I find this a mite fishy.)

But if you plan on following our Torah....you might as well actually follow our Torah. I'd say that's pretty self explanatory.

The Torah and the Mishna are two different things. You argue that the Mishna is a "part" of the Torah, but there's an obvious rift - the Torah is a book, the Mishna is an oral code.

It is POSSIBLE that the Torah is correct, but the Mishna is not. Or that parts of the Mishna are correct, but others are wrong... if the explanation of Hebrew is right, but the explanation of the Torah is wrong, for example.

So, it is completely reasonable for a religion (in this case, Christianity) to accept the Torah, but not accept the Mishna.

Why do you see the Kenyan interpretation of the story as wrong?

I never said I did. You're trying to say that because I accept the Kenyan story as a metaphor, I have to accept the Mishna as a metaphor. Of course, that's illogical - if I shoot a rapist attacking a woman, and the courts find me not guilty, then by your argument they should find everyone who shoots anyone else not guilty.

Seriously, why do you think the Christians don't accept the Mishna. Why is it irrelevent?

Why is anything relevant or irrelevent? I think building a family is relevant, but building a fortune is irrelevant. Of course, there are some people out there who think exactly the opposite. Why? I guess that's between us and God.

Are you aware that Jews wrote the Torah?

And slaveowners signed the Declaration of Independance. Your point?

Look at it from the view of HaShem. You believe men are partly of God, and partly not, correct? Did it ever occur to you that Judaism might be the same way? Partly inspired by God (Torah), partly not (Mishna)?

Panda

Dec 29th, 2005, 12:16 PM

obviously Satan is powerefull in the Christian view,

I personally believe that Satan is an entity of power in Christianity because how else can you control the peasants without the fear of eternal damnation?

(Please note I am talking about the somewhat corrupted Christianity of the Middle Ages, not Christianity as a whole. The only objection I have to Christianity is those people who manipulate it to their own ends.)

Beatnik Bob

Jan 4th, 2006, 2:30 AM

Sorry for the delay...been bussy lately.

Huh? Did you not just say, a few post ago, that you didn't care what Christians said, but what the NT did Say what? I did?
This might be another context thing.

the Torah and not the Mishna. These are two different things entirely. How so? And don't say because one's oral and ones written, I mean a difference that really counts.

it is possible for Jesus to have been the messiah Don't get me wrong Jesus is deffinately the messiah, this jesus-myth was deffinately chosen by someone to be the symbol of a religion.

Wait a second...thats GREAT!
Notice how I interpreted that literaly? Messiah literaly means 'anointed one' like with oil or something...chosen...And weren't you talking about a fundamentalist literal interpretation of the Torah?
Anyway...Over time messiah has come to mean many things...a few thousand years ago it meant a priest/king that was anointed by oil. It also meant a deliverer like Moses. Messiah came to mean a prophet as well. And most recently messiah has come to mean someone chosen by G-d.

Look at this sentence: he was a great messiah.
Now, I need a mishna that explains what kind of messiah this is reffering to. Even looking at the context I really don't know.

Of course, that's illogical - if I shoot a rapist attacking a woman, and the courts find me not guilty, then by your argument they should find everyone who shoots anyone else not guilty. ... ... I don't know how you come to these crazy conclusions...you have some of the...most interesting analogies I've every seen...very strange...in fact, (this one in particular) hardly even fit the argument at hand...

By my argument if you shoot a rapist attacking a woman and the courts find you not guilty, then if someone else shoots a rapist attacking a woman he/she should be found not guilty.

And slaveowners signed the Declaration of Independance. Your point? Jews didn't sign the Torah you...special child, they wrote it!

Look at it from the view of HaShem. You believe men are partly of God, and partly not, correct? Did it ever occur to you that Judaism might be the same way? Partly inspired by God (Torah), partly not (Mishna)?

This example is one of the worst you've thrown at me....it could just as easily be the other way around....

I hope you won't be horribly offended if I find this a mite fishy What? Fishy? What kind of silly word is that?
*sigh* You poor paranoid trout...

Ok, back to the ressurection thing.
Many Jews don't believe that a person named Jesus even existed. "He" symbolises Israel, the 'Son of God'....Israel all over....humanity all over....messiah all over....

In our religion Jesus is the son of G-d. Son of G-d is the title given to a messiah. Son of G-d is a plural term. Israel is also a term given to a messiah, the label given to those that make up the community of Jews, known as 'Israel.' (G-d calls Israel his chosen people in Exodus).
So Jesus is Israel....Israel flourished, spread wisdom....was a whole thing of Jews that made the Torah and a way of life....but Israel died....and has been dead for a very long time, scattered Jews trying to make ends meet...a broken people.
But guess what daddy! Israel rose from the dead, you can look at any world globe and see Israel right there bordering the mediterranean.

Christians don't follow the Torah...and Jews don't believe Jesus even existed.
I'm trying to prove to you that the mishna is the Torah....so why don't you try to prove to me that Jesus is an actual human and isn't the son of G-d.

It's actually a reacuring theme in Judaism to use people to symbolise ideas or other things. We use an evil entity to symbolize satan, which means evil inclination of humans (says so in any hebrew dictionary). And we use the term "He" to describe G-d, because "He" symbolises compation in this case.

Just fealt like saying this though, you know how literal Christians read things?
When it talks about the cock crowing when Jesus is betrayed...they think it's a damn chicken, though it's most likely is one of those people that sit in a town and crow out "Nine o'clock in the evening", or something like that. They're reffered to as cocks....
So much for context.

Do you even know how the Torah is written? There are no vowels, no indentation, no punctuation.
Hebrew words have little markings under the words that symbolise vowels. For instance, to write 'rah' I'd draw a resh, and put a line under it, the Resh letter is the 'r' sound, and the line is the 'ah' sound. But in the Torah there is no line under Resh, or under any other letter for that matter.
The Torah is literally writen like this: HLL HWS LF TDY. Y SNF TH SKS FLH.
And you know....that gets pretty hard to understand...you need a mishna....some meaning passed down through the generations. Even context can't always help you out.

Did you know that in many parts in the Torah, just by context it seems like Jews worships many gods. Many of the parts are really confusing for people.

Really, it's almost just the mishna alone that shows we even worship one G-d.

And now I shall end with a song...

I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping
While my guitar gently weeps
I look at the floor and see it needs sweeping
Still my guitar gently weeps
I don't know why nobody told you how to unfold your love
I don't know how someone controlled you
They baught and sold you.

I look at the world and notice it's turning
While my guitar gently weeps
With every mistake we must surely be learning
Still my guitar gently weeps
I don't know how you were diverted
You were perverted too
I don't know how you were inverted
No one alerted you.

I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping
While my guitar gently weeps
I look at you all . . .
Still my guitar gently weeps.

(didn't know George cared that much about dirty floors.....I suppose we have to take him literaly :evlol:)

Beatnik Bob

Jan 8th, 2006, 5:33 PM

Note: I didn't feel there was much importance in your penultimate post in this thread.

Beatnik Bob

Jan 13th, 2006, 4:09 PM

PLEASE RESPOND FOELHE!

Also I have another point.

This might conflict with what I've previously said, but listen to it anyway.

Think about this.
I'm sure we can all agree that fundamentalism isn't always good. It's necessary in some casses but not all, and the practitioners are often hostile and violent, thus recieving a bad name, turning "fundamentalist" into an insult.
But suppose you thaught about the real message of the Mishna. The real message is, "One cannot always be literal with the Torah, there are so many other ways to see things."
Fundamentalism is basically one idea of interpretation...excluding all others. So if you acknowledged a mishna, it would give you more of a choice. But in fundamentalism there is NO choice...except the one of, "Except Jesus or die and go to hell and suffer!"
See my point?

Also, back to the dictionary idea.
The mishna IS edited. Although it might have been 1000 years ago, it was still edited. Edited by Hillel, Maimonides, Vitry, etc.
I've noticed that the people that do well are the people that move on and advance. I can tell you now that fundamentalism has no room for advancement. For Christians and Jews alike.
Think about it. Have you ever been to a Jewish Orthadox synagogue? Probobly not, but I can tell you this: They sit in seperated pews (the sexes), grow sidelocks, and perform keshrut to the point of not even touching pig meat.
These people aren't going to go anywhere, they aren't going to move on, reinterpret the Torah to fit daily life or anything. Wouldn't surprise me if they go looking for the meeting tent when they get a rash ( :D ). But really, Jewish fundamentalists live in a world from 2500 years ago, and it isn't helping their progression.
For example, when you think of the greatest countries in the world you think of the UK, China, India, Australia, USA, Pakistan. But no one thinks about countries with people that use a wooden plow to get their crops. A country that has a trained army that goes out and hunts elephants to keep their people alive, and etc. These societies just don't progress, and no one even admires or aspires to be like them. They're stuck in 2000 years ago, as are fundamentalists.
We rely on the changing of the Torah...or our basic ideologies as humans. But still keeping the basic idea. Even scientists come up with theories that replace old ones. How far would we all progress when we still thaught humans were the center of the solar system and the universe? We would get nowhere!

So here I've given you two arguments on either side.

But seriously, RESPOND.

Philosopher Foelhe

Jan 14th, 2006, 1:12 AM

jeffweeder

Jan 14th, 2006, 1:21 AM

so so so good pf, some very good quotes and reasonings, spot on

Beatnik Bob

Jan 14th, 2006, 5:36 PM

Sorry I've taken so long to respond to this. I was a little frustrated with some of the questions you've asked, to be honest. I feel like I've covered them already, and I'm not sure if I can explain them any clearer. But I will give it a shot, and see what develops. Misunderstanding then...I felt you weren't giving me a good answer. But thanks for the response.

How about this - Christians believe the Torah is real, but the Mishna is a friendly fiction. Since Christianity is one of the major religions at this time, I'd say that's a difference that really counts. Majority is out of the question here. We all know that the majority can be miserably wrong. Felt I had to establish this first.
Seriously, that still isn't a difference. Prove to me they're different.
All the Torah is is a pile of words until it is translated...
When we think of Torah, a picture of a book might pop up in our head, but what we REALLY think about is what the Torah tells us and what the Torah says to us, not a heep of parchment pages.
Prove to me that all the Torah is, is a heep of words with no meaning at all and I'll take you seriously.

I don't know what your definition is of what "really counts" Something legitimate other than one's oral and one's writen. Because if you think about it written is also oral, and oral is also written.

To look at it from another light - what's the difference between the Torah and the New Testament? The Torah describes the laws we should follow, that we should worship ONE G-d and no idols and humans or animals.
The NT supposedly describes Jesus as worthy of worship, and it talks about the end of the world.

Say, where does the NT specifically/explicitly say Jesus is the one G-d?
And don't say what you said last time which was, "The Bible doesn't really explicitly say anything." Because you yourself said the NT is its own mishna, so it is suppost to explicitly say everything. Where does it say you should worship Jesus? Where does it say these things

Why? Because they're both virtually the same thing.
We have a Torah, and we know how to understand it. The Kenyans have a The Man Who Shared His Hut (Torah), and they know what it really means(mishna).
So if you shot a rapist raping a woman and the courts found you not guilty, then if someone else shot a rapist raping a woman, they should be found not guilty.

Alternative answer: I thought God wrote the Torah.
Yeah, G-d wrote the Torah but he wrote it so people could understand it, specifically Hebrews/Jews. G-d apparently wrote it in Hebrew. And Hebrew is a completely different writing system than all...all the existing written and spoken languages. Hebrew isn't even read the same way, or written the same way.
For example, in English if I wanted to talk about a cat and its exact point in space and time, I'd say, "The cat was sitting on the window sill as the boy left for school."
Now Hebrew wouldn't even write it in this manner, in fact it's very hard for me to describe how they write, but here goes. "Every building in the town was white." And, "the cat sat on the window sill looking at the houses."
Hebrew goes like this, if it refers to something somewhere else, then it is referring to something later on. No linear stuff.

Ok, so G-d wrote the Torah, but it was Hebrew. And the main languages spoken in the world today are Mandarin, Spanish, English, French, (and maybe Arabic, I'm not sure). But Hebrew isn't on that list unfortunately, and most of the world can't really understand the Torah, so there is a mishna.
Plus, Jews believe the real Torah should be in our hearts, we shouldn't even need to carry around a scroll/book.
Also, I wanted to go on a historical view by saying Jews wrote the Torah. Since you went on a historical answer that apostles didn't write the Gospel of Thomas.

I do find it rather strange that you failed to pick up one of my points for the mishna validity. I'll repeat myself...

Do you even know how the Torah is written? There are no vowels, no indentation, no punctuation.
Hebrew words have little markings under the words that symbolize vowels. For instance, to write 'rah' I'd draw a resh, and put a line under it, the Resh letter is the 'r' sound, and the line is the 'ah' sound. But in the Torah there is no line under Resh, or under any other letter for that matter.
The Torah is literally written like this: HLL HWS LF TDY Y SNF TH SKS FLH BT WR HVNG GD DBT
And you know....that gets pretty hard to understand...you need a mishna....some meaning passed down through the generations. Even context can't always help you out.

Did you know that in many parts in the Torah, just by context it seems like Jews worships many gods. Many of the parts are really confusing for people.
When people went out to interpret the Torah they went on the assumption that we worship one G-d...which is said only in the mishna.
Without a mishna people would think Israel is actually an apple orchard, or rainbow.

Really, it's almost just the mishna alone that shows we even worship one G-d.

I don't know why you keep getting confused on this point. You say, "There's a certainty that..." I say, "That's not certain." You say, "Why isn't it certain?" I say, "Well, there's a possibility that..." You say, "Yes, but that's not certain." Of course, I never said it was certain in the first place. The mind boggles and tries to kill itself. Don't give me that lame crap. We both use a dialogue like that.

Let me try to explain this simply. You are decrying Christianity. Why? Because you are CERTAIN that it is wrong. But think about why I think it's wrong. They worship a man as G-d, which we are told to explicitly not do in Deuteronomy, and Christians supposedly follow the Torah.

The only way you can be CERTAIN something is right is if ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES have been ruled out. Okay? You're slicing one of your past arguments. You said that we believe the Torah is written by G-d from faith. But there is a possibility that the Torah was written wholly by Jews. There's also a possibility that there's no such thing as G-d.
And by this argument Jake is the messiah. If he has a computer chip in his brain, chosen by G-d, and is genetically modified, there is no argument to prove he isn't a special child born to help people.

As you are making the claim that Christianity isn't true, as you are the one which started this discussion, you must defend your theory. So, explain it to me, Bob. I have suggested that perhaps parts of the Mishna have been inspired by God, but other parts are guesses by people who felt the need to fill in the blanks. Why, pray tell, is it that this CANNOT be true? Foelhe. How did you learn to speak? Did you learn to speak as a child from hearing people around you? Or did you have a micro-chip placed in your head as a child that enabled you automatically to all the information known by man? I'm guessing you grew up hearing words and sounds and gradually knowing what they meant. Keep this in mind as I go on to the real example.

How do you know that the sounds 'c' 'a' 't' put together symbolizes the furry animal that has whiskers and is constantly grooming itself.
You know because someone ultimately told you. We must assume you were told because science says newborn babies don't know what words mean the moment they're born. Keep this in mind as I move on.
Now, who invented this word you may ask. No one really knows WHO invented this word, and frankly this example I'm giving doesn't require that we know exactly who wrote this word, only that it was invented. But we can all agree that when it was written a certain group of people called, English, knew exactly what it meant, and passed the meaning down through the generations. And today, if I said, "Cat" you'd say, that refers to a four legged animal with fur and a tail. And I might ask, "How do you know?" And you most likely would say, "Because it was passed down and everyone knows what it means when it was invented, we know what the inventor meant by the letters C, A, T, because we have an oral tradition of words and meanings being passed down."

Now I don't think it shouldn't be too hard for you to apply this to the Mishna and the Torah.
If you can't, let me know.

Beatnik Bob

Jan 14th, 2006, 5:37 PM

So, let me see if I've got this right. You believe it's wise to consider the interpretations of many viewpoints, yes? Well as long as it keeps the basic ideas.

But on AO, you've called Christians idolators and refused to believe that they might have the proper view of things. Because your Mishna says it's wrong, you refuse to acknowledge their interpretation. Much like a fundamentalist refuses the interpretations of others. What I dislike about Christians is not that they think differently, but because they distort, bend, and destroy.
Christians are destroying the essence of the Torah.
The essence of the Torah are laws like this, Thou shall worship one G-d. Thou shall not worship man, woman, beast, fowl, fish, etc. Thou shall not murder, etc. These are the things that should stay the same for Torah followers throughout the ages. But Christians worship a man, and many worship G-d AND Jesus. I know quite a few Christians that think they are different people entirely. One is quite old, and the other is about 30.
I accept many Christian interpretations, but not always the Christian ideas and way of life themselves, as they worship Jesus which goes against the Torah, not necessarily the mishna only.

And you're sure every single person who edited the Mishna is completely trustworthy? Please consider the effect of free will in your take on this situation. 1. I have proved that the mishna is like a dictionary, proving its validity, whether the interpretations are true or not.
2. We would now if they interpreted it falsely. Think about it, all they're doing is aplying Torah to modern life.
Basically this is what they are doing. It says in the Torah to go to the meeting tent if you have a yellowish rash, so the leaders can decide if they should put you in quarantine or not. And they've translated it to, if you have a yellowish rash, go see your doctor, who will decide if you should go to the hospital or not.
We would know it was wrong if the guy interpreted it to say, "If you have a yellowish rash, go into a cave and lie on the floor and let the bats crap on you until you are cured.

So, how can we be sure that the Mishna didn't miss an edit around the time of Jesus' death? And keep in mind that the books at the time were watched by the Pharisees, who didn't much like Jesus. Then by all means, why doesn't the Talmud say to specifically hate Jesus and not follow him?
Really, there's not much the Pharisees can do about it. Most Jews didn't agree, and disliked Maimonides for some of his writings...but they were still written.
The pharisees never had as much power as you seem to believe.
If the pharisees had that much influence, how come the NT managed to come into being?

But if this is the message of God, how on Earth can we puny mortals attempt to improve on the original manuscript? That's like saying, how can we, small humans, ever hope to affect or change anything on Earth.
Humans are always trying to sound innocent, and then really powerful when it comes to our position in the universe.
We're always saying things are beyond our control. Saying that we are the victims in evolution, changing helplessly, saying we are victims of religion, saying if we don't believe in something we go to hell, it's just so typical and stupid!

Humans are always changing society. Fashions go in and out. Inventions come and go.
We are merely doing G-d a favor by bringing G-d's Torah up to date. Applying it to the world around us. How far would we really get if we followed a routine of life that is 3000 years old? Nowhere!

Philosopher Foelhe

Jan 15th, 2006, 2:01 AM

Seriously, that still isn't a difference. Prove to me they're different.

How? If you found a science textbook from the '50s, you probably wouldn't be able to tell me what the difference was between the theories that still stand today, or the theories that fell by the way-side as time moved on. Unless you had a firm grasp of the theories we have now. And even then, could you point out any major differences between how the texts are stated?

Besides, I can say, "My neighbor is from Mexico," and "My neighbor is from Germany." Does that mean both are true, or both aren't? No? Then show me the difference between the two phrases.

Something legitimate other than one's oral and one's writen.

See, same situation. What does "legitimate" mean? Who defines "legitimate"?

The Torah describes the laws we should follow, that we should worship ONE G-d and no idols and humans or animals.
The NT supposedly describes Jesus as worthy of worship, and it talks about the end of the world.

The NT also describes the laws we should follow, Jesus talks about the ONE god and worships him.

If Jesus is a part of God/the doorway to God, then we're still worshipping ONE God. I don't think the end of the world is all that relevant, since the Torah never says that the Earth will last forever. It's not a contradiction, but prehaps an extention of the Torah, much the way you consider the Mishna an extention of the Torah.

Because they're both virtually the same thing.

Actually, the thing that's missing is the only thing that matters - motive.

The Man Who Shares His Hut is recently written, historically, and the motive of the tale being told hasn't disappeared - we can look into history and see that this tale is meant to decry England's invasion. Likewise, we look at the man who killed a rapist, and we see his motive clearly - he was defending someone else.

The Mishna, on the other hand, is so old that no one knows why it was written anymore. Oh, we have our theories - your theory is that it was written by the power of God to explain the Torah. But it could've also been written by the rabbi's at the time, because their students were making radical theories they disagreed with. So they wrote a Mishna, called it "holy writ" and squashed the rebellious students. Much like the other killers in my example - we don't know why we killed that guy, so we shouldn't just assume that he's a harmless old coot and send him home. Or rather, that he was in the right.

Hebrew words have little markings under the words that symbolize vowels. For instance, to write 'rah' I'd draw a resh, and put a line under it, the Resh letter is the 'r' sound, and the line is the 'ah' sound. But in the Torah there is no line under Resh, or under any other letter for that matter.
The Torah is literally written like this: HLL HWS LF TDY Y SNF TH SKS FLH BT WR HVNG GD DBT
And you know....that gets pretty hard to understand...you need a mishna....some meaning passed down through the generations. Even context can't always help you out.

Right, which is why I specified that parts of the Mishna could be true, but parts could be wrong. Of course, it's possible the Mishna is largely a work of code-breaking, someone going through and placing vowel sounds where they made the most sense, until they thought they had the full picture. But that's unlikely. Here's one possibility as to what really happened:

The rabbi's of the time (as I suggested earlier) were upset because of all the upstart students with their radical new ideas and nonsense. So they made up a code of what the Torah really meant, and told their charges about it. Students respond, "How do we know that's true?" Rabbi's say, "It's a part of the Mishna." Students consider the Mishna divine, so they can't question it, so they fall in line.

I'm sure you have a thousand problems with this example, but the point I'm trying to make is that there are other possible reasons the translation of the Torah are grouped together with the explanation of the Torah. And not all of them necessarily include a deity.

Don't give me that lame crap. We both use a dialogue like that.

You're right, we do. And if you pay attention to that dialogue, you'll note that our approach sounds similar. But the problem is in our stances. You are trying to PROVE that Christianity isn't true. I am trying to SUGGEST the POSSIBILITY that Christianity is.

In other words - I don't have to show that anything I say is necessarily true. I just have to show that it's theoretically possible. You have to show that everything you say is absolutely true, because you're trying to prove your view is the only logical choice. So following up on one of my theoretical possibilities with, "Prove it," is a waste of our time. Proving it is not my job - it's yours.

But think about why I think it's wrong. They worship a man as G-d, which we are told to explicitly not do in Deuteronomy, and Christians supposedly follow the Torah.

Book'n'verse me, Bob.

You're slicing one of your past arguments. You said that we believe the Torah is written by G-d from faith. But there is a possibility that the Torah was written wholly by Jews. There's also a possibility that there's no such thing as G-d.

Here we see the difference between "emotional certainty" and "logical certainty". You are emotionally certain that the Torah and Mishna are holy writ. But I'm willing to take a leap of faith ( :D ) and say you aren't logically certain of that fact. Or, if you think you are, that you can't prove it.

Belief in god, or belief in gods, or belief in lack-of-a-god, are not logical certainty. They're faith. They don't really have much to do with logical inquiry, because there's no way to logically approach the problem, except in a sort've half-assed way.

How do you know that the sounds 'c' 'a' 't' put together symbolizes the furry animal that has whiskers and is constantly grooming itself.
You know because someone ultimately told you. We must assume you were told because science says newborn babies don't know what words mean the moment they're born.

... Idiotic example. Sorry. But idiotic example.

Words are defined by people. Right? If my friends and I make up a secret language, and decide that "ziggo" means "cat", then the word "ziggo" means "cat". Maybe not to many people, but that symbol is now a new meaning for that furry animal in your example.

God, on the other hand, is defined by God (Or gods, or lack-of-god). We can all sit here and say what we think about what God is, we can write books and holy writ about who God is, but in the end, the only people who are spot-on are the people who, well, guessed right.

... Hell, if anything, your example supports my theory whole-heartedly. I suggested that parts of the Mishna were wrong. Has anyone here had to deal with some absolute friggin' moron who won't stop saying "irregardless"? Or who thinks "bemused" means "amused"? (Jackasses, the lot of them. Anyway...) What if the parts of the Mishna that decry Jesus are the "irregardless" of religion? Eh? Eh?

Well as long as it keeps the basic ideas.

Translation: "Feel free to question what you believe, so long as you don't disagree with what I believe."

Sorry, to sound harsh, Bob, but I've met plenty of fundamentalists who said much the same thing, "It's alright to question parts of religion, but you should never contradict the core of religion." Of course, the "core" always contained whatever they were decrying.

I know quite a few Christians that think they are different people entirely. One is quite old, and the other is about 30.

... Okay, so what? Two people who possibly have the wrong idea? If every religion on earth got screwed over because two members of their group had the wrong idea about the god involved, I doubt there'd be a single church, synagogue or otherwise standing on the face on the planet.

I have proved that the mishna is like a dictionary, proving its validity, whether the interpretations are true or not.

So many answers... cannot pick one...

1) And if it's a dictionary riddled with typos and mistakes? What then?

2) It might be a dictionary for the Judaist religion, but do I really have to explain the difference between religion and God?

3) Wha?! Since when did you prove this?

Beatnik Bob

Jan 26th, 2006, 9:46 PM

How? If you found a science textbook from the '50s, you probably wouldn't be able to tell me what the difference was between the theories that still stand today, or the theories that fell by the way-side as time moved on. Unless you had a firm grasp of the theories we have now. And even then, could you point out any major differences between how the texts are stated? ... ..... Can you restate the question/statement by any chance?

Besides, I can say, "My neighbor is from Mexico," and "My neighbor is from Germany." Does that mean both are true, or both aren't? No? Then show me the difference between the two phrases. This might just be my opinion but this is a mostly religious debate. You yourself pointed out that we really can't prove things in religion. I'll admit it, i cant prove that Abraham ever existed, or that a set of stone tablets were made at sinai, i just cant prove it!
Religioun is a form of ideology that firmly relies on faith...
So, as me and you (note: the you symbolising christinity) a "christian" and a jew, we both must rely on faith more than actual proof.

For the time being, that statement of "my neibor is from Mexico/Germany" is the proof. It must be accepted as proof until further evidence proves it isn't.

Inocent until proven guilty. True until proven false.

See, same situation. What does "legitimate" mean? Who defines "legitimate"? Something more rock or concrete...better...obvious... makes enough sense to be seen as a form of truth.

The NT also describes the laws we should follow, Jesus talks about the ONE god and worships him. It is considered blasthemous by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike to worship ones self.
Jesus worships the one true G-d? And he is G-d?

....Deffine worship. Perhaps I have you mistaken.

If Jesus is a part of God/the doorway to God, then we're still worshipping ONE God. I don't think the end of the world is all that relevant, since the Torah never says that the Earth will last forever. It's not a contradiction, but prehaps an extention of the Torah, much the way you consider the Mishna an extention of the Torah. This idea implies that Jews and Muslims are closer to G-d because we worship him directly. And I find that rather disturbing. I like to think we're all on the same level....in this situation.

The Mishna, on the other hand, is so old that no one knows why it was written anymore. Oh, we have our theories - your theory is that it was written by the power of God to explain the Torah. But it could've also been written by the rabbi's at the time, because their students were making radical theories they disagreed with. So they wrote a Mishna, called it "holy writ" and squashed the rebellious students. Much like the other killers in my example - we don't know why we killed that guy, so we shouldn't just assume that he's a harmless old coot and send him home. Or rather, that he was in the right.
1. the mishna wasn't written down until about 2000 years ago!
2. the time period people think the mishna was created in had priests not rabbies.
3. Never have I, a rabbi, a priest, a fellow Jew, or a member of the late kumeran ever said that the mishna was holy "writ." Or if they did no one took them seriously.
This is what we believe:
*Moses is divinely inspired by G-d. Torah is created.
*Moses gives the Hebrews the Torah.
*He explains the age old idea of one G-d.
*It is only common sense that when the Torah was written Moses understood it. Christians and Jews alike can agree that Moses is inteligent. So he no doubt knew that 3000 years later people wouldn't know what even the pithyist of sayings meant. So he explained them.

So corection: it comes from Moses not G-d. If you're going to quote Judaism on something, quote us corectly.

Right, which is why I specified that parts of the Mishna could be true, but parts could be wrong. Of course, it's possible the Mishna is largely a work of code-breaking, someone going through and placing vowel sounds where they made the most sense, until they thought they had the full picture. But that's unlikely. The only problem with that is that rabbies (or whoever you think made the mishna) can read Hebrew.

and by that argument there is no such thing as Judaism 3000 years ago, because no one could understand the Torah. And keep in mind...if it was all code-breaking then the whole english Torah is wrong. Aparently G-d is a nipple, and Isaiiah had a right arm growing out of his eye, and Israel is really a large apple orchard.
All hail the almighty Nipp-e!
Come on Foelhe....everything in Christianity and Judaism doesn't exist. The Torah could have a code that says it is nowhere near divine.

By that argument Hebrew is G-d's language, and were're trying to translate it to figure out the truths of G-d.
But here's a corection for ya', Hebrew is actually a human language that G-d had the Torah written in, so we could follow G-d. Not some silly code that G-d makes and says, "Ha! Now try to translate that! Bet you cant! Hahahaha!" What humans need now is not a silly group of chicken scratches to guess at...but a set of laws of peace and love that we should use to live by.
What is your view of G-d anyway? A deciever that wants us thrown into cluelessness. You think G-d wants ignorance?

Historically, Hebrew has existed before G-d ever wrote the Torah. Thus Hebrew came first. Thus Hebrew isn't a code written by G-d but in fact a branch of Pheonician. And the Torah was written without vowels because we are suppost to know the Torah by heart. (mind you, they used vowels 3000 years ago). Anyway, TRADITION! Traditio------n! tradion! Traditio------n! Tradition!
Tradition is why we keep writing the Torah without vowels.
But anyway, people knew the Torah so well that the mishna came into being rather by accident....just the Torah in our hearts.

I really don't know how your having such a hard time with the mishna. It really mostly says exactly what the Torah says. There's about 10% of it that says things like, "and the waters parted as man made his way from G-d."
Hardly any of this is code braking. I'm actually having a hard time finding a passage that might possibly be code breaking....the whole mishna is just a bunch of sayings that people said in the street to eachother or something.
I admit, I'm kapdranish.

I'm sure you have a thousand problems with this example, but the point I'm trying to make is that there are other possible reasons the translation of the Torah are grouped together with the explanation of the Torah. And not all of them necessarily include a deity. 1. That's why there's a mishna. 2. that's why even when translaton accures you keep the basics.
Example: a basic in a middle school tech ed is that you should cover eyes and follow safety precautions when working with POSSIBLY dangerous equipment.
This is true with textbooks even from the 30s.

In other words - I don't have to show that anything I say is necessarily true. I just have to show that it's theoretically possible. You have to show that everything you say is absolutely true, because you're trying to prove your view is the only logical choice. So following up on one of my theoretical possibilities with, "Prove it," is a waste of our time. Proving it is not my job - it's yours. On the other hand, Christianity really started the debate. If Christianity didn't axist I wouldn't be debating Christianity.

Beatnik Bob

Jan 26th, 2006, 9:48 PM

Book'n'verse me, Bob. All you have to do is go to the first post in this debate. And you will see, quite conviniently actually, that the passage is right there. And then you can go look it up in the Torah to see that it's there.

Words are defined by people. Right? If my friends and I make up a secret language, and decide that "ziggo" means "cat", then the word "ziggo" means "cat". Maybe not to many people, but that symbol is now a new meaning for that furry animal in your example. And if anyone asked what it meant you'd say what it means. Right? I'd assume you'd give them a mishna so even over time they'd know what it means.

God, on the other hand, is defined by God (Or gods, or lack-of-god). We can all sit here and say what we think about what God is, we can write books and holy writ about who God is, but in the end, the only people who are spot-on are the people who, well, guessed right. Or we can juge what G-d is by the evidence. We can decipher what G-d is by the Torah/Bible.
Since this is a Christianity vs. Judaism debate we don't have to worry about other religious views of G-d.
The thing is, you give the impression your debating for all humanity...but we need to debate for the argument right in front of us.

Hell, if anything, your example supports my theory whole-heartedly. I suggested that parts of the Mishna were wrong. Has anyone here had to deal with some absolute friggin' moron who won't stop saying "irregardless"? Or who thinks "bemused" means "amused"? (Jackasses, the lot of them. Anyway...) What if the parts of the Mishna that decry Jesus are the "irregardless" of religion?
It never actually says that Jesus isn't the messiah...in fact it never mentions him at all. All it says is that you shouldn't worship a human or any other creature on any world (as does the Torah).
it also says this:
the son of G-d is a term given to a chosen by G-d.
G-d said the children of Israel were his chosen people.
Israel is a term given to those that are almost G-d's twin, and those that "fight" with G-d (comes from man in Torah).

By the mishna, and common sense of studying Torah, Jesus is either the land of Israel, or enlightened G-dly people.
And so people thaught Jesus was a very good man...thus the label 'son of G-d.'
Note: it never actaully implies anything to do with Jesus (I braught these two ideas together on my own accord).

Say, where does the NT specifically/explicitly say Jesus is the one G-d?
And don't say what you said last time which was, "The Bible doesn't really explicitly say anything." Because you yourself said the NT is its own mishna, so it is suppost to explicitly say everything. Where does it say you should worship Jesus? Where does it say these things.

I know a pharisees debate is going to come up around this so here goes.

Why doesn't the Talmud say to specifically hate Jesus and not follow him?
Really, there's not much the Pharisees can do about it. Most Jews didn't agree, and disliked Maimonides for some of his writings...but they were still written.
The pharisees never had as much power as you seem to believe.
If the pharisees had that much influence, how come the NT managed to come into being?

Sorry, to sound harsh, Bob, but I've met plenty of fundamentalists who said much the same thing, "It's alright to question parts of religion, but you should never contradict the core of religion." Of course, the "core" always contained whatever they were decrying. By translating, I leaned more toward changing to fit modern life.
I don't accept a translation of the Torah where it says murder is alright, or rapism is alright, etc. Those are things that should stay the same no matter what. Just like protecting yourself in a middle schoole tech ed class.

Okay, so what? Two people who possibly have the wrong idea? more than two. I said quite a few.
They see G-d not on the same level as the son of G-d. As do you.

And if it's a dictionary riddled with typos and mistakes? What then? The ditionary deffines mistake as: an accident. A typo is an accident. The mistakes would be caught.

It might be a dictionary for the Judaist religion, but do I really have to explain the difference between religion and God? What does the first part of the sentence have to do with the second part?

Wha?! Since when did you prove this? Just now. I advise you go over the posts.

Philosopher Foelhe

Jan 27th, 2006, 8:24 AM

Can you restate the question/statement by any chance?

I don't know. I'm trying to make you understand - even if two things are said in the same place, even if two things are said in the same way, doesn't mean they are both true or both false. In this case, the Torah and the Mishna. I can't point out any specific differences between the two texts, since I don't really know much about the Mishna, but that doesn't mean they're both true.

For the time being, that statement of "my neibor is from Mexico/Germany" is the proof. It must be accepted as proof until further evidence proves it isn't.

In that case, Judaists should be able to believe that Jesus is not the son of God (evidence: the Torah, the Mishna) and Christians should be able to believe Jesus is (evidence: the Torah, the NT). So why are you decrying Christianity?

It is considered blasthemous by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike to worship ones self.
Jesus worships the one true G-d? And he is G-d?

Part of God, yes. Which might be the important distinction.

This idea implies that Jews and Muslims are closer to G-d because we worship him directly.

Not really. Christians would probably say that you approach God from the wrong direction.

the mishna wasn't written down until about 2000 years ago!

Apologies. When I said "written", I meant "created".

It is only common sense that when the Torah was written Moses understood it. Christians and Jews alike can agree that Moses is inteligent. So he no doubt knew that 3000 years later people wouldn't know what even the pithyist of sayings meant. So he explained them.

So... the Mishna is written by man? Then it could very well have been flawed since the beginning, no?

The only problem with that is that rabbies (or whoever you think made the mishna) can read Hebrew.

Yes, but I thought the Torah was written without vowels.

On the other hand, Christianity really started the debate. If Christianity didn't axist I wouldn't be debating Christianity.

That's sort've irrelevant. If you were asking Christianity to prove its validity, okay, although you probably wouldn't get an answer you'd like. In this case, you're challenging Christianity, so you have to tell us why Christianity doesn't belong.

All you have to do is go to the first post in this debate. And you will see, quite conviniently actually, that the passage is right there. And then you can go look it up in the Torah to see that it's there.

I don't need to look it up in the Torah. This is the same verse I argued against in the beginning of the thread. It says that we shouldn't CREATE idols, but Jesus wasn't a creation of ours.

And if anyone asked what it meant you'd say what it means. Right? I'd assume you'd give them a mishna so even over time they'd know what it means.

That would depend on why I made the language in the first place, I suppose. Though this is a bit off subject.

Or we can juge what G-d is by the evidence. We can decipher what G-d is by the Torah/Bible.
Since this is a Christianity vs. Judaism debate we don't have to worry about other religious views of G-d.

No, but the issue here is what evidence we choose to look at. You're arguing from the evidence of Torah and Mishna. Christians argue from evidence of Torah and NT. It's that difference in which to believe that causes the problem. So, it eventually comes down to which evidence you accept as fact.

It never actually says that Jesus isn't the messiah...in fact it never mentions him at all. All it says is that you shouldn't worship a human or any other creature on any world (as does the Torah).

Okay, so it indirectly decries Jesus. I'd still say that counts. (And I still haven't seen the problem in the Torah.)

And don't say what you said last time which was, "The Bible doesn't really explicitly say anything." Because you yourself said the NT is its own mishna, so it is suppost to explicitly say everything.

When I said the NT is its own Mishna, I meant that Jesus clarifies his actions and why he takes them. I didn't mean it carefully describes the relationships and mythology behind the whole thing.

more than two. I said quite a few.

My point still stands. Just because someone is an idiot doesn't mean their most basic beliefs are wrong.

The ditionary deffines mistake as: an accident. A typo is an accident. The mistakes would be caught.

By who? You said people edited and changed the Mishna, but now you say they only change passages which need to be modernized. Who would've caught the mistake? And when? And how do we know the people who did catch that mistake aren't now Christians?

Just now. I advise you go over the posts.

Apologies again, but I still don't see it.

dcookcan

Jan 27th, 2006, 10:29 AM

...
Historically, Hebrew has existed before G-d ever wrote the Torah. Thus Hebrew came first. Thus Hebrew isn't a code written by G-d but in fact a branch of Pheonician. And the Torah was written without vowels because we are suppost to know the Torah by heart. (mind you, they used vowels 3000 years ago). Anyway, TRADITION! Traditio------n! tradion! Traditio------n! Tradition!
Tradition is why we keep writing the Torah without vowels.
But anyway, people knew the Torah so well that the mishna came into being rather by accident....just the Torah in our hearts.

I am finding this debate all very interesting. But please enlighten me Bob. My understanding is that the Torah NEVER contained the vowel markings and they were added by the Rabbies after the big diaspora to make it easier to teach someone like me to read Hebrew. Are these the vowels you are referring to?

Or are you referring to yud-hey-vav (eh?) (You are probably the only one who will understand this Bob - a little subtle Canadian humour) Oh, let's not forget ayin and aleph. These are the Hebrew letters that are considered the vowels of Hebrew, since they are not (generally) pronounced, other than in certain circumstances. Without the aleph, what does "truth" become? Without the yud-heh-vav etc., God would not even be in the Torah.

Beatnik Bob

Jan 28th, 2006, 3:46 PM

I don't know. I'm trying to make you understand - even if two things are said in the same place, even if two things are said in the same way, doesn't mean they are both true or both false. In this case, the Torah and the Mishna. I can't point out any specific differences between the two texts, since I don't really know much about the Mishna, but that doesn't mean they're both true. By this argument-even if two entities say the same things, even if two entities are myracle workers, it doesn't mean they are both the same or both divine. In this case, the two entities equal Jesus and G-d. Assuming they are both G-d.

In that case, Judaists should be able to believe that Jesus is not the son of God (evidence: the Torah, the Mishna) and Christians should be able to believe Jesus is (evidence: the Torah, the NT). This is a different case. Religion abides by its own rules. Besides, there is proof to both views. Fore example, I wouldn't believe your neibor was from Mexico if, even though you said it, the government said it wasn't true.
That's what we're debating...it comes down to validity and who's right and who's wrong. Do I trust the government here or you on this census?

Besides, where does it support Jesus as G-d in the Torah?

Part of God, yes.
I thaught you said Jesus was also G-d.

So Jesus is worshipping himself? And he's only worshipping a part of himself? But he's also worsipping his whole self? But then agian he's not? What is going on!

Christians would probably say that you approach God from the wrong direction. Key word, APPROACH. We're still approaching him, and a parently we're still making contact with him.
Otherwise Moses would have never contacted G-d...because he didn't pray to Jesus.

So... the Mishna is written by man? Then it could very well have been flawed since the beginning, no? So the gospels were written by men? Then they could have very well been flawed since the beginning, no?

Yes, but I thought the Torah was written without vowels. That's why there's a mishna. See, there's a delicate balance, one cant possibly exist without the other.

In this case, you're challenging Christianity, so you have to tell us why Christianity doesn't belong. And you in turn must do the same thing.....wait...
This is a debate! Come on!!!!!! Who cares Foelhe. THIS is what should happen: I post, you reply and adress my post accordingly. So there's no problem because this is exactly what's going on.
Drop it Foelhe.

I don't need to look it up in the Torah. This is the same verse I argued against in the beginning of the thread. It says that we shouldn't CREATE idols, but Jesus wasn't a creation of ours. Ok everyone! I'll admit it! I didn't give birth to Jesus.

Foelhe, you're the same one that said that Jesus wasn't completely G-d because he had a mother named mary and a father named....(?) And you said Jesus is part human. If anything I've proven that Jesus isn't completely divine. Only G-d is.

Jesus was indeed created by us...

That would depend on why I made the language in the first place, I suppose. Though this is a bit off subject. No it's not! This is perfect!!
Because Foelhe, you'd also say what the intention was for that language, just as the intention of the Torah was to promote one G-d.

No, but the issue here is what evidence we choose to look at. You're arguing from the evidence of Torah and Mishna. Christians argue from evidence of Torah and NT. It's that difference in which to believe that causes the problem. So, it eventually comes down to which evidence you accept as fact. ... ....ok....anything else?

I get the point, that's what we're trying to prove.

Please, let's not debate about what we're debating about.

Okay, so it indirectly decries Jesus. I'd still say that counts. (And I still haven't seen the problem in the Torah.) The "problem" in the Torah is this: Thou shall not worship any GRAVEN images of MAN, WOMAN,....

GRAVEN, not only reffers to do-not-build-anything-to-worship but it also reffers to do not build anything to worship.
GRAVEN IMAGE, reffers to the graven image of something in your mind. You have an image of a creature welded into your memory, and you worship that creature.

When I said the NT is its own Mishna, I meant that Jesus clarifies his actions and why he takes them. I didn't mean it carefully describes the relationships and mythology behind the whole thing. ...ok...But where does it explicitly say he's G-d.

My point still stands. Just because someone is an idiot doesn't mean their most basic beliefs are wrong. What was your point.

By who? You said people edited and changed the Mishna, but now you say they only change passages which need to be modernized. Who would've caught the mistake? And when? And how do we know the people who did catch that mistake aren't now Christians? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!? I never said anyone CHANGED the mishna. It's the same as it always was....
Are you talking about the Torah or the mishna? Or are you accepting that they're both the same thing? WHO IS THEY!

I said people aplied Torah to modern life.
What the hell's going on!?

Apologies again, but I still don't see it. It says in the Torah to go to the meeting tent if you have a yellowish rash, so the leaders can decide if they should put you in quarantine or not. And they've translated it to, if you have a yellowish rash, go see your doctor, who will decide if you should go to the hospital or not.
We would know it was wrong if the guy interpreted it to say, "If you have a yellowish rash, go into a cave and lie on the floor and let the bats crap on you until you are cured.

Or are you referring to yud-hey-vav (eh?) (You are probably the only one who will understand this Bob - a little subtle Canadian humour) Oh, let's not forget ayin and aleph. These are the Hebrew letters that are considered the vowels of Hebrew, since they are not (generally) pronounced, other than in certain circumstances. Without the aleph, what does "truth" become? Without the yud-heh-vav etc., God would not even be in the Torah. Yes, this is what I'm proving to Foelhe. That the mishna is so closely intertwined with the Torah that without the mishna you wouldn't know what the Torah actually says.

Because just by context alone from those letters it gets hard to tell what allot of those letters mean without the mishna...the oral Torah. Becuase the mishna could be considered the lines and dots under the letters that show what the Torah really means. The mishna made it possible for Christians to interpret the Torah. But unfortunately they took advantage of that and screwed around with things, their main excuse being, "there wasn't an english word for it!" Or "It doesn't agree with Christianity, I didn't like it. I only like the Torah if I either ignore certain parts, have it altered, or trick people because Hebrew words have different associations than English."
All I can say is....damn them. They took advantage of the Torah because it was Hebrew....they raped it!!!
By the way, are you Jewish dcookcan?

Foelhe, is it considered idolatry to worship the Sun in Christian eyes? Does the Sun not make the plants grow, and in turn making the animals live, and make the water cycle, and do all these things. So, if the Sun performs all these miracles, isn't it almost like a god? So how come we don't just all worship the sun?

Foelhe, when I say, "Jake99" what comes to mind? I'd assume you'd think of the crazy deity that has a computer chip in his brain. Now what if I wrote a whole essay and it reffered to Jake99 at some point. I'd need a mishna for people who havn't even heard of armageddononline.net and explain who Jake99 is.

Philosopher Foelhe

Jan 28th, 2006, 5:19 PM

By this argument-even if two entities say the same things, even if two entities are myracle workers, it doesn't mean they are both the same or both divine. In this case, the two entities equal Jesus and G-d. Assuming they are both G-d.

... Ay-yi-yi-yi-yi! Yes! There is a possibility Jesus and God are two separate entities! There is a possibility Jesus and God are one and the same! There is a possibility neither exists! I'm not trying to convert you here, Bob. I'm trying to show that there's a possibility that God and Jesus are one.

This is a different case. Religion abides by its own rules. Besides, there is proof to both views. Fore example, I wouldn't believe your neibor was from Mexico if, even though you said it, the government said it wasn't true.

That's entirely fair. But there are others who would believe me instead of the government, and they aren't necessarily wrong.

Besides, where does it support Jesus as G-d in the Torah?

You know all those parts of the Torah that mention the "son of God"? And the Mishna states that those parts are relating to Israel? Well, Christians believe the Mishna is wrong, and that really relates to Jesus.

So Jesus is worshipping himself? And he's only worshipping a part of himself? But he's also worsipping his whole self? But then agian he's not? What is going on!

No, no, no. It's far more confusing than that. :crazy:

But seriously, it's hard to describe. It's like... if you sectioned off a part of your brain, so that you had access to it, but it wasn't entirely there... No, here we go. Y'know how we have to stop and think when you want to remember something that happened awhile ago? It's sort've like that. Kind've. Okay, there's no way in hell I can explain this. Which is frustrating, because I do get it, mostly, but I can't really explain it. Damn it all.

Key word, APPROACH. We're still approaching him, and a parently we're still making contact with him.
Otherwise Moses would have never contacted G-d...because he didn't pray to Jesus.

That was pre-"Behold, all things have changed," though. You are still approaching God, yes. Christians might liken this to someone trying to repair a microwave by hitting it on the side. Are you trying? Sure. But your approach isn't terribly affective.

So the gospels were written by men? Then they could have very well been flawed since the beginning, no?

That is a POSSIBILITY, yes.

That's why there's a mishna. See, there's a delicate balance, one cant possibly exist without the other.

You're right, in that the Torah can't exist without the vowel-sounds, which are contained within the mishna. It's the rest of the mishna that Christians find suspect.

This is a debate! Come on!!!!!! Who cares Foelhe. THIS is what should happen: I post, you reply and adress my post accordingly. So there's no problem because this is exactly what's going on.

Yes, and then you in turn reply to my post accordingly. And that hasn't been happening. You're trying to disprove something, this means you HAVE TO SHOW THE PROOF. I'm just trying to suggest your proof is insufficient. The problem is that you keep asking ME to prove Christianity is true, which I couldn't do even if I was so inclined.

In short - stop wasting time asking things like, "But there's a possibility Christianity is wrong?" No shit, there's a possibility. But that lends nothing to the issue at hand.

Foelhe, you're the same one that said that Jesus wasn't completely G-d because he had a mother named mary and a father named....(?) And you said Jesus is part human. If anything I've proven that Jesus isn't completely divine. Only G-d is.

Bob, when God made Eve out of Adam's rib, does that lead you to believe that Adam made Eve. (No, wait, let me guess. It's a metaphor. Okay, pretend for a second that it's not a metaphor, and think about that.)

God is the father, according to Christians. He took Mary's egg, the same way he took Adam's rib, and he made life with it. Since a non-fertile egg isn't enough to make a child, God was basically the one who made Jesus. See?

Because Foelhe, you'd also say what the intention was for that language, just as the intention of the Torah was to promote one G-d.

Not necessarily. And I'm incredibly damn confused at the moment. Where the hell did this argument come from?

GRAVEN IMAGE, reffers to the graven image of something in your mind. You have an image of a creature welded into your memory, and you worship that creature.

... See, I don't buy this. I'm guessing your belief that "graven" also refers to the minds eye is written out in the mishna?

...ok...But where does it explicitly say he's G-d.

Mark 14:61-62
61[...] Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

What was your point.

My point was, that just because a few Christians (or a thousands Christians) don't really understand how the theology truly works, that doesn't mean the theology isn't true.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!? I never said anyone CHANGED the mishna. It's the same as it always was....

And the very next point...

It says in the Torah to go to the meeting tent if you have a yellowish rash, so the leaders can decide if they should put you in quarantine or not. And they've translated it to, if you have a yellowish rash, go see your doctor, who will decide if you should go to the hospital or not.

I don't buy the "translation," since the Mishna was written at a time when medicinal knowledge was pretty scarce. You changed the meaning to keep it relevant, which is smart, but it is a change.

Yes, this is what I'm proving to Foelhe. That the mishna is so closely intertwined with the Torah that without the mishna you wouldn't know what the Torah actually says.

Yeah, I got that. I assume Moses knew what he was writing, so I doubt he's mistaken when it comes to the vowels. The translations, however, might not be legit.

Foelhe, is it considered idolatry to worship the Sun in Christian eyes? Does the Sun not make the plants grow, and in turn making the animals live, and make the water cycle, and do all these things. So, if the Sun performs all these miracles, isn't it almost like a god? So how come we don't just all worship the sun?

Uh... because the sun is not God? Unlike (possibly) Jesus?

Foelhe, when I say, "Jake99" what comes to mind? I'd assume you'd think of the crazy deity that has a computer chip in his brain. Now what if I wrote a whole essay and it reffered to Jake99 at some point. I'd need a mishna for people who havn't even heard of armageddononline.net and explain who Jake99 is.

No, you try to slip it in with the text, using context clues. Otherwise you cut Jake99 from the piece, to avoid the distraction. Explaining something in footnotes, or "If you want information on blah blah blah, see blah" is sloppy writing. Hate to tell ya.

Beatnik Bob

Jan 29th, 2006, 11:13 PM

Beatnik Bob

Jan 29th, 2006, 11:16 PM

See, I don't buy this. I'm guessing your belief that "graven" also refers to the minds eye is written out in the mishna? It’s written out in the Torah.

I told you cant read Foelhe….and I thought it gave you enough context too.

Mark 14:61-62
61[...] Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." The only thing I see here is this:
1. Christianity is worshipping two gods by translating this literally like a true fundamentalist.
And 2. G-d said that Israel was his children….so if you use this statement as proof of Jesus divinity, does that mean that I’m a messiah too?

My point was, that just because a few Christians (or a thousands Christians) don't really understand how the theology truly works, that doesn't mean the theology isn't true.

And the very next point... What? They really did never change it….

I don't buy the "translation," since the Mishna was written at a time when medicinal knowledge was pretty scarce. You changed the meaning to keep it relevant, which is smart, but it is a change. By change I mean this:

*mishna here*

*Talmudist interpretation*

*Talmudist interpretation*

*Talmudist interpretation*

The original mishna is still there Foelhe.

Yeah, I got that. I assume Moses knew what he was writing, so I doubt he's mistaken when it comes to the vowels. The translations, however, might not be legit. Well they were his translations…

Uh... because the sun is not God? Unlike (possibly) Jesus?

WDJD.

What Did Jesus Do!?
Well he 1. Fed a bunch of people.
2. nailed himself to a cross to save people.
3. brought someone back to life.
4. Decided people weren’t worth being saved and came back to life.
5. And is now bugging G-d about a new toy pony he wants.

Now the Sun does this:
1. Enables the water cycle to exist.
2. Keeps plants and animals alive.
3. Adds color to our world.
4. Provides a good place to sun bathe
5. makes seasons.
6. made it possible for Jesus to even exist. (adding everything Jesus did to its list).
7. Makes the Moon shine at night.
8. Keeps everything in a divine order in the solar system.
9. Gives people a beautiful shade of red on their flesh.
10. Provides us with food.
11. etc.
12. etc.
13. etc.

So technically I should worship the sun, because it’s been saving us since the dawn of time. Not every 2000 years or whatever.

So all hail the almighty Sun!

But something tells me Christians wouldn’t look to pleasingly on this idea. But why? If you worship Jesus and all he’s done is (see the above) then why not worship the Sun which has done twice as much! The Sun by Christian standards is more divine than Jesus.

No, you try to slip it in with the text, using context clues. Otherwise you cut Jake99 from the piece, to avoid the distraction. When I say, “four score!” What do you think of? No doubt the beginning of the Gettysburg address comes to mind.

Now lets fast forward through time…we walk on Mars…we get attacked by commie Martians….we perfect fuel power…whatever.
It’s 3000 years later now Foelhe. We’re in the year 5006.
Now lets pretend I mentioned the words “four score” in a conversation with one of these 3000-year-laters. What do you think will come to mind?

Most likely not the Gettysburg address.

The point is this:
Each word you hear: cat, dog, Lincoln, snake, Eden, garden, Obladi Oblada, The man who shared his hut, Beethoven, etc. all come with there very own personal set of associations. It’s just how your neuro-nets in your brain are set up, it’s nobodies falt.

Now years and years later culture has taken it’s toll by all the bombarding incoming cultures. We don’t have the same associations 3000 years later.
So in BCE times when I said “Adam” something popped into the mind.

Let’s suppose a book says, “Four score.” Everyone reading it would go, “Oh yeah, the Gettysburg address, eh?” But three thousand years later someone looks at the book and goes, “What! What is this…something about….Who’s Lincoln….Huh? I guess I’ll interpret it literally….he got a four on the Gettysburg…that’s an F!”

All the mishna is, is the original associations of those words.

I mean…if I told you about the story The man who shared his Hut, (without the mishna) you would think it was a cute little story about animals and humans in the jungle. Unless you were either Kenyan, a good history teacher that new about every detail of the last 300 years, or you were given a mishna.

Explaining something in footnotes, or "If you want information on blah blah blah, see blah" is sloppy writing. Hate to tell ya. Really? It is?
I remember Tolkien doing that same thing, he put an asterisk next to a name in the Silmarilion and said what page to turn to at the bottom of the page.
And most everyone agrees that Tolkien is an example of genius. Well….more people say it’s organized than that it’s sloppy.

But there’s something very important that you are leaving out. The mishna was for about 500 years oral. So thus…it was not written down.
Oral things as we all know are told to people. You acquire all your associations with words from the culture and society around you. When you think of “cat” you might think of your old cat Bess that drowned in an old abandoned well in Mississippi. But alas, those are personal associations. The Torah is the associations of the collective…not the poor cat Bess.
So, you acquire these associations from the moment you begin to speak…you see and are open to the whole culture around you, gathering associations one by one. So the question arises, “Do you really need a book that says which spots to see if you already know this info by heart?” No, you don’t. That is, as long as people keep passing down associations through the generations. So everyone for ever will have the same associations and know what the something originally meant.
But there’s an evil threat called….new culture introduction.
The Roman empire concurred Israel at some point…and associations were slipping away from people, in place of new ones. The people at the time knew they were in danger so they rescued them by writing them down. Now it is more inconvenient to interpret the true meanings of the Torah….because, yes there is a book to have to look at.

The rabies added a new “law” then.
From 0-10 the study of mishna.
From 5-death the study of Torah.
They hoped that now that they were more safe and written down, the word association game could continue.

But laziness prevails.

Philosopher Foelhe

Jan 30th, 2006, 9:31 AM

Foelhe, I don't agree with your extremely silly ideal of a debate. You think you must prove the possibility of Christianity, while I must preove that it is without a doubt wrong. I mean, come on! There’s a possibility for everything! There’s a possibility Siva is a homosexual frog!

Really? I have no idea who Siva is, so it's a possibility. I suppose I could PROVE that incorrect if I knew who you were talking about, and I had access to the necessary information. So, if someone theorized that Siva was a frog, I'd try to disprove that... through the evidence.

Besides, what are you suggesting? This theory is absurd, therefore all theories should be ignored? That's ludicrous. I'm viewing Christianity - in this instance - as a theory. And while that doesn't make it right, that doesn't make it wrong, either.

Where does it talk about the son of G-d in the Torah.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 53:10-12 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life, and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.
12. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbeed with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.

A little long, but there ya go.

Nice try Foelhe, it won’t work though!

Charming. I'm trying to explain something highly complex, while balancing it with your stubbornness. Apologies if I don't always know how to proceed.

In any case, you might look at Jesus as the right arm of God. It performs acts as needed, sometimes instinctively, but at times it needs instruction from the brain. In this case, God. So, while the brain and the arm are still the same person, they are also viewed as separate entities.

Well, if the ancient Jews could do it (not to mention the “writer” of the Torah. Moses) then why can’t I do it today!

Because according to the bible, times have changed. *shrugs* That's all there is to it.

Heck, Jesus didn’t pray to G-d through himself did he?

Well, how could he do anything else?

Actually, they’re flawed if you are going to think the mishna flawed.

What, are we at the, "No, YOU suck!" portion of our show? That makes no logical sense. Just because one is flawed doesn't mean the other is, unless you can show how they're tied together. And we've spent this entire time pulling them apart, so I doubt you can do that.

And why did you say that there’s a possibility that there’s a possibility Judaism is wrong again…

... Dude, a debate class would do you good.

You have to understand - if you can find a single flaw in the bible, you win the argument. But if you can't, I win the argument. The point is that you have to find the flaw.

You've based your attacks on the mishna. Okay. But the problem is that the mishna is unproven, so it's not really a true flaw. Which I've been pointing out. Is it correct? Maybe. But if it's not definately correct, it can't be admitted as evidence.

Ok, I’ve thaught about it.

... Great. Thanks. So, since you aren't actively disagreeing with me, I'll assume you took my point. Since God was just using the cast-off material of humans to make Eve, you can't say Adam had a hand in it. Nor can you say Mary really had a hand in creating Jesus.

Well that’s cool, I didn’t know that Adam was the messiah as well.

...

Angels have blond hair. I have blond hair. Therefore, I am an angel.

The messiah was made by God. Adam was made by God. Therefore, Adam is the messiah.

Nope. Same tortured illogic.

It’s written out in the Torah.

And the Torah actually says, "And graven images includes pictures in the mind's eye"? Or is that in the mishna? Or is that just your assumption?

G-d said that Israel was his children….so if you use this statement as proof of Jesus divinity, does that mean that I’m a messiah too?

... No. Look at the writing, "The Son". Son is singular, and "the" implies "only". So, from that, I would draw the conclusion that Jesus was talking about something other than Israel. Which might imply divinity.

Well they were his translations…

... Of a holy work which was written by God, through him. The question is whether he truly understood what he was writing, or whether he was just the messenger.

But something tells me Christians wouldn’t look to pleasingly on this idea. But why? If you worship Jesus and all he’s done is (see the above) then why not worship the Sun which has done twice as much! The Sun by Christian standards is more divine than Jesus.

Point the first: the sun is not sentient. Thanking it for giving us warmth is like thanking a plant for being green. It's just doing what it's doing, and has no concern for the likes of us.

Point the second: While you're being flippant, Jesus did do something incredibly major when he died. And at high personal cost to himself, which is really more than you can say about the sun.

Point the third: Then why don't you worship the sun? Really. You guys worship a God who spends much of his time smiting or torturing people for not doing things his way. Given that, the sun seems like a much better God. So, why don't you, oh humble Judaist, worship the sun?

I remember Tolkien doing that same thing, he put an asterisk next to a name in the Silmarilion and said what page to turn to at the bottom of the page.

*shrugs* There are times when it serves it's purpose. In Tolkien's case, it works, because Tolkien wasn't trying to write something accessible. He was trying to create a mythology. And yes, he did that very well. But asterisks slow the pace of a story, so it's generally a mistake, if you're trying to draw a reader in.

dcookcan

Jan 30th, 2006, 10:05 AM

Yes, this is what I'm proving to Foelhe. That the mishna is so closely intertwined with the Torah that without the mishna you wouldn't know what the Torah actually says.

Because just by context alone from those letters it gets hard to tell what allot of those letters mean without the mishna...the oral Torah. Becuase the mishna could be considered the lines and dots under the letters that show what the Torah really means. The mishna made it possible for Christians to interpret the Torah. But unfortunately they took advantage of that and screwed around with things, their main excuse being, "there wasn't an english word for it!" Or "It doesn't agree with Christianity, I didn't like it. I only like the Torah if I either ignore certain parts, have it altered, or trick people because Hebrew words have different associations than English."
All I can say is....damn them. They took advantage of the Torah because it was Hebrew....they raped it!!!
By the way, are you Jewish dcookcan?

No Bob - I call myself a former christian. I agree with your sentement that christianity has raped the Torah. But they were not completely successful at covering the truth in the Torah; it still shines through. I started seeing the inconsistencies in the christian doctrine once I actually started reading the Tanach (that is - the christian version of it). ie - If God does not change, then what happened between the so-called Old and New testaments. How did the Sabbath get changed to Sunday? When did abonimations become food?

I have been taking Hebrew at the local sinagogue, which is why I have a limited understanding of the language. I like Jews. Once they understand that I am not trying to convert them or change their beliefs and that I just want to learn from them, they drop their defenses and we become fast friends.

btw - I got a chance to listen to Yossi Olmert yesterday (the acting PMs brother). Interesting fellow.

Beatnik Bob

Jan 30th, 2006, 4:13 PM

Foelhe, the debate isn't going to work if you dont respond to many of the points I bring up. Points that aren't possibilities. Respond to my word association points on the mishna Foelhe. Otherwise, I refuse to debate with someone that won't debate!

Really? I have no idea who Siva is, so it's a possibility. I suppose I could PROVE that incorrect if I knew who you were talking about, and I had access to the necessary information. So, if someone theorized that Siva was a frog, I'd try to disprove that... through the evidence. How ignorant are you? You don't even know one of the main gods of Hinduism!?!
Come on Foelhe, god of destruction and rebirth, Siva. Ring any bells?

Besides, what are you suggesting? This theory is absurd, therefore all theories should be ignored?

That's ludicrous. I'm simply proposing that we should both debate as equals. Both providing the proper proof to support our arguments.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. A perfect example of Christianity rapism. They altered the Tanach so it supported Jesus divinity....notice it never says that until the NT was written...hmmmm.

Besides, it never says that in the Torah.

Isaiah 53:10-12 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life, and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.
12. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbeed with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.
This sounds so much like Israel I can't see an acceptable excuse for your stupidity.

*rereads through it* Ok, I caught something about a holocaust for the Jews....hmmm, Jews bearing all of their iniquities....
Bore the sin of many....ok...mhm...uh...ok...

1. This isn't even in the Torah.

2. You want literal Foelhe? You really want the hard smack down literal?

The word used for son of G-d is a Hebrew word that means Israel.

Charming. I'm trying to explain something highly complex, while balancing it with your stubbornness. Apologies if I don't always know how to proceed.

In any case, you might look at Jesus as the right arm of God. It performs acts as needed, sometimes instinctively, but at times it needs instruction from the brain. In this case, God. So, while the brain and the arm are still the same person, they are also viewed as separate entities. I've always realized this Foelhe. They worship the arm...and they think they're worshipping the whole body....and yet, the arm simply is not the whole body.

You have streangthened my belief in Judaism.

Because according to the bible, times have changed. That's all there is to it. By that argument....it is justifyable to murder.

And by that argument it makes it possible to be Christian and get away with it. By saying it is no longer necessary to worship ONE G-d...but instead TWO.

Well, how could he do anything else?

You have to understand - if you can find a single flaw in the bible, you win the argument. But if you can't, I win the argument. The point is that you have to find the flaw. ...fair enough for the time being.

But should I find a flaw in the NT or the actual Torah.

And furthermore, I've already found a flaw...though I believe I've already said it somewhere in this very post...and the one before this...

You've based your attacks on the mishna. Okay. But the problem is that the mishna is unproven, so it's not really a true flaw. Which I've been pointing out. Is it correct? Maybe. But if it's not definately correct, it can't be admitted as evidence. See last post.

Great. Thanks. So, since you aren't actively disagreeing with me, I'll assume you took my point. Now that's a silly assumption to make.

Since God was just using the cast-off material of humans to make Eve, you can't say Adam had a hand in it.[/Quote] I thaught he suplied the rib? Didn't G-d, instead of making a whole new human use Adams rib? And I'm sure we can all agree G-d is quite capable of making a human without an already made rib.
It symbolizes something.

Nor can you say Mary really had a hand in creating Jesus.[/Quote] Then what was the point in creating Jesus through mary?

And furthermore, didn't you say that Jesus is considered not completely divine....but part human? You yourself used the example of Jesus being part human to deffend yourself on a point.
If you decide to go back on that...the statement you were deffending yourself from can be put back into play...

Angels have blond hair. I have blond hair. Therefore, I am an angel.

The messiah was made by God. Adam was made by God. Therefore, Adam is the messiah.

Nope. Same tortured illogic. My point EXACTLY!

And the Torah actually says, "And graven images includes pictures in the mind's eye"? Or is that in the mishna? Or is that just your assumption?[/Quote] You strike me as a very narrow minded person Foelhe...

Or it could be what graven actually means in Hebrew.

Think about it Foelhe, does the Torah say, "And graven images include the markings in ones likeness on stone or any other substance used as worship."

No it doesn't. We autimatically (here's the assumption for you) ASSUME it reffers to this. But due to the fact that most people are stupid and rather narrow minded, such as yourself, we can't see all the possibilities of what graven means.

But Graven in Hebrew (tavoo'ah) means all images/etc. made permanent, anywhere.
To write things down is also very much the same as to engrave in Hebrew.

No. Look at the writing, "The Son". Son is singular, and "the" implies "only". So, from that, I would draw the conclusion that Jesus was talking about something other than Israel. Which might imply divinity. Which might imply that you have no knowledge that the Torah is actually Hebrew writ, and everything you see is the work of devious little HUMANS that came 1000 YEARS later.

... Of a holy work which was written by God, through him. The question is whether he truly understood what he was writing, or whether he was just the messenger.[/Quote] Well, I don't know why G-d would give us a bunch of laws an how we should live our lives and all things recomended by G-d, and then say, "Now you can spend the next 10,000 years translating what all those passages mean...like my saying of THOU SHALL NOT MURDER. That's a freebee. Well, so long! Have fun being polytheists until you get it...assuming you ever do!"

That's actually kind of funny Foelhe. It's the best joke you've made on AO so far!
Moses can't read eh? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!
:rolling:

(could he really stand for what he believed...when he didn't understand it?)

the sun is not sentient. As with many of your other points...this is yet an assumption.

Let's suppose a buterfly (which only live about a few days) lands on a tree and you ask the butterfly, "Is that tree alive?" The butterfly would of course respond, "Don't be absurd! I've been here half my life and it hasn't done anything! Of course its not alive!"
The life of a Sun lasts a very very long time. And as a buterfly is to trees...we are to the Sun. 80 years is probably the equivilent of a day in the Sun's life.
So can you honestly say it isn't smart when you've only observed it for a few days? Just because it hasn't expressed any atributes that might be catalogued as sentient since you've observed it doesn't mean it isn't sentient.

Beatnik Bob

Jan 30th, 2006, 4:15 PM

Thanking it for giving us warmth is like thanking a plant for being green. It's just doing what it's doing. Isn't Jesus just doing what he's doing? By the argument you have suggested, he is.

While you're being flippant, Jesus did do something incredibly major when he died. And at high personal cost to himself, which is really more than you can say about the sun. Well, I always thaught being a huge holy deity spirit up in heaven was more efficient than being a human of flesh and bone...always requiring to take a dump or eat something.

Point the third: Then why don't you worship the sun? Really. You guys worship a God who spends much of his time smiting or torturing people for not doing things his way. Given that, the sun seems like a much better God. So, why don't you, oh humble Judaist, worship the sun?[/Quote] Well the fast answer to that would be, "Oh, were Jewish. We'll leave that up to the Christians."

But the real reason is this: Why?

Why do you see G-d as being so terrible that we should worship the Sun? The only G-d that I see as terrible is the Christian G-d. Because since they see the Torah literally, they think he actually flooded the Earth and everything....HA...those supersticious polytheists...
But Judaism isn't based on literal interpretations.

There are times when it serves it's purpose. In Tolkien's case, it works, because Tolkien wasn't trying to write something accessible. He was trying to create a mythology. And yes, he did that very well. But asterisks slow the pace of a story, so it's generally a mistake, if you're trying to draw a reader in. Anyway this is not a very important detail.
I just threw that detail in there for fun...the real countering argument was the mishna one of word association.

Beatnik Bob

Feb 4th, 2006, 10:54 AM

This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. I have PLENTY of proof that it wasn't true:

1. The Gospels were written from 60-70 YEARS after Jesus's death, thus NONE, I repeat, NONE of these accounts and happenings in the Torah were eye witness. Thus the truths in it are somewhat reduced since the fact that none of these writers ever really saw these things.

2. If you accept the possibility of a mishna, that possibility must be overruled becuase A. There is NO proof of Jesus's deeds being passed down by word of mouth. B. The mishna is a set of associations, closely related with society at a certain period of time and place, not actual accurances, rather the associations due to changes and evolutions in society.

3. This isn't even sufficient proof for an individual that practices Judaism. Because the obvious answer to this is: We don't believe all that clap-trap, so we don't even think that testimony is true, never mind KNOW.
Plus, it was a Hebrew bassed culture at that period of time, even though it was under Roman rule. And the Gospals are VERY HIGHLY based on the writtings in the Torah, Ket'huvim, and Nevi'im, thus they have the same associations intended from the first writting of the Torah. So the mishna, (not to mention the Hebrew language) can be VERY acurately aplied to this situation. So even further prooving the existence of Jesus as a man and et cetera are not only untrue, but missunderstood.

25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Amen? Are you completely sure that this phrase belongs in this context? There is no need for an 'amen' since the above statements hold little or no truth.

Please, by all means, if there is anything that Jesus does that the Torah hadn't already done, then enlighten me as to what that is. Because as far as I can see Jesus doesn't do anything, or say anything that the Torah hasn't already done/said.

You might say that he came and perfomed miricals to better peoples lives, and the Torah didn't (assuming we ignor the fact that the Gospels are in error). If you think this, you are gravely wrong. Because in that "light" it sends the message that Jesus not only did not helped the world with his deeds, but screwed it over.

Let's pretend Jesus DID do those things. Is Jesus really teaching us to be good people when all that's happening is HE is doing these things? (Not us).
Because the Torah teaches that we be good people, performing mitzvot (good deeds) and helping people out. Like fundamental sayings such as, "be good to your neighbor." I suppose you could say Jesus was being a role model, so Jesus is showing us how to act and live....and so is the Torah. Thus even Jesus's actions don't particularly make him very uniqu (this is, agian, assuming we ignore the most evident error in the Gospals).
You might say that because Jesus died on his own volition, it makes him more holier than the Torah, but that to is a common error of Christian humans, and consisting of a very obvious answer. The Torah supposedly says how to get into heaven. Well, I'll admit, that's a rather generous statement becuase Jews don't really believe in a heaven. Sure, there are the HEAVENS where G-d supposedly abides, but you never actually enter a physical place when you die. The kingdom of heaven is achieved on Earth, and only on Earth. And by "heaven" where G-d resides, it only means that G-d wallows in greatness and good deeds (not a place).
.... .... ....

But anyway, Jesus dying supposedly makes it possible for you to enter heaven. And the Torah suposedly says how you can enter heaven (thus making it possible for one to enter heaven)...so thus, they are just two ways to enter heaven. And thus, Jesus isn't very special after all. But seriosly, provide some proof as to how Jesus is considerably distinguished.

Although, I highly doubt you'll even respond, since you ussually don't.

So prove me wrong Cherisa, actually respond to this post!

Emah le Smecha! Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!

New Creature

Feb 4th, 2006, 3:57 PM

What I see happening is that modern escotology, Dispensationalism, and plain ole false doctrine is driving a wedge between any common ground the Orthodox Jews and Christians can come to. This is all carnal and profits nothing.

Even though there was a fine line long ago that one or the other didn't cross, I think that we now can at a bare minimum come to a mature understanding and respect for one anothers beliefs.

One way or another we will all end up on the same side of the fence. I understand and like some of what your saying Beatnik. i.e. we are told who to pray to, and how. The lords prayer says nothing about praying to the Christ, yet we see on "TBN" Channel to pray to Christ. Also I agree with you on your idols argument. A simple test would be for everyone to close their eyes and Picture Christ. Not a single person here can say that their mind went blank. We all have an image burnt into our minds of what Yeshua looked like but how? We don't know. This is by definition both biblical and websters idolatry. But there is no definitive in either case.

GEN 38:27 ¶ And it came about at the time she was giving birth, that behold, there were twins in her womb.
GEN 38:28 Moreover, it took place while she was giving birth, one put out a hand, and the midwife took and tied a scarlet thread on his hand, saying, "This one came out first."
GEN 38:29 But it came about as he drew back his hand, that behold, his brother came out. Then she said, "What a breach you have made for yourself!"So he was named Perez.
GEN 38:30 And afterward his brother came out who had the scarlet thread on his hand; and he was named Zerah.

One of the twins, Perez, born to Judah and Tamar, is in the lineage of Jesus. Without Jesus, then where would we be today as far as salvation is concerned?

MAT 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
MAT 1:2 ¶ To Abraham was born Isaac; and to Isaac, Jacob; and to Jacob, Judah and his brothers;
MAT 1:3 and to Judah were born Perez and Zerah by Tamar; and to Perez was born Hezron; and to Hezron, Ram;

What does the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 mean as it relates to the history of mankind--God's seed and the devil's see and the birth,death and resurrection of Jesus?

The enmity was between Christ and Satan. "He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel" simply looks forward to the time when Christ was crucified (His heel was bruised, i.e, not a mortal wound) and when Satan was defeated (i.e., Christ is now all-powerful and the devil is reserved for judgement; his head is bruised, which is a mortal wound).

This is only possible due to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Beatnik Bob

Feb 6th, 2006, 7:55 PM

Actually, of all things that have been written down over the EONS of HISTORY, The GOSPELS were the CLOSEST in TIME to ACTUAL events. Cherisa, have you ever looked at a newspaper?
Newspaper articles don't take years to be written, and they hold actual events in them.

If this were un-true, we would just now be hearing about Bush getting elected from newspapers, or anyother news source.
I can assure you that 60-70 years is quite awhile for news to come, especially since everyone alive at the time the news is released is now dead....as was durring the writting of the NT.

There is plenty of proof if you look. He's still doing miracles, like he did back then. Do you mind naming a few of these miracles for me? And please stay true to your word and name miracles that are happening today.

Besides, even if he does do miracles, I doubt you can prove Jesus is performing them and not G-d.
Afterall, all Jesus is is G-d's little whinny kid. Isn't the father more worthy of worship than the son?

Oh, I beg to differ on that . It is true! It's just not true for you. Well Cherisa, that is exactly what I was saying, that it isn't true for me. You are not only making a fool of yourself by dissagreeing with me, then agreeing with me wholheartedly in the same couple of sentences, but you are being rather narrow minded or ignorant by thinking autimatically that I accept the NT without question.

I don't think you realize this Cherisa, but I really don't accept anything without sufficient proof. I can accept the mishna becuase the Torah is apart of the mishna, and I accept the Torah...written in Hebrew mind you.

It is scripture.John chapter 21, if you want to look it up? Do you even have a New Testament?'[/Quote] Well, yes I OWN a New Testament. Do you mean by chance incorperated into my religion? If so, we do not use the NT as apart of Judaism. Only the Torah, Ket'huvim, Nevi'im, Talmud, and our brains & soul are apart of Judaism.

How do you figure? Well...if you keep reading after that in the post before this, I say how.
But anyway, adress the statment I presented you with in the post before this.

So where do you go when you die? Is ther an afterlife for jews? Christians are generally scared of dying and going to hell. It is one of the reasons why Christianity is the major religion in the world.
Jews however don't care much about after death. Sure, they picked a few things up from other peoples/religions, and many have fallen into the noose of negative assimilation, but the original real Judaism, unscathed by negative assimilation, never mentions heaven.
The only heaven that exists is the possible creation of heaven on Earth with our actions in the here and now.
So quite bluntly, Jews believe in our deeds here on this Earth. In fact, worship of G-d is only a secondary act. The most important thing in Judaism is not the worshipping of a deity....but to act like a deity. (ever read Leviticus? Be holy for Adonai your G-d is holy?)

This conflicts with Christian belief, which states that all it takes is to accept Jesus as your savior and you have everlasting life...acting like Jesus is only secondary.
But for Jews...there is no silly afterlife. Acting with good deeds is first, G-d is secondary.

You don't want proof. Now that's an interesting assumption. Didn't I JUST NOW (a post ago) ask you for the proof? No? Well if I havn't asked, Im asking now. Where's the proof?

I really DO want the proof Cherisa.

I always respond, I just don't say what you want to hear. Correction, you always POST. But you don't always adress the question. Sometimes I sit and ponder how your statements are even related to what I'm saying to you.
And sometimes you dont even post.

Guess what Cherisa? I had a dream too, I walked into my bathroom, I looked into my toilet and I saw the words Cherisa inscribed in a yellow liquid forming the charachters to your name. I then flushed the yellow-letters down with a few nuggets of crap that had your name inscribed on them.
How's that for a dream?

I am calling you out Bob , where's your proof that Christ doesn't EXIST? It seriously depends on what you view 'Christ' as. I'll make a languistically correct aproach. Christ is the Greek word for meshiach, or messiah. And I am deffining what the real intention of messiah is.

The question is not "Did the messiah exist" but rather, is Jesus really a messiah...and what does Jesus really symbolize. And NT validity.
You are makeing the wrong approach in this area.

If you only knew. In the New Testament , It says that God has shut Jewish eyes to not see Christ as the messiah, so that the gentiles could come in, It's really God's plan. So you are never gonna see it until God takes his blinders off you, you could pray for that, but I suspect you don't really pray or have a desire to. I would honestly really like to know what Jews are viewed as.
Do you reffer to people born as Jews, or converts.
If this were so, no Jew would ever convert to Christianity because they would never follow Jesus. This however is not so, because I have seen Jews convert to Christianity, and as a matter of fact, Christians convert to Judaism. So your argument, unfortunately, seems a bit....empty. No proof whatsoever, just by a quick glance at the people around us we can be sure of that.

Besides, where does it say this in the NT?

Not to mention that early Christians (for 400 years) HAD to be Jewish by birth. Even though Constantine changed that, it still shows that Jews thaught Jesus was the mesiah.

let me know if i am wrong on this. I also think that the power of God to pretty much do what he wants to is where your arguments should head towards ......You're not God, you certanly ack like you KNOW everything though. You're missing the essence of this debate.

Don't get me wrong, I deffinately believe in G-d. This debate is whether Jesus is G-d or not.
Becuase I just hate that same old common Christian ignorance, of thinking Jews are poly-theists or something.

I'm sorry you have that impresion of me. You can't always judge someone by a debate they do. If anything, you should have learned this from Jesus, even the Torah says it.

I don't get why you are so MAD, Personally I think you could use some tidying up your own life instead of sitting around every day bitching about Jesus. I find hypocritical comments highly unnerving. Not to mention that Jesus wants us to believe in him...and I find it completely fair that I should question his existance in order to firmly believe in him, supposing my verdict is that he exists.
And since Jesus is all caring and all love and understanding, surely he will understand my curiosity.
Note: If I indeed "bitched" about Jesus as much as you think I do, the only thread that I should have made should be the thread I'm typing in right now. The other threads in other areas of this forum, BY YOUR STANDARDS, should absolutely, in Jesus's name, not even exist! So please, Cherisa, give me a break about this "You bitch more than me" thing, because it's getting EXTREMELY childish and silly.

What Would Jesus Do?
Jesus would give me a flippin rest from all your hipocritical and non-sensical statements.

Beatnik Bob

Feb 6th, 2006, 8:15 PM

Oh, and Foelhe, I think I found the proof you were looking for, for the mishna's validity.

This is a detail that I did not learn until recently from my rabbi. It makes me feel really bad that I didn't find this out earlier. Here it is:

I just learned that not to accept the mishna is to not accept the Torah. Because I learned that for a very long time the Torah WAS the mishna.
The Torah was not actually written down until about 1000 years after the giving at Sinai. The whole Torah was passed down by memory and word of mouth till the Romans came in to concure Israel.
Jews recognized that under Roman rule the Torah would become sadly lost, along with its set of oral "codes". Becuase the Romans 1. Were polytheistic at the time, and didn't accept any other religions. And 2. Braught with them a whole new culture, thus killing the old associations for the Torah from the past.
So they comenced in the writting down of the whole Torah, Ket'huvim, Nevi'im, and the one still thaught of as the mishna.
So to deny the mishna's validity is to deny the Torah, the five books of Moses. Ket'huvim, the writtings of books like Psalms. Nevi'im, the books by the Prophets. And to deny only parts of the mishna, the parts of the mishna that are written in the Talmud, is like denying the Gospel of Thomas. I understand the Gospal of Thomas is not valid, and Jesus never said the things catalogued there, but if it WAS the words of Jesus...then that is what it would be like.

Is this the proof you are looking for?
And would you mind responding to my earlier posts adressing Christianity?

-Peace, Shalom, and Salaam

Beatnik Bob

Feb 6th, 2006, 8:39 PM

I started seeing the inconsistencies in the christian doctrine once I actually started reading the Tanach (that is - the christian version of it). Wow. You did this reading the English Tanach? That's a pretty tough place to find inconsistencies in a book rather changed by.....sneaky people.
So yeah, the Christian version eh? That's a tough nut.

If God does not change, then what happened between the so-called Old and New testaments. How did the Sabbath get changed to Sunday? When did abonimations become food? Abominations? ... ...Well, the only reason they were considered unclean is because 3000 years ago there was a pagan festival in which you would take a pregnant cow, slice open its womb. Take out the un-born calf, and using the womb as a cooking pot, cook the calf in its mothers milk over a bon-fire for one of their gods.
The Torah of course supports only one G-d, so having this pagan festival conducted for one of the assortment of many gods qualifies as a polytheistic ritual, thus upholding the practices of many gods, thus conflictinf with the belief for one G-d. Thus the ritual was banned. But it also kicked to things out, it was considered very sick and repugnant to kill a poor little baby cow in it's own mothers milk, and for that matter any cow's milk, and not even necessarily a calf.
It was saying that the Torah not only holds laws for humans, but goes against the repugnant eating of a cow in milk, showing that it is laws for all creatures of nature.
I suppose abomination is the right word for it then. Right on dcookcan.

But I see you did your history. :2thumbs:

I have been taking Hebrew at the local sinagogue, which is why I have a limited understanding of the language. I like Jews. Once they understand that I am not trying to convert them or change their beliefs and that I just want to learn from them, they drop their defenses and we become fast friends. ... ... well I supppose that's good to know...at leaste that's how I generally feel. One reason I don't exactly enjoy my rather....chutzpa filled chats with Cherisa.

I got a chance to listen to Yossi Olmert yesterday (the acting PMs brother). Interesting fellow.
Oh really? That's groovey.

Beatnik Bob

Feb 7th, 2006, 5:48 PM

I still want a response to my question: Where does it say in the NT that Jews can't accept G-d?
I notice you put quote boxes around things, but don't respond. This isn't harassment, assult, or cruelty of any kind Cherisa...just an observation.

NO I MEAN HAVE YOU READ IT? I advise you to speak with clarity next time. And I notice you are expiriencing some trouble with quote boxes. This should be fixed...unless these deformities were intended.
The only reason I note this is because I'm reading through your post and I have a strange feeling of deja vu, or that I'm debating myself, but I soon realize that it is because you failed to use the quote boxes properly.

Please listen to me carefully Cherisa, because I know you will accuse me of being a cruel villain for pointing out this error I say this: It is simply an inconvinience that I was attempting to set to rights, becuase it gets pretty damn hard to debate a post that has my own arguments scattered throughout the post. So please, mend the world or something, even if it's only an online debate (matbe I should change my signature back to that).

But anyway, yes. Yes I have read the NT. As a matter of fact I read the Qu'ran as well, the Ramayana, a few Vedas, the Triptika...
I don't enjoy living in ignorance Cherisa.

I read it ,just don't get what you are sayiong.
I'm saying that there is nothing that Jesus said or did that the Torah doesn't already say. And I give NUMEROUS examples.

You do realize that JESUS WAS A JEW AND SO WERE THE WRITTERS OF THE GOSPEL!!!! WOULD YOU CONSIDER THEM TO BE CONVERTS? And you do realize that you were saying how Jews will never accept Jesus as their savior because we have had our eyes shut by Jesus. And yet you point out the obvious, that Jesus is Jewish, and so are his desciples.
So how is it Jesus's desciples followed him if they had there eyes shut to him? This leads us to seriously consider the lagitimacy of the New Testament.

I am a christian and I look forward to leaving this world I am not afraid of dying. You should choose one Cherisa, (one or the other).

I have no problem with you not being afraid to die, that is undoubtedly a good thing....BUT WAITING TO DIE? This implies that you are doing just that...waiting to die. Which in my opinion (and MOST peoples) opinions, this is a bad thing. Because it says that all you are doing is sitting on a porch, shucking corn cobs and waiting for a golden chariot to fly out of the sky and hit you in the head and take you off to some magical place. And meanwhile, ALL YOU DID IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE WAS WAIT. You didn't actually do anything to help the world or the people around you...just sit and shuck...sit and rock in your rocking chair...just sit and wait for the day you die...doing nothing positive for anyone around you....not even the corn.

I'm not saying you necessarily do this, but that statement implies that you are waiting to leave this world....in other words waiting to die...which implies sitting in a chair and....

Is that true,BOB? Of course it's true. It says so in your own NT, He that believith in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. (i.e. it doesn't take any good deeds or actions, just believe in him. Deeds and actions are a second thaught).

What kind of proof are you looking for? Physical proof or spritual proof? I will undoubtedly get neither, but here goes: I'm looking for proof that says WITHOUT A DOUBT, JESUS IS G-D. And no Cherisa, pithy sayings from the NT aren't gunna make the jump.

I wonder why, I post at all, you spew such venom and hatred It just is sometimes not worth my time. Really? I find this quite intrigueing that I can type things rather disspasionetly and always get the same reaction from you. I suppose if I were to exclaim, I LOVE YOU CHERISA! COME ON MAMMA!!! I would most likely get a response of, "You're going to hell you vile spewing, pawn scum pooing, pubic hair doing,...."
*sniffs the air and sighs*
Ahh, The sweet gentle aroma of life....

But seriously, I find it interesting that you absolutely LOVE to be called words such as 'bitch' and you become quite offended when I correct you. I think you just dont like being corrected. You feel offended by me because I am Jewish, which is not of your religioun. And you feel offended by my actions when I ever say 'correction' or anything of the sort.

It is the maturity that draws me back to AO. *Sigh* here we go again. Do the hipocritical statements ever end?

Why do you consider your dream legitimate but not mine? And you quite clearly use a display of sarcasm towards me, implying that I am NOT mature. But what gives you justification to say that I am imature by sharing my dream, and yours however IS true...because your dream wasn't decrying yourself.

Jesus is the messiah. Well, that is what you are trying to prove.

The question is not "Did the messiah exist" but rather, is Jesus really a messiah...and what does Jesus really symbolize. And NT validity.
You are makeing the wrong approach in this area. Please remember to respond. This isn't a vemonous message, just a reminder Cherisa.

Obviously, the early church did not have access to the vast media we have today , so I am not going to resond to this question.
This is silly for 4 reasons. As follows:
1. Early writting systems were characters inscribed on either wet clay tablets, animal skins, and later papyrus and paper. And it takes a scribe about 2-3 years to handwrite the whole Torah with emense presision and detail.
So the whole Torah can be written down in 2-3 years, and aparently it took someone 60-70 years after Jesus's death to decide to start writting the NT.

2. People back then had just as much brain power as we do today, so it wouldn't take 60 or 70 years to finally decide to start writing an expirience you had. Humans of all periods of time are capable of seeing something and recording it emidiately.

3. The lifespan at the time was about 50 years, maybe less, so everyone at the time of Jesus was dead by the time someone decided to write the gospals. This says that no one can be sure any of this happened, since noone ever saw Jesus do those things.

4. 'Eons of time' reffers to the past AND the present, so by saying 'eons' Cherisa, you made the impression that 60-70 is the fastest we can record something.

You do realize that JESUS WAS A JEW AND SO WERE THE WRITTERS OF THE GOSPEL!!!! WOULD YOU CONSIDER THEM TO BE CONVERTS?
Not to mention that early Christians (for 400 years) HAD to be Jewish by birth. Even though Constantine changed that, it still shows that Jews thaught Jesus was the mesiah.
YEP You are admitting that the NT is false. Because according to the NT Jews cannot believe in Jesus because we have been blinded. And you are agreeing with me by saying 'YEP'.

It's not REALLY A DEBATE What's not? Or wait...is this apart of my post that you failed to delete in your post? *sigh* questions that will never be answered...

Just for the record, you didn't respond to the end of my last post.

Just saying the NT says it, isn't sufficient proof against a non-Christian or Jew, because I don't already believe Jesus is G-d

Oh I beg to differ on that. It's just not true for you

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You know, I picked up a pretty good idea from Bill Nye for signatures...I just might make this my signature.

Beatnik Bob

Feb 8th, 2006, 6:22 PM

I don't mind letting you get the last word.

However, why would you ask your JEWISH RABBI about a passage from the Torah that says Jews are blinded....besides, I've read the Torah and one such passage would have immediately cought my eye on the first read (ulternative answer) there is no such passage in the Torah.

You claim to be Jewish, and yet you fullheartedly believe in a phrase saying Jews are blind...thus, yourself blind.

What kind of Rabbi preaches Jesus?

And what is this cult religious clan that you seem to be a member of...because there are no other Torah derived cultures besides Judaism that have a mishna.

At leaste answer these questions. I realize you are not all that delighted in debate...but can you answer these questions perhaps?

And Foelhe, RESPOND!

If you don't....I'm afraid I must make that plead a signature....

But seriously Foelhe, you are concerning me. Have you moved into a phsycologically caused despondense?

Philosopher Foelhe

Feb 9th, 2006, 5:06 PM

Apologies for my absense. Life has gotten kinda crazy lately, and I didn't have the energy to respond here. Hopefully things are calming down now.

Truth is, it was a good break. I've been having this argument with you for awhile, and I kinda lost perspective of what I was trying to say in the beginning. This reply probably wasn't what you were looking for, but here it is anyway.

First of all, I didn't have a prayer in Hell of winning this argument. I know nothing about the Torah, I have no interest in either religion, so either way I was screwed. So, apologies. I've been boneheaded, wasting everyone's time with an argument when I really didn't know the variables.

Secondly - while you may be right, and Christianity may go against the Torah... so what? Is your faith somehow diminished by someone who has the wrong answer? You'll notice there are plenty of people on this site who don't agree with Christianity... but the only one I've really argued with is you. And you know why? Because pretty much every post you've made in the religious section of the forums was decrying Christianity, often in a way that had very little connection to the argument at hand. Maybe Christianity is wrong, wrong, wrong, but damn, man. Gain some perspective.

And that's really all I have to say about that. I'll leave your questions about faith to the Christians on the forum... y'know, people who actually have something to lose here. Hope you guys can stick up for yourselves, because it's your turn at bat.

Ah, it's good to be back. :D

Beatnik Bob

Feb 11th, 2006, 10:40 PM

I am not entirely sure how much I care that Christianity goes against the Torah, which conflicts with what you seem to believe from me. The only problems I actually have with Christianity, and indeed many others, is 1. hypocrisy, and 2. ignorance, and failure in CERTAIN ideologies.

Hypocrisy because Christians claim they fallow the Torah and its laws, which they clearly do not.
Ignorance because most Christians don't question anything. Christianity has one interpretation, often literal, and that's it! Also they think they have every answer to the universe. They hold a stance where they think they have all the answers. They think all you must do is accept Jesus in there heart and THAT'S IT, and nothing lese must be done for a perfect life. They sit on a dung hill of knowledge, next to a mountain of knowledge...and they LIKE being on it. They wallow in their ignorance.
You might say this also applies to Judaism...but it doesn't. Because though we may have a mishna (which might be considered an answer book of some strange sort) we have a Talmud. Our Talmud is a constant dialogue with G-d and the Torah...which spans for millenia. The mishna and Torah will never stop being applied to daily life...so that we can progress. We accept that we don't have the answers, and we strive, and are encuraged to, progress through talmudic reasoning.
The failure in Cristian ideology which I stated reffers to the fact that the NT supports worship of Jesus OVER deeds of loving kindness and actions. This is not a very good thing to believe, even Jews accept that what is the point of worshipping G-d if that's all you're doing. We put physical deeds of love above G-d. For the letters Yud Hey Vav (words attributed to G-d) are not even depicting a noun. G-d's name is a verb. The Torah is a call to action, not centraly to worship.
So exactly where do you progress to when following Christian ideology? The ideology that says sit and worship and accept Jesus in your heart...and maybe, just for kicks, do good things. You would get nowhere!
The reason I point out these human atrocities for Christianity, is because I have found, out of all the various religiouns that I've studied, that Christianity accepts the most, and DOES the most, crap ever imagined!

So this is in response to your statement of "so what if they're wrong." Because proving them wrong wasn't exactly the perpouse of this argument. But rather frowning upon ignorance, destructive ideologies, and hypocrasies, of both subtle and evident nature.

Beatnik Bob

Feb 11th, 2006, 10:45 PM

And farewell Foelhe, for this is what it seems to be.
I shall miss the intelectual, and often heated, arguments with you. They were quite intelectually stimulating on my part. Thank you.

<taps being played>

BaastetNoir

Mar 20th, 2006, 3:20 PM

well...if it is pathetic, than why don't you lead everyone else into the right way...

Cornish Maid

Mar 20th, 2006, 3:55 PM

Thank you for understanding.

So according to Christians, they could worship me, since I'm not made by a human. And actually, it talks about any image. Because since no one has ever seen G-d, you cannot draw, carve, or sculpt any image of G-d.

Well, lets pretend Jesus is god, what about Jesus being terrorized by Satan in the wilderness? And also, obviously Satan is powerefull in the Christian view, to even be able to harm Jesus and all humanity, whether he was given permission or not.

No, not at all. First, the book of Job isn't in the Torah. It's in a book called: Kethuvim. Which means that it doesn't come from the Torah (means other writtings, Torah means teachings).
Also, we believe the Torah, and its dictionary(Mishna). And speeking of which, alot of it is symbolism, like when Solomon stopped the Sun in the sky, now how can you stop the sun in the sky?

Now i'm no scientist but I did read somewhere that there was a time in history when the inner core got out of kilter with the outer crust and the earths rotation was stopped for twenty four hours. Apparantly reports from the other side of the globe corrisponded. This was at a time when in the bible the sun stood still.

Philosopher Foelhe

Mar 20th, 2006, 5:41 PM

Now i'm no scientist but I did read somewhere that there was a time in history when the inner core got out of kilter with the outer crust and the earths rotation was stopped for twenty four hours.

... Well, I'm also not a scientist, but I'm gonna guess this is nonsense. If the Earth literally stopped spinning, I believe inertia would cause everything not attached to the surface of the planet to continue travelling forward. The planet rotates at over a thousand miles an hour - everyone on the planet would be thrown forward at that speed. Due to debris, g-forces, and... well, landing, I'd say we'd be lucky if a single person on Earth actually survived the catastrophe.

There's also the question of what caused the Earth to miraculously start spinning again, at the same speed no less. If the Earth's day-cycle was changed, it probably would've been mentioned at some point, by someone.

(Although I've heard that the human body's optimum day-cycle is twenty-six hours. Maybe that describes the difference? *ponders*)

Anyway, while it's possible this did happen, I find it highly unlikely. If someone wants to tell me why I'm wrong, I'd be happy to listen.

Cornish Maid

Apr 27th, 2006, 5:29 PM

The thing I have against Judaism as a Christian is that you killed the Son of God. Not in a nice way either . Pilate washed his hands on the decision and your ancesters insisted on killing Him. Now even if He wasn't the Son of God that was rather harsh don't you think.

I suppose you are still waiting for your Messiah.

Getting a bit late isn't it.

Just take a look over at Iran.

You might not always have the USA around to help out.

Even so I wish you well but it is not very comfortable is it.

krakatoa

Apr 27th, 2006, 9:30 PM

Cornish Maid, Good point, very good point fellow member of AOL. That is why, the Judaims peoples, did'nt want the Passion of the Christ, from Mel Gibson, to be seen. They where impliying that it was anti semetism, But we saw it. I got the integral version here at home, I listended to it. And I felt better after even if it is a hard movie, it was just before easter. What was done in the past is in the past but this is in our heart, and soul, still even after 2006 years. Jesus is still the messiah, for the Christian, and they are still waiting for Theirs.

Philosopher Foelhe

Apr 28th, 2006, 1:05 AM

The thing I have against Judaism as a Christian is that you killed the Son of God. Not in a nice way either . Pilate washed his hands on the decision and your ancesters insisted on killing Him.

I'm just curious how you'd react if a bunch of Christians decided to kill an innocent man.

I suppose you are still waiting for your Messiah.

Actually, if you'd decided to read the thread, you'd see that Bob believes the "messiah" refers to the tribe of Israel. So, nope.

Cornish Maid

Apr 28th, 2006, 4:21 AM

I just get fed up with Christian bashing.
Here in England they are talking about renaming our Christmas lights to winter lights so as not to offend people of other faiths.
I have respect for other faiths but this is a Christian country and we are bending over backwards to be politicaly correct.
Meanwhile we have Muslems marching in the streets saying death to all the infidels and burning flags.
If Christians murdered an innocent man I would be gutted.
If Bob isn't waiting for a messiah that's fine by me.

Philosopher Foelhe

Apr 28th, 2006, 4:17 PM

Here in England they are talking about renaming our Christmas lights to winter lights so as not to offend people of other faiths.
I have respect for other faiths but this is a Christian country and we are bending over backwards to be politicaly correct.

I want to make it very clear that I'm not trying to be hostile, and that I'm honestly just trying to understand this viewpoint. Please do not take the following as an attack.

I don't understand why Christians get so upset when people change a word to make people more comfortable. Honestly, would referring to Christmas lights as "winter lights" hurt your faith in any way? If the official term for something changes, why does anything else necessarily have to change?

Also, I have to admit it worries me when people say things like, "this is a Christian country". It almost sounds like you believe non-Christians have less right to live among you.

Meanwhile we have Muslems marching in the streets saying death to all the infidels and burning flags.

You're comparing the worst of Muslims with hostility against Christians. That's not really a fair comparison. For one thing, Christians are asked to give up token rights like the phrase "Christmas lights" while Muslims are often full-out discriminated against. For another, Muslims get slammed just like Christians do. Hell, we've got a thread rolling on forum right now about Muslim faith, and much of that has been negative. And Christians do have their black sheep, like Muslims do.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 28th, 2006, 4:30 PM

The thing I have against Judaism as a Christian is that you killed the Son of God.
Wait, are you telling me that according to Christianity Jesus did not INTEND to be killed? That he didn't die for ALL MANKIND of his OWN FREEWILL on PURPOSE in order to SAVE HUMANITY FROM THEIR SINS? How can you blame the Jews, when, according to Christianity, Jesus was MEANT to die by the WILL OF GOD ("Father, take this cup from me; but no, not my will, but YOUR WILL BE DONE"). The death of Jesus was the "will of God" according to Christianity. According to Christianity, God WANTED Jesus to die the way he did, by the hands that he did- and EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER SINNED IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH - according to your faith. All this "blame the Jews" crap does nothing but make Christians look hypocrytical and stupid, and it does NOTHING for the cause of Christianity.

Marajadex

Apr 28th, 2006, 5:40 PM

The thing I have against Judaism as a Christian is that you killed the Son of God.Now wait a minute... I thought it was the Romans...

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate)
Pontius Pilate (Latin Pontius Pilatus) was the governor of the Roman province of Judea and Roman general from AD 26 until around AD 36, who is best known in modern times for being claimed by Christians, and their literature, to have ordered the crucifixion of Jesus, instigating the Passion.

The question of responsibility for Jesus' death
In all New Testament accounts, Pilate hesitates to condemn Jesus until the crowd insists. Some have suggested that this may have been an effort by early Christian polemicists to curry favor with Rome by placing the blame for Jesus' execution on the Jews, and an anti-Jewish tendency is certainly noticeable in the Gospel of John. It has been hypothesised that it was part of the process by which Pauline Christians marginalised the still-observant Jewish Christians of the Levant (Ebionites).

Roman magistrates had wide discretion in executing their tasks, and some question whether Pilate would have been so captive to the demands of the crowd (Miller 49-50). Summarily executing someone to calm the situation would however have been a tool a Roman governor could have used, and Pilate's reputation for cruelty and violence in secular accounts of the era makes it quite plausible he would have had no hesitation in using this tool.

The Nicene Creed adopted in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea and completed in the Second Ecumenical Council which was in Constantinople, stated unambiguously that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The main reason for the inclusion in the creed was to state the belief in Jesus as a real Person, living in a precise moment and place, i.e. a Historical Jesus. In modern times, Western traditions regard Pilate as guilty, but those of Eastern Orthodoxy argue that he was clearly exonerated, and did all that he could to release Jesus.

Beatnik Bob

Apr 28th, 2006, 6:08 PM

Cornish Maid

Apr 29th, 2006, 3:38 AM

And you have a problem with this because????
.....

If my ancestors hadn't killed Jesus, you wouldn't be saved would you now?
Hi Beatnic Bob

I just got back off night duty and read your post

It's true your people fulfilled the prophesies and created Christianity. As this wasn't in their interest wouldn't it have been a smarter move not to kill Him. Whats done is done and there is no going back so thats it and all about it.

I won't insult your people by calling them ignorant and stupid, with no comprehension of actions and outcomes. How could they see what might happen.
Oh well, here we are , all members of the human race, still squabbling and fighting as usual. Nothing changes with us lot does it.

Cornish Maid

Apr 29th, 2006, 4:21 AM

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm

Beatnik Bob

Apr 29th, 2006, 10:44 AM

It's true your people fulfilled the prophesies and created Christianity. As this wasn't in their interest wouldn't it have been a smarter move not to kill Him. Whats done is done and there is no going back so thats it and all about it. Okay, let's pretend he was never killed. I geuss you're going to hell now.

I won't insult your people by calling them ignorant and stupid, with no comprehension of actions and outcomes. How could they see what might happen. What happened anyway? People were saved wit Jesuses bowl o' love!
Besides, have you ever been to a riot? things happen there that are never intended. Have you ever heard of mob psychology.
Besides, I wonder if you have even read Mara's post about how it wasn't even Jews. So in that case you should be falling on your faces before the now deceased ROMANS and kissing THEIR toes!

Oh well, here we are , all members of the human race, still squabbling and fighting as usual. Nothing changes with us lot does it. Well, if you recall that this is a DEBATE site, it makes perfect sense to me.

liberdave

Apr 29th, 2006, 11:07 AM

I won't insult your people by calling them ignorant and stupid, with no comprehension of actions and outcomes.

Yes, please don't, we don't take kind to racism here.

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm

I bet more people would click all of these crazy links if you gave a little synopsis behind them. Just some advice.

Cornish Maid

Apr 29th, 2006, 11:12 AM

Hello my handsome

I was looking at the death of Christ from an emotional point of view. If I had been there I would probably have been throwing up. If I had gone down to the local Inn later and someone was bragging about how He died I would probably have chucked their beer in their face. Then I suppose I would have had my throat cut or something.

God has His plan

Something is going on here and we don't know what it is, do we Mr Jones . Bob Dylan

Cornish Maid

Apr 29th, 2006, 11:28 AM

Beatnik Bob

Apr 29th, 2006, 12:11 PM

Hypocracy and ignorance for the Christians is alright. It is? I'd say it's bad for anyone.
I do see that this is a lame atempt at sarcasm though, and it doesn't exactly have much to do with the post that you are responding to.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear, I am annoyed with hypocracy no matter the source.

Ignorance and stupidity for the Jews is racist(which I didn't say) Nor has anyone said you did. Did you actually believe that Jews or free from stupidity? My G-d, child...

My Uncle, an ignorant hypocrite, helped liberate the Jews from the concentration camps at the end of the war. Very traumatic as you can imagine.
Ignorant hypocrites were considered quite welcome on this occasion. Because in this occasion he wasn't being very ignorant was he now? He is showing his love for life through UNDERSTANDING that life is important. This is not considered ignorant. Though I would ask you to clarify what you mean by ignorant. Be aware that ignorance of the exact meaning in a debate makes understanding hard. For there are many forms of ignorance, illiteracy, ignorance of family origins, etc.
And just because someone expresses ignorance and hipocracy does not mean they are down right evil.

Cornish Maid

Apr 30th, 2006, 3:36 AM

Hiya Beatnic Bob

It is? I'd say it's bad for anyone.
I do see that this is a lame atempt at sarcasm though, and it doesn't exactly have much to do with the post that you are responding to.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear, I am annoyed with hypocracy no matter the source.

I think you know I was responding to Liberdave's post, but I havn't got the hang of multiple quoting, until now possibly. You are annoyed with hypocracy, well so am I and I don't think you can label ALL Christians with hypocracy for not reading the Torah on a regular basis. We come from many different nations, we have are own histories and we have the New Testament.

Christ taught that love and forgiveness were essential for living right and I don't think He was all that impressed with religous hierarcheys. Not a lot of point being greatly religous if your heart is in the wrong place, is it.
:2thumbs:
I'm afraid I still haven't got the hang of multi quoting.

Ignorance....well I was just quoting you. An example of ignorance...The cloud of unknowing written by anonimous About all the things that are completely beyond are understanding, I think. I'll really have to read it again. By the way do you have a sense of humour?

By, my handsome

Cornish Maid

Apr 30th, 2006, 8:13 AM

Beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and devil are fighting there, and the battlefield is the heart of man.

If the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness.

Fedor Dostoevsky

Scrapyard Ape

Apr 30th, 2006, 11:43 AM

[C:\Documents and Settings\USER\My Documents\Orthodox Perspectives on Creation.htm
And posting the directory address to some document on your hard drive is supposed to accomplish what exactly? :dork:

Marajadex

Apr 30th, 2006, 2:42 PM

I don't think you can label ALL Christians with hypocracy for not reading the Torah on a regular basis. We come from many different nations, we have are own histories and we have the New Testament. To have a real understanding of faith, religion and spirituality one does need to read other sources. The Torah, The Tao, and many other texts that deal with the perception of God. If you LIMIT your self to only one teaching then you LIMIT your ability to understand and to discuss knowledgably with others.

Cornish Maid

May 1st, 2006, 4:28 AM

To have a real understanding of faith, religion and spirituality one does need to read other sources. The Torah, The Tao, and many other texts that deal with the perception of God. If you LIMIT your self to only one teaching then you LIMIT your ability to understand and to discuss knowledgably with others.
I fully agree

Marajadex

May 1st, 2006, 6:01 PM

I fully agreeGlad you agree. Too many like to argue that their perspective is the only true perspective with out the benefit of understanding what they are really discussing.

krakatoa

May 2nd, 2006, 6:28 PM

this thread is really peacefull compare with others on religion.
there is a lot of fighting, on certain threads, I think it is the reflection of reality, about relegion around the world. C.

Cornish Maid

Oct 13th, 2006, 12:39 PM

Philosopher Foelhe

Oct 13th, 2006, 5:42 PM

Now I understand the rules I can see that I wasn't being anti semetic.

Oh, you were certainly being anti-Semetic. "Your ancestors." Racial passage. The Jewish culture is both religious and racial, and your response played into both meanings, so you were in fact being anti-Semetic.

I might as well point out that whether you were being racist or not, you were certainly spouting hatred and bigotry. Whether that's against our rules, I understand your God doesn't look too kindly upon such things. You talk about turning the other cheek, but the second some action hurts your circle, you're right back to eye for an eye. Some Christian.

Heh. I'm not being much of a mod at this point, so I might as well say - if you want to discuss this, PM me or one of the other mods. DON'T act like a whiny bitch in public to try to make us feel uncomfortable. Instead of doing the mature thing, and discussing this rationally, you run around the forum dragging up old shit and trying to hide behind the skirts of public opinion. Stop being such a goddamn child.

I'll admit, I might have said something wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm new to modding, I'm not perfect, I can acknowledge that. You want to discuss that? Fine, let's discuss it. You want to try to piss all over things? We've got plenty of trolls on forum, one more isn't gonna ruffle me much. It takes me twenty seconds to read your posts - if they're childish, the only person whose time you're wasting is you.

Cornish Maid

Oct 14th, 2006, 3:09 AM

Beatnik Bob

Oct 16th, 2006, 11:46 PM

.....

I'm not going to even go here...(I don't repeat myself on a writen down debate)

But if only you could see my, internal, outrageous laughter.

You're funny and you don't know it CM...I beg you to become a comedian...I'm sure you'll get lots and lots of laughs to your name...

Cornish Maid

Oct 17th, 2006, 7:56 AM

Thanks BB

I think on the forum Wastelandwarrior is the funniest, but whatever turns you on.

Nice to have you around again and glad to see your sense of humour button is switched on.

mickydoolittle

Oct 21st, 2006, 12:34 AM

I was fairly new to the forum and noticed a lot of Christian bashing going on.

Beatnik Bob was just one, when he insinuated that all Christians are ignorant hypocrites I thought that was a huge generalisation.
There's no bashing...there's truthful posting...the problem with christianity is christians. Don't forget such.

Most are indeed ignorant and hypocrites....it's due to their being blinded by by their religious bred intolerance and regimented denial of independent thought.

Cornish Maid

Oct 21st, 2006, 4:08 AM

There's no bashing...there's truthful posting...the problem with christianity is christians. Don't forget such.

Most are indeed ignorant and hypocrites....it's due to their being blinded by by their religious bred intolerance and regimented denial of independent thought.
Well here's another opinion from the great, the wonderful "opinionated bastard".

Not only that, he's in bed with Beatnik Bob.

mickydoolittle

Oct 23rd, 2006, 3:09 AM

Well here's another opinion from the great, the wonderful "opinionated bastard".
Indeed. :smokin: You've improved your ability to succesfully post about the obvious.

Not only that, he's in bed with Beatnik Bob.
No one likes a homophobe. . .tsk tsk tsk. See what religion does to ppl? :bondage:

Assassin X

Oct 23rd, 2006, 4:13 AM

Well for once a post I haven't seen. Since I am WAYYYYY to lazy to read 7 pages of religious slamming I'll just assume they are about the oroginal topic then turn into personal slams and then jokes, then more slams, then slam jokes....etc.

So I'll just throw in my 2 cents as always.

Satan and God aren't "two" supreme beings. Satan is a fallen angel. God never bothered taking care of him since he (satan) wanted to make his own "heaven" (you could say...hell really) so when all things end then god sends everyone who didn't believe to hell where satan can have his little "party" and think hes so smart. Theres never been a war of supreme beings.

Yes both god and satan fight to turn people on their side but satan is not anywhere near being powerful, hes just an angel, obviously amazingly powerful if compared to us, but a turd compared to God......assuming you believe in God.

Cornish Maid

Oct 23rd, 2006, 11:46 AM

Indeed. :smokin: You've improved your ability to succesfully post about the obvious.

No one likes a homophobe. . .tsk tsk tsk. See what religion does to ppl? :bondage:
I would just like to point out the non obvious and let you know that I do not have a problem with homosexuallity. I used to hang around with gay people and we had a good laugh, my current manager is gay and it really is not a problem.

The term is used when groups or individuals share the same veiws and attitudes. Like Tony Blair and President Bush over Iraq. It doesn't mean that they fancy each other. Ok ?

grendel 13

Oct 23rd, 2006, 12:05 PM

Satan and God aren't "two" supreme beings. Satan is a fallen angel. God never bothered taking care of him since he (satan) wanted to make his own "heaven" (you could say...hell really) so when all things end then god sends everyone who didn't believe to hell where satan can have his little "party" and think hes so smart. Theres never been a war of supreme beings.

Yes both god and satan fight to turn people on their side but satan is not anywhere near being powerful, hes just an angel, obviously amazingly powerful if compared to us, but a turd compared to God......assuming you believe in God.

i pretty much agree with your thinking here, and it has led me to ponder; if the devil was the first angel, a being of light, where did he get the idea to rebel?

Assassin X

Oct 23rd, 2006, 1:52 PM

grendel 13

Oct 23rd, 2006, 4:10 PM

Supposedly in the bible, and I use "supposedly" because I don't know the exact verse, he "rebeled" because he thought he was better then god or something along the lines of that. Now I don't remember exactly what happened.

It was either:

A. God kicked him out and made "hell" and sent him there.

B. He left on his own accord and made his own realm to pull in sinners.

see i've heard this too, and it just doesn't seem believable to me ( like the rest of the bible is realistic,lol). i mean, if the devil was the first angel he should have known that he was never going to be better than god. see i feel there are two possibilities concerning the devils rebellion....

1.) there are two gods; the one christians believe in, all loving and stuff, and its opposite, a god of hate. the god of hate influenced the devil.

2.) god is both loving and hateful, he is everything. therefore he has the capacity to be the ultimate being of love as well as the ultimate being of hate, therefore the devil always had the knowledge of hate, and chose this side over love.

i'm sure there is a billion other possibilities, but these seem, assuming gods and devils are real, the most realistic to me.

Beatnik Bob

Oct 23rd, 2006, 9:27 PM

No one likes a homophobe. . .tsk tsk tsk. See what religion does to ppl? :bondage:
It isn't homophobia.
Based on your avatar I can't be sure you're a human, let alone of the male variety...

i pretty much agree with your thinking here, and it has led me to ponder; if the devil was the first angel, a being of light, where did he get the idea to rebel?
It is possible that you would rebel on the very grounds that you are a "being of light."
You think you can do it better.
Like with the early Puritans and Cathlicism. The Puritans no doubt thought they were the beings of light and in the right mind-set and the Catholics weren't doing it right, so the rebelled, and became a Puritan, or "pure" and holy example for the Catholics.
And nearly the same could go for the Seperatists...

1.) there are two gods; the one christians believe in, all loving and stuff, and its opposite, a god of hate. the god of hate influenced the devil.

2.) god is both loving and hateful, he is everything. therefore he has the capacity to be the ultimate being of love as well as the ultimate being of hate, therefore the devil always had the knowledge of hate, and chose this side over love.
Christianity refuses to acknowledge the hasatan side of G-d, or the evil side. They completely dissmiss it's existence and condemn evil...and some of them go so far as to condemn MUSIC, labeling it satanic or the act of listening to it "devil worship", somehow claiming it has roots to satan?
(in fact, I was at Barnes and Nobles over the weekend, eyeing a Black Sabbath CD, and some guy happened to walk past and see me and he said, "Don't serve the Devil" I gave him a funny look and shook my head. I'm not very verbose about my opinions in public...unfortunately).
And they forget that without a certain amount of evil, G-d would cease to exist in functionality...without "bad", how is there a "good."
And then they talk about satan being thrown in a pit of fire in the end times...which is completely absurd....

The only problem though, is that Christianity doesn't really have a real base for their NT (or OT)...they never really specify what they believe on the community level...their religion is based on individual beliefs, rather than communal beliefs.
While it is good to come to individual comclusions in your life...in the case of religion it kind of makes it ununited. But then if you DO happen to make an individual decision, that goes against the ideas of the majority in the religion, you most likely get told you're going to hell (there's democrasy in it's negetive for you).

Sure...they have the Nicene Creed, but all that really preaches is that Jesus and the father are Christianity's gods. That isn't much of a religious platform...

I don't want to sound like I'm the Puritans in this case and sound like Judaism has all the right answers, which it doesn't but Christianity needs something like the Talmud where they can have an open dialogue with their writings, and about their writings. They have no real debate (except maybe in the individual sense) about their writings that says what they believe. COMMUNITY is an important, and sometimes unconsidered, important aspect of religion. Christianity's lack of unity and belief system is a "bad" thing...
But I suppose you need a certain amount of bad don't you? Without bad there can't be good. Or perhaps it's disfunctionality rather than bad? In that case...