OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 10:19:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Jews don't hate Orthodox Christians  (Read 8501 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 22, 2005, 06:10:19 PM »

On other boards (such as the Catholic message board and the Catholic Convert Message Board) they ban people at will without warning at times and also moderate people who question administrators/moderators publicly. Now I have never wanted to do that, because I am secure in my decisions as is Phil and the others, and if people argue with us, that doesn't bother me.  But maybe because this is getting ridiculous we will consider such an action.

As for the inference that it is hypocritical to moderate posts in a free for all, the desciption says that any post violating the forum rules will still be moderated. That was the case with PA and sdcheung.  I think sdcheung was given plenty of time to say whatever he wanted. I don't have anything to say about PA (who strangely enough I met in person and who I thought was a nice guy).

Anastasios
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
VaticansHolocaust
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #46 on: February 22, 2005, 06:33:06 PM »

My post began with the honest commendation of how "interesting and educational" this topic has been.

Vaticansholocaust,

   I don't want to get into verbal mudslinging with you but your claims against another member (Ekhristos Anesti) are without merit.

  If you read the rest of his post, it is well reasoned and explains, through scripture his feelings.

I did read EkhristosAnesti's post fully and he made very good arguments. However, no matter how well reasoned they may have been, there was still no need to invoke such personal condescension.

EkhristosAnesti: I apologize for singling you out, but your post was the first example I saw (while writing my response). You did a great job with your rebuttal on all points, but it was a prime example of a great debate gone sour.

 Listen, I am far from an ecumenist, however the dialogue on this board had been far from ecumemical and I think it has been quite useful.

How did "ecumenism" work its way into this discussion? Again, a lot of really good posts have been made. Ecumenism is not the discussion or learning of another faith (to understand it). Ecumenism comes when a faith is compromised/practiced together with another faith.

 I don't think ad hominem attacks against anyone are useful. If you are Orthodox, I hope that you would be able to see/realize this. Almost all the "regular" posters here are very courteous and respectful of others.

That was my point in the first place; ad hominem attacks are useless. My direct criticism was misread too easily. I criticized the person's writing, not the person.

 Furthermore, if you are Orthodox (heck even if you are not) there are many on this board who have a lot to teach in the way of scripture. Something which is useful to everybody.

Very well said. Amen.


p.s., Hook, line and sinker. I am not Pontus Avenger nor sdcheung. Wink
Logged

NULL
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #47 on: February 22, 2005, 10:06:29 PM »

but there remains a residual odor lingering in the background of this discussion.

I think this was the portion of your first line, people were worried about.  Whether you are PA or Sdcheung is of no concern to me (I didn't know either).  I hope you find these boards useful (and challenging). 

Enjoy and take care.
Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
Jace
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #48 on: February 23, 2005, 01:35:52 AM »

Ekhristosanesti  Anesti! Trust me, you are out of your league, and I know your arguments well, but you do not know the issues well.
You since more. Priests back yup what I say. If priests said it is ok to mix you would not have orthodoxy. Maybe you should go convert to the Christian religion made by Jews called protestant. Talk to someone that knows better and they will explain.

Like MBZ said in the Jewish post was. “Faith which demands nothing is worth nothing”
Some that mix commit at most 10 sins. But how do I expect you to get that or many others. Defending the easy path, the wide path, and the short path does not make you righteous to say what society says. Learn your lessons then some back and talk.

Write down how many reasons you say it is ok to mix, and then write down just as many reasons why it is not. If you can not then my condolences and then you will understand why priests for 2000 years say what I say and still say it. This is the fact. If you want one priest take a look at archbishop Iakovos on what he said about it. And many priests agree. Religion is logical and so look at it in a logical way. You can not hide behind ignorance since you are judged because you have a brain and you are demand to use it!
Learn your history, or you will repeat it.
----
As for the Jewish comment again learn your history and facts. Many of the negative things the Muslim religion has the Jewish religion had. An eye for an eye, to have many kids and spread, to lie, etc. You also have to look at their other religious text as I stated like Kabala, Talmud, and the Torah. Read it yourself, Anesti.

Christ fulfilled the Old Testament. You do not confirm things well to know where things come from. When Christ said love your enemy he got that from Socrates, and don’t deny anything because what I say it true. All you have is -+ information and you say it as 100% the facts.
Talk to an experienced priest that knows better.
---------------- -
As for the DaVinci code it is fiction meaning it is categorized as fake! Also have you heard of apostolic succession? Gnostic was made by the Jews that so love our religion, so they can confuse many which help make the protestant religion.
Where do some people get their orthodox information from some stranger on the internet? Go read the information and talk to priest’s people.
Why should I tell people since they do not want to talk to the source?
Logged

NULL
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #49 on: February 23, 2005, 03:45:00 AM »

I see ive been critisized for my attitutde in response to Jace. I formally apologise to Jace and to anyone else who may have been offended.

Reading over Jace's latest enlightening response, however, has certainly not helped in making things easier at all....I'll try behave myself as best i can nonetheless angel

Jace:

Quote
I know your arguments well, but you do not know the issues well.

Oh really? That’s amazing. Is there any particular reason then, why you did not address one single argument that I made?

Quote
Maybe you should go convert to the Christian religion made by Jews called protestant.

Wow, it was the Jews who resulted in the Protestant reformation...I see I see. Are you sure your not a Muslim? You know the prophet Muhammed said that Jews were the reason that beef goes bad. Do you agree with this as well?

Quote
Write down how many reasons you say it is ok to mix, and then write down just as many reasons why it is not.

 :scratch: I’m sorry, I don’t mean to offend you, but your entire post is rather incoherent and unintelligible, can you please clarify yourself - what is this “mixing” that you are referring to?

Quote
Many of the negative things the Muslim religion has the Jewish religion had. An eye for an eye, to have many kids and spread, to lie, etc.

Again, you seem not to understand. There is nothing “negative” about the eye for an eye law, as it is understood in its intended socio-historical context - which I explained for you...Did you actually read my post? I also explained that Muhammed adopted this law himself, perverting it beyond its intended purpose - the very perversion Christ condemned 7 centuries prior.

You mention two additional teachings i.e. procreation and lying. I find nothing negative about procreation -what is it that you have a problem with, sex or kids?

With regards to lying, from what I know, nothing in Judaism permits one to lie, it is strictly forbidden in the Tanakh. Whether there are some rabbinical traditions which promote lying or not, Im really not aware of, nor is it really of my concern.

Quote
You also have to look at their other religious text as I stated like Kabala, Talmud, and the Torah. Read it yourself, Anesti.

Wow, the Torah is an "other religious text" :-....... laugh Are you sure you're an Orthodox Christian?

Do you understand, what the Torah is Mr Jace? The Torah my friend, the very book which contains the Eye for an Eye command and the command to procreate, which you have been condemning so far, is simply The LawGǪThe LAW OF GOD. Mr Jace, please pick up your Bible - the Bible which you kiss in reverence before readingGǪand tell me what the first 5 books are. I’m awaiting your answer, so we can further discuss this issueGǪso I, and all of us, can be educated by you, about the nature of the Law and Orthodoxy.

Quote
When Christ said love your enemy he got that from Socrates, and don’t deny anything because what I say it true.

Oh I see..., the authority and credibility you have proven so far, certainly gives us much reason to accept what you say as truth by default.

Lets break it downGǪChrist was born a Jew, claimed to fulfill (exegete) the Jewish Law, claimed to be authority over the Jewish Law, lived by the Jewish Law, quoted from the Jewish Law, and confirmed and preached principles according to the Jewish law, that were already existent in and find precedent inGǪthe Jewish law (i.e. the Jewish law which existed over a millenium before Socrates was even born). Hmmmmmmm *thinks long and hard*, yep...you’re rightGǪit was definitely Socrates... :bang:

Quote
Talk to an experienced priest that knows better.
Quote
priests for 2000 years say what I say and still say it.

Your general appeal to ecclesiastical authority might impress me if you actually refer me to the specific work of a specific person, who supports your position. In fact, consider it a challenge. Fnd me one figure throughout the past "2000 years" who can be rightfully be classified as an “Orthodox Christian” who affirms any of the rubbish you’re saying.

Maybe you would like to read the church Father Origens response to Celsus, or maybe Chapters 16, book 4, Volume 2 on Tertullian. You know,Marcion’s doctrine is quite similar to the one you are trying to promote, maybe you would like to educate us on the Orthodox position of Marcion, taking into account how he was viewed by authorities such as sayyyyyyyyGǪ.St Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St Iraeneus, St. Hippolytus of Rome, St. Epiphanius, St. EphraemGǪetc etc.

P.S. Do not PM me. I saw your response as I checked the thread, I didnt need your notification, I am not blind.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2005, 03:49:11 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #50 on: February 23, 2005, 04:18:50 AM »

MBZ,

First I would like to apologise on behalf of Mr Jace. Im sure that you dont need me to tell you, that his understanding of Christianity and the Law is certainly not "Orthodox" in any sense of the word.

Now getting back to the issues at hand:

Quote
while God commands us to build Him a sanctuary, He does not say that He will dwell within it.  Rather, He says that He will dwell within them, i.e. within us.

I find this a rather unusual reading of the text, for if we look at it plainly: “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them” - It speaks of God dwelling “amongst” them, rather than “inside” or “within” them; and furthermore His dwelling “amongst” them, is consequential to the very building of the sanctuary - making it plainly implicit that God will dwell amongst them, by being uniquely present within the sanctuary. According to Young’s literal translation, this specific verse reads: “And they have made for Me a sanctuary, and I have tabernacled in their midst” which further emphasizes my point.

Certainly God dwells inside the hearts of His children, but it doesn’t really make sense that God would need the building of a sanctuary in order to dwell inside the believers, nor does this sound like a plausible reading of the text itself.

Furthermore, Solomon himself makes it explicitly clear, that it was indeed the temple through which God made Himself uniquely present, such that He would be in their midst: “The Lord has said that he would dwell in a dark cloud; I have built a magnificent temple for you, a place for you to dwell forever.” (2 Chronicles 6:1-2). Most of the translations I have (JPS, KJV, ASV, WEB, DBY, YLT, WBS) actually render 2 Chron. 6:2 as “I have built a house of habitation for thee/you” which further stresses my point. In 2 Chron. 6:18, it is clear that Solomon understands that the temple would somehow mysteriously “contain” God, since he questions how this can be, considering that not even the heavens can “contain” Him: “But will God really dwell on earth with men? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!” (2 Chron. 6:18)

Note also, God’s response in 9:3: “I have consecrated  this temple, which you have built, by putting my Name there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there.” Obviously God does not have eyes nor a heart, its simply figurative language plainly saying that God will be uniquely present in that temple. The ancient Jewish targum actually renders the verse: “GǪI have sanctified this house which you built for my Shekinah to abide there forever, and my Shekinah will abide in it with my will being there always.”

Quote
We see angels as created beings, separate from God, but capable of bearing His messages & speaking in His Name (kind of like prophets do).

We agree with your view on angels, however we also acknowledge that God is capable of manifesting Himself uniquely in various forms including that of a man or an angel.

You say:
Quote
In our view, the angels who wrestled with Jacob, appeared to Abraham, Joshua & Samson's parents, etc. were neither God, nor manifestations of God, nor "persons within the Godhead", etc.


Well lets first consider Jacob’s encounter with this "angel". First of all, as I understand it, the Hebrew term translated "face" has a sort of idiomatic twist, referring to a sort of awareness or direct knowledge of presence, something like a “personal encounter” so to speak.

Most importantly however, is the very reaction of Jacob to the event that took place.

First thing to note from his reaction, is that he implicitly equates his encounter with the angel, as a “face to face” encounter with God Himself. It is interesting to note, that where Jacob says  “I have seen God face to face”, the ancient Jewish Targums translate it as “I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face.” Id like to quote at this stage, the view of Jewish scholar Nahum Sarna, regarding his view of “Angelology”, from “The Jewish Publication Society Torah commentary” on Genesis (page 383). He notes that “From several texts it is clear that the demarcation between God and His angel is often blurredGǪAt the Exodus from Egypt it is now God (13:21), now His Angel (14:9) who goes ahead of the Israelite camp.” Giving his schorlarly views on the doctrine of Angels, he lists three theories. The first theory concerns bowrrowing from various Eastern mythologies - which is obviously not a compelling theory for the Jew or the Christian to accept. He then goes on to say “Another view regards the angel as the personified extension of God’s will, or the personification of His self-manifestation. A third theory sees the angel as a conceptual device to avoid anthropomorphism, serving as the mediator between the transcendent God and the mundane world.”

The second thing to note, from the passage in question, is that Jacob clearly understands, that the fact he is still alive after his encounter with this “Angel” is something unexpected - this is from his presupposed knowledge that one cannot see God and live - again an implicit equation of God and the angel.

What we see being set up in Gensis 32, is not a contradiction, but rather a paradox. Jacob knows that the scriptures make it explicit that no one can see God,  or they will die; but it seems as if something occurred such that this normal constraint was “overruled” in a sense.

This is the very paradox that the New Testament affirms. When it affirms on the one hand that God cannot be seen, John 1:18 as already mentioned, and 1 Timothy 6:16, which describes God as the One "who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see."...yet affirms on the other hand, that He sent His Word who is of His essence, to become incarnate in the form of a servant, through whom the creation beheld the Shekinah/Devar/Hokmah/Torah.

Which brings me to my next point, regarding Exodus 24:

You quote Rabbi Menachem Leibtag  who states:
Quote
Obviously, God does not have 'feet'!  However, this description reflects a certain spiritual level.


We as Christians agree that God certainly does not have feet, however I don’t think that the use of anthropomorphism necessitates that the whole passage be interpreted “spiritually”.

Certainly, there were many early Jewish commentators, who saw this as a literal event, considering the fact they went to certain lengths in the way in which they rendered or translated this particular passage, to avoid the theological problem of someone seeing God in light of the verses which clearly and explicitly state that he cannot be seen. If we look at Targum Pseudo-Jonathon, and Targum Neofiti, we find that they render the verse to read: “And they saw the Glory of the Shekinah of the God of Israel.”

Processing this in the context of the New Testament data, we conclude that it was indeed the pre-existent Christ/TheWord whom they saw. As I noted before, the New Testament depiction of Christ is that He is the Glory/Shekinah of God, who “tabernacled” among us when He became incarnate. The Lord, although He cannot be seen, is able to manifest His glory to men, such as He did with Moses in Exodus 33-34. Despite the fact God specifically told Moses that He could not see His face, we can say somewhat metaphorically that He saw the afterglow of His divine glory - and it is in that diminished sense that God speaks to Moses “face to face” and that Moses also “sees the form of the Lord” in Numbers 12:8.. John 1:14 explicates this by saying, that through the incarnation of The Word, we beheld the glory of the Father Himself, such that in a diminished way, He who sees The incarnate Word sees the Father “face to face” in the same sense that Moses did - giving us reason to believe that all such encounters in the Old Testament, were in fact encounters with The Word who is The Shekinah/Glory of God. As St Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:6 “For God who said, "Out of darkness let light shine," is He who has shone in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God's glory, which is radiant on the face of Christ.” And again in Hebrews 1:2 “His Son is the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substanceGǪ”

To further stress the  intricate connection between God-The Angel of the Lord-The Shekinah-and The Glory. I’d like to bring up Exodus 3:1-6. Here we find the Angel of the Lord appearing to Moses in the burning bush, and then a couple of verses later, it is all of the sudden God Himself calling out to Moses from the burning Bush. In verse six, it is quite plain that Moses recognizing that He cannot see God and live, looks away from burning bush, in which the Angel of the Lord Himself appeared. Here we have an implicit identification of the Angel of the Lord with the Lord. Furthermore, when we look at Targum Onkelos we find that verse 6 is actually rendered: “Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look beside the glory of God”. Furthermore targum Pseudo-Jonathon states that Moses hid his face from “the glory of the Shekinah of the Lord.”

Regarding the first link you gave me: http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_body.html

It was a great read, thank you. As Christians, we most definitely agree with the general gist of that article i.e. God does NOT have a physical form, He is NOT a corporeal being, nor does He have some sort of a physical image. Regarding whether or not God can manifest Himself through an image or Physical form, we certainly beg to differ with the articles conlusion, and would agree with the view of R’Moshe ben Chasdai, who in his philosophical work Letav Tamin, (as cited in the article) argues, that God: “is all-powerful and unfathomable. While G-d has no form, when He so chooses He can appear to people in physical form.”

My response so far concerning angelology, the temple, and the glory and Shekinah of the Lord, responds to the main issues presented in that particular article which argue against this notion. I will therefore, just pick out and respond to a few paragraphs from that article to further clarify some points, or to make additional points.

The artcile states:
Quote
To those who fear Him and who are righteous in their hearts, the Holy One, blessed be He, shows His glory in the form of a sitting person, as it says "I have seen Hashem sitting upon his throne, with all the host of Heaven standing by Him, on His right and on His left" (I Kings 22:19) and "I saw the Lord sitting upon a high and lofty throne, and its legs filled the Temple" (Isaiah 6:1), and like someone who has legs, as it says "and under His feet was the likeness of sapphire brickwork" (Exodus 24:10).

This is very interesting, for Christ Himself teaches us in the Beautitudes: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Likewise, in 1 John 4:12 it reads: “No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.”

Quote
Once we know that He appears to prophets in this way, it becomes clear that the "seeing" refers to seeing through the heart [or mind*], not seeing through the eye.

We agree completely, that the Lord cannot be perceived or beheld by the human eye, according to His essence, but His energies can be perceived by a pure heart.

Quote
"Seeing" means mentally having a prophetic vision. It does not mean literally seeing G-d but viewing an image that G-d implanted in the prophet's mind.

With regards to visual perception, its clear that the above mentioned instances in my response, involved a visual perception, considering the context as discussed above - it is the nature of what was visually perceived that we believe to be the issue here. The Lord certainly does not have an image Himself, yet He can be manifest through some external image or form, such that whatever this form may be, it somehow “veils” the Lord’s actual being/essence, such that those who behold Him, do not die, as both the Old and New Testament make clear. (To put forward an analogy to emphasise my point, we can assume a person X. When person X approaches me wearing a mask, I see person X via an image, however that image is not His own. In this sense we have the apparent paradox that was discussed earlier, where in one sense I do see person X in front of me, yet in another sense I don’t see him, for He is veiled by a foreign image.)

In addition to everything ive said so far, which I believe go to prove that we are speaking about visual perception, I would like to bring up the following additional points.

1)   I believe there are at least two certain Hebrew words denoting perception, which are translated to “see” or “saw”. The first being chazahh connoting a mental perception or a vision. The next word is ra'ah which carries the simpler connotation of visual discernment. In all the cases mentioned so far, the word ra’ah is employed, except for Exodus 24.

2)   Despite the fact Chazah is employed in Ex. 24, I have shown so far that the connotation of mental perception as described in 1) does not apply here, nor did the ancient Targums view this incident as a spiritual one, or a mere prophetic vision. To interpret the incident as a prophetic vision, begs the answer to certain questions: a) Why in verse 1 did God tell them to fo up the mountain to the Lord, remaining at a distance from him while Moses drew near? B) Why does it say that God did not lift up His hand against them, as would have been expected?

3)   In addition to the Targums, who viewed this event, not as a mere prophetic vision, the Talmud itself tries to solve the theological problem of what was interpreted as a literal visual perception, by claiming that was in fact Metatron whom they were told to come up to. I find it hard to believe that such an angel, so exalted, bearing the very name of YHWH, can exist in a strict Jewish monotheistic context.

From our perspective, the Targums, the Talmud, and those who purport the prophetic vision interpretation are simply trying to solve a theological problem by evading the obvious.

But then again, I will submit the probability that it is only “obvious” from my perspective, considering that I have additional data to consider in formulating a sound and plausible conclusion on this issue.

With regards to the next link you gave me: http://www.aish.com/torahportion/shalomweekly/Mishpatim_5764.asp

Quote
Even at the time of redemption and joy, it is important to recall the previous suffering that one experienced. This adds an entire dimension to the joy.

Wise words that we can all learn from indeed! The New Testament takes this further, by teaching we are to rejoice in our very times of suffering:

"Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything." (Jam.1:2).

"I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, the church" (Colos.1:24)

"Rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed." (1Pet.4:13).

"I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize" (1Cor.9:27).

"For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil.1:29).

Quote
We see the scriptural references to the "word of God" (you'll please forgive me for using a lower case w!) and suchlike as poetic metaphors/images & not references to the "Word of God" as a personified/actual being.

Well no Christian would identify the Word of God as an “actual being”, for this would suggest that The Word of God has an existence exclusive to the existence of God Himself, which would constitute to polytheism. People unacquainted with the metaphysical context in which the church Fathers were operating in when they employed such terms as “person” and “being” to explicate biblical revelation; will often use the terms as if they’re logical equivalents; which they are not. “Being” denotes existence, whereas “Person” is, generally speaking, a “principle of being”, a “real aspect” of an existence.

In this sense, though we see The Word of God as having a distinct identity (since it does not constitute the entire Godhead), it is also nonetheless identified with God, in the sense that, He being a real aspect and principle of God’s being, is thus of His very essence. (Hence John 1:1, where we find distinction and identification in a sense of predication: “In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God”)

In the words of St Thomas Aquinas, ‘The Word’ is simply “The encapsulation of the infinite divine knowledge of God”, He represents the “Reason”, or “inner thought” of God. This calls for the appropriate analogy of the relationship between a human being and that human being’s mind. The Human mind has a distinct identity since it does not constitute the entire being of a human, but is rather an essential aspect of the human being, yet the mind is nonetheless human - I.e. of the human essence as a result of its being an aspect of the human being. In this sense we can say that “The mind is with human, and the mind is human.”

Considering this understanding of The Word as the “reason”, “inner thought” or “infinite divine knowledge” of God, it only makes sense that The Word would be depicted as the divine agent of creation (Genesis 1:1, Ps. 33:6), for God “reasons” the creation into being, by/through His “infinite divine knowledge” (Cf. Ps. 33:6, John 1:3), rather than literally “speaking” it into creation as if His Word is some linguistic sign.

Ofcourse as Christians, the above conception of The Word becomes explicit for us in light of the New Testament data which we process alongside that of the Tanakh (since we consider both texts to be inspired by the same divine providence). However, I do believe that the above thoughts, do make sense of a lot of the Old Testament scriptures relevant to The Word.

You suggested that “The Word” was simply a metaphor, employed as a poetic device - but surely there must be a point or purpose to this? Why is it that “God said let there be light” - why could he not have simply created the light?

Something further to consider is the Wisdom of proverbs 8. Why is this depicted as a distinct reality (notice I deliberately evaded the word “being” or “existence”), possessing the divine attributes of God?

As Christians we will affirm that there is One Creator. We simply reason (primarily due to the additional New Testament data), that the Wisdom/Word of this one creator, is the instrumental device through which God created the heavens and the earth (Ps. 33:6 and Prov. 8 ). Since The Lord’s reason/Wisdom/knowledge is not some externally existent “thing” but rather an intrinsic aspect of His own being - we can affirm that: God is the creator - The Word of God is the creator - The Wisdom of God is the creator, yet there remains One Creator.

Quote
2) Ah, so you're a Led Zeppelin fan too?

If I knew who Led Zeppelin was, I might have understood the joke lol (Does this mean im not cool?)

Im very sorry for the length of my post! Please forgive me, and thanks again for your patience and demeanour.

Peace
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
aurelia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 588


« Reply #51 on: February 23, 2005, 08:20:55 AM »

Led Zepplin is a band from the 70's...check them out sometime.  Wink

other than that, just sitting back and digesting the posts...
Logged
MBZ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


« Reply #52 on: February 24, 2005, 08:07:16 AM »

Hi all!

I 'pologize for not posting yesterday but DW & I took the day off (it was her birthday last week), worked out arrangements for the kids until around 17:30 or so and proceeded to percolate, recreate, marinate & otherwise invigorate our persons at http://www.hamei-yoav.co.il/indexEng.html. I recommend the occasional soak at natural thermo-mineral springs for everybody; what a great way to unwind the mind & retread the head (quoth Gerry Trudeau). Now I know what stew feels like after it has been simmering for several hours...Mmmmmmm!!!

Ramble On (http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/ledzeppelin/rambleon.html) is one of Led Zeppelin's best songs (I think); it was off their Led Zeppelin II album.

Anyway...

EkhristosAnesti, thank you for what you wrote in the opening sentence of your previous post. When stuff like that comes up I just keep my head down & wait it out. I put a lot more stock in the learned comments by yourself, Anastasios, IanLazarus, Aurelia, et. al. vis-a-vis what Orthodox Christianity is all about.

You posted:

Quote
I find this a rather unusual reading of the text, for if we look at it plainly: “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them” - It speaks of God dwelling “amongst” them, rather than “inside” or “within” them; and furthermore His dwelling “amongst” them, is consequential to the very building of the sanctuary - making it plainly implicit that God will dwell amongst them, by being uniquely present within the sanctuary. According to Young’s literal translation, this specific verse reads: “And they have made for Me a sanctuary, and I have tabernacled in their midst” which further emphasizes my point.

Certainly God dwells inside the hearts of His children, but it doesn’t really make sense that God would need the building of a sanctuary in order to dwell inside the believers, nor does this sound like a plausible reading of the text itself.

Furthermore, Solomon himself makes it explicitly clear, that it was indeed the temple through which God made Himself uniquely present, such that He would be in their midst: “The Lord has said that he would dwell in a dark cloud; I have built a magnificent temple for you, a place for you to dwell forever.” (2 Chronicles 6:1-2). Most of the translations I have (JPS, KJV, ASV, WEB, DBY, YLT, WBS) actually render 2 Chron. 6:2 as “I have built a house of habitation for thee/you” which further stresses my point. In 2 Chron. 6:18, it is clear that Solomon understands that the temple would somehow mysteriously “contain” God, since he questions how this can be, considering that not even the heavens can “contain” Him: “But will God really dwell on earth with men? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!” (2 Chron. 6:18)

Note also, God’s response in 9:3: “I have consecrated this temple, which you have built, by putting my Name there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there.” Obviously God does not have eyes nor a heart, its simply figurative language plainly saying that God will be uniquely present in that temple. The ancient Jewish targum actually renders the verse: “GǪI have sanctified this house which you built for my Shekinah to abide there forever, and my Shekinah will abide in it with my will being there always.”

I'll defend our Sages' take on, ""Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them." The differences between "among", "within", "in the midst of," etc., I think are more emantical than substantive. While we certainly needed a physical locale in which we could relate to God (in certain ways that He commanded us), the main impact of the Tabernacle/Temples was their effect on us, that the services & offerings performed therein would make us better better Jews & better people. For the greater part of our history, we have had to live without the Tabernacle/Temples, but a far more important & greater, and more enduring, home for God is that within our hearts. Bricks, wood, marble, etc. may be smashed down, but the Temple in our hearts is both indestructable & eternal. I acknowledge (of course!) what King Solomon said. But I'll refer you to Isaiah 66:1-2 (we read Isaiah 66:1-24 in synagogue when the New Moon, i.e. the first of the Hebrew month, falls on the Sabbath; we'll read it nex on Saturday, March 12):

Quote
Thus says the Lord: The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool; where is the house that you may build unto Me? And where is the place that may be My resting-place? For all these things has My hand made, and so all these things came to be, says the Lord; but on this man will I look, even on him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembles at My word.

We believe that Jacob no more saw God than Samson's parents did. Judges 13:15 says:

Quote
And Manoah said unto the angel of the Lord: 'I pray you, let us detain you, that we may make ready a kid for you.' And the angel of the Lord said unto Manoah: 'Though you detain me, I will not eat of your bread; and if you will make ready a burnt-offering, you must offer it unto the Lord.'

From the angel's reply to Samson's papa-to-be, we learn that the angel was not God. A few verses later, we read:

Quote
Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the Lord. And Manoah said unto his wife: 'We shall surely die, because we have seen God.'

Even though the text tells us that Manoah knew their visitor had been an angel, he stills says what says to his wife. She, being more on the spiritual ball as women are apt to be (so Judaism believes), calms his fears. We believe that by saying, "...we have seen God," to his wife, even though he knew the visitor to have been an angel, Manoah was saying that he & his wife had been graced with a divine revelation, with a manifestation of a Heavenly being, which such as we, normally, cannot see. Humbled, overwhelmed & awed, he says, "...we have seen God," relating not to the bearer of the message but directly to the One who sent him. Angels, we believe, are conduits, messengers (that's what the Hebrew word malach means). Not only can they speak for God but God can speak through them. Thus, Abraham & Moses/God used the angelic conduits & spoke to God/Abraham & Moses directly. You might find Rabbi Eytan Feiner's To Become Like Angels at
http://www.aish.com/hhyomk/hhyomkdefault/To_Become_Like_Angels.asp. He talks about angels in general & Jacob's wrasslin' match. (Note: We divide the Torah into 54 weekly portions of varying lengths, which we complete every 12-12.75 months, depending on the quirks of calendar. The portions' names are usually 1 or 2 words from the beginning of the reading. Sometimes, depending on those calendrical quirks, certain portions may be read together. At the very beginning of his article, Rabbi Feiner refers to two such portions from near the end of Deuteronomy. See http://www.jewfaq.org/readings.htm.) http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/parsha/5761/vayishlach61.htm / http://tinyurl.com/4c4lq is also a very good take on the aforesaid wrasslin' match.

You posted:

Quote
But then again, I will submit the probability that it is only “obvious” from my perspective..

As Hamlet says, "Ay, there's the rub." Faith not being mathematics, "obvious" is a very subjective & loaded term. As passionate believers in our faiths, each with its own respective perspective ( Smiley ), I think that we shall have to (amiably!) file very many things under the heading of "Agree-to-disagree".

Your citation of I Peter 4:13, reminds me of a story about our very great 1st-2nd century CE sage Rabbi Akiva (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/akiba.html):

Quote
"Once, several years after the destruction of the Holy Temple, Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Eliezer ben Azarya, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva were going up to Jerusalem. When they reached Mt. Scopus, the site of the Temple came into view, and they tore their garments in mourning. When they reached the Temple Mount, they saw a fox dart out from the spot where the Holy of Holies had stood in the Holy Temple. The other rabbis began to weep, but Rabbi Akiva laughed. They said to him: "Akiva, you never cease to amaze us. We are crying, and you laugh!" But Rabbi Akiva said, "And you, why are you crying?"

The rabbis responded: "What? Shall we not weep? The place about which Scripture states (Numbers 1:51), 'And the stranger who draws close shall die,' has become a den of foxes? Indeed, this is a fulfillment of the verse, 'For Mt. Zion which lies desolate, foxes prowl over it' (Lamentations 5:18).

Rabbi Akiva answered them: 'This is exactly why I laugh. For just as we have seen the prophecies of Jerusalem's destruction have come to pass, so too, know that the prophecies of her future consolation shall also be fulfilled. I laughed because I remembered the verses (Zachariah 8:4-5), 'Old men and old women will once again sit in the streeets of Jerusalem, each with his staff in his hand because of advanced age; and the streets of the city will be filled with boys and girls playing in its streets.' The Holy One, blessed be He, has declared that just as the first prophecies have been fulfilled, so shall the latter. I am joyous that the first have already come to pass, for the latter shall be fulfilled in the future.'

Said the rabbis, 'You have comforted us, Akiva, you have comforted us. May you be comforted by the footsteps of the messenger'."

(Adapted from Midrash Rabba Eicha, 5)

Quote
Im very sorry for the length of my post! Please forgive me, and thanks again for your patience and demeanour.

Please don't apologize & you're welcome!

Like somebody once said, "Ignorance and intolerance are the Devil's footmen."

Be well!

MBZ

Logged

"Peace, peace to him that is far off and to him that is near." [Isaiah 57:19]

"Gather your wits and hold on fast..." [The Who]

"Lose your dreams and you could lose your mind." [The Rolling Stones]

http://tinyurl.com/bvskq

[url=htt
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #53 on: February 24, 2005, 10:17:36 PM »

MBZ,

Quote
I 'pologize for not posting yesterday but DW & I took the day off


Apology not accepted. Don't leave us like that again! laugh Nah, we missed you.

Im glad you had a great time, looks like a nice place. As for the simmering stew...i think i'll pass!

Since Aurelia has told me that Led Zeppelin is a 70's band, then i guess at my age, i remain "cool" for not knowing who they are Cheesy

Quote
When stuff like that comes up I just keep my head down & wait it out.


I'd just like to make a brief comment (being a student of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), on Jace's stressed comparison between Judaism and Islam, and contrasting between Christianity and Judaism. It seems that at face value Islam is "closer" to Judaism, than Christianity is, primarily because of the legalistic aspect of both belief systems. The New Testament contains no such legalism, but rather exegetes or interprets the ceremonial and religious aspects of the law, spiritually, according to the manner in which Christ (who claimed authority over the law as Lord of the law) fulfilled the law (e.g. the sacraficial system is fulfilled in His sacrafice, the sabbath law is fulfilled in his resurrection etc.). With regards to the civil aspect of the law, I believe the New Testament did not institute any for we already have the Mosaic law, which "should" I believe, be instituted under the rule of a theocratic goverment (I would assert here that I am unaware of any Orthodox views on this issue, Im still waiting for a solid reply).

If one did a comparison between the Mosaic law and the Islamic Sharia law, they would find that the Mosaic law is indeed supreme, and more just in its dealings with wrong doers, and females especially. The whole Islamic religion was a perversion of Judeo-Christian scriptures, taken out of context for Muhamme's own personal agenda.

If we look to the essence of the three faiths, we find that Judaism and Christianity are much closer than many think. Ive already shown so far, that both Judaism and Christianity teach that one should love their enemies, and that the eye for an eye injunction was a metaphorical law of justice to be institued by civil authorities. We find in Islam on the other hand, the teaching of "kill thy enemy" and "slay them wherever ye find them", and the perversion of eye for an eye into a law of personal revenge.

The love of God, and the command to Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind, and soul is the first and foremost important commandment that the Judeo-Christian scriptures hang on. On the other hand, Islam hangs on the notion of fear and submission to a terrorising deity who will personally torture you in the lietral fire of hell (which is fuled by men and jinn/demons by the way) otherwise.

Finally, though Jews and Christians may differ with regards to how certain scriptures are to be interpreted, Christians have never charged God with weakness, and incapability in preserving his scriptures, such that we need to claim that they were corrupt by men - a charge made by muslims to try and explain away the explicit contradictions between the quran and the previous scriptures that it on a number of occasions claims to confirm. Nor do we pervert the stories of the prophets, by switching charcters, and placing them in a foreign time and place, as Muhammed did to suit his agenda, such as he did when he claimed that Abraham and Adam built the Kaba in Mecca! laugh and that the covenant was made with Ishmael rather than Isaac.

Furthermore, we find that the New Testament scriptures fundamentally rely on the Hebrew scriptures, being written by Jewish authors, using Jewish literary techniques (St Matthews Gospel employs some heavy midrash techniques), employing Jewish symbolism, and Jewish precedent to develop its Christology. The Qu'ran is very much an out of context book, with a very foreign literary style, arabic poetry with an underlying Syriac substratum, based on characters who are ripped out of their historical, social, cultural, and religious context, as literary products in which theyre resurrected as Muslim prophets.

Anyways, moving on, id like to start off with one of your concluding comments:

Quote
As passionate believers in our faiths, each with its own respective perspective ( ), I think that we shall have to (amiably!) file very many things under the heading of "Agree-to-disagree".

Definitely! However, i usually have trouble deciding when is the right time lol so maybe you can help me out. I know often sound repititive sometimes, I often do it without noticing - since I dont resume university again for another 2 weeks or so, I also have plenty of time on my hands, so I may get carried away (Led Zeppelin song too? Cool).

You started off by saying:
Quote
While we certainly needed a physical locale in which we could relate to God (in certain ways that He commanded us), the main impact of the Tabernacle/Temples was their effect on us, that the services & offerings performed therein would make us better better Jews & better people.

I’m certainly not trying to refute this notion at all, but this understanding of the temple does not have to necessarily negate the fact that the divine was capable of making Himself uniquely present in the temple as He so promised. Indeed this was not only the understanding of Solomon in response to God’s promise that he would “dwell amongst them”, but it was the very understanding made explicit in the ancient Targums. (Out of curiosity, how much authority do these targums have within Orthodox Judaism?).

Quote
but a far more important & greater, and more enduring, home for God is that within our hearts. Bricks, wood, marble, etc. may be smashed down, but the Temple in our hearts is both indestructible & eternal.

Amen! Again, we find further points of agreement. The New Testament itself testifies to the fact that believers in God are the temples in which He dwells:

Quote
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (I Cor. 3:16)


Quote
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are (I Cor. 3:17).


Quote
In John 14:23 we read: “Jesus answered, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. “

Here is an allusion to our bodies possessing the function of temples:

Quote
“I beseech you therefore by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God”

Furthermore, the New Testament acknowledges that such temples are as you said:
Quote
far more important & greater, and more enduring

And I will speak about this next.

Quote
I acknowledge (of course!) what King Solomon said. But I'll refer you to Isaiah 66:1-2

Thus says the Lord: The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool; where is the house that you may build unto Me? And where is the place that may be My resting-place? For all these things has My hand made, and so all these things came to be, says the Lord; but on this man will I look, even on him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembles at My word.

Amen. In fact, you will find this very verse quoted in the New Testament! If we go to the book of Acts 7:49 we read:

Quote
“However, the Most High does not dwell in sanctuaries made with hands, as the prophet says: Heaven is My throne, and earth My footstool. What sort of house will you build for Me? says the Lord, or what is My resting place?”

Like all things concerning the Almighty, we are confronted with mystery and “apparent” paradox, which I believe both the Old and New Testament seem to present us with concerning this issue. The New Testament affirms on one hand, that the Lord transcends the finite creation such that He cannot be “contained”, nor does He dwell in sanctuaries, yet on the other hand, it clearly affirms that the Lord was uniquely present in the person of Christ, such that His glory and shekinah “tabernacled” in our midst when His Word became incarnate in the form of a man.

Likewise we see the Old Testament, acknowledging essentially the same thing. Though the Lord is majestically beyond dwelling in some sanctuary built by the hands of man, he promises that He will uniquely be present - and the ancient Targums understood that this would be carried out through His own glory and shekinah.

Two points we want to consider here, both the scriptural context, in addition to some theoretical/philosophical thinking as to what it means to say that God is “infinite”.

First of all, to understand the statement that God cannot be “contained” nor “dwell” in physical creation, in a literal sense, is to presuppose that God has spatial dimensions, which He certainly does not. God is not infinitely extended in space, nor is he a potential or actual infinity, but rather an absolute infinity, referring to His qualities. Such a being, surely cannot be “confined” to a particular physical place in-time, since He lacks quantitative dimensions. However, logically speaking, an absolute infinite can be expressed and can be manifest at a single focal point or within a finite dimensional space such as the physical temple or the physical body of Christ which He testified to be the temple of God:J ohn 2:18-21

Quote
18So the Jews answered and said to Him, "What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?" 19Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them;[c] and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.


At this point, Id also like you to take into consideration the fact that you have just acknowledged that God is capable of dwelling inside the believers in a unique and mysterious way. To interpret Isaiah 66:2 in a manner as to conclude that he cannot somehow mysteriously and uniquely fill the temple through his glory and divine presence, would necessitate that you forgo the idea that he can mysteriously and uniquely fill the temple of our hearts, for both are finite in the same sense.

With regards to the context of Acts 7 which quotes Isaiah 66, and Isaiah 66 itself: It is affirming that God does not confine Himself to any house made with hands, as if He could be circumscribed by space.
Quote
“The temple was not the absolute and exclusive dwelling place of God”
says the footnote to Acts 7 in my Orthodox Study Bible. This is the very same sentiment Solomon expresses, as a sort of precautionary provision for the majesty of God in 1 Kings 8:27, though Solomon clearly recognizes that God has promised, and so will, uniquely “tabernacle in the “house of habitation” that Solomon built for Him, without it “confining” Him, in a manner such that His presence in the temple is exclusive.

I believe in light of this, that Isaiah 66 was directed at those, who much gloried in the temple, using it as a false sense of security, whilst forgetting and losing sight of the more spiritual and greater matters i.e. those matters which concern the heart. I think these verses are just a reminder for them, God essentially saying: “Just because I promised to be uniquely present in this temple, this doesn’t mean I am confined to it, as if this is where I am exclusively, I am Majestic beyond the false conceptions you have of me, I am the absolute infinite omnipresent being, so quit your superstitious reverence of this temple, and remember the greater things - the temple of the heart, in which I also dwell.” Such verses were therefore intended to humble them, and shake their vain confidence. This can be paralleled to the fact that though God required atoning sacrifices to be made, He clearly elsewhere says that He does not rejoice in sacrifice - addressing those specifically who worship the Lord in vein, forgetting the greater matters (i.e. more concerned with the physical sacrafice then the sacrafice of a "broken and a contrite heart".

To further this point, Jesus Himself rebuked the very sort of line of thought adopted by the people that Isaiah was addressing. If we go to John 4:19-24 we read:

Quote
19“Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”


At this point I would like to bring up one of your initial comments:

Quote
For the greater part of our history, we have had to live without the Tabernacle/Temples,


Since the Lord, as I have explained thus far, is not “confined” nor “exclusive” to the temple, nor is His promised presence, intended for the temple to be received superstitiously, nor is worship in the temple which is filled with the glory and shekinah of the Lord supposed to give one a false sense of security, such that they worship in vein, with disregard to the “greater temple” of our hearts; then this really presents no problem.

In one of my previous posts, I briefly mentioned the fact that Christ is also identified with Torah. At this stage I would like to quote New Testament scholar and 1st century historian (who is also specialized in second temple Judaism) is N.T.Wright, with regards to the absence of the temple which you speak of, and the position of the Torah in such times. He states in his book “The Challenge of Jesus” (A great introduction to a great series on the historical Jesus), on page 43:

Quote
“The Pharisees had begun to articulate the view that the blessings one normally got from the Temple could be had instead by study and practice of the Torah. ‘If two sit together and study the Torah, the Divine presence rests between them.” (Mishnah Aboth 3.2); this early Rabbinic saying meant that one could have the temple-priviledge of being in the presence of God anywhere in the world.”

Interestingly, we find that Christ Himself in speaking to his contemporaries says to them:

Quote
”For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20

In commenting on Christ’s identification with the temple he states:

Quote
“There are several indications in the Gospels that Jesus was deliberately acting in a way such as to say, that where he wasGǪIsrael’s God was active and present in the same way as He normally was in the temple” (page 49).


In this was Jesus presented Himself as the personal embodiment of what the temple stood for, as though He were a one-man counter-temple movement. Briefly summarishing some of the ways which support this, he goes on to say on page 60:

Quote
“The Temple was the greatest Jewish symbol, and Jesus wasGǪclaiming authority over it, claiming for himself and his mission, the central place the Temple had occupied. The Last Supper was Jesus’ own alternative symbol, the kingdom-feast, the new-exodus feast. And, just as the Temple pointed to the sacrficical meeting of the covenant God and His people, the sign of forgiveness and hope, of God dwelling in their midst as the God of covenant renewal, covenant steadfastness, covenant love, so now Jesus, by His own double action, was claiming that here, in his own work, in his own person, all that the temple stood for was being summed up in a new and final way.”

Quote
From the angel's reply to Samson's papa-to-be, we learn that the angel was not God.

Coming from an Orthodox Christian perspective, we do not find that this verse; which draws a distinction between The Angel of the Lord and the Lord (which I presume is your reasoning towards the conclusion that the Angel is not God) to be mutually exclusive to the fact that The Angel of the Lord is indeed the Lord. As I mentioned earlier, we identify the Angel of the Lord with the pre-existent Word. In John 1:1, the Word is clearly and explicitly said to be distinct from God: “The Word was WITH God”, yet the next clause clearly affirms that “The Word WAS God” i.e. of His essence. Here we would identify “God” as “The Father”, and the “The Word” as “The Son - Christ”, who is as I mentioned before an intrinsic, essential aspect of God’s very being, thus Jesus can clearly affirm in John 10:30 “I and the Father are One.”

This sort of distinction and identification is thus exactly what we expect to see, from our own Christian perspective.

Quote
Manoah was saying that he & his wife had been graced with a divine revelation, with a manifestation of a Heavenly being, which such as we, normally, cannot see.


Yet no matter how heavenly this being is, you affirm it is a mere angel - and though angels “cannot normally be seen” (to paraphrase your words), surely one would not expect to die as the result of seeing one. The very reaction of Manoah as with the reaction of Jacob, presupposes that they did indeed see God, for it is in seeing God alone which results in death. Since God’s “face” was veiled by the form of an angel however, they did not behold that very essence which would cause one to die, if it were beheld, and hence their reaction to the same paradox.

Quote
Angels, we believe, are conduits, messengers (that's what the Hebrew word malach means).


Yes I understand this, the question however remains, whether this particular messenger in question - "The Angel of YHWH", was in fact a “mere messenger” or rather a “divine agent” of God’s very being, a “personified extension of God’s will or a distinct personification of God’s self-manifestation”.

Quote
Not only can they speak for God but God can speak through them.


Do you mean in first person? And if so, then what do you think it would take, for the scriptures to show that the Angel of the Lord is indeed distinct from yet equal to the Lord in essence and of His being? As in, if indeed this doctrine was taught, what would you expect to find in the scriptures?

So far it has been shown that the Angel of the Lord has a distinct identity (the only logically necessary conclusion to be drawn from this fact, is that we have a distinction of name/identity/persona rather than being/existence/essence). So we can agree at this stage that they’re two different “persons” in this sense. We know that there exists only One God, and that this God possesses a divine essence characterized by certain divine attributes and characteristics. We also understand from the scriptures, that to behold this essence, will result in death. We also know that when the Angel of the Lord was beheld, a paradox occurred such that death was expected, yet it did not come to pass, suggesting that through the Angel of the Lord the divine was present yet veiled through a non-divine form.

Id like to put forth further factors to support why as Christians we believe that we have more than an angel on our hands, with regards to the Lord’s angel.

"See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out." Exodus 23:20-23

I emphasized the personal pronouns in italics to emphasise the point that the Lord and His angel are indeed two differing persona’s, Yet the Lord clearly affirms that it is the Angel who has the ability to forgive sins and the who possesses the power to destroy the enemies of Israel! And, as if that is not enough, the very divine Name of the Lord is “in Him” witnessing to the fact that this Angel embodies the very divine character and nature of the Lord. The fact the divine name was in the Angel is a statement that “What the Angel isGǪ.God isGǪ” which is affirmed by the preceding divine attributes that the Lord says His Angel Possesses. As I understand it in its Hebrew context, it is the name of someone that reveals His character - Here we have a distinct persona, possessing the divine attributes, having the name of the Lord to reflect His character, in the context of a text which is strictly monotheistic. From our point of view we can only identify this Angel as an aspect/persona of God’s being, and furthermore identify Him with the Word, who according to the New Testament is depicted in the exact same manner.

The “High Christology” of the New Testament finds its very precedent in the Old Testament, and other pre-Christian Jewish scriptures (especially concerning The Wisdom of the Lord).

Another minor point I’d like to point out, is that in contrast to the Angel of the Lord, whenever a mere angel such as Gabriel, or Michael appear to one bearing a message from the divine - theyre always identified by name: Daniel 8:15-16, Daniel 9:20-21, Daniel 10:10-14, 21.

Again, I apologise for another essay! I know you're thinking ---> :violent:

Peace!


« Last Edit: February 24, 2005, 10:25:40 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #54 on: February 24, 2005, 11:23:36 PM »

One more thing I wanted to comment on:

Concerning this link: (Your links are great btw, keep them coming, the more i read the more i learn how much in common we really have)
http://www.aish.com/hhyomk/hhyomkdefault/To_Become_Like_Angels.asp

It states:

Quote
Yes, indeed, we can attain the highest of levels.

Quote
But our journey along the path to spiritual perfection must begin with constantly being "holchim," continuously moving upward. After diligent work and tireless efforts in pursuit of endless striving towards personal spiritual completion,

This is very interesting, because Christianity teaches also that there is a level of spiritual perfection that can be attained. According to the scriptures, it comes about as a progress from the corrupt fallen nature of man towards the image and likeness of God. Hence Christ was not giving man false hopes when he commanded plainly in  Matthew 5:48:

Quote
“Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

According to our theology, however, although perseverance and striving is necessary:

Quote
“For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me. (Colossians 1:29)

“Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.” (Hebrews 12:1)

“It is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. (Matthew 10:22)

“7I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day-“ 2 Timothy 4:7,8

It is a) Not possible of our own selves, but possible because of the help of God:

Quote
“So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.”  (1 Corinthians 3:7)

“So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” (Romans 9:16)

For the Lord says: “5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he (E)bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.” John 15:5

b) Striving is not enough to attain this state of Spiritual perfection, rather, it is attained through a process called theosis in which we become “transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit’ (2 Cor. 3:17-18). This according to Orthodoxy, was only possible through the incarnation of The Word. Through the Divine’s participation in humanity, we are able to participate in His divinity - NOT in a literal sense, but rather in the sense that through the communion of the Spirit and Christ dwelling within the believers, we become endowed in Christs resurrection, with both the perfect moral character of God and immortality.

Hope i havent given you a headache  Embarrassed
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
MBZ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


« Reply #55 on: February 26, 2005, 05:29:57 PM »

Hi EkhristosAnesti!

It's 22:45 Saturday evening here.  DW & Da Boyz are Zzzzz; it's just me & Meirav (the hamster; I think that Saul's daughter would be flattered!).

You posted:

Quote
We find in Islam on the other hand, the teaching of "kill thy enemy" and "slay them wherever ye find them", and the perversion of eye for an eye into a law of personal revenge.

This bugs me too.  DW & I went to hear this woman http://www.muslimrefusenik.com/ lecture at Hebrew University in Jerusalem last week.  What she had to say was fascinating.  I'd like to read her book.

Quote
(Out of curiosity, how much authority do these targums have within Orthodox Judaism?).

The targums are certainly an authoritative commentary, among the many others.  Their views have votes, not vetoes.

Quote
However, logically speaking, an absolute infinite can be expressed and can be manifest at a single focal point or within a finite dimensional space...

This reminds of the encounter with The Point in Chapter 20 of Edwin Abbot's delightful Flatland: http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/flatland/20.html.

Quote
...such as the physical temple or the physical body of Christ which He testified to be the temple of God

I think that whereas we say that God made Himself present in the Temple, you believe that God was/is Christ.

Quote
Yet no matter how heavenly this being is, you affirm it is a mere angel - and though angels “cannot normally be seen” (to paraphrase your words), surely one would not expect to die as the result of seeing one. The very reaction of Manoah...

Manoah was overwhelmed by his emotions; his wife had more of a spiritual grip on herself (as, we believe, women are wont to have) & set her husband straight.

Quote
Do you mean in first person? And if so, then what do you think it would take, for the scriptures to show that the Angel of the Lord is indeed distinct from yet equal to the Lord in essence and of His being? As in, if indeed this doctrine was taught, what would you expect to find in the scriptures?

Yes.

Ah, to us, it's (and here comes that very loaded word again) obvious.  The angel appeared to Abraham on Mt. Moriah & Abraham addressed God directly through it.

Regarding Exodus 23:20-23, most of our commentators see this as one of the instances in which the Hebrew word malach dies not refer to an angel per se but to another "messenger" (what malach literally means) but to earthly messengers, i.e. prophets, i.e. Moses.

Regarding your second post (and stop apologizing for the length of your posts!),


Logged

"Peace, peace to him that is far off and to him that is near." [Isaiah 57:19]

"Gather your wits and hold on fast..." [The Who]

"Lose your dreams and you could lose your mind." [The Rolling Stones]

http://tinyurl.com/bvskq

[url=htt
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #56 on: February 27, 2005, 01:44:44 AM »

MBZ,

Hope all is going well with you.

Quote
DW & I went to hear this woman http://www.muslimrefusenik.com/ lecture at Hebrew University in Jerusalem last week. What she had to say was fascinating. I'd like to read her book.

It looks interesting, though Im not sure that having an honors in history and being the producer and host of “queer television”, sound like the kind of credentials of a person that I would consider seriously with regards to their views and opinions on Islam. I have a problem with this idea of "reforming Islam" - I see it as a cop out. If it is recognised that fundamental Islam is dangerous, and that it promotes racism, hatred, and terrorism etc., then the only real solution is to eradicate it all together. By dishing out a fake version of Islam; what i like to call "diet Islam" or "islam lite" as i see it in the west; is simply pretense, its an attempt to veil the dark truth. My views may seem a bit radical, but i certainly wont comrpomise them for the sake of political correctness. I have tried as dispassionately as i can to objectively discover whether or not the Islam of Muhammed, was intended as a political agenda to "conquer the world" so to speak, through methods of terrorism and intimidation...and I can only in all honesty state what i truly believe on the matter.

I would recommend the works of Mark Gabriel; he was the former Imam of the mosque at Giza, Cairo. He was also former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar university (The most renowned and reputable Islamic university in the Islamic world), having graduated from their with a doctorate and masters in Islamic theology. He is now an Orthodox Christian, having escaped Egypt after close encounters with those who sought his life following his apostasy.

I have both his books: “Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle” http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0884199568/qid=1109465120/sr=2-2/ref=pd_ka_b_2_2/002-0715877-2635224

And: “Islam and terrorism” http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0884198847/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/002-0715877-2635224?v=glance&s=books&st=*

I have yet to start the first one and im about a fifth of the way into the second one. So far it seems like ive made a valuable investment.

Quote
I think that whereas we say that God made Himself present in the Temple, you believe that God was/is Christ.

Well the analogy can only be taken so far. Its simply a matter of, “just as God tabernacled in our midst via the physical/created temple, so too He tabenacled in our midst when His Word became incarnate in the form of a physical/created human being.” The Shekinah and glory of God is also identified with both as I said before; and just as the fullness of God’s glory filled the temple, in Christ the “fullness of deity dwells in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9)

Our conception of Christ, is that He has two perfect, distinct yet united natures. Since eternity Christ has existed as the eternal Word of God. In-time the eternal Word took upon Himself a human nature, which was united with His divinity “without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration”, such that we can affirm that the one person of Christ exists with two perfect natures, “his humanity parted not from His divinity, for a single moment, nor the twinkle of an eye.” This is made clear through Phil. 2:5-11 where St Paul says that “He who being in the form of God....made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man..." The greek term for "being" is in the present participle and implies a continuous existence or abiding reality, emphasising that the Divine did not in some way "transform" into humanity, nor did it ever cease to exist at the point of incarnation.

Thus, when we say “Christ is God”, we would technically translate this to “Christ possessed a divine nature, according to His eternal identity as The Word of God, and hence the person of Christ was God in essence.”

The incarnation of Christ and Christology in general is not an easy topic for us to graspGǪThere is a point where we have to submit our finite reason and logic:

Isaiah 55:8-9 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts."

1 Timothy 3:16: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory."


Quote
Ah, to us, it's (and here comes that very loaded word again) obvious. The angel appeared to Abraham on Mt. Moriah & Abraham addressed God directly through it.

From our perspective, there could be no more explicit way to suggest two distinct persona’s existing of the same One being/essence - a doctrine further explicated through the progressed revelation of the New Testament. I guess we will have to file this one under agree-to-disagree.

Quote
Regarding Exodus 23:20-23, most of our commentators see this as one of the instances in which the Hebrew word malach dies not refer to an angel per se but to another "messenger"


First of all, id just like to point out, that even in the New Testament, “agency” language is not a foreign concept. Christ is depicted as the “sent agent” or “messenger” of God in a sense, yet we don’t see this as negating the fact He is still of the very essence of God. To put forth an analogy, I can say that my tongue is the agent of my thoughts, expressing my thoughts to people in an intelligible manner - i.e. through Words, yet my tongue remains of the human essence and of my very being.

Likewise, Christ is The Word (since God is infinite and perfect, He doesn’t have “many words” such as we do in human language, but one perfect infinite “Word” “encapsulating the infinite divine knowledge” as I mentioned before), the agent of God, of His very being and essence, expressing God personally, to mankind. If we look at John 1:18 again, it says that Christ has made God “known”. The Greek word for this is exegesato from which we derive the word “exegesis”. Christ is the eternal divine agent, who was sent to “exegete” God to mankind, in this sense.

Quote
(what malach literally means) but to earthly messengers, i.e. prophets, i.e. Moses.

How does this solve the problem of the fact that the subject is given the divine attributes of God - forgiveness and judgement, and possesses the very name of YHWH, which can only mean that the subject reflects the very character and nature of YHWH Himself?

Peace!
« Last Edit: February 27, 2005, 01:45:22 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
MBZ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


« Reply #57 on: February 27, 2005, 08:29:59 AM »

Hi EkhristosAnesti!

Hmm...I was working on a post late last night when I thought that I had hit the wrong key and lost my post. Now I see that the rough draft I was working on actually posted...oh well.

Anyhoo...

So, here's take-two!

Regarding Exodus 23:20-23, some of our commentators see this as one of the instances in which the Hebrew word malach does not refer to an angel per se but to another "messenger" (what malach literally means) but to earthly messengers, i.e. prophets, i.e. Moses. But, thinking I had lost my post, when I went to synagogue this morning for morning prayers (at 06:00), I looked up these verses in an edition of Exodus that has the commentaries of about different Sages in it. Opinion on Exodus 23:20-23 is decidedly mixed. Some say it refers to Moses and Joshua. Others say that yes, it refers to an angel that God intended to lead the way for us, but they note that this was before we sinned with the Golden Calf. These Sages compare 23:20-23 with God's post-calf remarks in 32:34 and 33:2. Note the differences. In 32:34, God simply says, "My angel shall go before you," as we are en route to the Holy Land. In 33:1-2, God mentions the angel only in the context of entering & conquering the Land of Israel. They refer 33:1-2 to Joshua 5:14, which the angel confronting Joshua says, "I am captain of the host of the Lord; I have/am now come..." Our Sages comment on the seemingly redundant now & ask why the text doesn't simply say, "I have/am come"? What does now add? Our Sages teach that the angel is telling Joshua that he has come just then, as per God's promise in Exodus 33:1-2. I would again note that the angel doesn't tell Joshua, "I am the Lord," but identifies himself as a being apart/different from God, namely as "captain of the host of the Lord." That God then, after the parenthetical statement of 6:1, proceeds to address Joshua directly is another example of God speaking through an angel in the first person & using the latter as a conduit.

See http://www.netivot-shalom.org.il/parshaeng/vayishlach5762.php for a good read (I found it today) on our beliefs regarding angels.

Regarding your second post (and stop apologizing for the length of your posts!), you posted:

Quote
According to our theology, however, although perseverance and striving is necessary...It is a) Not possible of our own selves, but possible because of the help of God...

This reminds me of a famous Hasidic parable that I first heard at the end of the film version of Chaim Potok's The Chosen (with the late, grear Rod Steiger, Maximillian Schell & Robby Benson). A king had a son whom he loved very much. But as the son grew up, he & his father gradually grew apart until at last they were almost totally estranged. The son moved far away. But the king still loved hi son very much and, more than anything else in the world, wanted him to return to him. So he sent a message to this effect to his son, bidding him to return. The son, deep down in his heart wanted to, but he felt that too much time had passed and he was more than a little intimidated by the vast distance between himself & his father. So he sent a message back to his father & said, "I cannot come back to you; it is too far." The king, loving father that he was, sensed what was in his son's heart and sent another message to his son & said, "Then come as far as you can and I shall come to meet you." I love that story! Even if one small shuffle is all we can manage, we still have to make that effort.

Quote
...rather, it is attained through a process called theosis in which we become “transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit’ (2 Cor. 3:17-18). This according to Orthodoxy, was only possible through the incarnation of The Word. Through the Divine’s participation in humanity, we are able to participate in His divinity - NOT in a literal sense, but rather in the sense that through the communion of the Spirit and Christ dwelling within the believers, we become endowed in Christs resurrection, with both the perfect moral character of God and immortality.

I like to cite Deuteronomy 30:10-14:

Quote
...if you shall hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Torah scroll; if you turn unto the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul. For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' But the word is very nigh unto you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that your may do it."

"It is not in heaven, that you should say: 'Who shall...bring it unto us..." I see this as a statement of Jewish belief against the Christian belief that in order for us to participate in God's Divinity (NOT in the literal sense, as you point out; neither of us are Mormons!), He had to participate in humanity. He gave us the Torah & we believe that that is sufficient.

The point that Irshad Manji made in her lecture was that Islam wasn't always as profoundly static, conservative & fundamentalist as it is today & that there ample precedents of periods in which Islamic society was decidedly more tolerant of non-Muslims and in which debate and the asking of pointed questions was encouraged. Try Johns Hopkins University Prof. Fouad Ajami's Dream Palace of the Arabs: A Generation's Odyssey (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375704744/102-3838073-2441721); this might be more to your liking. I adore Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyat (FitzGerald translation, first edition, see http://www.armory.com/~thrace/ev/siir/Omar_Khayyam.html). I can't help but think that Islam & the world would be a lot better of if the cultural millieu which enabled Khayyam to write such an epic were still current today. Rubaiyat reminds me very much of Ecclesiastes, which is my favorite book of the Tanakh. If I figure out just 10% of Ecclesiastes in this lifetime I'll have done very well for myself.

Be well & be in touch!

MBZ

« Last Edit: February 27, 2005, 11:07:11 AM by MBZ » Logged

"Peace, peace to him that is far off and to him that is near." [Isaiah 57:19]

"Gather your wits and hold on fast..." [The Who]

"Lose your dreams and you could lose your mind." [The Rolling Stones]

http://tinyurl.com/bvskq

[url=htt
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #58 on: February 28, 2005, 09:29:56 AM »

MBZ,

I thought it was strange how your previous post ended so abruptly like that, thanks for retyping your lost response, and sorry for the trouble!

Tommorow morning (its 11:55 pm here) I will be leaving my hometown, to spend a week at the nearest monastery (7 hours away!), as a sort of spiritual preparation before i resume university. It will be a week of secluded prayer, worship, and labor, and so that means no computer until i get back! (Thats like going a week without air for me!) lol

Anyways, continuing with the discussion:

Quote
Opinion on Exodus 23:20-23 is decidedly mixed.


I guess the question remains, how do you reconcile the fact that the subject, possesses the divine attributes of God, and reflects YHWH’s very nature and character as a result of bearing YHWH’s very name, with your submission that the subject is a mere angel or prophet?

Quote
In 33:1-2, God mentions the angel only in the context of entering & conquering the Land of Israel.

I think if we let chapter 33 speak for itself, taking into account 23:20-23, we are given further confirmation of the divine identity of the figure in question. In 33:1-2 it mentions the Angel as the one who will be sent, 11-12 verses later it is the Shekinah who will be sent. I believe the ancient Targums were spot on when they explicitly identified the Angel of the lord with the Glory of the Shekinah, by using the terms as if they were logical equivalents - it certainly makes sense of the qualities given to this “Angel” as it is shown in 23:20-30.

Quote
I would again note that the angel doesn't tell Joshua, "I am the Lord," but identifies himself as a being apart/different from God, namely as "captain of the host of the Lord."

You can only come to this conclusion if you presuppose that God is a unipersonal “solidarity-within-unity” type of being. Distinction in identity/name does not necessitate distinction in essence/being - the only logically necessary conclusion to draw is that there is a diversity of persons rather than a diversity of beings. We understand that God has a “foundational ego” so to speak- namely "The Father", the name used interchangeably with “God” throughout the New Testament. His Word - The Son, though distinct from God (The Word was with God John 1:1 b) is of His very being (And The Word was God - John 1:1 c). But again, even if The Angel did address Himself saying “I am the Lord”, im sure you would still escape this with your conduit justification Wink.

If we read on, Joshua fell on his face and worshipped this “Angel” as His Lord (such a practice is only ever given in the context of divine worship of YHWH, or reverence to a royal king - and since the worship is followed by the statement of “my Lord” - clearly divine worship is what is intended here), and took off his shoes due to the fact that the very presence of this “Angel” made the ground in which he was standing holy!! The Christian conception of God, although not in any sense contingent upon the identity of This Angel as The eternal Word of God, a distinct persona of His very being, could not be presented any more explicitly. To further this point from our perspective, the New Testament reveals to us certain occasions in which an angel of the Lord (here we refer to an actual created angel, rather than a manifestation of God) rebuked certain men for mistankingly worshipping the angel. In Revelations 19:10 we read:

Quote
"Then I (St John) fell at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "Don't do that! I am a fellow slave with you and your brothers who have the testimony about Jesus. Worship God, because the testimony about Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

And again, in Revelations 22:8-9:

Quote
"I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. When I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had shown them to me. 9 But he said to me, "Don't do that! I am a fellow slave with you, your brothers the prophets, and those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." "


Regarding Deuteronomy 30:10-14:

Quote
I see this as a statement of Jewish belief against the Christian belief that in order for us to participate in God's Divinity (NOT in the literal sense, as you point out; neither of us are Mormons!), He had to participate in humanity.


I don’t see how Deuteronomy 30:10-14 contradicts, or has any relevance to the Christian doctrine of theosis at allGǪ. Maybe you can elaborate on how exactly?

As I see it, the verse: “'Who shall...bring it unto us..." is simply speaking about the fact that the law is so evident that none can pretend ignorance of it - it is not distant nor out of reach, it is given to man to follow, it is easily accessible, and so no one has any excuse not to strive to live by it. We know however, that no matter how hard one strives, we all ultimately fall short, and have all at some point in time transgressed the law as the result of the weakness of our fallen human nature - hence the need for the incarnation.

Deuteronomy 30:10-14 is actually another Old Testament passage quoted in the New Testament in substance/essence (in contrast to a word for word quotation), and St Paul is seen to apply a Midrash to the passage. If we go to Romans 10:5-14 it reads:

Quote
5: "Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: “The man who does these things will live by them.e]
12: For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile-the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
13: for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

St Paul applies midrash to Deut 30 to convey the message that the righteousness of faith given by God, has pre-eminence and superiority over the righteousness that one attains through their own individual observance of the law. The Gospel of Christ has been preached, and so no one has any excuse not to confess with their tongues and believe with their hearts that Christ is Lord, who became incarnate, died and rose from the dead on the third day, for our salvation - it is through such a faith, that our righteousness is justified, and through such faith does our “other righteousness” - that which we attain through obedience, (which usually fails) - succeed..

Breaking it down:

First, in verse 5, he speaks of the righteousness one attains by observing the law, quoting the law itself (Leviticus 18:5), in order to show that the law was against those who use the law as a way of securing righteousness. Leviticus 18:5 (which is reinforced also in Galatians 3:12 :
Quote
12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them
.) states that those who keep His law, in all respects, living a blameless life (for a perfect sinless life, follows from a perfect obedience of perfect moral precepts of the law), shall have life - immortality and salvation. However, this way of justification is not possible to those who have ever transgressed any law at any point. St Paul has shown elsewhere, that it is impossible for man to perfectly observe the law, to live a sinless life - why? Because of our fallen nature, and hence the need for the incarnation, so that through the grace and truth that comes with Christ, we can start to undergo this transformation: John 1:17 “
Quote
For the law was given through Moses; but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”


In verse 6, St Paul contrasts two categories of righteousness, righteousness that one attains through following the law, and righteousness imputed by God as a result of our faith in His Gospel (i.e. Christ, His incarnation, death and Resurrection). He now quotes a slightly modified phrasing of the Deut 30 passage to bring out a more spiritual interpretation in application to The Christ.

He is addressing the Jews of his day who had expectations of a Messiah who would reign the earth, and establish an earthly kingdom, more or less saying “Show us where your Christ is, bring him down from heaven where you say He now reigns, so that we might believe in Him” - . In verse 7, St Paul tells of another stumbling block for the Jews of his day, namely the death of the Lord Christ on the cross, and hence they more or less ask that The Christ be produced from the realm of the dead, so that they may witness the Risen Lord with their own eyes.

In verse 8 he refers to Deut. 30:14 to tell us what the righteousness of God demands - that we neither go up to heaven, nor go down to the abyss (nor go beyond the sea), that we neither need to bring Christ down from heaven, or bring him up risen from the dead, in order to inherit salvation - for the Gospel is at hand, it is evident, it has been witnessed and preached - and that our faith in Christ, that we nourish in our hearts, and openly confess by tongue, is primarily the security of our salvation.

Hence St Paul says elsewhere:

Quote
"know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified," (Gal. 2:16).

and

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law," (Rom. 3:28).

Quote
He gave us the Torah & we believe that that is sufficient.

I don’t see anything in those verses that describes the complete “sufficiency” in the Torah - its simply saying that the law is before men, it is plain, it is simple to understand, and it is given to them, such that they have no excuse not to at least strive to obey it. The Torah is sufficient, if a perfect observance of that Torah was possible - for it is in such a perfect observance that one may find life, as St Paul emphasises upon quoting Lecitivus 18:5 in the context that he does in the above Romans passage.

According to Christian theology, the Torah exposes man’s weakness, as He struggles to live by its perfection.

Quote
"...I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, ‘You shall not covet,’" (Rom. 7:7).

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin," (Rom. 3:20).

"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘Do not covet,’" (Rom. 7:7).

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law," (Rom. 3:20).


The Torah points to the need for the incarnation - I don’t see how it fulfills the Christian understanding of the purpose of incarnation (as outlined above), such as to nullify its necessity. St Paul further states:

Quote
"Cursed is every man who does not abide by everything written in the book of the law to perform them," (Gal. 3:10).

And then:

Quote
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree,’" (Gal. 3:13).

Im not quite sure what the Jewish idea is concerning the nature of man, but according to Christianity when Adam sinned, the human nature of mankind became corrupt, and it is this corrupt fallen nature that mankind inherits. The only way our nature may be restored to the perfect image and likeness of God, is through Him taking upon Himself a human nature, and perfecting it Himself. As we know from the New Testament, the human nature of Christ was just like any one of us, with one exception - Christ was without sin, of perfect righteousness. He thus participated in our humanity, perfecting it, such that we can progress through the grace which came with His incarnation, to this perfect likeness and image.

Quote
The point that Irshad Manji made in her lecture was that Islam wasn't always as profoundly static, conservative & fundamentalist as it is today & that there ample precedents of periods in which Islamic society was decidedly more tolerant of non-Muslims

The only relevant period in understanding the true context and intent of the teachings of Islam, is that inhabited by Muhammad and his immediate followers. Forget what some liberal lesbian has to say about Islam, read the 5 oldest written sources on Islam: Qu’ran, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ibn Ishaq’s Rasool Allah, Al-Tabari’s Ta’rikh, which show explicitly how the sharia was interpreted in the Sunnah of Muhammed himself. Pointing out some "peaceful" period in Islamic history, doesnt prove nor achieve anything in my opinion.

Hope to hear from you soon, and I will be back to reply in a weeks time! Enjoy your week.

Peace!
« Last Edit: February 28, 2005, 09:39:27 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
penelope
If I love the sea and all that is sealike, and love it most when it angrily contradicts me...
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


OC.net


« Reply #59 on: March 01, 2005, 07:24:55 PM »

MBZ
I have a couple of questions about one of your posts a little ways back.  I hope you don't mind...
Quote
Don't get me started about that bastardized version of Kabbalah being imbibed by the likes of Madonna!  :flame: ugh!  Suffice to say that what Madonna is dabbling in has about as much to do with real Kabbalah as a Twinkie   does with real pastry.
I've heard this before, do you know any details about it?  Is what Madonna's involved in some sort of a sect or is it just a few authors writing books?  It seems like a few of the "Hollywood star" types are getting involved.
Quote
Neither does orthodox Judaism deny/disparage a married woman’s sexuality; indeed, it is our view that satisfactory sexual relations are the wife’s right & the husband’s duty to meet that right & not the other way ‘round.
I was a little confused by this.  Why wouldn't it be seen as going both ways?
Quote
Brown should know very well that Jews have never accepted Jesus’s presumed Davidic descent (no offense)
What is the basis for this?  Couldn't the descent be accepted without accepting Jesus as the Messiah or even a prophet?  There were definitely plenty of other descendants of David who were just ordinary people.

Logged

Let me love myself only if I love thee and do all things for thy sake.
MBZ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


« Reply #60 on: March 02, 2005, 09:50:30 AM »

Hi all!

Penelope (glad to make your cyberacquaintance!), you asked about my remarks about Madonna & Kabbalah.

I saw this in the Toronto Star back in late September when Madonna was here:

Quote
Ethereal Girl seeks cheap grace

COLLEEN CARROL CAMPBELL

OPINION

As Madonna soared out of Israel on her private jet last week, she left behind her trademark trail of controversy and chaos. Secular Israelis were intoxicated by her five-day trip to the Holy Land; Orthodox Jews were repulsed. Palestinians protested. Israeli police arrested two of her bodyguards who had assaulted photographers outside her hotel.

By Sunday evening, the entertainer famous for commandeering the spotlight by any means necessary seemed tired of the attention. Reporters noted that her voice trembled as she spoke at a fundraising dinner for the American foundation that promotes her New Age version of Kabbalah (pronounced ka-BA-la in North America and ka-ba-LA in Hebrew), a strain of Jewish mysticism. The singer who now answers to "Esther" said she represents no particular religion and is only "a student of Kabbalah" who wants to "put an end to chaos" in the world.

As she did in Israel, Madonna has spent most of her career adding to the world's chaos, not ending it. From her early days of mocking the Catholic faith, to her later forays into sadomasochism and the onstage kiss she shared with barely legal Britney Spears last year, the 40-something pop diva has built her fortune on scandal and sleaze.

So it's no surprise that the Orthodox Jews at the Western Wall did not roll out their welcome mats when the self-professed Boy Toy pulled up in her SUV one night to join them at prayer. And it's no wonder devout Jews question the sincerity of Madonna's newfound faith, since six years of Kabbalah studies apparently have had little influence on her outrageous public behaviour.

Madonna's purported transition from Material Girl to Ethereal Girl has all of the hallmarks of her previous spiritual kicks, and few signs of authentic conversion. Once again, this sometime-devotee of Catholicism, Anglicanism, Hinduism and now, Judaism, has latched on to a faddish form of a venerable religious tradition.

Her new spiritual home is the Kabbalah Centre of Los Angeles, which peddles a Jewish mysticism unmoored from Judaism's monotheistic roots and biblical morality. It is a trendy spirituality, popularized in the 1960s by an American rabbi and now sold to celebrities whose most obvious sign of religious commitment is the red string they wear around their wrists to ward off the so-called "evil eye."

Like many Americans today, Madonna has turned her back on traditional religion and morality, opting instead to make her own rules. Her meandering spiritual search suggests that her self-referential beliefs have repeatedly failed to satisfy her. But she is unwilling to fully embrace a religious tradition that makes real demands - demands that go beyond wearing a bracelet or making a quasi-pilgrimage overseas.

Madonna wants spirituality without religion and salvation without repentance. She wants cheap grace. And try as she might, she cannot find it.

She cannot find it because authentic spirituality is always rooted in conversion, commitment and community. It always comes with strings attached - not the strings of a bracelet donned for good luck but the strings of objective moral standards that require the believer to conform her life to God rather than the other way around.

The holy women whose names the singer bears knew this. Queen Esther was a devout Israelite who risked her life to do God's will, and plead to the Persian king on behalf of her people. Her faithfulness helped deliver the Jews from genocide, and they celebrate her memory each year during the feast of Purim. Christians also consider Esther an example of great holiness, and the early church fathers saw her as a biblical forerunner to Mary, mother of Jesus, who Christians consider a model of purity and obedience to God's will.

Through the millennia, Esther and Mary have been revered by their respective traditions for doing God's will and following God's rules rather than their own. Their character was shaped not by feel-good spiritual fads but by revelation and religious tradition. And the faithful say that their reward was peace - a peace that seems to have bypassed their famous namesake.

Perhaps Madonna realized that something had eluded her when her trip to Israel concluded on the same notes of chaos and controversy that follow her everywhere. Perhaps someday, after so many years spent on the fringes of Judeo-Christian tradition, this aging star will experience the joy of embracing full-fledged religious commitment and worshipping someone greater than herself - a joy that Queen Esther and the true Madonna probably knew well.
_____

Colleen Carrol Campbell, a fellow at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, is author of The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy.

Religion News Service

Link: http://tinyurl.com/58xo7

As an orthodox Jew, I endorse Ms. Campbell's article 100%!

I'll add the following.

As an orthodox Jew, I know next-to-nothing about Kabbalah & as committed as I am to orthodox Judaism, I feel no need whatsoever to delve into Kabbalah. In terms of my faith, I am an unlettered bumpkin & have nowhere near the requisite levels of learning & holiness to delve into Kabbalah.

Kabbalah (i.e. esoteric Jewish mysticism) is, quite properly, the province of very few Jews (only). Only the most pious, learned & saintly need delve into kabbalah in any depth. (As far as that chain of so-called "Kabbalah Centers", that Madonna associates with, is concerned, see http://tinyurl.com/2smgx, http://tinyurl.com/65mn8, and http://tinyurl.com/5s6m3.)

http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm is a very good intoductory read on this subject. I'll cite one sentence:

Quote
Today, many well-known celebrities have popularized a new age pop-psychology distortion of kabbalah (I have heard it derisively referred to as "crap-balah") that has more in common with the writings of Deepak Chopra than with any authentic Jewish source.

Kabbalah is a very holy & precious concept to we Jews; we treasure it and we guard it very closely. I once went to lecture here in Jerusalem by a noted Hasidic rabbi who said that he always found it amusing that Jews and non-Jews who had no knowledge whatsoever of the most basic Jewish concepts, want to study Kabbalah. He said that it's like someone who hasn't even studied basic anatomy immediately delving into advanced neurosurgery.

I posted & you asked:

Quote
Quote
Neither does orthodox Judaism deny/disparage a married woman’s sexuality; indeed, it is our view that satisfactory sexual relations are the wife’s right & the husband’s duty to meet that right & not the other way ‘round.

I was a little confused by this. Why wouldn't it be seen as going both ways?

Our Sages cite Exodus 21:10
Quote
If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish...
in teaching that, "satisfactory sexual relations are the wife’s right & the husband’s duty to meet that right." http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm is a pretty good read. I'll cite one short excerpt:

Quote
Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce...A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.

Although sex is the woman's right, she does not have absolute discretion to withhold it from her husband. A woman may not withhold sex from her husband as a form of punishment, and if she does, the husband may divorce her without paying the substantial divorce settlement provided for in the ketubah.

I posted & you asked:

Quote
Quote
Brown should know very well that Jews have never accepted Jesus’s presumed Davidic descent (no offense)

What is the basis for this? Couldn't the descent be accepted without accepting Jesus as the Messiah or even a prophet? There were definitely plenty of other descendants of David who were just ordinary people.

Well, aside from the fact that David's line survived in Babylonia until well into Islamic times, as I mentioned, we simply do not take the Gospels' account of Jesus's Davidic descent at face value. We have no record/tradition of David's line being traced with certainty except the line in Babylonia. Also, I have always wondered, if God Himself was Jesus's father & if Mary was impregnated by the Holy Sprit & received no DNA from Joseph, how can Jesus be said to be of Davidic descent, assuming the line to Joseph is accurate? Any descent through Mary is irrelevabt since a Jew's tribal affiliation in general & the kingship in particular (along with priestly & Levitical status) are passed in the male line only.

EkhristosAnesti, good luck on your week in a monastery. Good for you! I hope that you get out of it even more than you expect to. (Please tell me about it when you come back online!)

You posted:

Quote
You can only come to this conclusion if you presuppose that God is a unipersonal “solidarity-within-unity” type of being.

Bingo! Well, now that you mention it, I guess that this is exactly how we comprehend Him.

Look at Exodus 20:3 & the strange syntax therein.

Quote
You will have no other gods before Me.

In the (original!) Hebrew, this is:

Lo yihyeh lekha elokim aherim al panai.

What's strange about this is that the verb yihyeh ("will have") is singular while the subject elokim ("gods") is plural. Grammatically, both verb and subject should be both either singular or plural, but this is not the case here. This is no mere semantics. We believe that every word and every letter of the Torah are full of meaning & are there to teach us something. Although this verb-and-subject-don't-jibe phenomenon recurs in the scripture, our Sages have endeavored to learn why it is used here. The phrase goes from the singular to the plural. In my Jewish way of thinking, I cannot help but think that this is a refutation of the Christian concept of a triune God, i.e. that in this verse, which links the singular & the many, the Torah is telling us that we cannot claim that He who is singular & utterly unique is, in fact, many. The reflexive connotation of the seemingly redundant al panai, which literally means "in/on my face" but is in fact an expression meaning "in my place/in my stead," only adds to this. In effect, God is using Exodus 20:3 to tell us (inter alia): Do not claim that I, the One, am I, the Many.

Just some (kosher, of course) food for thought!

Quote
...the New Testament reveals to us certain occasions in which an angel of the Lord (here we refer to an actual created angel, rather than a manifestation of God)...

I would say that we see all references to angels in the Tanakh as "actual created angels." I couldn't have said it better meself!

Quote
As I see it, the verse: “'Who shall...bring it unto us..." is simply speaking about the fact that the law is so evident that none can pretend ignorance of it - it is not distant nor out of reach, it is given to man to follow, it is easily accessible, and so no one has any excuse not to strive to live by it. We know however, that no matter how hard one strives, we all ultimately fall short...The Torah is sufficient, if a perfect observance of that Torah was possible...

I see the verse as teaching that the recipe (as it were) for realizing one's spiritual potential (I am deliberately not using the word "salvation" here; "salvation" is a Christian frame-of-reference, not a Jewish one) is in the Torah & not in a divine or semi-divine figure who will bring it to us from Heaven, even embodied in his person.  Of course, "no matter how hard one strives, we all ultimately fall short," but the important thing is the effort, the striving (like in that parable from The Chosen I mentioned in my previous post). As one of our Sages says, "You are not called upon to complete the work but neither are you free to desist from it."

I am aware of Paul's statements in Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:28. I suppose that thhey are the core of the theological divergence/difference between our respective faiths.

Quote
Im not quite sure what the Jewish idea is concerning the nature of man...

See http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm & http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/faq/faq123.html.

Howzat?

Be well & be in touch!

MBZ
Logged

"Peace, peace to him that is far off and to him that is near." [Isaiah 57:19]

"Gather your wits and hold on fast..." [The Who]

"Lose your dreams and you could lose your mind." [The Rolling Stones]

http://tinyurl.com/bvskq

[url=htt
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #61 on: March 02, 2005, 10:21:36 AM »

MBZ,

    It has been pleasure reading your posts.  I have a couple of questions for you.

    Let me preface what I say by way of background.  I work in an office where I am the only lawyer that is not Jewish.  A couple of my co-workers or Orthodox Jewish, the rest Conserative, although there might be an argument that a few "Conservative" guys lean more "reform" than anything else.

     Well, every Friday, before Shabbas, we have (usually) a couple of visitors who are Lubavitcher Jews.  They generally come in, hand out fliers and ask any of the Jewish lawyers if the want to put on Tefillin and say prayers.  I enjoy conversation with one of the gentlemen in particular as I'm always inquisitive as to customs in Judaism.  So here are the questions...

     I have been told that many in the Lubavitcher community reveared Rabbi Schneerson as the Messiah.  Have you heard anything about that and if so, any thoughts you might have?

     Second, why is it, that the Lubavitcher sect is very different in their approach to finding Jews and trying to get them to pray and be good Jews as opposed to to other relgious Jewish groups?  Often during a regular work week, the Lubavitcher's have a Moshiach Mobile (mobile home) parked on Broadway and they try to bring in "secular" Jews for prayer.   Just curious.

     Lastly, I wanted to get your thoughts about the followers of Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum?  I had an opportunity to talk to a follower and was quite astonished at the things he was saying.  Again, just curious.

Thanks and take care.
Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
Marjorie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #62 on: March 02, 2005, 10:22:56 AM »

In reference to the Davidic line, I had that question too when I first read the prologue of the gospel to St. Matthew. The answer is that St. Luke's genealogy is generally thought of to be Mary's genealogy-- so both lines come from David (St. John Chrysostom discusses this at length in his homilies on the gospel.) The reason that St. Joseph's genealogy is given is to establish that Jesus is heir to him *by adoption* according to the Jewish law of the time. He needed Joseph's genealogy because it comes from Solomon-- through legal right, but not by actual flesh and blood, because of the curse of Jeconiah, and he needed Mary's genealogy (through Nathan) in order for David's seed to bring forth the messiah.

Marjorie
Logged

"The land of God is wide and large enough to provide room for everyone if we are humans. If we act like brutes, then there will not be enough room even if there are only four of us."

- His Holiness Patriarch +PAVLE of Serbia
MBZ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2005, 08:58:25 AM »

Hi all!

SouthSerb99, you posted:

Quote
It has been pleasure reading your posts.

Thank you!

Quote
I work in an office where I am the only lawyer...

A...a...lawyer??!! Nooo-ooooooooooo!!! Wink I'm sorry; I couldn't help myself!

Quote
I have been told that many in the Lubavitcher community reveared Rabbi Schneerson as the Messiah. Have you heard anything about that and if so, any thoughts you might have?

'Scuse me while I go swallow a few Extra-Strength Excedrin Plus for the headache I'm about to have.

Dum-de-dum...GULP...SWALLOW

OK. I'm back. Not only have i heard about it but it is hardly possible to be an orthodox Jew and to not hear about it. The whole thing is very controversial especially here in Israel.

Rabbi Schneerson passed away 11 years ago. He was quite the scholar & charismatic leader. This January 2002 Canadian Jewish News article (http://www.cjnews.com/pastissues/02/jan17-02/features/feature3.htm) & this Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) article (http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=14191&intcategoryid=5) from this past June are a pretty good place to start. They touch on both the controversy surrounding the Messianic claims of some Lubavitch Hasidim & the Rebbe's work in Jewish outreach. This New York Jewish Week op-ed piece http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editletcontent.php3?artid=3518 from last June is by the same Rabbi Berger referred to in the aforementioned Canadian Jewish News article. This http://www.icjs.org/info/rebbe.html is a review by a rabbi affiliated with the Institute of Christian and Jewish Studies of Rabbi Berger's book (referred to in the Canadian Jewish News article) The Rebbe, The Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference.

Now that you've read all that ( Smiley ), I'll throw in my $0.02.

Personally, as n orthodox Jew, I cannot possibly see how the late Rabbi Schneerson coulf have been the Messiah. He simply did not meet any of the criteria set down by our very great medieval Sage Maimonedes. Maimonedes authoritatively summarized longstanding Jewish beliefs very succinctly. He writes:

Quote
"In the future, the King Messiah will stand up and restore the Davidic monarchy...build the Temple, gather the dispersed of Israel, and restore all the laws as they were in former times: offerings, sabbatical and jubilee years as they are commanded in the Torah. Anyone who does not believe in him or who does not await his coming is a heretic, not only against the other prophets, but against the Torah and Moses Our Teacher...Do not entertain the notion that King Messiah will have to do signs and wonders, make new things in the world or raise the dead...This is not so...If a king arises from the House of David, learned in the Torah and engaged in [its] precepts like David his father, both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, enjoins all Israel to follow it and hold fast to it, and fights God's wars, he may be presumed to be the Messiah. If he succeeds in building the Temple on its place and gathering the dispersed of Israel, he is certainly the Messiah, and he will repair the entire world so that it worships God together...If he does not succeed, or is killed, then know that he is not the one promised in the Torah...Do not entertain the notion that in the days of the Messiah, anything will be canceled from its way in the world or there will be new works of creation, but the world will continue as it always has...Our Sages said that the only difference between the current world and the days of the Messiah will be service to the kingship of Heaven...There are those among our Sages who say that Elijah will herald the coming of the Messiah...One must not [try to] calculate when this will take place; our Sages say: 'Blast the bones of those who so calculate;' they should wait and believe."

The late (if you say the Hebrew equivalent of "the late..." in reference to Rabbi Schneerson at a Lubavitch gathering, you'll get booed) Rabbi Schneerson wasn't even remotely close. However, I recall what J.R.R. Tolkien once wrote about "the willing suspension of disbelief" and thus, I am not all surprised that some, more fervent Lubavitch hasidim (to use the plural) believe that owers believe that a) Rabbi Schneerson is not really dead (this reminds me of the Shiite Islamic belief about the hidden state of the 12th Imam) or that if he is , b) that he will return from the dead to be the Messiah. Having read all the articles I posted ( Smiley ), you'll see that the numbers/influence of just how many Lubavitch hasidim hold to these beliefs is a matter of bitter controversy. How controversial are these beliefs? I once had an orthodox Sephardi Jew tell me to my face that some Lubavitch hasidim here in Israel are engaged in idol-worship. There's joke in orthodox circles that Lubavitch is the religion closest to Judaism. The Lubavitch movement (or "Habad" as it is also known) has done/does so much good work in outreach, in running soup kitchens, schools & all kinds of charities. I think that it's sad that (some of) his followers will not let this admittedly great man rest in well-deserved peace.

There is a kabbalistic notion that in every generation there is latent, potential Messiah who will prove himself as the Messiah if that generation merits it. Whether Rabbi Schneerson may have had that status is not for me, or anyone else, to say.

Quote
Second, why is it, that the Lubavitcher sect is very different in their approach to finding Jews and trying to get them to pray and be good Jews as opposed to to other relgious Jewish groups? Often during a regular work week, the Lubavitcher's have a Moshiach Mobile (mobile home) parked on Broadway and they try to bring in "secular" Jews for prayer. Just curious.

Lubavitch is hardly the be-all and end-all of such Jewish outreach as you have described. Maybe they're more adept at it and have a greater flair for publicity but very many orthodox groups/synagogues/rabbis are engaged in such holy work.

Quote
Lastly, I wanted to get your thoughts about the followers of Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum? I had an opportunity to talk to a follower and was quite astonished at the things he was saying. Again, just curious.

Ah, the Satmar Hasidim. They espouse an anti-Zionism (see "Anti-Zionism Among Jews" at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/Anti-Zionism.html and the biography of him at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/teitelbaum.html) that is not to my liking (to say the least).

Howzat?

Be well & be in touch!

MBZ
Logged

"Peace, peace to him that is far off and to him that is near." [Isaiah 57:19]

"Gather your wits and hold on fast..." [The Who]

"Lose your dreams and you could lose your mind." [The Rolling Stones]

http://tinyurl.com/bvskq

[url=htt
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #64 on: March 03, 2005, 09:29:33 AM »

A...a...lawyer??!!  Nooo-ooooooooooo!!!   Wink  I'm sorry; I couldn't help myself!

Yes, a lawyer and my Yiddish is impeccable  Wink

Thanks for the great response.  Very informative.  I met the Satmar Hasid one say as I walking through Manhattan and just happened to be passing the Israeli Embassy.  To my surprise, I saw some Arabs protesting in front of the embassy and they were joined with a few hundred Satmars.  I was baffled to say the least.

I spoke to one of the Orthodox Jewish gentlemen in my office about the Satmars and he didn't have too many kind things to say.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2005, 09:29:48 AM by SouthSerb99 » Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
MBZ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


« Reply #65 on: March 03, 2005, 10:16:44 AM »

Hi SouthSerb99!

You posted:

Quote
Yes, a lawyer and my Yiddish is impeccable Wink

Did you ever see the 1996 movie City Hall with Al Pacino as a Greek American Mayor of New York City & John Cusack as his Louisiana-born Catholic assistant. One of the charming things about the movie (aside from the fact that it was very good) was Cusack's ongoing education in colloquial New York Yiddish, which he learned from his Greek American boss, the Irish American woman attorney he was trying to hit on & a Jewish friend. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115907/quotes.

Quote
Thanks for the great response.

You're welcome.

Quote
Very informative.

Thank you.

Quote
I spoke to one of the Orthodox Jewish gentlemen in my office about the Satmars and he didn't have too many kind things to say.

1) I'm not surprised.

2) I was trying to be as charitable, & as understated, as I could. Wink

Something else that we orthodox Jews and orthodox Christians have in common is that we survived Communism. Just as Orthodox Christianity had, to some extent, go underground in order to survive the dark years, so too did orthodox Judaism. Lubavitch was instrumental in, for example, smuggling matzah for Passover into the Communist countries, keeping secret ritual baths open, holding all sorts of lifecycle ceremonies out of view, etc. I heard a story once that a Lubavitch rabbi was arrested by the NKVD in the late 1920's. He had been teaching religious studies to Jewish children somewhere in the USSR. An NKVD officer ordered the rabbi to stop doing this. The rabbi politely refused. The officer thereupon took out his pistol, loaded it, and placed it on the table in front of him & told the Rabbi that unless he agreed to stop teaching that he, the officer, would kill him right then & there. The Rabbi replied: "For you Communists, this world is all there is. Thus, the prospect of being made to abruptly leave it terrifies you and thus you attribute such great importance to the instruments by which this might be accomplished [the Rabbi gestured toward the pistol]. But we are not like you. For us, this world is not all there is. We believe that there is a world-to-come and life everlasting. Therefore, I do not fear your gun. I will not agree to do as you ask." The Rabbi must have rattled the NKVD man's cage a bit because he holstered his pistol & told the Rabbi to get lost.

Look at Exodus. As Moses and Aaron were negotiating with Pharoah prior to the plague of locusts, Pharoah asks who would go to serve God. When Moses replies that everybody will go (animals too!), Pharoah angrily dismisses them and says that only the adults (men only) may go (10:11). Pharoah pointedly refuses to let the children go to serve God (10:10). Very recently, in our times, we have seen that the anti-religion Communist goverrnments in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union didn't care so much about adults practicing their respective faiths (Judaism, Christianity, whatever) but were prepared to use very strong repressive measures to prevent the religious instruction of children. Like Pharoah before them, they knew that if faith in God is confined to adults only, it will, very quickly, wither and die. The key to the survival of any faith is the transmission of that faith to children who will teach it to their children who will teach it to their children, etc. The Communists, like Pharoah, understood this very well and, thus, were prepared to use terrible repression to sever this chain of tradition & prevent belief in God from being instilled in the younger generations. Like Pharoah before them, the Communists failed miserably (of course!) and we see that religion is flourishing all over eastern Europe and the countries of the former USSR as people flock to the same synagogues & churches (mainly orthodox) that the Communists had hoped to turn into old-age homes.

Be well!

MBZ
« Last Edit: March 03, 2005, 10:19:15 AM by MBZ » Logged

"Peace, peace to him that is far off and to him that is near." [Isaiah 57:19]

"Gather your wits and hold on fast..." [The Who]

"Lose your dreams and you could lose your mind." [The Rolling Stones]

http://tinyurl.com/bvskq

[url=htt
Marjorie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #66 on: March 03, 2005, 02:18:22 PM »

MBZ,

In regards to Communism, one of my favorite writers is Elie Wiesel and I remember that when I read The Testament (in, like, 7th grade) it was my first realization that Communism in Russia had been bad for the Jews (I was a kind of naive socialist-ish at the time.) Indeed both the Orthodox and the Jews have suffered greatly in this century, from Communism and otherwise.

Marjorie
Logged

"The land of God is wide and large enough to provide room for everyone if we are humans. If we act like brutes, then there will not be enough room even if there are only four of us."

- His Holiness Patriarch +PAVLE of Serbia
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #67 on: March 03, 2005, 02:57:34 PM »

one of my favorite writers is Elie Wiesel

Hi Marjorie,

     I use to really love reading Wiesel aswell, however, after reading many of his atricles positions vis a vis Serbians and the recent problems in the former Yugoslavia, I have been turned off by his works.  In fact, his willingness to just throw around words like "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" (in the context of Serbs) was IMHO a great disservice to all that perished at the hands of the Nazi's in WWII.

    I think it is tragic that Mr. Wiesel forgot that Serbia was one of the few "safe" areas for almost all people during WWII (including Jews, Roma, Croat communists etc...). 

    I know I'm off topic...but sometimes I just can't help myself. Wink
Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
Marjorie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #68 on: March 03, 2005, 05:30:05 PM »

I did not know that, and, as you can probably tell from my signature, have a great respect for Serbian Orthodoxy. I hadn't read any of his words on Serbia-- I will stick with his novels (and autobiographical accounts.)

Marjorie
Logged

"The land of God is wide and large enough to provide room for everyone if we are humans. If we act like brutes, then there will not be enough room even if there are only four of us."

- His Holiness Patriarch +PAVLE of Serbia
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #69 on: March 04, 2005, 09:22:37 AM »

MBZ,

So, not only did i end up having to drive back home after 5 hours already on the road, now im stuck at my Dad's work doing database projects. Ive been flat out, and its very late (12:18 am now), but i figure this is my best chance to get my response in, before uni starts in just over a few days. It will be time to farewell the forums - im involved in a few, and theyre just way too addictive for my good!

Continuing on with the discussion, and again I appreciate your input very much:

Quote
Quote by me:
You can only come to this conclusion if you presuppose that God is a unipersonal “solidarity-within-unity” type of being.

Bingo!


Well, any argument that presupposes the conclusion you’re trying to prove is certainly not sound, don’t you think?

We need to look at the facts objectively, and use what the scriptures make explicit, as our premises. With regards to the particular passage in question we have the following facts:

1) The Angel is distinct from the Lord (the distinction is necessarily in terms of identity/name/persona alone - further data is required to speak of the nature of their being/essence).
2) The Angel is addressed with the divine name, and given divine worship
3) The ground the angel was standing on, was considered holy.
4) The Angel possesses the name of YHWH in Him.
5) The Angel possesses the divine prerogative to forgive sins.
6) The Angel has the power to destroy Israel’s enemies.

Therefore, The Angel is divine, yet distinct from the Lord.

Plausible conclusions:

a) The Angel is a second God.
b) The Angel is a personal hypostasis of God’s being - an extension of His Will and self-manifestation.

7) The scriptures testify that God is One.

Therefore - b)

Quote
Look at Exodus 20:3 & the strange syntax therein.

Okay, I’m not going to pretend to be a Hebrew scholar here, and I’m still less than a week premature of even properly labeling myself a student of the Hebrew language (I will be taking my first class in a 2 year study of classical Hebrew once university resumes, in just over a few days) But I’d like to comment according to the capacity that I feel I can, for I have done my own bit of personal research into the issue - and I believe there’s other factors exclusive to those concerning linguistics, that need to be taken into consideration regarding the true intent of this verse.

Quote
In the (original!) Hebrew, this is:

Lo yihyeh lekha elokim aherim al panai.

What's strange about this is that the verb yihyeh ("will have") is singular while the subject elokim ("gods") is plural.


As I see it, your observation only goes to prove the Trinitarian position! God in addressing the nationS (plural), uses the singular verb yihveh (which is actually modifying the nations He is addressing, and not His own being), -  a prime example of pluarilty within unity as I see it.

Lets consider some other semantic issues. As I understand it, there are quite a few Hebrew words which can be translated into “one”, a few of them being: ishah;  ish; nephesh, yachid, and echad. As I know it, the first three are never applied to God, but rather creation; the first applied to man; the second to woman; and the third to the soul. The word yachid, denotes absolute solitary oneness - its general meaning, whereas in contrast the word echad is often employed in a context of compound unities. Since you believe: 
Quote
that every word and every letter of the Torah are full of meaning & are there to teach us something
- then you must question, why God would employ the word Echad (a word often used to describe pluralities within unities) in reference to Himself, rather than the word Yachid (a word always used to describe absolute solitary oneness), if He truly wanted to condemn the Christian Trinity? Especially since the verses establishing that God are one, are in direct reference to His being, in contrast to Exodus 20:3 which has nothing to do with the nature of His being?

Here are a couple precedents for the usage of echad to denote a compound unity: a) Gen. 2:24: Here, Adam and Eve (2 distinct persons) become one (echad) flesh. b) Ezra 2:64: The "congregation" of  42, 360 is described as "one" (echad).

Furthermore, we see that plural nouns (such as Elohim, Adonai, Creators, judges) as well as singular nouns (such as El, Creator, judge), plus plural pronouns (such as We, Our, Us) as well as singular pronouns (such as I, me, myself) are used in reference to God. Even the verbs and adjectives employed in relation to God, are used in both their singular and plural forms numerously.

Quote
the Torah is telling us that we cannot claim that He who is singular & utterly unique is, in fact, many.

Before I go on to discuss what I believe the verse is plainly saying in light of the above basic linguistic observation, I would like to make a few side comments.

First of all, lets assume for arguments sake, that God is telling the nations “Do not say that I am many” - Again, many with regards to what? As a Jew, you would affirm that God has a plurality of attributes correct? Now can you give me one objective reason to turn around and say “Well God wasn’t speaking of His attributes, He was speaking concerning His personhood.”?

We both know, that there is absolutely no basis for this, and hence your argument is inconsistent and bias towards your very presuppositions - a presupposition which in itself is very intellectually presumptuous to say the least (no disrespect intended!). Furthermore, it is interesting that you employ the word “unique.” to qualify the very nature of God's existence. As Christians, we affirm likewise, that God is unique, and that means in every aspect - Being, attributes, personhood, etc. etc.

Lets briefly analyze the concept of being and personhood, and do a comparison between our respective ideologies of God’s personhood and being, and the being and personhood of man.

We’ll start with being. Christians affirm that God is one in reference to His existence/being, however despite the fact each individual human, can also be said to be one being/existence, Orthodoxy maintains that the nature of God's existence transcends that of creation, such that:

Quote
“If we say He exists, we must qualify this immediately by adding that He is not one existent object amongst many, that in His case the word ‘exist’ bears a unique significance.” (Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way, page 14)

With regards to personhood, it is clear that each human being is one person. The reason for this, is quite simple. A person by definition, is simply a continuously existent substantial principle of the intellectual mind. Of all the aspects of the human intellectual mind: knowledge, ego, self-consciousness etc. It is the ego alone, the “self” which qualifies as our person. Why? Very simply because, as finite human beingsGǪour knowledge is not a continuously substantial principle of our beings (i.e. we are not born with a set amount of knowledge), rather it is finitely progressing, from the day we are born, to the day we go to school, to the day we graduate from university etc etc and contingent upon certain external factors (what books you read, what people you speak to etc etc). Self-consciousness, also fails this criteria, for this is something that comes and goes.

So at this stage, we see that man is one person as the very result of his finite nature. To restrict God to one person, is to deny His transcendence and uniqueness, as the result of comparing His personhood to that of a man; a personhood which is restricted as such, purely because of the finite nature of man.

The Word, the encapsulation of God’s infinite divine knowledge/reason is a persona of His own being - for God possesses His knowledge since all eternity, and it is eternally infinite.

Quote
In effect, God is using Exodus 20:3 to tell us (inter alia): Do not claim that I, the One, am I, the Many.

I see this as quite a creative conclusion to come to, unfortuantely i dont believe it is exegetically sound. Besides the fact that the singular verb is clearly modifying what the behaviour of the nations should be (rather than the being of God - and hence a great example of plurality within unity), we must consider the historical context.

The first commandment clearly concerns the fact that YHWH alone is to be the object of or our worship. The neighboring cultures, such as the Egyptians, were polytheists, believing in many Gods to the exclusion of the God of Israel. There was absolutely NO one who had any conception of One God with multiple persona’s, this kind of thinking simply did not exist, so to argue that God is commanding people not to ascribe more than one persona to Him, although clearly not the intended implication nonetheless, simply does not fit in its historical context - it wouldn’t make sense at all.

I think the verse speaks plainly, the Lord YHWH is the One exclusive God, and the command is directed to the polytheists of that day, telling them to reject their many gods which they have taken besides/to-the-exclusion-of/in-the-presence-of (al-panai - an expression which can also be said to intimidate the fact that to acknowledge any other gods besides Him is something very provoking to him; a sin that kind of dares Him to His very face, such that he cannot overlook or connive - See Ps. 21:2, 44:20) YHWH - the One and only God of Israel.

Quote
I would say that we see all references to angels in the Tanakh as "actual created angels."

Well as you mentioned before - the word for angel, simply means messenger/agent; so I can see no real objective reason, why every one of these "messengers" must be an “actual created angel” - I think we will just have to agree to disagree I think. The very reason why I concluded that the Angel of the book of Revelations is an “actual created angel” is that it refused to receive divine worshipGǪin contrast to the “Angel” of the book of judges, which openly received the title “my Lord” and the divine worship that followed, without objection, and even went further, commanding Joshua to take off his shoes in the place which the angel was present.

Quote
I see the verse as teaching that the recipe (as it were) for realizing one's spiritual potential (I am deliberately not using the word "salvation" here; "salvation" is a Christian frame-of-reference, not a Jewish one) is in the Torah & not in a divine or semi-divine figure who will bring it to us from Heaven, even embodied in his person.


Where are you reading “spiritual potential” in the verses in question? That’s what im trying to understand. The object of the passage is the Law, not Spiritual completion i.e. when the verse says “who will bring..it to us” - the object - “it” - is the TorahGǪthe implication being: “You already have the Torah in your possession, no one needs to go into the heavens to bring it down to you, nor does anyone need to go beyond the seaGǪits right here there front of your noses, what excuse do you have not to follow it?”

Even the ancient Targums agree with this plain interpretation. The Jerusalem Targum paraphrases this particular passage: Jerusalem Targum paraphrases it saying:

Quote
``the law is not in heaven that it should be said, oh that we had one of us, as Moses the prophet, who could go up to heaven and bring it to us! nor is it beyond the great sea, that it should be said, oh that we had one of us, as Jonah the prophet, "who could descend into the depths of the great sea", and bring it to us;''


The Talmud, putting an interesting twist to it states:

Quote
"says Abdimo bar Chama bar Dousa, what is the meaning of that Scripture, "neither is it in heaven, nor is it beyond the sea?" it is not in heaven, for if it was in heaven you must needs go up after it, and if it was beyond the sea, you must needs go over after it; Rabba says, not in heaven is it, you will not find it in him that exalts his knowledge in himself as the heavens, nor will you find it in him that enlarges his knowledge in himself, as the sea; R. Jochanan says, not in heaven is it, you will not find it in those that are of a haughty spirit, nor beyond the sea is it, you will not find it among traders abroad, or merchants.''

As St Paul pointed out in the context in which he quoted these verses in Romans 10, “life” is found in the Torah, only with regards to those who perfectly observe it.

Upon consulting the targums, we find that this was understood as a reference to eternal life; Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel paraphrase the words, "he shall live in them", to "in eternal life". Likewise Jarchi explains it as, "he shall live in the world to come"; which agrees with the note of Rabbi Aben Ezra, who interprets it of life in both worlds; saying that if a man understands the secret of them, he shall live for ever, and shall never die.

Quote
Of course, "no matter how hard one strives, we all ultimately fall short,"

Hence the necessity that God perfect our humanity, and renew our nature, such that we can achieve a certain state of spiritual perfection where we don’t fall short. It is through such spiritual perfection that the Torah testifies that one may have life (Lev. 18:5).

For on the one hand, both the Old and New Testament acknowledge that man is sinful by nature, and are transgressors of the law:

Ecclesiastes 7:20:

Quote
"There is not a righteous man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not"


1 Kings 8:46:

Quote
“If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near”

Romans 3:23:

Quote
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”


Yet on the other hand, they command us to be perfect and holy as God.

Leviticus 11:44-45:

Quote
I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. 45 I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.


Leviticus 19:2:

Quote
2 "Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: 'Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.


Leviticus 20:7

Quote
" 'Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God. 8 Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD , who makes you holy.

1 Peter 1:15

Quote
15But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.


Matthew 5:48

Quote
”Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Quote
but the important thing is the effort, the striving (like in that parable from The Chosen I mentioned in my previous post).  As one of our Sages says, "You are not called upon to complete the work but neither are you free to desist from it."

That’s where we disagree, for the scriptures testify that we ARE called upon to complete the work, and we can indeed complete the work, yet this is impossible without the incarnation and atoning sacrafice of the Lord. Striving is an “important thing” as you said - and I quoted you quite a few New Testament scriptures that attest to this - but it alone is not sufficient. Allow me to modify this parable of yours in a Christian context.

A king had a servant whom he loved very much, even as a son (I employ the term servant, only to distinguish him from the unique Son). But as the servant grew up, he & his father (for he addresses his King as such, according to the intimate and affectionate relationship they shared) gradually grew apart until at last they were almost totally estranged.  The servant moved far away, becoming acquainted with his Father’s enemy, who offered him many gifts and bribes, to stay and serve and work for him instead.  But the king still loved his servant very much, though his servant had fallen in love with, and started to serve the King’s enemy, and, more than anything else in the world, wanted him to return to him, for he had so much more to offer.  So he sent a message to this effect to his servant, bidding him to return.  The servant, deep down in his heart wanted to, but the bridge he crossed to get to the Father’s enemy had collapsed, and the King’s enemy had set up a barrier to prevent the servant from going back.

So he sent a message back to his father & said, "I cannot come back to you; the barrier is too strong, and the separation between the two cliffs too vast for me to overcome.  The king, loving father that he was, sensed what was in his servant's heart and sent another message to his servant & said, "Then I will send you my only Son, he will bridge the gap, and break down the barrier for you, even if the enemy conspires against him, and leads him to shame, suffering and death. Once His mission is accomplished, you can make your way home my child, and I’ll be waiting to receive you with open arms." 

The bridge was established by the incarnation of the Lord's Word; the barrier broken down by His sacrafice. Works, repentence, sacraments, can now clearly help us make that journey back to the Father through His Grace and the work of His Holy Spirit.

Quote
I am aware of Paul's statements in Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:28. I suppose that thhey are the core of the theological divergence/difference between our respective faiths.

Indeed, however, I would still conclude that the whole idea that works alone, do not and cannot justify us in the sight of God or lead us to eternal life, to be a principle evident in the Hebrew scriptures.

Again, Leviticus 18:5 comes into play. Those who keep the Law without transgressing it, have life.

Yet, we find that the scriptures teach that it becomes impossible for man, even to obey “easy laws” because of the weakness, corruption and sinfulness of our human nature. If we go to Deuteronomy 31:14-22, we find that Moses prophecied that Israel would fail to do what God commanded and would, therefore, come under God's judgment. Moses is then told to write down his song as a testimony against them. cf. Deuteronomy 32.

It is interesting that at the conclusion of the Son of Moses, God says the following:

     43")Rejoice, O nations, with His people;
        For He will avenge the blood of His servants,
        And will render vengeance on His adversaries,
        And will ATONE for His land and His people."

God will atone for both the people and the land after all the judgments of 31 come upon them.

Joshua basically says the same thing, that Israel is incapable of pleasing God. If we go to Joshua 24:14-28. Joshua plainly tells them that they are not able to serve God because he is Holy. When they still insist they can, he then says that they have testified AGAINST themselves. Clearly, these passages affirm what Paul said, that by the doing of the Law no one can be justified because no one is able to perfectly obey them, in perfect holiness, just as God is holy.

A further indication of their incapability can be seen from the sacrificial system and priesthood which God established. If man is capable of doing what pleases God just by “striving to do the best one can, and repentance”, then there would be no need for atonement or for a priest to mediate on behalf of the people. What this all means is that the Law was given to show Israel why they can't please God and why they need a Savior, a Mediator to do for them what they cannot do for themselves. This, again, is basically what the NT says. Cf. Galatians 3:19-25; Hebrews 8:5-6; Romans 3:28; 10:1-10.

With regards to the Jews for Judaism article:

Quote

The Augustinian conception of original sin that it presents, is not one accepted by Orthodoxy.

Let me quote you from Bishop Kallistos Ware’s book, “The Orthodox way”, on page 62 he says:

Quote
“For the Orthodox tradition then, Adam’s original sinaffects the human race in it entirety, and it has consequences on both the physical and moral level: it not only results in sickness and physical death, but in moral weakness and paralysis. But does it also imply inherited guilt? Here Orthodoxy is more guarded. Original sin is not to be interpreted in juridicial or quasi-biological terms, as if it were some physical “taint” of guilt, transmitted through sexual intercourseGǪ.The doctrine of original sin means rather that we are born into an environment where it easy to do evil and hard to do good; easy to hurt others, and hard to heal their wounds; easy to arouse men’s suspicions, and hard to win their trust.”

Hence, Psalm 51:5 reads: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.”

The above mentioned sacrificial system indeed attests to the sinfulness of man. The Sin offering reminds us that due to the corruption of our human nature,  a person can even sin without being aware of it i.e.  "sins unintentionally" (Leviticus 4:13, 22,27).

Okay, one more post to go, then its time to lie down...

Peace!


Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
MBZ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


« Reply #70 on: March 09, 2005, 08:37:47 AM »

Hi all!

Ahhh...the rennovations are 90% over & our bathroom is looking very nice, thank you.

I'll harp on two related points. The idea that any individual Jew can literally fulfill all 613 precepts is patently absurd, always has been and is foreign to traditional, normative Judaism & always has been. We do not believe that God demands the impossible from us. I cite the following excerpt from http://www.beingjewish.com/mitzvos/allcomm.html:

Quote
Can a Person Fulfill all the Torah?

Be careful, it's a trick question.

Are you a farmer? No? Then you are not required to fulfill the commandments relevant to farmers. You are not likely to create hybrids of two plant-bearing fruits, nor are you likely to cross-breed animals, so the Torah's Commandments about these matters do not apply to you. You have not transgressed the Torah by not being a farmer.

Are you a Cohen (a member of the Priestly family of the Tribe of Levi)? No? Then a great many other Commandments do not apply to you. True, you can't fulfill them, but that's not a sin. You can't fulfill those, because you are not allowed to!

Are you a judge? No? Then you can't fulfill another whole set of Commandments that pertain to judges in Jewish Courts. But that is not a sin; you simply cannot fulfill them.

There are nevertheless a few ways in which you can share in the fulfillment of those Commandments. For one thing, whenever we perform a Commandment, we are supposed to dedicate its fulfilment to everyone in Klal Yisrael (The Union of Israel). That is, when I do a good deed, I include myself with the entire Jewish People, so that each and every Jew has a share in doing that Commandment. Thus, when a judge fulfills his duties, I have a share in them.

To solidify my vicarious participation in those Commandments, I study them. It is true that I cannot personally fulfill the Commandment of building a fence around my roof, since I have no accessible roof in my home, but when I study the Laws of this Commandment, and I have a strong desire to fulfill the Commandment, Hashem counts it as if I have fulfilled the Commandment. For the Talmud teaches, "A good intention that a person honestly tries to fulfill but is prevented or unable to fulfill Hashem counts as if it has been performed."(1)

And there are other ways to participate in Commandments we cannot actually do. The Torah commands each of us to write a Torah Scroll. Most of us cannot do that, and most of us cannot afford to hire a Scribe to write one for us. So we buy holy Books of the Torah, the Talmud, the Rabbinical Writings. We bring those into our homes and we study them. And when we get the chance, we participate in someone else's writing of a Torah Scroll. We might pay a few dollars to be included in the writing.

Few of us can afford to build a Synagogue or Jewish school. So we donate money to have one built or maintained. Supporting someone so that he can continue to study Torah in Yeshivah is one of the biggest Mitzvos, and when we do that we have a share in the fulfillment of the Commandment.

(...).

But figuratively, metaphorically, fulfilling all of the Torah is certainly within our grasp. Indeed, it is, "very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it." We come back to Deuteronomy 30:10-14. About Paul's quotation in Romans 10:8: "But what does it say? 'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart' (that is, the word of faith which we preach)." Note what key part Paul (deliberately?) left out: "that you may do it."

I think that in the end, as we quaff a couple of :brew: s, we will have to stuff a very thick file into the drawer labelled "Agree-to-disagree."

Be well!

MBZ
Logged

"Peace, peace to him that is far off and to him that is near." [Isaiah 57:19]

"Gather your wits and hold on fast..." [The Who]

"Lose your dreams and you could lose your mind." [The Rolling Stones]

http://tinyurl.com/bvskq

[url=htt
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #71 on: March 09, 2005, 09:41:08 AM »

Quote
The idea that any individual Jew can literally fulfill all 613 precepts is patently absurd, always has been and is foreign to traditional, normative Judaism & always has been.


Well yes, to the literal extent described in the excerpt you pasted, this is indeed absurd e.g. to expect one who is not a farmer to observe the laws pertaining to agriculture. What I was referring to is the universal moral principles of the Law, and the capacity to which it relates to the individual in question. The fact remains; that due to our fallen nature, each and every single individual has transgressed the law according to his own capacity, and fallen short of the Holiness God prescribes us to live by. A life of perfect holiness is attained by a perfect observation of the perfect morality which the perfect law embodies. The scriptures however testify that none is able to achieve this state of holiness in the condition that they exist in. This was the point made by a number of Old and New Testament scriptures that I cited above.

Quote
fulfilling all of the Torah is certainly within our grasp. Indeed, it is, "very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it."


The verse certainly speaks of the Torah itself being within our grasp (as the Jerusalem Targum understands it), but I fail to see where it says that fulfillment of the Torah is within our grasp. Indeed I believe it would contradict the relevant scriptures mentioned in my previous post, if we were to assume for arguments sake that such an interpretation of the text could be held.

The clause at the end - “that you may do it”, seems to be suggesting that the Torah is available for one to fulfill it, but speaks nothing of the possibility of whether such a fulfillment can actually be achieved. To put forth an analogy, I could give you a pole for a pole vault event and tell you: “Here use this pole, that you may jump the bar” - however it could be very well impossible for you to jump the bar, if it is set at an unreachable height. Again, I believe the above mentioned scriptures, including the institution of the sacrificial system and priesthood strongly testify against an understanding that the Torah can be fulfilled in the manner prescribed by Leviticus 18:5 such that one may reach a state of spiritual perfection and live eternal life.

Quote
'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart' (that is, the word of faith which we preach)." Note what key part Paul (deliberately?) left out: "that you may do it."

Well as I explained when I initially brought forth this passage; St Paul is applying a midrash to this passage. He is not referring to the Law, he is referring to the word of faith which he and the apostles preached, namely: That Jesus is Lord, who was raised from the dead, and in whose name one finds salvation. So obviously in this context, it would make no sense if St Paul added that extra clause.

Quote
I think that in the end, as we quaff a couple of   :brew: s, we will have to stuff a very thick file into the drawer labelled "Agree-to-disagree."

 :brew: Cheers!

Peace

« Last Edit: March 09, 2005, 09:44:00 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.245 seconds with 54 queries.