Kashering Christianity So A Jew Can Swallow It.

[John D. Brey]

Perhaps it would be helpful for you to actually quote a Jewish understanding of the incarnation and explain how it is a strawman. Then a Jewish person could meaningfully correct you if necessary.

Without quoting any sages, yet, and I'm not opposed to that, I think I covered the distinction I'm interested in discussing in message #20.

I'm mostly interested in the general distinction between what Jews think God can and cannot do, or be, versus Christian thought in that vein.



John

 

[dybmh]

in my opinion, the Jew is just as idolatrous toward the Torah scroll as the Christian is to Jesus of Nazareth.

Correction:

The Jew is just as idolatrous **if they worship** the Torah scroll as the Christian is to Jesus **if they worship him**.

 

[John D. Brey]

Merely calling the view a "cartoon characterization" in itself does not invalidate the view.

I agree.

You have yet to offer up a proper explanation of what the doctrine of the trinity actually means and how that works. Let's see if you can get past "it's a big mystery". It's not a big mystery in Judaism; a triune godhead goes vastly against the singular oneness of God.

In the general sense that's been discussed so far, the primary element of the "trinity" (which is a word I don't think I've ever used in this forum), relates to the idea that God is a tyrant (in some nuance of that word) if he creates creatures whose mind he can read and lay waste as though they're nothing but his Chia Pets or Sea Monkeys.

The background theosophy of the "trinity" relates to the fact that any God who can know the deepest feelings and inner being of man, without himself becoming man, is not the sort of God who any divinely inspired man should follow except under the duress of law and punishment.

Voila. The Torah scroll reveals a tyrant god who rules with law and punishment, beneath which, under the skin of that scroll, you know, brit milah, lies, in truth, the God of mercy, who hides his right hand man from the left hand [angel] while he's in the process of procuring salvation from the law and its punishments; the final implementation of which punishment is always death.

Call yourself monotheistic all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make you so.

In a philosophical, or theosophical sense, monotheism protects mankind from the idea that any creature could offer himself up as God.

Speaking to a Christian, the monotheist could ask, What if a super-advanced creature from deep space came to earth and presented himself as the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth? Because of his super-advanced nature he could have the entire bible memorized back and forth, could turn water to wine at will, and possibly even resuscitate persons who have recently died.

How is a Christian to know this person/alien isn't God, or Jesus? What criteria could they possibly use to test the divinity if the creature is adequately advanced to pass every test.

That's the genius of Jewish monotheism. And genius is a word way too weak since Jewish monotheism knows that there is not now, nor will there ever be, a human criteria able to distinguish God from creature since creatures are based on the laws of physics while God is not. Creatures have logic, reason, science, and whatever else the brain possesses, none of which can determine in a rational, logical, or scientific manner, a criteria for deity.

In the true teaching of the trinity, Jesus' divinity is like the divinity of the lambskin and the ink of the Torah scroll: neither is divine. And yet they are, or are some intermediary, unitary, state of being that transgresses absolute deity and true physical tangibility without that unique unitary state affecting man's true freedom from God, or God's true and absolute unlikeness to man.

And if you're not trinitarian, then explain what Jesus is, in your view. Then we can get down to why that understanding is also wrong, according to Judaism.

In a basic sense, Jesus is, for the Christian, what the Torah scroll is for the Jew: some unique אחד hypostasis that makes unity between God and man possible without transgressing the monotheistic tenet that God can't be tangible and neither tangible things nor man can be God.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

A man I would love to be but unfortunately I am a girl.

That said, lying isn't my point here.

My point was that if God can't lie, then, in something like a Kafkaesque sense, we can't know God can't lie since there would be no criteria we could use to test if he lies if the foundational premise is that he doesn't.

Kafka was far more brilliant than he's given credit for. Men like Scholem, Buber, and Rosenzweig, were aware of that.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

A man I would love to be but unfortunately I am a girl.

. . . Your new avatar threw me off.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Skin, ink, wood isn't profane.

Semantics. In a general sense, the terms "sacred" and "profane" relate to the "divine" versus the "tangible" or "temporal." The word "profane" often has the connotation "bad," but in the theosophical sense I'm using it, it just means the non-sacred.

The Torah scroll is both "sacred" (its divine revelation) and "profane" (the tangible wood around which the tangible lambskin and ink is wrapped).

Judaism doesn't make it into a cartoon. As I said the major distinction is praying to or through Jesus.

We're brothers so far . . . . <s>

If a Christian doesn't do that, the next aspect which makes it incompatible with Judaism is the Gospel itself. Too often its message goes against Shabbat, the Temple, revering parenthood, and being honest.

Skimming through an essay by Professor Shaul Magid, this morning, I made note of an instance seminal to your statement above. He pointed out how Jews and Judaism term a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew "intermarriage" while Jews and Judaism don't necessarily consider a marriage between an African American and a white person "intermarriage."

Rabbi Hirsch is clear that according to the Talmud, and orthodox Judaism, Jews are not the same kind of creature as the non-Jew. Therefore a Jew marrying a non-Jew, at least so far as doctrine goes, is taboo, or worse. Taking the Talmud at its word, it's akin to bestiality.

As anyone familiar with my thinking would know, I agree with the Talmud; which merely requires a careful examination of what it is to be a Jew such that being one means the idea that a Jew could have phallic-sex with a non-Jew is preposterous, or absurd.

Everything hinges on definitions. What is God? What is a Jew. . . The Torah is perfectly willing and able to define these things so that they don't become as absurd as the idea that a Jew (under the typical understanding of what that is) performs a bestial act if he marries a non-Jew.

In truth there is no possibility of a Jew performing bestial acts since a Jew cannot, by God's design, have phallic-sex.

How ironic then, that the very sign and signifier of what it is to be a Jew, requires the ritual, symbolic (brit milah), removal of what the non-Jew uses to produce more Genitile peoples and nations.

Therefore, the physical birth of the child is completed on the seventh day. The eighth day, the octave of birth, as it were, repeats the day of birth, but as a day of higher, spiritual birth for his Jewish mission and his Jewish destiny.

Rabbi Hirsch, Collected Writings III.​

Rabbi Hirsch couldn't be more transparent nor correct: to be a Jew, in more than a ritual sense, one must be born-again. And that rebirth must occur from the blood of genital reproduction and not from the seed, or gall water (see thread, Sotah Water II), come, so to say, from that branch.

Earnestly tenderly Jesus is calling. Calling Oh Israel come home.



John

 

[Brickjectivity]

************************

If God knows every element of human thought and emotion without ever having been human, then "humanity" isn't a real dichotomous entity from God; it's merely God playing with himself in a manner of speaking: humanity is just a toy construct of God.

Consequently, if man is a real, dichotomous entity, free, in some way, from God, then there are things in a human heart that God can't access without being a tyrant willing to dissect his creature and suck out every individual nuance.

I can't see God as having human emotions or desires like us or being a thing. I think of God as more like principle or gravity not personal in a human way: You don't jump out of windows, because gravity will break your legs, not because its inelegant or disorderly to jump out of windows. I view the covenant as an experiential attempt by the Canaanites to chart a path through life in the least painful and harmful way, by this means seeking out and understanding some things about God. So they set out to make a good community and discover God's ways. I view the prophets as then taking those discoveries and seeking further truths in them by studying the torah. The early Canaanites seek out the ways of peace, thus discovering principles of God in their communal covenant which we call 'LORD', after which they are taken into Babylon where they realize what they have been discovering: the one God. So there is God and then there is the covenant which leads to God. Compass and the actual. The Torah, Talmud and covenant are the compass, but the actual is invisible.

Once we concede that God and man are a real dichotomy, we could concede that, since there are things about man God can't lay waste to through "knowledge" of man, and since man is not God, some form of mediatorial communication must exist that allows man and God to commune without that communication destroying the true dichotomy between two real entities.

I've heard of three theories for why existence is. One is the contraction theory, that God withdraws from God creating a space in which there is less divinity. I think you refer to this when you mention Luria, right? I haven't actually read what he wrote. That kabbalist idea, however, may be meant to explore the various human ideas around it not to be taken as a scientific description of the big bang. What people say and what they mean are not always the same thing. The Kabbalist should care less about physical reality and be interested in the introspection into the Torah, into the relationship between humanity and divinity. He may describe things as if they are about planets, but he's talking about people. Creation to me is about people, not about planets. As you might guess this Kabbalist concept of contraction is probably talking about something like what you are when mentioning a dichotomy -- the difference between humanity and divinity, without which we cease to be. We can only manage to be so perfect without destroying ourselves. We exist in a space where God is not as much, and we are worlds created by the absence of some divinity. That is the flowery and sublime description, but what it means is we must help other people, live peacefully, be humble, love justice.

In Judaism, to some degree, the Torah scroll, as well as Hebrew script and language, is at least a part of the manner in which God and man meet in the middle without either party in the mediation losing their true, real, difference.

In Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth is a living form of the Torah scroll. In Jesus of Nazareth God becomes man, without giving up being God, such that God must practice kenosis, or something like Rabbi Luria's tzimtzum, so that the man side of God has no real power or authority over his brothers in a manner that would just be a back door into God practicing a divine tyranny over his creatures.

To me mediation is to me all about getting people into alignment with principle, not getting principles aligned with ourselves. We find the routes through the oceans, we chart the undersea currents to help us. Then we stick to those routes, and that is mediation. To do otherwise is to pointlessly argue with the ocean.

For that reason Jesus of Nazareth must be willing to die at the hands of his brothers and sisters before one scintilla of proof of who he is is given to the world (say something like his being resurrected from the dead) so that the relationship between God and man in no way be contaminated by the intercourse between God and man.

Ask this question: The reason that Israel suffers at the hands of the Romans is what? One opinion is given in the gospels when it says that the Son of Man must suffer for the good of the world. What people say is not always what they mean.

What I'm concerned with in this thread concerns the differences between a Jewish, versus a Christian, understanding of God, and how he can communicate with his creatures, without that communication relegating God to a tyrant, or his creatures to mere automatons, say Chia Pets, of God.

In the thread, Sotah Water II, I suggest that there may be proof that unlike Jesus, who aced the test, the Torah scroll, which is Judaism's own, personal, Jesus (with apologies to Depeche Mode), may actually be contaminated with a lawful, divine, tyranny.

It's that proof, i.e., that the Torah scroll may be contaminated with divine tyranny, that made me think about this thread.

Is the ocean tyrannical? As I view God more as principle than as person I'm not quite on board with these two comments about tyranny. Also, what people say in scripture and elsewhere is not always what they mean, and so what a person calls communicating with God could be actually something a little different such as charting the routes as in my other example.

 

[John D. Brey]

Correction:

The Jew is just as idolatrous **if they worship** the Torah scroll as the Christian is to Jesus **if they worship him**.

I don't know how deep your knowledge of anthropological religious iconography goes but the relationship between the cross and the Torah scroll has nuances so interconnected that Jews and Christians are blood-brothers of the highest order for being blinded by the same light.

Where the Christian place of worship often has a large cross, or crucifix, the synagogue has a large Torah ark.

Where the crucifix has blood dripping from the skin wrapped around the wood, the synagogue scroll is itself (often composed of lamb's skin wrapped around wood), wrapped in a wimpel stained with the blood of the circumcision.

Naturally this is just a mohel-like thumb-nail scratching the outer surface of the truth without cutting deep enough to draw any real blood.



John

 

[dybmh]

Semantics. In a general sense, the terms "sacred" and "profane" relate to the "divine" versus the "tangible" or "temporal." The word "profane" often has the connotation "bad," but in the theosophical sense I'm using it, it just means the non-sacred.

The Torah scroll is both "sacred" (its divine revelation) and "profane" (the tangible wood around which the tangible lambskin and ink is wrapped).

This is simply not true. The skin wood and ink are neutral, they can be used for either holy or profane purposes. They're considered vessels.

We're brothers so far . . . . <s>

Why the sarcasm?

Skimming through an essay by Professor Shaul Magid, this morning, I made note of an instance seminal to your statement above. He pointed out how Jews and Judaism term a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew "intermarriage" while Jews and Judaism don't necessarily consider a marriage between an African American and a white person "intermarriage."

OK...

Rabbi Hirsch is clear that according to the Talmud, and orthodox Judaism, Jews are not the same kind of creature as the non-Jew. Therefore a Jew marrying a non-Jew, at least so far as doctrine goes, is taboo, or worse. Taking the Talmud at its word, it's akin to bestiality.

Gratefully, Talmud isn't scripture. However, I do apologize for the harsh cruel statements about non-Jews int he Talmud. I wish that my ancestors didn't say that or hold that opinion. But I can't change the past.

As anyone familiar with my thinking would know, I agree with the Talmud; which merely requires a careful examination of what it is to be a Jew such that being one means the idea that a Jew could have phallic-sex with a non-Jew is preposterous, or absurd.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. What does this have to do with making Jesus compatible with Judaism.

Everything hinges on definitions. What is God? What is a Jew. . . The Torah is perfectly willing and able to define these things so that they don't become as absurd as the idea that a Jew (under the typical understanding of what that is) performs a bestial act if he marries a non-Jew.

The easist way to visualize a Jew is as a citizen of a nation. The laws at the most basic level set up the system of preserving an eternal nation. Because God's name is on this nation, it needs to be eternal lasting forever.

This puts into context the extreme language directed at intermarriage. It's common sense that strictly maintaining the lineage and setting a high standard for conversion helps seperate the Jewish nation from the other nations into the future.

In truth there is no possibility of a Jew performing bestial acts since a Jew cannot, by God's design, have phallic-sex

Ew. This is where I get off the train.

How ironic then, that the very sign and signifier of what it is to be a Jew, requires the ritual, symbolic (brit milah), removal of what the non-Jew uses to produce more Genitile peoples and nations.

Therefore, the physical birth of the child is completed on the seventh day. The eighth day, the octave of birth, as it were, repeats the day of birth, but as a day of higher, spiritual birth for his Jewish mission and his Jewish destiny.

Rabbi Hirsch, Collected Writings III.
Rabbi Hirsch couldn't be more transparent nor correct: to be a Jew, in more than a ritual sense, one must be born-again. And that rebirth must occur from the blood of genital reproduction and not from the seed, or gall water (see thread, Sotah Water II), come, so to say, from that branch.

I don't have that book, but this has nothing to do with Koshering "The Jesus".

Earnestly tenderly Jesus is calling. Calling Oh Israel come home.

Nah. Let his spirit rest. People should focus on the here and now, the life we have, our family and friends not the promise of eternal life in the future.

 

[dybmh]

I don't know how deep your knowledge of anthropological religious iconography goes but the relationship between the cross and the Torah scroll has nuances so interconnected that Jews and Christians are blood-brothers of the highest order for being blinded by the same light.

Nuance isn't strong evidence; certainly not strong enough to offset a majority opinion.

Regardless, wood, ink, skin, are vessels. They're neutral, not profane.

Where the Christian place of worship often has a large cross, or crucifix, the synagogue has a large Torah ark.

You'd need liturgy to make your point. There is no Jewish liturgy which worships the Torah. Do I need to go find a Christian hymnal to show the difference?

Naturally this is just a mohel-like thumb-nail scratching the outer surface of the truth without cutting deep enough to draw any real blood.

That's why I generally ignore your posts. Say what you mean, else it's a waste of time.

 

[John D. Brey]

Nah. Let his spirit rest. People should focus on the here and now, the life we have, our family and friends not the promise of eternal life in the future.

That's almost the complete opposite of what Jesus said, and what Christianity teaches; Judaism too sometimes. . . Rabbi Hirsch called this life something like a dark transient passage to real life. Persons of faith are constantly told to endure this life in patient hope for something better.

If you find this life parallels Eden, paradise, or heaven, perhaps I need to be reading more of what you have to say so that I too can slough off the thorns and thistles of this current veil of tears.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Naturally this is just a mohel-like thumb-nail scratching the outer surface of the truth without cutting deep enough to draw any real blood.​

That's why I generally ignore your posts. Say what you mean, else it's a waste of time.

A man whom I consider one of the most brilliant Jewish scholars alive (Professor Elliot R. Wolfson), parallels circumcision with exegesis of the scroll. To see deeper than the profane masses can see into the depth of the revelation hidden beneath the scroll requires the scroll to be cut and bled.

When brit milah was considered not only sacred, but theophanic, the mohel often sharpened his thumb-nail to do the deed. I like to play with the idea of the greatest revelation the scroll has to offer being stripped naked of its covering when nails in a Jewish man's hand mark the spot of that theophanic unveiling.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

************************

I can't see God as having human emotions or desires like us or being a thing. I think of God as more like principle or gravity not personal in a human way: You don't jump out of windows, because gravity will break your legs, not because its inelegant or disorderly to jump out of windows. I view the covenant as an experiential attempt by the Canaanites to chart a path through life in the least painful and harmful way, by this means seeking out and understanding some things about God. So they set out to make a good community and discover God's ways. I view the prophets as then taking those discoveries and seeking further truths in them by studying the torah. The early Canaanites seek out the ways of peace, thus discovering principles of God in their communal covenant which we call 'LORD', after which they are taken into Babylon where they realize what they have been discovering: the one God. So there is God and then there is the covenant which leads to God. Compass and the actual. The Torah, Talmud and covenant are the compass, but the actual is invisible.

You sound wise enough to know that this presupposition concerning God forms something of a prism that tends to let in the spectrum of divine-revelation allowed by the shape of the prism?

If a person is able to remove their self-constructed epistemological prism, free themselves from that prison, they might come face-to-face with a God worthy not only of love and respect, but the highest form of fear and trembling.

Experience with many of my peers implies that the prism most people use to search for God is indistinguishable from the mirror on a woman's compact.

I've heard of three theories for why existence is. One is the contraction theory, that God withdraws from God creating a space in which there is less divinity. I think you refer to this when you mention Luria, right? I haven't actually read what he wrote. That kabbalist idea, however, may be meant to explore the various human ideas around it not to be taken as a scientific description of the big bang. What people say and what they mean are not always the same thing. The Kabbalist should care less about physical reality and be interested in the introspection into the Torah, into the relationship between humanity and divinity. He may describe things as if they are about planets, but he's talking about people. Creation to me is about people, not about planets. As you might guess this Kabbalist concept of contraction is probably talking about something like what you are when mentioning a dichotomy -- the difference between humanity and divinity, without which we cease to be. We can only manage to be so perfect without destroying ourselves. We exist in a space where God is not as much, and we are worlds created by the absence of some divinity. That is the flowery and sublime description, but what it means is we must help other people, live peacefully, be humble, love justice.

That's kind of like saying, as the kabbalists say, man is the measure of things. And I agree. As the Eastern mystics say, God can be seen in a grain of sand or a flower as easily as in a scroll.

To the latter I would personally add that the divine revelation on a scroll must guide the eye looking at the flower.

To me mediation is to me all about getting people into alignment with principle, not getting principles aligned with ourselves. We find the routes through the oceans, we chart the undersea currents to help us. Then we stick to those routes, and that is mediation. To do otherwise is to pointlessly argue with the ocean.

To the extent that there's a true dichotomy between two things, a shared middle of some sort is required for those two things to be unified. They can exist in opposition, even a healthy opposition which colors both poles. But that opposing opposition is not the same thing as being unified, through some form of mediation, in a shared middle.

For instance, though it's probably impossible to perceive, I have nothing but the greatest respect and reverence for all things Jewish. And yet since I believe Jewisn-ness is an absolute, a pole, if you will, and since I believe I have access to a shared-middle through a Jewish understanding of Christ, it doesn't surprise me that the very pole, Jewish-ness, that is part and parcel of my personal unification in a shared middle, can find me inexplicable, asinine, and or an enemy of everything they stand for since a shared middle appears to be in opposition to both of the things it has unified. To exist in a shared middle requires rebirth into a new set of circumstances impossible to perceive from the perspective of the very poles being unified.

Ask this question: The reason that Israel suffers at the hands of the Romans is what? One opinion is given in the gospels when it says that the Son of Man must suffer for the good of the world. What people say is not always what they mean.

I believe Israel suffers for the good of the world. We dealt with that topic here just a year or two ago in a thread titled, A Crack in the Torah (which like many of the threads I start got condensed into an essay).

Is the ocean tyrannical?

Are you interpreting Revelation 21:1? <s>

As I view God more as principle than as person I'm not quite on board with these two comments about tyranny. Also, what people say in scripture and elsewhere is not always what they mean, and so what a person calls communicating with God could be actually something a little different such as charting the routes as in my other example.

Jewish monotheism might be said to consider what we can know of God to be a principle, the monotheistic principle. To which my argument would be that then, Judaism loves and reveres God through the Torah scroll (more than the monotheistic principle), which is passed around and kissed and adored in the synagogue, such that to unite the Jewish love of the scroll with the monotheistic principle would lend itself to understanding the Christian who loves the monotheistic principle by loving and adoring Jesus of Nazareth. In which case understanding the relationship between God and the Torah scroll, God and Jesus, might lend itself to manufacturing a shared middle of some import.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Why the sarcasm?

Holy cow. Does <s> mean "sarcasm"? I've been using it all these years thinking it was a smile. That's scary. It shows how important a shared vocabulary is.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Gratefully, Talmud isn't scripture. However, I do apologize for the harsh cruel statements about non-Jews int he Talmud. I wish that my ancestors didn't say that or hold that opinion. But I can't change the past.

For me, and believers like me, to include many if not most orthodox Jews, the Talmud is most certainly scripture. There's sagely Jewish thought that says a person who says otherwise, and I tend to agree, has no place in the world-to-come.

Which might be one reason why persons who don't accept the Talmud as scripture might want their cake and eat it too in the here and now?

The kind of exegesis I do doesn't allow me to just claim scripture that says things difficult to parse is simply not scripture. Which means it takes some serious elbow grease, rather than just a waste paper basket, to do due diligence to the Talmud, Torah, or the Gospels and Apostolic Writings. In my humble opinion the Torah is nothing more than a biased historical record book without the prism of the Talmud, the Gospels, and the Apostolic Writings.



John

 

[dybmh]

For me, and believers like me, to include many if not most orthodox Jews, the Talmud is most certainly scripture. There's sagely Jewish thought that says a person who says otherwise, and I tend to agree, has no place in the world-to-come.

Which might be one reason why persons who don't accept the Talmud as scripture might want their cake and eat it too in the here and now?


The kind of exegesis I do doesn't allow me to just claim scripture that says things difficult to parse is simply not scripture. Which means it takes some serious elbow grease, rather than just a waste paper basket, to do due diligence to the Talmud, Torah, or the Gospels and Apostolic Writings. In my humble opinion the Torah is nothing more than a biased historical record book without the prism of the Talmud, the Gospels, and the Apostolic Writings.

OK. If Talmud is scripture then, per Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 107b, Jesus cannot be koshered. What say you?

 

[John D. Brey]

OK. If Talmud is scripture then, per Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 107b, Jesus cannot be koshered. What say you?

The Talmud is an oracle of the Torah. As such, its power, glory, and inerrant truth, is like the truth that the oracle at Delphi might have presented in the glory days of that source of prophetic utterance.

Jesus came before Yehoshua ben Perahya several times and said to him: Accept our, i.e., my, repentance. Yehoshua ben Perahya took no notice of him. One day Yehoshua ben Perahya was reciting Shema and Jesus came before him with the same request. Yehoshua ben Perahya intended to accept his request, signaled him with his hand to wait until he completed his prayer. Jesus did not understand the signal and thought: He is driving me away. He went and stood a brick upright to serve as an idol and he bowed to it. Yehoshua ben Perahya then said to Jesus: repent. Jesus said to him: This is the tradition I received from you: Whoever sins and causes the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent. And the Master says: Jesus performed sorcery, incited Jews to engage in idolatry, and led Israel astray. Had Yehoshua ben Perahya not caused him to despair of atonement, he would not have taken the path of evil.​

An oracle doesn't give truth as a singular phenomenon. The truth of an oracle depends on the hearer of the oracle. The more receptive the hearer of an oracle is to truth, the more powerful the oracle in the ear of the hearer.

Moses came before the Lord several times and said to him, Accept our, i.e., mine, repentance, that the children of Israel they might not die of their sins. In his anger the Lord took no immediate notice of him. Later, while the Lord was writing Shema on one of the tablets, Moses came before him with the same request. The Lord intended to accept Moses' request and signaled him to wait until he had stopped engraving the brick he'd stood upright to serve as the left tablet of the law. Moses thought once more he is driving Israel away and into perdition. So Moses went and stood up a wooden rod he'd fashioned into an idol of bronze at which time he told Israel whom ever looks upon this deified flesh nailed to this wood will be saved from their sins and healed. And the Lord says: Moses performed sorcery, incited Jews to engage in idolatry (2 Kings 18:4), and led Israel astray. He shall not enter the holy land. Then Aaron said in his heart, had the Lord not caused him to despair of atonement, he would not have taken the path of evil. And so Aaron retrieved the left-hand brick the Lord had stood upright and engraved, which Moses had broken, so that he, Aaron, might call on it to witness against the Lord in the day of Moses' redemption.​

Yehoshua ben Perahya drove Jesus to idolatry. Yahweh drove Moses to idolatry. Who drove Yahweh to the idolatry he performs and commands (Numbers 21:8) throughout the Tanakh?



John

 

[dybmh]

Yahweh drove Moses to idolatry. Who drove Yahweh to the idolatry he performs and commands (Numbers 21:8) throughout the Tanakh?

1) "Throughout the Tanakh" - Is there an other example besides the bronze serpent?
2) No one worshipped to or through the bronze serpent. It's plausible that they looked at the serpent and were inspired to repent. If so, then it's not idolatry.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Unlike Judaism and Islam, Christianity is as much a Hellenic religion as it is a Semitic one. There are good historical and cultural reasons for this; Galilee was a centre of Greco-Roman influence in the time of Christ. The Gospels were written in Greek; St Paul was a Hellenised Jew. Christianity became established as a religion in it’s own right in the Greco-Roman world.

That Jesus of Nazareth was a devout practicing Jew is confirmed in the Gospels. That Christianity evolved to include many classical pagan elements is surely irrefutable. It’s hard to imagine a more Greco-Roman concept than an emissary of God who walked among us, made incarnate of a Virgin.

Just my two penn’orth.

 

[John D. Brey]

1) "Throughout the Tanakh" - Is there an other example besides the bronze serpent?
2) No one worshipped to or through the bronze serpent. It's plausible that they looked at the serpent and were inspired to repent. If so, then it's not idolatry.

The Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 29a) implies that only God can save from death or give life, such that there's a problematic idolatrous-ness to Moses telling Israel to look up at the serpent on the pole to be saved from death.

Ramban notes that if a person is bit by a dog, the last thing that will heal them or make them feel better is seeing a dog like the one that bit them. He implies, implicitly, that the non-therapeutic nature of the salvic icon seems to add to the idolatrous nature of what's going on.

The faux-Talmudic narrative played on numerous aspects of Yahweh's "old testament" idolatry. He stood the brick upright which he was engraving as the law he would give for Israel to worship in an idolatrous fashion. The great sages of kabbalah, and even Rabbi Hirsch (and none so much as Professor Wolfson) equate "writing" and precisely with what the pen-is, with idolatry. Professor Wolfson says what the pen-is, parallels what the tongue is, except that one produces death, and the other life.

The very idol Yahweh produces to tell Israel not to practice idolatry is an idol. The very tablets that command Israel not to make an image of any creature in heaven or earth, is eventually placed in an ornate, idolatrous, casket, with golden cherubim on either side of the throne where Yahweh tells Moses to place the bronzed idol he lifted to provide Israel salvation.

Throughout the Tanakh Yahweh appears more like the fore skene of a merciful Lord than that Lord himself.



John