Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Guilty as charged. But because the kid looks like me doesn't mean it's mine.Excuse me? As of now you're the only authority on this hypothesis.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Guilty as charged. But because the kid looks like me doesn't mean it's mine.Excuse me? As of now you're the only authority on this hypothesis.
Yes.Would it be safe to assume that you assume that Jesus himself "had no real idea what the presence of such a force meant, which left everything to [his] imagination?
Perhaps I should attempt to define prophecy.That seems odd to me. But maybe it shouldn't
This touches on another "thing" (within the subject of "The nature of God, according to Judaism") that I've wanted to explore for a while.One thing's clear: God in His infinity can't be contained in one physical object/place.
Ahhh, an irreconcilable difference. Finally!
So you think Jesus knew what he was talking about?Ahhh, an irreconcilable difference. Finally!
I've been pondering this all morning. Man, is this trudging into deep kabbalah territory (of which I know nothing of).
Okay, here's what I know (hopefully I won't botch this up too much):
The shechinah is God - it's a term to signify His presence in this world.
At the same time, you have a concept which you've mentioned already - tzimtzum - how does that fit into all of this? It's very complicated. One thing's clear: God in His infinity can't be contained in one physical object/place.
Now, to Ruach Hakodesh:
That's definitely not God. Ruach Hakodesh is a term that denotes that "tube" thing I mentioned - usually used to define a weaker level connection than that of nevuah (again, badly translated into prophecy in English. Nevuah means 'clear sight' and defines the highest level of connection a person can have with God).
Moses wasn't a walking, talking, piece of Ruach Hakodesh. He had Ruach Hakodesh in that he had the highest sort of nevuah capabilities of any man. "And He said: 'Hear now My words: if there be a prophet among you, I the LORD do make Myself known unto him in a vision, I do speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so; he is trusted in all My house; with him do I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD doth he behold..." (Num. 12:6-8)
To tie this all together, I think the early Christians' mistake was so:
They were somewhat foolish or ignorant in their understanding of these concepts. It's clear that these concepts are very abstract, I mean just try to figure out how Shechinah and Tzimtzum go together, and you see that it's completely mind-boggling. Even to attempt to explain a bit of these concepts demands usage of various parables and metaphors, which already diminishes the deepness of these concepts.
Recall that Jesus came from the Galilee which was rampant with Hellenistic Jews. Those Jews may have held beliefs that these various concepts can really be described in physical terms, that is - that these divine concepts are really physical in some sense, same as Jupiter and Mercury are physical divine entities. Remember those "tubes"? Those aren't really tubes. The term is used for lack of a better way to explain the idea. But Galilean Hellenistic Jews may have thought those are really invisible tubes that come down from God. Much like the childish view that if the Tanach describes God's anger with His "nose smoking", then God must really have s nose that smokes when He's angry! Which is ridiculous. The term is used so that humans can have some semblance of understanding God's ways in this world.
We have no clear proof (to my knowledge) that any of the disciples had real scholarly background. All they may have known about kabbalistic concepts were fragments they heard here and there, and decided they were good enough to be able to piece them together into a seemingly coherent theology.
To their credit, they weren't entirely at fault: a. Hellenism had been rampant in Israel since the time of the Greeks. b. They (the disciples) were probably part of the caste of Jews known in Halacha as "Amei Ha'aretz" - people of the land/earth - boorish, unlearned, commoners (not necessarily in a royal/not royal sort of way). One of the most famous faults of the people in the time of the Second Temple was that the scholars looked down at the amei ha'aretz in a very disrespectful manner. Therefore, it would make sense that there may never have been a scholar around who was willing to take the time to properly explain the concepts. c. No Shechinah in Israel since centuries earlier means they had no idea what that even felt like. Really, anybody could have come up to them and said: "I'm a walking manifestation of the Shechinah", and they wouldn't have been wiser.
And then? And then came Jesus. A seemingly smart, seemingly learned, charismatic individual who was willing to take up these people as students. Did he have real knowledge of these concepts? I have absolutely no idea. Did he teach these things to his students? Again, I don't know. But hey, he gave them some attention. That would've been enough to spark in them the thought that they could piece together all of these concepts, all f these teachings, into a new theology.
I do.So you think Jesus knew what he was talking about?
For the record, I've been mulling my conjecture/hypothesis over and have pretty decided that,I'd be happy to hear your input, and in particular about what I wrote here:
I think this more up Rival's alley, but if you prefer, I can look into it.That brings me to a second topic on my mind: Noachidism, and a question.
- By what authority, and roughly when, did Judaism concede that non-Jewish adoption of Noachide laws was an acceptable alternative to full conversion to Judaism (circumcision, and obedience to ritual and moral laws)?
- And where is it written that the moral impurity of non-Jews that prevented intermarriage was abated by their acceptance of the Noachide laws?
Don't bother, then. Maybe I'll take my questions to Mi Yodeya.I think this more up Rival's alley, but if you prefer, I can look into it.
It never conceded anything; conversion to Judaism was never willed or encouraged with any sort of force. It HaShem wanted everyone to follow the Torah he would have given everyone the Torah. The Noachide Code was always the standard before the Torah for non-Jews and those who would become Jews. We see this when Cain is admonished for murder; when Noach is called righteous; when Sodom is destroyed; when Nineveh is rebuked (after Torah). Yet none of the things these people did, pre-Torah, that are prohibited by the Torah are punished; e.g., Jacob marrying two sisters at the same time. It's the opposite - the standard was raised for those in the Torah Covenant, not lowered for everyone else.By what authority, and roughly when, did Judaism concede that non-Jewish adoption of Noachide laws was an acceptable alternative to full conversion to Judaism (circumcision, and obedience to ritual and moral laws)?
Non-Jews cannot become impure otherwise we'd have purity laws.
- And where is it written that the moral impurity of non-Jews that prevented intermarriage was abated by their acceptance of the Noachide laws?
I'll leave the issue of whether or not your post is inappropriately posted here up to the Moderators to decide.If you think this is inappropriately posted, I'll delete it.
I don't deal in Talmud. That's not my area. I'm also sure you hashed this out with Tumah at some point. The source itself says that this is not the dominant view though, so not sure why you're bringing this up? The idea of Eve having sex with the snake is not a dominant view, neither is the Christian like concept of OS.I'll leave the issue of whether or not your post is inappropriately posted here up to the Moderators to decide.
Whether or not you've accurately presented your argument may require a judgement from the Beth Din, because I read:
(To be continued)
- In Judaism
- The doctrine of "inherited sin" is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam and Eve for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Babylon[120] who believed that mortality was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.[121]
Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of what is called "original sin". Others teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority of chazalic opinions, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of humanity,[122] teaching that, in Genesis 8:21 and 6:5-8, God recognized that Adam did not willfully sin. However, Adam is recognized by some[120] as having brought death into the world by his disobedience. Because of his sin, his descendants will live a mortal life, which will end in death of their bodies.[123] According to book Legends of the Jews, in Judgement Day, Adam will disavow any complaints of all men who accuse him as the cause of death of every human on earth. Instead, Adam will reproach their mortality because of their sins.[124]
- B. Shabbat 145b-146a:
- Rabbi Yoḥanan then explained to them: Why are gentiles ethically contaminated? It is because they did not stand on Mount Sinai. As when the snake came upon Eve, i.e., when it seduced her to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, it infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination remained in all human beings. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai, their contamination ceased, whereas gentiles did not stand at Mount Sinai, and their contamination never ceased. Rav Aḥa, the son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What about converts? How do you explain the cessation of their moral contamination? Rav Ashi said to him: Even though they themselves were not at Mount Sinai, their guardian angels were present, as it is written: “It is not with you alone that I make this covenant and this oath, but with he that stands here with us today before the Lord our God, and with he that is not here with us today” (Deuteronomy 29:13–14), and this includes converts
- B. Yevamot 103b:
- The Gemara answers: He implants filth in her and contaminates her, as her body accepts his semen. As Rabbi Yoḥanan also said, based on his understanding that the serpent seduced Eve into having sexual relations with him: When the serpent came upon Eve, he infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination remained in all human beings. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai their contamination ceased, whereas with regard to gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, their contamination never ceased.
- B. Avodah Zarah 22b:
- And if you wish, say instead: Even when he finds the wife, he also engages in bestiality with the animal, as the Master said: The animal of a Jew is more appealing to gentiles than their own wives, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: At the time when the snake came upon Eve, at the time of the sin of her eating from the Tree of Knowledge, it infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination lingers in all human beings. The Gemara asks: If that is so, a Jew should also be suspected of engaging in bestiality. The Gemara answers: With regard to the Jewish people, who stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah, their contamination ended, whereas in the case of gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai and receive the Torah, their contamination has not ended.
Neither is this thread, but you didn't that stop you, didja?I don't deal in Talmud. That's not my area.
Tumah was kind enough to support my suspicion that the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin has it's roots in the story of the defilement of Eve in Genesis, and that's all the "hashing out" that we did.I'm also sure you hashed this out with Tumah at some point.
The "source" you're refering to is wikipedia. That's somewhat less authoritative on what the dominant view is. The Talmud, which I quoted, is a tad bit more authoritative, even if I do say so myself. Why am I bringing this up? Are you asking me for a clue, ... finally?The source itself says that this is not the dominant view though, so not sure why you're bringing this up?
Forget the "sex with the snake" part, that's actually a minor detail as far as I'm concerned, even if I did "Woo-hoo" over that part way back when. It's the "moral contamination" that took place that got wiped off the slate of those who stood at Sinai that interests me. If the rabbis believed there was no moral contamination in the Garden, then why did they discuss it in the 2nd or 3rd century C.E. and why did they say that "the Gentiles" were still morally contaminated?The idea of Eve having sex with the snake is not a dominant view...
Oh great! An ex-casual-Christian Noachide telling me that the Christian-like concept of Original Sin is not the dominant view in Judaism.... anymore.neither is the Christian like concept of OS.
For an interloper, you're getting kind of fussy over what I'm interested in, IMHO. But who am I to whine, eh?You do seem to have a fascination with Eve + serpent, though and I wonder why?
Well, I won't continue if you don't want. I did ask you in my first post if you didn't want me to.Neither is this thread, but you didn't that stop you, didja?
Tumah was kind enough to support my suspicion that the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin has it's roots in the story of the defilement of Eve in Genesis, and that's all the "hashing out" that we did.
The "source" you're refering to is wikipedia. That's somewhat less authoritative on what the dominant view is. The Talmud, which I quoted, is a tad bit more authoritative, even if I do say so myself. Why am I bringing this up? Are you asking me for a clue, ... finally?
Forget the "sex with the snake" part, that's actually minor detail. It's the "moral contamination" that took place that got wiped off the slate of those who stood at Sinai. If the rabbis believed there was no moral contamination in the Garden, then why did they discuss it in the 2nd or 3rd century C.E. and why did they say that "the Gentiles" were still morally contaminated?
Oh great! An ex-casual-Christian Noachide telling me that the Christian-like concept of Original Sin is not the dominant view in Judaism.... anymore.
For an interloper, you're getting kind of fussy over what I'm interested in, IMHO. But who am I to whine, eh?
Believe me, I'd have much rather have read a story about Adam and a female serpent or Lilith getting it on in the Garden, but I wasn't in charge of story-time back then.
I'm calm, and I think I'm playing nice, too.People (@Terry Sampson, @Rival), let's calm down.
One of the reasons for not inviting you from the beginning is that I wanted input from an orthodox Jew because I haven't met one yet who couldn't find his way through the Talmuds, etc.Well, I won't continue if you don't want. I did ask you in my first post if you didn't want me to.
I'm fine. I just assumed he was alright with it as I did footnote my post by asking if he were. He said leave it to the mods, and as I am a mod and he made no response to the effect that he didn't want me to post here I just continued. I was shocked at his latest reply, after that. I don't have any animosity!People (@Terry Sampson, @Rival), let's calm down.
Hardly. Mods have to ding you before you get that boy scout badge. And you don't get an eagle scout badge until you've been banned for some period of time.I'm some sort of warmonger.