Daganev2005-02-17 13:14:27
Your right it is.
The grammer is representive of the stereotypical roles those genders play in a relationship.
Female is seen as the vessel, Male as the applicant. Female as passive, Male as active.
It gives us more of an understanding of the words and names we use when we do that. As long as its taken symbolically and not literally, I don't understand the big deal over it.
The grammer is representive of the stereotypical roles those genders play in a relationship.
Female is seen as the vessel, Male as the applicant. Female as passive, Male as active.
It gives us more of an understanding of the words and names we use when we do that. As long as its taken symbolically and not literally, I don't understand the big deal over it.
Unknown2005-02-18 00:58:06
Ok I've clearly done a poor job of explaining this, ok bare with me i will CLEAR everything up. There are two things i need to clear up first, that being the Old Covenant/New Covenant and Jesus as God. First I'll begin with Jesus as God:
1.) Ok first off YHWH is neither male or female, thats important and Daganev you agree with me on this. Jesus is 100 percent human and 100 percent God, how this is possible can be explained by this link:
trinity
I'm aware this isn't the best theology site out there, but the author is more of scientist anyway and he gives insight on how God can appear as 3 although this his example isn't necessarily how YHWH did it.
Ok what is hard to understand about the YHWH creating a human body devoid of life, then infusing Himself into that body so that he became human. However in saying this I don't mean that YHWH could then be represented by the human form of Jesus. The disciples don't describe what Jesus looked like because they knew that if they did, people would mistake Jesus's human image as a representation of God. This idea of images is one of the reasons the those who would become known as Protestants split from the Catholic Church.
Most Protestant churches have few to no pictures and what do pictures have to do anything, you can't stop an artist from drawing what he wishes, its not like any Christian worships an image of what Jesus might have looked like (at least I hope not).
Now why did God choose to come as a man, well Jesus or God as that can be used interchangeable came to teach the Jewish people and get them on the right path. Jesus is believed to be one of the if not the only man in ancient antiquity to include woman in his group and had YHWH incarnated as a female, who frankly would have listened to a word he said?
The Prophets who were male, were shrugged off most of the time as well, so God coming as a man would seem obvious.
2.) Now for the point made about the Old Covenant, well Luke 24:45 explains this:
"The light from the sun was gone-and suddenly the thick veil hanging in the Temple split apart."
This happened right before Jesus died and it marks the end to the Old Covenant. Although this would not have happen if Jesus was merely a man, the fact that Jesus is God makes this fully feasible, as ANYTHING is possible with God.
I hope this is clear.
1.) Ok first off YHWH is neither male or female, thats important and Daganev you agree with me on this. Jesus is 100 percent human and 100 percent God, how this is possible can be explained by this link:
trinity
I'm aware this isn't the best theology site out there, but the author is more of scientist anyway and he gives insight on how God can appear as 3 although this his example isn't necessarily how YHWH did it.
Ok what is hard to understand about the YHWH creating a human body devoid of life, then infusing Himself into that body so that he became human. However in saying this I don't mean that YHWH could then be represented by the human form of Jesus. The disciples don't describe what Jesus looked like because they knew that if they did, people would mistake Jesus's human image as a representation of God. This idea of images is one of the reasons the those who would become known as Protestants split from the Catholic Church.
Most Protestant churches have few to no pictures and what do pictures have to do anything, you can't stop an artist from drawing what he wishes, its not like any Christian worships an image of what Jesus might have looked like (at least I hope not).
Now why did God choose to come as a man, well Jesus or God as that can be used interchangeable came to teach the Jewish people and get them on the right path. Jesus is believed to be one of the if not the only man in ancient antiquity to include woman in his group and had YHWH incarnated as a female, who frankly would have listened to a word he said?
The Prophets who were male, were shrugged off most of the time as well, so God coming as a man would seem obvious.
2.) Now for the point made about the Old Covenant, well Luke 24:45 explains this:
"The light from the sun was gone-and suddenly the thick veil hanging in the Temple split apart."
This happened right before Jesus died and it marks the end to the Old Covenant. Although this would not have happen if Jesus was merely a man, the fact that Jesus is God makes this fully feasible, as ANYTHING is possible with God.
I hope this is clear.
Daganev2005-02-18 01:11:03
Devorah, was a female, and the most powerfull prophet and leader of the Jewish people before they had a King. She was the only prophet to really sucessfully get the people to repent.
So that female argument holds no water. Nor does it walk on it.
I get what your saying, and how you think its possible, but based on the Rambam or Maimonides, it is the essential almost perfect example of beliving in a copreal G-d. The point is nothing that is physical can be 100% god and 100% human. To say there are multiple dimensions is to ignore that fact that "all the world is Filled with Him." It makes G-d into something that is part here, part there, as if his normal "home" is somewhere other than the entire universe.
There has been a 2,000 year old conflict of intrests for a reason.
Its why Jews get so insulted by the whole Jews for Jesus thing.
So that female argument holds no water. Nor does it walk on it.
I get what your saying, and how you think its possible, but based on the Rambam or Maimonides, it is the essential almost perfect example of beliving in a copreal G-d. The point is nothing that is physical can be 100% god and 100% human. To say there are multiple dimensions is to ignore that fact that "all the world is Filled with Him." It makes G-d into something that is part here, part there, as if his normal "home" is somewhere other than the entire universe.
There has been a 2,000 year old conflict of intrests for a reason.
Its why Jews get so insulted by the whole Jews for Jesus thing.
Unknown2005-02-18 01:24:34
The multiple dimensions is to ignore science...I mean "all whole world is filled with Him." is actually explained using the fact that God can make use of multiple time dimensions, so that as an argument doesn't hold as well you see.
I think we have come to the point where we have both hit dead ends and it becomes a pure matter of belief. However I still feel Jews are turning their back on God by not fully accepting Him. I assume you don't feel that way, however death will tell won't it
. Anyway this has been quite a debate and I welcome any comments you might still have.
I think we have come to the point where we have both hit dead ends and it becomes a pure matter of belief. However I still feel Jews are turning their back on God by not fully accepting Him. I assume you don't feel that way, however death will tell won't it
. Anyway this has been quite a debate and I welcome any comments you might still have.Daganev2005-02-18 22:26:08
My only argument is this.
While you require relying on modern science to understand "All the world is filled with him." I do not.
I find any theological argument that uses modern theories to prove its point raises the question, "How did you prove that point before modern science?"
If you go back a few pages to the Kabalistic explanation of the creation of the world you may notice or not notice something very specfiic.
It does not say "And G-d constricted Himself making the Tzimzum" its says "And G-d constricted his Infinite light making the Tzimzum" Infinite light is a metaphor for perception and infinitness. Not even when dealing with the most abstract of Metaphors is the tradition going to say it was G-d. Rather it would be an aspect of G-d that we perceive or theorize in some way. There is a strong difference between an aspect and a part. Atleast in my mind there is. To me, you can not remove an aspect, but you can remove or seperate a part.
The common metaphor is used to say that the Torah is like a diamond with 70 faces, depending on which face you look at you will see something different.
As soon as you say it IS G-d, I have a red flag go up, and it tells me its something that is not True. We can only know how we interact and what our relationship with G-d is, we can never know the essence of G-d or the nature of G-d. However, if you were to change your argument to say that its an aspect of G-d or a Divine spark or the such, than Jesus becomes no different than any other prophet. In fact Duturotoemy(sp?) says that there will never be another prophet like Moses, which is why christianity must say Jesus was beyond a prophet. Further we learn that we do not take the word of Angels to be Law. They are messangers and might be there just to test us, As that is written in the last book of Moses as well. (in refrence to false prophets.)
So the only argument you can say is that Jesus WAS G-d. At which point you imply that G-d had some clause in his covenant that he never told anyone about (which seems odd since He went into such detail to explain how the Covenant with the Jewish people works) or that G-d changed His mind. Which would imply a finite entity that can change rather than an Infinitness.
But even if you can get around that your still stuck with saying that some phyiscial manifistation in this corporeal world WAS G-d. And THAT is against all beliefs in every faction of Judaism.
While you require relying on modern science to understand "All the world is filled with him." I do not.
I find any theological argument that uses modern theories to prove its point raises the question, "How did you prove that point before modern science?"
If you go back a few pages to the Kabalistic explanation of the creation of the world you may notice or not notice something very specfiic.
It does not say "And G-d constricted Himself making the Tzimzum" its says "And G-d constricted his Infinite light making the Tzimzum" Infinite light is a metaphor for perception and infinitness. Not even when dealing with the most abstract of Metaphors is the tradition going to say it was G-d. Rather it would be an aspect of G-d that we perceive or theorize in some way. There is a strong difference between an aspect and a part. Atleast in my mind there is. To me, you can not remove an aspect, but you can remove or seperate a part.
The common metaphor is used to say that the Torah is like a diamond with 70 faces, depending on which face you look at you will see something different.
As soon as you say it IS G-d, I have a red flag go up, and it tells me its something that is not True. We can only know how we interact and what our relationship with G-d is, we can never know the essence of G-d or the nature of G-d. However, if you were to change your argument to say that its an aspect of G-d or a Divine spark or the such, than Jesus becomes no different than any other prophet. In fact Duturotoemy(sp?) says that there will never be another prophet like Moses, which is why christianity must say Jesus was beyond a prophet. Further we learn that we do not take the word of Angels to be Law. They are messangers and might be there just to test us, As that is written in the last book of Moses as well. (in refrence to false prophets.)
So the only argument you can say is that Jesus WAS G-d. At which point you imply that G-d had some clause in his covenant that he never told anyone about (which seems odd since He went into such detail to explain how the Covenant with the Jewish people works) or that G-d changed His mind. Which would imply a finite entity that can change rather than an Infinitness.
But even if you can get around that your still stuck with saying that some phyiscial manifistation in this corporeal world WAS G-d. And THAT is against all beliefs in every faction of Judaism.
Unknown2005-02-21 02:06:53
In seeking answers regarding the whole covenant thing, I went to a friend of mine who enlightened me on this issue, so i'll post what he said:
"Christ kept kosher, fulfilled levitical laws, but rebuked the additional rules and regulations added to the Law by the Pharisees.
It is also made clear in the Torah that the covenant has two sides (God's and Israel's). If the covenant becomes broken by one, then does is still exist? (Deuteronomy 7:12) No, but God still remained faithful on many occasions to Israel despite their unfaithfulness (as God remains faithful to us, despite our unfaithfulness). I really wonder what your friend would make of the following passage:
31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD .
33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD ,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)"
"In Israel, if someone ever got into debt and could not repay what they owed, then they would be put into slavery to work and pay off their debt. However, if someone else chose to come and pay the debt, then the person in debt could be redeemed. The person who would pay to redeem another from slavery was called the "kinsman redeemer."
Now, the first qualification of being a kinsman-redeemer is that the redeemer must be related to the person in debt. The second qualification for the redeemer is that they must be free themselves.
Applying this to ourselves, we are all sinners before God having committed wrongful acts. God on the other hand is all-righteous and as such He cannot just glimpse past wrongful acts we commit against Him. If God did just glimpse past our sin, it would make God semi-righteous and accepting of evil, which means God wouldn't really be righteous at all. So if we are ever to be with an all-righteous God, we have to be made right before God.
Thus, if we who are slaves to sin are to be with a holy and righteous God, we need to be somehow freed from being a slave to sin. And Jesus was the only person who qualified for the task of redeeming us. Jesus qualified firstly because he met the redeemer requirement of being associated with us by being born into our world as a human. Jesus also met the second requirement, that is, being free from sin. So if we were ever to be redeemed from sin, and so be justified before a righteous God, Jesus was qualified to redeem us.
However redemption doesn't come without a payment. In order to set us free from sin so that we could be accepted by God, a payment was required. We are told that the price of sin is death. This especially makes sense when we understand how sin kills our relationship between us and a Holy God, causing a death. Jesus therefore chose to sacrifice Himself, making payment on our behalf for our sin.
So now those who choose to allow Christ into their lives and follow Him, belong to Him and are saved from an eternal death they would otherwise have from God. They have been purchased with a price! And Jesus is our kinsman redeemer!"
Also you seem to think Jesus wasn't a descendant of David, (Elijah was John the Baptist) let me direct you to these site:
loophole
duel
king
About the whole Moses thing and why how Jesus is the messiah, please read this:
moses
reject
Finally, you should read this article about Paul:
saul
This should clear up a lot of stuff.
"Christ kept kosher, fulfilled levitical laws, but rebuked the additional rules and regulations added to the Law by the Pharisees.
It is also made clear in the Torah that the covenant has two sides (God's and Israel's). If the covenant becomes broken by one, then does is still exist? (Deuteronomy 7:12) No, but God still remained faithful on many occasions to Israel despite their unfaithfulness (as God remains faithful to us, despite our unfaithfulness). I really wonder what your friend would make of the following passage:
31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD .
33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD ,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)"
"In Israel, if someone ever got into debt and could not repay what they owed, then they would be put into slavery to work and pay off their debt. However, if someone else chose to come and pay the debt, then the person in debt could be redeemed. The person who would pay to redeem another from slavery was called the "kinsman redeemer."
Now, the first qualification of being a kinsman-redeemer is that the redeemer must be related to the person in debt. The second qualification for the redeemer is that they must be free themselves.
Applying this to ourselves, we are all sinners before God having committed wrongful acts. God on the other hand is all-righteous and as such He cannot just glimpse past wrongful acts we commit against Him. If God did just glimpse past our sin, it would make God semi-righteous and accepting of evil, which means God wouldn't really be righteous at all. So if we are ever to be with an all-righteous God, we have to be made right before God.
Thus, if we who are slaves to sin are to be with a holy and righteous God, we need to be somehow freed from being a slave to sin. And Jesus was the only person who qualified for the task of redeeming us. Jesus qualified firstly because he met the redeemer requirement of being associated with us by being born into our world as a human. Jesus also met the second requirement, that is, being free from sin. So if we were ever to be redeemed from sin, and so be justified before a righteous God, Jesus was qualified to redeem us.
However redemption doesn't come without a payment. In order to set us free from sin so that we could be accepted by God, a payment was required. We are told that the price of sin is death. This especially makes sense when we understand how sin kills our relationship between us and a Holy God, causing a death. Jesus therefore chose to sacrifice Himself, making payment on our behalf for our sin.
So now those who choose to allow Christ into their lives and follow Him, belong to Him and are saved from an eternal death they would otherwise have from God. They have been purchased with a price! And Jesus is our kinsman redeemer!"
Also you seem to think Jesus wasn't a descendant of David, (Elijah was John the Baptist) let me direct you to these site:
loophole
duel
king
About the whole Moses thing and why how Jesus is the messiah, please read this:
moses
reject
Finally, you should read this article about Paul:
saul
This should clear up a lot of stuff.
Unknown2005-02-21 04:38:39
My my. I have but one thing to say on this matter.
Think of God, as the Sun. Think of his collective rays as Christ Idea. Now think of each individual ray as a man or woman.
Now think of this, Christ=Messiah. Right? Well the Jews don't think that the Messiah has returned, so they are essentially, turning their back on God, like vvart said. Christians, well they are a different story. My religion knows that he has come, don't ask me how, I'm still trying to figure that part out.
Most Christians base their beliefs on the fact that Jesus was Christ, Messiah.
I know most of you know this already, but what this is a precursor to, is that most Christians believe that there are three parts to God.
God - The Father
Jesus - The Son
Holy Ghost - Christ
This is WRONG. It may say this in the bible, but the book of the bible is mainly written as a symbolic work denoting the wonderous powers of God.
I challenge all of you to open your minds, and go to www.spirituality.com.
sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
If you immediatly shrug off the fact that you have been told certain things about Christian Scientists, then you don't deserve to call yourself Christian. By your beliefs, you would burn in hell.
By the way, do there happen to be any other Christian Scientists here, or am I all alone.
Think of God, as the Sun. Think of his collective rays as Christ Idea. Now think of each individual ray as a man or woman.
Now think of this, Christ=Messiah. Right? Well the Jews don't think that the Messiah has returned, so they are essentially, turning their back on God, like vvart said. Christians, well they are a different story. My religion knows that he has come, don't ask me how, I'm still trying to figure that part out.
Most Christians base their beliefs on the fact that Jesus was Christ, Messiah.
I know most of you know this already, but what this is a precursor to, is that most Christians believe that there are three parts to God.
God - The Father
Jesus - The Son
Holy Ghost - Christ
This is WRONG. It may say this in the bible, but the book of the bible is mainly written as a symbolic work denoting the wonderous powers of God.
I challenge all of you to open your minds, and go to www.spirituality.com.
sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
If you immediatly shrug off the fact that you have been told certain things about Christian Scientists, then you don't deserve to call yourself Christian. By your beliefs, you would burn in hell.
By the way, do there happen to be any other Christian Scientists here, or am I all alone.
Daganev2005-02-21 05:50:40
Despite the mistranslation and the bad context I'll just show you the three verses before the part you quoted.
As you can see, the concept of individual acountability is brought up again. The way "the system" currently works is that in theory you can be punished for the actions of your parents. This is considered unjust but necessary. In the end of days, you will be punished not for the actions of your parents but for your own actions, and each man will die of thier own sins.
To me this is direct refutaion to the concept, "My son will die for your sins."
As for the concept of the sun and light, that makes sense to me, but the also semms to remove the divine concept from G-d, and thus is not really what we are speaking about. Many Christian sects do not see Jesus as BEING God.
As for the concept of Jesus being our Bail bondsman.
1) It says you must be related, not that you must be from the same community. Only Adam, the first man would be able to say "I am related to all of humanity." Or possibly Noah, but probabbly not.
2)I am not a slave to sin. I have free choice. There is no concept of "Original sin" in Jewish thought.
3) You are using different definitions of the word free. One who is free from sin would in hebrew be Aiy Averah. However the word free here means free from captivitiy which would be the Hebrew word of Horin, or another hebrew word that I forget now, that specifically means jailed or imprisoned. Another use of the word free would be free will which in hebrew is bechirah chofshith
4) Commiting a transgression does not put you in "debt" The concept of sin in Judaism is really more a concept of Cause and affect. When G-d lays out the plan in the Torah he says "If you do this, then this will happen" "If you honour your parents you will have long life" "If you don't follow the laws of agriculture, you will not get rain."
5) The only part of the deal that Jews have had to do to make sure the contract is not null and void is that the Parents teach the commandments to thier children and that boys get circumsized. In as much as I have learned about Judaism, I would say that part of the covenant is being upheld.
QUOTE
28
And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them to pluck up and to break down, and to overthrow and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them to build and to plant, saith HaShem.
29
In those days they shall say no more: 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.'
30
But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man that eateth the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jerimiah 31:28-30)
And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them to pluck up and to break down, and to overthrow and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them to build and to plant, saith HaShem.
29
In those days they shall say no more: 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.'
30
But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man that eateth the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jerimiah 31:28-30)
As you can see, the concept of individual acountability is brought up again. The way "the system" currently works is that in theory you can be punished for the actions of your parents. This is considered unjust but necessary. In the end of days, you will be punished not for the actions of your parents but for your own actions, and each man will die of thier own sins.
To me this is direct refutaion to the concept, "My son will die for your sins."
As for the concept of the sun and light, that makes sense to me, but the also semms to remove the divine concept from G-d, and thus is not really what we are speaking about. Many Christian sects do not see Jesus as BEING God.
As for the concept of Jesus being our Bail bondsman.
1) It says you must be related, not that you must be from the same community. Only Adam, the first man would be able to say "I am related to all of humanity." Or possibly Noah, but probabbly not.
2)I am not a slave to sin. I have free choice. There is no concept of "Original sin" in Jewish thought.
3) You are using different definitions of the word free. One who is free from sin would in hebrew be Aiy Averah. However the word free here means free from captivitiy which would be the Hebrew word of Horin, or another hebrew word that I forget now, that specifically means jailed or imprisoned. Another use of the word free would be free will which in hebrew is bechirah chofshith
4) Commiting a transgression does not put you in "debt" The concept of sin in Judaism is really more a concept of Cause and affect. When G-d lays out the plan in the Torah he says "If you do this, then this will happen" "If you honour your parents you will have long life" "If you don't follow the laws of agriculture, you will not get rain."
5) The only part of the deal that Jews have had to do to make sure the contract is not null and void is that the Parents teach the commandments to thier children and that boys get circumsized. In as much as I have learned about Judaism, I would say that part of the covenant is being upheld.
Unknown2005-02-21 09:15:46
Jesus's lineage goes back to Adam, but your arguing that humans aren't related.
You see you have to follow the commandments and laws of the prophets, not just have your parents teach them.
You are a slave to sin because everyone has sinned and continues to sin tell they die. Having free-will doesn't mean you can't be a slave...slaves have free-will as well, they can choose to get out of slavery through any means even death.
Jeremiah just stated that everyone will die for his iniquity, explaining the necessity for a new covenant.
God also said if you don't honour your mother or father you will die or if you commit adultery, then you must die. You know these were the laws which Jewish people followed, meaning they literally killed people they found violating the law.
Old Covenant isn't upheld just because you know the laws, you have to actually follow all of them to fulfill your part.
Are you reading the Torah, cause the prophets most of the time talk about how the people aren't fulfilling God's laws.
Your giving me a strawman, I just posted a ton of information on why Jesus is the messiah of the Old Testament, but I'll ask my friend once again about the "problems" you see with the coming of a New Covenant.
You see you have to follow the commandments and laws of the prophets, not just have your parents teach them.
You are a slave to sin because everyone has sinned and continues to sin tell they die. Having free-will doesn't mean you can't be a slave...slaves have free-will as well, they can choose to get out of slavery through any means even death.
Jeremiah just stated that everyone will die for his iniquity, explaining the necessity for a new covenant.
God also said if you don't honour your mother or father you will die or if you commit adultery, then you must die. You know these were the laws which Jewish people followed, meaning they literally killed people they found violating the law.
Old Covenant isn't upheld just because you know the laws, you have to actually follow all of them to fulfill your part.
Are you reading the Torah, cause the prophets most of the time talk about how the people aren't fulfilling God's laws.
Your giving me a strawman, I just posted a ton of information on why Jesus is the messiah of the Old Testament, but I'll ask my friend once again about the "problems" you see with the coming of a New Covenant.
Unknown2005-02-21 09:58:02
Because I remember the part where Jesus told you all to make petty arguments with each other about the nature of God.
Faith is Faith. If you have your own it is yours, no one has any right to claim it is inferior to theirs. All Faith is individual, to blindly follow what someone tells you is the nature of your belief, is to defeat the entire point of Faith.
You do not have to prove anything to anyone else, only to yourself. There is a reason Religion and Belief has been the cause of more wars than any other throughout history, they are dangerous misconceptions. Faith is what matters, and Faith is personal.
If people would learn to see that Faith in Science is as important as Faith in God is as important as Faith in whatever you may believe. Then perhaps the "Kingdom of God" would be a little more imminent for all of us.
Faith is Faith. If you have your own it is yours, no one has any right to claim it is inferior to theirs. All Faith is individual, to blindly follow what someone tells you is the nature of your belief, is to defeat the entire point of Faith.
You do not have to prove anything to anyone else, only to yourself. There is a reason Religion and Belief has been the cause of more wars than any other throughout history, they are dangerous misconceptions. Faith is what matters, and Faith is personal.
If people would learn to see that Faith in Science is as important as Faith in God is as important as Faith in whatever you may believe. Then perhaps the "Kingdom of God" would be a little more imminent for all of us.
Unknown2005-02-21 10:24:07
They are arguing theology, not faith. Nevermind the fact that theology is as personal as faith, let them argue (and let me throw in my occasional piece).
Manjanaia2005-02-21 20:07:29
To the person who said what's so special about Jesus (Daganev?), from a Catholic perspective at least, he is God. Part of the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
QUOTE(daganev @ Feb 8 2005, 01:44 AM)
OH, and no offense to the Christians out there, but "Christianity" happens to be one of those religions where the more you learn about -It- the more you tend to wonder if what they are teaching is True, while the more you learn about the teachings, the more inclined you are to accept them.
Very true. I'm Catholic. I've had it drilled into me since I was 4. But as I get older I question it so much more. There are now so many parts of it I don't believe. I don't understand why God could have possibly created things like sexual pleasure, which would make us seek it as much as we can (it also has health benifits), and then restrict it so. it doesnt make sense.
Going back to whoever said 'most of the world believes in Creationism, and it is up to the new idea to prove itself', allow me to offer a parallel.
A few hundred years ago, the whole world believed the world was flat. Then people got new information and questioned this. People like Galileo discovered the truth, that the world was round, but people censored him. Then more people researched it and they had to admit it was true. If they had never researched into it, we would still believe that the world is flat now. All Christians believed that God created the world, but people researched into it, and discovered that this wasn't the truth.
That said, I believe in God's role. If you think that the universe came from the Big Bang, what made this (relatively) small cluster of matter? What made it explode? I believe that was God.
QUOTE(daganev @ Feb 8 2005, 01:44 AM)
OH, and no offense to the Christians out there, but "Christianity" happens to be one of those religions where the more you learn about -It- the more you tend to wonder if what they are teaching is True, while the more you learn about the teachings, the more inclined you are to accept them.
Very true. I'm Catholic. I've had it drilled into me since I was 4. But as I get older I question it so much more. There are now so many parts of it I don't believe. I don't understand why God could have possibly created things like sexual pleasure, which would make us seek it as much as we can (it also has health benifits), and then restrict it so. it doesnt make sense.
Going back to whoever said 'most of the world believes in Creationism, and it is up to the new idea to prove itself', allow me to offer a parallel.
A few hundred years ago, the whole world believed the world was flat. Then people got new information and questioned this. People like Galileo discovered the truth, that the world was round, but people censored him. Then more people researched it and they had to admit it was true. If they had never researched into it, we would still believe that the world is flat now. All Christians believed that God created the world, but people researched into it, and discovered that this wasn't the truth.
That said, I believe in God's role. If you think that the universe came from the Big Bang, what made this (relatively) small cluster of matter? What made it explode? I believe that was God.
Daganev2005-02-21 20:46:51
Jesus's lineage goes back to Adam, but your arguing that humans aren't related.
Yes all humans are related, but according to the law you stated, they must have a direct relation. If anyone could free anyone because they were related to Adam then the law would not state that.
You see you have to follow the commandments and laws of the prophets, not just have your parents teach them.
You are a slave to sin because everyone has sinned and continues to sin tell they die. Having free-will doesn't mean you can't be a slave...slaves have free-will as well, they can choose to get out of slavery through any means even death.
A slave is not required to follow any of the 613 commandmants because he is not considered to have such freedom. It is illegal for a slave, or anybody else for that matter to commit suicide. So while they as humans may have free-will, they as a legal entity do not, and are not subjicated to the rules of the Torah.
If this metaphor were to been expanded, if we are slaves to sin, then we are not even required to follow any laws anyway.
Again. In Jewish thought, nobody is slave to sin. Infact the whole "sin" concept doesn't really exist all that much.
That was what I was trying to get across.
Jeremiah just stated that everyone will die for his iniquity, explaining the necessity for a new covenant.
No, that was not the need for a new covenant. If you read the entire chapter in context, Jeremiah is talking about how in the times of the Messiah, people will follow G-d so closely that it will seem as if a new covenant had been signed. It is HIGHLY recomended that Prophets are not taken litteraly, but rather metaphorically. I don't think Jerimiah is really talking to the nation on G-d's behalf to tell them the consquences of eating grapes.
God also said if you don't honour your mother or father you will die or if you commit adultery, then you must die. You know these were the laws which Jewish people followed, meaning they literally killed people they found violating the law.
The Talmud states that a court that killed a person once in 70 years was considered a cruel court. The legal requirements to kill a person insist that you have two witteneses, Both witnesses warn the person that if they commit that deed they are liable to death, and the person commiting the dead responds stating that they agree, they are liable to death but they wish to commit the act anyway.
Thats all basic Jewish concepts. The point is, you could get the death penalty for doing these things because they are so against what one should be doing. If you look at all rules that have a penalty of death by humans, vs laws that have a penalty of disconection from G-d, there are many interesting lessons one can learn about life, society and personal spirituality.
Old Covenant isn't upheld just because you know the laws, you have to actually follow all of them to fulfill your part.
Actually, G-d says that is all that is required for the covenant. And the circumcision.
Are you reading the Torah, cause the prophets most of the time talk about how the people aren't fulfilling God's laws.
Following G-ds laws is not part of the covenant. They are the laws. It would be like saying, Jay walking is breaking the constitution.
The Jewish people were labeld in the Torah to be a stiffnecked people. Since day one, we broke rules and such. It is for this reason we are called the children of Israel (Israel litterally means "Struggle With G-d")
Just as a child often does not listen to thier parents, but the parent does not give up on the child, so to with the Jewish people.
A Parent might ground thier child, but that does not mean they will no longer support them in the future.
Your giving me a strawman, I just posted a ton of information on why Jesus is the messiah of the Old Testament, but I'll ask my friend once again about the "problems" you see with the coming of a New Covenant.
I am not attempting to give you a strawman. In True Jewish fashion, I am trying to show you, how the details matter. Judaism is all about the details, and elevating them to a level of holyness and importance. To ignore the details is to ignore the larger argument.
Theology may be personal in your acceptance of it, but I feel theology as a system is not really a personal issue. Its a conflict of systems, but that does not mean its the cause for war. Two people who care about the truth can argue for years over concepts, but share a beer at the end of each day. Its like two scientists arguing over whether a photon is a wave or a particle pre-heisinberg.
Yes all humans are related, but according to the law you stated, they must have a direct relation. If anyone could free anyone because they were related to Adam then the law would not state that.
You see you have to follow the commandments and laws of the prophets, not just have your parents teach them.
You are a slave to sin because everyone has sinned and continues to sin tell they die. Having free-will doesn't mean you can't be a slave...slaves have free-will as well, they can choose to get out of slavery through any means even death.
A slave is not required to follow any of the 613 commandmants because he is not considered to have such freedom. It is illegal for a slave, or anybody else for that matter to commit suicide. So while they as humans may have free-will, they as a legal entity do not, and are not subjicated to the rules of the Torah.
If this metaphor were to been expanded, if we are slaves to sin, then we are not even required to follow any laws anyway.
Again. In Jewish thought, nobody is slave to sin. Infact the whole "sin" concept doesn't really exist all that much.
That was what I was trying to get across.
Jeremiah just stated that everyone will die for his iniquity, explaining the necessity for a new covenant.
No, that was not the need for a new covenant. If you read the entire chapter in context, Jeremiah is talking about how in the times of the Messiah, people will follow G-d so closely that it will seem as if a new covenant had been signed. It is HIGHLY recomended that Prophets are not taken litteraly, but rather metaphorically. I don't think Jerimiah is really talking to the nation on G-d's behalf to tell them the consquences of eating grapes.
God also said if you don't honour your mother or father you will die or if you commit adultery, then you must die. You know these were the laws which Jewish people followed, meaning they literally killed people they found violating the law.
The Talmud states that a court that killed a person once in 70 years was considered a cruel court. The legal requirements to kill a person insist that you have two witteneses, Both witnesses warn the person that if they commit that deed they are liable to death, and the person commiting the dead responds stating that they agree, they are liable to death but they wish to commit the act anyway.
Thats all basic Jewish concepts. The point is, you could get the death penalty for doing these things because they are so against what one should be doing. If you look at all rules that have a penalty of death by humans, vs laws that have a penalty of disconection from G-d, there are many interesting lessons one can learn about life, society and personal spirituality.
Old Covenant isn't upheld just because you know the laws, you have to actually follow all of them to fulfill your part.
Actually, G-d says that is all that is required for the covenant. And the circumcision.
Are you reading the Torah, cause the prophets most of the time talk about how the people aren't fulfilling God's laws.
Following G-ds laws is not part of the covenant. They are the laws. It would be like saying, Jay walking is breaking the constitution.
The Jewish people were labeld in the Torah to be a stiffnecked people. Since day one, we broke rules and such. It is for this reason we are called the children of Israel (Israel litterally means "Struggle With G-d")
Just as a child often does not listen to thier parents, but the parent does not give up on the child, so to with the Jewish people.
A Parent might ground thier child, but that does not mean they will no longer support them in the future.
Your giving me a strawman, I just posted a ton of information on why Jesus is the messiah of the Old Testament, but I'll ask my friend once again about the "problems" you see with the coming of a New Covenant.
I am not attempting to give you a strawman. In True Jewish fashion, I am trying to show you, how the details matter. Judaism is all about the details, and elevating them to a level of holyness and importance. To ignore the details is to ignore the larger argument.
Theology may be personal in your acceptance of it, but I feel theology as a system is not really a personal issue. Its a conflict of systems, but that does not mean its the cause for war. Two people who care about the truth can argue for years over concepts, but share a beer at the end of each day. Its like two scientists arguing over whether a photon is a wave or a particle pre-heisinberg.
Unknown2005-02-21 22:13:07
Your right the details do matter, so let me take this up with my friend as he likely knows more about what your talking about.
Jesus however is directly related to Adam, in fact He is both directly related to Abraham, and Adam.
Jesus however is directly related to Adam, in fact He is both directly related to Abraham, and Adam.
Unknown2005-02-22 04:30:19
Ok after consulting with my friend this is what he had to say:
"Jeremiah 31:
27"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of beast.
Obvious reference that God would allow Gentiles to come unto Him.
28"As I have watched over them to pluck up, to break down, to overthrow, to destroy and to bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares the LORD.
Such is a change in tune to how God watched over Israel, being their husband in the face of gentile nations, and keeping them as His own. Now God intends to build up His new house of Israel mixed with gentiles. This is a time of building up God's people; the planting an obvious parallel back to verse 27 where God sows the seeds.
29"In those days they will not say again,'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.'
30"But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge.
Israel suffered many times for the sins of the fathers, and allowing a sinful lifestyle to be passed on. Judgement was pronounced on Israel all the time as a whole. Surrounding nations would take them captive, as what happened with the Babylonians. Yet, in the new covenant open to all, God would be more personal with everyone—which we believe was made possible through Christ, our high priest.
God associating himself with human nature, by taking on human nature, would be enough relatedness to mankind to be able to redeem them (since He becomes on of us). He experienced things as a normal human experiences, He lived His life in human flesh, and died in human flesh. The only difference between us and Christ, is that Christ was spotless and without blemish, like the animals sacrificed in sin offerings.
Circumcision was a token of the covenant (Gen 17:11), a token of one's agreement to it. As for the covenant...
Exodus 24
7And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
I find it hard to believe a whole book of the covenant was written about circumcision. "
Now on top of that I would like to ask what about the sin, guilt, and fellowship offerings practiced by Israel. Why did the priest sacrifice a bull, goat, lamb, doves or pigeons for someone's sins and how there sins were transferred to an unblemished animal (Lev 4-5). If Israel has no concept of transferance of sins, then why were the sins of Israel transferred to animals who were sacrificed by the priests? Also why aren't such practices carried out today, if the old covenant is truly in place.
"Jeremiah 31:
27"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of beast.
Obvious reference that God would allow Gentiles to come unto Him.
28"As I have watched over them to pluck up, to break down, to overthrow, to destroy and to bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares the LORD.
Such is a change in tune to how God watched over Israel, being their husband in the face of gentile nations, and keeping them as His own. Now God intends to build up His new house of Israel mixed with gentiles. This is a time of building up God's people; the planting an obvious parallel back to verse 27 where God sows the seeds.
29"In those days they will not say again,'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.'
30"But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge.
Israel suffered many times for the sins of the fathers, and allowing a sinful lifestyle to be passed on. Judgement was pronounced on Israel all the time as a whole. Surrounding nations would take them captive, as what happened with the Babylonians. Yet, in the new covenant open to all, God would be more personal with everyone—which we believe was made possible through Christ, our high priest.
God associating himself with human nature, by taking on human nature, would be enough relatedness to mankind to be able to redeem them (since He becomes on of us). He experienced things as a normal human experiences, He lived His life in human flesh, and died in human flesh. The only difference between us and Christ, is that Christ was spotless and without blemish, like the animals sacrificed in sin offerings.
Circumcision was a token of the covenant (Gen 17:11), a token of one's agreement to it. As for the covenant...
Exodus 24
7And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
I find it hard to believe a whole book of the covenant was written about circumcision. "
Now on top of that I would like to ask what about the sin, guilt, and fellowship offerings practiced by Israel. Why did the priest sacrifice a bull, goat, lamb, doves or pigeons for someone's sins and how there sins were transferred to an unblemished animal (Lev 4-5). If Israel has no concept of transferance of sins, then why were the sins of Israel transferred to animals who were sacrificed by the priests? Also why aren't such practices carried out today, if the old covenant is truly in place.
Daganev2005-02-22 05:57:01
Yes the whole concept of the messianic era is that both Jews and non jews will recognize G-d's oneness. Do remember you are quoting chapter 31 of the book. Theres a lot of context beforhand. I would recomend reading it.
To say that G-d needs to "become one of us" to me is just so against any serious theological discussion to me. I really don't know how to make this concept any clearer. The whole Old man on a throne idea of God is just silly. Your dealing with an infinite being that is beyond all time and dimensions. G-d does not reside in the 5th dimention or even the 300th... G-d is outside and within all of those, G-d has no dimensions. The words "The whole world is filled with Him" is basically the simplest and most complete way of saying it. EVERYTHING is connected to G-d.
As for the sacrifices... They are a bit of a mystery to me,... so I will quote www.jewfaq.org
I suggest reading more than the first paragraph so you do not come to erronious conclusions.
To say that G-d needs to "become one of us" to me is just so against any serious theological discussion to me. I really don't know how to make this concept any clearer. The whole Old man on a throne idea of God is just silly. Your dealing with an infinite being that is beyond all time and dimensions. G-d does not reside in the 5th dimention or even the 300th... G-d is outside and within all of those, G-d has no dimensions. The words "The whole world is filled with Him" is basically the simplest and most complete way of saying it. EVERYTHING is connected to G-d.
As for the sacrifices... They are a bit of a mystery to me,... so I will quote www.jewfaq.org
I suggest reading more than the first paragraph so you do not come to erronious conclusions.
QUOTE
Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings
Level: Advanced
For a long time I was reluctant to write a page on the subject of qorbanot, because it is a subject with little practical application today. However, I felt I had to address these issues, because it is one of the two subjects I receive the most questions about. Interestingly, the questions I receive on this subject are invariably from non-Jews. Most Jews don't seem to have much interest in ancient practices no longer observed.
I will begin by answering the questions I am most commonly asked on these subjects, and then proceed to a more comprehensive discussion of the subject of qorbanot.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do Jews offer sacrifices today?
   No. To my knowledge, no Jews today offer any kind of animal sacrifice or offerings, nor have Jews offered sacrifices since the second century C.E. I have occasionally heard rumors that there are Orthodox rabbis in Israel who practice the techniques of ritual sacrifice, so that the knowledge will not be lost, but I do not know if these stories are reliable, and even if they are, this is not quite the same thing as offering a sacrifice.
When did Jews stop offering sacrifices, and why?
   For the most part, the practice of sacrifice stopped in the year 70 C.E., when the Roman army destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the place where sacrifices were offered. The practice was briefly resumed during the Jewish War of 132-135 C.E., but was ended permanently after that war was lost. There were also a few communities that continued sacrifices for a while after that time.
  We stopped offering sacrifices because we do not have a proper place to offer them. The Torah specifically commands us not to offer sacrifices wherever we feel like it; we are only permitted to offer sacrifices in the place that G-d has chosen for that purpose. Deut. 12:13-14. It would be a sin to offer sacrifices in any other place, akin to stealing candles and wine to observe Shabbat.
   The last place appointed by G-d for this purpose was the Temple in Jerusalem, but the Temple has been destroyed and a mosque has been erected in the place where it stood. Until G-d provides us with another place, we cannot offer sacrifices. There was at one time an opinion that in the absence of an assigned place, we could offer sacrifices anywhere. Based on that opinion, certain communities made their own sacrificial places. However, the majority ultimately ruled against this practice, and all sacrifice ceased.
   Orthodox Jews believe that when the messiah comes, a place will be provided for sacrificial purposes.
Do Jews want to resume sacrifices?
   Orthodox Jews do. There are several places in our daily prayer services where we pray for the restoration of the Temple and the resumption of its rituals, including the rituals of sacrifice.
Did the kohanim (priests) or anybody else eat the animals offered?
   Yes! Most types of offerings could be eaten. Certain types were eaten by the kohanim only, or by a specific kohein. Other types were eaten by the person offering the sacrifice and his family. The types of offerings and who was permitted to eat them will be discussed further below.
Isn't sacrifice cruelty to animals?
Animal sacrifice is no more cruel than slaughtering animals for food. In fact, the procedure for slaughtering livestock for sacrificial purposes is the same as the procedure used for slaughtering animals for food, a procedure that is designed to be as quick and painless as possible. See Shechitah. Judaism is very concerned about the proper treatment of animals, and would never advocate a cruel procedure for animal sacrifice.
How do Jews obtain forgiveness without sacrifices?
   Forgiveness is obtained through repentance, prayer and good deeds.
   In Jewish practice, prayer has taken the place of sacrifices. In accordance with the words of Hosea, we render instead of bullocks the offering of our lips (Hosea 14:3) (please note: the KJV translates this somewhat differently). While dedicating the Temple, King Solomon also indicated that prayer can be used to obtain forgiveness (I Kings 8:46-50). Our prayer services are in many ways designed to parallel the sacrificial practices. For example, we have an extra service on shabbat, to parallel the extra shabbat offering. For more information about this, see Jewish Liturgy.
   It is important to note that in Judaism, sacrifice was never the exclusive means of obtaining forgiveness, was not in and of itself sufficient to obtain forgiveness, and in certain circumstances was not even effective to obtain forgiveness. This will be discussed further below.
But isn't a blood sacrifice required in order to obtain forgiveness?
   No. Although animal sacrifice is one means of obtaining forgiveness, there are non-animal offerings as well, and there are other means for obtaining forgiveness that do not involve sacrifices at all.
   The passage that people ordinarily cite for the notion that blood is required is Leviticus 17:11: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul." But the passage that this verse comes from is not about atonement; it is about dietary laws, and the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood is the only means for obtaining atonement. Leviticus 17:10-12 could be paraphrased as "Don't eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; therefore, don't eat blood."
Were sacrifices a symbol of the savior to come?
   Not according to Judaism. That is a Christian teaching that has no basis in Jewish thought. Jews don't believe in a savior, and don't believe that sacrifice has anything to do with a savior or messiah.
   Quite the contrary, some would say that the original institution of sacrifice had more to do with the Judaism's past than with its future. Rambam suggested that the entire sacrificial cult in Judaism was ordained as an accommodation of man's primitive desires.
   Sacrifice is an ancient and universal human expression of religion. Sacrifice existed among the Hebrews long before the giving of the Torah. When the laws of sacrifice were laid down in the Torah, the pre-existence of a system of sacrificial offering was understood, and sacrificial terminology was used without any explanation. The Torah, rather than creating the institution of sacrifice, carefully circumscribes and limits the practice, permitting it only in certain places, at certain times, in certain manners, by certain people, and for certain purposes. Rambam suggests that these limitations are designed to wean a primitive people away from the debased rites of their idolatrous neighbors.
Qorbanot
In ancient times, a major component of Jewish ritual was the offering of qorbanot. An entire order of the Talmud (Kodashim, that is, Holy Things) is devoted to the subject.
The word "qorbanot" is usually translated as "sacrifices" or "offerings"; however, both of these terms suggest a loss of something or a giving up of something, and although that is certainly a part of the ritual, that is not at all the literal meaning of the Hebrew word. The word qorbanot comes from the root Qof-Resh-Bet, which means "to draw near," and indicates the primary purpose of offerings: to draw us near to G-d.
Parts of the rituals involved in the offering of qorbanot were performed exclusively by the kohanim (priests). These rituals were only performed in the Temple in Jerusalem. The procedures could not be performed by anyone else, and could not be performed in any other place. Because the Temple no longer exists, we can no longer offer qorbanot.
There are three basic concepts underlying qorbanot. The first the aspect of giving. A qorban requires the renunciation of something that belongs to the person making the offering. Thus, sacrifices are made from domestic animals, not wild animals (because wild animals do not belong to anyone). Likewise, offerings of food are ordinarily in the form of flour or meal, which requires substantial work to prepare.
Another important concept is the element of substitution. The idea is that the thing being offered is a substitute for the person making the offering, and the things that are done to the offering are things that should have been done to the person offering. The offering is in some sense "punished" in place of the offerer. It is interesting to note that whenever the subject of qorbanot is addressed in the Torah, the name of G-d used is the four-letter name indicating G-d's mercy.
The third important concept is the idea coming closer. The essence of sacrifice is to bring a person closer to G-d.
Purposes of Qorbanot
Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of qorbanot is not simply to obtain forgiveness from sin. Although many qorbanot have the effect of expiating sins, there are many other purposes for bringing qorbanot, and the expiatory effect is often incidental, and is subject to significant limitations.
Certain qorbanot are brought purely for the purpose of communing with G-d and becoming closer to Him. Others are brought for the purpose of expressing thanks to G-d, love or gratitude. Others are used to cleanse a person of ritual impurity (which does not necessarily have anything to do with sin). And yes, many qorbanot are brought for purposes of atonement.
The atoning aspect of qorbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, qorbanot only expiate unintentional sins, that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, qorbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, qorbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.
Types of Qorbanot
There are many different types of qorbanot, and the laws related to them are detailed and complicated. This section will merely introduce some of the major types of qorbanot, their names and their characteristics. There are many subtypes within these classifications, and some other types that do not fit neatly into these categories.
Olah: Burnt Offering
Perhaps the best-known class of offerings is the burnt offering. It was the oldest and commonest sacrifice, and represented submission to G-d's will. The Hebrew word for burnt offering is olah, from the root Ayin-Lamed-Heh, meaning ascension. It is the same root as the word aliyah, which is used to describe moving to Israel or ascending to the podium to say a blessing over the Torah. An olah is completely burnt on the outer altar; no part of it is eaten by anyone. Because the offering represents complete submission to G-d's will, the entire offering is given to G-d (i.e., it cannot be used after it is burnt). It expresses a desire to commune with G-d, and expiates sins incidentally in the process (because how can you commune with G-d if you are tainted with sins?). An olah could be made from cattle, sheep, goats, or even birds, depending on the offerer's means.
Zebach Sh'lamim: Peace Offering
A peace offering is an offering expressing thanks or gratitude to G-d for His bounties and mercies. The Hebrew term for this type of offering is zebach sh'lamim (or sometimes just sh'lamim), which is related to the word shalom, meaning "peace" or "whole." A representative portion of the offering is burnt on the altar, a portion is given to the kohanim, and the rest is eaten by the offerer and his family; thus, everyone gets a part of this offering. This category of offerings includes thanksgiving-offerings (in Hebrew, Todah, which was obligatory for survivors of life-threatening crises), free will-offerings, and offerings made after fulfillment of a vow. Note that this class of offerings has nothing to do with sin; in fact, the Talmud states that in the age of the messiah (when there is no more sin), this will be the only class of offering that is brought to the Temple.
Chatat: Sin Offering
A sin offering is an offering to atone for and purge a sin. It is an expression of sorrow for the error and a desire to be reconciled with G-d. The Hebrew term for this type of offering is chatat, from the word chayt, meaning "missing the mark." A chatat could only be offered for unintentional sins committed through carelessness, not for intentional, malicious sins. The size of the offering varied according to the nature of the sin and the financial means of the sinner. Some chatatot are individual and some are communal. Communal offerings represent the interdependence of the community, and the fact that we are all responsible for each others' sins. A few special chatatot could not be eaten, but for the most part, for the average person's personal sin, the chatat was eaten by the kohanim.
Asham: Guilt Offering
A guilt offering is an offering to atone for sins of stealing things from the altar, for when you are not sure whether you have committed a sin or what sin you have committed, or for breach of trust. The Hebrew word for a guilt offering is asham. When there was doubt as to whether a person committed a sin, the person would make an asham, rather than a chatat, because bringing a chatat would constitute admission of the sin, and the person would have to be punished for it. If a person brought an asham and later discovered that he had in fact committed the sin, he would have to bring a chatat at that time. An asham was eaten by the kohanim.
Food and Drink Offerings
A meal offering (minchah) represented the devotion of the fruits of man's work to G-d, because it was not a natural product, but something created through man's effort. A representative piece of the offering was burnt on the fire of the altar, but the rest was eaten by the kohanim.
There are also offerings of undiluted wine, referred to as nesekh.
Parah Adumah: The Red Heifer
Some time in 1997, a red heifer was born in Israel. This birth received quite a bit of press coverage, and I received many questions asking about the significance of it.
The ritual of the red heifer (in Hebrew, parah adumah) is part of one of the most mysterious rituals described in the Torah. The purpose of this ritual is to purify people from the defilement caused by contact with the dead. The ritual is discussed in Numbers 19. If you find it difficult to understand, don't feel bad; the sages themselves described it as beyond human understanding. What is so interesting about this ritual is that it purifies the impure, but it also renders the pure impure (i.e., everybody who participates in the ritual becomes impure).
It is believed by many that this ritual will be performed by the messiah when he comes, because we have all suffered the defilement of contact with the dead. Thus, the existence of a red heifer is a possible, but not definite, sign of the messiah. If the messiah were coming, there would be a red heifer, but there could be a red heifer without the messiah coming.
I have not heard any definitive word on whether the animal born in Israel satisfies all the requirements of a parah adumah (e.g., that it be without spot, without blemish, and that it has never been yoked).
Level: Advanced
For a long time I was reluctant to write a page on the subject of qorbanot, because it is a subject with little practical application today. However, I felt I had to address these issues, because it is one of the two subjects I receive the most questions about. Interestingly, the questions I receive on this subject are invariably from non-Jews. Most Jews don't seem to have much interest in ancient practices no longer observed.
I will begin by answering the questions I am most commonly asked on these subjects, and then proceed to a more comprehensive discussion of the subject of qorbanot.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do Jews offer sacrifices today?
   No. To my knowledge, no Jews today offer any kind of animal sacrifice or offerings, nor have Jews offered sacrifices since the second century C.E. I have occasionally heard rumors that there are Orthodox rabbis in Israel who practice the techniques of ritual sacrifice, so that the knowledge will not be lost, but I do not know if these stories are reliable, and even if they are, this is not quite the same thing as offering a sacrifice.
When did Jews stop offering sacrifices, and why?
   For the most part, the practice of sacrifice stopped in the year 70 C.E., when the Roman army destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the place where sacrifices were offered. The practice was briefly resumed during the Jewish War of 132-135 C.E., but was ended permanently after that war was lost. There were also a few communities that continued sacrifices for a while after that time.
  We stopped offering sacrifices because we do not have a proper place to offer them. The Torah specifically commands us not to offer sacrifices wherever we feel like it; we are only permitted to offer sacrifices in the place that G-d has chosen for that purpose. Deut. 12:13-14. It would be a sin to offer sacrifices in any other place, akin to stealing candles and wine to observe Shabbat.
   The last place appointed by G-d for this purpose was the Temple in Jerusalem, but the Temple has been destroyed and a mosque has been erected in the place where it stood. Until G-d provides us with another place, we cannot offer sacrifices. There was at one time an opinion that in the absence of an assigned place, we could offer sacrifices anywhere. Based on that opinion, certain communities made their own sacrificial places. However, the majority ultimately ruled against this practice, and all sacrifice ceased.
   Orthodox Jews believe that when the messiah comes, a place will be provided for sacrificial purposes.
Do Jews want to resume sacrifices?
   Orthodox Jews do. There are several places in our daily prayer services where we pray for the restoration of the Temple and the resumption of its rituals, including the rituals of sacrifice.
Did the kohanim (priests) or anybody else eat the animals offered?
   Yes! Most types of offerings could be eaten. Certain types were eaten by the kohanim only, or by a specific kohein. Other types were eaten by the person offering the sacrifice and his family. The types of offerings and who was permitted to eat them will be discussed further below.
Isn't sacrifice cruelty to animals?
Animal sacrifice is no more cruel than slaughtering animals for food. In fact, the procedure for slaughtering livestock for sacrificial purposes is the same as the procedure used for slaughtering animals for food, a procedure that is designed to be as quick and painless as possible. See Shechitah. Judaism is very concerned about the proper treatment of animals, and would never advocate a cruel procedure for animal sacrifice.
How do Jews obtain forgiveness without sacrifices?
   Forgiveness is obtained through repentance, prayer and good deeds.
   In Jewish practice, prayer has taken the place of sacrifices. In accordance with the words of Hosea, we render instead of bullocks the offering of our lips (Hosea 14:3) (please note: the KJV translates this somewhat differently). While dedicating the Temple, King Solomon also indicated that prayer can be used to obtain forgiveness (I Kings 8:46-50). Our prayer services are in many ways designed to parallel the sacrificial practices. For example, we have an extra service on shabbat, to parallel the extra shabbat offering. For more information about this, see Jewish Liturgy.
   It is important to note that in Judaism, sacrifice was never the exclusive means of obtaining forgiveness, was not in and of itself sufficient to obtain forgiveness, and in certain circumstances was not even effective to obtain forgiveness. This will be discussed further below.
But isn't a blood sacrifice required in order to obtain forgiveness?
   No. Although animal sacrifice is one means of obtaining forgiveness, there are non-animal offerings as well, and there are other means for obtaining forgiveness that do not involve sacrifices at all.
   The passage that people ordinarily cite for the notion that blood is required is Leviticus 17:11: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul." But the passage that this verse comes from is not about atonement; it is about dietary laws, and the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood is the only means for obtaining atonement. Leviticus 17:10-12 could be paraphrased as "Don't eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; therefore, don't eat blood."
Were sacrifices a symbol of the savior to come?
   Not according to Judaism. That is a Christian teaching that has no basis in Jewish thought. Jews don't believe in a savior, and don't believe that sacrifice has anything to do with a savior or messiah.
   Quite the contrary, some would say that the original institution of sacrifice had more to do with the Judaism's past than with its future. Rambam suggested that the entire sacrificial cult in Judaism was ordained as an accommodation of man's primitive desires.
   Sacrifice is an ancient and universal human expression of religion. Sacrifice existed among the Hebrews long before the giving of the Torah. When the laws of sacrifice were laid down in the Torah, the pre-existence of a system of sacrificial offering was understood, and sacrificial terminology was used without any explanation. The Torah, rather than creating the institution of sacrifice, carefully circumscribes and limits the practice, permitting it only in certain places, at certain times, in certain manners, by certain people, and for certain purposes. Rambam suggests that these limitations are designed to wean a primitive people away from the debased rites of their idolatrous neighbors.
Qorbanot
In ancient times, a major component of Jewish ritual was the offering of qorbanot. An entire order of the Talmud (Kodashim, that is, Holy Things) is devoted to the subject.
The word "qorbanot" is usually translated as "sacrifices" or "offerings"; however, both of these terms suggest a loss of something or a giving up of something, and although that is certainly a part of the ritual, that is not at all the literal meaning of the Hebrew word. The word qorbanot comes from the root Qof-Resh-Bet, which means "to draw near," and indicates the primary purpose of offerings: to draw us near to G-d.
Parts of the rituals involved in the offering of qorbanot were performed exclusively by the kohanim (priests). These rituals were only performed in the Temple in Jerusalem. The procedures could not be performed by anyone else, and could not be performed in any other place. Because the Temple no longer exists, we can no longer offer qorbanot.
There are three basic concepts underlying qorbanot. The first the aspect of giving. A qorban requires the renunciation of something that belongs to the person making the offering. Thus, sacrifices are made from domestic animals, not wild animals (because wild animals do not belong to anyone). Likewise, offerings of food are ordinarily in the form of flour or meal, which requires substantial work to prepare.
Another important concept is the element of substitution. The idea is that the thing being offered is a substitute for the person making the offering, and the things that are done to the offering are things that should have been done to the person offering. The offering is in some sense "punished" in place of the offerer. It is interesting to note that whenever the subject of qorbanot is addressed in the Torah, the name of G-d used is the four-letter name indicating G-d's mercy.
The third important concept is the idea coming closer. The essence of sacrifice is to bring a person closer to G-d.
Purposes of Qorbanot
Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of qorbanot is not simply to obtain forgiveness from sin. Although many qorbanot have the effect of expiating sins, there are many other purposes for bringing qorbanot, and the expiatory effect is often incidental, and is subject to significant limitations.
Certain qorbanot are brought purely for the purpose of communing with G-d and becoming closer to Him. Others are brought for the purpose of expressing thanks to G-d, love or gratitude. Others are used to cleanse a person of ritual impurity (which does not necessarily have anything to do with sin). And yes, many qorbanot are brought for purposes of atonement.
The atoning aspect of qorbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, qorbanot only expiate unintentional sins, that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, qorbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, qorbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.
Types of Qorbanot
There are many different types of qorbanot, and the laws related to them are detailed and complicated. This section will merely introduce some of the major types of qorbanot, their names and their characteristics. There are many subtypes within these classifications, and some other types that do not fit neatly into these categories.
Olah: Burnt Offering
Perhaps the best-known class of offerings is the burnt offering. It was the oldest and commonest sacrifice, and represented submission to G-d's will. The Hebrew word for burnt offering is olah, from the root Ayin-Lamed-Heh, meaning ascension. It is the same root as the word aliyah, which is used to describe moving to Israel or ascending to the podium to say a blessing over the Torah. An olah is completely burnt on the outer altar; no part of it is eaten by anyone. Because the offering represents complete submission to G-d's will, the entire offering is given to G-d (i.e., it cannot be used after it is burnt). It expresses a desire to commune with G-d, and expiates sins incidentally in the process (because how can you commune with G-d if you are tainted with sins?). An olah could be made from cattle, sheep, goats, or even birds, depending on the offerer's means.
Zebach Sh'lamim: Peace Offering
A peace offering is an offering expressing thanks or gratitude to G-d for His bounties and mercies. The Hebrew term for this type of offering is zebach sh'lamim (or sometimes just sh'lamim), which is related to the word shalom, meaning "peace" or "whole." A representative portion of the offering is burnt on the altar, a portion is given to the kohanim, and the rest is eaten by the offerer and his family; thus, everyone gets a part of this offering. This category of offerings includes thanksgiving-offerings (in Hebrew, Todah, which was obligatory for survivors of life-threatening crises), free will-offerings, and offerings made after fulfillment of a vow. Note that this class of offerings has nothing to do with sin; in fact, the Talmud states that in the age of the messiah (when there is no more sin), this will be the only class of offering that is brought to the Temple.
Chatat: Sin Offering
A sin offering is an offering to atone for and purge a sin. It is an expression of sorrow for the error and a desire to be reconciled with G-d. The Hebrew term for this type of offering is chatat, from the word chayt, meaning "missing the mark." A chatat could only be offered for unintentional sins committed through carelessness, not for intentional, malicious sins. The size of the offering varied according to the nature of the sin and the financial means of the sinner. Some chatatot are individual and some are communal. Communal offerings represent the interdependence of the community, and the fact that we are all responsible for each others' sins. A few special chatatot could not be eaten, but for the most part, for the average person's personal sin, the chatat was eaten by the kohanim.
Asham: Guilt Offering
A guilt offering is an offering to atone for sins of stealing things from the altar, for when you are not sure whether you have committed a sin or what sin you have committed, or for breach of trust. The Hebrew word for a guilt offering is asham. When there was doubt as to whether a person committed a sin, the person would make an asham, rather than a chatat, because bringing a chatat would constitute admission of the sin, and the person would have to be punished for it. If a person brought an asham and later discovered that he had in fact committed the sin, he would have to bring a chatat at that time. An asham was eaten by the kohanim.
Food and Drink Offerings
A meal offering (minchah) represented the devotion of the fruits of man's work to G-d, because it was not a natural product, but something created through man's effort. A representative piece of the offering was burnt on the fire of the altar, but the rest was eaten by the kohanim.
There are also offerings of undiluted wine, referred to as nesekh.
Parah Adumah: The Red Heifer
Some time in 1997, a red heifer was born in Israel. This birth received quite a bit of press coverage, and I received many questions asking about the significance of it.
The ritual of the red heifer (in Hebrew, parah adumah) is part of one of the most mysterious rituals described in the Torah. The purpose of this ritual is to purify people from the defilement caused by contact with the dead. The ritual is discussed in Numbers 19. If you find it difficult to understand, don't feel bad; the sages themselves described it as beyond human understanding. What is so interesting about this ritual is that it purifies the impure, but it also renders the pure impure (i.e., everybody who participates in the ritual becomes impure).
It is believed by many that this ritual will be performed by the messiah when he comes, because we have all suffered the defilement of contact with the dead. Thus, the existence of a red heifer is a possible, but not definite, sign of the messiah. If the messiah were coming, there would be a red heifer, but there could be a red heifer without the messiah coming.
I have not heard any definitive word on whether the animal born in Israel satisfies all the requirements of a parah adumah (e.g., that it be without spot, without blemish, and that it has never been yoked).
Unknown2005-02-22 22:31:07
The old man on the throne, and applying human qualities to God is just nonsense. Yet, the one difference is Christ, who Christians advocate possessed full deity, and took upon Himself human nature.
What about the Isaiah 9:6 prophecy (9:5 in the Jewish Bible), which reads: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
This passage is recognised as Messianic by Rabbis in the following texts:
Quote:
Targum Jonathan
The prophet announced to the house of David that: "A boy has been born to us, a son has been given unto us, who has taken the Torah upon himself to guard it; and his name has been called by the One who gives wonderful counsel, the Mighty God, He who lives forever: 'Messiah,' in whose day peace shall abound for us.
Pereq Shalom
R . Yose the Galilean said: "The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
Midrash Mishle, S. Buber edition
T he Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Pele , Yo'etz , Mashiah , El , Gibbor , and Avi 'Ad Shalom
A note about the sacrifices... from a Jewish position I would be quite worried. Why did God allow their temple to be destroyed? Why did God allow an end to come to the sacrificial system He setup for His people Israel? Either 1) God's desire to strive with any of us is gone (as there is no longer a means for people to come before a holy God as the priests did on behalf of the people); or 2) A new system not based on sacrifices was set in place through which people could approach a holy God.
Someone of the Jewish faith is in a sticky position. Either God has abandoned them and humanity altogether, or God made a new way. Christians obviously advocate the latter.
What about the Isaiah 9:6 prophecy (9:5 in the Jewish Bible), which reads: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
This passage is recognised as Messianic by Rabbis in the following texts:
Quote:
Targum Jonathan
The prophet announced to the house of David that: "A boy has been born to us, a son has been given unto us, who has taken the Torah upon himself to guard it; and his name has been called by the One who gives wonderful counsel, the Mighty God, He who lives forever: 'Messiah,' in whose day peace shall abound for us.
Pereq Shalom
R . Yose the Galilean said: "The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
Midrash Mishle, S. Buber edition
T he Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Pele , Yo'etz , Mashiah , El , Gibbor , and Avi 'Ad Shalom
A note about the sacrifices... from a Jewish position I would be quite worried. Why did God allow their temple to be destroyed? Why did God allow an end to come to the sacrificial system He setup for His people Israel? Either 1) God's desire to strive with any of us is gone (as there is no longer a means for people to come before a holy God as the priests did on behalf of the people); or 2) A new system not based on sacrifices was set in place through which people could approach a holy God.
Someone of the Jewish faith is in a sticky position. Either God has abandoned them and humanity altogether, or God made a new way. Christians obviously advocate the latter.
Daganev2005-02-23 01:52:50
Or, the western wall is still standing and will never fall.
The western wall is the wall that was closest to the holy of holies.
That is why it is the holiest place Jews are currently able to go, and one who has not visited the wall in 30 days must rend thier clothing as if in mourning.
The reason the temple was destroyed was because of Jew's relationship to other Jews. When we stopped being unified and had factions it was deemed that G-d can not be experienced save in unity.
so If I'm to read Isiah correctly, There is actually a Quadinity?
Yes Isiah is refering to a messiah, but not a new covenant, or a freaky human god.
Its interesting that you quote Midrash Mishlei while trying to make a point about Isiah. Mishlei is proverbs. El is also translated as power. any god with a lower case g is called a El. Nobody denies that the Meshiach will be a human and must be from the line of King David via his father.
Since Jesus apprantly had no biological father, he is not from the line of king david.
G-d does not qualify, as the famous quote "Lo b'shamim hi" "It is not in Heaven"
I truly enjoy how you say. "nothing can be this way... well except Jesus" If Jesus can be a god, so can Krishna, so can Zeus.
Why are you not a Mormon? Obviously the Corruption of the Church made God mad and he needed yet ANOTHER covenant to be fufilled in the Americas. And did Jesus not ressurect himself inside the body of David Koresh? Who are we to deny it?
G-d does not change nor do his covenants that are declared eternal.
Why does the Torah say that no other religion in the world will even CLAIM to have a national revelation as that existed with the Jews? Only in Judiaism is the claim made that G-d spoke to ALL the Jews at once.
every single other relgion in the catalog of the over 6,000 religions claim that only one person heard G-d's words.
The western wall is the wall that was closest to the holy of holies.
That is why it is the holiest place Jews are currently able to go, and one who has not visited the wall in 30 days must rend thier clothing as if in mourning.
The reason the temple was destroyed was because of Jew's relationship to other Jews. When we stopped being unified and had factions it was deemed that G-d can not be experienced save in unity.
so If I'm to read Isiah correctly, There is actually a Quadinity?
Yes Isiah is refering to a messiah, but not a new covenant, or a freaky human god.
Its interesting that you quote Midrash Mishlei while trying to make a point about Isiah. Mishlei is proverbs. El is also translated as power. any god with a lower case g is called a El. Nobody denies that the Meshiach will be a human and must be from the line of King David via his father.
Since Jesus apprantly had no biological father, he is not from the line of king david.
G-d does not qualify, as the famous quote "Lo b'shamim hi" "It is not in Heaven"
I truly enjoy how you say. "nothing can be this way... well except Jesus" If Jesus can be a god, so can Krishna, so can Zeus.
Why are you not a Mormon? Obviously the Corruption of the Church made God mad and he needed yet ANOTHER covenant to be fufilled in the Americas. And did Jesus not ressurect himself inside the body of David Koresh? Who are we to deny it?
G-d does not change nor do his covenants that are declared eternal.
Why does the Torah say that no other religion in the world will even CLAIM to have a national revelation as that existed with the Jews? Only in Judiaism is the claim made that G-d spoke to ALL the Jews at once.
every single other relgion in the catalog of the over 6,000 religions claim that only one person heard G-d's words.
Ioryk2005-02-24 18:58:42
Imagine a lottery, 4 numbers ranging from 0 to infinity.
Number 1 is the force that keeps the nucleus of the atom together
Number 2 is the force that keeps the electron in orbit
Number 3 is the electro-magnetic force that bonds matter
Number 4 is the big one, gravity
You could add any other physical force, but 4 is enough.
The lottery happens once, it's the event that kicks off time and space and the slightest imbalance means we are dust, soup or solid metal.
The UK lottery is 6 numbers, from 0 to 49 and the chance of 6 coming up is 14million to one. the chance of the big bang lottery is infinity to one.
Yet it happens, first time.
Imagine the earliest forms of life on this planet as light switches. Then imagine us complex, developed beings as micro-processors. We have only 2 similarities:
-We are both structures requiring simple on/off commands - the only difference is in the numbers.
-We both are dead matter without a programme.
Evolutionists who ignore any opportunity for divine creation suggest that the evolutionary process has had billions of years to develop, so the blind watchmaker analogy suggested earlier in this thread is possible. BUT, the programme that started in the early switch and developed to allow us complicated machines to play minesweeper on our puters is the same. It was there at the beginning, before life even evolved the means for independant reproduction.
Those two scenarios convince me that our creation is no accident.
But the idea of divine creation is not the same as faith. The bible tells us that everything is put on this earth for our use or enjoyment, it's God's purpose for us here on earth, and you can look out into a pretty garden and almost believe. But if you were a bee, you would see something completely different in that garden. The make-up of flower petals that display pretty colours to us display something wild to bees, it's like the biggest food mall you can ever imagine, because bees see in ultra-violet. So were the flowers put there for our enjoyment, or as a food guidance system for other creatures? Did God put us on a pedestal and create only for us?
If the judeo-christian version of creation was sound, it would not be contradicted by science because the knowledge that went into it's authorship would have been the same as our knowledge now, otherwise how could it be divinely inspired? The bible is written by people who didn't know Greenland existed and that bees see in ultra-violet and that dinosaurs existed or that floods and earthquakes can be caused by non-divine reactions in our world systems. Imagine a Hebrew prophet looking up into the sky and seeing a Boing 747.
Creationists argue about the gaps in the fossil record and the innacuracy of carbon dating as though they are the only methods to prove our fossil history spans any more than 6000-odd years. but I have never read anything that suggests the biblical versions are any more reliable.
The equal problem with evolutionary science is that it generally dismisses any creationist view and doesn't actually explain the gaps in the fossil records, or come up with an explanation as to how the flower could exist to attract bees for reproduction before the bees arrive to take advantage of the flowers.
This is why I remain a sceptical agnostic. I just hope Jesus sees my reasoning the way I do.
Number 1 is the force that keeps the nucleus of the atom together
Number 2 is the force that keeps the electron in orbit
Number 3 is the electro-magnetic force that bonds matter
Number 4 is the big one, gravity
You could add any other physical force, but 4 is enough.
The lottery happens once, it's the event that kicks off time and space and the slightest imbalance means we are dust, soup or solid metal.
The UK lottery is 6 numbers, from 0 to 49 and the chance of 6 coming up is 14million to one. the chance of the big bang lottery is infinity to one.
Yet it happens, first time.
Imagine the earliest forms of life on this planet as light switches. Then imagine us complex, developed beings as micro-processors. We have only 2 similarities:
-We are both structures requiring simple on/off commands - the only difference is in the numbers.
-We both are dead matter without a programme.
Evolutionists who ignore any opportunity for divine creation suggest that the evolutionary process has had billions of years to develop, so the blind watchmaker analogy suggested earlier in this thread is possible. BUT, the programme that started in the early switch and developed to allow us complicated machines to play minesweeper on our puters is the same. It was there at the beginning, before life even evolved the means for independant reproduction.
Those two scenarios convince me that our creation is no accident.
But the idea of divine creation is not the same as faith. The bible tells us that everything is put on this earth for our use or enjoyment, it's God's purpose for us here on earth, and you can look out into a pretty garden and almost believe. But if you were a bee, you would see something completely different in that garden. The make-up of flower petals that display pretty colours to us display something wild to bees, it's like the biggest food mall you can ever imagine, because bees see in ultra-violet. So were the flowers put there for our enjoyment, or as a food guidance system for other creatures? Did God put us on a pedestal and create only for us?
If the judeo-christian version of creation was sound, it would not be contradicted by science because the knowledge that went into it's authorship would have been the same as our knowledge now, otherwise how could it be divinely inspired? The bible is written by people who didn't know Greenland existed and that bees see in ultra-violet and that dinosaurs existed or that floods and earthquakes can be caused by non-divine reactions in our world systems. Imagine a Hebrew prophet looking up into the sky and seeing a Boing 747.
Creationists argue about the gaps in the fossil record and the innacuracy of carbon dating as though they are the only methods to prove our fossil history spans any more than 6000-odd years. but I have never read anything that suggests the biblical versions are any more reliable.
The equal problem with evolutionary science is that it generally dismisses any creationist view and doesn't actually explain the gaps in the fossil records, or come up with an explanation as to how the flower could exist to attract bees for reproduction before the bees arrive to take advantage of the flowers.
This is why I remain a sceptical agnostic. I just hope Jesus sees my reasoning the way I do.
Daganev2005-02-24 20:06:36
QUOTE(Ioryk @ Feb 24 2005, 10:58 AM)
If the judeo-christian version of creation was sound, it would not be contradicted by science because the knowledge that went into it's authorship would have been the same as our knowledge now, otherwise how could it be divinely inspired? The bible is written by people who didn't know Greenland existed and that bees see in ultra-violet and that dinosaurs existed or that floods and earthquakes can be caused by non-divine reactions in our world systems. Imagine a Hebrew prophet looking up into the sky and seeing a Boing 747.
I don't know about the "new testement" but there are very few "scientific" statements in the old testemant. Those statements are still true to this day. I havn't seen anything in the old testemant that is contradicted by science.
However, since the purpose of Prophecy and the Torah as a whole is to help you live your life to get the most out of relationships that you can. The technology of the day is truly irrelevant.
Jewish law however, does have laws on traveling. One section of traveling is about flight. The 2,000 year old documents use the examples of either a flying tent, or a flying camel. It also discusses the ramifications of instant travel. There is even discussion of the difference in law if you walk the 20 miles, of if space folds itself and you only walk one step, but travel 20 miles.
They may not have seen a boeing 747, but they did find it necessary to write laws about traveling in the air in both covered and uncovered vehicles. And seemingly other sci fi ideas.
