• 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!

Kashering Christianity So A Jew Can Swallow It.

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
That yet sounds like an anthropomorphism as if God reacts to us. I might fear the weather or a volcano, but the volcanos and winds have no anger. They don't react to me. I am molded by them and change my life to avoid danger. I live indoors but go outside when the weather suits me. Where the analogy fails is that weather and volcanos can be changed and do react, but God is unchanging to me. I'd go on but unfortunately the more a human describes God the more anthropological the description seems, because we paint every light.

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.
I did not grasp that last sentence.

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.
The assumption of a middle must be coming from an interpretation of the book Hebrews. There is another way to look at Hebrews. Christ mediates by changing us, not by changing God. Therefore technically speaking there is no middle like the connotation of 'mediator' implies. Similarly the Torah changes the Jews, not God. So the word mediator should not be taken as suggesting there is a middle.

The book Hebrews is not necessarily direct speech, either. Here is a heretical way of looking at it: In its opening it says "...but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe..." which to anyone familiar with the prophets can be seen as an allusion to Israel. What we may be reading in Hebrews is a stylistic discussion about a divine purpose the destruction of Jerusalem and temple, because that is a nuclear explosion in Judaism, very unlikely to be ignored by NT authors, yet they never directly mention it. It is a horror of horrors when Titus does this. To maintain Hebrews is only about Jesus would require ignoring the prophets and the feelings of every Jew who lives through the fall of Jerusalem. So the suggestion here in Hebrews chapter 1 could be similar to that of Matthew chapter 1 -- that Israel has completed its generations in the furnace of affliction. "...but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son..." and 'Son' referring to the perfected Israel. But this requires ignoring dogma.

Are you interpreting Revelation 21:1? <s>
This verse...no, not interpreting it; and I don't have scripture chapters and verses memorized. I remember many scriptures and look them up as needed, and it takes time.

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.
In my home church we never had parades of the cross. I saw one service where a Torah was paraded, and this was in a messianic church. After this I gave it thought and saw the similarity to the Roman procession. I know the term 'Liturgy' and have opinions about what it means, but I have not been a catholic priest and don't know what they think. I'm committed to believing eucharist is a treaty among mankind, and I see the liturgy as part of and subservient to that.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
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.

Although what you say is historical and factual, it's no less factual that the Egyptians practiced circumcision, built tabernacles and temples with every element of the Jewish tabernacle and temple, and that every sign and symbol of Judaism is no less pagan than is an incarnate god man.

Professor Nahum Sarna conceded as much and said that what is distinct in Judaism is not the sign or symbol (all of which were common anthropological images and icons) but rather, how Judaism handled those signs and symbols.

As fate would have it, they drained them of their life-blood and thereafter called them kashered, kosher.

But the life blood is the spirit of the icon or emblem. Without it it's dead, so that Yahweh commanded Israel to drain every anthropological emblem that might guide her to salvation of its life-blood so that when the quintessential emblem of salvation had its, his, life-blood drained, Israel was blind to the spirit of the very icon that gives its life-blood to every anthropological symbol or icon that ever was or will be.

By telling Israel that a kosher "sign" is a "sign" drained of its sign-ificance, its life-blood, the old testament Yahweh drained Israel of the blood of its covenant with the true God so that when his blood was drained they just stood there staring ----positively dumbfounded ------as people from the very ends of the earth literally crawled over themselves to drink from the fount Ponce de Leon dreamed of finding when it was right there lifted upright before the both of them (Ponce and Israel) as the crux of everlasting life. Israel and Ponce stood mindlessly mesmerized as all the peoples of the world idolatrously lapped up everlasting life (John 6:53).



John
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
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.
It's not problematic. This is what Rosh Hashanna 29a says:

Similarly, you can say: The verse states: “Make for yourself a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he sees it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8). Once again it may be asked: Did the serpent kill, or did the serpent preserve life? Rather, when the Jewish people turned their eyes upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were healed, but if not, they rotted from their snakebites.
Note: this is precisely the same explanation I provided. Seeing the serpent fashioned by Moses inspired them to repent.

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.
Ramban is citing a primitive medical technique which is out-dated and false.

The faux-Talmudic narrative played on numerous aspects of Yahweh's "old testament" idolatry.
Now you're flip-flopping. Earlier you claimed the Talmud is scripture, and now it's faux-Talmud
... then at anouther point it He stood the brick upright which he was engraving as the law he would give for Israel to worship in an idolatrous fashion.
Until you provide evidence of worshipping to or through the brick, it's not idolatry.
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.
This all sounds like BS to me. Provide quotes including context of Rabbi Hirsch and sages of Kabbalah that Moses' scribal activities and God's scribal activities are idolatry. Otherwise it's just another example of applying your own desires, preferences, and immaturity to warp the text into a greco-roman fantasy.
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
The distinction is not that Jews do not acknowledge God manifesting in the natural world. The distinction is praying to or through those manifestations.

Put more simply, in Judaism we don't pray through a mediator. And we avoid behaviour which can be confused for pagan practice. Since Christianity appears to pray to and through a God-man, we avoid it. But there's Rabbinic support of the idea that Christianity in itself is not pagan.
.
dybmh it's good to meet you... I ask: What about Moses did he not act as a "Go between" for the people & God! Or the other Prophets!? From what I understand...
Prophet = Voice of God
Priest = Hands of God
Together they represent the People; They "Mediate" for us and God!

Jesus the "God/Man" is a PERFECT man! Only God is perfect, thus God had to correct the wrong of Adam! The first perfect man Adam made a free choice to sin, he freely choose to disobey God! Adam corrupted God perfect work of creation, it was corrupted by sin! So NOW; all of us the decedents of Adam are born corrupted! FACT: Can't create perfection from using corrupted material!
Jesus the Perfect man (sinless) died BUT..

dybmh
but because Jesus was without sin he rose to life again! Death could not hold him in the grave! Jesus rose up from the grave as a cork might rise up in a pool of water!
"The wages of sin is death!" NOW.....

dybmh
now because Jesus died he cannot die a second time NO ONE can die two times! "I am immersed" (baptized) into the risen body of Jesus thus I cannot die.. Jesus has been there and done that already!
 

Treasure Hunter

Well-Known Member
That yet sounds like an anthropomorphism as if God reacts to us. I might fear the weather or a volcano, but the volcanos and winds have no anger. They don't react to me. I am molded by them and change my life to avoid danger. I live indoors but go outside when the weather suits me. Where the analogy fails is that weather and volcanos can be changed and do react, but God is unchanging to me. I'd go on but unfortunately the more a human describes God the more anthropological the description seems, because we paint every light.
This objective understanding is true but lacking for anyone who is dissatisfied with the status quo of their life. For that person, they must also enter into the subjective where God is judged, anthropomorphized, and dynamic.

That is not to say that this subjective view of God is more true than the objective view you mentioned because that’s not the case. However, holding both views simultaneously IS more true than solely holding one or the either. I realize that anyone with an over simplified understanding of ‘truth’ will have trouble grasping this point, but I wanted to express it nevertheless.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
dybmh it's good to meet you...
Hi DogKnox. nice to meet you too.
I ask: What about Moses did he not act as a "Go between" for the people & God! Or the other Prophets!? From what I understand...
Prophet = Voice of God
Priest = Hands of God
Together they represent the People; They "Mediate" for us and God!
By your definition, I agree that they do mediate. I propose that praying to or through these mediators is a distinction between pagan practice and Jewish practice. In Torah and Tanach, no one worships the prophet or the priest.
Jesus the "God/Man" is a PERFECT man! Only God is perfect, thus God had to correct the wrong of Adam! The first perfect man Adam made a free choice to sin, he freely choose to disobey God! Adam corrupted God perfect work of creation, it was corrupted by sin! So NOW; all of us the decedents of Adam are born corrupted! FACT: Can't create perfection from using corrupted material!
Jesus the Perfect man (sinless) died
I'm sorry. I simply don't agree that Jesus is relevant in that manner. I've researched it myself. For example, the sin of Adam, in my view, was forgiven in Gen 8. It says specifically in verse 21 that the earth will no longer be cursed. If you compare the wording in Gen 8:21 with the wording in Gen 3:17, I think you'll see why I think that Adam's sin was forgiven.
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
Hi DogKnox. nice to meet you too.
By your definition, I agree that they do mediate. I propose that praying to or through these mediators is a distinction between pagan practice and Jewish practice. In Torah and Tanach, no one worships the prophet or the priest.
.
dybmh I agree "Worship is ONLY for God"! Christians ask for assistants from those alive in Heaven! Remember Christians believe those who have died IMMERSED into the resurrected body of Jesus are also in heaven: ALIVE! Fact is we trust they are even MORE Alive then we are here on earth...
We think of it this way.. The Church being sanctified after death is "Church suffering"!
The Church on earth is called "The Church militant!"
The Church alive in heaven is "Church Triumphant"!
dybmh Does not matter all "IN Jesus are all IN the Church" are thus are alive; so now understanding this; We pray to those saints in heaven asking them to intercede for us here on earth! I often ask the "Arch-Angel Michael" in prayer for his assistance!
....
I'm sorry. I simply don't agree that Jesus is relevant in that manner. I've researched it myself. For example, the sin of Adam, in my view, was forgiven in Gen 8. It says specifically in verse 21 that the earth will no longer be cursed. If you compare the wording in Gen 8:21 with the wording in Gen 3:17, I think you'll see why I think that Adam's sin was forgiven.
.
dybmh I agree "Worship is ONLY for God"! Christians ask for assistants from those alive in Heaven! Remember Christians believe those who have died IMMERSED into the resurrected body of Jesus are also in heaven: ALIVE! Fact is we trust they are even MORE Alive then we are here on earth...
We think of it this way.. The Church being sanctified after death is "Church suffering"!
The Church on earth is called "The Church militant!"
The Church alive in heaven is "Church Triumphant"!
dybmh Does not matter all "IN Jesus are all IN the Church" are thus are alive; so now understanding this; We pray to those saints in heaven asking them to intercede for us here on earth! I often ask the "Arch-Angel Michael" in prayer for his assistance!
I reply.. part two
1 John 3:24

The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

1 John 5:2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.
1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.
dybmh Adam did not love God.. Only love is allowed in heaven! God is LOVE!
1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;

dybmh Clearly Keeping God' commands is Loving God! God is LOVE no one can enter heaven without love! Adam was removed because he was was Love-less!
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
But the life blood is the spirit of the icon or emblem.​

Can you make sense of this?

If a "sign" is designed to signify something it is not, itself, then what it signifies, i.e., the thing it signifies, is the life-blood of its act of signification. Does that make sense?

In other words the "sign" is like the body, and what it points to, what it signifies, is the soul. As Rabbi Hirsch points out, in Jewish thought, there's a parallel between "soul" and "blood." Blood is the physical representation of the soul.



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
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.​

It's not problematic. This is what Rosh Hashanna 29a says:

Similarly, you can say: The verse states: “Make for yourself a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he sees it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8). Once again it may be asked: Did the serpent kill, or did the serpent preserve life? Rather, when the Jewish people turned their eyes upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were healed, but if not, they rotted from their snakebites.
Note: this is precisely the same explanation I provided. Seeing the serpent fashioned by Moses inspired them to repent.

In fairness to the literal narrative, the people didn't turn their eyes upward to the Father in heaven. And they weren't even old to turn their eyes upward to the Father in heaven. They were told to look at the idol Moses manufactured out of brass and wood. They were told to look at the idol if they wanted salvation from the bites of the fiery serpents.

Now you're flip-flopping. Earlier you claimed the Talmud is scripture, and now it's faux-Talmud

I apologize that I was expecting readers to know that the first quotation was from the passage you noted ---Shabbat 107b ----while the second quotation was faux-Talmud made up by me to parody Shabbat 107b for the purpose of making a point.

I consider the Talmud scripture. But I consider it oracular, such that it allows, requires, every reader to engage it and take part in the truth it reveals uniquely to every reader.



John
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
If a "sign" is designed to signify something it is not, itself, then what it signifies, i.e., the thing it signifies, is the life-blood of its act of signification. Does that make sense?

In other words the "sign" is like the body, and what it points to, what it signifies, is the soul. As Rabbi Hirsch points out, in Jewish thought, there's a parallel between "soul" and "blood." Blood is the physical representation of the soul.



John
A symbol can refer to some object, but the word 'Lifeblood' is throwing me off the path. What Hirsch's concept of souls is, it is unknown to me what he thinks about it and what it parallels. 'Soul' doesn't mean the same thing in all situations, and it can refer to parts of people such teachings. If I learn how to fold origami cranes from my dad that could be a soul that I pass on to my child. Unfamiliar with Hirsch I don't know what you mean.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
In fairness to the literal narrative, the people didn't turn their eyes upward to the Father in heaven. And they weren't even old to turn their eyes upward to the Father in heaven. They were told to look at the idol Moses manufactured out of brass and wood. They were told to look at the idol if they wanted salvation from the bites of the fiery serpents.
Therefore, Talmud isn't scripture.
I apologize that I was expecting readers to know that the first quotation was from the passage you noted ---Shabbat 107b ----while the second quotation was faux-Talmud made up by me to parody Shabbat 107b for the purpose of making a point.
The point has been made. The narrative you're writing into the text is a parody.
I consider the Talmud scripture. But I consider it oracular, such that it allows, requires, every reader to engage it and take part in the truth it reveals uniquely to every reader.
Here's the thing, John. Anyone can turn anything into a sexual innuendo. It doesn't require special skill or talent. That's why smut isn't literature. Anyone can make d*** jokes. It's juvenile at best.

At this point I think we need to review the false claims you've made so far.

if [ The Torah scroll is ] divine it's also profane, skin, ink, wood

False. You are assuming incorrectly that there are only two catagories, holy and profane. There are 3 catagories, holy, profane, and neutral. Kosher animal skin, ink, and wood used to construct a Toral scroll are not profane. They are neutral.

That's 1.

As anyone familiar with my thinking would know, I agree with the Talmud

False. You don't agree with Talmud Tractate Rosh Hashanna where it refutes your claim about idol worship. You don't agree with Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin were it literally says : "יש"ו כישף והסית והדיח את ישראל" "Jesus was a sorcerer who led Israel astray." What you're actually doing is cherry picking from the Talmud.

That's 2.

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.

I'm familiar with Kabbalah and Rabbi Hirsch's commentary. Without the actual source, it's nothing more than name dropping. The assumption is that the reader doesn't have access to Rabbi Hirsch's writing and source texts of Kabbalah; so, they won't be able to refute your claims. Based on the two false claims above, I'm guessing this is false as well.

If we were playing baseball, the previous false claims are 2 strikes. This name-dropping is like a foul-ball. Hopefully you have the integrity to provide the sources. It's your only chance at avoiding a strike-out.
 
Last edited:

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
Therefore, Talmud isn't scripture.

Therefore, Talmud isn't scripture.


.
You said "Adam was forgiven in Genesis 8!"
I reply.. Yes he was forgiven BUT..

dybmh
but the damage was already done.. "Corruption, Sin & Death is now part of what God created, because Adam did not love God! Adam sinned because he did not do what God commanded!!" Doing God' commands is loving God! You don't agree?
If you disagree then why is there death and sin in your/our world today?!
Jesus destroyed death on the cross... Death is NO more as long as a person is united with the risen Jesus then they also rise to new life!
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
Therefore, Talmud isn't scripture.

The point has been made. The narrative you're writing into the text is a parody.

Here's the thing, John. Anyone can turn anything into a sexual innuendo. It doesn't require special skill or talent. That's why smut isn't literature. Anyone can make d*** jokes. It's juvenile at best.

At this point I think we need to review the false claims you've made so far.



False. You are assuming incorrectly that there are only two catagories, holy and profane. There are 3 catagories, holy, profane, and neutral. Kosher animal skin, ink, and wood used to construct a Toral scroll are not profane. They are neutral.

That's 1.



False. You don't agree with Talmud Tractate Rosh Hashanna where it refutes your claim about idol worship. You don't agree with Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin were it literally says : "יש"ו כישף והסית והדיח את ישראל" "Jesus was a sorcerer who led Israel astray." What you're actually doing is cherry picking from the Talmud.

That's 2.



I'm familiar with Kabbalah and Rabbi Hirsch's commentary. Without the actual source, it's nothing more than name dropping. The assumption is that the reader doesn't have access to Rabbi Hirsch's writing and source texts of Kabbalah; so, they won't be able to refute your claims. Based on the two false claims above, I'm guessing this is false as well.

If we were playing baseball, the previous false claims are 2 strikes. This name-dropping is like a foul-ball. Hopefully you have the integrity to provide the sources. It's your only chance at avoiding a strike-out.
.
You said "Adam was forgiven in Genesis 8!"
I reply.. Yes he was forgiven BUT..

dybmh
but the damage was already done.. "Corruption, Sin & Death is now part of what God created, because Adam did not love God! Adam sinned because he did not do what God commanded!!" Doing God' commands is loving God! You don't agree?
If you disagree then why is there death and sin in your/our world today?!
Jesus destroyed death on the cross... Death is NO more as long as a person is united with the risen Jesus then they also rise to new life!
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
the damage was already done.. "Corruption, Sin & Death is now part of what God created, because Adam did not love God! Adam sinned because he did not do what God commanded!!" Doing God' commands is loving God! You don't agree?
If you disagree then why is there death and sin in your/our world today?!
Do I agree that loving God is doing God's commandments? yes

Why is there sin? The greater the challenge, the greater the reward. God wants to reward greatly; therefore God provides a very difficult challenge: redirect the evil urge towards holy pursuits. In this way God can see that all of creation is good.

Jesus destroyed death on the cross... Death is NO more as long as a person is united with the risen Jesus then they also rise to new life!
There's no need. Safety from the Angel of Death was granted annually long before in Exo 12:42.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
In fairness to the literal narrative, the people didn't turn their eyes upward to the Father in heaven. And they weren't even old to turn their eyes upward to the Father in heaven. They were told to look at the idol Moses manufactured out of brass and wood. They were told to look at the idol if they wanted salvation from the bites of the fiery serpents.​

Therefore, Talmud isn't scripture.

I consider the Gospels to be scripture. But when Peter denies he knows Jesus three times on the night he (Jesus) is betrayed, I don't take that as my marching orders (betray Jesus three times) even though it's indeed scriptural. Similarly, when the Talmud claims that Israel was looking up at the Father, even though the text says they were looking up at Nehushtan, I don't think the Talmud is lying, or twisting the truth. Quite the opposite. Jesus, who was lifted up, like Nehushtan, said that when you looked at him, you were seeing the Father. Which suggests a relationship between the cross in the Gospels and Nehushtan in the Talmud and Torah which only strengthens my resolve that these things are all interrelated.

You are assuming incorrectly that there are only two catagories, holy and profane. There are 3 catagories, holy, profane, and neutral. Kosher animal skin, ink, and wood used to construct a Toral scroll are not profane. They are neutral.

Semantics. In my opinion, the words "neutral" and "profane" mean the same thing in theology.

You don't agree with Talmud Tractate Rosh Hashanna where it refutes your claim about idol worship. You don't agree with Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin were it literally says : "יש"ו כישף והסית והדיח את ישראל" "Jesus was a sorcerer who led Israel astray."

I do agree with the Talmud when it says Jesus was a sorcerer who led Israel astray. I understand the context perfectly and believe in context it's inerrant and factual. Which is similar to how I do agree with the Talmud that by looking up at Nehushtan Israel was looking up at the Father.

One of my favorite Catholic scholars, Jean Luc-Marion, said that an idol stops the gaze as though what the penitent or worshiper is seeking is fully met in the idolatrous symbol, while for the true seeker of God, the idolatrous symbol can be a legitimate way-station helping negotiate between God's way out there otherworldliness versus the profane things of the world that are what all men's knowledge is based on.

I'm familiar with Kabbalah and Rabbi Hirsch's commentary. Without the actual source, it's nothing more than name dropping. The assumption is that the reader doesn't have access to Rabbi Hirsch's writing and source texts of Kabbalah; so, they won't be able to refute your claims. Based on the two false claims above, I'm guessing this is false as well.

If we were playing baseball, the previous false claims are 2 strikes. This name-dropping is like a foul-ball. Hopefully you have the integrity to provide the sources. It's your only chance at avoiding a strike-out.

God's Torah is entrusted to the living word, not to the lifeless letter. . . Not only so that we may study it ourselves, are we directed not to the mere written word, but also to the words that have been entrusted to our mouths. . . The written word is to remind you ever anew of what was entrusted to your mouth. Even one who is studying by himself should enunciate aloud the word of God as he reads it (Eruvin 54a), so that he may impress God's Teaching upon his mind by means of the living word. Every individual should be for himself the herald of the Torah; through his own mouth, the Torah will find its way into his soul.

The Hirsch Chumash, Shemos, 13:10.

The subject of the ברית [covenant] between God and israel is not הדברים [the words], the fixed written words which are visible to the eyes, but פי הדברים [mouth of words], the full living content of the words, which existed in Moshe's mind before the words were fixed in writing, and which even after the words were fixed remains a living thing in the minds and mouths of Israel. The written words are merely a reminder of their full content.

Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash, Shemos, 33:27.

A study of phonetic relation brings us to the same idea. כתב [katab, "write"] is related to קטף [qutap] (to bend, tear off), קטב [qutab] (to kill), גדף [gadap] (to abuse) . . . From this we may infer that although the written word is a bearer of ideas and thus of great benefit, nevertheless, by itself it is incomplete, and it is likely to jeopardize the completeness, the vitality, and the truth of ideas.

Ibid.

. . . It is clear that the zoharic authorship, consistent with standard medieval views, reflecting in turn ancient Greco-Roman as well as Near Eastern cultural assumptions, identified the writing instrument (pen or chisel) with the phallus, on one hand, and the tablet or page with the female on the other. It is evident from other zoharic passages that the act of engraving---which signifies in its most elemental sense the process of forming or giving shape by digging out space from slabs of matter ---is understood in sexual terms as phallic penetration . . . .

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Circle in the Square, p. 62.

It may be concluded from these and other passages that in zoharic literature engraving the letters, or more generally the process of writing or inscription, is a decidedly erotic activity: the active agent of writing is the male principle; the letters are the semen virile; and the tablet or page upon which the writing is accomplished is the female principle.

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Circle in the Square, p. 68.

What is real about the phallus points upward to the tongue, and what is real about the tongue points downward to the phallus, for revelation of Torah is justified by circumcision . . .

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, p.139.

Circumcision is not simply an incision of the male sex organ; it is an inscription, a notation, a marking. This marking, in turn, is the semiological seal, as it were, that represents the divine imprint on the human body. The physical opening, therefore, is the seal that, in its symbolic valence, corresponds to an ontological opening within God. . . The opening of circumcision, in the final analysis, is transformed in the Zohar into a symbol for the task of exegesis. . . The uncovering of the phallus is conceptually and structurally parallel to the disclosure of the text.

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, The Circle in the Square, p, 30.


John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
A symbol can refer to some object, but the word 'Lifeblood' is throwing me off the path. .

The idea seems simple to me. If the purpose of a sign is to signify, then what it signifies is the soul, or life, of the sign. The sign is the place (temple, body) where the soul resides until it's unveiled at such a time as when the sign is opened up to reveal what it signifies.



John
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
Do I agree that loving God is doing God's commandments? yes
Hello dybmh I hope all is well.... The scriptures tell us.. "God IS Love"! Adam did not love so he was removed from heaven! Adam sinned by FREELY deciding NOT to love! "Love is a CHOICE"!
Man was made in the image of God.. Only man can love.. Chickens Dogs Cows, sheep snails etc.... cannot love; only man can love... BUT..

dybmh
but to love you need freedom of choice... Sure God could have given Adam a pill or something to make him love but then his love would not be truly.. LOVE! God knew there would be some men who would not chose to "Give of themselves from their heart to another person" He knew there would be some selfish people BUT... He took the chance to make man in his image! We needed free choice to love!
...
Why is there sin? The greater the challenge, the greater the reward. God wants to reward greatly; therefore God provides a very difficult challenge: redirect the evil urge towards holy pursuits. In this way God can see that all of creation is good.
.
I reply.. Why is there sin? God does everything perfectly.. He created the world PERFECT! It was man that messed it up!

There is sin because Adam made a choice to NOT love God! Adam freely choose to not love so PERFECTION was destroyed by man! Sin brings death, so Adams sin brought death into the world! WE,.... (man)
You and I live is a corrupted world, we die because there is DEATH in Gods holy creation! WE (man) needed another perfect man to love God to keep God' commandments! BUT...
dybmh
but we were stuck between a rock and a hard spot... WE needed someone perfect but no man could be born perfect all men are the descendants of the corrupted man Adam! All are born imperfect! Oh what a sorry lot man was! God came to our rescue... God took the form of man, he was BORN MAN so he could die as a man! CAN'T...

dybmh
can't die if first you are not born! Jesus was born perfect sinless! Jesus the Man/God died; because he was perfect (sinless) he popped up out of the tomb, sin could not hold him in the grave!
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

There's no need. Safety from the Angel of Death was granted annually long before in Exo 12:42.
.
I reply... Jesus is the New Passover lamb of God.. All pascal lambs must be eaten!
Rev 5:6
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
Rev 13:8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
God's Torah is entrusted to the living word, not to the lifeless letter. . . Not only so that we may study it ourselves, are we directed not to the mere written word, but also to the words that have been entrusted to our mouths. . . The written word is to remind you ever anew of what was entrusted to your mouth. Even one who is studying by himself should enunciate aloud the word of God as he reads it (Eruvin 54a), so that he may impress God's Teaching upon his mind by means of the living word. Every individual should be for himself the herald of the Torah; through his own mouth, the Torah will find its way into his soul.

The Hirsch Chumash, Shemos, 13:10.

The subject of the ברית [covenant] between God and israel is not הדברים [the words], the fixed written words which are visible to the eyes, but פי הדברים [mouth of words], the full living content of the words, which existed in Moshe's mind before the words were fixed in writing, and which even after the words were fixed remains a living thing in the minds and mouths of Israel. The written words are merely a reminder of their full content.

Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash, Shemos, 33:27.

A study of phonetic relation brings us to the same idea. כתב [katab, "write"] is related to קטף [qutap] (to bend, tear off), קטב [qutab] (to kill), גדף [gadap] (to abuse) . . . From this we may infer that although the written word is a bearer of ideas and thus of great benefit, nevertheless, by itself it is incomplete, and it is likely to jeopardize the completeness, the vitality, and the truth of ideas.

Ibid.

. . . It is clear that the zoharic authorship, consistent with standard medieval views, reflecting in turn ancient Greco-Roman as well as Near Eastern cultural assumptions, identified the writing instrument (pen or chisel) with the phallus, on one hand, and the tablet or page with the female on the other. It is evident from other zoharic passages that the act of engraving---which signifies in its most elemental sense the process of forming or giving shape by digging out space from slabs of matter ---is understood in sexual terms as phallic penetration . . . .

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Circle in the Square, p. 62.

It may be concluded from these and other passages that in zoharic literature engraving the letters, or more generally the process of writing or inscription, is a decidedly erotic activity: the active agent of writing is the male principle; the letters are the semen virile; and the tablet or page upon which the writing is accomplished is the female principle.

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Circle in the Square, p. 68.

What is real about the phallus points upward to the tongue, and what is real about the tongue points downward to the phallus, for revelation of Torah is justified by circumcision . . .

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, p.139.

Circumcision is not simply an incision of the male sex organ; it is an inscription, a notation, a marking. This marking, in turn, is the semiological seal, as it were, that represents the divine imprint on the human body. The physical opening, therefore, is the seal that, in its symbolic valence, corresponds to an ontological opening within God. . . The opening of circumcision, in the final analysis, is transformed in the Zohar into a symbol for the task of exegesis. . . The uncovering of the phallus is conceptually and structurally parallel to the disclosure of the text.

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, The Circle in the Square, p, 30.
As I thought, nothing that Rabbi Hirsch has here has anything to do with idolatry.

I also note that Wolfson never actually quotes a source text here. You're still without support for the claim below. All you're doing is name dropping.

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.

Note you said that these two "equate writing" with idolatry. That's a big FALSE statement. Strike 3 you're out. :cool:
 
Top