• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

In his image?

jonny

Well-Known Member
Binyamin said:
No, the fact of the matter is, both the ORAL law and the WRITTEN law were given to the Jews at Mount Sinai. The Jews were responsible for keeping them for over a thousand years pre-Christ. I find it absolutely amazing you can be so confident that the Written Law is perfect, but the Oral law is made up. I find it completely arrogant of some Christians who call the Oral law "made up", "Irrelevant", ect...

Well... who do you think you are to pick and choose the scriptures that coincide with your belief with jesus and then toss out the very same ones that Moses taught us? For instance Duet 6:4 tells us to "bind a sign upon our arm" and "Between our eyes", what is tihs sign? I bet you won't find scripture to explain it, but if you go to the Oral law, I bet you'll find a very detailed explanation of what it means.

That's my opinion. And Jonny, I don't know the person who made the reply, but I do agree w/ what he said, maybe not the way he phrased it. Remember, most jews that speak english, do so as a 2nd, third, or even fourth language. We're not great at finding words to sugar coat everything.

Anyways, that's my spew on that. When it boils down to it though Jonny, I do enjoy reading your posts since you at least represent your churches view pretty well. I just don't agree with a lot of what you say, but it doesn't change that I enjoy reading what you have to say.
Thanks. I don't expect everyone to believe what I say, but I'd like to prove that I'm not crazy for believing it.

I don't try to pick and choose what I believe in. I think you'd be surprised about how much the House of Israel, Zion, etc. are included in LDS doctrines. We even know what tribe we are in through revelation (a subject for another thread). What Christians and Mormons do believe is that the Law of Moses was fulfilled through Christ. It is not that we don't believe that the Law of Moses was not important at one time, but we don't necessarily believe that it all applies to us today. That may be the picking and choosing that you notice.
 

Deut 13:1

Well-Known Member
jonny said:
I can't say that I know what the Mishnah or Germora are, so I'm not ignoring them. I'm just ignorant. Fair enough, here's a basic explanation of what they are...
Also, I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by Oral law. I'll have to look into that. I've only known one or two Jews in my entire life (they were not that common in Washington), so forgive me if the lingo is new to me. I'm learning. :)
From www.jewfaq.org



talmud.gif
In addition to the written scriptures we have an "Oral Torah," a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained in oral form only until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.

Over the next few centuries, additional commentaries elaborating on the Mishnah were written down in Jerusalem and Babylon. These additional commentaries are known as the Gemara. The Gemara and the Mishnah together are known as the Talmud. This was completed in the 5th century C.E.

There are actually two Talmuds: the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian one is more comprehensive, and is the one most people mean when they refer to The Talmud. There have been additional commentaries on the Talmud by such noted Jewish scholars as Rashi and Rambam. Adin Steinsalz is currently preparing a new edition of the Talmud, with his own commentary supplementing the Mishnah, Gemara, and Rashi commentaries.

The Mishnah is divided into six sections called sedarim (in English, orders). Each seder contains one or more divisions called masekhtot (in English, tractates). There are 63 masekhtot in the Mishnah. Approximately half of these masekhtot have been addressed in the Talmud. Although these divisions seem to indicate subject matter, it is important to note that the Mishnah and the Talmud tend to be engage in quite a bit of free-association, thus widely diverse subjects may be discussed in a seder or masekhtah. Below is the division of the Mishnah into sedarim and masekhtot:
  • Zera'im (Seeds), dealing with agricultural laws
    • Berakhot
    • Peah
    • Demai
    • Kilayim
    • Shebiit
    • Terumot
    • Maaserot
    • Maaser Sheni
    • Challah
    • Orlah
    • Bikkurim
  • Mo'ed (Festival), dealing with shabbat and festivals
    • Shabbat
    • Erubin
    • Pesachim
    • Sheqalim
    • Yoma
    • Sukkah
    • Besah
    • Rosh Hashanah
    • Taanit
    • Megillah
    • Moed Qatan
    • Hagigah
  • Nashim (Women), dealing with marriage, divorce and contracts
    • Yebamot
    • Ketubot
    • Nedarim
    • Nazir
    • Sotah
    • Gittin
    • Qiddushin
  • Nezikin (Damages), dealing with tort laws and other financial laws
    • Baba Qamma
    • Baba Mesia
    • Baba Batra
    • Sanhedrin
    • Makkot
    • Shabuot
    • Eduyyot
    • Avodah Zarah
    • Avot (also known as Pirkei Avot, Ethics of the Fathers)
    • Horayot
  • Kodashim (Holy Things), dealing with sacrifices and the Temple
    • Zevachim
    • Menachot
    • Chullin
    • Bekhorot
    • Arakhin
    • Temurah
    • Keritot
    • Meilah
    • Tamid
    • Middot
    • Qinnim
  • Toharot (Purities), dealing with laws of ritual purity and impurity
    • Kelim
    • Ohalot
    • Negaim
    • Parah
    • Tohorot
    • Miqvaot
    • Niddah
    • Makhshirin
    • Zabim
    • Tebul-Yom
    • Yadayim
    • Uqsin

In recent times, many observant Jews have taken up the practice of studying a page of Talmud every day. This practice, referred to as daf yomi, was started at the First International Congress of the Agudath Yisrael World Movement in August, 1923. Rav Meir Shapiro, the rav of Lublin, Poland, proposed uniting people worldwide through the daily study of a page of Talmud. Daf Yomi is currently in its 11th cycle. A calendar of the cycle can be found at Daf Yomi Calendar. Other Writings



In addition to these works, we have midrashim, which are basically stories expanding on incidents in the Bible to derive principles or Jewish law or to teach moral lessons. For example, there is a midrash about why Moses wasn't a good speaker (he put coals in his mouth as a child basically as a way of proving that he wasn't greedy), and another one about Abram discovering monotheism and rejecting his father's idolatry (that's a nifty one: basically, he smashes up all his father's idols except the big one, then blames the mess on the big one, as a way of showing his father that the idols don't really have any power). Some of them fill in gaps in the narrative. For example, in Gen. 22:2, why does G-d say, "thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac." Wouldn't the name alone be enough? One story says that the narrative is skipping out Abraham's responses. "Take thy son." "Which one?" "Thine only son." "But I have two!" "Whom thou lovest." "I love them both!" "Even Isaac." (I'm not sure this is a traditional one -- I got it from a questionable source -- but I like it).

There is also a vast body of responsa, answers to specific questions of Jewish law. Beginning in the middle ages, when local rabbis were faced with difficult issues of Jewish law, they often wrote to the most respected rabbis in the world to get answers to these questions. The local rabbi would present the situation, often including detailed references to the Talmudic passages he had reviewed and his own interpretations of these authorities, and the world-renowned rabbi would provide a reasoned argument in favor of his answer. Over time, these responsa were collected into printed volumes. This tradition continues to the present day, and there are several rabbis in this century who have developed responsa on issues relating to modern technologies. For example, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who died in the 1980s, wrote responsa on such diverse topics as the permissibility of cosmetic surgery, the kashering of dishwashers, and artificial insemination. There are literally thousands of volumes of responsa. A project at Bar-Ilan University is compiling these responsa into a computer database. See their website at The Responsa Project for more information.

As you can see, the body of Jewish tradition is very vast. Is there any place to get quick answers? In the middle ages, there were several attempts to create definitive codes of Jewish law. The best-known of these codes are Rambam's Mishneh Torah and Joseph Caro's Shulchan Arukh. In their own time, these works were very controversial, because they did not identify the Torah or Talmudic basis for their opinions and generally ignored conflicting opinions. There was concern that such works would discourage Jews from studying the primary sources: Torah and Talmud. Today, however, these sources are well-respected. In fact, the Shulchan Arukh is often treated as a primary source. We also have a mystical tradition, known as Kabbalah. The primary written work in the Kabbalistic tradition is the Zohar. Traditionally, rabbis discouraged teaching this material to anyone under the age of 40, because it is too likely to be misinterpreted by anyone without sufficient grounding in the basics.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
*** MOD POST ***

Binyamin,

You went to a lot of work on this post. Unfortunately, not one word of it addressed the topic of discussion. Please restrict further comments to the subject of "In his image?" The Jewish scriptures on shabbat, marriage, festivals, sacrifices and temples may be interesting, but they do not belong on this thread.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
NoName said:
Maybe they were using the words in two different contexts.
The contexts sound very, very much the same to me. Why do you believe them to be different?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
greatcalgarian said:
I was referring to your comment... which point to some degree of amonistity, and starting to get a bit high:D
Oh dear! Maybe I did start to extend the claws. I do that occasionally but, if you will notice, it's always just in self-defense!:D
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
may said:
If a flesh-and-blood human were to stand in the immediate presence of Jehovah God, the experience would prove fatal. Jehovah himself told Moses: "You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live."—Exodus 33:20; John 1:18
And so when Moses said that he spoke face to face with God, as a man speaks to a friend, he was lying? And so was Jacob and so were the seventy elders of Israel? My gosh, you can't simply ignore these verses and expect me to give your opinion any serious consideration!

And Jehovah said further: "Here is a place with me, and you must station yourself upon the rock. And it has to occur that while my glory is passing by I must place you in a hole in the rock, and I must put my palm over you as a screen until I have passed by. After that I must take my palm away, and you will indeed see my back. But my face may not be seen .........Exodus 33;21-23
So God hid himself using the hand He does not have, and then allowed Moses to see the back parts which He also does not have?

God is a Spirit Pneu´ma

The Greek pneu´ma (spirit) comes from pne´o, meaning "breathe or blow," and the Hebrew ru´ach (spirit) is believed to come from a root having the same meaning. Ru´ach and pneu´ma, then, basically mean "breath" but have extended meanings beyond that basic sense. They can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy spirit. (Compare Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, pp. 877-879; Brown, Driver, and Briggs’ Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 924-926; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich, translated by G. Bromiley, 1971, Vol. VI, pp. 332-451.) All these meanings have something in common: They all refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible effects.
Good information. You are right that "pneuma" means "breathe or blow." It also means "life" and is translated as "life" elsewhere in the scriptures. In other words, "God is life." I believe He is.

As to a spirit being invisible, I'm afraid you're wrong about that. When the Apostles saw Jesus for the first time after His resurrection, they were afraid because they thought they'd seen a spirit. If a spirit must, by definition, be invisible, the thought that Jesus was spirit would never have occurred to them.

Kathryn
 

NoName

Member
Katzpur said:

As to a spirit being invisible, I'm afraid you're wrong about that. When the Apostles saw Jesus for the first time after His resurrection, they were afraid because they thought they'd seen a spirit. If a spirit must, by definition, be invisible, the thought that Jesus was spirit would never have occurred to them.

Kathryn
Maybe the apostles didn't know of a better word to describe it. Sometimes I settle for an inferior word because I can't think of a good one, which especially happens to me under stress, which I would definitely be feeling if I saw a person who I knew was dead suddenly walking around.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Fascist Christ said:
Slap me if this came up already. I don't feel like reading all 8 pages.

According to William Blake, A Divine Image is:
Cruelty, Jealousy, Terror, and Secrecy

But THE Divine Image is:
Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love

They are all part of the four Zoas that make up God, and likewise Man.

For Mercy Pity Peace and Love
Is God, our Father dear
And Mercy Pity Peace and Love
Is Man, His child and care

A Divine Image is who we are since the Fall of Man, and The Divine Image is what we ought to aspire to.

What do the Christians think of that interpretation?
To me, mercy, pity, peace and love are divine qualities. They have nothing to do with an "image" of any kind, divine or otherwise.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
NoName said:
Jonny didn't come up with any evidence that they were the same context.
I was just refuting your rebuttle. It wasn't a strong argument against what Katzpur was claiming.
 

NoName

Member
jonny said:
I was just refuting your rebuttle. It wasn't a strong argument against what Katzpur was claiming.
I was simply giving a second way of looking at it. Trying to make her think. Forcing her to look at the scriptures, to scrutinize them, and to figure out that they were indeed the same context.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
NoName said:
I was simply giving a second way of looking at it. Trying to make her think. Forcing her to look at the scriptures, to scrutinize them, and to figure out that they were indeed the same context.
Interesting debate tactic...prove yourself wrong. Hmmm, I'll have to try that sometime. :D

Sounds like the easy way out.
 

NoName

Member
I'm not proving myself wrong. I'm just debating. For all you know, I agreed wholeheartedly with what you were saying, but I din't know why, so I was hoping that by arguing the opposite I would get the answer. I just sort of talk.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Katzpur said:
Oh dear! Maybe I did start to extend the claws. I do that occasionally but, if you will notice, it's always just in self-defense!:D
Ya, as a member, we can get excited. As a moderator, even in self-defence, has to be more careful with the choice of words.:biglaugh:
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
NoName said:
I'm not proving myself wrong. I'm just debating. For all you know, I agreed wholeheartedly with what you were saying, but I din't know why, so I was hoping that by arguing the opposite I would get the answer. I just sort of talk.
I didn't mean that you should prove yourself wrong - I meant that you were trying to get Katzpur to prove herself wrong.

Trying to argue the opposite can be helpful sometimes...especially if you can't find a good support for the opposite argument. :)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
greatcalgarian said:
Ya, as a member, we can get excited. As a moderator, even in self-defence, has to be more careful with the choice of words.:biglaugh:
Hmmm. Okay, are you saying that it's okay for people to be rude? But it's not okay for the people to whom they're being rude to point it out to them? :confused: (Because that's all I did.)
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Katzpur said:
Hmmm. Okay, are you saying that it's okay for people to be rude? But it's not okay for the people they're being rude to, to point it out to them? :D
Yes, moderators have to be more tolerant, and have more patience, be more sympathetic towards other, be more understanding why another poster is getting rude etc etc:162: . Moderators have to be superhuman in order to qualify for that. A moderator should have excellent communication skill, clever at putting across an idea or pointing out the rudeness of the other party without appearing to be rude themselves. In a nutshell, to be a good moderator is not easy.

Two posters who are not moderators can go after each others throat, but it is the duty of the moderator to moderate the situation. So moderator should not get too invovled, or else the RF may have to appoint super-moderator to moderate the moderator, and another super-super moderator without end to that hierachy.:D
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
We are getting off topic, but until such time that a moderator is PAID for their services they have a right to be just as curmudgeonly as the next guy (or gal)! :D
 
Top